A case based on jealousy and innuendo, the hounding of Lance Armstrong.

[DanTex]

49. The corticosteroid test was positive. He backdated a prescription.

It was a trace amount, but it was still a positive test. I'm not sure what that article means by "not in the positive range", but the test was positive enough that he needed a Therapeutic Use Exemption to avoid penalty. Which he provided after the fact, in violation of protocol. If you have doping protocols, you have to enforce them, otherwise there is no hope. Alberto Contador lost his title over a trace amount of clenbuterol, that could also be considered "not in the positive range". From the SI article:

In 1999, while Armstrong was on his way to his first Tour victory after beating cancer, a French newspaper received a tip that Armstrong had tested positive for a corticosteroid and had no therapeutic use exemption (TUE) on his medical form. Armstrong, who was riding for the Postal team, had just said in a press conference that he did not have any prescriptions for banned products. When the team discovered that the newspaper had received the tip, panic hit Armstrong and his inner-circle, according to Emma O'Reilly, a soigneur from Ireland who worked with the team and specifically with Armstrong. She was in the hotel room after the 15th Tour stage when, she says, Armstrong and team officials devised a plan.

"They agreed to backdate a medical prescription," O'Reilly tells SI. "They'd gotten a heads up that [Armstrong's] steroid count was high and decided they would actually do a backdated prescription and pretend it was something for saddle sores."

In violation of its own protocol requiring a TUE for use of such a drug, officials from the UCI announced that Armstrong had used a corticosteroid for his skin and his positive result was excused. O'Reilly also told SI that, just before the start of the '99 Tour, Armstrong asked her to use some of her cosmetics to cover up injection marks on his arm, though O'Reilly does not know what substance Armstrong had injected. O'Reilly made these same allegations in a 2004 book about Armstrong, published only in French, called L.A. Confidentiel. Armstrong subsequently filed a libel suit against O'Reilly, the book's authors and its publisher. He also sued The Sunday Times of London for reprinting the allegations in a review of the book. (Armstrong settled The Times case for an apology and recovery of his legal costs, and dropped the others.)

About the EPO samples, yes, we do know they were Armstrongs, because the reporters got hold of the documents that listed which samples were Armstrong's. The people in the lab performing the tests didn't know which were which at the time that they performed the tests, but the reporters figured it out.

Finally, sorry, but that quote simply doesn't say that USADA is "breaking their own rules". And, you are going to have to point to the part of the Constitution that governs the rules that sports leagues are allowed to use to stop people from cheating. Do you think the use of instant replay in the NFL is unconstitutional?