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
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
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