Quote:
Originally posted by mick
From where did you pull that? I am disappointed that you choose to paint with such broad strokes.
|
I must've been a journalist in a former life, so painting with broad strokes and selective editing must be in my blood.
Remember, I'm not part of that angry mob that's calling him a cheater. I agree that cheating and intent are intertwined. And there's certainly no evidence presented showing his intent. But, I am saying he's guilty of the policy that's in place. And it is his fault he's guilty. He did not take the proper precautions to make sure he was not ingesting anything that could violate the policy. You posted that article about how a few athletes tested positive when taking supplements, mostly from the same supplier. But there was no reason found as to why; so was it because that company had sloppy manufacturing procedures? Is the testing procedure flawed? Did the athletes lie about what they did and did not take? We don't know those answers, so we can't paint with the same broad brush that testing is flawed. Certainly, no test or procedure can be certified 100% accurate. Even DNA testing can only prove 99.99% accuracy. But it is, for all practical purposes, accurate enough to prove guilt or innocence in court. So, that's what we have here, a test showing a positive result on a substance that is considered illegal by an employer. Surely you aren't suggesting someone has been slipping steroids into his brownpop after games without his knowledge? Or, the people in the black helicopters switched a shippment of legal supplements with illegal ones to his hometown?