Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Maple Leafs
So just so we're all on the same page... we all agree that "I never failed a test" is an iron-clad defense, but even when atheletes fail drug tests, that's still not going to be enough for us? We're just going to decide the tests are faulty and the athelete must still be clean, as long as they say so?
Well, except for Barry Bonds and funny looking Europeans. Everyone else is OK?
|
Well I don't know about Iron clad, but I'm willing to wait before piling further condemnation on the guy until all of the results are in.
Sample B will likely show what sample A did. That is it will simply confirm the initial test. The deal is that the first test, the one indicating an abnormal ration of testosterone and epitestosterone, as I understand it, isn't entirely damning in itself. It essentially kickstarts an investigation. Namely, a second test that will determine if pharmaceutical testosterone compounds are present. If the samples contain man-made hormones, then his goose is cooked. If not, then he may have a legitimate case for appeal. Although the appeal road might also be tough for him because while the test can yield false positives, it usually only does so in people with a history of test yielding "unusual" T/E ratios.