Yul Moldauer suspended

[cats]

I would absolutely never consider allowing xADA to build a history of my movement via location tracking, or risk a violation because my phone died or broke or got lost. I also imagine that these agencies can’t just have a tester appear at wherever the athlete happens to be, if they can be anywhere.

The whereabouts rules and supervised pee tests are already so invasive.

 

[jezmerallia]

I just don’t understand how an experienced athlete makes that many mistakes, knowing how severe the consequences are

Agreed. Smells of fish.

 

[Denn]

I genuinely don't see the first two mistakes as the same thing. He was literally at a USAG Competition. AND he did tests both days. His whereabouts were no secret AND he tested.

Sure, punish him a LITTLE. But why do some of you want to punish a clean athlete so harshly when that athlete CLEARLY is trying to comply and literally was just off his schedule by a half hour?

And are we really comparing an athlete being 30 minutes late for a random drug test to someone potentially killing people with a DUI?

 

[BB12]

I genuinely don't see the first two mistakes as the same thing. He was literally at a USAG Competition. AND he did tests both days. His whereabouts were no secret AND he tested.

Sure, punish him a LITTLE. But why do some of you want to punish a clean athlete so harshly when that athlete CLEARLY is trying to comply and literally was just off his schedule by a half hour?

And are we really comparing an athlete being 30 minutes late for a random drug test to someone potentially killing people with a DUI?

Except USADA didnt know he was at a USAG competition. Thats the issue. He was required to tell them but failed to do so. Also, for him to miss an out-of-competition test the day before he competed highly suggests he failed to update USADA about his competition schedule as they are required which is also huge failure on his part because that impacts when the random test would have occurred as well.

Who is comparing Yul's mistakes to a DUI? They are two completely different issues with punishments dished out by two completed different governing bodies.

 

[OnlyBeansOnToast]

And are we really comparing an athlete being 30 minutes late for a random drug test to someone potentially killing people with a DUI?

No, I'm comparing the processes for testing whether someone has something in their system that they shouldn't have, specifically the need to deter people from simply evading such tests. If there is no penalty for missing a test, there is no incentive for either drug cheats or drunk drivers to co-operate with the system.

You keep coming back to the length of lateness, but as I said before if he should be allowed to show up 45 minutes after the tester arrived, why not an hour? Why not two hours? Or three? Why not say "come back tomorrow?" How long should an athlete be allowed to go AWOL for when he knows he's about to be tested? Either we have rules and enforce them, or we just don't bother.

 

[dweiss324]

I would argue that the third strike indicates he WASNT trying that hard to comply, and that no one here is in a position to condemn or condone the length of the penalty, simply that the 16 mo ban is the rule as stated, and enforcing it seems appropriate. The length of suspension "deserved" is another conversation.

Honestly, he could not have lucked out more with the timing, 16 months will fly by.

 

[OnlyBeansOnToast]

I've got masses of work to do but I'm also a chronic procrastinator so... I had a quick look at USADA's website and as far as I can see, since 2020, nine US athletes have been banned for three whereabouts failures. The bans in this period range in length from one to three years. Moldauer is the only one to have a 16-month ban. Decathlete Garrett Scantling (who competed at the Tokyo Olympics) received a three-year ban because during the investigation into his third whereabouts failures he was found to have faked an email he was using as part of his defence. Of the rest, two athletes had 18-month bans (including a wrestler whose case was released three days before Moldauer's), two have 14 months and the rest have 12 months.

Unlike their UK equivalent, USADA doesn't appear to publish their full report into each violation - we just get to see a similarly worded press release for each one. However each of said press releases states that "the period of ineligibility for Whereabouts rule violations ranges from one year to two years depending on the athlete’s degree of fault" and that "In this case, USADA determined that a [X] period of ineligibility was appropriate given the athlete’s degree of fault based on the unique circumstances of the case." (my emphasis).

So I think it's important to recognise that Moldauer hasn't simply been slapped with an off-the-shelf automatic penalty. Someone at USADA has looked at the facts of his case (which may or may not align with what he's chosen to say himself in public), considered his explanation, and decided that his actions warranted a penalty that sits at the lower end of the range of possible sanctions, but is still slightly longer than the average for this offence. Read into that whatever you want.

 

[MaryClare]

I've got masses of work to do but I'm also a chronic procrastinator so... I had a quick look at USADA's website and as far as I can see, since 2020, nine US athletes have been banned for three whereabouts failures. The bans in this period range in length from one to three years. Moldauer is the only one to have a 16-month ban. Decathlete Garrett Scantling (who competed at the Tokyo Olympics) received a three-year ban because during the investigation into his third whereabouts failures he was found to have faked an email he was using as part of his defence. Of the rest, two athletes had 18-month bans (including a wrestler whose case was released three days before Moldauer's), two have 14 months and the rest have 12 months.

Unlike their UK equivalent, USADA doesn't appear to publish their full report into each violation - we just get to see a similarly worded press release for each one. However each of said press releases states that "the period of ineligibility for Whereabouts rule violations ranges from one year to two years depending on the athlete’s degree of fault" and that "In this case, USADA determined that a [X] period of ineligibility was appropriate given the athlete’s degree of fault based on the unique circumstances of the case." (my emphasis).

So I think it's important to recognise that Moldauer hasn't simply been slapped with an off-the-shelf automatic penalty. Someone at USADA has looked at the facts of his case (which may or may not align with what he's chosen to say himself in public), considered his explanation, and decided that his actions warranted a penalty that sits at the lower end of the range of possible sanctions, but is still slightly longer than the average for this offence. Read into that whatever you want.

Thanks for researching this. Whilst it seems that Yul’s punishment is comparatively long compared with other athletes, the question (which we may never know the answer to) is why is it significantly longer.

The fact that so few athletes have been banned out of a testing pool of 10,000s suggests that keeping on top of their obligations isn’t all that challenging, however annoying it may be and that where one off mistakes occur, they are not punished

 

[Denn]

@MaryClare I disagree. I think it IS challenging, and they had no choice but to go through it.

@OnlyBeansOnToast and @BB12 You both changed what I said and then argued against that, instead of with what I actually said.

1) You argued as if I said there weren't mistakes at the two competitions. I explicitly called them "mistakes" and pointed out that they were different than the third mistake — which they were.

2) You argued as if I said there should be "no penalty for missing a test". That is opposite of what I said. I explicitly said "Sure, punish him...". The question is the amount of punishment.

At the end of the day, are we upholding rules to uphold rules? Are we we trying to prevent doping? That's relevant to deciding the amount of penalty. Given that he literally tested the first two days and was fully willing to test the third time and was simply ran 30 minutes behind schedule, I would argue that the "degree of fault" is still very low, even with the 3 errors, and that 16 months is harsh, especially given what we are seeing for other athletes.

@OnlyBeansOnToast It's speculative to claim that someone considered his explanation. You also have speculated about other things.

 

[Passion]

According to Yul he is already 4 months in and only has 12 months left of the ban, being eligible to compete again in January 2026. That puts the start of the ban around September 1st.

If they had only banned him for 12 months (the minimum) he would have technically still been eligible to compete at World Championships. A 16 month ban that started in September ensures that he misses a full competitive year.

 

[OnlyBeansOnToast]

It's speculative to claim that someone considered his explanation. You also have speculated about other things.

Sure, we all have to speculate a little given the limited amount of information available to us - that's the USADA statement and the athlete's various instagram posts. Unless you know something we all don't then you're speculating yourself when you assert that he was innocently "off his schedule" when he missed the test.

I'd argue that my point here is not entirely speculative though, as it's the most rational explanation for the differing lengths of bans handed to different athletes for the same offence, for example the wrestler who received an 18 month ban a couple of days earlier. If that's not the result of someone looking at the facts of the case before making a judgement then the only other possible explanation is that the bans being handed out by USADA are entirely arbitrary and/or random, which seems unlikely given the level of scrutiny they operate under and the fact that athletes have routes to appeal against sanctions they consider unfair.

And that kind of answers your point about the amount of punishment - the range available is 12 months to 24 months, someone who knows a lot more about the case than either of us has looked at it and concluded that 16 months is appropriate. As I've said before, it really sucks for him.

 

[rlayt]

I genuinely don't see the first two mistakes as the same thing. He was literally at a USAG Competition. AND he did tests both days. His whereabouts were no secret AND he tested.

Sure, punish him a LITTLE. But why do some of you want to punish a clean athlete so harshly when that athlete CLEARLY is trying to comply and literally was just off his schedule by a half hour?

And are we really comparing an athlete being 30 minutes late for a random drug test to someone potentially killing people with a DUI?

 

[OnoNoKomachi]

The rules suck, but they are what they are. Because of Lance Armstrong and probably most of cycling, track and field, and weightlifting. One person screws up bad, everyone else gets annoyed.

The answer to Denn's question of "At the end of the day, are we upholding rules to uphold rules?" is yes! Partly because it makes it look like the organization is "doing something", partly because of "no reason, it's just our policy", and because there really are people who will cheat any way they can.

I worked for the Federal Government, so I know all about really dumb rules that I just had to understand and follow anyway. And extremely annoying rules that got made because ONE person at ONE institution did something really wrong.

If we didn't do certain training modules, we lost computer access. Some doctors figured "they wouldn't be so petty as to take away my access so I can't do my job if I don't do this stupid module I've done 10 times already." They found out otherwise. They couldn't write any prescriptions because they got locked out of the system.

People in one pharmacy stuffed their pockets with stuff which they then sold to retail pharmacies. Not narcotics, just cholesterol meds and such.

Because of that, we could not wear jackets with pockets in the pharmacy, because who knew what we might stuff in there.

My guess is Yul is just super disorganized and forgot to update his whereabouts (and was probably really upset about not making the Olympics the third time). My guess is he got warnings and still managed to make the errors (Just guessing).

When I was in my 20s, something like this could have happened to me because I was scatterbrained.

 

[Matilda23]

At the end of the day, are we upholding rules to uphold rules? Are we we trying to prevent doping? That's relevant to deciding the amount of penalty. Given that he literally tested the first two days and was fully willing to test the third time and was simply ran 30 minutes behind schedule, I would argue that the "degree of fault" is still very low, even with the 3 errors, and that 16 months is harsh, especially given what we are seeing for other athletes.

Out-of-competition testing helps prevent doping.
If an athlete is doping, their specific doping program can be modified to ensure they pass the drug tests at competition.
Out-of-comp drug testing also acts as a deterrent - if someone is doping the random tests are more likely to test positive.

Reading above, it seems Yul said he was drug tested at the competitions he was at and passed? This does not change the fact he missed 3 of the random tests.

 

[BB12]

@MaryClare I disagree. I think it IS challenging, and they had no choice but to go through it.

@OnlyBeansOnToast and @BB12 You both changed what I said and then argued against that, instead of with what I actually said.

1) You argued as if I said there weren't mistakes at the two competitions. I explicitly called them "mistakes" and pointed out that they were different than the third mistake — which they were.

2) You argued as if I said there should be "no penalty for missing a test". That is opposite of what I said. I explicitly said "Sure, punish him...". The question is the amount of punishment.

At the end of the day, are we upholding rules to uphold rules? Are we we trying to prevent doping? That's relevant to deciding the amount of penalty. Given that he literally tested the first two days and was fully willing to test the third time and was simply ran 30 minutes behind schedule, I would argue that the "degree of fault" is still very low, even with the 3 errors, and that 16 months is harsh, especially given what we are seeing for other athletes.

@OnlyBeansOnToast It's speculative to claim that someone considered his explanation. You also have speculated about other things.

They are upholding rules because out-of-competition doping is a thing and random drug tests help catch dopers. And yes, they are trying to prevent doping by upholding their standards and regulations that help them catch drug cheats.

Passing tests in competition is irrelevant because he isnt being suspended for a positive test.

30 minutes outside of his testing window is not a minor thing. In some instances, those 30 minutes could be the difference between a drug being in someone's system or it being undetectable.It was Yul's choice to nominate that 1 hour time frame as the hour he would be available. It is his responsibility to be available in it.

 

[irichluck21]

I might have missed someone posting this, but on Gymcastic they said that FIG is allowing Yul to compete domestically if USAG allows it.

 

[Denn]

@irichluck21 Yes, that's going around now, but I have not seen it in writing anywhere. If it's true, then it sounds like even FIG realizes how lame USADA is being in this situation.