LRC note. We added in to the title that she trained in Cheptegei's camp as this is much more newsworthy than your average run of the mill doping bust. the same thing was true last year when someone in Kipchoge's camp was banned.
There is a very interesting statistic from AIU regarding the illegal substance Kenyan athletes (of every level) used till 2021. This statistic includes 148 tests, with the following results :
50 positive (4 in OOC + 46 IC) for NANDROLONE
18 positive (all IC) for CORTICOSTEROIDS
15 positive (7 in OOC + 8 IC) for EPO
11 positive (all IC) for CLENBUTEROL
5 positive (2 in OOC + 3 IC) for FUROSEMIDE
4 positive (all IC) for BETAMETHASONE
4 positive (1 in OOC + 3 IC) for SALBUTAMOL
4 positive (all IC) for TRIAMCINOLONE ACETONIDE
3 positive (2 in OOC + 1 IC) for BOLDENONE
3 positive (all IC) for EXOGENOUS STEROIDS
3 positive (all IC) for HIGENAMINE
2 positive (1 in OOC + 1 IC) for TIBOLONE
2 positive (2 in OOC) for CLOMIPHENE
2 positive (1 in OOC + 1 IC) for TAMAXIFEN
2 positive (all IC) for TERBUTALINE
2 positive (all IC) for THC
1 positive (OOC) for CATHINE
1 positive (OOC) for EPHEDRINE
1 positive (OOC) for METENOLONE
1 positive (OOC) for T/E Ratic>4
1 positive (IC) for DEXAMETHASONE
1 positive (IC) for GHS
1 positive (IC) for HYDROXYETHYL STARCH
1 positive (IC) for METENOLONE
1 positive (IC) for METHYLEPHEDRINE
1 positive (IC) for METHYLHEXANEAMINE
1 positive (IC) for OXANDROLONE
1 positive (IC) for OSYCODONE
1 positive (IC) for TESTOSTERONE
1 positive (IC) for TRENBOLONE
1 positive (IC) for TAMPERING
There are so many substances that nobody knows, that the only logic explanation is they are components of normal drugs used for small sicknesses (flu, cough, skin creams, poisonus stings, etc...), because I don't think there si some doctor/coach/manager that can suggest to take those substances for improving the performances.
Different the case for Nandrolone, the most used drug, and Corticosteroids, while the use of EPO at thye moment decreases also in athletes who want to dope for enhancing their performances.
Of course, we can't speak of some doping program organized by AK, looking at the casuality of the illegal drugs and at the lack of a mediacl strategy.
But how do you know these substances are from flu, cold and cream medication? You need to show us proof of their labels and ingredients? How could a simple flu/cold mediciation contain all these unknown substances? It doesn't make sense. Your assumption is not safe Mr Canova.
A lot of injuries are with pros are conveniently labeled that but it’s really the athlete peeing hot and ditching the competition. If the injury is right before a world champs chances are it’s not a real injury
A lot of injuries are with pros are conveniently labeled that but it’s really the athlete peeing hot and ditching the competition. If the injury is right before a world champs chances are it’s not a real injury
Maybe so but athletes do get injured right before global championships. It has happened before and it will happen again so let us not say it cannot happen.
A long-winded way of conceding "intent" is not "established fact". Thanks.
It isn't a term used in isolation but in the context of the case and the evidence before the Court. But you aren't bright enough to understand that. On that basis, the Court decided she was a doper - which is what a person is who has been deemed to have intentionally doped who cannot show otherwise - a fact the unintelligent, such as yourself, cannot accept.
Courts regularly make decisions on civil matters based on the balance of probabilities, as the Court did in this case, and only someone who has no idea about the legal process says such a decision isn't based on "established fact". It cannot come to a decision except on the facts before it. You have no understanding of how this process works, hence you make a fool of yourself on thread after thread.
In other words, "intent" is not an "established fact". Thanks for the reminders.
It isn't a term used in isolation but in the context of the case and the evidence before the Court. But you aren't bright enough to understand that. On that basis, the Court decided she was a doper - which is what a person is who has been deemed to have intentionally doped who cannot show otherwise - a fact the unintelligent, such as yourself, cannot accept.
Courts regularly make decisions on civil matters based on the balance of probabilities, as the Court did in this case, and only someone who has no idea about the legal process says such a decision isn't based on "established fact". It cannot come to a decision except on the facts before it. You have no understanding of how this process works, hence you make a fool of yourself on thread after thread.
In other words, "intent" is not an "established fact". Thanks for the reminders.
It is when the athlete has been found with a banned drug in their system and cannot show any accidental cause. The only alternative is that she put it there. That conclusion is arrived at by the balance of probabilities but that is a form of argument you aren't familiar with.
I'm talking about the substances found one time only. There are no doctors who want give athletes some PED who can use strange substances for that goal, substances that no dirty doctors in the most evolved Countries give their athletes. The effect on the performances of those substances are very poor (or, better, don't exist), and the proof of this is the fact that more the doctors know illegal drugs able to give big advantages, more they use. This means that the variety of illegal substances used by one athlete only probably are not prescribed for improving training or performances, but probably are, in small qualtity, in some drug produced in Asia, where there is not the must to detail the components of the medicine.
In my opinion, athletes caught for Nandrolone, Corticosteroids, EPO wanted to dope for improving training and performances, while athletes caught for drugs normally not used for doping are positive because unlucky (substances in some medicine used for treating some sickness) or careless
In other words, "intent" is not an "established fact". Thanks for the reminders.
It is when the athlete has been found with a banned drug in their system and cannot show any accidental cause. The only alternative is that she put it there. That conclusion is arrived at by the balance of probabilities but that is a form of argument you aren't familiar with.
This is not what "established fact" means.
You are describing everything but "established fact".
It is when the athlete has been found with a banned drug in their system and cannot show any accidental cause. The only alternative is that she put it there. That conclusion is arrived at by the balance of probabilities but that is a form of argument you aren't familiar with.
This is not what "established fact" means.
You are describing everything but "established fact".
It is an established fact that she was found by a Court to have intentionally doped. Only a doping denier can't accept that.
Like salbutamol? Really? I think not. Thyroid meds? Phets in the guise of ADHD medication? I respectfully cannot agree with such an ingenuous argument.
Oh dear, you keep proving my point. But keep blowing raspberries if it makes you happy.
Another immature retort. You keep ptoving my point.
You have made no point here other than your piffling comments directed at me. It is certainly easy to flush the unthinking out of the woodwork. You're currently at the front of that queue.