the silence is deafening


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

the silence is deafening

Postby lionelp1 » Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:02 pm

Wondered whether posters would be so quiet about Maggie Vessey's no banning decision and warning slap on the wrist, if the relatively harmless but banned skin care product substance had been by perhaps a Jamaican sprinter ( remember the toothache lady?)
The issue is not that she benefited or deliberately intended to cheat, but she made a "mistake" that she should have avoided as an athlete who knows that she is responaible for all that gets into her body; the American authorities have been strangely "forgiving" :o
lionelp1
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:48 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby gh » Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:21 pm

The difference in the Vessey case is in the class of drug. Has nothing to do with anybody being "forgiving"; you go by what the rules say. Diuretics and opiates are not in the same class.
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby gh » Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:24 pm

the Vessey penalty, by the way, will cost her a place in the yearly top 40 list, and will knock her down one spot in the U.S. Rankings because of what the loss of the Zagreb mark does to her win-loss record.
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby aaronk » Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:25 pm

Re: the title of this thread.....

Twas the night before Christmas
When all through the house
Not a creature was stirring....
Not even a mouse!!

:lol:
aaronk
 
Posts: 3333
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby Blues » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:21 pm

gh wrote:The difference in the Vessey case is in the class of drug. Has nothing to do with anybody being "forgiving"; you go by what the rules say. Diuretics and opiates are not in the same class.


Some additional information that's interesting... Maggie Vessey tested positive for the same drug metabolite (canrenone) that Hope Solo of the US women's soccer team tested positive for... Vessey said it was prescribed to her for a skin problem, and Solo said it was prescribed for PMS.. Canrenone is a major metabolite of spironolactone, which means that if you take spironolactone, it'll break down to canrenone in the body. I don't believe any medications in the USA contain canrenone as an ingredient, so the ladies must have taken spironolactone.

Although spironolactone is a potassium sparing diuretic (and as we know, diuretics are banned because they can dilute the urine and mask a drug test), it's prescribed to treat skin problems in women for one reason only, and that's because it also has anti-androgen properties and blocks the effects of androgens like testosterone... It's used to treat acne and unwanted facial/body hair in women IF the acne or facial/body hair are caused by excessive androgen/testosterone levels. The drug can lower testosterone levels, and is sometimes used in male to female transsexuals to lower testosterone levels to a range normally found in women.

Because of that, and even if both positive tests were innocent and inadvertent, SAFP's oxycodone positive may be the less serious of the two positives, since of the two substances, one (canrenone) could be used to treat certain adverse effects of excess testosterone and to lower testosterone levels, while the other (oxycodone) just masks pain.

I don't know how frequently spironolactone is used after a cycle of anabolic steroids, but the comment below is from the Evil Genius Sports Performance website, and bodybuilding sites also mention spironolactone's use as post-cycle therapy after a cycle of anabolic steroids:

"Spironolactone’s anti-androgen effects could make it applicable as an anti-masculinizing compound post androgen cycle for female athletes. The androgen/DHT blocking effects could help estrogen starved hair and skin regain some of the feminine qualities often lost with over use of AAS."

http://evilgsp.blogspot.com/2012/05/spironolactone.html

(I think I may have broken the record for most edits in a single T&FN post. Do I win anything? :wink: )
Last edited by Blues on Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:54 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Blues
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby Flumpy » Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:09 pm

I would guess the 'deafening silence' you allude to is because few of us knew anything about it.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby guru » Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:37 pm

Flumpy wrote:I would guess the 'deafening silence' you allude to is because few of us knew anything about it.



Indeed.

And, there might have been some other news that captured attention...
guru
 
Posts: 10265
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby Blues » Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:53 pm

I have to wonder why neither Hope Solo nor Maggie Vessey suspected that they may be taking a banned substance when they started taking these prescriptions. I would think their physicians explained to them what they were being prescribed and why... Whether the word "diuretic" came up in the discussion, or whether the idea of taking a drug to reduce their levels of testosterone or to block effects of testosterone came up, you'd think it would pique their curiosity regarding whether the substance might be a banned substance... And why not look up spironolactone on the WADA chart? It's there in bold print in the banned diuretics section... :?
Blues
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby Pego » Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:17 am

Blues wrote:I have to wonder why neither Hope Solo nor Maggie Vessey suspected that they may be taking a banned substance when they started taking these prescriptions.


I am one of the "doves" on the subject of doping around here, but these cases stink to a high heaven :evil: .
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby Mighty Favog » Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:43 am

My position on the subject is very boring. I figure that USADA's experts know all these things and more, and they've shown no mercy to either "big fish" or small. So if they say the violation only merits this punishment, then I'm guessing they probably know what they're doing. There could be something more sinister going on, but I'm going to let the experts worry about that instead of me.

Boring.
Mighty Favog
 
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby eldanielfire » Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:37 am

I just looked up Maggie Vessey........there are pictures where she looks very muscly compared to other 800m runners......I'm just saying.

The decision does stink by the way. She should have got even a minor ban for what she did.
eldanielfire
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:07 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby gh » Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:16 am

How "muscly" one looks is no reason for idle speculation. Please drop that kind of posting from your repertoire.
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby tandfman » Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:41 am

Mighty Favog wrote:My position on the subject is very boring. I figure that USADA's experts know all these things and more, and they've shown no mercy to either "big fish" or small. So if they say the violation only merits this punishment, then I'm guessing they probably know what they're doing. There could be something more sinister going on, but I'm going to let the experts worry about that instead of me.

A key fact could have been that she disclosed that she was taking this substance on the doping control form. That could have explained USADA's leniency in this case. Unfortunately, whether or not she listed that medication on her form is not made clear in the USADA press release.

http://www.usada.org/default.asp?uid=4134
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby Blues » Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:48 am

To be fair to female athletes who may have problems due to elevated testosterone, one thing we should keep in mind is that in some cases what helps athletes to be exceptional athletes is if they have naturally higher levels of testosterone. If, for example, Vessey and Solo have naturally higher levels of testosterone for some reason, those higher levels may not only increase their athletic ability without any cheating being involved, but they might also require them to seek medical care for some of the health or cosmetic problems that are associated with higher levels of testosterone in women.

I've dispensed prescriptions, including spironolactone, to various women over the years who have had health or cosmetic problems due to higher than normal testosterone levels, and none of them were athletes, so requiring a prescription for spironolactone to treat health problems due to elevated testosterone doesn't automatically suggest any unethical behavior by an athlete.

We should also keep in mind that the WADA allowable maximum level of testosterone for a woman is several times higher than the average normal woman's testosterone level, so women with higher natural testosterone levels could very well be within WADA's allowable limits but still face hormonal related health issues due to no fault of their own.
Blues
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby gh » Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:57 am

Note that Vessey plans on continuing to take the stuff, having applied for a "therapeutic exemption"
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby jeremyp » Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:24 am

It must be a drug that only kicks in after 1 minute and 30 seconds!
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4541
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby gh » Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:23 pm

i admit that I sometimes get confused about which alphabet-soup body has ultimate control over what, but I believe that USADA (or the ADA of any other nation) by no means has the ultimate say.

If the federation (for whatever sport is involved; in Vessey's case the IAAF) doesn't like the USADA decision—be it because it's too lenient, or too harsh—it can reject it. And should the ADA not like that, then I believe it ends up w/ CAS.

Point being that despite Lionel's not-so-subtle suggestions that USADA is soft on doping (tell that to Lance Armstrong!), they can't act unilaterally.

At least that's my understanding of the system.
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby guru » Sun Dec 23, 2012 4:52 pm

I'm pretty sure once a NGB becomes a signatory to WADA/USADA, they have no more say on matters related to doping positives
guru
 
Posts: 10265
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby eldanielfire » Sun Dec 23, 2012 4:53 pm

gh wrote:How "muscly" one looks is no reason for idle speculation. Please drop that kind of posting from your repertoire.



How can it be idle speculation for an athlete who has actually failed a doping test?

I understand why you come down on posts where there is cases of no evidence of illegial substances, but we are talking about an athlete who has had banned substances in her and I don't see why it is unfair to explore the topic.

What next? We are forced to buy into Marion Jones flaxseed oil excuse unless she comes out and says "I was bloody cheat and took anything that could help me win"?
eldanielfire
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:07 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby Blues » Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:26 pm

eldanielfire wrote:
gh wrote:How "muscly" one looks is no reason for idle speculation. Please drop that kind of posting from your repertoire.



How can it be idle speculation for an athlete who has actually failed a doping test?

I understand why you come down on posts where there is cases of no evidence of illegial substances, but we are talking about an athlete who has had banned substances in her and I don't see why it is unfair to explore the topic.

What next? We are forced to buy into Marion Jones flaxseed oil excuse unless she comes out and says "I was bloody cheat and took anything that could help me win"?


If Maggie Vessey by chance does have a naturally high testosterone level that caused her skin problem, and she had a valid prescription to treat it, then there's a good chance that she'd naturally look a little more "muscly" too.. The condition that caused the skin problem could have also caused increased musculature. She failed a doping test, but unlike Marion's story, all parts of Maggie Vessey's explanation seem to support one another, and the substance she tested positive for isn't a performance enhancer.. That doesn't necessarily mean her story has to be true, but it also doesn't suggest she most likely used PEDs since she failed a drug test for a spironolactone metabolite and she might look a little muscular.. If Maggie Vessey looks somewhat "muscly" it may increase suspicions, but by the same token it can also help support her explanation.
Blues
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby gh » Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:46 pm

I saw Ms. Vessey in high school a decade ago, and she was a "large woman"; casting stones at people because of what their genes gave them isn't acceptable. Sorry.
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby eldanielfire » Mon Dec 24, 2012 2:11 am

gh wrote:I saw Ms. Vessey in high school a decade ago, and she was a "large woman"; casting stones at people because of what their genes gave them isn't acceptable. Sorry.


Genes is debatable unless you have a tets for the specific muscle sizing variation it is only idle speculation she has good mucles due to genes, However gens or not nobody gets big muscles without hard work. What I'm discussing somebody who has tested positive for a banned substance she was perscribed but didn't from what I gather declare when she bloody well knows better. This is not idle speculation, nor is it idle speculation to accept or reject the statements of an athlete who has cheated when that is a fact.
eldanielfire
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:07 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby tandfman » Mon Dec 24, 2012 5:10 am

eldanielfire wrote: What I'm discussing somebody who has tested positive for a banned substance she was perscribed but didn't from what I gather declare when she bloody well knows better.

What makes you gather that she didn't declare it? I haven't seen any information on that point, one way or another.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby gh » Mon Dec 24, 2012 6:58 am

eldanielfire wrote: However gens or not nobody gets big muscles without hard work.....


That's just flat-out not true. The variations in human somatotypes can be vast.
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby eldanielfire » Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:45 am

tandfman wrote:
eldanielfire wrote: What I'm discussing somebody who has tested positive for a banned substance she was perscribed but didn't from what I gather declare when she bloody well knows better.

What makes you gather that she didn't declare it? I haven't seen any information on that point, one way or another.



Apologies if I got that bit wrong but I'm under the impression athletes when prescribed something new medically as Vessey was wait to get permission to use it. If she had I would be surprised if she wasn't told it was on the banned list prior to using it. Then she would have likley worked to get an exemption. However we know she didn't apply to get an exemption so it's more likely she wasn't interested in telling the USADA she was using it.

By the way I'm not flatout saying she was using it to cheat, however it's perfectly as valid at this point to infere form the facts that she either did or didn't pending how you see it.
eldanielfire
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:07 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby tandfman » Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:35 am

eldanielfire wrote:Apologies if I got that bit wrong but I'm under the impression athletes when prescribed something new medically as Vessey was wait to get permission to use it. If she had I would be surprised if she wasn't told it was on the banned list prior to using it. Then she would have likley worked to get an exemption. However we know she didn't apply to get an exemption so it's more likely she wasn't interested in telling the USADA she was using it.

If she truly had no idea that the medicine that she was taking for a skin condition had a diuretic that would make her test positive, she wouldn't have thought to apply for an exemption. (Of course she should have checked to see what was in it, but she obviously didn't.) But that has nothing to do with what she declared on her doping control form. For one thing, that form was not a USADA form--the test was conducted at a competition in a foreign country presumably using the IAAF form. Moreover, athletes know they are supposed to declare everything that they are taking, including such innocent things as aspirin, on their doping control form. So it is entirely possible that even though she didn't apply for an exemption (because she didn't think she needed one), she still declared it on her doping control form (because the form clearly tells you to delcare everything you've taken in the last 7 days, including non-prescription drugs and even vitamins and minerals).
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby Blues » Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:50 am

eldanielfire wrote:
gh wrote:I saw Ms. Vessey in high school a decade ago, and she was a "large woman"; casting stones at people because of what their genes gave them isn't acceptable. Sorry.


Genes is debatable unless you have a tets for the specific muscle sizing variation it is only idle speculation she has good mucles due to genes, However gens or not nobody gets big muscles without hard work. What I'm discussing somebody who has tested positive for a banned substance she was perscribed but didn't from what I gather declare when she bloody well knows better. This is not idle speculation, nor is it idle speculation to accept or reject the statements of an athlete who has cheated when that is a fact.


I agree that the stories of both Maggie and Hope Solo could appear to be suspicious to some of us, considering the various uses of spironolactone when it comes to masking drug tests, lowering testosterone levels, and reversing some of the masculinizing effects of testosterone, and considering that they didn't have a TUE. That doesn't mean their explanations aren't true though. As far as using any "muscly" appearance of Maggie Vessie as evidence, if you compare her muscle definition to most of the top 10 world 800 meter runners, she'd probably be in the lower half as far as muscularity or muscle definition goes... Other than a few of the Russians, a fair portion of the others seem to have more definition, even if a few like the Kenyan runners are naturally thinner than Maggie.

In support of what gh posted regarding seeing Maggie in high school, this is a photo of Maggie Vessey from 2003, at age 21 competing for Cal Poly... She doesn't seem much thicker now than she seemed way back then, if she seems thicker at all:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wR6799k362E/T ... Vessey.jpg
Blues
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby gh » Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:17 pm

Blues wrote:;;;;
I agree that the stories of both Maggie and Hope Solo could appear to be suspicious to some of us, considering the various uses of spironolactone w..


you mean the half-dozen of you on the planet who have heard of it before? :mrgreen:
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby Pego » Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:47 pm

gh wrote:
Blues wrote:;;;;
I agree that the stories of both Maggie and Hope Solo could appear to be suspicious to some of us, considering the various uses of spironolactone w..


you mean the half-dozen of you on the planet who have heard of it before? :mrgreen:


I will admit that I never knew of its anti-androgenic effects before. Potassium preserving diuretic was the only practical indication I knew.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby JumboElliott » Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:04 pm

Corticosteroids are one of those things that simply shouldn't be banned. "Therapeutic use exemptions" are a load of bunk if you ask me.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby Flumpy » Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:42 am

USATF's ruling won't stand though, will it?

Surely the IAAF/WADA will slap her with 6 month ban.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby gh » Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:54 am

This wasn't a USATF decision; it was USADA's. USATF not part of the process.

IAAF can reject the USADA finding if it wants.

Of course, at this point, she's already 4 months through any 6-month ban should that be applied.
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby Flumpy » Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:51 pm

That's what I meant. I can't see IAAF going along with it whoever made the decision.

Obviously it won't make any difference but a ban should be on her record.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby Blues » Tue Dec 25, 2012 4:47 pm

JumboElliott wrote:Corticosteroids are one of those things that simply shouldn't be banned. "Therapeutic use exemptions" are a load of bunk if you ask me.


Why do you feel that a ban on corticosteroids is unwarranted?

I'm not sure I agree that they should always be permitted, especially since they're only banned in-competition, and since many common uses aren't banned, like inhaled use for asthma or nasal allergies or injection into inflamed joints. Certain corticosteroids like prednisone and prednisolone have very short half lives and could probably be cleared from the body if an athlete tapers off as late as a day or two before competition too. (That's not the case for corticosteroids that have much longer half lives, like methylprednisolone and dexamethasone, which would probably remain detectable for a few days or longer after the last dose).

Corticosteroids can sometimes cause a feeling of euphoria in an athlete, and can also mask the pain of certain injuries to the point that more severe or permanent injury could occur because an athlete isn't aware of the increased damage that's occurring during competition, so I can at least understand some of the logic behind banning their use in-competition. If it makes anyone feel any better, thoroughbred race horses have to do without their corticosteroids on race day too.
Blues
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby 26mi235 » Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:44 pm

[quote="eldanielfire"
Apologies if I got that bit wrong but I'm under the impression athletes when prescribed something new medically as Vessey was wait to get permission to use it. If she had I would be surprised if she wasn't told it was on the banned list prior to using it. Then she would have likley worked to get an exemption. However we know she didn't apply to get an exemption so it's more likely she wasn't interested in telling the USADA she was using it.

By the way I'm not flatout saying she was using it to cheat, however it's perfectly as valid at this point to infer[] form the facts that she either did or didn't pending how you see it.[/quote]

She had listed it, according to a post early on [did not seek a TUE at the time but will now]. Doesn't that completely torpedo your speculation?
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby Blues » Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:02 pm

26mi235 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:Apologies if I got that bit wrong but I'm under the impression athletes when prescribed something new medically as Vessey was wait to get permission to use it. If she had I would be surprised if she wasn't told it was on the banned list prior to using it. Then she would have likley worked to get an exemption. However we know she didn't apply to get an exemption so it's more likely she wasn't interested in telling the USADA she was using it.

By the way I'm not flatout saying she was using it to cheat, however it's perfectly as valid at this point to infer[] form the facts that she either did or didn't pending how you see it.


She had listed it, according to a post early on [did not seek a TUE at the time but will now]. Doesn't that completely torpedo your speculation?


Maybe I missed it, but I tried to find where it was stated that she declared the banned substance (in advance of testing positive), but I wasn't able to.. Which post or article stated that she declared it?... This is all I've found, and it doesn't mention anything about declaring the drug in advance:

“I took a prescription skincare product that was prescribed to me by my family practitioner, that I did not know contained a diuretic,” Vessey said in a statement provided by USADA. “As soon as I was notified of my positive test, I cooperated with USADA and provided them everything they asked for in order to demonstrate that I made an honest mistake, and that the medication did not enhance my performance in any way... I have since applied for a Therapeutic Use Exemption for this medication. I share in USADA's belief in clean sport and look forward to the upcoming track season."
Blues
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby 26mi235 » Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:53 pm

I was referring to this post, which I said was the basis of my comment and, like you, I do not find it indicating that she listed it on a doping control form (although it does not say that she did not, either-but it seems that it would have said so...):

"A key fact could have been that she disclosed that she was taking this substance on the doping control form. That could have explained USADA's leniency in this case. Unfortunately, whether or not she listed that medication on her form is not made clear in the USADA press release.


http://www.usada.org/default.asp?uid=4134
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby eldanielfire » Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:20 am

26mi235 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:Apologies if I got that bit wrong but I'm under the impression athletes when prescribed something new medically as Vessey was wait to get permission to use it. If she had I would be surprised if she wasn't told it was on the banned list prior to using it. Then she would have likley worked to get an exemption. However we know she didn't apply to get an exemption so it's more likely she wasn't interested in telling the USADA she was using it.

By the way I'm not flatout saying she was using it to cheat, however it's perfectly as valid at this point to infer[] form the facts that she either did or didn't pending how you see it.


She had listed it, according to a post early on [did not seek a TUE at the time but will now]. Doesn't that completely torpedo your speculation?


If she had, fair enough the evidence would then weight towards a mistake. However the post I think you refer to only mention that she could have listed it hence the light sanction, but we don't know if this happened, not that she actually had listed it. Unless that is I missed something.
eldanielfire
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:07 am

Re: the silence is deafening

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:23 am

eldanielfire wrote:
If she had, fair enough the evidence would then weight towards a mistake. However the post I think you refer to only mention that she could have listed it hence the light sanction, but we don't know if this happened, not that she actually had listed it. Unless that is I missed something.


Yes; I had written my statement that (explicitly) assumed that the prior post was correct and clear, which it is not (to an unknown extent). That makes the transgression murkier.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AS and 12 guests