Hello,

To be precise K White tested positive for a banned drug and admitted using other banned drugs, so no paper trail is involved. As to your question though I say yes if beyond a reasonable doubt exists that it happened then ban them. The rule is or should be no perfromance enhancing drugs, not testing positive. Drug tests are only one way of proving it. I'll even go further. One pro cyclist had a banned drug in his possession that he bought on the black market. He was caught with it and banned, but subsequent testing sowed it was a fake and he actually bought saline solution so the ban was overturned. As far as I'm concerned he tried to cheat so the ban should have stuck.



Styrrell

---

Styrrell

Is it possible that someone could be banned for using a product that is LATER determined to be a PED, but was not at the time a test was administered? I realize we are in an arms-race situation with the labs trying to keep up with the dopers, but I have a real problem with a system that comes in and identifies substances as PED's and issues bans after the fact. Please tell me I have this wrong.

In the US we condemn people to death/life imprisonment without conclusive physical evidence all the time. Heck, the tests themselves are fallible, so I see no magic in requiring a positive test as the sole criterion to ban someone for doping.

Paul

sorry - my mistake. it's actually tim montgomery and chrystie gaines who have been banned; kelli white was the one who implicated them.

-mike

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Hello,

The list of banned substances contains both specific compounds ie hexametacyclospeedostuff and classes of compounds such as anabolic steroids. So yes a specific steroid such as THG could cause you to be banned even though it didin't exist a week ago. In the case of Balco the athletes knowingly were buying this stuff from a non accredited lab under code names and with instructions on how to beat tests, so I wouldn't worry too much about the fairness. As to whether or not you could be banned for eating hugh quantities of some starange plant that grows in your backyard, i doubt that this would happen. At the very least if you prove that thats how something got into your system then I suspect you would not be banned.



Styrrell

---

Styrrell

Two year ban is crap - why aren't people who cheat and ultimately steal the glory and money from those who play by the rules put in jail? Seriously, how is this morally different than what Martha Stewart did? In fact, I think it's much worse. Now if they would toss Marion "Cheater" Jones in the pokey then I would be much happier.

If these sorts of actions were treated like the criminal behavior they are, then maybe we'd get somewhere. 2 year ban? Big friggen deal.

BAN EM!

Evidence is evidence.

Uh, it's not a criminal offense.

In some countries it is a criminal offense. In the US I colud see arresting someone for fraud. Say you win the NY marathon and then test positive for drugs. You won 100K fraudulently. Even if you give the money back how is that differnet than claiming a 100K lottery prize with a fake ticket or kiting a Check?



Styrrell

---

Styrrell

[reply]Uh, it's not a criminal offense.[/reply]

I know. I said it should be. If cheating on your income taxes or on the purchase of stocks is criminal, then explain to me why cheating as a professional athlete and taking prize and appearance money from clean athletes is not criminal.

[reply]Two year ban is crap - why aren't people who cheat and ultimately steal the glory and money from those who play by the rules put in jail? Seriously, how is this morally different than what Martha Stewart did? In fact, I think it's much worse. Now if they would toss Marion "Cheater" Jones in the pokey then I would be much happier.

If these sorts of actions were treated like the criminal behavior they are, then maybe we'd get somewhere. 2 year ban? Big friggen deal.[/reply]

Morality does not equal legality.

[reply]

Morality does not equal legality.[/reply]

I know..... forget it...

what do you think - should we be able to ban athletes based on 'paper trails,' or should blood/urine tests be the only measure?

Absolutely. I think the athletes have been one step ahead for too long, this may even the playing field a bit. I haven't heard much in response from either athlete, which is odd, since we usually hear how they will stop at nothing to find who is responsible, you know, because of their friends and families. I wonder if this means they think they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar and will go away quietly.

I also think this may mean the end of Marion Jones. She likely will try to keep a low profile and blame it on how upset she is that someone framed her innocent man. She must be holding her breath and hoping this all goes away.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

In Italy it is a criminal offense. Hence the Italian authorties and the IOC have worked out a compromise for the upcoming winter olympics in case some olympian(s) test positive. It is a jail offense to use PEDS there.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I actually think it is bullshit that you can be banned based upon he said she said. The mere fact that he told someone he was on the clear means he could have been lying joking, or could not have. IMO, it falls rather short of an admission and it is not a positive test.

I could say, Faris told me he was on the new and improved clear for IMH. That is the basis of Tim's suspension. A possible rumor and NO positive test. I think CAS f*cked up again. CAS lets positives go on technalities and someone with no positive gets banned on he said she said.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that there were several documents that linked TM to doping. If that's true, then it comes down to the credibility of the documents. Many cases, especially financial ones, are prosecuted almost solely on documents, and the outcome typically hinges on whether they are legit. Not sure how, or if, that applies to TM, but I'm not as bothered by not having a drug test. In fact, given the problems with testing, I believe that a paper trail me be the best way.