I think you are just seeing what you want.
I didn’t say athletes before 2015 were railroaded, but you do bring up a good point. We recently saw a Duke Law publication describing as far back as 1996, how “the system simply rolls over you”, if you don’t have the resources to put up a robust legal and medical defense.
Tygart’s summary statement of USADA’s recent prosecution history into athletes is firsthand evidence. It stands unrebutted.
The point is that the WADA code is broken, and in need of reform, in order to better protect innocent athletes by design. This is part of WADA’s core values:
“We protect the rights of all athletes in relation to anti-doping, contributing to the integrity in sport.”
“We develop policies, procedures and practices that reflect justice, equity and integrity.”
“We listen to athletes’ voices, as the stakeholders that are most impacted by anti-doping policies and activities.”
“We strive to be diverse and inclusive to ensure that everyone has equal opportunities to be represented.”
Again, put your emotions about Houlihan’s failure to identify the source of the nandrolone aside, and look at the proven case of Simon Getzmann, Swiss handball athlete.
Only by luck, he had one painkiller left, that could be tested, and after a more than 1-year suspension, was cleared of all charges and declared innocent. Had he taken all of the painkillers, or discarded them, he would be in the same position as Houlihan, because the WADA code is broken.
Simon Getzmann was innocent and he proved it. Yet it still cost him more than 10,000 Euros and more than 1 year of suspension, through no-fault of his own. For this innocent athlete, who could prove himself innocent, the WADA code is broken. Strict liability failed to protect him, and put him on the defense, at great personal financial cost.
If he had the bad luck of no more painkillers, this innocent athlete would be unable to prove it, and the penalty would be 10,000 Euros and 4 years of sanction, and all the scorn that Houlihan is getting. For this innocent athlete, the WADA code is broken.
Now look at just one country, Kenya, at 49 nandrolone doping positives, in a country that doesn’t castrate pigs, and ask yourself if they are able to mount a robust legal defense against the IAAF or the AIU. Which Kenyan has 10,000 Euros?
They weren’t railroaded, but the risk is always there, because the WADA code is broken.
What I showed you is a leading anti-doping expert expressing concern with the ability of the WADA code to protect clean athletes, expressing the need for reform. The principle of “strict liability”, and shifting the burden to the athlete to prove “no intent”, and the presumption that the WADA labs acts correctly, and the presumption of intent until proven otherwise, all shifts the balance of justice against the athlete. This ensures that WADA catches more intentional cheats, but also catches more unintentional cheats (while presuming intent, as more broadly defined by the WADA code).
Again, Simon Getzmann — the best outcome possible was still more than 10,000 Euros and more than 1-year suspension. He wasn’t railroaded, but still painfully shafted. How many athletes can afford a 10,000 Euro defense, while losing sponsorship, and the right to compete and earn money? How many athletes would not have that last pain-killer, that last supplement from the same batch, some leftover teriyaki bowl, or 1/4th of a greasy pork burrito?
Elsewhere I also showed you that NADO’s estimate 5-15% of AAFs are unintentional, with a US Ombudsmen estimating much more: 40-60% of AAFs are unintentional.
Another part of the problem is the ambiguity of interpreting the WADA code:
- Look at the recent Salazar decision. The CAS panel, with the same evidence, reversed two out of three of the AAA Panel decisions, finding that USADA failed to show the email was “attempted tampering”, and that USADA failed to show that supplying the testosterone to his sons was “trafficking”. They also reversed another AAA Panel finding, and found that “possessing” testosterone for the experiment was a violation, something the AAA Panel found USADA failed to prove.
- Look at the Houlihan decision and the TD2021NA guidelines, and how the CAS panel was split on interpretation. On the one hand, the document says “The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis”, and yet the WADA lab used GC/C/IRMS analysis to establish the origin, and the CAS panel accepted that the WADA lab followed the 2021 document, while a minority disagreed. A different panel could have decided “ATF” and their is no suspension, sanction, subsequent need for finding the source of the AAF, no announcement, and no Houlihan threads.
The WADA code is a system that is subjective, interpreting a code that is in some parts ambiguous.
The only real evidence against Houlihan is a one-off positive test with low values.
As I said above, there was some debate and disagreement among the panelists about whether this should be reported as an ATF or an AAF. No AAF, no ADRV.
The rest of the case described by CAS is a list of general statistics, some based on subjective interpretations of partial expert testimony.
For example, there was no dispute among experts that pigs (castrated or not) were fed soy during the pandemic, but the CAS subjectively decided that commercial pork was probably corn-fed.
Another example was the expert focus on cryptorchids, while neglecting to mention other paths for intact boars to make it past USDA inspectors’ sniff test, into the meat supply with USDA approval.
Another example is Prof. Ayotte’s testimony of values from castrated boar meat-consumption, from two studies with small sample sizes, in a case that was about potential castrated boar offal consumption, while ignoring her own study on castrated boar offal consumption leading to much higher values.
The CAS was persuaded to accept the lower meat-consumption values, perhaps oblivious that Prof. Ayotte was once again being selective about which truths she told.