So her own "whistleblowing" had nothing to do with the arbitration panel's findings?
The panel said nothing about TUEs (a term the Lets Run cognoscenti love to parrot) or the drug she claims Salazar tried to force on her for weight loss?
So how can she possibly feel vindicated? The whistle she blew turned out to be irrelevant.
And my dictionary defines trafficking as to "deal or trade in something illegal." Salazar neither dealt nor traded in testosterone; he used it only on his son as a test to see if an athlete could be sabotaged with it, which is a legitimate concern in light of what Justin Gatlin claims happened to him.
So how is Salazar guilty of "trafficking" in testosterone, as USADA claims?
Sounds to me like a strained effort to make what Salazar did sound much more sinister than it actually was -- as in Alberto Salazar, the testosterone candy man.