Anti-Doping Rule Violation: Tyronne White

[ratherberidin']

At least it's not another "the pharmacist spiked my drink" story.

[Barend de Arend]

My hypothetical question was specifically: IF the meds were wrong.....

 

If the meds were right, can the doc sue for bringing his name in disrepute?

 

If the meds were right, and did not contain a banned substance?

If the meds were right, contained a banned substance, but the cyclist was correctly informed?

[Patchelicious]

If the meds were right, can the doc sue for bringing his name in disrepute?  If he suffered losses, I am sure he could.

 

If the meds were right, and did not contain a banned substance? Then whoopsie on the athletes part.

If the meds were right, contained a banned substance, but the cyclist was correctly informed? The same as the above.

All good points again, its nice engaging somebody like you.

[RocknRolla]

Did I miss where it was stated that it was indeed a doctor, or a paramedic that administered the drugs (pun intended)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shaper]

When is he appealing and presenting his evidence?.... If he is going to?

[Patchelicious]

Did I miss where it was stated that it was indeed a doctor, or a paramedic that administered the drugs (pun intended)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No you didn't miss anything.

 

There was diferent conversations going on about general statements.

[fandacious]

When is he appealing and presenting his evidence?.... If he is going to?

 

my limited understanding is that that has already happened. the process is something like this

 

- athlete gets notified of adverse finding

- athlete gets opportunity to present his side, lawyers, etc

- once all hearings have been had, a decision is made

- if decision is that adverse finding stays, then press release is issued

 

so all these clowns who bleat about how it was a mistake have already tried to convince the powers that be, and they didnt buy it. So their next best bet is to make the public think they are being unfairly done in

[Patchelicious]

my limited understanding is that that has already happened. the process is something like this

 

- athlete gets notified of adverse finding

- athlete gets opportunity to present his side, lawyers, etc

- once all hearings have been had, a decision is made

- if decision is that adverse finding stays, then press release is issued

 

so all these clowns who bleat about how it was a mistake have already tried to convince the powers that be, and they didnt buy it. So their next best bet is to make the public think they are being unfairly done in

The appeal has not taken place yet. It does not form part of the initial tribunal.

[RocknRolla]

No you didn't miss anything.

 

There was diferent conversations going on about general statements.

Ty's whole argument is basically a house of cards.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fandacious]

The appeal has not taken place yet. It does not form part of the initial tribunal.

sure, but there is a hearing as part of the initial tribunal and i'm guessing this info would have been presented?

 

unless there is some new info which has come to light

[Patchelicious]

Ty's whole argument is basically a house of cards.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My questions have nothing to do with Ty's case. His case merely sparked my questions. My discussion has rather been about potential mistakes/gaps in the medical tents in a general discussion.

 

Not sure why it's so difficult to have conceptual discussions.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Patchelicious

[fandacious]

The appeal has not taken place yet. It does not form part of the initial tribunal.

 

just to clarify - hearing != appeal

[NotSoBigBen]

My questions have nothing to do with Ty's case. His case merely sparked my questions. My discussion has rather been about potential mistakes/gaps in the medical tents in a general discussion.

 

Not sure why it's so difficult to have conceptual discussions.

Because people would have to think ????

[Skubarra]

Ty's whole argument is basically a house of cards.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not sure I agree - sounds like a story that can be verified (or not) by the medic/doctor that treated him.

 

Anyone knows why he got a 6 months reduction on his ban and not the full 2 years?

[Escapee..]

My questions have nothing to do with Ty's case. His case merely sparked my questions. My discussion has rather been about potential mistakes/gaps in the medical tents in a general discussion.

 

Not sure why it's so difficult to have conceptual discussions.

 

At sani2c I dehydrated on Day2, got some fluids pumped into me that evening and one or two injections.

 

They didnt really tell me what they gave me, should I have asked?

I just wanted to feel better and get on with finishing.

[fandacious]

At sani2c I dehydrated on Day2, got some fluids pumped into me that evening and one or two injections.

 

They didnt really tell me what they gave me, should I have asked?

I just wanted to feel better and get on with finishing.

 

yes, you should have asked - what if you were allergic and died?

 

Also, I'm not sure if no-needles is a UCI policy or a WADA policy.