RBSC

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Blake and company plead guilty - Who can explain this?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Blake and company plead guilty - Who can explain this?

    http://www.trackalerts.com/?p=3054

    Blake and company plead guilty to banned stimulants


    Posted by admin on Sep 2nd, 2009 and filed under Featured 240 views Print This Post Email This Post



    Kenyatta Montgomery, TrackAlerts.com
    KINGSTON – Four Jamaican athletes, Yohan Blake, Marvin Anderson, Allodin Fothergill and Lansford Spence, are said to have admitted taking banned substances and are now awaiting sanctions from the Jamaica Appeals Tribunal.

    The Jamaica Anti-Doping Appeals Tribunal met on Wednesday, but while they freed Sheri-Ann Brooks, the fifth athlete implicated, they set aside September 14 to sanction the other four.

    The Honourable Justice Ransford Langrin, a retired judge of Jamaica’s Court of Appeal, who is the chairman of the Appeals Tribunal, said: "The athletes have agreed they took a banned substance."

    He said they are now left to make a decision on the sentence to be imposed.
    "We have to decide now what is the sanction we apply … and the minimum sanction is reprimand or up to two years of ineligibility," he said.
    "All four athletes were found with 4-Methyl-2-hexanamine in their urine samples, which was reported as an adverse analytical finding by the WADA accredited laboratory in Montreal, Canada," said a JADCO release last month.

    google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
    However, the Jamaica Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel chaired by Kent Gammon had cleared the athletes, saying: "The Disciplinary Panel unanimously was not persuaded to the standard of proof, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations made, that the prohibited substance … namely 4-Methyl-2-hexanamine, has that sufficient degree of nexus in terms of chemical or biological structure vis-a-vis Tuaminoheptane."

    But the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) appealed on the grounds that: "This substance is considered by WADA as being of similar chemical structure to tuaminoheptane which is listed as an example of a stimulant in the WADA 2009 prohibited list international standard."

    TrackAlerts.com learnt that the athletes admitted taking the banned substance to prevent enduring the drawn out case.
    They are now hoping the Appeals Tribunal will give them a slap on the wrist with a public warning.

    var addthis_pub = '';var addthis_language = 'en';var addthis_options = 'email, favorites, digg, delicious, myspace, google, facebook, reddit, live, more';

    TrackAlerts.com welcomes your thoughts and opinions. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, racist, abusive, and threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned and we will cooperate with authorities. Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. Comments posted here do not reflect the views of the management and staff of TrackAlerts.com. Click here for our full comment policy/agreement.

    Hmm, I what will happen when ut gets to WADA & the IAAF? Can they put aside the guilty pleas on the basis that the substance was not yet banned?
    Last edited by Karl; September 3, 2009, 08:19 AM.
    The same type of thinking that created a problem cannot be used to solve the problem.

  • #2
    Sticky, very sticky..I guess we'll have to wait and see. Personally, IF it was not intentional, I wouldn't admit..plea bargain or not...

    Comment


    • #3
      mmmm?
      Yet the context within which that admission was given is not included in the report.
      Why not?

      Is it, we knew the substance was not to be ingested yet we went ahead and ingested?

      ...or...

      We never knew the substance was on a banned list and therefore had reason to think it was not banned and that guided our actions?
      "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

      Comment


      • #4
        it might be relevant for your own information but it is largely irrelevant..."guilty with explanation" is not exculpatory...it is still guilty and very relevant if they become involved in a similar controversy in the future.

        Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas Paine

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Gamma View Post
          it might be relevant for your own information but it is largely irrelevant..."guilty with explanation" is not exculpatory...it is still guilty and very relevant if they become involved in a similar controversy in the future.
          Not relevant?

          I thought I heard the substance found was not on any banned list!
          "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

          Comment


          • #6
            ok....suh what dem pleading guilty to? consider that sherri ann was acquitted.....

            Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas Paine

            Comment


            • #7
              Maybe you heard wrong!

              Seems to be subject to interpretation. My layman understanding is that the specific drug was not on the list, but a drug with a similar chemical structure was on the list. I guess its kind of like a brand drug vs a generic drug?

              Anyway if they plead guilty, then clearly something not straight!
              "‎It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men" - Frederick Douglass

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Islandman View Post
                Maybe you heard wrong!

                Seems to be subject to interpretation. My layman understanding is that the specific drug was not on the list, but a drug with a similar chemical structure was on the list. I guess its kind of like a brand drug vs a generic drug?

                Anyway if they plead guilty, then clearly something not straight!
                I am not trusting the article. My question is as yours, pled guilty to what?
                "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                Comment


                • #9
                  To having an illegal substance in thier body.

                  Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for guilt, though it may be taken into consideration when deciding on the appropriate punishment.
                  "‎It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men" - Frederick Douglass

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Islandman View Post
                    To having an illegal substance in thier body.
                    Is that what they did?
                    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Correct.here's some clarity. According to WADA

                      ALL STIMULANTS ARE PROHIBITED.
                      The only exceptions are imidazole derivatives for topical use and those stimulantsincluded in the 2009 Monitoring Program* (caffeine is in this group).

                      Stalin like rule but due to the Gatlins and the Marions of the world, it's best way to combat drugs.

                      btw, the substance is not a PED, but is similar in structure to a masking agent used by Balco. That Franno did a talk bout.

                      If you need to know the substance in question, here http://www.musclespeed.net/. mi seh too much gone back a mi bed.
                      Karl commenting on Maschaeroni's sending off, "Getting sent off like that is anti-TEAM!
                      Terrible decision by the player!":busshead::Laugh&roll::Laugh&roll::eek::La ugh&roll:

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        what are they charged with and why is pleading guilty an option? you do not plead guilty to "nothing".

                        under no circumstances is a guilty plea a good thing...even if you have to work out guilty of what, what is the charge? testing positive for a banned substance? testing positive to PED? as i said it is irrelevant.....they have plead guilty to something dealing with those issues and it cannot be a good thing for them! consider it strike 1....how do you appeal a decision where you have, with the benefit of counsel pleaded guilty?

                        rememebr that minnesota congressman and the trucjstop restroom incident? he now looks like a fool trying to go back on his guilty plea...ask bruce about it!

                        Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas Paine

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          karl, i am presuming that they plead guilty of having the substance in their body and by extension guilty of taking the substance... whether it was taken to gain an advantage or to mask some other substance(s) is a separate matter...

                          they would have to plead guilty of taking the substance... how else would they explain it in their bodies...

                          i am presuming the sept 4 date is for the explanation to assist in determining intent...

                          what says ye counselor...
                          'to get what we've never had, we MUST do what we've never done'

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            "guilty with explanation" is still guilty. they may have classes of offences and the punishment accordingly...but it is a guilty PLEA not a finding of guilt so there really is not much else to explain.....it was accidental? ok. the records will show it was a guilty plea.

                            Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas Paine

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              gamma, i did not see your response... please see my post and give me your take...
                              'to get what we've never had, we MUST do what we've never done'

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X