rekrunner wrote:
High hopes wrote:
So, you're conflating something Tygart said about other (unspecified) athletes and Houlihan's case, about which he has said precisely nothing. Furthermore, USADA declined to make any intervention in the case, as the CAS judgement stated. In other words, they could see no merit in intervening.
And yes, reduced sanctions are fine for whistleblowers but serving a ban in secret is not. Being allowed to compete while awaiting sanction is not either. What has come from Eliud Ngetich's whistleblowing? Zero to date.
The people who put Tygart on a pedestal as some sort of crusader only interested in the truth and justice are naïve. He's a politician. His principal aim is to increase USADA influence in WADA under the arrogant belief that USADA is somehow morally superior to other NADOs. All of his actions make more sense when viewed in that context.
There is no reason not to conflate these — all of the same issues and concerns apply without exception, because it is the WADA code itself, that places a high, often impossible, burden on innocent and guilty athletes alike. No one can argue with evidence that Houlihan was not railroaded into a 4-year sanction, for being unable to prove events as she lacked the primary piece of evidence. The standard required of the AIU and the CAS does not rise to the level of proving any element of Houlihan’s defense false in the real world.
Although USADA declined to get involved, it would be presumptuous and incorrect to conclude USADA saw no merit in intervening.
Serving a ban in secret, and being allowed to compete while awaiting sanction are two “carrots” permitted by the WADA code — contrary to your statements, these are both fine depending on the value of the substantial assistance. It is also not required to make it public what has come from Ngetich’s whistleblowing. “Zero to date” may not be nice for the public, but from WADA’s point of view, is also OK.
Whatever you may think of Tygart the politician, his criticisms of the revised standards imposed on athletes remain valid on their merits. The concerns of injustice are there, regardless of whether someone like Tygart says it. Centuries and millenia of judicial experience tells us what we can expect from “innocent until proven guilty” versus “guilty unless you can prove innocence”.
Houlihan was guilty of presence of a banned substance in one urine sample (A+B) from an unknown source, and guilty of being unable to prove this was unintentional.
There is no evidence or proof of intent, just a codified presumption based on not being able to prove no intent.
The test result is consistent with synthetic doping, and consistent with soy-fed uncastrated boar offal consumption.
There is not sufficient evidence that allows us to choose one possibility over the other.
The CAS findings are a result of a WADA code that does not require choosing and proving the most likely possibility.
The WADA code doesn’t require making, and cannot make, that distinction.
So it is not warranted for fans to presume that it has.
You seem to be unaware of the civil law system when you talk about burden of proof and standards of evidence. That required by the CAS and AIU is no different to almost any civil court in the democratic world. Houlihan's case is a civil case, not criminal, and for good reason.
And I'm sorry, but your willingness to let USADA's conduct slide in the Ngetich case is precisely why anti-doping in the US is a joke. No value has been proved from any information provided. All that it has done is undermine faith in the sport. If countries with similar doping records to the US allowed secret bans and athletes to continue competing (e.g. Kenya or Russia), there would be a justified outcry. Tygart's moral authority is close to zero.