View Single Post
Old 11-23-2012, 07:58 PM
The Gambler1981
Undisputed Champion
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Detroit
Age: 33
Posts: 20,560
Rep Power: 55 The Gambler1981 has a reputation beyond reputeThe Gambler1981 has a reputation beyond reputeThe Gambler1981 has a reputation beyond reputeThe Gambler1981 has a reputation beyond reputeThe Gambler1981 has a reputation beyond reputeThe Gambler1981 has a reputation beyond reputeThe Gambler1981 has a reputation beyond reputeThe Gambler1981 has a reputation beyond reputeThe Gambler1981 has a reputation beyond reputeThe Gambler1981 has a reputation beyond reputeThe Gambler1981 has a reputation beyond repute
Points: 10,600,125,262.41
Bank: 6,565,850,663,413.98
Total Points: 6,576,450,788,676.39
respect. - mellow_mood you deserve a metal for defending the woman beater, lol, nyahahaha - Tha_Greatest always a good poster. have a beer. - jreckoning \m/ - Kenny MF Powers thanks brother - mrpain81 
great easy logical advice you gave for others on the thunderdome for trolls like me, lol, everything you stated i have stated to many people but few people would take mind of what you wrote, lol, excellent post, plain  logic to keep your composure fo - Tha_Greatest No Message - mathed thatll be 5$ - sugarsmosley 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeroBando View Post
It wouldn't be a false positive, it'd still be a positive with some extenuating circumstances. I don't know why WADA allowed it then, they said it was gonna be a case by case decision. The commission perhaps would have taken this into consideration, if they'd been not been misinformed about the existence of the B sample.

You said: "Drug testers only jobs are to test for drugs and disclose the results anything that compromises that is a big deal". USADA already compromised on this by failing to disclose the results in a timely manner, and also by taking it upon themselves to excuse the dirty test. Them giving this waiver = conflict of interest.
The commission should not have needed to wait for b sample they had 2 test fails, it wasn't 1 it was 2 more than a week apart. The commission was looking for a reason to look the other way.

They should have reported it and have their reasoning documented, but 1) they can still do that 2) if they were not going to do anything about it and grant a waver why would they make a big deal about it if they though the results were inline with contamination. Also that is a failing not a compromise and I already said this was their first high profile thing that happened so with the nature of boxing and it's fractured structure (commissions need to make sure they are in the loop that is on them) it doesn't surprise me that issue came up. They need to get better and do a better job but that is all this says to me.

Them granting a waver doesn't equal that~ and yes that would be a false positive because the chemicals appeared but not for the reasons they were looking for.
Reply With Quote
The Gambler1981 is offline
Advertisements
>>>TO REMOVE THESE ADS, PLEASE REGISTER HERE FOR FREE<<<