Have you read the Sports Integrity link that has popped up from time to time in these threads?
Regarding Houlihan/Schumacher never hearing of nandrolone before:
“for many athletes, anti-doping just doesn’t exist until it happens to them. Most athletes support life bans until they discover that you can ‘test positive’ due (to) contaminated food, water, or even for kissing another person.”
Regarding the need for the full decision to be made public:
“As nobody has seen the Decision other than the parties involved, commentators can only guess.”
“Without the CAS Decision, all we have is the word of an athlete who has been convicted of an ADRV and the word of her Coach.”
“We only have one side of the story.”
They are most critical that the current process is not the right one for athletes, but one that heavily favors “sport”:
“The whole episode exposes a serious issue with anti-doping jurisprudence. Athletes accused of a doping offence must explain how a substance ended up in their system. If they are sanctioned, they can only appeal to the CAS. The athlete and the prosecuting sport must both agree on publishing the Decision.”
“Houlihan’s case draws into question whether this is the right approach.”
“Without the CAS Decision, all we have is the word of an athlete who has been convicted of an ADRV and the word of her Coach. We only have one side of the story.”
Sport doesn’t suffer from ‘personal information’ being compromised in CAS Decisions.”
“The CAS rules allow sport to withhold Decisions that expose bad science or rules. It also allows sport to monopolise control over anti-doping jurisprudence, by allowing it to only agree to publish Decisions that paint its anti-doping policies in a good light. As parties to a case are always provided with the Decision and lawyers representing sport tend to know each other, this provides sport with a powerful legal arsenal, which an athlete accused of a doping offence cannot match.”
“This is why sport doesn’t like it when athletes such as Kristen Worley, Claudia Pechstein, or Alex Schwazer take cases outside of sport’s closed system. It exposes their failures to outside scrutiny, undermining the ‘strict liability’ principle that underpins sports jurisprudence. It suits sport that the athlete is always considered guilty.”
“The highlighting of this problem with the sporting jurisprudence system is one aspect of Houlihan and Schumacher’s statements that is correct. This needs to change. The speculation about whether they are telling the truth or not only underlines this argument.”
https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/have-you-heard-of-nandrolone/