Last year SM was tested 11 times and Mu 10 times. So far this year (mid May) the figures are 4 for Mu (sounds reasonable) and for Sydney it is just ONE. What gives?
The real answer: Because the AIU has probably tested her quite a few times.
She needs to receive her share of testing every year.
I'm guessing they realized they could use their limited testing resources more efficiently by not testing someone who while performing extremely exceptionally passed 50+ tests because either they are clean or the cheating they are doing is too sophisticated for your tests. Seems reasonable.
50 tests is probably too much. The more tests they do, the more sophisticated it will be to deceive them. And I don't think cheating is the goal here. It's just that athletes accept what is not forbidden. They disallow it later.
SML was tested about a dozen times last year, which made her one of the most tested athletes in the world. Therefore, SML does not have a problem being tested and no one has a problem testing her. Most U.S. based athletes will have about 3 OCC tests in a year, which btw is about 2 more than the rest of the world. She already has one OCC test; she will likely have another 1 or 2 and all of the other tests will come when she competes. - This is a non-issue and it is very unfair to discuss this sort of thing relating to an athlete who has earned the benefit of doubt at this point in her career.
She needs to receive her share of testing every year.
I'm guessing they realized they could use their limited testing resources more efficiently by not testing someone who while performing extremely exceptionally passed 50+ tests because either they are clean or the cheating they are doing is too sophisticated for your tests. Seems reasonable.
I think it's a good strategy to actually focus on mostly testing the top athletes, in particular outside of competitions when cheating is more likely. This way, cheaters have to work a little harder and while the underperforming athletes have a chance to "catch up" making it more competitive. Since it's a given that drugs will always be part of the sport and that testing will generally be behind, they might as well be strategic about it. It's when top athletes are busted that it's most damaging, so they can reduce that risk this way. Unless someone here thinks it's actually feasible to clean up the sport then I'd like to sell you a bridge.
SML was tested about a dozen times last year, which made her one of the most tested athletes in the world. Therefore, SML does not have a problem being tested and no one has a problem testing her. Most U.S. based athletes will have about 3 OCC tests in a year, which btw is about 2 more than the rest of the world. She already has one OCC test; she will likely have another 1 or 2 and all of the other tests will come when she competes. - This is a non-issue and it is very unfair to discuss this sort of thing relating to an athlete who has earned the benefit of doubt at this point in her career.
I don't agree with you that this was an unreasonable thing to discuss. It was a good question. You gave an excellent explanation to the question (which should be the end of it) and thank you for that.
Last year SM was tested 11 times and Mu 10 times. So far this year (mid May) the figures are 4 for Mu (sounds reasonable) and for Sydney it is just ONE. What gives?
USADA decided to give glory to god instead of going out all the way to test her.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.