Yes rojo, the WaPo article is even more biased. Goes on and on about poor Asinga, and mentions only half of the problems with his story. E.g. the damning witnesses and the expert's statements are completely missing.
No that didn't change my mind.
Damning witnesses? According to USADA "GW1516 is not legally permitted in any medications, supplements, or foods." It's possible that Better Nutritional employees would not be freely willing admit to breaking the federal law in testimony during a sports arbitration proceeding. According to the FDA, during a 1-month inspection in 2019, Better Nutrionals "did not conduct at least one appropriate test or examination to verify the identity of a dietary ingredient, prior to its use." How would the witnesses even know what was in the ingredients? Is there paperwork?
Expert statement? Which one? The expert did say it could be adulterated. The Disciplinary Tribunal went unnecessarily out of their way to express significant caveats with that scenario.
What else seems to be completely missing from the "damning" witness and expert testimonies are corroborating evidence.
The "innocent" scenario that fits the evidence well, that the Disciplinary Tribunal explained and could not exclude, is that contamination occurred during the cooling and drying of the heated gummy slurry, and some of the gummies were contaminated from contact with the shaping molds, conveyer belt, drying trays, or other machinery or equipment. This would explain contamination on the exterior with a gradient to contamination in the interior.
This "innocent" scenario equally lacks corroborating evidence. As the Disciplinary Tribunal explains, this only works against the athlete. The "regulatory framework" places the "difficult, if not impossible" burden on the athlete to collect the evidence necessary to recreate what was most likely happening on Production Line 1 of the Facility, one year in the past, in Sept. 2022. Failing to meet this burden, the Tribunal cannot reduce the sanction under the current "regulatory framework".
So you think Gw1516 was on the conveyor belt? How common do you think drugs that improve performance and cause cancer are?
LOL what a "surprise". Rekrunner - though he isn't a drug cheat apologist at all - stands up for yet another banned doper, and asks stupid questions that even he should know the answers to.
Which witnesses? LOL. Witnesses A and B, of course.
Which expert? LOL. Prof Saugy, of course. Which statement? Glad you asked. This one:
Quite a contrast to rekrunner's bold claim about "The "innocent" scenario that fits the evidence well," but rekrunner is rekrunner and therefore knows better.
And let's also ignore that all sealed vials tested negative, and that even all open vials from the doper's colleagues also tested negative, right? After all, that's better for the troll's agenda.
I neither asked which witnesses, nor which expert.
I know it is disturbing when I point out that you are not considering all the facts.
I found it unsurprising that these witnesses didn't confess to a violation of federal law, and further found the witness testimony about ingredients questionable when the FDA found that the company doesn't verify their ingredients.
With all due respect to Dr. Saugy, the Disciplinary Panel considered his statement when expressing their significant caveats.
Within the "regulatory framework", these witnesses and experts can say whatever they want without the burden of corroborating it.
When I said it fits all the evidence, this didn't ignore the evidence of the negative tests, when you consider that an unclean mold/tray/belt/machinery/equipment will not contaminate all 20,000 gummies, and then consider the new question of how the contamination degrades over time. There is also the question how his gummies tested positive the first time, then tested negative 6 months later, if not from the passing of time?
Since you do not understand this I will do my best to explain. The AIU nearly always works in probabilities. The probability of intentional cheating was higher than the possibility of tainted gummies. Under this idea they did everything they could reasonably be expected to do to ensure that they knew everything they needed for a concrete analysis.
They therefore
Tested the open case of gummies.
Located gummies from the same lot even though the company no longer existed.
They got gummies from people given them at the same time.
The chance was therefore evaluated to be more than 50% that cheating was intentional and he was suspended.
Also would you say a doper was false banned if they confessed? I personally think you would.
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
But unlike other PepsiCo facilities this one was not owned by PepsiCo rather it was a contractor with basically every health standard you could expect of anyone.
lol. Gatorade is going to take him to the cleaners.
It's interesting to me the different reactions to this story on letsrun versus in the general public. It seems most here think he's guilty.
Everyone who thinks he's guility needs to read the Washington Post article - it's really good - and then the comments. Everyone there thinks just the opposite - the sentiment is that Gatorade is going down.
A few thoughts.
1) The fact that his mother was text messageing the coach to make sure everything was legal to me is helpful to his case if those texts are authenticated.
If this guy is guilty as sin, why in the world is his mother worried about what vitamin he's eating well before he's caught?
Because they were putting banned substances into his body and setting up a cover story? "Look, we were trying hard to play it straight."
I hadn't followed this story until today. I just assumed he was doping and got caught. I guess he could possibly figure out how to taint the gummys quickly once he got his positive test back. At this point, I am still leaning toward thinking he is guilty.
But then he managed to pick the supplement that had been fraudulently labeled to taint. And that Gatorade would not be able to supply a bottle from that batch in a timely manner? The rules on both of these fronts are clear and explicit, and Gatorade is in violation for these. How did he know to taint the gummys, as opposed to any other supplements? Was this just wildly dumb luck on his part? I think a good lawyer can make a strong civil case against Gatorade on this point.
I hadn't followed this story until today. I just assumed he was doping and got caught. I guess he could possibly figure out how to taint the gummys quickly once he got his positive test back. At this point, I am still leaning toward thinking he is guilty.
But then he managed to pick the supplement that had been fraudulently labeled to taint. And that Gatorade would not be able to supply a bottle from that batch in a timely manner? The rules on both of these fronts are clear and explicit, and Gatorade is in violation for these. How did he know to taint the gummys, as opposed to any other supplements? Was this just wildly dumb luck on his part? I think a good lawyer can make a strong civil case against Gatorade on this point.
For a civil case, Asinga's lawyer is going to need to show that there was GW1516 at the facility, and contamination with GW1516 was possible. Gatorade has alot of evidence on their side already, and frankly I haven't heard a single reasonable explanation of why GW1516 (a cancerous drug with no medical use, and not used in any product) could have been at the manufacturing facility.
They can yell all day about the nsf mislabel, but they have to show the mislabeled gummies is the but for cause of the positive test. If they can't show Gatorade contaminated with GW1516, they can't show Gatorade is responsible for the positive test.
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.
Which article says how long GW1516 stops being detectable?
The AIU is one party in a dispute. I'm sure they know much more than they are telling the Disciplinary Tribunal, and us.
So you think Gw1516 was on the conveyor belt? How common do you think drugs that improve performance and cause cancer are?
Not me, but the Disciplinary Tribunal. Conveyer belts was one of many things listed by the Disciplinary Tribunal, as something that they could not exclude.
Apparently GW1516 is still common on the black market, despite the concerns about causing cancer.
Since you do not understand this I will do my best to explain. The AIU nearly always works in probabilities. The probability of intentional cheating was higher than the possibility of tainted gummies. Under this idea they did everything they could reasonably be expected to do to ensure that they knew everything they needed for a concrete analysis.
They therefore
Tested the open case of gummies.
Located gummies from the same lot even though the company no longer existed.
They got gummies from people given them at the same time.
The chance was therefore evaluated to be more than 50% that cheating was intentional and he was suspended.
Also would you say a doper was false banned if they confessed? I personally think you would.
Note, unlike other cases, this Disciplinary Tribunal did not expressly find that Asinga's violations were intentional. They found that Asinga did not "more likely than not" identify the gummies as the source, and did not establish that it was more likely not intentional, and it was the "regulatory framework" that did not permit any reduction of sanction. To their credit, this is a highly accurate description.
I already understood how the AIU works, profiting from significant changes in the WADA Code 2015. The way they work with probabilities, they might sometimes probably be right, and it is the innocent athlete who is not able to meet the (difficult if not impossible) burden of probabilities who pays the price whenever the AIU is wrong. Again, to their credit, the Disciplinary Tribunal acknowledged the burden on this athlete to establish the source is difficult, if not impossible.
Regarding banned dopers confessing, your hypothetical needs more details. I believed Lance when he admitted doping on Oprah. I believed Eddy Hellebuyck when he confessed to a journalist. I believed Martin Fagan, Christian Hesch, and Tyson Gay. In today's context of the WADA Code, it might be advisable to simply not contest the charges, and accept the 1-year discount. This might be construed as innocent athletes confessing, but if they cannot afford a 5-figure defense, or simply cannot establish the source, and a suspension might last a year to a year and half in the best case anyway, this might be the best advice against an aggressive prosecution with the thumb on the scales of justice against them.
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.
I suspect it just typical large corporation culture. Things get done depending on who is asking for it. If the initial request was handed to an underling to chase down the sample then the archive store probably just did a quick walk past the shelf it was supposed to be on. If the sample didn't leap out at them then they said they didn't have it. If the second request came from someone high up in the legal department then the archive store had a dozen people crawling over every shelf to find it.
In the company I worked for there was a big stores relocation project - the warehouse was being outsourced. After the dust settled on the move a bunch of very expensive components had gone missing and so shut down production. The company chartered a bus and pulled something like 40 employees from the purchasing department and bussed them off to the remote warehouse to find the parts. If the priority is high enough missing items will be found.
PepsiCo Date June 4, 2024 Company PepsiCo 777 Anderson Hill Road Purchase, NY, 10577 USA
Product(s) Gatorade® Immune Support Gummies (citrus; lot number 22091937150233) and Gatorade® Recovery Gummies (cherry; lot number 22092117150234) Issue Unauthorized use of the NSF Certified for Sport® Mark on product packaging for specified lots of Gatorade® Immune Support Gummies (citrus; lot number 22091937150233) and Gatorade® Recovery Gummies (cherry; lot number 22092117150234). Description Gatorade® Immune Support Gummies (citrus; lot number 22091937150233) and Gatorade® Recovery Gummies (cherry; lot number 22092117150234), manufactured by Better Nutritionals LLC, have be found in the public domain bearing the NSF Certified for Sport® Mark Privacy - Terms
1/2 6/5/24, 11:21 AM PepsiCo I NSF without authorization. These specific lot numbers, for these products, have not been tested, evaluated or certified by NSF and are not authorized to use the NSF certification mark or make any claims of NSF certification. Use of NSF consulting services or attending NSF training sessions does not provide an advantage, nor is it linked in any way to the
Our mission is to improve global human and planet health through the development of standards and certifications that protect food, water, products and…
