Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Desperate-Face-6594 t1_jc99cyq wrote

Reply to comment by totally_random_cat in Ukrainian Olympic gymnast Oleg Verniaiev has doping ban cut. by PrincessBananas85

No, he plausibly claimed that the positive result was because of food contamination. That’s a long way from proving he was not doping.

20

totally_random_cat t1_jc9fmiq wrote

His claim was followed by the ruling from CAS. If they decided that the proof was insufficient, they would keep his ban. What more was he supposed to prove?

−2

littleseizure t1_jc9jlxy wrote

I mean they're right, but it's mostly semantics. He didn't prove he didn't, they just could no longer prove he did. It's the MLB David Ortiz - positive in a flawed test and never punished because the test was faulty, but he could never prove innocence - I don't know how you even would

18

totally_random_cat t1_jc9jz51 wrote

Got it. I’m honestly not aware how this system works. I just based my conclusions on the article.

1

mighij t1_jc9j8z9 wrote

They didn't lift the ban, only reduced the sentence. He is still guilty.

9

totally_random_cat t1_jc9job0 wrote

So he cheated but only a little bit?

2

mighij t1_jc9sovo wrote

Concept of reduced sentence is strange to you?

1

asoplu t1_jc9woh6 wrote

Because they can’t prove it? Yea, that’s absolutely bizarre. If you are accused of a crime but nobody can prove it, they don’t just give you a reduced sentence.

6