Re:
I think we're both missing that a blood urine test is processed differently than ABP testing.
A BP test is only an AAF after the panel review unanomously decides to open a case. "No case to Answer" is not the category for a computer-identified BP review on which a case is not opened.
Blood/Urine analysis are supposed to be binary. A positive A and B sample should always results in proceedings and sanction(except for those example cases of no-case to answerand TUEs). Only after the provisional suspension does an athlete appeal, and possibly have it turned to a No Fault result.
We're looking at 227 positive tests, and possibly (not likely) including a BP cases that have already been computer screened, comittee agreed, proceedings opened cases which have gone unresolved. Or, if they have been resolved, then 200 are no-case, no-fault, or TUE, which would itself be very distressing.
The problem is that someone like Contador was not anywhere on that list for a while, before being leaked. He was not suspended, provisionally or fully. It was not a no-fault or no-case to answer. It was probably officially listed as pending, but that would mean nearly 200 AAFs are pending for 2014, which is still incompetence by UCI. Tom Danielson is pending, we know about it, and it is still incompetence by USADA.
DirtyWorks said:No case to answer has some known reasons.
1. Federation declines to open a case. "Altitude training" excuses, bribes to close cases.
2. A positive could go to Wada experts panel who do not agree.
Again, there is no requirement a positive has to end in an adrv. This is how the system was set up from the start.
It's not clear which number is the number explained by TUE on my phone, but it's not a stretch to conclude that's doping covered by a TUE.
wendybnt said:Yes, it would be interesting. As dope-testing is about interpretation rather than a binary yes/no answer I'm reluctant to accept Benotti's analysis at face value. I'd like to know the context before starting to wail
I think we're both missing that a blood urine test is processed differently than ABP testing.
A BP test is only an AAF after the panel review unanomously decides to open a case. "No case to Answer" is not the category for a computer-identified BP review on which a case is not opened.
Blood/Urine analysis are supposed to be binary. A positive A and B sample should always results in proceedings and sanction(except for those example cases of no-case to answerand TUEs). Only after the provisional suspension does an athlete appeal, and possibly have it turned to a No Fault result.
We're looking at 227 positive tests, and possibly (not likely) including a BP cases that have already been computer screened, comittee agreed, proceedings opened cases which have gone unresolved. Or, if they have been resolved, then 200 are no-case, no-fault, or TUE, which would itself be very distressing.
The problem is that someone like Contador was not anywhere on that list for a while, before being leaked. He was not suspended, provisionally or fully. It was not a no-fault or no-case to answer. It was probably officially listed as pending, but that would mean nearly 200 AAFs are pending for 2014, which is still incompetence by UCI. Tom Danielson is pending, we know about it, and it is still incompetence by USADA.