I looked at the judgement against Sinner during Wimbledon. I thought they were extremely soft on him. The wording I remember is them saying he is responsible for his entourage not that he was guilty of consuming drugs.
I also read something about his masseur being extremely professional and questioned whether he would use non approved products. Was the masseur thrown under the bus to protect Sinner? Who knows.
Imo decisions like the Sinner case just make it comical. That he is guilty, yet his ban was basically in between majors so that he misses nothing of significance? So cases like that or the what athlete was trying to excuse a positive test based on kissing someone (I donāt remember the actual outcome), is just likeā¦cringe. But again if you can get off because your circumstances essentially creates a āfall guyā, more power to the athlete, that system has allowed this pathway for 10 years now. I just think itās only going to get more and more abused imo (as I said, I had no idea this was even a pathway for 10 years now, it only seems like recently cases are over the last few years have been accepted of this no fault reasoning).
My question is going to be if an athlete in ISās situation gets *fully cleared, what is the official stance from ST within the forum rules. Obviously what someone can say publicly and what you say private may be different (human nature), but if she is cleared, does the āpositiveā result just go away never to be mentioned again?
Disagree. She failed a test and judgement was already handed down. We are now in the appeals process, that is post verdict, not pre-verdict. This is her chance to sway the judge on the sentence that is handed down for her failed test. They may in fact give her a no-fault suspension which is effectively the same as a judge giving time served but that in no way absolves her of the failed test nor does it absolve her of having an admitted doper in her inner circle.
Watch out, you are going to give Ajax Bay a nervous breakdown with those unbiased logical statements 
A provisional suspension is more like the administrative suspension that happens when somebody blows over the legal limit while driving. Still does not mean they will be convicted of the offense. She hasnāt been provisionally suspended for four years ā sheās been suspended pending either acceptance (effectively a plea deal) or hearing outcome (effectively a trial).
@BDoughtie you can always say that she failed a test or had an adverse analytical finding. āDoperā might be a bridge too far, depending on how a decision gets written.
technically she can race
Sorry but I disagree in this case. She is not contesting the validity of the test, if she were Iād agree with you. She has however, accepted the test results and contested a suspension on the grounds that her doping inner circle got their dope to close to her. What she is providing are mitigating circumstances as they relate to sentencing. So in that case weāve moved past guilty or not and moved onto degrees of guilt. Personally if she is telling the truth about the BF her degree of guilt is far lower than a CC for example and would warrant a much more lenient sentence maybe even time served (no-fault). But Iād also say she should be tested as naseum and any further failures would be a lifetime ban.
SO 3 tests in 4 weeks is not āad nauseamā??
I thought it was more accurately providing circumstances that showcase why she had the positive test to begin with (the whole reason the no fault / unknowingly pathway is there). She can still just as easily get fully cleared of any wrong doing as she can be convicted of ādopingā. So donāt actually think weāve move past guilt or not as of yet based on the information from people who are giving information on the āprocessā. (which then makes it seem like they are trying to showcase/prove her innocence, but I take it more they are just showcasing this is where we are in the process)
People and equivocate all they want but for all intents and purposes, when you fail a drug test that was properly administered you are GUILTY of doping. Saying you can try and prove it was inadvertent is a distinction without a difference.
Incorrect. If the PTBās say this positive test is cleared because of the no fault / unkowningly pathway, you as an athlete are āCLEAREDā. You, me others may say behind the scenes sheās guilty as hell or whatever, but by the sportās governing body your not in fact guilty of dopingā¦IF sheās cleared with the final ruling. We can all say sheās a doper because of the failed test, but if the sportās governing body fully clears her, to the sporting world- she is cleared. (And thatās where you would have to be careful when talking about a ādoperā who was fully cleared, within a forum like this etcā¦in private we can all say whatever we really think/fell, but if the sport clears herā¦sheās cleared, whether we agree with the decision or not).
Again there is still a lot to be determined, but this idea that she is now only arguing the penalty phase I donāt think is accurate. She very well could be completely cleared of any wrong doing, just as well as she could not be cleared and set with a number of different penalties.
Yeah but we arenāt there yet, so she is currently guilty. Saying she is āprovisionally guiltyā is irrelevant, she is banned from racing.
One of the thing all athletes are educated and trained on is the need to maintain a clean environment. She admittedly failed to do so by having an admitted doper living with her. That would be like an employee of the SEC living with Bernie Madoff. She may not have doped intentionally but she is not clean now because of her own decisions.
This thread started as a fun discussion about Doping via Penis and ended up boring and all about semantics and really a bit pointless (to me anyway).
Craving some news on the subject of Imo Simmondsā¦
This is a nonsense position as you are juxtaposing the legal concept of guilt and innocence without respect to the legal process. Youāre diminishing the legitimacy of the best deterrent we have against drug cheating. If all you want street is justice, by all means carry on with this āguilty of being a doper,ā nonsense without respect for the process.
Just like every other interesting topic. Itās eventually beaten to death and turns into a discussion about minutiae.
I missed the part where he admitted to her he was doping before these tests???
You want the penis to be reintroduced?
Just go look at the Bike Racing thread; for the past few days itās been about rock guitarists. 