Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jamaicans admitted to doping

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by RamGoat
    They ignorantly took some drink or something that contained some drug that was not listed..

    Big deal!

    They didn't intend to cheat.. that is the main thing!
    My main problem with this line of reasoning is that almost all athletes that test positive claim this (that or they didn't know what they were taking, which is essentially the same IMO). It is very hard for us to know the real intentions of the athletes. I don't claim to know the situation, so I won't pass judgment on them, but it's to the point that people should be punished regardless of their intentions. I think that is a little sad, but that is the world of athletics that I think we live in.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by TrackDaddy
      Regardless of why or how they admitted to a substance being in their system a guilty plea is an admittance.

      And prior to them entering that plea there was no admittance.

      That is- in fact -a different situation than before the plea. Maybe thats why it was titled "Jamaican runners admit banned-substance use."

      So...the article DID in FACT tell everyone -except those psychic among us- something that we did not know.
      The admission in this case is merely the acceptance of the scientific evidence. The headline is meant to grab attention and stimulate the kind of discussion that's taking place here. I, and some of the other posters, did not expect that the athletes would have contested the scientific evidence. You, TrackDaddy, obviously thought they could. For you the admission is a major revelation - so be it.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by guruof track
        Another quick question. I'm not entirely sure or familiar of the testing process in JAAA (or how the IAAF conducts it, if they do). But someone told me on this board, that only athletes who qualified for the WC were tested at the Jamaican Championships. Maybe this isn't exactly right.

        I simply ask because Marvin Anderson didn't qualify for the team and was tested. Was he just a 'random' test?
        Marvin Anderson DID qualify for the team, 4th in 100m and 3rd in 200m.
        He got injured in the race that Bolt ran 19.58 and was replaced by Lerone Clarke in the 4x100 and Ramone McKenzie in the 200.
        why don't people pronounce vowels anymore

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by TrackDaddy
          Originally posted by JROCK

          Thats what i got from it when i first heard this last week. So nothing new that we did not know.It was also stated that on September 14 a decision will be made,After which the IAAF takes over.
          The article said they appeared before the tribunal on Wednesday, but you knew it last week?

          Very impressive.
          i lost track of the dates,it was actually this week.I heard it on a program on the radio.The same day. The bottom line is they admit that the substance was in their system,base on the test reasons.So its now up to the powers that be to give out the ruling.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by rudawal
            I, and some of the other posters, did not expect that the athletes would have contested the scientific evidence. You, TrackDaddy, obviously thought they could. For you the admission is a major revelation - so be it.
            I thought it was common for athletes to appeal positive tests and file appeals to avoid multi year suspensions to prove their innocence.

            But you say that you and others didnt expect them to and knew they were willing to plead guilty (although innocent?) and abandon their livelihood and willingly accept suspension from the sport... for years?

            I see.

            Well, it was definitely news to me.
            The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by TrackDaddy
              Originally posted by rudawal
              I, and some of the other posters, did not expect that the athletes would have contested the scientific evidence. You, TrackDaddy, obviously thought they could. For you the admission is a major revelation - so be it.
              I thought it was common for athletes to appeal positive tests and file appeals to avoid multi year suspensions to prove their innocence.

              But you say that you and others didnt expect them to and knew they were willing to plead guilty (although innocent?) and abandon their livelihood and willingly accept suspension from the sport... for years?

              I see.

              Well, it was definitely news to me.
              It is clear that you are determined to tie yourself up in knots. Please do not expect me to untie you.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                Originally posted by rudawal
                I, and some of the other posters, did not expect that the athletes would have contested the scientific evidence. You, TrackDaddy, obviously thought they could. For you the admission is a major revelation - so be it.
                I thought it was common for athletes to appeal positive tests and file appeals to avoid multi year suspensions to prove their innocence.

                But you say that you and others didnt expect them to and knew they were willing to plead guilty (although innocent?) and abandon their livelihood and willingly accept suspension from the sport... for years?

                I see.

                Well, it was definitely news to me.
                as you well know they weren't 'innocent' under the rules of strict liability they are responsible for whatever is in their bodies. unless there was a procedural error to contest as there seems to have been in the case of SAB then they have nothing to argue. what they have decided to do, quite understandably, is concentrate thier efforts in explaining how the substance got there and hoping for a lighter sentence and maybe just a warning by co-operating

                it's not rocket science :roll:
                i deserve extra credit

                Comment


                • #38
                  [quote=mor'fiyah]
                  Originally posted by "guruof track":3pm9xb6l
                  Not sure this article told us anything besides what we already knew. One question I have is SAB tested positive for the same banned substance, why was she cleared and the others weren't? Seems inconsistent.
                  She was cleared because they tested her B sample without her knowing because they didn't inform her properly of the A positive test. As a result the B sample has to be thrown out and they thus have no positive B sample to indict her with...[/quote:3pm9xb6l]

                  No, that is not why Brroks was cleared.

                  She was cleared because JADCO ordered the testing of the B sample at her request, but the seal on the sample was broken at the lab wither her or a representative present, and subsequently tested without same.

                  She was denied due process accorded to her by the IAAF/WADA rules. That is why the case against her was dismissed. Sorry I don't have time to quote the relevant section of the IAAF rules but they are on the IAAF website.
                  Regards,
                  toyracer

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by fortis
                    This event shows the JAAA testing program is even detecting substances which are not on the banned list and were ingested via over-the-counter products such as nasal sprays.
                    Not so.

                    A WADA lab does not run tests for substances that are not on the list. The suggestion is a red herring. The substance that returned the positive AAF has as part of its chemical make-up a substance that is named on the list.
                    Regards,
                    toyracer

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Wow.

                      You had to know something was up when the JAA didn't send any of these athletes to Berlin. As it turns out, a smart move on their part.

                      In a month or so we will know if there is more to this story and whether more athletes are involved or just a case of 4 athletes who were on the wrong end of a borderline substance.

                      Assumptions and speculation, while fun, are always dangerous...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                        Regardless of why or how they admitted to a substance being in their system a guilty plea is an admittance.

                        And prior to them entering that plea there was no admittance.

                        That is- in fact -a different situation than before the plea. Maybe thats why it was titled "Jamaican runners admit banned-substance use."

                        So...the article DID in FACT tell everyone -except those psychic among us- something that we did not know.
                        That's an extremely simplistic understanding of law TD. I would have expected better from you. If you have a lawyer with half a brain, you DO NOT contest scientific evidence...."No your honor, those fingerprints are not mine." Let's see how far you'd get with that one. We're are past the point of how it got there. Therefore, you may not have intended for your fingerprints to be there, but they're there, now take your punishment.

                        Until this whole thing eventually reaches the IAAF, you all feel free to go on the "Ha, see they admitted it!!" brigade for all I care.
                        http://img2.pict.com/c9/f0/bf/2845608/0/b.jpg

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Let's just sweep it the under rug. RamGoat already said there was no intent to cheat, case closed, no harm,no foul....next story :arrow:
                          on the road

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by mump boy

                            as you well know they weren't 'innocent' under the rules of strict liability they are responsible for whatever is in their bodies. unless there was a procedural error to contest as there seems to have been in the case of SAB then they have nothing to argue. what they have decided to do, quite understandably, is concentrate thier efforts in explaining how the substance got there and hoping for a lighter sentence and maybe just a warning by co-operating

                            it's not rocket science :roll:
                            So...they didn't have the option of denying that they took a substance and/or blaming how it got there on someone else (i.e. Gatlin, et al) and then appealing their subsequent suspension (which we all know would have been levied anyway )as many other athletes do?

                            Okay... :roll:

                            And you knew all along, way before this anouncement that they wouldn't deny and appeal...huh?

                            What can I say...you're the Amazing Kreskin.

                            Well, I didn't know they wouldn't deny and appeal in an attempt to avoid a two year ban, but apparently you "already new that so this annoucement is nothing new." :?

                            The announcement IS IN FACT NEWS (not yelling, my cap lock was left on) to some people and I'm pretty sure that's why it's being published as "news".
                            The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by JWiz
                              That's an extremely simplistic understanding of law TD. I would have expected better from you. If you have a lawyer with half a brain, you DO NOT contest scientific evidence...."No your honor, those fingerprints are not mine." Let's see how far you'd get with that one. We're are past the point of how it got there. Therefore, you may not have intended for your fingerprints to be there, but they're there, now take your punishment.

                              Until this whole thing eventually reaches the IAAF, you all feel free to go on the "Ha, see they admitted it!!" brigade for all I care.
                              All lawyers have half brains.

                              And I'm not on a brigade, Wiz. I'm just reacting to the news that they are accepting responsibility and a two year ban without so much as challenging the positives or making appeals to show the results were either in error or caused by sabotage or something.

                              I understand that route is costly, but its got to be cheaper than two years with no pay.
                              The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                                Originally posted by JWiz
                                That's an extremely simplistic understanding of law TD. I would have expected better from you. If you have a lawyer with half a brain, you DO NOT contest scientific evidence...."No your honor, those fingerprints are not mine." Let's see how far you'd get with that one. We're are past the point of how it got there. Therefore, you may not have intended for your fingerprints to be there, but they're there, now take your punishment.

                                Until this whole thing eventually reaches the IAAF, you all feel free to go on the "Ha, see they admitted it!!" brigade for all I care.
                                All lawyers have half brains.

                                And I'm not on a brigade, Wiz. I'm just reacting to the news that they are accepting responsibility and a two year ban without so much as challenging the positives or making appeals to show the results were either in error or caused by sabotage or something.

                                I understand that route is costly, but its got to be cheaper than two years with no pay.
                                it will be interesting to see if they get two years for a substance which is not on the banned list and for which their is no scientific evidence that this substance is in fact a performance enhancing chemical compound.
                                i think this will be a slap on the wrist or warning from the IAAF.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X