rocket ship wrote:
I agree with you. But Ajee Wilson and Brenda Martinez were able to simple show receipts and claim tainted beef and they got off with nothing. I'm saying they want to have receipts ready to try using as an excuse even though the food is clean.
Martinez's positive test was triggered by contaminated prescription medication. Her claim was proven by testing results of said medication. Since the prescription medication was not supposed to contain the banned substance in question, she was not penalized.
https://www.ocregister.com/2020/12/29/usada-finds-olympian-brenda-martinez-not-at-fault-for-positive-drug-test/As for Wilson, the substance she tested positive for is one with a very short half-life that was found in a very low amount, meaning it would have had to have been consumed shortly before the in-competition test. The substance (an estrogen) is a masking agent and not a direct PED (usually combined with steroids to fool the bio passport test). These factors together made it unlikely that the test result was anything but contaminated food.
https://www.podiumrunner.com/events/ajee-wilson-stripped-american-record-due-tainted-beef/As Tucker says, we will see what the full rationale was shortly. I would suspect that a 1) lack of proof that meat was contaminated, 2) quantity found in sample, 3) substance being a common, direct PED were factors involved in the 4 year ban decision. There could be other pieces of evidence such as bio passport results that haven't been released yet that played into it as well.