Any Brooks news?

[1032004]

19 minutes ago, BigRedFan said:

You don't bring your prescription to a drug test.  That just isn't how it works.  Stop talking about his prescription as if it matters in this case:  it doesn't.  If you fail a drug test for a banned substance for which you don't have an existing TUE, you are deemed to have an AAF.  Maybe that's due to not "filing" the correct paperwork, but that doesn't justify your usage.  There are processes in place to deal with this.  Whether he has a  basis for an appeal is not known to us at this point.

 

I only brought it up because Brooks did.  Sounded like he was saying it was an issue that he didn’t have the prescription so “he could have gotten it from the streets”

[1032004]

10 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Reading more into USADA he seems safe.  Brining the prescription doesn't matter but having one and him disclosing it shows transparency.  

Establishing Intent

Inadvertent rule violations are relatively rare, but they are possible, and when they do occur they are typically the result of medications or supplements that have been insufficiently researched before using them and which contain a prohibited substance. Significant flexibility has been built into the system to try to ensure that inadvertent rule violations are addressed with less severe sanctions. An athlete can usually qualify for a reduced sanction if they are able to determine the source of his or her positive test and establish a lack of intent to cheat. This is where a properly completed disclosure of medications and supplements used by the athlete can become so important.

The starting point for obtaining that flexibility in the event of a positive drug test is often whether the athlete has made a full and complete declaration of substances used on their doping control form.  Frequently, where the athlete has declared a supplement or medication which later turns out to be the source of the positive test, the athlete’s declaration is considered powerful evidence of the athlete’s intent to comply with the rules and leads to a finding that the athlete has not intended to cheat.

On the other hand, when an athlete fails to disclose a substance on their doping control form and tests positive, the failure to disclose can cast doubt on the athlete’s efforts to demonstrate that they were seeking to comply with the rules and this many result in a longer period of ineligibility.

Therefore, it is always in an athletes’ best interest to declare all of his or her supplements and medications – both prescription and non-prescription – during every sample collection process.

Here are just a few more of the reasons why athletes should declare every product, every time

“Less severe sanctions.”  He hasn’t received any sanction yet has he?

[PortaJohn]

9 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

“Less severe sanctions.”  He hasn’t received any sanction yet has he?

No.  I'm assuming he's fine and when he disclosed the vyvanse on the DCF form the DCO officer asked him for the prescription and he didn't have it.  Hence, his statement in the interview.  But im just speculating & @Interviewed_at_Weehawken is certain he's lying

Edited May 16 by PortaJohn

[BigRedFan]

1 hour ago, PortaJohn said:

Reading more into USADA he seems safe.  Brining the prescription doesn't matter but having one and him disclosing it shows transparency.  

I think this covers the case where a substance was taken inadvertently (say, a contaminated supplement).  Disclosing that you are taking a banned substance doesn't make up for the fact that the athlete is responsible for understanding what is on the prohibited list and *not* using that substance or proactively seeking a TUE.

[PortaJohn]

14 minutes ago, BigRedFan said:

I think this covers the case where a substance was taken inadvertently (say, a contaminated supplement).  Disclosing that you are taking a banned substance doesn't make up for the fact that the athlete is responsible for understanding what is on the prohibited list and *not* using that substance or proactively seeking a TUE.

When you read "establishing intent' they use specific literature that allows as much wiggle room as possible.  "Significant Flexibility", "athlete's declaration is considered powerful evidence".  

The problem with this AB scenario is the little info we have.  He stated he declared it, did not provide a prescription, had lawyers file it and was cleared the Thursday prior to competition and allowed to wrestle.  Everything else at this point is speculative.  

Edited May 16 by PortaJohn

[WrestlingRasta]

What does it say about being hell bent on, without know all the facts or even really any of the full story at all, but still bent on this kid going down?

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

9 hours ago, PortaJohn said:

No.  I'm assuming he's fine and when he disclosed the vyvanse on the DCF form the DCO officer asked him for the prescription and he didn't have it.  Hence, his statement in the interview.  But im just speculating & @Interviewed_at_Weehawken is certain he's lying

100% lying.

Keep in mind there are three types of lies: 

1. lies of of commission

2.  lies of omission

3. character lies

Brooks is certainly not being truthful in one or more of those ways.

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 minute ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

100% lying.

Keep in mind there are three types of lies: 

1. lies of of commission

2.  lies of omission

3. character lies

Brooks is certainly not being truthful in one or more of those ways.

You can claim you do not like the hypocrisy of PSU fans, but it is comments like this that expose the lie.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

7 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

You can claim you do not like the hypocrisy of PSU fans, but it is comments like this that expose the lie.

How?  Are you suggesting that I am being hypocritical? In what way?  I'm not allowed to look at Brooks the same way that I looked at Fix?  

If you think its an Iowa thing, at no point did I argue that the Iowa guys were not deserving of sanctions.

Are you claiming Brooks has not at least lied to us by omission?  Or that he hasn't committed character lies (false or misleading impressions : "it is not Adderall," "DT leaked this news.")

And yeah, after the last month, I am not a huge Brooks fan, but I'll root for him if he is absolved of wrongdoing.  What don't you get?

Edited May 16 by Interviewed_at_Weehawken

[Wrestleknownothing]

20 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

How?  Are you suggesting that I am being hypocritical? In what way?  I'm not allowed to look at Brooks the same way that I looked at Fix?  

If you think its an Iowa thing, at no point did I argue that the Iowa guys were not deserving of sanctions.

Are you claiming Brooks has not at least lied to us by omission?  Or that he hasn't committed character lies (false or misleading impressions : "it is not Adderall," "DT leaked this news.")

And yeah, after the last month, I am not a huge Brooks fan, but I'll root for him if he is absolved of wrongdoing.  What don't you get?

You are being hypocritical when you say it is not about PSU, but about PSU fans.

There is a major difference between the Fix situation and this situation. In the Fix situation we had a statement of facts released by the investigating authority. Here we have a Minnow rumor followed by a fan-boy interview with softball questions.

You want to characterize everything as a lie, 100%, you said. But you do not know that to be the case. When Brooks says mistake, you recharacterize it as a lie. There is a major difference between mistakes and lies, but all to often people willingly choose to ignore that difference and go with the more damning characterization in order to promote their narrative.

What I am claiming is that I do not know what happened. Furthermore I am claiming that you do not either. I am also claiming that you are unable to admit to yourself that you do not know what happened because of whatever the opposite of PSU colored glasses is.

As further evidence that you like to go with the worst possible interpretation of all things PSU, I note that you put "DT leaked this news" in quotation marks as though this is something Brooks said. He did not say this. He implied someone he beat leaked this. You can certainly jump to the conclusion that it was Taylor, but then you expose your hypocrisy by putting your conclusion in quotes to imply that is what Brooks actually said.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

Just now, Wrestleknownothing said:

You are being hypocritical when you say it is not about PSU, but about PSU fans.

There is a major difference between the Fix situation and this situation. In the Fix situation we had a statement of facts released by the investigating authority. Here we have a Minnow rumor followed by a fan-boy interview with softball questions.

You want to characterize everything as a lie, 100%, you said. But you do not know that to be the case. When Brooks says mistake, you recharacterize it as a lie. There is a major difference between mistakes and lies, but all to often people willingly choose to ignore that difference and go with the more damning characterization in order to promote their narrative.

What I am claiming is that I do not know what happened. Furthermore I am claiming that you do not either. I am also claiming that you are unable to admit to yourself that you do not know what happened because of whatever the opposite of PSU colored glasses is.

As further evidence that you like to go with the worst possible interpretation of all things PSU, I note that you put "DT leaked this news" in quotation marks as though this is something Brooks said. He did not say this. He implied someone he beat leaked this. You can certainly jump to the conclusion that it was Taylor, but then you expose your hypocrisy by putting your conclusion in quotes to imply that is what Brooks actually said.

You are right, I should have said 'DT leaked the news' without quotes; or even 'someone leaked the news.'

But I did not characterize "everything" as a lie, did I?  I characterized certain aspects of his narcissistic interview as a lie.  100% he is lying, but I never said 100% of EVERYTHING is a lie.  Sounds like you have a problem with the truth?

Do you actually believe that he is being 100% truthful about everything?  Let's start with the prescription and take it all the way to the softball interview.  Has he left anything out or made anything up?

How is this "anti PSU glasses" BTW?  The guy he beat and is attacking was a PSU poster boy!

[PortaJohn]

29 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

Do you actually believe that he is being 100% truthful about everything?  Let's start with the prescription and take it all the way to the softball interview.  Has he left anything out or made anything up?

I'm assuming wkn would answer like myself and say, "we do not have all the info and facts so we do not know".  That's called a measured balanced approach to this situation.  But you, you know. He's a liar

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

2 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

I'm assuming wkn would answer like myself and say, "we do not have all the info and facts so we do not know".  That's called a measured balanced approach to this situation.  But you, you know. He's a liar

It is probably called "PSU glasses" approach.

He has already misrepresented the process and invented scenarios where a Judas or two is trying to bring him down.  Look up the definition of "lying."

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

You are right, I should have said 'DT leaked the news' without quotes; or even 'someone leaked the news.'

But I did not characterize "everything" as a lie, did I?  I characterized certain aspects of his narcissistic interview as a lie.  100% he is lying, but I never said 100% of EVERYTHING is a lie.  Sounds like you have a problem with the truth? Yawn

Do you actually believe that he is being 100% truthful about everything?  Let's start with the prescription and take it all the way to the softball interview.  Has he left anything out or made anything up?

How is this "anti PSU glasses" BTW?  The guy he beat and is attacking was a PSU poster boy!

With respect to the bold, I will quote my favorite person, myself:

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

What I am claiming is that I do not know what happened. Furthermore I am claiming that you do not either.

When you ask if he has left anything out or made anything up, you presume to know the facts. You do not.

I just do not feel the need for a hot take.

[pokemonster]

10 hours ago, BigRedFan said:

I think this covers the case where a substance was taken inadvertently (say, a contaminated supplement).  Disclosing that you are taking a banned substance doesn't make up for the fact that the athlete is responsible for understanding what is on the prohibited list and *not* using that substance or proactively seeking a TUE.

This right here ^. It sounds as though the sanctions would be less severe due to disclosing it, but the fact that he hasn't been sanctioned at all yet... could be bad news. He has less than 3 months until competition, so if there's a sanction longer than that, he's screwed.

Overall, I doubt Brooks lied. It's pretty easy to get a TUE for stimulants from what I can understand (whether he needs it for studying or competition); he probably was just being an idiot. Will probably be up to if WADA is lenient on idiots and whether or not they believe it gave him any advantage. 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

10 minutes ago, pokemonster said:

This right here ^. It sounds as though the sanctions would be less severe due to disclosing it, but the fact that he hasn't been sanctioned at all yet... could be bad news. He has less than 3 months until competition, so if there's a sanction longer than that, he's screwed.

Overall, I doubt Brooks lied. It's pretty easy to get a TUE for stimulants from what I can understand (whether he needs it for studying or competition); he probably was just being an idiot. Will probably be up to if WADA is lenient on idiots and whether or not they believe it gave him any advantage. 

There is precedent to allow "time already served."

[pokemonster]

2 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

There is precedent to allow "time already served."

Interesting. I wonder how that works, since the time between his U23 gold and now consisted of him wrestling a boat load and winning an NCAA title and Olympic Trials spot. 

[MPhillips]

WKN, digging in...

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

Just now, pokemonster said:

Interesting. I wonder how that works, since the time between his U23 gold and now consisted of him wrestling a boat load and winning an NCAA title and Olympic Trials spot. 

Yes.  This complicates things a bit, it seems.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

17 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

With respect to the bold, I will quote my favorite person, myself:

When you ask if he has left anything out or made anything up, you presume to know the facts. You do not.

I just do not feel the need for a hot take.

Fair enough.

[ionel]

37 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

 I will quote my favorite person, myself:

 

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

What I am claiming is that I do not know ...

[Caveira]

2 hours ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

You are right, I should have said 'DT leaked the news' without quotes; or even 'someone leaked the news.'

But I did not characterize "everything" as a lie, did I?  I characterized certain aspects of his narcissistic interview as a lie.  100% he is lying, but I never said 100% of EVERYTHING is a lie.  Sounds like you have a problem with the truth?

Do you actually believe that he is being 100% truthful about everything?  Let's start with the prescription and take it all the way to the softball interview.  Has he left anything out or made anything up?

How is this "anti PSU glasses" BTW?  The guy he beat and is attacking was a PSU poster boy!

Is this a banned ncaa substance too?  Is there a world where if.   “If” this is true….. could they go back and remove ncaa titles?

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

2 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Is this a banned ncaa substance too?  Is there a world where if.   “If” this is true….. could they go back and remove ncaa titles?

https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2015/1/23/medical-exceptions-procedures.aspx

[Caveira]

9 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2015/1/23/medical-exceptions-procedures.aspx

I’m guessing if he gets bounced from the Olympics the ncaa could take some of his ncaa titles away no?   

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

4 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I’m guessing if he gets bounced from the Olympics the ncaa could take some of his ncaa titles away no?   

I'm doubting it would come to that, but could potentially get weird from the time of the positive test in the Fall.  I don't think anyone will really want to see that happen.