Brianna Rollins-McNeal - one of America's 4 track Olympic gold medalists in 2016 - is banned (again) for tampering

this is so disappointing for so many reasons not the least of which being that Keni Harrison, the world record holder, was left off the 2016 team. Then that same 2016 team swept the medals, and it was a beautiful moment.

Sucks to suck I guess. Or I guess it sucks to dope, win olympic gold and get caught, I guess

Sis be McStealing those medals.

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..

She made a pretty darn big jump her first year as a pro from 12.7 to 12.26

Intense applying of the rules for maximum sentences for nasty nasty tampering and there won’t be a sport left except to tamper with the ashes.

rule readerr wrote:

Intense applying of the rules for maximum sentences for nasty nasty tampering and there won’t be a sport left except to tamper with the ashes.

Yes, that's right, because there have been so many other T & F athletes banned for tampering, there are hardly any left. Tampering should probably be legalized.

Q-bert Humphrey wrote:

rule readerr wrote:

Intense applying of the rules for maximum sentences for nasty nasty tampering and there won’t be a sport left except to tamper with the ashes.

Yes, that's right, because there have been so many other T & F athletes banned for tampering, there are hardly any left. Tampering should probably be legalized.

Whereabouts offences are the killer.

Tampering looks likely to be a variant on whereabouts

It was with Mark Dry; he told a lie and got 4 yrs.

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?

The profile of a doper is any elite athlete.

Profil d'un Tricheur wrote:

There ain't one. wrote:

So what is the "profile" of a doper?

https://imgresizer.eurosport.com/unsafe/1200x0/filters:format(jpeg)/origin-imgresizer.eurosport.com/2011/02/16/690929-21523121-2560-1440.jpg

Oh - you mean one who actually finally got busted - and wasn't a runner?

Armstronglivs wrote:

There ain't one. wrote:

Just shows how much you know.

So what is the "profile" of a doper?

The profile of a doper is any elite athlete.

More like a person who can’t be bothered with paperwork.

Half the population can’t either.

rule readerr wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The profile of a doper is any elite athlete.

More like a person who can’t be bothered with paperwork.

Half the population can’t either.

More athletes should get "more casual with their paperwork". It's clearly the path to athletic success.

so she got nailed for 3 whereabouts in 2017. Logically its extremely likely that she missed drugs tests in olympic year.

Presumably her 'day' and the white house were because of the gold, so after olympics; but the first one?

How many Briana Rollins days, and visits to the white house has she had? And she got busted on both of them? WHAT?

'tampering' - people on this board seem to think this is a ridiculously minor item. Is it? How about i 'tamper' with my bank account? how about i tamper with a bit of inside trading?

It seems 'tempering' covers a very wide range of events - all of which are intentionally dishonest - but i havent read the rules - can anyone advise please?

In any case, we have to wait to hear the particular details.

oh, at least 25% of the USA individual T and F Golds in the last Olympics were won by athletes convicted of at least one anti doping offense.

well done Lance.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rule readerr wrote:

More like a person who can’t be bothered with paperwork.

Half the population can’t either.

More athletes should get "more casual with their paperwork". It's clearly the path to athletic success.

Bet AIU has a dozen of cases ready for prosecution and publicity with 3 failures.

In addition there will be a lot of tampering offences as they check excuses and investigate and prosecute for a lie or not too accurate a reason.( Coleman should have been done for tampering )

For those athletes who can’t do admin there will be a cull of them until they “employ “ to help them.

There are governing bodies that help by sending persistent txts etc such is the problem.They just can’t afford to loose their main assets.

In Soccer clubs deal with the whole matter.

Track can’t afford this so , bye bye assets and hello PR disasters.

If I was AIU I would be checking Facebook stuff and compare with whereabouts filing and not bother with sending the testers out.

That would treble the bans with hardly any costs.

Win win for them death death for the sport.

pupil3142 wrote:

so she got nailed for 3 whereabouts in 2017. Logically its extremely likely that she missed drugs tests in olympic year.

Presumably her 'day' and the white house were because of the gold, so after olympics; but the first one?

The missed tests were all in the Olympic year, from April to September 2016. She got tested eight times ooc in twelve months, and miss three times in five months. What unlucky coincidences - hahaha.

USADA wrote:

In 2016, Rollins received a Whereabouts Failure from the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) for being unavailable for testing on April 27, 2016. Later in the year, Rollins received another Whereabouts Failure from USADA for not being available for testing on September 13, 2016. She then received a third Whereabouts Failure from the IAAF for not being available for testing on September 27, 2016. Outside of these Whereabouts Failures, Rollins completed eight out-of-competition tests over the course of 2016.

As for the Rollins day and Obama excuses? She missed two tests because she went to two celebrations? Meaning she couldn't update her whereabouts - text USADA - for these well planned events? Utter nonsense. I don't see that as a valid excuse.

And yes, there are good reasons why whereabouts failures and tampering are classified as doping infractions by the AIU. But fans will be fans, and try to downplay the offenses of their idols.

The rule only says:

2.5 Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any Part of Doping Control by an Athlete or Other Person

WADA's legal code appendix adds this comment:

Comment: This Article prohibits conduct which subverts the Doping Control process but which would not be included in the typical definition of Prohibited Methods. For example, altering identification numbers on a Doping Control form during Testing or breaking the B Bottle of the time of B sample analysis.

More instructive is a look in the history. For example, Dry and Kipsang got banned pursuant to 2.5 because they lied about the reason for their whereabouts failure; on the other hand, Coleman did the same and was not banned for that (only for the whereabouts failures themselves). Coleman got lucky, again.

Of course with a repeat offender like Rollins-McNeal, who already got a freebie last time (1 year instead of 2), the authorities might be not as lenient.

Cheers casual.

We wait and see then.

It is the control system that is bound to get the incompetent. Yes they should not be incompetent and if you did not have such rules then the highly competent would be taking drugs.

But these sort of controls are not seen in any other form of jurisprudence.

A consequence is that the admin to control drug use will catch more people than the actual drug tests.

I repeat my point that Social Media could catch hundreds as it will show up filing errors.

A single incorrect statement would bring a 4 yr tampering ban.

If an employer could get rid of staff each time they game an evasive answer to why they were late or absent then there would be an outcry.

rule readerr wrote:

If an employer could get rid of staff each time they game an evasive answer to why they were late or absent then there would be an outcry.

If an employee was absent three times in one year and gave evasive answers then, Yes, they would be fired. And, No, there would be no outcry.

Where is Coevett when you need him?