Doping

You are reading a single comment by @GoatandTricycle and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.

•

gbj_tester in reply to @GoatandTricycle

That doesn't seem like a convincing argument.

It's not you he has to convince :)

While the Swiss study was technically doping (900μg in a 12h period, compared with the WADA limit of 800μg), it showed two things which are relevant, first a high of over 3000ng/ml in urine, and second the extreme sensitivity of urinary concentration to time. Taken together, they make determining the total dose taken from a single urine test look more like a coin toss than actual science.

•

GoatandTricycle in reply to @gbj_tester

Of course but if it's a jury they won't be specialists. I think you make valid point.

However, I haven't seen much that suggests the prosecuting side will struggle. Given the failure of other defence teams.
The elephant in the room is why haven't you tested positive before and why haven't there been more of these breaches if it's a coin toss.

It seems he has to prove himself innocent having given a adverse sample, that's far harder.

•

gbj_tester in reply to @GoatandTricycle

Of course but if it's a jury they won't be specialists

The jury in this case is likely to be CAS, so three expert arbitrators with knowledge of anti-doping regulation.

About

Avatar for GoatandTricycle @GoatandTricycle started