A couple of things have piqued my "miffed" meter lately.
Firstly, as
rines has proven, Dank has not been officially sanctioned as per
http://www.asada.gov.au/rules_and_violations/sanctions.html, unless ASADA are flagrantly contravening the "Under the World Anti-Doping Code, ASADA is required to place sanction information on the website for at least one year" aspect of their legislated obligations.
Secondly, that the relentless protocols ASADA are bound to adhere to, in the course of an investigation - such as the non requirement to provide "evidence" at the SCN stage have been arbitrarily dispensed with as a "good faith" gesture.
We've gone from a generic, 3 pages of foolscap and a "post it" note - to 50 pages + individualised - in the space of a couple of months? Not required by law?
Who, or what is deriving any solace or benefit from this divergence from the accepted process?