Breaking: Issam Asinga Sues Gatorade

No he won't. The facility was clean enough to meet many regulations.

Read the AIU decision:

That what is the case?

Before coming up with percentage likelihoods, we need accurately measured data. Otherwise the uncertainty is too large to make the result meaningful.

Mr. Asinga bears the burden to prove that more likely than not, when Gatorade provided him with these gummies, they were tainted with a banned substance. I am not sure how he proves this. To date, the only tainted sample came from his own jar, already opened. An expert with the AIU testified that it would seem unlikely that the gummies in that jar were tainted during manufacturing because the banned substance was found only on the 'outside' of the gummy and not in the middle. Mr. Asinga has obtained multiple other samples now, all of which tested negative. His claim that jars were tainted during manufacturing but then the substance 'dissolved' or somehow disintegrated right now is speculative, at best.

Really depends on coverage of the case. Pepsi/gatorade would pay millions to not have their name dragged through the mud in the media.

Tampering

The only plausible explanation in this case is that the person accessing the gummies already had trace gw1516 residue on their fingers, and transferred that residue onto the gummy surface. Not possible in the gummy manufacturing facility as no human hands touch the gummies as they are processed and bottled via machines.

The odd thing to me is why a 100 meter sprinter would use gw1516. It *may* reduce lactate production, but only in slow twitch muscle fiber. The compound would really only have any benefit to distance runners in being a catalyst for utilizing fats faster like ketones do.

Also, it’s likely to cause cancer with repeated use. Not worth a very small potential benefit IMO.

I do think it's interesting to think about the benefit to risk ratio of a particular compound being used for a type of event/athlete but it's also not an argument that holds up to potentially say it's unlikely that an athlete took the compound because it's "not that helpful". We like to think that elite athletes have a very intricate and science based approach to their training but that is not always true.

Athletes do things all the time that aren't that helpful in the grand scheme of things for their event or sport but their psyche has been shaped to feel that it is. It wouldn't surprise me to see a professional athlete doping with a compound that isn't the most efficient or useful compound because they have a coach who thinks it's beneficial or they're going to the dark side on their own and think it's useful.

Also, this is speculation and probably isn't useful but he could be doping without moms knowledge. Heck, he's a kid he could be given "supplements" from a person in his life without him even knowing what he's taking! Did Rupp take supplements/medication blindly from Alberto? Yup!

Also believe Asinga on this one.

Ask yourself what are the odds that a subsidiary of a subsidary of Pepsico would give a flying flip about our sports standards and their own products advertised purity? Have you ever seen a label with warning of cross contamintion for say those with allergy etc? I suspect a room full suits realizing the marketing advantage of sport safe pitch didnt bother to ascertain veracity of the claim. Gatorade went with a label that would maximize sales, allay concerns and discount prospect of contamination.

You do realize that a nanogram is a BILLIONTH of a gram? Now go reread AIU's findings. You still have to explain how exactly a nanogram ends up interior of a gummie

'Hello my friend. I am a Nigerian Prince....'

The answer is the same for most PEDs really. It's not about the performance benefit. It's about the recovery benefit. Which in turn results in a performance benefit.

Creatine doesn't make you stronger, it makes it so you can squeeze out 1 or 2 more good reps. Do that for a period of time and you're stronger. If cardarine helps you get in a few more reps or recovery a tiny bit faster, then it's "worth" it.

I am aware that the Athlete bears the burden here. The Panel said that they were aware this would be difficult, if not impossible. I agree with the Panel.

I am also aware what Dr. Saugy said about the likelihood of adulteration, with no burden to prove it. The Panel noted significant caveats with that scenario. I agree with the Panel.

like just about everybody here, if i had to bet money on this, of course i'd put it on Asinga being guilty. based on history and human psychology, that is far and away the best odds.

the only thing that has me even questioning if he could in fact be innocent is that Gatorade took 6 months to locate a sealed bottle from the same lot#, but previously said it was not available. it's at least a little bit strange, though could have a perfectly reasonable explanation. i don't work in that field so don't know how those things typically work.

What’s interesting is that Asinga is clean in his first doping test after entering the testing pool (June 11). On June 10 (day before) he runs 9.83w. He’s tested the next day and nothing is found in his sample. So we can establish that even if he had doped before it was not in his system and was not needed in his system to be running that fast. Also he would have needed to stop using this substance in April for this test (June 11) to be negative. If Asinga was willing to dope in July, why would he randomly stop in April? It’s the only way he would have passed the first test in June which he did.

Are we suggesting then that he decides to continue or begin doping knowing that he’s now being randomly tested? Especially with a substance detectable for at least 6 weeks? He’s either really stupid or there’s more to this story? If he’s that stupid, do think he’s smart enough to dilute the substance into billionths of a gram to contaminate the gummies? Even if someone on his team is smart enough, why then would they continue after he’s in the testing pool?

If he failed the first test I would say he’s guilty for sure, I just don’t believe anyone with a brain would use it while in the testing pool. He was already running fast and close to the world championships.

That's not quite correct. Its more likely the substance was at too low of levels to be detected in the June test. He just got tested at a lucky period in his doping regimen. If he doped.

Most dopers aren't gills up doped, they are taking levels that they hope will avoid detection if they get tested.

I hear, but… when he did test positive it was for only 0.2 nanograms. Are you suggesting that he somehow had less than 0.2 nanograms in June and it spiked to 0.2 in July? or are you suggesting than he purposely ingested more of the substance after the negative test?keep in mind he competed at the NY meet where random testing could have chosen him and he was also going to South American championships where he was again negative.

This substance is banned at all doses. I understand someone flying under the radar with an endogenous hormone and “micro dosing” you cannot microdose this substance as they can detect it in picogram amounts?

He ingested more of it or the test was closer to the time of his ingestion.

If you had read the article you would know gw1516 would stop being detectable after he submitted the sample that tested positive.

The fact that your ego is so over inflated that you think you know breed then the AIU is just the height of arrogance. They are so much smarter and more knowledgeable than you are that it is not even close.

yahoo.com

Abbott accuses one of its former scientists of trade-secrets theft in US court

Healthcare company Abbott Laboratories on Tuesday sued one of its former scientists, accusing him in U.S. court of "secretly downloading" sensitive corporate files containing competitive information about nutrition products....

Link:www.yahoo.com/news/abbott-accuses-one-...

One of the witnesses was fired for “just cause”. Could this be witness A? He was the COO. Did AIU not name the witnesses because of the other ongoing federal lawsuit? If you’re a thief, you’re a liar also.

Probably was emboldened by passing the first test to keep doing it. Maybe even thought he wouldn’t be tested again so soon.

I wouldn’t expect Gatorade to settle. That would not be great publicity either. The general public will quickly forget about this headline. No reason to settle.