Tom is confused

"Tom Kunich" wrote in message news:eIdnd.2490

OK Bill, since you've obviously seen the test results and since she
had been
tested just before and just after the positive test and the half life of
nandrolone in the human body is known you will be able to tell us the
maximum dosage that she could have taken to return the results that were
shown. And you'll also be able to judge the theraputic effect of that
dose.

Those stupid jerks on the Court of Arbitration would NEVER be able to
figure
something like that one out but luckily for us we have Ladien to give
us the
straight skinny.

-------

Tom,

Strict liability rules in the WADA code mean that the ONLY thing WADA
has to prove is that the substance is in an athlete's body above a
certain cutoff limit. They don't have to do any analysis like you state
and, as a matter of fact, they are not allowed to do any such analysis.

Second, your analysis is faulty. I could explain, but I don't feel like
it right now.

Third, the cutoff limits WERE designed to detect therapeutic usage.

Fourth, you are implying that Amber's test was administered to her when
her 19-norandrosterone level was at maximum concentration. It most
likely was not. What you are saying is that someone who tests .04 on a
BAC was NEVER higher (i.e. .10 or above). You can't say that, dodo bird.

The "stupid jerks" on the CAS are suppose to enforce the federation
rules (UCI). They are not allowed to change them. Amber was positive
under UCI rules. They did the right thing.

The CAS did make a mistake in Amber's case: it failed to enforce Article
151 and 152, which would have tacked an extra 3 months onto her 6 month
suspension. So they were stupid in that respect.

Would you prefer a CAS that makes up their own rules?

You are a bit confused about how the whole drug thing work, no?

Magilla