Breaking: Issam Asinga Sues Gatorade

LOL to betting on the Rekbot. Good one.

Sorry, rojo not wejo.

It's not easy for athletes to get these cases decided in real courts of law.

According to the Washington Post:

"In siding with Gatorade’s motion to dismiss Monday, U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel did not make a judgment on the suit’s claims. She wrote that Asinga could not sue for liability because he did not suffer a physical injury and that he did not qualify for consumer protection because he did not purchase the gummies."

It's also not easy for an athlete to prove contamination of a specific batch during manufacturing.

The Disciplinary Panel noted: "As to the first hypothesis of the Athlete (i.e. "inappropriate cleaning"), the Panel finds that this cannot be ruled out." As the Panel cannot rule it out, I cannot either, but I would not make or take any bets on it.

Classic rekrunner. I also read:

She also “found no proof that Gatorade intentionally caused him to ingest a banned substance,” thereby “undermining his athletic scholarship from Texas A&M University and agreement to abide by world anti-doping rules”

Also ...

It's not easy for athletes to get these cases decided in real courts of law.

Another classic rekrunner. Here we are, with a drug cheat banned for four years for intentional doping with illegal GW1516, his coach banned for possession of illegal GW1516, the drug cheat's lawsuit against Gatorade dismissed, but rekrunner found one sentence in the loong guilty verdict that he likes, and keeps citing, as if that would change anything.

At least you don't complain about Mexicans, corrupt experts, misunderstood Technical Documents, an incompetent panel, and weird presumptions. That's a welcome change, so thank you for that.

Huh? I thought the poor cheats would have it so much easier "in real courts of law", as you kept pretending in the Shelburrito case.

"Poor cheat" is rather presumptuous.

You are mixing apples and oranges, as Asinga is not bringing an anti-doping rule violation case against Gatorade, or vice-versa.

It is true that if an anti-doping organization (ADO) had to prove "doping" with "intent" in a court of law, they would not be able to enjoy the benefit of several presumptions and policies, such as "strict liability" and "guilty until proven innocent" that effectively relieve the ADO of the burden of proving these things.

But here, Asinga is not accusing Gatorade of breaking anti-doping rules. He is accusing Gatorade of violating various laws, such as negligence and willful misrepresentation and consumer protection -- he is not a defendent/respondent charged with any violation, but the plaintiff/claimant burdened with establishing that laws have been broken by the defendant/respondent, and that he was harmed as a result. That bar is so high, that the athlete/plaintiff didn't meet the burden allowing him to bring this case into the court of law.

Yep, if anti-doping authorities had to prove doping in the way the prosecution has to prove a case in a court of law, nobody would ever be banned for doping.

All of your mega-doped heroes would be free to do as they pleased, and you would claim a completely clean sport based on lack of doping busts.

That said, you already believe the sport is 100% clean and anyone testing positive has either made a mistake or there has been some sort of error with the system.

Does anyone really take "recovery" gummies that don't contain ingredients that are banned in competition?

You presume too much.

I liked many of the sentences from the Disciplinary Tribunal which further strengthened and confirmed my consistent claims that innocent athletes have an extremely difficult, if not impossible, burden under the WADA Code, and a failure to meet these burdens will railroad innocent athletes to 4-year bans. For example, I also liked "The Panel is, of course, aware that these are difficult, if not impossible, elements for the Athlete to establish."

I have never complained about Mexicans, or called "experts" corrupt, or called the panel "incompetent". Much of my criticism is about the inequities created by the WADA Code itself, and not about the players who are only acting within what is permitted by it. I would appreciate it if you genuinely try harder to criticize me for the things I say, rather than putting false words in my mouth.

Without a presumption of intent, athletes were still banned for unintentional presence/use. If ADOs could prove aggravated circumstances, e.g. against mega-dopers, then the athletes could be banned with longer sanctions.

It is not necessary to prove intent to ban an athlete. This was how the WADA Code worked up until 2015.

I don't believe "the sport" is 100% clean -- not even close. I have long been persuaded that doping exists in "the sport", at the top, in the middle, and at the bottom, both deep and wide, because the belief in doping is broad and deep and goes from armchair pundits all the way to the top, especially thanks to testimonies from charismatic pathological liars.

Nevertheless, I am always prepared to hear any detailed evidence and arguments showing how doping unequivocally impacts top performance compared to non-doping scenarios.

You have complained several times about the Mexicans, i.e. that they might not have remembered their ingredients, or that they didn't understand what the PI wanted from them. Maybe it's true that you never called the experts corrupt, but you used very similar words such as deceitful and dishonest to describe them, and you complained that the panel didn't understand the science. I bet you complained more about that than about the WADA code in the recent Shelburrito threads. Maybe I should go there and count?

It was the exact same substance his coach was found to be in possession of years ago and now 2 of his other athletes have also tested positive for it. It's prevalent in that program and you still want to pretend this is somehow Gatorade's fault?

I believe some athletes seek out coaches like Phiri because of their reputation to break the rules to give athletes an advantage. I don't think Phiri is the only HS coach currently doing this...he's just the one who has been caught.

Unless "several" means "zero" where you come from, I have never once complained about the Mexicans. That has always been a pure fabrication from some anonymous troll often accusing me of blaming the Mexicans for the WA/AIU's incomplete rebuttal of the full claim before both the WA/AIU and the CAS.

It is also not a complaint to point out that a panel of lawyers are not competent in the domain of science, and must defer to the scientists.

My posts respond to the points made at that moment. Any complaint about the process and its actors are also complaints about a Code that defines the process.

Sabotage from the coach is another possibility that cannot be ruled out. But that wasn't before the DT, nor part of the complaint in the court of law (AFAIK).

Can we call Wrecked runner 'dummy bear' yet?

You crack me up. So you did not call the experts "corrupt", but "deceitful" and "dishonest".

And you did not call the panelists "incompetent", but "not competent".

And you "have never once complained about the Mexicans", but wrote in the WJS thread (google often shows how wrong your denials are about your troll posts):

"I don't assume that the food truck owner, the PI, or the receipts, are exhaustive, and don't assume the reasons for these omissions are nefarious, but could be due to other factors like inexperience, lack of time, lack of receipts, and a lack of ability to find the information."

I.e. you are the "anonymous troll" who assumes - completely baselessly out of nowhere, not at all covered by any facts - that the Mexicans were too stupid/inexperienced/incompetent/hasty/... to provide a list of ingredient without screwing it up.

And you prefer to talk about the WADA code, but other posters keep forcing you to talk about the "dishonest" experts and the "not competent" panelists and the "inexperienced" food truck owners and God knows what else. Poor you.