Australian swimmers Shayna Jack and Brenton Rickard have incurred the wrath of the globe's anti-doping authorities.
And right on cue, enter stage right the nation's cheerleaders for their own to protest their innocence or play down their culpability.
It does Australia's senior role in world sport no favours to constantly have two positions - one when it's our own in the gun and another when the villain is from any other country friend or foe.
So to begin with the background of each case - which are indeed quite different.
Jack's arose first, although it occurred much later in time.
She was tested out-of-competition in the lead up to the 2019 world championships.
It's a pretty standard procedure now for international sporting bodies to take samples from all serious contenders prior to a major event.
Jack tested positive to ligandrol - a substance which was starting to pop up both around the traps and in test results around that time.
She was immediately suspended by Swimming Australia, a stand-down which she accepted and which will now benefit her in terms of the time she will eventually spend on the sidelines.
Rickard was a bronze medallist in the 4x100m medley relay at the London Olympic in 2012, having swum the breaststroke leg of the heat for the Australian team.
But the news of his positive return for the masking agent and diuretic - furosemide - came only in the last month, the outcome of eight year testing re-checks by the World Anti-Doping Agency.
Rickard's case is now being heard but Jack's, at least for the moment, has concluded.
Jack has been banned for two years from July 12 last year, the day from which she respected her provisional suspension.
In theory she will be back in time for the Tokyo Olympics but will have had no chance to qualify for the team given that process will have concluded by then.
Her test result would normally have seen her banned from the sport for four years but the sole arbitrator at her first instance hearing accepted on the balance of probabilities that Jack did not ingest the substance intentionally.
But to commentator Alan Jones who both proclaimed her innocence and that she had been before the International Court of Arbitration for Sport, that's a misunderstanding on both counts.
She's still guilty because sports doping is a strict liability offence and the athlete is responsible for what ends up in their system, and various parties still have the opportunity to appeal the case to the CAS internationally.
She just happens to have a reduced period of ineligibility.
Because the essence of these hearings are arbitrations it is rare that the general public gets to know the arguments presented or the full reasons for decisions.
But we do know at one point in time Jack proposed to use the case of Canadian pole vaulter Shawnacy Barber in her defence.
Those privy to the facts of his case would hope that she did not.
Rickard's case is still before the CAS. It's a messy one for a bevy of reasons.
It's true that it's harder to mount a defence when the accusation comes eight years after the alleged offence.
There's the complication that if convicted Rickard's team mates could all lose their medals even though he only swam the heat, and it looks of the face of it that the case involves a very small amount of the offending substance.
But the latter is exactly one of the reasons why the IOC, WADA and the international federations keep testing year later - because system accuracy either improves or picks up substances not previously traceable.
Rickard's lawyer, Rebekah Giles says the problem with the continuous testing is that whilst it is designed to catch the real dopers it also causes those like her client to fall foul of the strategy.
And there was the normally on-the-ball Roy Masters who ventured that the threat of subsequent testing should be just that, but that no action should be taken if it reveals anything. Not much of a shot across the bows there.
Rickard's team mate, James Magnussen did him no favours by suggesting that an athlete wouldn't for example have kept for eight years the receipt for across-the-counter medicines purchased at a pharmacy.
The standard advice to all elite athletes is that they shouldn't be doing anything like that.
Magnussen further argued that their medals should not be taken away because Rickard had only swum in the heat.
Well the reality is that he got the team to the final and he did so either to rest the other breast stroke swimmer or to have a chance to get a medal himself.
There were few, if any, Australian voices raised when a hundred and more athletes from other countries lost medals and placings from the London Olympics through recent re-tests.