Shari Boyle

Matt,

in case you have not seen this:

www.runnersweb.com/running/rw_news_frameset.html?http://www.runnersweb.com/running/news/rw_news_20060918_Shari_Boyle.html

What happened to me was an accident, and was deemed not intentional by an independent arbitrator in a a hearing process. As I alluded to in my post above, this has been an extremely hard situation for me to deal with. I included my e-mail address in that post, for the express purpose of offering people the opportunity to contact me with any questions that they might have. I am thankful that some have chosen to do so already. If you are not intending what you say is a "witch hunt", I would think that you might want to contact me directly as well, and I would be happy to answer questions that you might have. It sure beats gossip on a message board.
I hope that you, and everyone, can respect how hard it has been on me as an athlete who simply made a mistake.
Sincerely,

Shari

So i ran into a triathlon coach on the weekend and he was telling me he was at york a few weeks ago and apparently some drug testers showed up for a random test for shari boyle.. and apparently after they made contact with her, she said she was heading to the bathroom and then suddenly took off, out of the building...never to be seen again...

Anyone heard anything? I'd say running away from a drug tester constitutes guilt?
I dont think someone who is innocent would run and hide....

Is this another innocent mistake?(as quoted in the last post?)

Shari did not refuse to submit a sample. She was sick with food poisoning and unable to provide a sample that night. She did not "take off" as im suggested. She notified one of the CCES officials, as she is obligated to stay in their view once she signs the form to consent to the test, that she was sick and needed to go to the washroom, after which, a friend who saw her almost faint, made the decision to take her home. In accordance with CCES rules, the official should have gone to the washroom with Shari but did not for some reason...so at this point the whole process is suspect. This message board is a really great discussion tool, but please be careful, as an athlete's reputation is at stake here.

Shari- could you at least tell us what brand of tea you consumed to test you positive for ephedra?....so that other athletes can stay away!!!

I should note, that a recent publication by a drug testing lab in Germany analyzed 634 european based nutritional supplements that, non of which claimed any illegal substances on the label. And, a huge 15% of the supplements contained anabolic androgenic steriods!

So athletes be aware....

I'm curious as to the type of tea consumed as well and if the year suspenion was overturned.

You really have to be careful what you consume as an athlete. I remember in the 90s Athletics Canada was sponsored by a company called Mannatech and they issued nutritional supplements to a number of national team members. One of the products was for recovery after exercise called "Sport". Well it contained bovine testes which can be converted to nandrolone by the body. My husband was getting these supplements as a national team member at the time and called the CES to check on them and low and behold, no one from AC had sent any of these for testing. If I recall correctly, a sprinter at UofT tested positive for nandrolone because of these supplements but did not get sanctioned.

The moral of the story is, even if YOUR OWN governing body signs a contract with a supplements company, you still need to get them checked out by CES.

And facts over speculation is appreciated. Feel free to correct any facts here that are incorrect:

CCES showed up to conduct an out-of-competition test.

Papers were signed acknowledging notification by CCES (para 6.44).

Before providing a sample, the athlete left the sight of the CCES officials (para 6.48).

Without providing a sample, athlete left the facility.

CCES did not approve or condone athlete's departure.

Instead of proceeding to a hospital, athlete went home.

No sample was provided to CCES at any point in this process.

At this point, the rules under Annex 6A would need to be followed with respect to CCES fully investigating and documenting this possible failure to comply with testing procedures.



Not that this is the proper forum for you to be answering this, but this line represents the crux of the matter. If the CCES official then gave permission for the athlete to leave the facility without providing a sample, then they would document that and presumably the end result would be no violation would be considered to have occurred.

But this is where it looks shady. If one need just convince the Doping Control Officer (DCO) that one is 'sick' (food poisoning, etc) in order to avoid providing a sample, then would not each and every athlete who is actually cheating and worried about being caught feign a similar illness? Would this precedent not make the whole out-of-competition testing completely irrelevant since there would be no way to ensure sample collection from athletes? This is where the explanation does not pass the smell test.



That is understandable if one does not wish to discuss such things on a public forum such as this, but one must also realize that this is not entirely a personal matter. The athlete has been on past national teams and is already under suspension for a doping violation.

Such violations are not secret and if this current situation pans out, there will be a public announcement of the findings by the CCES. Of course in the meantime the athlete may choose to keep quiet and only share information with their coach/club/advisors as far as dealing with the hearing and appeal process, but eventually the end result will be made known.

Furthermore, with the scenario that occurred, it appears knowledge of this situation is widely known given that the events took place at such a public location as the York track. Just because the athlete and CCES choose to withhold comment is not going to prevent fans and participants of the sport from engaging in discussion on the issue. So few Canadian Athletics athletes have tested positive or committed any kind of doping infraction in recent years that it is noteworthy within the sport when it does happen. Hence this thread.

The sustained attacks in this thread represent the worst aspect of our sport.

The current discussion has started based on a rumour - someone's second hand story about what somebody told somebody else - NOT facts, as you like to present them. The "facts" are for a real "court" to decide, not you, by speculation, in an internet message board.

Shari Boyle is NOT under suspicion for a doping violation. She has gone through due process and has been suspended for a doping violation, however, the arbitrator has found it was accidental. There's no suspicion - there was a violation, and it was unintentional.

I don't know why we do it, but we seem to love to do this to ourselves, eating our own, inventing drug allegations based on hearsay.

Here's an idea... why don't you let due process take its course. If Shari is eventually found guilty of something, you can come back on this thread and tell me you told me so. And I'll come back and admit that yeah, you got me.

Meanwhile, why don't we suspend judgment in the court of public opinion and let the official process unfold as designed, with no further undue harm to a fellow athlete's reputation.

I don't know Shari, and have never met her (couldn't pick her out in a crowd). But I get uncontrollably irritated when an asshole starts a drug rumour on the internet. Give it a rest.

This was a reasonably rational discussion(sometime they aren't) until this post.

PQ, while I agree that incorrect statements or insinuations are uncalled for and not helpful in the least, this is apparently not just "based on a rumour".

Poster 'morevelocity' essentially confirms the anecdote recounted by im and there were many others present at York and aware to one degree or another of what took place.



The 'facts' don't suddenly come into existence in a court. They may then be officially confirmed, but what has happened does not change, nor do people who witnessed some or all of the events suddenly develop memories as to what they saw.



What you are referring to here is a different event. Last year the athlete tested positive for a banned stimulant at the National Duathlon championships. Through the course of the hearings (documented in the arbitrator's report), no conclusive source of the stimulant could be identified by the athlete.

Despite this lack of plausible defence, the arbitrator chose to give the athlete the benefit of the doubt that they were not deliberately trying to enhance their performance and consequently reduced the suspension from two years to one year (expiring Sept 2007).

This was registered as a first offence.

What we have now is a second event, apparently occurring relatively recently, whereby the athlete supposedly evaded an out-of-competition test (required prior to their suspension being completed).

As recounted by 'im' and apparently confirmed by 'morevelocity', the athlete acknowledged the presence of CCES and then left prior to providing a sample.

On the face of it, this constitutes a doping violation as per para 7.24.

'morevelocity' has provided a possible excuse as to why the sample was not provided, but has not explained whether this excuse was acceptable to CCES or even how it jives with allowable exemptions described in the referenced CCES document.



It does not appear anything was invented. While 'im' may not have been present, it appears 'morevelocity' was and is familiar with the athlete. There are others who were present who haven't posted here who similarly recount the same basic 'facts' listed above.

Where the speculation begins is what the conclusion of the CCES will be. If they decide that an infraction has been committed, this would be violation number two and that means a life time suspension. Serious stuff.



That is a good suggestion, however human nature being what it is, it isn't likely to be followed. As mentioned before, Canada sees so few track athletes commit doping infractions that when one does happen, particularly when it involves some apparent public drama as recounted by both 'im' and 'morevelocity', it becomes fodder for the chattering classes.

Pretty well everyone here is committed to fair play and the well being of the sport. It obviously is a concern to all of us when the rules we must follow are apparently disregarded and hence why this topic is a hot-button issue.

Did you suspend judgement on Kelli White and her ludicrous sleep disorder excuse until the facts came out especially given that she was backed up by an MD? I asked in many forums why he hadn't lost his license and he finally has:

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/25/BAGLGPESTG1.DTL&hw=balco&sn=001&sc=1000

I am willing to suspend judgement but not if it doesn't pass the smell test. Kelli didn't by any stretch of the imagination. If your tolerance for suspending judgement is someone even more ridiculous than her then we are going to have to agree to disagree because we have no consistent frames of reference. And I won't just accept postings on a board. In Kelli's case, I did a bit of research on the incidence of narcolepsy in the general population and it was much less in the general population than with elite atheletes. Then the jet lag excuse started to float, so I actually went back and analyzed the schedules of the athletes in question to see if that was reasonable and, it too, wasn't. In this particular case, I have heard from people that I consider credible that witnessed this event(actually confirmed above) and, yes, I too am having a hard time suspending judgement.

It's not an opinion that she missed a test. That has been verified right here. That is a fact. How is that slander or libel? Did I draw any definite conclusions from that? No. Under the strict liability rules(as with it doesn't matter how the substance got in there), it is clear that she has a problem. Whether she can get out of that problem remains to be seen.

Maybe you missed this post. If so, your unnecessary sarcasm is understandable:

tnfnorth.proboards70.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1162667252&page=1#1177506846

If you review the prior posts by this individual, it is clear that she is very familiar with the athlete in question. So, yes, I am willing to accept at face value that she missed the test based on the above post particularly since she is sympathetic to the individual. It is called testifying against interest. A concept that actually makes the information more credible.

No. You have accused me of making a slanderous and libelous post. That looks pretty specific to me. I pointed out that she missed a test.