If I were a female triathlete intentionally taking ostarine (because it sounds like ostarine is the "perfect" drug--builds muscle and reduces fat without the unpleasant side-effects that testosterone has on females) and I received a report of a positive test for it, here's how I'd react:

• I would already know that ostarine is illegally put into a number of supplements.
• I would already know that rules allow for a retroactive 6-month suspension if I can establish that the ostarine came from a contaminated supplement.
• I would already know that an amateur female triathlete received such a suspension for that exact reason.
• I would hire the same attorney who represented the aforementioned amateur.
• Then I would go to my closet and dig out the two jars of salt-tab supplements I had purchased before I started my ostarine dosing. I would have picked these supplements based on them sounding "a little shady", with a name like "Classified Nutrition", suggesting that "we won't tell you everything that's in them." That they contain Rhodiola Rosea would have helped that decision, as "the internet" believes Rhodiola to reduce fat and help endurance (the same things that ostarine does).
• I would open one bottle and dump out half the contents, and then send both bottles to Ironman and report I had been taking it.
• I would hope that people would ignore the fact that I'm sponsored by a well-respected triathlon salt-tab company who presumably gives me all the salt tabs I need (which, at $22 per 100, are not cheap for hard-training athlete).
• I would sit back and hope hope hope that the Classified Nutrition bottles tested positive for ostarine.

• And if I had put even more care into my doping program, I wouldn't even have to hope that the Classified Nutrition bottle contained ostarine--I would already know that because I would've already had it tested and found that it had. I would've tested 4-5 different brands, under the guise of "making sure they're not contaminated", and then picked the one that came back positive.

Preposterous? A crazed conspiracy theory? I'm not suggesting that any of the athletes banned for ostarine did anything of the sort. But we need to acknowledge that such a plan would rank maybe a 2/10 on the scale of charades and deviousness used to avoid a doping conviction.

Which is why we need to largely stop looking at alibis for determining doping convictions and suspension lengths. Instead, we need to look at applying rules fairly and consistently. And in these cases, given what we know, it sounds like those rules were applied fairly. Barnett established (to the satisfaction of Ironman (and maybe usada?)) that her two bottles of salt tabs were contaminated, so received a 6-month retroactive ban. Gerdes established (again, to the satisfaction of Ironman and maybe usada) that she had not intentionally ingested ostarine, so her suspension was reduced to 2 years (from the standard 4). I would guess that Barnett's case and maybe the "we almost found trace elements of contaminants" influenced Ironman's decision to lower it to 2 years.

So it sounds like the rules were applied fairly. Which doesn't mean the 6-month retroactive ban for contaminated supplements is a great rule. It's a huge loophole in that can be easily exploited, but it's built in to protect the truly innocent. I'm not sure what a better rule would be.

I have written before that fans of the sport are not bound by the decisions of usada and Ironman--that we are free to continue to support/cheer for a suspended athlete, and we are free to not support a non-suspended athlete. And that's where a person's likeability and alibi will come into play, and that is just human nature. Since the dawn of man individuals who are liked are more likely to receive the benefit of the doubt, and that's not going to change anytime soon.