3 ms·
You’re changing the subject now. The TUE would be for the asthma medication, not the diuretic. She was below the limit for asthma medication, so didn’t need a T
by scott_w 2y ago
You’re changing the subject now. The TUE would be for the asthma medication, not the diuretic. She was below the limit for asthma medication, so didn’t need a TUE.
Edit: if you’re about to talk about how it affected the ruling for the asthma medication, then you’re just repeating the article and should just read that instead of arguing in the comments.
- searealist 2y agoIt's not arbitrary. Diuretics mask the asthma (ie, steroid) readings.
- scott_w 2y agoUKAD accepted that the amount was far below any effective levels. The article makes this crystal clear. It also makes crystal clear that this was contamination, as Lizzy took a hair test to show she couldn’t have taken it deliberately. The reason why is actually in the article but I’m sick of just typing it out for you when you can stop being lazy and read the thing yourself.
- searealist 2y agoShe is clearly cheating (along with TONS of others) with the asthma medication. At this point, I don't believe anything else she says.
- scott_w 2y agoSo you’re not going to read the article and instead make yourself look foolish by making points that the article clearly rebuts, with receipts. Who am I to question how you waste your weekend?
- searealist 2y agoShe has receipts to prove she is not cheating? Sure, man. She is a cheater just like all cyclists. She just got sloppy.
- scott_w 2y agoWho am I to believe? UKAD, who fought like hell to deny her defence before accepting it based on her work, or random internet commenter who can’t even be arsed to read the article before commenting? It’s a real tough choice.
- searealist 2y agoShe marketed herself really well. Pictures of her brother in the hospital and her cat. Brilliant campaign and it forced UKAD to change their position.