GW1516 is primarily an endurance drug. Why is the coach recommending this above other drugs...or did he have the kids on multiple drugs. Btw, SIGNIFICANT cancer concerns with this one. Hope those kids stay healthy.
Rekrunner is one of the worst posters ever on this site.
I realize that my posts seeking all the facts before jumping to conclusions are unpopular.
You are truly delusional. You didn't seek facts here. You trolled posters, attacked the witnesses and the AIU, twisted what the expert and the panel said, and pretended that Asinga was innocent. All in all, business as usual for you.
I don't see how the mislabeling impacts this case at all. There should be a penalty for mislabeling and they should stop doing it but since they specific product this kid took was negative the label had nothing to do with him testing positive.
I don't understand why these cheaters don't just admit when they get caught instead of coming with his elaborate lies like the burrito and tainted Gatorade.
Such a scenario would be hard to prove, and unfortunately for Asinga, he was in the position to have to prove it.
Oh boy. "unfortunately for Asinga"....
What's unfortunate is that Asinga listened first to his coach, and then to his greedy lawyer, who both advised him poorly, very poorly indeed.
I agreed with the Disciplinary Tribunal who said "The Panel is, of course, aware that these are difficult, if not impossible, elements for the Athlete to establish."
But yes, it would be terrible if the coach was doping his athletes, especially children.
I don't know anything about any alleged greedy lawyers giving allegedly poor advice.
I realize that my posts seeking all the facts before jumping to conclusions are unpopular.
You are truly delusional. You didn't seek facts here. You trolled posters, attacked the witnesses and the AIU, twisted what the expert and the panel said, and pretended that Asinga was innocent. All in all, business as usual for you.
You are right in small part. I don't often seek facts *here*, because many posters tend to cherry-pick the facts they like. I look for facts in first-hand sources like the Disciplinary Tribunal's report.
I never troll posters, but point out facts they may have overlooked when they jumped to their conclusions. This may be mistaken for cherry-picking on my part, but it is in fact just highlighting the differences and any factual contradictions.
The alleged witness attacks, if any, came from what was written in the DT report.
I don't twist the expert and panel statements, but provided direct quotes.
I presume all athletes are innocent, until proven guilty. This often leads me to different conclusions than anti-doping processes whose starting point is "strict liability" and "presumed intent".
It sounds more like conspiracy theory than established facts.
I only reported what the Disciplinary Tribunal said. According to the DT, one potential scenario they couldn't rule out is that the gummies were not contaminated during manufacture, which is in agreement with Prof. Saugy, but later during the cooling and drying stage, by placing the hot slurry in unclean drying trays. Such a scenario would be hard to prove, and unfortunately for Asinga, he was in the position to have to prove it.
It sounds more like conspiracy theory than established facts.
I only reported what the Disciplinary Tribunal said. According to the DT, one potential scenario they couldn't rule out is that the gummies were not contaminated during manufacture, which is in agreement with Prof. Saugy, but later during the cooling and drying stage, by placing the hot slurry in unclean drying trays. Such a scenario would be hard to prove, and unfortunately for Asinga, he was in the position to have to prove it.
I realize that my posts seeking all the facts before jumping to conclusions are unpopular.
Even when all facts are slapping you every which way to Sunday, you still do not reach a conclusion. That should tell you something.
What it often tells me is that many people don't know what facts are, and believe presumptions are facts, or opinions are facts, or probabilities are facts, or suggestions are facts, or fallacies are facts, etc.
When there exist reasonable doubts about alternative causes, I cannot conlcude one over the other.
Even when all facts are slapping you every which way to Sunday, you still do not reach a conclusion. That should tell you something.
What it often tells me is that many people don't know what facts are, and believe presumptions are facts, or opinions are facts, or probabilities are facts, or suggestions are facts, or fallacies are facts, etc.
When there exist reasonable doubts about alternative causes, I cannot conlcude one over the other.
Here we are again... I have pointed out a fact to you and what did you do with it? Dude, the problem is you.
What it often tells me is that many people don't know what facts are, and believe presumptions are facts, or opinions are facts, or probabilities are facts, or suggestions are facts, or fallacies are facts, etc.
When there exist reasonable doubts about alternative causes, I cannot conlcude one over the other.
Here we are again... I have pointed out a fact to you and what did you do with it? Dude, the problem is you.
LOL! Those misunderstandings are not true for "many people". It's all you who thinks your wishful imaginations are real possibilities or even facts.
Who said "misunderstandings"?
In this thread, like many others, the possibility I pointed out came from the Disciplinary Panel report, and not from me: "As to the first hypothesis of the Athlete (i.e. "inappropriate cleaning"), the Panel finds that this cannot be ruled out."
LOL! Those misunderstandings are not true for "many people". It's all you who thinks your wishful imaginations are real possibilities or even facts.
Who said "misunderstandings"?
Rekrunner: "many people don't know what facts are, and believe presumptions are facts, or opinions are facts, or probabilities are facts, or suggestions are facts, or fallacies are facts"
I actually wanted to say that this case will be resolved soon. From CAS:
14-15.04.25 CAS 2024/A/10658 Issamade Asinga v World Athletics
Anyone betting on Rekrunner? LOL
I'm not making or taking any bets. I no longer have much faith in the process. If, for example, Asinga has to prove that some trays were not thoroughly cleaned in a manufacturing batch that happened years ago, in a plant that no longer operates, it will be a losing battle.
With luck, they may find evidence or arguments to convince a sympathetic panel of no (significant) fault, but I wouldn't bet on it.