Lol, why would you say I'm intentionally lying? Read her defense again, the entire meat of it is her confusion with the online system. Yes, she did not come back through security, but I could understand that if she had to catch a flight. Her point was that it was a mix up on that day in the first place.
What you stated just isn't true and i'm wondering if it's intentional.
1) On the day you are talking about, which is the first missed test, they ended up finding her at the airport but she refused to come back through security.
From Section 6, Contention of the Parties and Evidence
"She explained that in filing her whereabouts for the second quarter of 2016 (and all other quarters) she would first input her home address, then her 60-minute time slot [which was 7-8 a.m. at her home address], then her recurring appointments of which she was aware, then her competitions of which she was aware. The program populates the calendar dates for the repetitive items, such as the 60-minute time slot and recurring appointments, for the quarter automatically.
The competitions, which are often out of town, are accessed on the program by a â€œdrop downâ€ menu that lists the upcoming events known to Claimant [in the case of April 27, 2016, the Drake Relays]. Upon designating participation in a competition, the program automatically inserts it in its dates on the calendar and removes any recurring appointments on the same day. Respondent thought it also automatically removed the 60-minute time slot for those dates, but it does not do so, nor does it routinely prompt the athlete in cases where two events (the competition and the 60- minute time slot) remain listed for one day in two different cities."
Arbitrators says that her defense is invalid, while conceding that the USATF online system could be better.
"While we find she has failed to show a complete absence of negligence as to that. Incident, we do note that the computer filing system and the agencies connected with it have failed to design it to assist the athletes as much as possible to avoid confusion. The program does not alert an athlete that his/her filing is showing two events on the same day in two different cities, unless the athlete has inserted full addresses for the hotel where the athlete will be staying. It could easily do that."
I'm not saying she's free of blame. It's on her, and there were also those two other instances she does not contest. When this is your job you should take all of this very seriously. But I at least find her confusion believable.
I'm just saying her side of the story from the report. I don't know the person. And yes, I understand it was incident #1. I was trying to be concise in my explanation, didn't mean to suggest it was incident #3.
So she knew damn well in May of last year that she had her first violation. So there is ZERO truth to what you are saying. Plus we are talking about #1 violation not #3.
Regardless, I still think the whole episode is sad.