Tweet
VICE: How Mamadou Sakho Fell Victim To Drug Testing’s Gray Areas. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwx5-bujk
-
THERE IS ONLY ONE ONANDI LOWE!
"Good things come out of the garrisons" after his daughter won the 100m Gold For Jamaica.
"It therefore is useless and pointless, unless it is for share malice and victimisation to arrest and charge a 92-year-old man for such a simple offence. There is nothing morally wrong with this man smoking a spliff; the only thing wrong is that it is still on the law books," said Chevannes. -
You need a really big-name athlete like a Messi or Ronaldo to get mixed up in a banned drug scandal to take down WADA and their quasi-science. Only when one of those athletes with the heavy machinery legal team behind them can an athlete challenge WADA. Their quasi science has destroyed many an athletes careers. Their banned substances lists are so ambiguous that an athlete needs a PHD in chemistry to know that he can only eat dry crackers and drink rain water to remain clean.Hey .. look at the bright side .... at least you're not a Liverpool fan! - Lazie 2/24/10
Paul Marin -19 is one thing, 20 is a whole other matter. It gets even worse if they win the UCL. *groan*. 
05/18/2011.MU fans naah cough, but all a unuh a vomit?-Lazie 1/11/2015 -
"Nobody except WADA seemed to believe Higenamine is a beta2-Agonist."....................Madness !.
In fact, even the director of the lab testing Sakho's sample didn't know the answer. In his testimony to the UEFA panel, Dr. Hans Geyer stated that he had to check with WADA if Higenamine was actually a prohibited substance. (Geyer did not respond to several VICE Sports attempts to contact him, but Morgan said that Geyer had been familiar with Bloomer's work on the subject.) The panel called the mere fact that Geyer had to check with WADA about Higenamine's status "telling."THERE IS ONLY ONE ONANDI LOWE!
"Good things come out of the garrisons" after his daughter won the 100m Gold For Jamaica.
"It therefore is useless and pointless, unless it is for share malice and victimisation to arrest and charge a 92-year-old man for such a simple offence. There is nothing morally wrong with this man smoking a spliff; the only thing wrong is that it is still on the law books," said Chevannes.Comment
-
So the parallel with Carter is that the drug he tested positive for is not specifically named... so might he have a chance of having it quashed if he challenges the ruling? I haven't followed what has happened in his case, so am not sure if he's exhausted his options... has he?
Peter R
Comment
Comment