Detective P said "... before the big news broke ..."
LOL! The big news broke in June 2021, women's running reported what Houlihan said in May 2021. Which part of that don't you get? That May comes before June? Regardless even if May 2021 came after June 2021 in your unlimited imagination, she still lied with her "alternate explanation".
No wonder people call you out for your never ending trolling.
Don't blame me if other posters cannot read. Trolling? What's with repeating this bad description of trolling? I thought "Spigl" just established that I'm better described as "a pedantic contrarian or dogged skeptic". After all, I'm not so naive as to believe every baseless claim I read on the internet.
I was stupidly asked if googling was too hard. In fact, because I had read the post, I advanced googled specifying start/stop dates to limit the results to the relevant time period, which excluded the June result. The May article reference did not show up in the results either -- maybe due to a faulty or updated timestamp on the page. Therefore, as I didn't find anything outside of letsrun "before the announcement", just like Detective P, who I assumed also googled it reasonably extensively, I asked you if it was documented outside of the letsrun link I did find, as no one had answered Detective P's question "Is there a source on that?" After all, it was your claim that it was well documented.
Was it a lie? Maybe she was treated for "a niggling plantar" and it didn't prevent her from training and she was in great shape. Did she tell the lie? It looks like her agent Stephen Haas was the one who told letsrun.
I'm not particularly concerned or alarmed that she and/or her team wanted to delay the public disclosure of her provisional suspension, until after the decision whether she committed an ADRV or not. I would expect that innocent athletes would likely want to avoid such bad publicity, especially if it would be unnecessary in the end. The WADA Code permits Confidentiality, limiting the disclosure to those parties with a need to know, until Public Disclosure. The Public Disclosure of the provisional suspension is optional, and the deadline for Public Disclosure of the final outcome is 20 days after the final appeal. There was nothing unusual about how this was handled from a public disclosure point of view.
There was nothing unusual about how this was handled from a public disclosure point of view.
Wrong again (and a new topic for some reason). This was handled by the AIU, and their official
ATHLETICS INTEGRITY UNIT (‘AIU’) POLICY ON PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF CASES
includes
"The AIU will publicly disclose the existence of a pending case, where the Athlete or other Person involved has been (under either the Anti-Doping Rules or Integrity Code of Conduct): • provisionally suspended; or • ruled ineligible to compete or assist athletes to compete in international competition for failure to comply with a Demand for information; or • issued with a Notice of Charge to be determined by the Disciplinary Tribunal (except for doping cases involving specified substances under the WADA Prohibited List where provisional suspension is not mandatory under the World Anti-Doping Code and IAAF Anti-Doping Rules). In these circumstances the AIU will disclose the name of the person(s) involved, a general description of the pending case and will not disclose specific facts except in response to public comment. The disclosure will occur as soon as practicable following the event (having regard to operational factors)."
Interestingly there are no wiggle words like "may" or "should" - rather it explicitly says
"AIU will publicly disclose the name of the person(s) involved, a general description of the pending case and will not disclose specific facts except in response to public comment."
There is an extra paragraph called "Exceptions" which doesn't appear to apply here (and the AIU never said why they kept Houlihan's provisional suspension secret):
"The exceptions to this policy will be (i) where public disclosure is not required under the WADA Code and there is in the opinion of the AIU compelling justification not to publicly disclose the relevant information and (ii) where a decision was taken (first instance or appeal) that no violation was committed and the Athlete or Support personnel has not consented to the disclosure of the decision."
So clearly it was "unusual" to make an exception for Houlihan.
There was nothing unusual about how this was handled from a public disclosure point of view.
Wrong again (and a new topic for some reason). This was handled by the AIU, and their official
ATHLETICS INTEGRITY UNIT (‘AIU’) POLICY ON PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF CASES
includes
"The AIU will publicly disclose the existence of a pending case, where the Athlete or other Person involved has been (under either the Anti-Doping Rules or Integrity Code of Conduct): • provisionally suspended; or • ruled ineligible to compete or assist athletes to compete in international competition for failure to comply with a Demand for information; or • issued with a Notice of Charge to be determined by the Disciplinary Tribunal (except for doping cases involving specified substances under the WADA Prohibited List where provisional suspension is not mandatory under the World Anti-Doping Code and IAAF Anti-Doping Rules). In these circumstances the AIU will disclose the name of the person(s) involved, a general description of the pending case and will not disclose specific facts except in response to public comment. The disclosure will occur as soon as practicable following the event (having regard to operational factors)."
Interestingly there are no wiggle words like "may" or "should" - rather it explicitly says
"AIU will publicly disclose the name of the person(s) involved, a general description of the pending case and will not disclose specific facts except in response to public comment."
There is an extra paragraph called "Exceptions" which doesn't appear to apply here (and the AIU never said why they kept Houlihan's provisional suspension secret):
"The exceptions to this policy will be (i) where public disclosure is not required under the WADA Code and there is in the opinion of the AIU compelling justification not to publicly disclose the relevant information and (ii) where a decision was taken (first instance or appeal) that no violation was committed and the Athlete or Support personnel has not consented to the disclosure of the decision."
So clearly it was "unusual" to make an exception for Houlihan.
That is a policy, which is not a binding commitment, but more like a statement of intent. In any case, it looks like "(i) where public disclosure is not required under the WADA Code and there is in the opinion of the AIU compelling justification not to publicly disclose the relevant information" can be applied. Without knowing how many other AAFs were not publicly disclosed, out of all AAFs, it is not clear at all that Houlihan was an unusual exception.
World Athletics has its own anti-doping rules which are binding commitments, with the same language as WADA, with respect to Confidentiality and Public Disclosures. Specifically World Athletics Rule 14.3 says "... the Integrity Unit may Publicly Disclose the identity of the Athlete ..."
Actually, I succeeded to google and find the letsrun article, which had mentioned the niggling plantar months earlier, in March.
You googled and failed to provide a link from "before" she publicly disclosed the decision, as was requested.
In general, I don't have any burden to research the claims of others, and I find it wholly appropriate to challenge those making such claims to provide the support for their own claims.