David4924 wrote:
Right. The frustrating thing to me, or rather the potentially frustrating thing, is that... is there a way that we can really really really absolutely 100% know if she did it or didn't do it. Sometimes I feel like we can't get there, but I hope that a good follow-up article that includes input from technical experts will help a lot. I apologize if anyone has already laid out a coherent and strong argument that's more scientifically based, because it's difficult for me to go back and forth between the posts and the pages and what seems to be somewhat contradictory input and be convinced totally. That's why I'm hoping for a follow-up article.
Yes she 'did it' because that is the rule and I quote:
"It is each Athlete’s duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his body.
Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers
found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault,
negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish
an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.1."
All they have to do is find that result and you are toast. Sure they listen politely to your lawyer for a bit first.