Christian Coleman BANNED until May 2022 as AIU Tribunal upholds his ban for 3 missed drug tests

Clearly he will appeal.

didn't he already appeal?

Ok I've skimmed the decision.

It is hard to have much sympathy for Christian Coleman outside of the sympathy you feel for someone deprived of their livelihood by something that was preventable.

Coleman already had 2 missed tests/filing failures on his record. He knew he needed to stay clean through the end of the year as he had been provisionally banned earlier in 2019.

Yet the evidence seems strong he missed a 3rd test and was not exactly where he said he was. Coleman gave a timeline that doesn't seem possible with receipts of him buying a Chipotle and going to Walmart and supposedly seeing the kickoff of Monday Night Football. And the tester took a timestamped photo to show they left the house after the testing window.

His second defense is he wasn't called. But the rules say they don't have to call you and the drug testers say the purposely didn't call Coleman as he had missed 2 other tests and were suspicious.

Below is the part of the decision on the 3rd missed test.

The 9 December 2019 Alleged Missed Test

34. On 9 December 2019, a Doping Control Officer (DCO) was authorised by World Athletics to

attempt an Out-of-Competition test on the Athlete. The Athlete's Whereabouts information

stated that he would be available at his Lexington residence in Kentucky, United States

between 7:15pm and 8:15pm on that day. No other regular activity was recorded in ADAMS

for the Athlete for the whole month of December (save for the first three days).

35. There was a dispute as to what had occurred on 9 December 2019.

36. We heard evidence from Mr Brian George and Ms Erin Freese, who were the DCO and Blood

Collection Assistant (“BCA”). They attended the Athlete’s premises, obtained access to the

Athlete’s residence by foot, although it was inside a gated community, and were in front of the

Athlete’s apartment no later than 7:15pm. Mr George rang the bell and Knocked loudly on the

door repeatedly (every 10 minutes), but there was no response. Their evidence was that they remained until 8:15pm directly in front of the house, close to the front door as well as the

garage door. Mr George took a photo of the name plate at the entrance of the residence complex from his car at 8:21pm to confirm the time.

37. The Athlete’s evidence was that he was out (Christmas) shopping. Though, he stated that he

arrived home shortly before the end of the one-hour period, because he recalled watching the

kick-off of the Monday night football game, which started at 8:15pm. His case was that the

DCO must have left slightly before the end of the 60-minute timeslot and he must have just

missed him.

38. Shopping receipts show that the Athlete was shopping at least from 7:13pm, also purchased

a chipotle at 7:53pm and finally purchased 16 items from a Walmart Supercenter at 8:22pm.

The Athlete’s evidence was that he returned home briefly sometime between 8:00pm and 8:10

pm, ate his chipotle while watching the kick-off, then went out again.

39. We do not accept the Athlete’s evidence:

a. The DCO and BCA (collectively, the “DCOs”) both gave clear evidence that they were

present throughout the period between 7:15pm and 8:15pm, standing directly in front of

the Athlete’s apartment. They stated that they would undoubtedly have noticed if the

Athlete had driven up and entered the apartment, whether through the front or garage

door. That evidence was corroborated by the 8:21pm photo. The DCO, who was assisted

by a Blood Collection Assistant, was unable to locate the Athlete for testing on 9

December 2019 during the Athlete’s 60-minute timeslot at the given address. We accept

that evidence.

b. The Athlete purchased 16 items from the Walmart Supercenter at 8:22pm, therefore only

seven minutes after the end of his 1-hour slot and the kick-off of the football match that

he claims to have watched. Although the Walmart Center is relatively close to the

Athlete’s residence, it would have been simply impossible for him to purchase a chipotle

at 7:53pm (the store being 5-9 minutes to his residence), drive home, park the car, go

into his residence, eat the chipotle, then watch the kick-off of the football game which

only started at 8:15pm, and thereafter go out again in his car, drive to the store and pick

up 16 items at the Walmart Supercenter so as to be able to pay for them by 8:22pm. And

this notwithstanding the fact that, according to his version, the Athlete at least when he

arrived before 8:15pm should have directly passed and seen the two DCOs, who also

did not discover him and stated that at no time was a light turned on in the house - on a

dark December evening.

40. It is obvious that in fact the Athlete did not go home until after making his 8:22pm purchase.

We are comfortably satisfied that this is what happened.

41. The Athlete’s case was that he was in any event within a 5-minute drive of his residence. If,

therefore, (he claimed) he had been telephoned by the DCO, he could have been at his

residence within the 60-minute window. Not only was there no such call made, but the DCO’s

report stated that no call was made “as per your [AIU’s] instructions.”

42. We heard evidence from Mr Raphaél Roux, who is the Out-of-Competition Manager for the

AIU. He told us he gave this “no call’ instruction for three reasons (i) the Athlete had in the

relatively recent past missed four tests, and missed tests were always a warning sign in

relation to an athlete (ii) in the past there had been a combination of very good performances

by the Athlete and missed tests, and (iii) he had an impression that the Athlete might have

been forewarned on previous tests.

43. We are not concerned with the merits of these reasons, rather, we recognize such

considerations as legitimate and appropriate within the scope of a rule-compliant and effective

concept of unannounced doping tests. We simply set them out because they were the reasons

for the instruction he gave.

44. The Athlete’s submission misunderstands the purpose of the permitted phone call within the

last five minutes of 60 minute the testing window. We repeat |.4.3:

“Because the making of a telephone call is discretionary rather than mandatory, and is left entirely to the absolute discretion of the Sample Collection Authority, proof that a telephone call was made is not a requisite element of a Missed Test, and the lack of a telephone call does not give the Athlete a defence to the assertion of a Missed Test.”

45. Moreover, the rule makes clear that the purpose is to prevent the possibility that the athlete is

present at the premises but for some reason has not heard the DCO:

‘Comment to 1.4.3(c): [...] Where an Athlete has not been located despite the DCO’s reasonable

efforts, and there are only five minutes left within the 60-minute time slot, then as a last resort the

DCO may (but does not have to) telephone the Athlete (assuming he/she has provided his/her

telephone number in his/her Whereabouts Filing to see if he/she is at the specified location.

46. What we would emphasise is that the purpose of the telephone call is not, and can never be,

to invite the athlete to come for testing. It is important that this is made clear to athletes.

47. This is also completely consistent with the athlete’s obligation under Article 1.4. ISTI to be

present and available for testing at the specified location for the entire 60-minute window,

without the DCO requiring any other means such as telephone calls, to contact the athlete.

Accordingly, as is Known in practice, some Sample Collection Authorities never permit phone

calls at all during the 60-minute window. We emphasise it is the sole responsibility of any

athlete to be available and to make him- or herself available to the DCO for testing during the

60-minute timeslot without restriction.

48. Thus, we consider there was nothing untoward about the instruction for “no call’, the AIU as

the responsible Sample Collection Authority had the respective authority, and we do not regard

this as providing any defence.

49. We therefore find there was a Missed Test on 9 December 2019.

50. It follows that, in light of the two Missed Tests and the Filing Failure within the period from 16

January 2019 to 9 December 2019, thus within 11 months, we are comfortably satisfied that

an Anti-Doping Violation under Rule 2.4 of the World Athletics Rules has occurred

Full decision here:

https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/downloads/pdfs/disciplinary-process/en/22.10.2020-World-Athletics-v-Christian-Coleman-Decision.pdf

wejo wrote:

Ok I've skimmed the decision.

It is hard to have much sympathy for Christian Coleman outside of the sympathy you feel for someone deprived of their livelihood by something that was preventable.

I recommend reading paragraphs 54, showing the deconstruction of Coleman's evidence. It's brutal.

C/M Runner wrote:

wejo wrote:

Ok I've skimmed the decision.

It is hard to have much sympathy for Christian Coleman outside of the sympathy you feel for someone deprived of their livelihood by something that was preventable.

I recommend reading paragraphs 54 AND ON, showing the deconstruction of Coleman's evidence. It's brutal.

So he actually LIED about the timeline as part of his defense. That makes it even more sus. That makes him look like he actually does cheat.

This is no “blow to US sprinting”, but instead, a boon.

How many times have I said it on here, the first time being many years ago: I don’t trust CC. At all.

Sadly, I am vindicated........again.

cha cha real smooth wrote:

So he actually LIED about the timeline as part of his defense. That makes it even more sus. That makes him look like he actually does cheat.

running a WR in the 60m and being the 100m world champion already pretty much proves that somebody is doping. are there any sprint champions who were clean without a doubt?

It looks like he was purposely avoiding going home until after the 8:15 window ended. What is he hiding?

have any of us really ever thought he was clean? Honestly. He's another short sprinter. Nothing physically about him stands out.

Plus he never has any sort of elated reaction to winning. Telltale sign of a doper.

He should have received an eight year ban.

No what about that other cheat Nasr?

cha cha real smooth wrote:

So he actually LIED about the timeline as part of his defense. That makes it even more sus. That makes him look like he actually does cheat.

I honestly just feel like he's an idiot and now his lawyers have to do whatever they can to get him reinstated. Part of that means lying lol.

cha cha real smooth wrote:

So he actually LIED about the timeline as part of his defense. That makes it even more sus. That makes him look like he actually does cheat.

+1. Of course he does.

Plus, he should have gotten an extended ban as punishment for the lying, see e.g. Kipsang.

At least he got finally banned, albeit too briefly of course. Now if he only had the decency to admit to his cheating, and return his medals!

Well one can always dream. Still, a good day for those interested in a clean sport!

"The Athlete said in evidence that this incident had given rise to much hostile comment on

social media which had caused him great distress."

Hahahahahahahaha. Well deserved distress!

He needs to want to be successful by being where he said he is going to be

casual obsever wrote:

cha cha real smooth wrote:

So he actually LIED about the timeline as part of his defense. That makes it even more sus. That makes him look like he actually does cheat.

+1. Of course he does.

Plus, he should have gotten an extended ban as punishment for the lying, see e.g. Kipsang.

At least he got finally banned, albeit too briefly of course. Now if he only had the decency to admit to his cheating, and return his medals!

Well one can always dream. Still, a good day for those interested in a clean sport!

You would think he will definitely be dropped by sponsors now at the minimum. He may have been better off just accepting the ban instead of providing evidence that he lied. What an idiot.

Interesting what the AIU Out of Competition Officer said, specifically instructing Coleman not be called, as he "may have been forewarned on previous tests"....

and the one reads the April failure, and sees that the USADA DCO called Coleman a full SEVEN HOURS before his testing window!!! Talk about prior warning of a test!

Chipotle > Olympics.

^lol.

Christian Coleman deserves the two years. I don't know if he's using PEDs and this doesn't really change my opinion. What I do know is he's not in compliance with a rule, and is wildly irresponsible with how he's handled the whole debacle. Random testing and the ABP are the lifeblood of proper anti-doping enforcement. If you are unable to be somewhere for an hour when your livelihood depends on it, sympathy should go out the window. Lying about it and playing victim when it is all definitively his fault and the AIU has the receipts (literally and figuratively) makes you look worse.

The whereabouts system is designed to be a deterrence to cheating, not to put away really dumb/careless athletes. However, Coleman's non-compliance and lack of accountability makes him feel to me susceptible to someone pushing PEDs on him or otherwise just thinking he can dope with impunity. He lost the benefit of the doubt and deserves a ban.