Then you get this kind of cover from WaPo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/2021/06/16/shelby-houlihan-wada-ban/
"American distance runner Houlihan almost certainly ate something that triggered a positive test for a minimal amount of the steroid nandrolone. WADA itself warned its labs in 2020 to beware that trace amounts of nandrolone could be found in pork and result in false positive results. So what happened when Houlihan appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport with a food log that showed she ate a pork burrito from a food truck the day before her drug test? And offered hair samples that showed no nandrolone had accrued in her, which it would have if she used it regularly? She got a four-year penalty and banishment from not one but two Olympics."
I love the intentional confusion being run here: "minimal amount" becomes "trace amount" by the transitory property of "we like these people". Zero evidence or fact to back that up. No idea for the reader to establish what amount she was tested at and what anti doping considers a "trace amount". But this is WaPo for you, where you never know what page the front page story will be on -- too busy serving the interests of powerful and important people/corporations, owned by the richest person in the world.
At least she put 'could' in there, or this thing really would look even more of a PR release than it seems to imply.