MsZem
I see the sea
- Messages
- 19,140
I'm curious about the timeline. Was it 1. Sotskova tests positive 2. Sotskova gets a clinic to issue her some retroactive authorization or 1. Sotskova gets a prescription 2. Sotskova, upon being told that she tested positive, produces it as justification? Because option 1 seems a lot more shady than option 2.I guess the question becomes whether she was "retired" under the jurisdiction of RUSADA or WADA. It sounds like one has to take active measures to retire to no longer be subjected to such testing. I guess Sotskova could have simply refused and then go through whatever happens to an athlete when they refuse, but she chose to go to a clinic that was unauthorized to issue these certifications for TUE. Did she knowingly go to a shady clinic or did she think it was a legit place?
* I don't know if this is an over the counter medication, but even then it's possible to get a prescription for such a thing.