Quote:
Originally Posted by strombad
I'm not disagreeing that he screwed up, but you're suggesting that he's not innocent, which in this scenario would suggest he's guilty of doping. He's not.
Read some of the articles and tweets about it. He knew it was banned, his doctors knew it was banned, the IOC knew he was taking it (as I said, he had been tested previously, he was fine), and his doctor reportedly screwed up and ok'd a dosing schedule that then left too much of it in his system.
Innocent? Yeah, he is. Don't know why you would try to even remotely demonize or discredit a guy who accidentally took too much allergy medication.
|
Calm down. I think you misunderstood what I wrote and working with a different perception/definition of innocent and guilty of doping. I was actually defending Backstrom suggesting that it could be a case where one pill a day turned into more than that over a 24 period.
Is Backstrom innocent in the sense that he didn't take a banned substance for sole purpose of obtaining a competitive edge? Yes. But if he did fail the drug test, is he guilty of taking a banned substance? Yes.
You can spin it all you want. Taking an allergy pill sounds innocent enough but at the same time Backstrom took an allergy pill at a dosage that is prohibited by the IOC and taking that allergy pill does enhance Backstrom's ability to perform. It's like if Crosby had a cold and could hardly breathe and he took something clear his sinuses so he can play, but it was at a dosage that was higher than allowed. Would Crosby have been innocent? Nobody would crucify him but it doesn't mean he isn't guilty of taking a banned substance as far as the IOC is concerned.
I think people get too caught up in the words "guilty" and "doping". Nobody is crucifying Backstrom here, but at the same time the rules are the rules and it's up to Backstrom to exercise extreme care especially in this situation where he should have known what he's taking is a banned substance and proper dosage is critical.