There seems to be a baseless tendency to think a guilty verdict is always more correct than the innocent verdict.
Again, none of this addresses the question whether the T/E test that "caught" her can be considered a "reliable proxy for doping", and therefore whether the guilty verdict was a correct one. Is the T/E ratio sufficient to establish doping?
This is a question for scientists and not for tribunals or district courts or appeals courts. Judges and Arbitrators will simply assume the science is correct, and interpret the rules accordingly.
These are not just my doubts, but it seems that the scientists were largely in agreement that the T/E test alone is not sufficiently reliable.
Apparently "the IOC laboratories ... own internal scientific literature questioned the validity and reliability of the ... test as a proxy for doping, especially for women whose hormone levels naturally fluctuate".
It would be interesting to see these questions within the IOC lab's own internal literature.
A high T/E ratio can indicate high testosterone or low epitestosterone. Reportedly "The (International Olympic Committee) laboratory reports are clear that her testosterone levels were always within her own normal range, which itself was always within the normal, allowable range. Those facts were never disputed."
It would be interesting to see what her testosterone levels were, what her range was, what normal ranges are, and what was the allowable range. I wonder if there are studies on the performance benefits of low epitestosterone.
According to a paper from 2001, by 1997 several groups of scientists had proposed improvements to the T/E tests.
It is clear that WADA did not consider the T/E test sufficient to establish doping, as they now also require a more reliable CIR test for confirmation, and have done as far back as 2004.
This is not the only question of an era that predates WADA.
What also seems irregular is how the IAAF came to adjudicate the results of the sample collected by the USOC for the USATF in the first place. Today, the WADA Code doesn't allow this kind of double-jeopardy from ADAs/ADOs with potentially overlapping jurisdiction, and WADA retains the right to oversee and launch appeals.
There are some eerie parallels where Slaney's conviction was not due to reliably establishing the exogenous presence of testosterone, but ultimately reversing the scientific burden onto the athlete to scientifically explain, to the high standard of clear and convincing evidence, why the T/E science fails.
Also the quotes from her lawyers that most athletes wouldn't have the resources to defend themselves, and "the system simply rolls over you" expressed concerns as far back as 1998 that the balance of anti-doping adjudication strongly favored doping prosecutors over the athlete.