High hopes wrote:
I wrote the other Red Flags thread that you referenced in the your piece. I think it's great that someone from the US T&F media is asking these questions. It was surprising how few questions were asked in the press conference - were journalists intimidated or just shocked? Some further questions you might want to ask:
1. For T&F journalists - Do you think you can report on your subjects impartially? If so, why has it taken a week for any publication to even start questioning the account put forward by the BTC team? I don't object to Jonathan Gault's opinion piece, but it seems to be a bit backwards that the more impartial and critical evaluation has only been published today, but the opinion piece, based on gut reaction which firmly came out for Houlihan's innocence, came out within a day. Not just to pick on LRC, Chris Chavez of Citius didn't ask a single question in the press conference. We're all T&F fans, but journalists have a job to do, even when that involves asking uncomfortable questions of people you like.
2. For Travis Tygart - is it true that you presented Shelby Houlihan's case to the CAS? If so, how can you claim to be an impartial regulator of anti-doping? Is it the responsibility of an anti-doping agency to be defending athletes that have tested positive? Have you defended any other athletes in the CAS? If so, who? If not, then why Houlihan?
3. For BTC and the lawyer - did you consider alternative sources of the contamination? Presumably, Houlihan takes numerous legal supplements and possible medication, is it possible any of these were contaminated? This is why Brenda Martinez was found at no-fault, she could provide evidence that her legal meds contained the banned substance.
4. For Schumacher/BTC - how many of your current athletes are taking thyroid medication or have TUEs? Are you prepared to provide a list of all medication and supplements that BTC athletes are taking or have taken in the last year?
5. For USADA - this is likely a very difficult question to answer, but since Rojo has raised it a couple of times: a USADA source has told LRC that Houlihan would likely have been let off if they had conducted the test. Is this true, and what do you think is the compelling evidence that would have allowed you to exonerate her? Doping is a strict liability offense and the case presented by Houlihan's team is inconsistent, clearly intended to deceive, and provides no firm evidence of the source of contamination. Would you really be prepared to declare an athlete innocent on the basis of a receipt for a burrito which there is no evidence contained pork, plus some iPhone location data? If so, why are your standards of evidence so much lower than the AIUs and does that call into question your fitness for purpose? How can athletes across the globe be confident that USADA is testing athletes properly and applying global anti-doping rules fairly?
Other than these questions, I think that everyone needs to be very careful when discussing USADAs intentions and motivations. USADA is a regulator, but it is also a political body and Travis Tygart operates more like a politician than a technical expert. If you're interested, listen to his interview with the Clean Sport podcast. He is clearly motivated by increasing USADAs influence within WADA and, it seems, believes USADA should hold sway over the world governing body. We can debate that and whether it is right, but it does mean that Travis Tygart and USADA are not impartial observers here, they have motivations beyond just finding dirty athletes. Journalists in particular need to be sceptical when discussing the motives of Tygart and USADA.