john_d said:Why do some B samples take much longer than others ?
Technically, the B-Sample shouldn't. The post-sample stuff could...
I looked it up in the past, but the general timeline is pretty structured. As for B-Samples, after the athlete is notified, they have a 7-day window to either: accept ADRV, choose to have it tested, or choose have it tested with themselves or a representative as witness. To be clear, unless the athlete makes a choice and follows through, it defaults to acceptance of the ADRV; for example, saying on the 9th day that they want to witness a test but need 4 days to fly to the lab would default to ADRV (I'm 90% sure).
I think it is safe to assume it has been tested. If it hasn't been tested, TD has either opted to accept and ADRV (unlikely), or the lab was supposed to test it and hasn't. I doubt and hope that is not the case.
So, assuming the result is in, the result and possible sanction is confidentially given to the athlete. When I looked it up, I could only find UKAD and WADA procedures. I assume USADA is similar, but let's pretend that for now, it's the same:
The athlete then has a few days to request a hearing. An expedited hearing must occur within 14 days, a regular hearing presumably more. All NADO's must wait at least 20 days after this hearing to release result publicly.
Matt Cooke has said Danielson's lawyers are arguing about presence or not of something in certain somethings. If we are in the hearing phase, we need to wait until the end of the hearing, and then 20 days before learning about a positive result. USADA is not obligated to announce a negative. (But I bet Danielson would make a negative known right away)
Some links to the process from a post in the Ulissi thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=22505&p=1500447&hilit=test#p1500447