Where the words, though? Read pages 61-63 of the The Code. The way I read it is cheaters get 4 years. People who didn't intentionally cheat can get 2 years. People who show "No Fault or Negligence" can get less than two years. Did Lisa show "no fault or negligence?" I have a real hard time coming to that conclusion. I could see that with forum member MTM, who plausibly took a contaminated supplement. I don't see that here. Failing to check the DRO for a new prescription drug? That's a form of negligence for a professional athlete. It just is.

Your argument is based on your subjective interpretation of the relative effectiveness of Prohibited Substances. The Code attempts no such interpretation. There are Prohibited Substances. And that's it. There's a very good reason for this. Because it's just impossible in reality to do all the testing to determine which substances are truly effective and which aren't. Particularly since many aren't legally (FDA, etc) approved for any human consumption.

So a bunch of unnamed NADA personnel making this decision seems to be a bit cowboyish to me. Not corrupt or incompetent. Just cowboyish. I completely understand your rationale. If your argument were to add a section for light sentences somewhere in between "no fault or negligence" and the two years for "unintentional doping" then I could support that. But you've described yourself as a "process guy" in the past, and I'm not seeing the process here.

Now, admittedly, I could be wrong. I got "inhaled" vs "oral" wrong above. But that's just the way I read it.



I agree except the retroactive TUE given to Floyd Mayweather. That was fishy as all hell. I'm sure Lisa here would have signed up for the opportunity to apply for a TUE two weeks after submitting a sample for testing.