Detective P wrote:
Thank you. It's hard to read these documents with noise at home. So it sounds like -19 - (-23) > 3 and error less than 1 meant they could declare it as adverse finding.
Curious what you think about Houlihan mailing in the hair sample instead of having an independent party collect the hair sample. (I'll have to go back and check if that's accurate. Short on time right now.)
Yes. That is the way they do it if they use the GC/C/IRMS test. However, the testing procedures are determined by the text of the document — the flowchart at the end if a general guide that doesn’t contain everything about the testing procedures.
The issue comes down to the guidance in the note at the end if section 3.2.1 where Houlihan’s team invoked that section as laid out in the 2nd to last section of that note. There is no question that an athlete has the right to invoke this section. There is also no question about the intention of this guidance as it was detailed in the last bullet point of section 3.2.1 here:
The main question is who gets to decide if the pharmacokinetics testing is done instead of the high false positive GC/C/IRMS test in a case like this. Two of the three CAS lawyers felt that it was fine for the lab director to decide — the lab director who has a history of false testimony and may hate your legal team for exposing the false testimony. It’s wonderful for those who want to catch more dopers and more innocent athletes.