The whole reason they test for long term metabolites is because they are evidence of taking performance enhancing drugs. If they didn't point to a drug they wouldn't test for it. The reason they are so low is because they slowly leave the body over time, they don't just disappear after x days or hours.
because a failed test proves he had illegal substances in his body which is against the rules .
Two minus whatever reduction you get for cooperation
I feel like you’re not making an argument about this specific case
Different case
um, yeah, that's kinda the point. they can't prove there was any reingestion since his prior suspension. so they can't prove he received any performance enhancing benefits since his suspension.
This case isn't special except for the fact that for the first time ever USADA is making excuses for an athlete instead of following procedures and having a hearing where the athlete lays out a defense for mitigating circumstances to reduce punishment.
No the case is different because it’s not about whether or not he’s taken t-boo, it’s about whether he’s still taking t-bol
It's isn't USADAs job to prove reingestion, it's Jones' job to prove he didn't....at least that's how it supposed to work and has always worked for every other athlete ever tested.
what did barnett fail for and was there any argument that it wasn't the result of reingestion?
Pretty sure they are just trolling tbh, that or just really dumb.
So you don't know what is and isn't low like I thought. When they actually release what other drug users that have failed those tests levels were, then we'll know for sure. But just the fact that it can be "low" then go down 1/4th that amount and still be considered "low" for both suggests they're being dishonest about what is and isn't "low".
....Andy Foster?
and why are they all being dishonest? how are you determining that they aren't all considered low trace amounts and they are being dishonest? it's a ridiculous conclusion. the original arbitration agreement called the levels then (20-80 picograms) extremely low - so how can lower levels not also be extremely low, and how can that call into question whether 20-80 was extremely low? you simply don't like it....
most people aren't saying it's indisputable that he didn't do it.
