Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brianna Rollins-McNeal provisionally suspended [gets 5 years]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Vault-emort View Post
    I see she's playing the God card, bless her.
    A lawyer works better....

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Conor Dary View Post
      Originally posted by Vault-emort View Post
      I see she's playing the God card, bless her.
      A lawyer works better....
      So apparently it’s now okay to criticize and mock athletes’ expressions of religious faith on this message board?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Conor Dary View Post
        This applies to anyone who gets banned for missing tests....unless of course they aren't brilliant...


        The American Arbitration Association, which ruled on that case, expressed sympathy for McNeal at the time, given the circumstances surrounding two of her three missed tests.

        “This is a difficult case because it involves the imposition of a serious penalty on a brilliant athlete who is not charged or suspected of using banned substances of any kind,” it said.


        Oh really?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Grasshopper View Post

          So apparently it’s now okay to criticize and mock athletes’ expressions of religious faith on this message board?
          Not at all...but is quite an odd nondenial on her part I must say...the system may be terrible....but it is one everyone these days has to live by.
          Last edited by Conor Dary; 06-05-2021, 02:20 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            McNeal's lawyer's statement now posted on home page

            Comment


            • #21
              Howard Jacobs is a good lawyer...I wish her the best of luck....

              Comment


              • #22
                So if she makes the US team, then whats the most likely scenario?

                A - The case is decided before Tokyo
                B - The case is still pending and CAS does not let her run Tokyo
                C - The case is still pending and CAS but CAS still allows her to run

                My thought was that if CAS is allowing her to run at trials, that means they will have a decision before Tokyo. But thats pure speculation based on nothing.

                Comment


                • #23
                  OK, I read the lawyer's statement. Are they accusing her of lying about why she missed a test? And for that she gets 5 years? Just trying to understand what "tampering" means in this context.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Peter Michaelson View Post
                    OK, I read the lawyer's statement. Are they accusing her of lying about why she missed a test? And for that she gets 5 years? Just trying to understand what "tampering" means in this context.
                    That's what it seems like. Which is strange because the missed test wasn't her third in 12 months, so one would think her explanation or lack thereof would be immaterial (unless she subsequently missed a third test and was trying to avoid a suspension based on the explanation of the previous missed test).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Same thing that got Hammer thrower Mark Dry banned: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/51649229. I’m sure he’ll be watching with interest!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        It seems strange that she will be allowed to compete at the OT. Assuming that she makes the finals, she will have caused two people not to advance in during the rounds. Those two will in effect be eliminated by someone who is ineligible to go to the Olympics.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Dave View Post
                          It seems strange that she will be allowed to compete at the OT. Assuming that she makes the finals, she will have caused two people not to advance in during the rounds. Those two will in effect be eliminated by someone who is ineligible to go to the Olympics.
                          Who 'may be' not "is ineligible"

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Peter Michaelson View Post
                            OK, I read the lawyer's statement. Are they accusing her of lying about why she missed a test? And for that she gets 5 years? Just trying to understand what "tampering" means in this context.

                            I'm not sure why anybody would be surprised about the fundamental concept of a harsh sentence for Interfering with a judicial or semi-judicial process. This always exacerbates whatever the original offence was and it's possible to get punished for the original offence and the interference.

                            For example, if the WADA process fell under an English judicial process, the penalty for the equivalent offence of "perverting the course of justice" is life imprisonment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perver...rse_of_justice

                            Luckily for her, because WADA operates under international agreement, the offence and punishment are defined in the agreement and don't include jail time.

                            The relevant section of the WADA code for the offence is:

                            2.5

                            Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any part of Doping Control Conduct which subverts the Doping Control process but which would not otherwise be included in the definition of Prohibited Methods. Tampering shall include, without limitation, intentionally interfering or attempting to interfere with a Doping Control official, providing fraudulent information to an Anti-Doping Organization or intimidating or attempting to intimidate a potential witness.
                            The punishment is:

                            10.3.1
                            For violations of Article 2.3 or Article 2.5, the period of Ineligibility shall be four years unless, in the case of failing to submit to Sample collection, the Athlete can establish that the commission of the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional (as defined in Article 10.2.3), in which case the period of Ineligibility shall be two years.
                            So, it's irrelevant whether or not whether there was an actual whereabouts failure or if she doped because the tampering is a separate offence punishable by up to 4 years by itself.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by jjimbojames View Post
                              Same thing that got Hammer thrower Mark Dry banned: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/51649229. I’m sure he’ll be watching with interest!
                              And former Kenyan Nelly Jepkosgei (BRN) earlier this year.

                              Some free advice to athletes - just don't lie kiddies, because people can check your bullshit. Here's the details of Jepkosgei's tampering decision and 4 year ban with one year discount for admitting it before the final decision.

                              https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/d...sion_FINAL.pdf

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by gh View Post
                                McNeal's lawyer's statement now posted on home page
                                Lawyer statement seems pretty strong. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X