>> > Okay, now that we know the name, I think it would best for USATF to reveal >> > what was the basis for his exoneration. The LA Times article only says that >> > Young denied all wrongdoing.
Actually the Times DID explain the basis for the exoneration. Young was tested many times in that year, including something like 10 days before and 10 days after the one test that turned up positive. The Times article had the exact dates. All other tests were negative. After initially notifying Young that he was going to be suspended, he immediately appealed, locking USATF into a non-disclosure bylaw until the appeal was resolved. (the bylaw had been forced on USATF by U.S. courts) At the USATF Appeals Board Hearing, an expert witness said that the positive test was very closely "sandwiched" between negatives, (sandwich was indeed the phrase they used), and given what they understand about the substance that was found- nandro, and the rate at which is clears out of the body, he felt that either the positive test was a laboratory error, or the negative test ten days later was a laboratory error, because it was IMPOSSIBLE for the nandro to get out of his system that fast- there was no other explanation other than one lab error or the other. Apparently the board never found exactly WHAT kind of error happened in the labs, but they used the sandwich/scientific impossibility expert witness as the basis for their reversal. Basically they said there had to be one of two laboratory errors, either the one that turned out positive or the next one that was negative. And there was no WAY they were gonna suspend an athlete when a lab error ONE WAY OR ANOTHER was at the heart of the issue. The USATF Appeal Board completed their hearing and issued their reversal well in advance of the Sydney Olympics. Given the reversal, they sealed the records, again in accordance with their bylaws. Later that year, or early next year (after the Olympics), the IAAF demanded USATF records on such cases, and the two organizations argued for a while about it. The IAAF was very slow in responding to USATF communication, it was determined later. Finally, USATF and IAAF agreed to follow their previously agreed to procedures and refer the matter to an Sports Arbritration Board in Switzerland. The Arbritration Board in Switzerland then reviewed the same facts of the case, except that Young's name was replaced with Athlete #123456 (I don't remember the number- it was in the article). Except once during the hearing somebody blurted out Young's name by mistake- and some people think this is how it eventually got leaked. Anyway, after review of the facts the Arbritrators chose to let the USATF Appeals Board ruling to reverse stand without change. They did however issue a comment at the time, if I remember correctly, that USATF and IAAF should have communicated better. Dick Pound does not want to listen to any of these facts. NOW----obviously the scientific validity of the 'sandwich/impossibility' basis can be argued. It's already been argued- before two different panels. It could also be argued that immediately after the USATF Appeals Board issued their reversal, they should have IMMEDIATELY forwarded the records to the IAAF (with the athlete's name expunged if necessary) for review. The lawyers for both sides were arguing this one at the time apparently. USATF was afraid if the name came out (and they didn't trust IAAF staffers on that matter), they might get hauled before an American court judge on a negligence/defamation charge. Whether they seriously considered the "send the records with name expunged option" is unknown. For American critics it's always been "we want the names!"- they're more interested in the names than the facts of the case- pretty much in line with the 'suspend and keep suspended until a final appeal reverses' to protect other athletes 'winnings', rather than protecting the rights of the accused in making a living and 'innocent until proven guilty'. The other thing that might have been done, had communication been better and procedures been worked out better AT THAT TIME, would have been for the Swiss Arbritration Court to take up the matter within a week or two of the USATF Appeals Board reversal. The whole thing could have been resolved before the Sydney Olympics (one way or the other), and there would now be NO ARGUMENT FROM POUND ABOUT TAKING BACK ANY SYDNEY MEDALS.
