Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maggi a doper

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Maggi a doper

    ""I'm very vain, I always comb my hair before competitions and put on eye shadow. I always have depilation before competitions but I never thought the depilation cream could contain a banned substance.""

    Whatever...

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... tics_maggi

  • #2
    Re: Maggi a doper

    Since she's Brazilian, she doesn't get the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing I guess. I'm pretty sure the matter is still under investigation. She MAY be guilty . . . or not. Your topic line is grossly inappropriate and should get yanked.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Maggi a doper

      >'innocent until proven guilty'

      That's a US thing that has been clouding the drug issue domestically. She has admitted to taking the substance. It is banned. Doesn't matter how it got there. Q.E.D.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Maggi a doper

        Clouding the drug issue?! And here I thought it was a constitutional guarantee. She admitted the depilatory cream. She did not admit knowingly ingesting a banned substance. We seem to be in big hurry to cart her off to the junkyard of moral turpitude. Gatlin took adderall, not knowing it was a stimulant, and we seemed to give him the benefit of the doubt. Did we call him a doper? I admit she MAY be guilty, but I guess in others' minds, she already is.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Maggi a doper

          >And here I thought it
          >was a constitutional guarantee.

          In the US so it clouds the issue in other countries that don't have that protection and are confused by unreleased test results.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Maggi a doper

            Legal beagle wrote:

            >Clouding the drug issue?! And here I thought it
            was a constitutional guarantee. She admitted the
            depilatory cream. She did not admit knowingly
            ingesting a banned substance. We seem to be in
            big hurry to cart her off to the junkyard of
            moral turpitude. Gatlin took adderall, not
            knowing it was a stimulant, and we seemed to give
            him the benefit of the doubt. Did we call him a
            doper? I admit she MAY be guilty, but I guess in
            others' minds, she already is.<

            This is a public service response for the benefit of those Board readers who may have been confused by legal beagle. In the first place, lb, you seem to be applying principles of the US constitution to a Brazilian doping case. No reason to do that. Moreover, you are applying the US constitution selectively. The First Amendment allows us to call her a doper (just as it allows people to call OJ Simpson a killer even though he was acquitted of criminal homicide charges).

            In this case, the athlete apparently did fail a doping test, and she admitted using the cream that contained the banned substance. Under IAAF (and USA) doping rules, intent is not an element of the offense of doping. The offense consists of having the substance in your urine. How it got there is not relevant in most cases. Many athletes have been declared ineligible for unknowingly ingesting banned substances. Under the rules, they are dopers.

            Gatlin was, in that sense, a doper. He was convicted of a doping offense and suspended. He was subsequently given an early reinstatement because of the sympathetic circumstances, but it it was not a reversal of the penalty--just the shortening of it. He committed a doping offense; hence he was a doper.

            The key fact is that under the applicable rules, guilty intent is not an element of the offense. Thus, not all dopers are guilty of deliberate wrongdoing--they may have been innocent in their hearts, but they are still dopers. Moral turpitude has nothing to do with it.

            I don't know what they teach in law schools for dogs, lb, but it apparently does not include the careful use of words and the close analysis of text.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Maggi a doper

              Since lawyers can twist the law any way they see fit (ala Simpson), it falls to us lay people - yes my degree is strictly of the canine variety - to use common sense and common courtesy. Since a guideline of this forum is not to throw around drug accusations lightly, should we not await the outcome of the investigation before we sling the mud? Calling people names is not what civilized people need do. If and when the guilt is established, we can refer to her as a 'convicted' (though not really) drug offeneder, but just throwing up a topic called 'Maggi a doper' is not within the bounds of common decency. If you wish to dispute that notion, we have indeed fallen to new depths in our lack of civility.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Maggi a doper

                I'll be willing to give her the benefit of a doubt . . . just because she's really hot.

                Realistically, though, this is one of those things we just don't know all the details about. I remember taking my Butch Reynolds poster down after he tested positive -- then putting it back up later. The worst thing that came out of all of that is that we literally don't know what to believe anymore.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Maggi did a no-no

                  >I'll be willing to give her the benefit of a
                  >doubt . . . just because she's really
                  >hot.

                  I guess you think that the procedure that got her into this worked:-).

                  I will concede that the topic is a little strong and would change it IF BEN HALL WOULD ALLOW AN EDIT FUNCTION.

                  It's just that it reminded me of other famous last words:

                  "It was a night of sex and drugs..."
                  "They put it in my toothpaste..."
                  "It depends on what your definition of is is..."

                  Now we have "Only my hairdresser knows for sure..."

                  As far as this crack goes: "Since she's Brazilian, she doesn't get the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing I guess." That implies I'm a rascist. Check out my TC messages when the tri-guy Kelly Guest got kicked out of the CG for what he said was inadvertent ingestion of steroids from supplements. Went after him full bore. You are responsible for what goes into your body. Injected substances should really get your radar up.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Maggi did a no-no

                    thanks for softening your stance a little - I absolutely did not mean to imply you're a racist -just a little quick with the guilty trigger finger. My position on this is you really do have to be a board certified pharmacist to know what you're putting in yourself these days. Cold medicine is banned? Give me a break. We seem to think that 'pro' athletes should be paranoid about what they take, but the few that I've met are as clueless as the rest of us what's going on, and (it is my contention) some REALLY are just ignorant (on this topic), not guilty. They should be better informed, but they are just regular people who trust the rest of us to forgive them if they 'accidently' ingest something nasty.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Maggi Tested Positive

                      If we really want to be absolutely accurate, literate, and civilized, the topic should be as I've re-stated it.

                      In any event, lb points to the ignorance of many athletes about what the rules provide. With professional athletes whose sports do not strictly enforce doping controls, there is no reason for them to learn.

                      But yes, lb, cold medicines can contain stimulants and those that do are banned. You are free to disagree with this proscription, but if you were an athlete, you'd ignore it at your peril.

                      The original title of this thread did serve to point out the way the rules work in track and field. If the substance is there, you're guilty of an offense. You are, in the eyes of the IAAF and the IOC, a doping violator. Is it a lack of civility to call a doping violator a doper? Perhaps it is. There may be a certain pejorative connotation to the word "doper"; to some, it may imply moral guilt. But in this case, it appears that it is technically correct.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Maggi Tested Positive

                        For heavens sake guys...

                        She 'took' a banned substance, end of story. It was in her system, and thus she is 'guilty' under IAAF rules unless she can convince them she had a very good reason why it was in there. Personally, I think this whole hair-removal cream nonsense is pathetic and embarassing. How on earth can this treatment make you fail a doping test? It must be pretty bl**dy strong stuff to register such high levels, and even if she were innocent in that she didnt intend to cheat, it serves her right for being so stupid!

                        Re the IAAF not concerning themselves whether there was any intent, I'm afraid they DO look at intent. In the case of Katirn Krabbe, the German sprinter, she took a substance that wasnt on the banned list at the time, but the IAAF banned her on the basis that she intended to gain an unfair advantage... and she didnt even use a banned supplement! So, when it suits them, the IAAF reserve the right to look at intent.

                        Ig Maggi gets off it'll be a tarvesty in my book. Hair removal cream making you fail a test??? It's almost a sbad as Dennis Mitchell's pathetic excuse from his failed test years ago of too much sex!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Maggi a doper

                          It's all good... one less athlete for Heike Drechsler to contend with when she comes back strong next year and wins Olympic gold!

                          :-)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Maggi Tested Positive

                            >Hair removal cream making you fail a test??? It's
                            >almost a sbad as Dennis Mitchell's pathetic
                            >excuse from his failed test years ago of too much
                            >sex!

                            Don't forget the beer !!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Maggi Tested Positive

                              I'm amazed at how they come up with these excuses. Let's see, we've had:

                              Spiked toothpaste
                              Beer & rampant sex
                              Hair removal cream

                              Have I missed any other good ones? Was thinking what other creative ones will be thrown into the pot. How about anti-itch cream (which has cortizone) from some guy suffering from one of those unfortunate itches that occur occasionally. When do you think we'll see that?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X