I suppose that is why the Defense will always have to go outside the WADA system to find expert witnesses.
Unfortunately yes, no WADA lab employee may serve as expert witness for the Defense - which is indeed a rather unfortunate and stupid rule.
However a WADA lab employee may serve as expert witness for CAS in adjudication, regardless of what the other WADA lab (or NADO etc.) said. They would have some conflict of interest though, but are allowed to do that (as quoted above), while Boye falsely claimed that they'd be prohibited "by the rules".
But it goes much further than WADA labs tend to stand up for each other -- it is codified in their ethics, and they would risk losing their accreditation by attempting to perform any such analytic services, activities and testimony, while wearing their WADA lab hat for any entity that is not an anti-doping organization.
Not quite true. 3.4 of the Code of Ethics explicitly allows them to do so when asked by AAA or CAS, for example, not just by "an anti-doping organization".
I do appreciate that you are finally admitting that they may "perform any such analytic services, activities and testimony" when asked by AIU, WADA or USADA, while Boye outright denied that option.
You say "not quite true" and then effectively repeat what I said - these services are not available "for any entity that is not an anti-doping organization". You are obliviously helping make Boye's point about the imbalance that exists between "AIU, WADA, or USADA" versus the athlete, under a false pretense that Boye is denying that these services are available to those who have the power, while he argues for the powerless.
But for you, and those who are too lazy to click two links to inform themselves before they speak, before this started, I gave everyone a direct link to the sportsscientists guest article penned by Boye.
In that article, right after Boye's statement you wish to be untrue, he says "(discussed in a recent publication from our group)", which unsurprisingly is a link to an article published in the FEBS journal ("Improving scientific practice in sports-associated drug testing" ), where he, and others, write which rule he means:
"Moreover, it seems that they (WADA labs and experts) hesitate to testify against each other and instead refer to a WADA code which states that a 'laboratory should not engage in analytical activities or expert testimony that would intentionally question the integrity of the individual or the scientific validity of work performed in the antidoping program' (International Standard for Laboratories, June 2016, Annex B, section 4)."
(NB: In 2021, this language is verbatim in Annex A, section 3.3).
Furthermore, due to your failure to inform yourself, you accuse Boye of denying an option in 3.4, obliviously unaware he was referring to language in 3.3.
Curiously, such services performed under 3.3 and 3.4 are permitted, but not fully supported by WADA. The same 3.4 says "Analytical activities performed under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of Annex A will not fall under the WADA-accredited or -approved status of the laboratory and shall not negatively affect the Analytical Testing of Samples from Anti-Doping Organizations". They can perform these services, but, like I said, only when they remove their "WADA approved" hat to do so.
I suppose that is why the Defense will always have to go outside the WADA system to find expert witnesses.
Unfortunately yes, no WADA lab employee may serve as expert witness for the Defense - which is indeed a rather unfortunate and stupid rule.
However a WADA lab employee may serve as expert witness for CAS in adjudication, regardless of what the other WADA lab (or NADO etc.) said. They would have some conflict of interest though, but are allowed to do that (as quoted above), while Boye falsely claimed that they'd be prohibited "by the rules".
Now you are kidding right? After denying any such rule exists, you finally admit there is an unfortunate and stupid rule that, at least in some cases, prevents WADA labs from being truly independent. Note Boye did not say anything absolute, like "always prohibited" or "can never dispute", and was speaking from the point of view of the charged athlete in an adjudication.
If WADA's goal is to protect all athletes, this truly independent expertise should be the only possibility in every case, as a matter of routine, and not just something that is also permitted in some selected cases chosen by any entity in a dispute, except the athlete.
As a reminder, Boye's statement is whether WADA-accredited labs can be considered truly independent and fair and meaningful, in all cases, not just the WADA approved ones where it doesn't involve questioning "the integrity of the individual or the scientific validity of work performed":
"WADA-accredited laboratories routinely employ one another to present a “second opinion”. However, another WADA-accredited laboratory is not independent; the laboratories are all bound by rules saying that they cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab (discussed in a recent publication from our group). A fair and meaningful second-opinion process would include truly independent scientists."
Not sure what Boye said. I just pointed out the specific rule that precludes WADA lab personnel from providing expert testimony or analysis that would question the scientific validity of any other analysis conducted in the anti-doping program. Therefore, WADA lab personnel (some of whom conduct WADA-funded research on anti-doping substances) can only testify in support of a WADA lab analysis (i.e., Prosecution witness only). I suppose that is why the Defense will always have to go outside the WADA system to find expert witnesses.
Note that always having to go outside the WADA system is another disadvantage against the athlete, as CAS panelists develop a long term familiarity with the same WADA experts, some over decades:
"The lawyers residing in the panels of CAS hearings frequently meet with WADA-accredited scientists and develop a confidence in their expertise that may run counter to trusting opposing and unfamiliar expertise. This lack of power balance is not fair to the athlete."
Elsewhere he shows why the role of the lab expert and the need for true independence is so important:
"Judges (lawyers) are usually not qualified to interpret the test results and rely entirely on WADA's interpretation of WADA's own results."
Not sure what Boye said. I just pointed out the specific rule that precludes WADA lab personnel from providing expert testimony or analysis that would question the scientific validity of any other analysis conducted in the anti-doping program. Therefore, WADA lab personnel (some of whom conduct WADA-funded research on anti-doping substances) can only testify in support of a WADA lab analysis (i.e., Prosecution witness only). I suppose that is why the Defense will always have to go outside the WADA system to find expert witnesses.
Note that always having to go outside the WADA system is another disadvantage against the athlete, as CAS panelists develop a long term familiarity with the same WADA experts, some over decades:
"The lawyers residing in the panels of CAS hearings frequently meet with WADA-accredited scientists and develop a confidence in their expertise that may run counter to trusting opposing and unfamiliar expertise. This lack of power balance is not fair to the athlete."
Elsewhere he shows why the role of the lab expert and the need for true independence is so important:
"Judges (lawyers) are usually not qualified to interpret the test results and rely entirely on WADA's interpretation of WADA's own results."
You are fully right.
Any expert in the use of testing equipment is denigrated as knowing nothing about Wada methods yet they may well have actually designed the very machines that Wada use.
Any expert in the use of testing equipment is denigrated as knowing nothing about Wada methods yet they may well have actually designed the very machines that Wada use.
Indeed. We just saw that in the case of Hamburg's soccer player's Epo case.
Now you are kidding right? After denying any such rule exists, you finally admit there is an unfortunate and stupid rule that, at least in some cases, prevents WADA labs from being truly independent. Note Boye did not say anything absolute, like "always prohibited" or "can never dispute", and was speaking from the point of view of the charged athlete in an adjudication.
No. I never denied "any such rule" - where do you think you saw that?
I stated that Boye was wrong in categorically claiming that "the laboratories are all bound by rules saying that they cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab".
Note that he did use absolute terms such as "all bound by rules" and "cannot dispute", not "don't usually dispute" and not "rarely dispute".
You might recall from the Shelburrito case that some TDs actually say that the first Wada lab should in some situations ask another Wada lab for their opinion.
And of course, here you are actually finally admitting that Boye was incorrect:
rekrunner wrote: Curiously, such services performed under 3.3 and 3.4 are permitted, but not fully supported by WADA.
Note that the second part is your personal interpretation of the rules, but regardless the first part proves Boye wrong.
You say "not quite true" and then effectively repeat what I said - these services are not available "for any entity that is not an anti-doping organization". You are obliviously helping make Boye's point about the imbalance that exists between "AIU, WADA, or USADA" versus the athlete, under a false pretense that Boye is denying that these services are available to those who have the power, while he argues for the powerless.
Again, no. As you yourself quoted, and I pointed out a number of times, a "hearing body" such as CAS or Hamburg’s court may use these services too, not just "an anti-doping organization". CAS is not "an anti-doping organization".
Finally, I am "helping make Boye's point about the imbalance" on purpose, not obliviously, because that actually does exist, and is regrettable.
No "false pretense" either, because no matter how much you try to deflect from Boye's false and absolute statement, it remains incorrect - where he talked in absolute terms, not just about an imbalance, and not about "the powerless" either:
Boye wrote: the laboratories are all bound by rules saying that they cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab
It's also regrettable that you and Boye accuse Wada of rules that don't exist, when the actual rules are bad enough and should get adjusted. Your distractions are not helpful.
Now you are kidding right? After denying any such rule exists, you finally admit there is an unfortunate and stupid rule that, at least in some cases, prevents WADA labs from being truly independent. Note Boye did not say anything absolute, like "always prohibited" or "can never dispute", and was speaking from the point of view of the charged athlete in an adjudication.
No. I never denied "any such rule" - where do you think you saw that?
I stated that Boye was wrong in categorically claiming that "the laboratories are all bound by rules saying that they cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab".
Note that he did use absolute terms such as "all bound by rules" and "cannot dispute", not "don't usually dispute" and not "rarely dispute".
You might recall from the Shelburrito case that some TDs actually say that the first Wada lab should in some situations ask another Wada lab for their opinion.
And of course, here you are actually finally admitting that Boye was incorrect:
rekrunner wrote: Curiously, such services performed under 3.3 and 3.4 are permitted, but not fully supported by WADA.
Note that the second part is your personal interpretation of the rules, but regardless the first part proves Boye wrong.
Then I guess we can all agree that this rule indeed exists: "The Laboratory should not engage in analytical activities or expert testimony that would intentionally question the integrity of the individual or the scientific validity of work performed in the antidoping program", and that this rule applies to all WADA-accredited labs.
Recall again Boye's statement in context is the from the point of view of the charged athlete trying to prove his innocence, and not ADOs/ADAs or WADA or the CAS. Rather than me denying your own personal interpretation and hypotheticals and restating "he is right, and you are wrong", what do lawyers specializing in sports law say happens in practice? Here is one making Boye's points by juxtaposing the expectation of neutrality in adjudications, with the restriction on questioning integrity and validity of another lab's work:
(Using 2016 numbering of the ILS)
"Article 5 para. 4 of the Code of Ethics accompanying the ISL explicitly states that laboratory staff are to be neutral if called to testify."
"Upon a closer look at the Code of Ethics, the ability of laboratory staff to provide a free and impartial opinion could be in conflict with other provisions in the Code of Ethics. Article 4.1 states:
"Work to aid in forensic and/or legal investigations may be undertaken but due diligence should be exercised to ensure that the work is requested by an appropriate agency or body. The Laboratory should not engage in analytical activities or expert testimony that would intentionally question the integrity of the individual or the scientific validity of work performed in the anti-doping program."(emphasis added)"
"Regardless of the provision in article 5, laboratory staff are in essence prevented from levelling any criticism towards WADA’s anti-doping practices, whether it be the validity of individual tests or the flaws in the program as a whole." (emphasis added)
"For athletes seeking to engage experts who are staff members at WADA-accredited laboratories, article 4.1 Code of Ethics, despite article 5, inevitably means that the athlete is confronted with WADA-accredited laboratory staff who are reluctant to testify on their behalf. This could indeed be down to the laboratory staff’s professional opinion being contrary to the position of the athlete. However, the author herself has experienced WADA-affiliated scientists declining to testify for fear of publicly stating, in their professional opinion, that the doping authority was wrong. This provision de facto prevents an athlete from accessing the WADA network of laboratory staff."
Aside from the WADA Code1 and the anti-doping regulations adopted by each sport, another regulation less considered by athletes could have an impact on the outcome of an anti-doping disciplinary procedure. The International S...
It's also regrettable that you and Boye accuse Wada of rules that don't exist, when the actual rules are bad enough and should get adjusted. Your distractions are not helpful.
I'm happy to see you agree that WADA rule reform is necessary, even if we may not agree which rules.
It's unlikely that Boye's statement in the sportsscientists' guest article, nor my statements here, assuming for the sake of argument that they are wrong, would have much reach or impact, to cause regret -- I don't see us having any impact positively or negatively on WADA reform.
It's also unlikely that many besides you thought to deny that such a rule exists, and continue to do so after it has been repeatedly pointed out that he is talking about the chilling language in 3.3.
What's regrettable that you want to create the distraction by fabricating a theoretical contradiction, despite what is happening in practice to innocent athletes.
That's a good comparison actually. But let's be real here for a minute: the defendant wants to get cleared, no matter whether he's guilty or not; while the prosecution only wants to ban guilty people. In fact Wada is there to protect the clean athletes.
That's total BS. The people who work for Wada WANT to get more positive tests, because that's how they make their money and stay in business.
Yet more stupidity. The 'WADA' acredited lab that did the test would be the ASDTL (Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory), which is a lab within National Measurement Institute (NMI) , formely AGAL (Aust Govt Analytical Labs), and is a Federal Govt owned and managed facility. These analysts, nor management, are salaried Federal employees, it would constitute corruption to pay them any commission.
Duh. I didn't say they got paid a commission. In fact I don't know "how" they get paid, and whether they get commissions or not.
However, they DO make their living from getting positive test results, which is the only reason they exist. The sport of athletics would be much better off without them.
Duh. I didn't say they got paid a commission. In fact I don't know "how" they get paid, and whether they get commissions or not.
However, they DO make their living from getting positive test results, which is the only reason they exist. The sport of athletics would be much better off without them.
No they don't....read what I said. In Australia at least, this pareticular lab is part of the much larger NMI facility. They do not live or die by WADA tests. They also do tests outside of WADA requirements, lots of police work etc. According to an analyst, there are much more EPO positives just from random police or workplace tests because its rife in the gym environment.
Other labs that are capable of same tests can bid/tender for say, Commonwealth Games in Australia, or a Cricket tournament. They too get paid for the tendered contract. There is no clause indicating more or less money based on 'hit rate'
Stop perpetuating stuff you don't have complete knowledge of
And everything you have posted is nonsense, which is why you keep making personal attacks, because you have absolutely nothing to post that makes any sense.
What's really funny is that, while constantly trying to deny it, you keep proving what I posted.
Yet you have the audacity to make personal attacks and call other people names, because that's what stupid people do, who don't understand basic logic and don't have the ability to communicate in an intelligent manner.
What's really funny is that, while constantly trying to deny it, you keep proving what I posted.
Yet you have the audacity to make personal attacks and call other people names, because that's what stupid people do, who don't understand basic logic and don't have the ability to communicate in an intelligent manner.
Simple question. What are your sources, no name calling. What is the basis for your assertion that WADA accredited labs only make money because they produce positives?
WADA accredited labs can dispute each other's testing results, but the process for doing so is highly regulated and involves several steps.
When a sample is tested at a WADA-accredited laboratory, the results are first analyzed by the laboratory's technical staff. If a prohibited substance is detected, the results are then reviewed by the laboratory's director or designee. Once the results are confirmed, the laboratory reports the results to the athlete, their national anti-doping organization (NADO), and WADA.
If the athlete or NADO disagrees with the results, they can request that the sample be sent to another WADA-accredited laboratory for further analysis. This is known as a "B" sample analysis. If the results of the "B" sample analysis are different from the results of the initial analysis, the two laboratories may enter into a dispute resolution process, which is overseen by WADA.
The dispute resolution process involves a review of the testing methods used by both laboratories, as well as an assessment of any differences in the results obtained. If the dispute cannot be resolved through this process, the matter may be referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for further review.