mbeaugard wrote:
iron_mike wrote:
that's both a reasonable interpretation of recent events and a staggering indictment of USATF,,,
The entire case so far is an indictment of the drug testing process. You have someone still leading a lab, who provided false testimony -> How is there not strict liability there?
"Here’s what we do know about the CAS hearing. When Jarrion Lawson appealed his case to CAS, there was one key factor that allowed him to win the appeal. Greene — who also represented Lawson — was able to show that one of the AIU’s expert witnesses, Professor Christiane Ayotte, director of the WADA-accredited doping control lab in Montreal, provided false testimony in Lawson’s original AIU appeal.
Houlihan’s sample was tested in Ayotte’s lab. Ayotte was the one who decided to report the result of Houlihan’s test as an adverse analytical finding (i.e. a positive test), rather than an atypical finding (which would have triggered an investigation rather than suspension), as is done in potential food contamination cases. She testified as her own expert witness in Houlihan’s CAS hearing."
Edited to add a link to the letsrun article -> https://www.letsrun.com/...track-field-tragedy/
"Ayotte was called by the AIU as an expert witness in Lawson’s AIU appeal. She testified that in recent years, positive tests for trenbolone in her lab had always featured low concentrations of the substance, making it impossible to separate intentional cheaters from those who had ingested contaminated meat.
Lawson’s team requested records from Ayotte’s lab to confirm these claims; the lab denied the records, forcing Lawson’s team to appeal to CAS to compel the lab to turn them over.
The actual records revealed Ayotte’s claim was not accurate. The CAS panel noted some of the levels measured "were large" and that 18 of the 21 positive tests for trenbolone since 2013 contained higher concentrations than Lawson’s .65 ng/mL."
Just curious:
How many of the tests by her lab were "with low levels", and reported as negative or adverse findings?
Positive means: over the threshold, right? So 18 of 21 were significantly over, which means? nothing.
You can always spin a story a certain way.
But the factual data don't lie.
Most athletes who enhance are micro-dosing by now. Hence the thresholds.
Last edited by:
nevertoolate: Jun 17, 21 14:35