It wasn't the fact that it was "positive for the stimulant," rather, the stimulant they said he tested positive for was illegal - when in fact - the stimulant, whatever it was, was NOT illegal, or "on the banned substance list."
I think that's how I interpreted the article, anyway?
That whatever they said he tested positive for was not actually a banned stimulant/substance.
Apologies if I'm wrong on this...
I think that's how I interpreted the article, anyway?
That whatever they said he tested positive for was not actually a banned stimulant/substance.
Apologies if I'm wrong on this...
Comment