[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
mikey, a couple points.

I never said he 'was still guilty'. I just said that I have zero sympathy for him. He controls what he ingests, and he HAS to realize that pumping his body full of chemicals is likely to trigger something he didn't intend it to, especially when he is taking said chemicals at comical levels. I never said he's still 'guilty', i just said i don't want to hear him boohoo about it. He made a choice with risk involved, and the risk hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes no sense at all. Prior to this incident, Sherk likely had no idea that taking legal supplements could result in a false positive test. Why would anybody "have to know" that taking supplements that do not contain nandrolone could result in a false positive test for nandrolone? Do you expect him to do a chemical analysis of every supplement that he takes and determine whether it can result in a false positive test for nandrolone? And why does the number of supplements that he was taking matter if they were all legal? I think it's a pretty reasonable to assume that over the counter supplements do not contain anabolic steroids. This is not a case of someone looking the other as his trainer is sticking a needle in his ass.

Moreover, even if Sherk did have reason to believe that his supplements might cause a false positive, why should he be held liable for a false positive? The burden should be on the government agency (CSAC) to ensure that their tests are reliable. Given the number of articles that have demonstrated the possibility of someone registering nandrolone levels way over the legal limit without taking nandrolone, I'm not so unsympathetic about depriving someone of their livelihood for a year based on those tests.