3 ms·
Except she wasn't "on" a diuretic, it was a contaminant orders of magnitude below the therapeutic dose. Which is covered in the article. And one of the main p
by flaminHotSpeedo 2y ago
Except she wasn't "on" a diuretic, it was a contaminant orders of magnitude below the therapeutic dose.
Which is covered in the article.
And one of the main points of this article is that the rules are inconsistent and not based in reality.
To paraphrase the article (but don't take my word for it, I highly suggest reading it yourself), the rules are fatally flawed because of the bimodality where contaminants at arbitrary concentrations determine whether other medications in urine samples are allowed or not.
- searealist 2y agoShe claims it was cross-contamination. Given that she was already likely gaming the system with the asthma steroid (it's really common in cycling and swimming to do this), I don't believe her when she says there was a contamination.