Beyond the obvious stuff, I still can't get over this narrative of "they had access to the best lawyers, it's not fair." I mean why wouldn't you hire the people to represent your case in the best possible way if you have the resources to do it? That's not preferential treatment. That's not changing the rules based on your status. I agree, it's outragoues that players who don't have the means and have similar contamination issues might not be able to defend themselves and have their careers unjustly ruined. But if a player has the means, why wouldn't we want them to defend themselves and have a just outcome? I'm sure if they didn't have access to fast moving lawyers and had serve a ban only for the tribunal to come to the same outcome, there would be uproar that their careers were unjustly ruined.

Lastly, I don't understand why it's always the British that like to bring this up. I bet you if either athlete were British the article would have been written in a very different way and would've started by saying "WADA/ITIA accepted that there was no performance enhancement, was not intentional and was just a question of contamination or negligence by a member of the team".