The amazing story of how Jarrion Lawson cleared himself: He showed the head of a WADA lab provided false testimony against him

Good catch. I still don’t know what Ayotte, CAS, or a general trained expert would consider a low vs high number, but 130 is certainly greater than 2. Apologies to Agee if I presented her number in the wrong context.

But you are relying on the lawyer's statement. From CAS we only know that some values were "large", and from the expert that all were "low". Strictly speaking, we can't conclude that the expert lied without seeing the numbers and who used what definition for low and large.

As a non-expert, I agree with you that this seems like a gray area. Doyle calling for Ayotte to be fired is pretty irresponsible, and her reply to him was quite professional.

Jonathan Gault wrote:

[quote]fractions wrote:

You can argue whether Ayotte intentionally lied, or simply presented a false statement that she believed to be true. But there's no doubting she presented a false statement.

I'm not arguing whether she lied or presented a false statement. There is no evidence and I wasn't there.

Letsrun is claiming she lied/gave false testimony both in the headline above your article, and in the title of this thread posted by Rojo. In the US, giving false testimony is defined as giving a false statement that you KNEW to be false when you gave it.

As I said, and as CAS said, it is apparent that CAS couldn't rely on her evidence. Therefore saying you can't be sure she if she lied or inadvertently made an error is fair. If that is your position though, you should change the headline and title of this thread and stop sensationalising it.

fractions wrote:

As I said, and as CAS said, it is apparent that CAS couldn't rely on her evidence. Therefore saying you can't be sure she if she lied or inadvertently made an error is fair. If that is your position though, you should change the headline and title of this thread and stop sensationalising it.

If she "inadvertently" made an error providing the experting evidence that was key to getting him convicted, then she should have at least apologized when the lawyers investigated her and found her statements to be false. The fact that she didn't own up to it and apologize shows to me that she knew she was lieing and has no ethics. She should be fired from her position of authority. This is like a cop lieing about a black man dealing drugs at a traffic stop.

It's not even merely a case of lestrun establishing Ayote's intent.

Neither letsrun nor the article's author know what she testified or what the lab results were:

Gault: "Her exact statement and the lab records refuting it were not made public. That's why I can't quote them specifically and have to rely on the CAS summary. "

""She testified that Trenbolone and metabolite levels measured in her laboratory were always low and therefore intentional cheaters could not be separated from athletes measured at levels of picograms consistent with food contaminated by hormones."

CAS then says her own lab records refute this statement. Thus the statement is false."

----------------------------------

You're quoting your own article in order to report what CAS said. But in this quote, CAS isn't saying anything. You are making a claim about her testimony, and you are paraphrasing CAS. The "this statement" in the passage, which you say the CAS refutes, hasn't been produced.

You haven't read her testimony. And you say that it has nt been made public. You can't say whether or not someone is telling the truth if you don't know what they said.

Perhaps you should reproduce the passage in which you see CAS challenging the veracity of Ayotte's testimony? It would be easy to just quote that, and it would support your claim.

Here are the facts:

Gault is a trash journalist.

Lawson is a doper.

Ajee Wilson is a doper.

here's another fact. Doyle gave a VERY specific number. He must be 100% certain of that number, otherwise the AIU and Ayotte could sue the pants off of him for defamation. Somehow I doubt he's making up these numbers. I'm going with Gault/Doyle/LRC over the keyboard jockey above

What you are seeing behind the Wada curtains in this case was fully set out in finite detail in the Paul Edwards case that in on your site.

He was a thrower so who cares and must be guilty but what if there was a combination of error and conspiracy fuelled by funding considerations .

The Wada lab system were each lab acts as an expert witness for each other and there is an absence of peer reviewed science is bound to lead to injustices.

Combine this with the high moral ground that labs and their funders seek to shout from then any injustice can be created.

Read the Edwards thread!

tin can man wrote:

Lawson is a doper.

What I find more interesting than Ayotte's statements about the magnitude of tren found in others (who may or may not have been clean), is the debate over the likelihood of a false injection of the hormone into the cattle's body instead of the ear of the that would be necessary to cause a transfer from the animal.

In AIU's decision, Professor Johnson explains why this is basically impossible (refer to 84).

In CAS's decision, Ms. Hitt had the opposite opinion. Unfortunately her opinion is not explained in that document, only summarized (refer to 58 - 59). There CAS called it a scientific debate, and sided with Ms. Hitt (..."reasonably possible that a hormone implant was misplaced", see 60).

If it's reasonably possible that eating beef can result in positive drug tests, there would be A LOT more positives. There are millions of athletes being drug tested, presumably most eat beef. Yet it only happens a few times in the course of a decade, and only with athletes that are in the top 5 in the nation? BS.

Someone should do a study that can conclusively find that eating beef can cause a positive drug test. I think Rojo even volunteered to be a subject in that test.

tin can man wrote:

If it's reasonably possible that eating beef can result in positive drug tests, there would be A LOT more positives. There are millions of athletes being drug tested, presumably most eat beef. Yet it only happens a few times in the course of a decade, and only with athletes that are in the top 5 in the nation? BS.

Someone should do a study that can conclusively find that eating beef can cause a positive drug test. I think Rojo even volunteered to be a subject in that test.

I meant top 5 in the world. Lawson has a world championships silver and bronze.

You mean Contador can return to competition after doping & Armstrong is erased from cycling history? Always some have been targeted, always officials have unlimited power.

michelle v wrote:

What you are seeing behind the Wada curtains in this case was fully set out in finite detail in the Paul Edwards case that in on your site.

He was a thrower so who cares and must be guilty but what if there was a combination of error and conspiracy fuelled by funding considerations .

The Wada lab system were each lab acts as an expert witness for each other and there is an absence of peer reviewed science is bound to lead to injustices.

Combine this with the high moral ground that labs and their funders seek to shout from then any injustice can be created.

Read the Edwards thread!

This thread has started to miss the point .

It is not about guilt or not it is about one of the very very highest experts in the sports doping world misleading ,and deliberate so ,a judicial panel.

But then who should be surprised if you knew only a fraction of the detail of the mistakes and cover ups in the Edwards case.

It's not misleading, this is just more FAKE NEWS from Gault. She said positive tests always contain low levels of the drug. Which is TRUE. All the concentrations are low levels, trace amounts. It's not like anyone's blood is 50% steroids.

There may be some cases where it's clear that you can't get levels that high via just tainted beef. But it's also the case where intentional drug cheaters often have levels that could also be attained from tainted beef.

If we want to require people to have green blood and neon glow in the dark urine before considering them drug cheats, then we owe Ben Johnson and Lance Armstrong an apology.

She said that all the positives in her lab are very low level which was not true and thus misleading a hearing.

Same misleading from Cowen in the Edwards case.

Said he did calibration make up but then had to admit under legal duress that he had not done so.

Ayotte and Cowen know each other very well.

Read the Edwards case.

michelle v wrote:

Ayotte and Cowen know each other very well.

Read the Edwards case.

Who police the police ?