You are reading a single comment by @GoatandTricycle and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Forgive my ignorance but if he could prove he could excrete the level he tested for then why would he be banned at all? Or do you mean a level above the threshold but below is test sample?
GoatandTricycle-
I really don't know anything about his case other than that snippet. He might've showed there was a chance legal doses were excreted in high levels but perhaps not as high as he tested for so they still issued a ban albeit a shorter one. They will often issue a reduced ban in cases where contamination is proved. So, basically the athlete didn't intentionally cheat but they still tested positive, ie. they were dumb not malicious. They will get 2y instead of 4 or similar.
hippy
“The athlete himself and the medical staff of the team will continue to explore the reasons why the urine has been identified as having an abnormal and high presence of salbutamol after only two inhalations being performed,” said the squad.
It noted that the rider ‘strongly rejects’ the presence of such an amount of salbutamol. It said that he had availed of a possibility in UCI and WADA regulations to undergo a controlled excretion study for the substance.
https://cyclingtips.com/2014/06/double-giro-stage-winner-ulissi-provisionally-suspended-after-salbutamol-positive/
He only got 9 months not 2 years, presumably because they proved he could take normal dose and still excrete high levels.