BigRedFan

Track & Field. Skiing (nordic and alpine and biathlon). Speed skating (long course and short course). Cycling (track and road). Triathlon. All sports, off the top of my head, that have multiple opportunities for individuals to get medals.

Sorta like Trump himself, huh?

Neither does Trump, so Bo's in the right place.

So you are saying we need AJ Ferrari?

Yeah, I don't think so. Simone Biles won four gold medals in gymnastics in Rio: you gonna change gymnastics rules so she should only have won one? Carl Lewis won four gold medals in athletics in LA: you gonna change the rules there, as well? What about alpine and nordic skiing: only one event (alpine has five!) per skier? In track and swimming and x-country skiing, what do you do about relays? As for your example of John Smith winning two gold medals: compare his two wrestling (relatively sparsely competed) golds against, say, Al Oerter: four gold medals in the discus across four Olympic Games. There are so many more like him that make "two in two" pale in comparison. Oh, and Spitz swam at least *fifteen* races in the 1972 Olympics to get those seven gold medals. Ever hear of the runner Alberto Juantorena? Only person ever to win the 400m and the 800m in the Olympics. To do that, he had to run four 400m races and three 800m races. Oh, and he ran either one or two races of the 4x400m relay for good measure.

A quick Google shows that about 3.3 million people in the US swam on a team in 2023. Compare that to about 300,000 high school boys and girls who wrestle competitively. The swimming totals represent perhaps 10% of those who swim recreationally, while the wrestling numbers probably represent 99% of those who wrestle in any capacity. That doesn't explain things like the huge popularity of, say, women's gymnastics, which has ~100,000 competitors, compared to wrestling. What does explain it? How about visuals? I'll leave it at that.

Not Yianni or Vito. Dave McFadden.

In what alternate universe would you rather watch Penn than Cornell?

I hear they'll have a road trip that includes Cornell, UNC, and Princeton.

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.

Thanks for the information. Still, that says nothing about bringing your prescription. You can be tested anywhere, and I hope that doesn't mean that you have to bring all your medical records with you wherever you tell them you are at any point. Your quote above makes it sound like whoever is doing the sample analysis needs to know about TUEs, which seems odd: wouldn't they just report the results to the xADA authority, who have all the TUEs? Obviously, I don't know all the details of this process!

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.

His version of events demonstrates that he doesn't know how this all works, or he's not telling the truth. You don't provide a prescription at a drug test: you either already have a TUE (based in part on a previously provided prescription (say that three times fast!)) on file, or you don't. I don't even know if one tells the personnel administering the drug test anything about what substances you are taking: again, either you have a TUE for something on the banned list or you aren't taking anything on the banned list.

More like a pillar of salt.

Nice snark. Just because someone was allowed to compete, doesn't mean that said person has been cleared.

I didn't listen to his interview. I was wondering if you had some other source.

Because he said so?

Doesn't matter which ADHD drug he was taking or if he had a prescription for it: if he didn't have a TUE for it, and it is on the prohibited list (which the above drug is), then he is in violation and is subject to penalties.

Of course, all of this assumes that there is a "there" there. If there was no "there" there, then Minnow could be opening himself up to some serious libel, although IANAL.

No, the only question is whether AB had a TUE prior to the test. If not, then he would have had an AAF (Adverse Analytic Finding). All this is, of course, speculation. The actual second question is whether all testing and notification protocols along with appropriate sanctions were followed.

It matters because a prescription is not enough: an athlete needs a Therapeutic Use Exemption, which must be obtained *prior* to any testing, and which requires substantial medical support (by a psychiatrist or other physician) indicating that the condition is present and the substance in question is the only or best treatment. From the USADA website (https://www.usada.org/spirit-of-sport/three-things-know-tues/ ), emphasis added:

How is the possibility that an athlete who qualified for the US Olympic Team and tested positive for a substance on the banned list is "much ado about nothing?" Is there some qualification in the testing process that I missed which says "well, if it doesn't benefit you personally, then no big deal"? Here's the NCAA prohibited list (containing adderall): https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2015/6/10/ncaa-banned-substances.aspx Here's the US ADA statement on TUEs for stimulants such as adderall: https://www.usada.org/spirit-of-sport/education/athletes-adhd-know-about-tues/

Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger.

One word: Mifflin. IYKYK.

I think Shapiro turned 19 this year (true freshman, no greyshirt year). He was a cadet in 2021, IIRC. But this document seems pretty clear, doesn't it?