In 2019, Christian Coleman, then 23 and recognized as the world’s fastest man, allegedly missed three drug tests over a span of just over 360 days. Under anti-doping regulations, failure to provide accurate whereabouts information can lead to a suspension of up to two years.
However, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) interpreted the rules in a way that backdated Coleman’s first missed test to April 1, 2018—rather than the actual date, which was June 6, 2018. His third and final missed test occurred on April 26, 2019. Based on this timeline, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) announced that, since the three whereabouts failures did not fall within a 12-month period, it would not pursue a sanction.
In this case, Christian Coleman appeared to have strategically navigated the nuances of the USADA’s regulations. His legal team clearly understood how to interpret the rulebook and effectively outmaneuver potential penalties.
To date, Coleman has not fully explained how he managed to miss three unannounced drug tests within that timeframe. A closer look suggests he may have had more than a full year to update his whereabouts information via the USADA system, which would have allowed for proper testing—yet he failed to do so.
It seems Coleman struggled not with physical performance, but with the simple task of updating an app. This season, evading drug tests appears to have become his primary event. While he is undoubtedly a talented runner, every race must come to an end—and eventually, so will his ability to outrun the consequences.
Such maneuvers typically require support, planning, and strategy. It raises a contradiction: How can someone who claims to be a staunch advocate for clean sport simultaneously spend much of the year avoiding drug tests?
From a tactical standpoint, it is often considered more advantageous for an athlete to serve a suspension for three whereabouts failures than to be caught with a positive drug test. The repercussions of the latter are far more severe—longer suspensions, public scandal, loss of sponsorships, and permanent damage to one’s reputation.
Avoiding testing through multiple no-shows offers an ambiguous narrative. The athlete isn’t officially labeled a drug user, allowing speculation to linger: perhaps they were attempting to hide drug use, or perhaps it was simply a logistical oversight. This ambiguity can partially preserve an athlete’s public image.
In contrast, a failed drug test leads to immediate and undeniable consequences, including potential career-ending penalties. For athletes using performance-enhancing substances, a series of missed tests may actually be the safer—and smarter—option.
Coaches play a pivotal role in shaping athletes’ decisions, behaviors, and beliefs. A review of doping cases over the past decade reveals a recurring pattern: the coach. In many instances, coaches—especially those with personal experience using banned substances during their athletic careers—have either directly or indirectly influenced their athletes’ decisions to dope, often leveraging existing networks to facilitate access.
Several critical questions remain unanswered:
-
How did the USADA’s electronic system, which is designed to automatically schedule three unannounced drug tests within a year, fail in this case?
-
Why was a test that occurred more than 12 months prior still counted as a legitimate whereabouts failure?
-
Was there manipulation of test dates to ensure the case could be dismissed?
-
Did Coleman’s management team know about this loophole in advance and deliberately exploit it to ensure an uninterrupted season?
-
Is USADA selectively protective of American athletes?
One thing appears certain: had this been a Russian athlete, the outcome would likely have been drastically different.
As the saying goes, “There’s no smoke without fire.”