rekrunner wrote:
There is no reason to assume USADA would behave otherwise.
Not sure what you think the connection is between USADA and Nike, Gay, Brock (from Pokemon?), or Mitchell.
One obvious reason is of course conflict of interest.
As for the connection, Gay got the easy way out because, well, I'd say conflict of interest, as usual. I also gave you Baumann, Christie, and Farah, so this conflict of interest scenario for NADOs is quite apparent, and nothing new. I don't think USADA is holier than the others. Going after a retired American cyclist was the only exception so far.
As for rest, note that I wrote USA(DA), because I see USATF in the same boat. It was the latter who allowed BLock to come back despite his ban and who continues to employ Mitchell as national coach. So USATF isn't holier than you either.
Finally, remember the USOC's attitude. Same old, same old, e.g. here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/17/sports/olympics-anti-doping-official-says-us-covered-up.html"Newly disclosed documents prove long-held suspicions that the United States Olympic Committee covered up drug use by athletes"
IF one wanted to change this on an international level, one should put different NADOs in charge, ideally without too obvious allegiances. E.g. Brazil takes care of US, US of Kenya, Kenya of Germany, Germany of Russia, Russia of UK, UK of Brazil to close this loop. Then one would actually want to catch the drug cheats instead of protecting the national heroes.
In addition, criminalize the dopers, so raids can happen, and the courts feel responsible.