Breaking news: “The AIU has charged Brianna McNeal (USA) for tampering within the results management process, a violation of the @WorldAthletics Anti-Doping Rules.
The hurdler has been provisionally suspended.”
Breaking news: “The AIU has charged Brianna McNeal (USA) for tampering within the results management process, a violation of the @WorldAthletics Anti-Doping Rules.
The hurdler has been provisionally suspended.”
Yet another American cheat,this can't be allowed to carry on.Ban them all.
Didn’t she already serve a ban for dodging tests but cause she’s American get let off with a slap on the wrist and 3 month suspension?
Tampering?
This is what Mark Dry got done for.
Interesting what falsehood she came forth with?
Coleman should have been done with tampering as he told porkies.
More severe interpretation of the rules as an other big big one goes down. Potential 4 year ban for the very wicked sounding offence of tampering. Oh Dear!
Looking at her career as far back as the NCAA, she does not fit the profile of what you expect to see for a doper. McNeal previously had whereabouts violations. As I have posted about several times, the whereabouts system is fair, but I don't think violations 'necessarily' says someone is a doper. However, when you are a 2 time offender, you lose the benefit of doubt.
i did triathlons too wrote:
Didn’t she already serve a ban for dodging tests but cause she’s American get let off with a slap on the wrist and 3 month suspension?
Not exactly.
In 2017, she was suspended for 1 year after she missed 3 drug tests in 2016. The arbitrators were lenient on her then as two of the missed tests came on unique days - one when it was Brianna Rollins Day in her hometown and one when she was at the White House.
If this suspension is upheld, I'm going to be looking back at 2016 much more differently myself. Here are some details on what she faces now.
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2021/01/olympic-champ-brianna-rollins-mcneal-is-provisionally-suspended-for-an-anti-doping-violation-for-second-time/TrackCoach wrote:
Looking at her career as far back as the NCAA, she does not fit the profile of what you expect to see for a doper.
Just shows how much you know.
So what is the "profile" of a doper?
rojo wrote:
i did triathlons too wrote:
Didn’t she already serve a ban for dodging tests but cause she’s American get let off with a slap on the wrist and 3 month suspension?
Not exactly.
In 2017, she was suspended for 1 year after she missed 3 drug tests in 2016. The arbitrators were lenient on her then as two of the missed tests came on unique days - one when it was Brianna Rollins Day in her hometown and one when she was at the White House.
If this suspension is upheld, I'm going to be looking back at 2016 much more differently myself. Here are some details on what she faces now.
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2021/01/olympic-champ-brianna-rollins-mcneal-is-provisionally-suspended-for-an-anti-doping-violation-for-second-time/
Thanks for the pertantant information.
TrackCoach wrote:
I don't think violations 'necessarily' says someone is a doper.
But you wouldn't have a clue as you didn't do the investigation, therefore also wouldn't have a clue what the violations were/are.
Best if you get the facts first before posting with your non-fact based opinions to try and come across as some sort all knowing sage.
Just sayin'.
rojo wrote:
i did triathlons too wrote:
Didn’t she already serve a ban for dodging tests but cause she’s American get let off with a slap on the wrist and 3 month suspension?
Not exactly.
In 2017, she was suspended for 1 year after she missed 3 drug tests in 2016. The arbitrators were lenient on her then as two of the missed tests came on unique days - one when it was Brianna Rollins Day in her hometown and one when she was at the White House.
If this suspension is upheld, I'm going to be looking back at 2016 much more differently myself. Here are some details on what she faces now.
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2021/01/olympic-champ-brianna-rollins-mcneal-is-provisionally-suspended-for-an-anti-doping-violation-for-second-time/
So when you say “not exactly”, what you really mean is “exactly”?
(Aside from the 3 months/1 year thing)
rule readerr wrote:
Tampering?
This is what Mark Dry got done for.
Interesting what falsehood she came forth with?
Coleman should have been done with tampering as he told porkies.
More severe interpretation of the rules as an other big big one goes down. Potential 4 year ban for the very wicked sounding offence of tampering. Oh Dear!
Not entirely sure what some of your post means. But if you're saying that tampering should be treated as a mild offense, I disagree. That would just given people the green light to dope more, and if an unexpected test did come up and you thought you were going to test positive, just tamper with the sample and you'll get off lightly.
It's the same concept as whereabouts violations. If you say "they're just whereabouts violations; they shouldn't be punished harshly", then all the dopers will just use that to their advantage.
Coevet wya?
rojo wrote:
If this suspension is upheld, I'm going to be looking back at 2016 much more differently myself. Here are some details on what she faces now.
LOL, what, different how?
This is what you wrote back in April 2017:
rojo wrote:
The tester came to her house in April. Rollins wasn't there but spoke to the tester on the phone and said she was on her way to the airport as she was flying to Drake. The tester then drove the airport and called Rollins again, but Rollins said she was already through security.
In my mind, that's basically a refusal to take a test.
rule readerr wrote:
Tampering?
This is what Mark Dry got done for.
Interesting what falsehood she came forth with?
Coleman should have been done with tampering as he told porkies.
Yes, indeed. And Mo Farah too.
rule readerr wrote:
More severe interpretation of the rules as an other big big one goes down. Potential 4 year ban for the very wicked sounding offence of tampering. Oh Dear!
Yes. This is excellent news. Drug Cheats Out!
Don't know, but looks suspicious.
She isn't top 100 all-time in HS, yet in college emerges as dominant in events that often reveal while in HS.
Her HS 100HH time of 13.8 is a couple of tenths from top 100 all-time HS.
Her HS 300H time of 42.1 is a few tenths from top 100 all-time HS.
Brianna's HS 200m was very good, and her 400m was above average.
She is 5' 5", so no height advantage for hurdles.
In college she makes huge gains in 200m and hurdles.
I was aware of a very good HH in college, and the next year he looked stronger and ran faster so that people were thinking he would make the finals of NCAAs. He got hurt, and everyone seemed to know how he got the extra advantage.
There ain't one. wrote:
TrackCoach wrote:
Looking at her career as far back as the NCAA, she does not fit the profile of what you expect to see for a doper.
Just shows how much you know.
So what is the "profile" of a doper?
Not American of course.
Tamper van Beethoven wrote:
rule readerr wrote:
Tampering?
This is what Mark Dry got done for.
Interesting what falsehood she came forth with?
Coleman should have been done with tampering as he told porkies.
More severe interpretation of the rules as an other big big one goes down. Potential 4 year ban for the very wicked sounding offence of tampering. Oh Dear!
Not entirely sure what some of your post means. But if you're saying that tampering should be treated as a mild offense, I disagree. That would just given people the green light to dope more, and if an unexpected test did come up and you thought you were going to test positive, just tamper with the sample and you'll get off lightly.
It's the same concept as whereabouts violations. If you say "they're just whereabouts violations; they shouldn't be punished harshly", then all the dopers will just use that to their advantage.
I need to correct myself in that an 8 yr ban is on cards.
I have a recall that tampering does not have to be with the sample, ie Dry case.
So if she told a lie to say to account for a whereabouts failure then she will get 8 yrs.
My point over many posts has been that incompetence can not be separated from avoiding a positive.
Such incompetence as actively perused will bring the sport to its knees esp if associated with the term “ tampering”.
Night night T and F; just can’t recover from all this doom.
Aw, come on!
You know her Flintstones multivitamins were probably contaminated with HGH, test, slin, and masking drugs. Happens all the time.
rule readerr wrote:
Tamper van Beethoven wrote:
Not entirely sure what some of your post means. But if you're saying that tampering should be treated as a mild offense, I disagree. That would just given people the green light to dope more, and if an unexpected test did come up and you thought you were going to test positive, just tamper with the sample and you'll get off lightly.
It's the same concept as whereabouts violations. If you say "they're just whereabouts violations; they shouldn't be punished harshly", then all the dopers will just use that to their advantage.
I need to correct myself in that an 8 yr ban is on cards.
I have a recall that tampering does not have to be with the sample, ie Dry case.
So if she told a lie to say to account for a whereabouts failure then she will get 8 yrs.
My point over many posts has been that incompetence can not be separated from avoiding a positive.
Such incompetence as actively perused will bring the sport to its knees esp if associated with the term “ tampering”.
Night night T and F; just can’t recover from all this doom.
I guess if I thought that was an issue - T & F athletes are suffering a rash of doping suspensions not because they are doping, but because they're too stupid to take the tests properly - I might agree with you.
But I don't think so. More likely is that athletes, when busted for real doping infractions, tend to make up excuses that are always going to sound stupid, given that you have to be kind of stupid to ACTUALLY get 3 unintentional whereabouts violation or otherwise screw up. Just like all the excuses historically given out for positive doping tests: I had too much sex and beer that night, or somebody doped my toothpaste, or the EPO/testosterone was for other people - not my athletes, or I had a parasitic twin in utero and it makes my blood unique... They all sound ridiculous, because what else are you going to say?
https://imgresizer.eurosport.com/unsafe/1200x0/filters:format(jpeg)/origin-imgresizer.eurosport.com/2011/02/16/690929-21523121-2560-1440.jpgThere ain't one. wrote:
So what is the "profile" of a doper?
/origin-imgresizer.eurosport.com/2011/02/16/690929-21523121-2560-1440.jpg){kind=link}