Erriyon Knighton- AIU files appeal with CAS!

Ooops - I hope it's not a coincidence.

He def knowingly took the Tren. Common PED amongst young men.

Can somebody explain how Tygart would go after Lance Armstrong but give special treatment to other US athletes? Just curious to hear theories. I'm not sure I want to go down another rabbit hole as these things can waste *a lot* of time that could be spent running.

It is most curious in this case. USADA suspended him, then prosecuted him, and published the results. The arbitrator ruled that Knighton established "No Fault", and no period of Ineligibilty was appropriate. What else is USADA supposed to do?

USADA suspended him, then pro forma unwillingly prosecuted him, and published the results, and then were happy that they "lost" the case.

What should they have done? Really try to win that case, and after that loss (if that would have been a loss), protest and appeal.

That's pretty exactly what they have done with Gil Roberts' first doping case, and we all know what happened thereafter: encouraged by USADA, he did it again and again, and is now banned for eight years after this third positive test.

Tygart ONLY went after Armstrong after his retirement, and after the Feds laid the groundwork (2010 - 2012). For years, USADA didn't/couldn't/wouldn't catch him. Politics, a huge feather in their cap, yet during his winning days (TdF 1999 - 2005), nothing. USADA banned him in 2013, after Armstrong announced his (2nd) retirement in 2011.

Compare that to Salazar. Their investigation into Salazar really only got going after BBC/ProPublica published USADA's foot dragging in 2015. Let's not forget that Salazar's first proven doping offense (testo experiment) as coach dates back to 2009! Then his ban came in 2019, ten years after the offense, after multiple golds for Salazar's athletes between 2009 and 2019... then CAS scolded USADA for withholding of evidence.

Or Roberts: first positive test, contamination excuse accepted, no ban. Second positive test,
contamination excuse accepted, mini ban of 18 months. Third positive test, finally a proper ban of eight years (wow doesn't USADA look tough on dopers?), but by then he was 33: as sprinter, his career was basically over already, the ban from 33 - 41 years of age doesn't really matter that much.

In conclusion, lots of politics, reputation, pretend action, posturing, sympathy for their dopers, patriotism and fandom and personal relation of the testers with the athletes and God knows what else.

Thankfully we now have the AIU. Sometimes when USADA failed (Coleman, Rollins, Houlihan), they came over and nailed them. But of course they can only do so much.

As for Tygart himself, his role in the coverup of the swimming scandal is public knowledge.

Bingo.

"Pro-forma unwillingly prosecuted"? "Happy the lost"? Do you have anything more substantial than your opinions of a ruling you don't like?

What does "really try to win" look like, versus what they did? What would be the grounds for protest and appeal?

What happened in Gil Roberts case is that he tested positive multiple times.

I answered your question, and you responded with five more stupid questions... are just here for the trolling, or didn't you bother to read anything about this case? That's all been discussed on the previous two pages.

Why do you claim without any evidence whatsoever that I "don't like" the arbitrator's ruling? What a stupid comment.

OK. I'll accept for the sake of dismissing that argument that you liked the arbitrator's decision.

You say you answered my question, but your answer lacks substance, and still leaves me wondering what it is that USADA failed to do during the trial that they should have, except for appealing a decision that they lost. To appeal a decision, they would need a reason beyond just wanting a second bite at the apple with a different judge -- putting the athlete in double-jeopardy -- an undesirable precedent for athletes.

It looks like you invented/imagined these descriptions like "pro forma", "unwillingly", "happy that they lost". Whatever was discussed in the previous pages seems similarly unsubstantial, and only leaves me wondering how "really trying" would be any different than what USADA did.

I guess that is one way of looking at it.

If I recall, the trigger for USADA prosecuting Lance was the whistleblower email from Floyd Landis. USADA needs something substantial to go after athletes. They cannot just launch a process based on their own gut feelings. Not sure what groundwork the Feds laid because they ultimately dropped the case without much explanation, and did not cooperate with USADA, who had to make their own depositions of the athletes.

I think the reasons for the lengthy time to bring USADA's prosecution of Salazar was the "throw spaghetti at the wall" approach which charged Salazar with 5 violations relating to multiple sets of facts, not to mention a parallel related investigation with Dr. Brown, each of which required lengthy preparation to support a vigorous prosecution to meet their high burden that any of these violations occurred, against an aggressive defense backed by Nike, and lacking any analytical positive tests of any NOP athletes.

I don't see you saying what is wrong with the outcome of any of Gil Roberts cases. You make it sound like it is wrong to "accept an excuse", when it is reasonably substantiated with supporting evidence. The WADA Code tips the scales in favor of anti-doping organizations like USADA, giving them wide latitude to make subjective assessments of likelihood based on what facts exist.

Who says USADA failed with Coleman, Rollins, and Houlihan (or Roberts or Armstrong)? Again, USADA needs to come with arguments of substance backed by evidence, and not gut feelings.

Update - case will be heard (or concluded?) on June 23 - 24. WADA also appealed, according to the list... seems like they were reasons for the appeal, Rekrunnr.

23.06.25-24.06-25
CAS 2024/A/10800 WA v. E. Knighton
CAS 2024/A/10802 WADA v. E. Knighton
....

26.06.25-27.06.25
CAS 2024/A/10658 Issamade Asinga v. World Athletics

So what was the hearing in early May?

By that standard, absolutely everyone’s opinion except for Knighton’s doctor, is completely irrelevant. Your opinion too, I imagine. trenbolone is a very weird choice for a non-physique athlete. I would not at all be surprised if this were a true false positive.

Swiss sprinter Alex Wilson mustn't have got that memo nor the Russians when they were giving their Olympians trenbolone as a part of their Duchess cocktail.

Thanks for your thoughts. Back in the early 2000's a friend of mine said that Lance was doping and that he knew through connections. Turns out, he was right. I had told him that I thought the runner I admired so much was clean because he had never even used alcohol or recreational drugs. (I think Gene Simmons said that he was clean too, just rock n' rolled all night and partied ev-er-y day.) He replied to me that everybody wants to believe that their heros are clean.

And in Steve Magness' interview with Rich Roll he mentioned how other track coaches gave him dirty looks and avoided him after the investigation began. It sounds like Magness did what many of the other coaches agreed not to do. I know some people have criticized him for waiting too long, but also imagine you are in your 20's, fresh out of a college program, and get hired by your idol. It's really hard to turn on a charismatic person you admire, and there's a reason that manipulative people in power like to recruit young enthusiastic minds.

All this is to say, I think it's possible that USADA is part of the doping network, just like in Russia and Kenya and Jamaica and China and probably all the other countries that win.

USADA is part of the doping network, like Russia and Kenya and Jamaica and China? I guess in a "nothing is impossible" point of view, maybe? These look like 5 different groups with so many differences and are unlikely to be like any of each other.

FYI, Steve Magness is the only "athlete" in the Salazar saga that is known to have received an excessive infusion, and to have violated anti-doping rules. Yet he was not charged by USADA. What's worse, is that Magness' violation was largely self-inflicted, as Magness was the resident "scientist" explicitly tasked with finding a "WADA legal of course" method of administering the WADA legal substance, L-Carnitine. Despite all the rumors, no NOP athlete was ever charged with any violation, or otherwise established to have doped, in NOP's entire history. WADA rules say that USADA should have first charged him, in order for Magness to be able to benefit from any whistleblower cooperation.

I just saw this, and really not sure what you are trying to tell me. I'm sure they gave reasons for appealing the arbitrator's decision, but I'm more interested in what the reasons/grounds were, and what evidence they will give, if any, and what USADA was supposed to do that it didn't. If it is just to look at the same evidence and arrive at a different decision, that will seem more like a failure of the system.

You know Tygart is a Republican and Lance is a Democrat, right? You know that it was Feinstein that pressured LA feds to drop case against Lance, right?