She didn't fail any drug tests. She actually passed 8 out of competition drug tests last year, but she missed three.
http://www.usada.org/brianna-rollins-receives-whereabouts-sanction/
She didn't fail any drug tests. She actually passed 8 out of competition drug tests last year, but she missed three.
http://www.usada.org/brianna-rollins-receives-whereabouts-sanction/
My goodness.
Any agents on here? I'm wondering how much money this will cost her. Most contracts have huge Olympic bonuses that roll into the base. But I imagine most now have some strict anti-doping language.
She's still the Olympic champ but do you think her sponsor will cut her loose moving forward? Or do the contracts not contain nullification clauses for something like this as she didn't actually test positive.
Anyone know?
LetsRun.com wrote:
She didn't fail any drug tests. She actually passed 8 out of competition drug tests last year, but she missed three.
That is soo stupid. Why didn't she just say that she was home, but couldn't hear the doorbell?
I love how LRC's tweet on this referenced Mo Farah missing 2 tests.
Look, we have to have the 3 test rule. Otherwise, we might as well not even test. I think it should be even less than 3. Only an idiot would test positive if they know what they are doing as you can always just hide in the back closet and say you didn't hear them at the front door if you know you are hot. The odds of being hot and having them there 3 times is not very high.
But let's say you are doping. Would you really be doping in September - a month after the Olympics? Two of her missed tests were from then.
It just seems incredibly stupid. I mean even if you were a doper - would you be doping a month after you won Olympic gold?
I don't think so. Or do I not know anything about doping? So then it just comes down to pure stupidity to not fill out the form correctly.
Where does she train? If California or Colorado, maybe she was just toking and didn't want to get caught.
lolllzz wrote:
Where does she train? If California or Colorado, maybe she was just toking and didn't want to get caught.
I was thinking about that but then remembered that pot is only banned now in competition now. You can smoke it outside of competition I believe
http://www.usada.org/substances/marijuana-faq/Here is the actual decision if someone wants to read it:
http://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/2017_04_20-AAA-Award-Rollins.pdf
If it was after the Olys, she was krunk off her ass and didn't even have a clue where she was.
She apparently hired a Lawyer to write a response, to me when someone hires a Lawyer to respond it means there almost certainly guilty.
She should have saved money by NOT hiring a Lawyer and spoke for herself.
douglas burke wrote:
She apparently hired a Lawyer to write a response, to me when someone hires a Lawyer to respond it means there almost certainly guilty.
That's not how it works. The NADO and her federation agree on a public notification date and they release together.
The case was in motion for a long time.
douglas burke wrote:
She apparently hired a Lawyer to write a response, to me when someone hires a Lawyer to respond it means there almost certainly guilty.
https://www.trackandfieldnews.com/index.php/category-features/3177-brianna-rollins-responds-to-one-year-sanctionShe should have saved money by NOT hiring a Lawyer and spoke for herself.
Hiring a lawyer doesn't make you guilty. It makes you smart.
rojo wrote:
It just seems incredibly stupid. I mean even if you were a doper - would you be doping a month after you won Olympic gold?
Yes. You don't just stop for a number of reasons. One of which is the bio-passport and steroid passport would both have radical changes to the profiles.
Not that the IAAF would sanction anyone that recently won an Olympic medal for an abnormal profile.
I guess she didn't have enough money to bribe the federation to make the positive go away.
douglas burke wrote:
She apparently hired a Lawyer to write a response, to me when someone hires a Lawyer to respond it means there almost certainly guilty.
You aren't a particularly bright human being are you?
Guilty as fock. This is up there with Maria Sharapova....
You went missing three times, and provided no explanation for your absence. Get out of here with that. You know the rules.
If you're not in the hospital, or dealing with some type of death in the family, or stranded somewhere due to the weather, mechanical failure, etc, then you are in violation of the rule.
It is simple as that.
rojo wrote:
lolllzz wrote:Where does she train? If California or Colorado, maybe she was just toking and didn't want to get caught.
I was thinking about that but then remembered that pot is only banned now in competition now. You can smoke it outside of competition I believe
http://www.usada.org/substances/marijuana-faq/
Thanks rojo.
I also find it funny that in your link, "Can I smoke marijuana?" is considered a "most frequently asked question" to USADA.
After reading the decision Rojo linked, let me summarize what happened:
She missed three scheduled drug tests due to travel. She does not dispute two of them, but there is some disagreement about the third.
Apparently USADA maintains an online system where you enter your scheduled whereabouts. You can update this by sending emails or entering it directly in the online system. Rollins originally scheduled April 27 as a day she would be home in California. She later updated her April 27 whereabouts to be Iowa for the Drake Relays. So was not expecting them to show up in California on April 27 because she had market it as a "travel to Iowa day". However, the system allows for athletes to list multiple locations on the same day. You can start the day in California and end it in Iowa, just as long as you specify where you'll be between 7 am and 8 am.
So that's it. The entire dispute hangs on that misunderstanding. The report even says that Rollins passed a drug test on May 3 (6 days after the April 27 missed test).
Sad.
Ok. I've just read most of the report. I'm glad I did. I had seen a summary of it from Dennis Young of Flotrack where he wrote "all three violations are described in the appeal and come across as more comic incompetence than nefariousness" so I wasn't expecting much.I found it to be a great read.I personally feel like there almost might have been grounds to ban her after the first missed test.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. But in reading the document, it sounds like the tester was not going to even make her provide a sample at the airport. Why? I don't know. Here is what it says.
The arbitrators wrote:
"Respondent declined the DCO’s (Doping Control Officer's) request to come back out to sign the standard form which would have stated that, “she was notified, that we met at the airport and that she could not provide a sample.â€
I really don't get that. You catch someone not where they should be. You should test them ASAP. You aren't allowed to refuse a test. I am really perplexed by this. If someone understands, please email me at
robertjohnson@letsrun.comor post below.
And if you refuse to take a test, that's an immediate ban. I'm not sure why that would constitute be a whereabouts violation. Unless she was going to miss a flight (and it doesn't say anything like that), that to me is absurd that she can just say she's already through security. I mean it takes 2 minutes to go pee in a urinal.
The final two in September seem kind of stupid/innocent.
The report says they reduced her suspension from 2 years to 1 because USATF and her agent didn't help her respond after her first two missed tests. You think both of them would be like, "Hey you are an Olympic gold medallist with two missed tests. The #1 thing you need to do each and every day is update your location up through next April." But apparently, they did nothing.
They arbitrators also said she might have been distracted and not updating her whereabouts as she was traveling a lot to be honored with a "Brianna Rollins Day" in Miami and meet President Obama with all of the other athletes at the White House.
The arbitrators wrote:
While we find she has failed to show a complete absence of negligence as to that Incident, we do note that the computer filing system and the agencies connected with it have failed to design it to assist the athletes as much as possible to avoid confusion. The program does not alert an athlete that his/her filing is showing two events on the same day in two different cities, unless the athlete has inserted full addresses for the hotel where the athlete will be staying. It could easily do that. USATF, the national governing body (“NGBâ€) of which Respondent is a member, received a copy of each of the agencies’ letters to Respondent charging her with first and second violations. It did nothing to inquire with its athlete as to the circumstances and to assure future compliance. The NGB left her on her own. Respondent’s own sports agency did not involve itself in her compliance activities or problems. Only after the third Incident, when it was too late, did they help her fashion her response. Also, at least as to Incidents 2 and 3, following her Olympic Gold Medal, her life was outside its usual routine. We can understand that going to Florida to have her hometown celebrate her with a parade and “Brianna Rollins Day,†and to the East Coast to meet the President and receive plaudits from the nation could reasonably distract her from her quotidian (though important) responsibilities. Under these facts and circumstances, we find that Respondent has carried her burden to show the least degree of fault. Therefore, the term of her ineligibility shall be one year.
Here is a statement from Rollins.
https://twitter.com/Ry_Madden/status/855176076020023296You can also text them whereabouts updates.
That's unfair since 2/3rds of USADA/WADA samplers are in Southern California
where Bri lives. If Bri lived out in the boonies she wouldn't get tested as often.