Likes Likes:  338
Dislikes Dislikes:  10
Page 282 of 285 FirstFirst ... 182232272280281282283284 ... LastLast
Results 2,811 to 2,820 of 2841

Thread: The Sanctions Thread

  1. #2811
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Erdman View Post
    I'm confused here. Are the US and IWF agreeing to leave all sanctioning up to national bodies? What is this saying?
    My read of this was, "We're not changing, WE will decide when a federation is going to be suspended. Not some sort of non-weightlifting commission."

  2. #2812
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    175
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by b_degennaro View Post
    I would agree. If a minor is involved I think there needs to be an investigation into the coaches and other athletes around her. The dumb thing to me is the step-father just throwing his hands into the air and not assisting the CAS in this. If it was proven that she was unwittingly taking Dbol and turinobol because the coach/whoever was giving it to her she would have likely gotten a reduced sanction, then the coach would have ended up with the larger sanction.
    If I'm reading it correctly, the evidentiary section of the arbitration implies that the family of the athlete paid for a third-party lab to test the athlete's urine. So they didn't just throw their hands in the air.

    Interesting case though. I don't disagree with the point you made. If I was the father I'd do whatever was needed to help the authorities determine who had put powerful drugs into my child.

  3. #2813
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    175
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Erdman View Post
    I'm confused here. Are the US and IWF agreeing to leave all sanctioning up to national bodies? What is this saying?
    Last year the IWF created the Independent Member Federations Sanctions Panel (IMSPF) which imposes sanctions on national federations who exceed the thresholds for Anti-doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) at international level competitive events. For a recent example of the IMSPF in action, it issued the ban that that will prevent Egypt from competing internationally for the next two years.

    There is a faction within the IWF Executive Board led by the IWF Secretary General Mohamed Jalood that believes that Tamás Aján has the power to influence members of the IMSPF and that he has threatened to use that influence to impose heavy sanctions on member federations that oppose him politically. This faction wants to disband the IMSPF and return the sanctioning power to the Executive Board. However seven members of the Executive Board belong to national federations that have been sanctioned or are facing sanctions, so there are significant concerns that this would create a powerful conflict of interest for those Executive Board members.

    The USA and other federations have proposed to resolve the issue by moving responsibility for sanctioning decisions away from both the IMSFP and the IWF Executive Board and placing it into the hands of the International Testing Agency (ITA) since the ITA is independent from the IWF, is responsible for handing all other aspects of anti-doping for the sport of Weightlifting, and is run under the authority and oversight of the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

    In his recent letter, Tamás Aján has endorsed the proposals to move the sanctioning power away from the Executive Board. But instead of the ITA, he wants to place it under the control of Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration in Sport (CAS).


    P.S. Please correct me if I have any of the details wrong.
    Last edited by Cleddau; 12-01-2019 at 06:00 PM.

  4. Likes Blairbob, Matt Erdman liked this post
  5. #2814
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,872
    Post Thanks / Like
    With this further outsourcing I can only imagine how the time until a sanction is finalized increases even more.

    We're now at 12 months for the two Colombians, one Kazakh is even older.

    Partially related, the WADA testing figures for 2018 are still not on the horizon.

  6. #2815
    Member Blairbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,219
    Post Thanks / Like
    If I'm reading it correctly, the evidentiary section of the arbitration implies that the family of the athlete paid for a third-party lab to test the athlete's urine. So they didn't just throw their hands in the air.
    No, Quest Diagnostic Labs in LA did the testing on behalf of Kiara as it was her sample.

    Her and her stepdad didn't prepare for their hearings or case at all, and at some point their lawyer asked to be removed. Then dad said what he said.

    Note that she told whoever during the drug testing that she had been taking Cissus. Which is sometimes in some Test Booster supplements. So possible cross contamination.

    It still doesn't explain the long metabolites of Tbol that were found. So perhaps another supplement or of course, Tbol. Can't find any social media of hers or her stepfather and it's likely been shutdown by now.

    Dbol and Tbol to do 165@63 doesn't make sense since she was talking about getting her USAW L1.

  7. #2816
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    175
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Blairbob View Post
    No, Quest Diagnostic Labs in LA did the testing on behalf of Kiara as it was her sample.
    I don't think that's correct. How else can you read this sentence in the arbitration: (page 4)

    "Dr. Fedoruk commented on testing done by Quest Diagnostic Laboratories on behalf of Ms. Akuna that resulted in findings of negativity due to the absence of anabolic steroids and masking agents."

    This sentence relates to an evidentiary hearing that her step-father attended, and implies that Quest had been engaged to do further testing (which was negative). The USADA representatives then explain why the negative test generated by Quest doesn't contradict the results of the earlier USADA tests.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blairbob View Post
    Her and her stepdad didn't prepare for their hearings or case at all, and at some point their lawyer asked to be removed. Then dad said what he said.
    The step-Dad (John Ferguson) was present at the evidentiary hearing on 8 October 2019. The lawyer (Doug Rownsley) ceased withdrew on August 19, 2019.

  8. #2817
    Member Blairbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,219
    Post Thanks / Like
    I missed the hearing on Oct 8.

    I do recall something in there where the USADA scientist was disagreeing that Quest maybe could detect some of the metabolite durations or levels. I'd have to go through it again.

  9. #2818
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    273
    Post Thanks / Like
    Maybe she wanted something else with a shorter detection time and they gave her something else, for example, she wanted anavar but got something else

  10. Likes Blairbob liked this post
  11. #2819
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    819
    Post Thanks / Like
    I would like to think that a 17 year old girl is not out searching for her own drugs.

  12. Likes Blairbob liked this post
  13. #2820
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    636
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by b_degennaro View Post
    I would like to think that a 17 year old girl is not out searching for her own drugs.
    I would like to think a lot of things and quite often find myself disappointed.

    Not saying anything about this case in particular, I haven't bothered to read anything about it.

  14. Likes Blairbob liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •