Coleman was almost suspended last year for the exact same reason. His appeal was successful because of a paperwork error. Frankly, that case never should've been brought forward. They violated their own rules and made Coleman out to be a cheat when he wasn't. That clearly angered the anti-doping authorities. Because the details of this current case are shady at best. And it sure looks like Coleman was put into a no-win "Gotcha!" situation. Which is anything BUT the point of random drug testing.
If you want to be an world-class athlete, registering for the anti-doping program comes with the territory. Athletes are required to be available for testing 365 days a year and must give the drug testers a one-hour window when and where they'll be everyday. It's the athlete's responsibility to make sure that is accurate. If they have a change of travel plans, they'd better remember to update their whereabouts just in case. If not, they're subject to either a "filing failure" or a "whereabouts failure."
A "filing failure" is just that. Providing the testers with the wrong information. A "whereabouts failure," meanwhile, is when they aren't where they said they'll be during their designated time. The distinction between the two isn't particularly relevant, however, since any combination of three failures within 12 months, whether they're filing or whereabouts, automatically triggers a suspension.
The big difference, though, is that filing failures go back to the start of the relevant quarter. That was the issue with Coleman last year. He had a filing failure in June that was his third within a year, but that should've been backdated to April, meaning it wasn't his third strike since he only had two filing/whereabouts failures in the previous 12 months. The USADA knew this, but still announced that he was provisionally suspended (which they should not have done), making Coleman look like he was trying to hide something.
Fast forward to December. That's the heart of the current issue. The AIU, which handles drug testing for World Athletics, charged him with a whereabouts failure. Since he already had the January and April filing failures on his record, that counted as his third strike. Except Coleman's version of the story and AIU's version don't match up. And that's the root of the problem.
According to Coleman, he wasn't at home during the start of his window (which I think was 7:30-8:30 pm). He was Christmas shopping at a mall five minutes away. He then got dinner and was home in time for Monday Night Football. The AIU claims that Coleman wasn't there when they showed up at his house. Because of that, he was charged with a failure.
Here's where it gets shady, though. Coleman said that he's gotten a call from the drug tester every time he's been tested, and if he'd been called, he easily would've been able to return home and produce a sample during his window. Yet there were specific instructions on the paperwork telling the tester not to call him. Why?
Furthermore, Coleman wants to know if they were even looking for him at the right address. The testers are told that if the athlete isn't there when they arrive, they should wait the entire hour so that they can perform the test as soon as they show up. Since Coleman arrived home during his window, he theoretically should've seen the drug tester there waiting for him. But he didn't. Why not? Clearly somebody's not telling the truth here.
When did the tester actually show up? How long did they actually stay? If Coleman said he'd be home from 7-8 and the tester arrived at 7:10, he theoretically should've waited there for 50 minutes. Coleman could've gotten home at 7:55 and they still could've performed the test during that time. If Coleman was home from 7-7:45 and the tester showed up at 7:50, that's on him. But that's not what happened here. If Coleman wasn't home at the start of his window, but showed up before it was over, why wasn't the tester there waiting for him?
That, frankly, is the biggest problem with the entire system. Drug testers wield incredible power, yet have no accountability. Meanwhile, the athlete needs to bend over backwards to prove their innocence and is still left completely at the mercy of others. Yet, as soon as the words "anti-doping" and "suspension" are uttered in the same sentence, that athlete is immediately branded a cheater. Even if they didn't do anything. (It should be noted that Christian Coleman has never failed an actual drug test.)
Meanwhile, who's the one that suffers? The anti-doping police aren't the ones facing the lost earnings that come from not competing. They're not the ones facing a suspension that will keep them out of the marquee sporting event on the planet. They're not the ones who'll have that scarlet letter for the rest of their career. They're not the ones who'll have to sit out two years in the prime of their career.
I'm not saying Christian Coleman is completely without fault here. He was a little too careless, which is what put him in this position to begin with. He especially should've been more diligent knowing he already had the two filing failures on his record.
But a two-year suspension for something so ticky-tack seems excessive. Especially when you consider people who are actual drug cheats sometimes get less. Nevertheless, Coleman has resigned himself to the fact he probably won't get off on a technicality two years in a row, so he's trying to work a deal where he'll only receive a one-year suspension and still be eligible for Tokyo. (Assuming it's backdated, a one-year suspension would expire just before next year's Olympic Trials.)
What this case exposes, too, is a major flaw of the anti-doping process. The whole point of random testing is to catch cheaters. They're tested anytime, anywhere without warning so that they can't prepare themselves for it (which is evidently AIU's reason for saying not to call Coleman). No one has an issue with that. However, when it becomes about simply handing out suspensions, that's an issue. Especially when those suspensions are the result of technicalities. And when the same athlete who got off on a technicality faces another questionable suspension with similar reasoning that's full of holes, it looks suspect.
This is just the start of Christian Coleman vs. Drug Testers 2.0. I'm sure this story will have plenty more twists and turns. I know how I hope it ends, though. With Christian Coleman winning the 100-meter gold medal in Tokyo. Because, from the sound of it, he doesn't deserve to be suspended. Not in the slightest.
No comments:
Post a Comment