Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BBC Article on Montsho's 2 year ban

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • BBC Article on Montsho's 2 year ban

    http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/31953218
    it seems like a harsh penalty for a stimulant
    Last edited by spammer; 03-21-2015, 01:33 AM.
    Bolt's last year...and my last year as a track fan, it's been fun

  • #2
    Haven't the rules changed or something? I think some stumulants are now treated the same as steroids etc.

    The bans can now be from 3 months to 2 years depending on the circumstances. Not sure what is so egregious abot Montsho's case.

    Comment


    • #3
      Is it more significant when it is in competition, since that is when it helps you, and it was in a quasi-global championship.

      Comment


      • #4
        very very very quasi...

        Comment


        • #5
          Stimulants (class 6) are not prohibited or tested for out of competition under WADA rules, so a stimulant positive is always the result of in-competition testing.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by spammer View Post
            http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/31953218
            it seems like a harsh penalty for a stimulant
            Based on the IAAF website's current list of sanctioned athletes, 2 years seems to be by far the most common sanction for a positive stimulant result.

            Where it can vary for stimulants and other PEDs in the Specified Substances category is if the athlete is proven to have used the stimulant intentionally (to cheat, in which case the ban can be 4 years), or if the athlete can successfully prove no fault or negligence (no ban), or no significant fault or negligence (0 to 2 years depending on degree of fault/negligence.) Evidently Montsho hasn't been able to convince authorities of no significant fault or negligence yet, and the monetary cost of appealing the sanctioning decision is relatively high...

            Comment


            • #7
              she should have enough money to appeal, being a former WC and many time circuit winner.
              why don't people pronounce vowels anymore

              Comment


              • #8
                She deserves the penalty for stupidity. The name of the drink had the word "anabolic" in it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by DentyCracker View Post
                  she should have enough money to appeal, being a former WC and many time circuit winner.
                  I have no hints that such is the case here, but you have to remember that there are numerous federations which make a habit of attaching healthy portions of the earnings of their athletes.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X