Actually, it was all IN at the + test on both A & B splits---and, as many of us are saying here---all the rest is nonsense!
Are you stillhere? LOL!
It's not nonsense though. The punishment that follows and the way she is viewed by her peers will depend upon the hearing. If she is found to be a Kicker V. type of case it will be a different outlook than if she is found to have purchased a product knowing exactly what it was. Either way she is guilty of doping, sure. But depending upon the information presented in the hearing she could be a victim, foolish, or an outright cheater. Obviously the last two are the most likely, but until she has the chance to present her case it's all speculation really.
Actually, it was all IN at the + test on both A & B splits---and, as many of us are saying here---all the rest is nonsense!
Are you stillhere? LOL!
It's not nonsense though. The punishment that follows and the way she is viewed by her peers will depend upon the hearing. If she is found to be a Kicker V. type of case it will be a different outlook than if she is found to have purchased a product knowing exactly what it was. Either way she is guilty of doping, sure. But depending upon the information presented in the hearing she could be a victim, foolish, or an outright cheater. Obviously the last two are the most likely, but until she has the chance to present her case it's all speculation really.
