View Single Post
Old 02-21-2003, 10:14 PM   #5
Davros
Takhisis Follower
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Mandurah, West Australia
Age: 62
Posts: 5,073
What was just announced was that the simple presence of the diuretic in the sample is considered sufficient proof of the "banned method" charge. Whatever extenuating circumstances that were submitted as evidence were not sufficient to have the charge dismissed. Was then just a matter as to the extent of the ban given the seriousness of the breach. Obviously the panel gave him 1 year - the maximum possible was 2 years, and the minimum possible was (I think) 6 months.

Sad day
__________________
Davros was right - just ask JD
Davros is offline