rek, did you read what I posted?
If so, why did you only selectively quote the first sentence, thereby robbing it of the meaning that I gave it and substituting your own?
OK, let's go deeper, because you seem like a reasonable fellow.
Believe it or not, I do understand what you are saying, which is this: the cortisone that resulted in the metabolites in his urine was introduced into his body after June 29, via inhaler, and not on June 10, via injection, and therefore the cortisone metabolites present on July 6 are not evidence of Spearmon's having received cortisone via injection.
I proceed under the assumption that this is a correct interpretation of your position.
This I assume: that a positive finding means that metabolites of a banned substance were found in a urine sample at a level in excess of that level specified in the rules.
I don't know for how long the relevant metabolites of cortisone persist. I also don't know how much Spearmon dosed via inhaler. In my world of ignorance it is possible that all the metabolites from the injection cleared, and that all those responsible for the positive finding came from the inhaler. It is equally possible that some lingered from the injection, and that while of insufficient concentration by themselves to result in a positive finding, they combined with those from the inhaler to produce a positive finding, whether or not the dose from the inhaler alone would have been enough to produce a positive finding. It is equally possible that the June 29 test was faulty, or that it did not test for cortisone metabolites.
There are too many if's, and's, and but's. Do you see what I am getting at? It is equally possible that by July 6 all the metabolites had cleared, and the metabolites from the inhaler were insufficient to return a positive finding--otherwise he would have been regularly returning positive findings throughout his career of inhaler use during competition. If that is the case, then where would the metabolites have come from?
BUT REKRUNNER, THIS SOPHISTICATION IS IS ALL A DIVERSION.
Consider your timeline.
Look at the first entry: ON JUNE 10, HE GOT INJECTED.
STOP RIGHT THERE.
Why is the next entry not "He contacted USATF/USADA to disclose the date and details of the event, and to determine how to proceed", or "He contacted USATF/USADA to disclose the date and details of the event pursuant to a rule that he knew and understood, and that was clearly highlighted on materials made available to him"
WHY?
He knew enough to get a TUE for an inhaler, but he didn't know enough to get an emergency TUE for an injection?
If that is the case, I stand by my lazy moron assessment. Lazy because this is something that is extremely easy to discover, know, understand, and follow. Moron because it is something that is critically important to his vocation, livelihood, and personal reputation, all of which are critically important to his life.
But I find it difficult to believe that any normally-functioning adult could be so negligent and lazy, which, combined with his membership in a group that is not known for its credibility on the PED issue, is why I am suspicious.
You are a professional athlete. You make your living doing this, and your character and integrity are inextricably bound to your actions because you are a limited public figure in that the results of certain of your actions will be published to the public. You know all of this, and have taken steps to protect yourself accordingly. A doctor shoves a needle in your arm and injects something, AND YOU DO NOTHING?
If your actions were on the level, what do you possibly have to gain by doing nothing? NOTHING. What do you possibly have to lose by doing something? 15 minutes of your life filling out and submitting a form. What do you possibly have to lose by doing nothing? Your reputation.
You do the math. Either he is cheating, or he is colossally stupid and lazy. Given that he was sufficiently diligent to get a TUE for the inhaler, and given how absolutely easy it is to just phone USATF/USADA, and given the history of excellent men's sprinters, I do not readily believe #2 more than #1.
Of course there is a third possibility--both 1 & 2.
"But it looks to me like everything Wallace did was totally permissible at every level"
This is clearly incorrect--he received cortisone via injection without an accompanying TUE. If everything he did was totally permissible at every level, why was he sanctioned, and why has he accepted that sanction?
Right.