-
200
-
4th at the Olympics means you're not big enough to be protected by USADA.
321 -
Also I'm shocked a guy that looks like this is doping...286
-
Ugh that’s too bad
27 -
Burrito Track Club fan wrote:
Also I'm shocked a guy that looks like this is doping...Haha that pic reminds me of the Burito Nike lady .
314 -
I told y'all the Brits were dirty! Never should have let them sit out the war while we did all the hard work. Yeah, and we saved them at Waterloo too! Tainted burrito my big fat Texan butt!! I wonder what Lord Coeruppt will have to say this time!
321 -
Burrito Track Club fan wrote:
Also I'm shocked a guy that looks like this is doping...He's jacked!
51 -
He looks normal for a decathele. Not everyone is a skinny distance runner you know.
535 -
Big Bad Texan wrote:
I told y'all the Brits were dirty! Never should have let them sit out the war while we did all the hard work. Yeah, and we saved them at Waterloo too! Tainted burrito my big fat Texan butt!! I wonder what Lord Coeruppt will have to say this time!
He's american you plonker. Read properly.
311 -
Highly Disturbed wrote:
He looks normal for a decathele. Not everyone is a skinny distance runner you know.
Good one. Nothing to see here!
121 -
Burrito Track Club fan wrote:
Also I'm shocked a guy that looks like this is doping...Since he looks like every other decathlete I am picking they are all doping.
213 -
Film Rep wrote:
Turns out it is not a doping violation, but an anti-doping rule violation:
"Within a 12-month period, Scantling accrued three Whereabouts Failures ..."
119 -
That’s a distinction without difference.
175 -
Vjgfcju wrote:
Big Bad Texan wrote:
I told y'all the Brits were dirty! Never should have let them sit out the war while we did all the hard work. Yeah, and we saved them at Waterloo too! Tainted burrito my big fat Texan butt!! I wonder what Lord Coeruppt will have to say this time!
He's american you plonker. Read properly.
Coevett is too ignorant to even notice that.
33 -
Mr Clean (but without any earring) wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Turns out it is not a doping violation, but an anti-doping rule violation:
"Within a 12-month period, Scantling accrued three Whereabouts Failures ..."
Allowing two missed tests strikes me as not stringent enough; a second missed test should result in suspension.
As a matter fact, the rule actually got easier over the years. Years ago, one would get banned for three missed tests within 18 months, but now that's down to 12 months.
Also as a matter of fact, this cheat got banned for two doping offenses, not just one as implied in the thread title. And yes, WADA officially defines 2.4 and 2.5 as "doping":
ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING
Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 of the Code.111 -
casual obsever wrote:
Mr Clean (but without any earring) wrote:
Allowing two missed tests strikes me as not stringent enough; a second missed test should result in suspension.
As a matter fact, the rule actually got easier over the years. Years ago, one would get banned for three missed tests within 18 months, but now that's down to 12 months.
Also as a matter of fact, this cheat got banned for two doping offenses, not just one as implied in the thread title. And yes, WADA officially defines 2.4 and 2.5 as "doping":
ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING
Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 of the Code.Yeah, then the thread title "doping violation" would expand to the repetitive "anti-doping rule violation violation".
Indeed WADA does provide an expanded definition which can lead to some confusion in public discussion.
USADA uses the more accurate "Anti-Doping Rule Violations" in it's headline and all throughout its announcement.
But you are correct -- by that definition, WADA considers missing three unscheduled tests in 12 months as "Doping" and WADA also considers sending an "altered email" as "Doping".
I don't think that's what people here have in their minds when they say "I'm shocked a guy that looks like this is doping...", and "He's jacked." and "Since he looks like every other decathlete I am picking they are all doping."
112 -
rekrunner wrote:
Film Rep wrote:
Turns out it is not a doping violation, but an anti-doping rule violation:
"Within a 12-month period, Scantling accrued three Whereabouts Failures ..."
Oh, that's ok, then. He's not just another cheat, after all. Well, actually ...
But if there's anyone who will expend his last breath defending them, it is you.
113 -
rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
As a matter fact, the rule actually got easier over the years. Years ago, one would get banned for three missed tests within 18 months, but now that's down to 12 months.
Also as a matter of fact, this cheat got banned for two doping offenses, not just one as implied in the thread title. And yes, WADA officially defines 2.4 and 2.5 as "doping":
Yeah, then the thread title "doping violation" would expand to the repetitive "anti-doping rule violation violation".
Indeed WADA does provide an expanded definition which can lead to some confusion in public discussion.
USADA uses the more accurate "Anti-Doping Rule Violations" in it's headline and all throughout its announcement.
But you are correct -- by that definition, WADA considers missing three unscheduled tests in 12 months as "Doping" and WADA also considers sending an "altered email" as "Doping".
I don't think that's what people here have in their minds when they say "I'm shocked a guy that looks like this is doping...", and "He's jacked." and "Since he looks like every other decathlete I am picking they are all doping."
Athletes who miss 3 consecutive tests are doping. That's why he looks jacked. He's just one in the crowd.
But, right on cue - here comes the Captain America of doping defenders.
143 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Yeah, then the thread title "doping violation" would expand to the repetitive "anti-doping rule violation violation".
Indeed WADA does provide an expanded definition which can lead to some confusion in public discussion.
USADA uses the more accurate "Anti-Doping Rule Violations" in it's headline and all throughout its announcement.
But you are correct -- by that definition, WADA considers missing three unscheduled tests in 12 months as "Doping" and WADA also considers sending an "altered email" as "Doping".
I don't think that's what people here have in their minds when they say "I'm shocked a guy that looks like this is doping...", and "He's jacked." and "Since he looks like every other decathlete I am picking they are all doping."
Athletes who miss 3 consecutive tests are doping. That's why he looks jacked. He's just one in the crowd.
But, right on cue - here comes the Captain America of doping defenders.
I guess you mean "Captain America: Symbol of Truth":
I'm just complementing this informed discussion with a few more facts from USADA's announcement.
For example, regarding "3 consecutive tests", that doesn't apply here:
"Scantling was successfully tested nine times between his first Whereabouts Failure and his provisional suspension."
210
