Athletics Weekly

Bernice Wilson positive

Drug-related news and topics. Note - this is not a place to make idle speculations.
Forum rules
Note - this is not a place to make idle speculations. Anyone doing so will face a warning and/or a ban.

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby BigGut » Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:40 am

OK, so now we know the alternative youa re proposing.

Any athlete on ADAMS can be called upon for one hours aday to travel to the nesrest testing facility to provide a sample in completely sterile surroundings so that they can't get off doping by making allegations of contamination (I never realised that there were so many testosterone and clenbuterol particles flying around in the atmosphere).

Anyone not on ADAMS needs to be able to travel at any time to a testing facility for the same reason.

Obviously I am being ridiculous but that seems to be the only way that you will accept that a test isn't contaminated. Are you seriously suggesting thwat being in the same rooom as some clenbuterol can cause your sample to become contaminated. I can understand if there is contact with a banned substance, but since you hold the vessel yourself then unless you go wiping your hands on random surfaces, or heaven forbid wiping your genitalia on the surfaces how is this contamination during the test likely to occur.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:27 pm

BigGut wrote:OK, so now we know the alternative youa re proposing.

Any athlete on ADAMS can be called upon for one hours aday to travel to the nesrest testing facility to provide a sample in completely sterile surroundings so that they can't get off doping by making allegations of contamination (I never realised that there were so many testosterone and clenbuterol particles flying around in the atmosphere).

Anyone not on ADAMS needs to be able to travel at any time to a testing facility for the same reason.

Obviously I am being ridiculous but that seems to be the only way that you will accept that a test isn't contaminated. Are you seriously suggesting thwat being in the same rooom as some clenbuterol can cause your sample to become contaminated. I can understand if there is contact with a banned substance, but since you hold the vessel yourself then unless you go wiping your hands on random surfaces, or heaven forbid wiping your genitalia on the surfaces how is this contamination during the test likely to occur.


Stop making up what you say I am saying !!

I would think that being in a closed area that has clen in it either air born or surface may well cause a test fail.That is why the met and other organisations go to a special room for sample collection.Remember I have pointed out that the detection level is 1 tenth of a billioneth of a gram.
Why do seen of crime officers turn up suited up unlike DCO turn up with sample collection kits contaminated from previous tests.Bit of a discord.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby BigGut » Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:46 pm

People have to assume what you are saying because you never definitively say anything. When you start actually saying what you mean then we can engage in debate, whilst you deal in ambiguity and insinuation we cannot engage in debate.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:00 pm

BigGut wrote:People have to assume what you are saying because you never definitively say anything. When you start actually saying what you mean then we can engage in debate, whilst you deal in ambiguity and insinuation we cannot engage in debate.


Does your inability to grasp what I am saying and the significance of the info provided does not excuse you from making things up.

I have no real idea how testing will end up as all improvements I think are necessary take money and some re-thinking.

What is some malcontent get air born metabolites into the testing room this w/e.How on earth to we concider such an unlikely but possible circumstance.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby 2dodgy » Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:08 pm

readtherules wrote:
BigGut wrote:People have to assume what you are saying because you never definitively say anything. When you start actually saying what you mean then we can engage in debate, whilst you deal in ambiguity and insinuation we cannot engage in debate.


Does your inability to grasp what I am saying and the significance of the info provided does not excuse you from making things up.

I have no real idea how testing will end up as all improvements I think are necessary take money and some re-thinking.

What is some malcontent get air born metabolites into the testing room this w/e.How on earth to we concider such an unlikely but possible circumstance.


I'm sorry, but I really don't understand this post. I rarely share your point of view, but I do usually understand what you are saying.
2dodgy
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:55 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby BigGut » Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:59 pm

readtherules wrote:What is some malcontent get air born metabolites into the testing room this w/e.How on earth to we concider such an unlikely but possible circumstance.


Do you really mean this?

Are you now saying that any adverse findings should be ignored because somebody may have managed to get airborne particles of banned substances into the testing room?

What scares me most is that you appear to be serious. We don't consider such an event and we don't legislate for it. If you are going to start looking for ridiculously unlikely reasons for adverse findings and say that testing is discredited because of it then we have to abandon testing completely. However I think any rational human being would acknowledge that there is such a thing as reasonableness and that it is reasonable to assume that no such airborne subtefuge has taken place, that is if it is even technically possible.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby BigGut » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:02 pm

Sorry just realised I made another assumption. BECAUSE I HAD TO!!!!. Yet again you failed to actually say anything. So how about you answer your own question.

What is some malcontent get air born metabolites into the testing room this w/e? Come on what do you think should happen if somebody claims their test was failed because of airborne spiking? STOP BEING AMBIGUOUS AND TELL US ALL WHAT YOU THINK!
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby Kermit » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:36 pm

readtherules wrote:
jjimbojames wrote:Yes, they can turn up to where the athlete tells them they will be, but you don't think it strange that testers would turn up at a nightclub - most likely with large numbers and music blaring? If nothing else, the fact they managed to find the athlete is pretty impressive. Unless they knew what the person looked for, a club with hundreds (at least) of people in is an unlikely venue

It 'happened' in another country - I very much doubt you would get that scenario in this one, hence the lack of relevance to contamination in Bedford, at an athletics track

Your friend was told by his friend - was the original athlete from that country, or on holiday and visited by that country's testing body? Can you tell us that, and which country the refused test took place in? Neith piece of info would compromise you or them


What it was was the sort of late night place of eating meeting place.Bit like the bar and griils we have in this country thus the toilets have suspicious use.Not a full blown rave type disco night club with hundreds there.
Contamination is contamination esp if tested in a toilet that could have had all sorts of uses by athletes or others.
Tested by his own NADA in his own country.

The point is that contamination at testing is a real issue.Whether it is material to the Wilson case we do not know.


One of the presenters of the radio 5live broadcast (former swimmer) said that his first date with his girlfriend (now wife) was at a restaurant - with tester in tow waiting to take sample!
Kermit
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby LiamRiley » Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:16 am

readtherules wrote:
Stop making up what you say I am saying !!

I would think that being in a closed area that has clen in it either air born or surface may well cause a test fail.

Air-borne clen???? Funniest thing you've said in a while! Oooooh got to watch out! Those compressed pills, vacuum sealed in a metallic foil package, within a plastic container, in a cardboard box, some metres away in the same room by pure chance, just suddenly break loose in gaseous form and fly straight into your urine sample! Not to mention that super-concentrated cloud of testosterone which floated right along with it!

Readtherules, you are a one-topic-monster of impressive proportions.
LiamRiley
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:07 am

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:13 am

Clen also comes in powder form.

Why do Police have better systems for testing themselves when the detection limits are magnitudes less ?
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:17 am

BigGut wrote:
readtherules wrote:What is some malcontent get air born metabolites into the testing room this w/e.How on earth to we concider such an unlikely but possible circumstance.


Do you really mean this?

Are you now saying that any adverse findings should be ignored because somebody may have managed to get airborne particles of banned substances into the testing room?

What scares me most is that you appear to be serious. We don't consider such an event and we don't legislate for it. If you are going to start looking for ridiculously unlikely reasons for adverse findings and say that testing is discredited because of it then we have to abandon testing completely. However I think any rational human being would acknowledge that there is such a thing as reasonableness and that it is reasonable to assume that no such airborne subtefuge has taken place, that is if it is even technically possible.


Yet again you make things up claimingI have said them.
Adopt better systems that are demonstated in other testing circumstances to protect the athlete.
The Police have obviously thought about being reasonable .Sport should pay the money and do likewise.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby fangio » Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:29 am

No, the consequences for the police are that an officer may have taken recreational drugs that cannot be masked, so letting them know they are coming for a drug test means little in that context.

With athletes the use of masking agents means that inviting people to a few locations nationwide for them to travel on their own is so ridiculously stupid that no one else takes your suggestion seriously.

The two tests have coimpletely different circumstances.

You have either a completely irrational fear of airborne clenbuterol and nandrolone and other substances, or do not undertand that the sample conatiner is not handled by anyone of than the ahtelte from the point it is opened to the point it is sealed, or you udnerstand both but are delibeeratley making idiotic excuses to try and undermine the system due to you or a close associate having been caught by the system.

what you are doing is polluting this forum with half baked suggestions of contamintation, hypothetical (and in some cases just untrue) statements about the law etc.
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby mump boy » Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:42 am

Why do any of you even engage with this person. He is quite obviouskly at best an apologist for cheats and at worse (and more likely) one himself. He has no credibility at all and the only things you do by arguing with him is legitimize his nonsense and pollute the board spoiling everyone elses enjoyment.

Please stop
mump boy
 
Posts: 2856
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:06 am

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:08 pm

fangio wrote:No, the consequences for the police are that an officer may have taken recreational drugs that cannot be masked, so letting them know they are coming for a drug test means little in that context.

With athletes the use of masking agents means that inviting people to a few locations nationwide for them to travel on their own is so ridiculously stupid that no one else takes your suggestion seriously.

The two tests have coimpletely different circumstances.

You have either a completely irrational fear of airborne clenbuterol and nandrolone and other substances, or do not undertand that the sample conatiner is not handled by anyone of than the ahtelte from the point it is opened to the point it is sealed, or you udnerstand both but are delibeeratley making idiotic excuses to try and undermine the system due to you or a close associate having been caught by the system.

what you are doing is polluting this forum with half baked suggestions of contamintation, hypothetical (and in some cases just untrue) statements about the law etc.



Pay attention.

What do you rely on for your statement that recreational drugs cant be masked.

I have made no comment about the police about letting the police no in advance.

You have ignored ,yet again,my comment about testing campers that UKAD already have.
Should the room be swobed for contamination,this seems quite easy and cheap.
You have ignored my comment about contaminated waste going back in the DCO's bag.
You have ignored serious peer reviewed papers on the law and doping.
The doping eqiupment is not sterile and in some cases unsealed.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:24 pm

Contamination.(in general)

Received: 1 July 2010 Revised: 1 September 2010 Accepted: 1 September 2010 Published online inWiley Online Library: 11 November 2010
(www.drugtestinganalysis.com) DOI 10.1002/dta.202
Characterization of microbial contaminants
in urine
Suvi Ojanper¨ a,a Antti Leinonen,b Juha Apajalahti,a Marko Lauraeus,a
Susanna Alaja,a Teija Moisanderb and Anu Kettunena∗
Modern, molecular microbiological methods were applied to urine samples from control subjects and athletes for
characterization of the microbial community. High abundance of lactobacilli, enterococci, and enterobacteria was detected
in urine samples, suggesting that gastrointestinal and urogenital tracts act as contamination sources. Athlete samples, but
not control samples, showed an abundance of pseudomonads, a bacterial group reported to metabolize steroids. Overall, the
bacteria detected are knownto be capable of altering steroid profiles, emphasizing the importance of good hygiene at sampling
in reliable doping control. Copyrightc 2010 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.


"Furthermore, our results question the validity of doping
control in cases where high levels of microbes contaminate the
urine samples, either unintentionally as a result of compromised
hygiene at sampling or due to deliberate amendment bymicrobes
to falsify the doping control results."

And funded by WADA.

If readers I really interested in having a balenced view then get the paper and read it.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:16 pm

READ above post esp that in quotes from the last para of paper,
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby BigGut » Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:58 am

What does any of that have to do with Bernice Wilsons adverse analytical finding.

Please explain to us what you think it is saying and why it is relevant. It looks like yet more diversionary irrelvance posted to excuse another drug failure.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:07 pm

BigGut wrote:What does any of that have to do with Bernice Wilsons adverse analytical finding.

Please explain to us what you think it is saying and why it is relevant. It looks like yet more diversionary irrelvance posted to excuse another drug failure.



Shows how little we know about contamination and contamination was not raised by me and may cause degranged steroid profile which may apply.

Should I post it on a seperate contamination post and if so would you bother to understand it ?
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby BigGut » Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:11 pm

I can read. It talks about contamination within the body of the athlete. Bernice is claiming contamination outside of her body through not following procedure. As such it is completely and utterly irrelevant to the Bernice Wilson case.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:03 pm

BigGut wrote:I can read. It talks about contamination within the body of the athlete. Bernice is claiming contamination outside of her body through not following procedure. As such it is completely and utterly irrelevant to the Bernice Wilson case.



We have no idea exactly what she is argueing ref contamination.Please provide more and better detail.
Paper talks about post voiding contamination !!!
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby BigGut » Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:15 pm

Geoff wrote:Contaminated sample led to failed test - Bernice Wilson

Lincolnshire athlete Bernice Wilson has claimed a contaminated sample was the cause of her positive test for banned steroids testosterone and clenbuterol.
Wilson has been provisionally banned after failing a test at a meet in July.
"Evidence suggests testing procedures were not kept under the official rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency and the IAAF," said a statement on her behalf.
"The incomplete and insufficient way the testing procedure was carried out allowed the sample to be contaminated."
The statement also called for UK Anti-Doping, who administer drug testing in the UK, to withdraw the case against the European Indoor 60m semi-finalist and open an internal investigation to determine the cause of the contamination.
It added: "Bernice Wilson expresses her disappointment on how such a serious mistake can occur and her disbelief on the way that UK Athletics handled her case."
Wilson tested positive following a routine drug test at the Bedford International Games on 12 July.
If found guilty she could face a suspension of up to two years.
UK Anti-Doping say they will not comment on individual cases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/9550546.stm


This article was quoted on this very thread and clearly says that Bernice Wilson is claiming that her sample was contaminated due to not following procedure, not due to anything in your ridiculously irrelevant link. It says "Evidence suggests testing procedures were not kept under the official rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency and the IAAF". That has nothing whatever to do with your latest smoke screen for drug cheats.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:30 pm

BigGut wrote:
Geoff wrote:Contaminated sample led to failed test - Bernice Wilson

Lincolnshire athlete Bernice Wilson has claimed a contaminated sample was the cause of her positive test for banned steroids testosterone and clenbuterol.
Wilson has been provisionally banned after failing a test at a meet in July.
"Evidence suggests testing procedures were not kept under the official rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency and the IAAF," said a statement on her behalf.
"The incomplete and insufficient way the testing procedure was carried out allowed the sample to be contaminated."
The statement also called for UK Anti-Doping, who administer drug testing in the UK, to withdraw the case against the European Indoor 60m semi-finalist and open an internal investigation to determine the cause of the contamination.
It added: "Bernice Wilson expresses her disappointment on how such a serious mistake can occur and her disbelief on the way that UK Athletics handled her case."
Wilson tested positive following a routine drug test at the Bedford International Games on 12 July.
If found guilty she could face a suspension of up to two years.
UK Anti-Doping say they will not comment on individual cases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/9550546.stm


This article was quoted on this very thread and clearly says that Bernice Wilson is claiming that her sample was contaminated due to not following procedure, not due to anything in your ridiculously irrelevant link. It says "Evidence suggests testing procedures were not kept under the official rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency and the IAAF". That has nothing whatever to do with your latest smoke screen for drug cheats.


It may be that the BBC note was not full or the full defence ref contamination has not been made.
In all events the IST puts a burden on the testing authority to have procedues that protect the intregity of the sample.As you will be aware from the article wada procedures do not do that for the reasons set out.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby BigGut » Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:31 pm

Wrong, the quote from her spokesperson is explicit in blaming a failure to follow procedures. There is nothing about the procedures not being adequate.

As I say this is yet another irrelevant smokescreen.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:38 pm

BigGut wrote:Wrong, the quote from her spokesperson is explicit in blaming a failure to follow procedures. There is nothing about the procedures not being adequate.

As I say this is yet another irrelevant smokescreen.


There is a general requirement for having a procedure in addition to this that which they employ are not adequate.
So they may not have followed requirements.

You again put to much on the accuracy of the BBC note and you have a belief that the spokeperson will have shown all cards.

Anyway the paper was posted under the sub heading "contamination general" and was in response to a poster saying contamination was not possible.Would you care to deal with the paper.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby BigGut » Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:56 pm

No,

Because it has nothing whatever to do with the Bernice Wilson case.

It is claiming that there can be contamination WITHIN the body of the competitor. So are you saying that testing should be abandoned? If not then what are you saying. Don't just say respond to the paper.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Wed Aug 03, 2011 3:22 pm

BigGut wrote:No,

Because it has nothing whatever to do with the Bernice Wilson case.

It is claiming that there can be contamination WITHIN the body of the competitor. So are you saying that testing should be abandoned? If not then what are you saying. Don't just say respond to the paper.


We have not a clue about whether it may apply.
Read the paper,sorry I cant baby sit you.
It becomes contamination post voiding due to bad methods and or poor hygene or by methods used in the lab.

Yet again and like Frankie Howard,many times yet again.I have not said "abandon testing".Please explain what you rely on for this statement.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby BigGut » Wed Aug 03, 2011 4:18 pm

I said don't just say read the paper, yet again that is what you resprt to. So nobody knows what you are actually saying. I didn't say you were saying that testing should be abandoned, I asked whetherthat was what you meant, because as usual you actually say nothing at all just point to other people and make no actual comment yourself.

I don't need babysitting. I need you to say what you actually mean. Bernice Wilsons spokesperson said explicitly that their case was that procedures had not been followed. EXPLICITLY! This paper is not talking about people not following the procedure SO IT IS IRRELEVANT!!!

Using your argument we can just dig up any old drugs defence and say that it is relevant because although her spokesperson didn't mention it they may be using it and keeping their cards close to their chest. That is a stupid argument.

"It becomes contamination post voiding due to bad methods and or poor hygene or by methods used in the lab." What about it, what is your point? What do you think should happen as a result of this paper?

You are saying their is contamination possible. So what should happen? Should people just be let off as a result of this paper? Yes or No? If yest then you are calling for testing to be abandoned. If no then what was the point of bringing it up?
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Wed Aug 03, 2011 4:45 pm

readtherules wrote:
fangio wrote:No, the consequences for the police are that an officer may have taken recreational drugs that cannot be masked, so letting them know they are coming for a drug test means little in that context.

With athletes the use of masking agents means that inviting people to a few locations nationwide for them to travel on their own is so ridiculously stupid that no one else takes your suggestion seriously.

The two tests have coimpletely different circumstances.

You have either a completely irrational fear of airborne clenbuterol and nandrolone and other substances, or do not undertand that the sample conatiner is not handled by anyone of than the ahtelte from the point it is opened to the point it is sealed, or you udnerstand both but are delibeeratley making idiotic excuses to try and undermine the system due to you or a close associate having been caught by the system.

what you are doing is polluting this forum with half baked suggestions of contamintation, hypothetical (and in some cases just untrue) statements about the law etc.



Pay attention.

What do you rely on for your statement that recreational drugs cant be masked.

I have made no comment about the police about letting the police no in advance.

You have ignored ,yet again,my comment about testing campers that UKAD already have.
Should the room be swobed for contamination,this seems quite easy and cheap.
You have ignored my comment about contaminated waste going back in the DCO's bag.
You have ignored serious peer reviewed papers on the law and doping.
The doping eqiupment is not sterile and in some cases unsealed.


Fangio.

Any evidence that rec drugs can be masked and do Police test for steroid use ?
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Wed Aug 03, 2011 4:52 pm

BigGut wrote:I said don't just say read the paper, yet again that is what you resprt to. So nobody knows what you are actually saying. I didn't say you were saying that testing should be abandoned, I asked whetherthat was what you meant, because as usual you actually say nothing at all just point to other people and make no actual comment yourself.

I don't need babysitting. I need you to say what you actually mean. Bernice Wilsons spokesperson said explicitly that their case was that procedures had not been followed. EXPLICITLY! This paper is not talking about people not following the procedure SO IT IS IRRELEVANT!!!

Using your argument we can just dig up any old drugs defence and say that it is relevant because although her spokesperson didn't mention it they may be using it and keeping their cards close to their chest. That is a stupid argument.

"It becomes contamination post voiding due to bad methods and or poor hygene or by methods used in the lab." What about it, what is your point? What do you think should happen as a result of this paper?

You are saying their is contamination possible. So what should happen? Should people just be let off as a result of this paper? Yes or No? If yest then you are calling for testing to be abandoned. If no then what was the point of bringing it up?


Read the paper in entirity .Have you done so ?

A solictor would be a fool to display all cards.

What do normal courts do when the evidence may be contaminated.Not saying the paper means leting people of,but it means it has to be part of the evaluation.It puts yet an other layer for WADA to deal with.
Remember when the said Nandolone could not be produced naturally.So it can be and they have to work with it.
Why did WADA fund the paper and why did the paper make recommendations.I assume you agree with them having fully studied the paper.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby BigGut » Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:03 pm

The solicitor has not mentioned contamination due to anything other than not following proceedure and so this paper IS completely irrlevant to this case.

I don't care what the paer says. What do you explictly want to happen.

What does means it has to be part of the evaluation mean? Does it mean letting people off or disregarding the possible contamination and banning them? It cannot be one rule for one person and one for another, are you saying contamination means letting people off or not?
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Anti-Doping

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 

Athletics Weekly Limited © 2010. Terms of use

Design by The Church of London