I found it to be a great read.
I personally feel like there almost might have been grounds to ban her after the first missed test.
The tester came to her house in April. Rollins wasn't there but spoke to the tester on the phone and said she was on her way to the airport as she was flying to Drake. The tester then drove the airport and called Rollins again, but Rollins said she was already through security.
In my mind, that's basically a refusal to take a test. But in reading the document, it sounds like the tester was not going to even make her provide a sample at the airport. Why? I don't know. Here is what it says.
The arbitrators wrote:
"Respondent declined the DCOâ€™s (Doping Control Officer's) request to come back out to sign the standard form which would have stated that, â€œshe was notified, that we met at the airport and that she could not provide a sample.â€
I really don't get that. You catch someone not where they should be. You should test them ASAP. You aren't allowed to refuse a test. I am really perplexed by this. If someone understands, please email me at email@example.com or post below.
And if you refuse to take a test, that's an immediate ban. I'm not sure why that would constitute be a whereabouts violation. Unless she was going to miss a flight (and it doesn't say anything like that), that to me is absurd that she can just say she's already through security. I mean it takes 2 minutes to go pee in a urinal.
The final two in September seem kind of stupid/innocent.
The report says they reduced her suspension from 2 years to 1 because USATF and her agent didn't help her respond after her first two missed tests. You think both of them would be like, "Hey you are an Olympic gold medallist with two missed tests. The #1 thing you need to do each and every day is update your location up through next April." But apparently, they did nothing.
They arbitrators also said she might have been distracted and not updating her whereabouts as she was traveling a lot to be honored with a "Brianna Rollins Day" in Miami and meet President Obama with all of the other athletes at the White House.
The arbitrators wrote:
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. USATF, the national governing body (â€œNGBâ€) of which Respondent is a member, received a copy of each of the agenciesâ€™ letters to Respondent charging her with first and second violations. It did nothing to inquire with its athlete as to the circumstances and to assure future compliance. The NGB left her on her own. Respondentâ€™s own sports agency did not involve itself in her compliance activities or problems. Only after the third Incident, when it was too late, did they help her fashion her response. Also, at least as to Incidents 2 and 3, following her Olympic Gold Medal, her life was outside its usual routine. We can understand that going to Florida to have her hometown celebrate her with a parade and â€œBrianna Rollins Day,â€ and to the East Coast to meet the President and receive plaudits from the nation could reasonably distract her from her quotidian (though important) responsibilities. Under these facts and circumstances, we find that Respondent has carried her burden to show the least degree of fault. Therefore, the term of her ineligibility shall be one year.
Here is a statement from Rollins.