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."
There is still some assumption that Wada science is some form of unique science and thus experts must conversant with WADA science to give expert testimony.
However it is the other way around. Analytical methods are well established and should be the basis of Wada.
We have to look at the originating principles of the WADA code which states that Wada and its code are sports rules and are not subject to usual criminal or civil methods and assumptions and principles.
Costs to much to be anything other.
CAS has bought into this.
I am surprised the ref to the paper on lawinsport has not been related to my post.
The only way you're able to try and defend wada is by misquoting people and making personal attacks, which is actually quite similar if not completely identical to the way that wada conducts it's bogus operations.
My original post was to explain why Bol and Greene have to go outside of WADA to find experts -- really having nothing to do with you.
Apparently you agreed all along with my and Boye's explanation that a rule prevents it: "no WADA lab employee may serve as expert witness for the Defense - which is indeed a rather unfortunate and stupid rule" but curiously found it more important to argue essentially that Boye should have said "should not" rather than "cannot".
The analysis must necessarily be conducted by independent scientists outside of WADA to have any chance of being fair and meaningful, as WADA-accredited labs are bound by rules that forbid them from disputing the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab.
For context, it all started with this lie from you. Nice backpedaling to "ethics" and "on behalf of athletes" though.
I can admit I paraphrased Boye's words before having read the exact language in the relevant parts of the ISL. If that was the whole issue all along, you didn't say anything about my words until now. This is similarly easily fixed with the slightest of modifications: "WADA-accredited labs are bound by rules that effectively prevent them from disputing the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab", without all the accusations of lying.
Not sure now what you mean now by backpedaling. The "rule" in question can be found in the Code of Ethics, and you already conceded that "no WADA lab employee may serve as expert witness for the Defense".
I have a coulple of suggestions that may help improve WADA.
1. A small committee of medical/scientific experts outside of WADA should be formed to regurlarly review their Technical Documents, lab procedures and research upon which they base their doping rules. I have found that in some cases, their research is extremely poor or non-existent and at least one technical document contains errors and what I consider confusing gibberish. They also seem to change methods without fully researching the ramifications of these changes. Some of this may be due to lack of funding. What would entice WADA to listen to a completely independent scientific committee? I propose that WADA can use the specific recommendations of the committee to request increased funding for the specific research, procedural changes and document changes that are recommended. The committee should have research design experts as well as experienced medical researchers. WADA should have no input in who is chosen.
2. I suggest an “Ombudsman” be chosen to regularly review cases where WADA does not follow their own rules (as seems to happen at times) or where the WADA rules are obviously unfair to one side. Complaints should be publically available and have a nominal fee to avoid spamming. The Ombudsman should be separate from WADA. While the Ombudsman’s suggestions are not binding, the public nature of the complaints and Ombudsman opinion will provide transparency.
Obviously, WADA can keep going down the road they are going where their labs’ doping busts create positive public relations. But I hope they would not be afraid of regular, independent scientific and legal audits that could positively impact their funding and people’s confidence in the organization over time.
I have a coulple of suggestions that may help improve WADA.
1. A small committee of medical/scientific experts outside of WADA should be formed to regurlarly review their Technical Documents, lab procedures and research upon which they base their doping rules. I have found that in some cases, their research is extremely poor or non-existent and at least one technical document contains errors and what I consider confusing gibberish. They also seem to change methods without fully researching the ramifications of these changes. Some of this may be due to lack of funding. What would entice WADA to listen to a completely independent scientific committee? I propose that WADA can use the specific recommendations of the committee to request increased funding for the specific research, procedural changes and document changes that are recommended. The committee should have research design experts as well as experienced medical researchers. WADA should have no input in who is chosen.
2. I suggest an “Ombudsman” be chosen to regularly review cases where WADA does not follow their own rules (as seems to happen at times) or where the WADA rules are obviously unfair to one side. Complaints should be publically available and have a nominal fee to avoid spamming. The Ombudsman should be separate from WADA. While the Ombudsman’s suggestions are not binding, the public nature of the complaints and Ombudsman opinion will provide transparency.
Obviously, WADA can keep going down the road they are going where their labs’ doping busts create positive public relations. But I hope they would not be afraid of regular, independent scientific and legal audits that could positively impact their funding and people’s confidence in the organization over time.
Great post.
I would also refer to the opening parts of the WADA code which stresses that it is a sports code and normal civil and criminal standards don’t apply.
I would also refer to the opening parts of the WADA code which stresses that it is a sports code and normal civil and criminal standards don’t apply.
Too costly to be otherwise is the explanation.
No, this is wrong. Normal civil and criminal standards do apply. you cannot use a sports code to avoid law. They are still subject to law.
What the WADA code says it that they are 'distinct in nature from criminal and civil proceedings' which is correct. a subtle but important difference. And one that i would expect a 'lab expert' to know.
I can admit I paraphrased Boye's words before having read the exact language in the relevant parts of the ISL. If that was the whole issue all along, you didn't say anything about my words until now. This is similarly easily fixed with the slightest of modifications: "WADA-accredited labs are bound by rules that effectively prevent them from disputing the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab", without all the accusations of lying.
Not sure now what you mean now by backpedaling. The "rule" in question can be found in the Code of Ethics, and you already conceded that "no WADA lab employee may serve as expert witness for the Defense".
The rule in question cannot be found there, no matter how often you pretend that. This here continues to be wrong, no matter how you rephrase it:
WADA-accredited labs are bound by rules that effectively prevent them from disputing the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab
That is evidently not equal to 3.4, and it is not a consequence of 3.4 at all:
The Laboratory or ABP Laboratory shall not provide analytical services in a Doping Control adjudication, unless specifically requested by the responsible Testing Authority or Results Management Authority (if different), WADA or a hearing body.
As a matter of fact, 3.4 explicitly explains that Wada labs may dispute each other's conclusions, namely when asked by WA/AIU/SIA/USADA/CAS/AAA/the court in Hamburg and so on.
Had you paid attention back then, you would actually recall from the Shelburrito case that some TDs actually recommend in certain cases that the first Wada lab asks another Wada lab for their opinion.
So yes, Wada labs can dispute each other's conclusions. (Also yes, athletes cannot ask Wada labs to do that.)
It also does not follow from 3.3 (obviously it can't, as it is specifically allowed in 3.4).
The Laboratory should not engage in analytical activities or expert testimony that would intentionally question the integrity of an individual or the scientific validity of work performed in the anti-doping program.
Note that "intentionally questioning the integrity of an individual or the scientific validity of work performed" is very different from disputing conclusions.
Regardless, I have been telling you this since seven days now, and yet you continue to insist that I am somehow wrong, and have now begun to insult me, while my calm responses got deleted yet your insults are still up. You apparently are some kind of superuser with special powers here.
So, I give up. Keep dreaming and or lying or trolling, whatever exactly your modus operandi is.
Lol. Calm accusations of "lying or trolling" are still insults. Just saying.
I can find 3.3 every time. This is the rule Prof. Boye himself said he was talking about.
Note also that, according to sports lawyers, 3.3 has prevented "WADA lab employee(s) (serving) as (an) expert witness for the Defense".
Note the existence of second opinions from WADA is not in question, but whether such second opinions from WADA labs and staff are "independent". If disputing the conclusion involves questioning integrity of an individual or the scientific validity of work performed, then the lab has to choose between disputing the conclusion, or violating the code, and any consequent repercussions.
I can admit I paraphrased Boye's words before having read the exact language in the relevant parts of the ISL. If that was the whole issue all along, you didn't say anything about my words until now. This is similarly easily fixed with the slightest of modifications: "WADA-accredited labs are bound by rules that effectively prevent them from disputing the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab", without all the accusations of lying.
Not sure now what you mean now by backpedaling. The "rule" in question can be found in the Code of Ethics, and you already conceded that "no WADA lab employee may serve as expert witness for the Defense".
The rule in question cannot be found there, no matter how often you pretend that. This here continues to be wrong, no matter how you rephrase it:
WADA-accredited labs are bound by rules that effectively prevent them from disputing the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab
That is evidently not equal to 3.4, and it is not a consequence of 3.4 at all:
The Laboratory or ABP Laboratory shall not provide analytical services in a Doping Control adjudication, unless specifically requested by the responsible Testing Authority or Results Management Authority (if different), WADA or a hearing body.
As a matter of fact, 3.4 explicitly explains that Wada labs may dispute each other's conclusions, namely when asked by WA/AIU/SIA/USADA/CAS/AAA/the court in Hamburg and so on.
Had you paid attention back then, you would actually recall from the Shelburrito case that some TDs actually recommend in certain cases that the first Wada lab asks another Wada lab for their opinion.
So yes, Wada labs can dispute each other's conclusions. (Also yes, athletes cannot ask Wada labs to do that.)
It also does not follow from 3.3 (obviously it can't, as it is specifically allowed in 3.4).
The Laboratory should not engage in analytical activities or expert testimony that would intentionally question the integrity of an individual or the scientific validity of work performed in the anti-doping program.
Note that "intentionally questioning the integrity of an individual or the scientific validity of work performed" is very different from disputing conclusions.
Regardless, I have been telling you this since seven days now, and yet you continue to insist that I am somehow wrong, and have now begun to insult me, while my calm responses got deleted yet your insults are still up. You apparently are some kind of superuser with special powers here.
So, I give up. Keep dreaming and or lying or trolling, whatever exactly your modus operandi is.
You obviously have never had any first hand experience of the way it works.
“Don't question integrity” means keep your noses out unless you want to loose funding.
I would also refer to the opening parts of the WADA code which stresses that it is a sports code and normal civil and criminal standards don’t apply.
Too costly to be otherwise is the explanation.
No, this is wrong. Normal civil and criminal standards do apply. you cannot use a sports code to avoid law. They are still subject to law.
What the WADA code says it that they are 'distinct in nature from criminal and civil proceedings' which is correct. a subtle but important difference. And one that i would expect a 'lab expert' to know.
I agree that sports codes do not sit outside the law. But that is what the original code was insisting.
Whilst the current code does make ref to Human Rights this has been bolted on of late.
To say they are distinct in nature functions as the same as “not “ …
You see this in reasons why they should not criminalise doping as they say criminal standards can’t be applied.
It is this original separation of sports laws that perpetuates the separation of sports doping science from normal science .
I would also refer to the opening parts of the WADA code which stresses that it is a sports code and normal civil and criminal standards don’t apply.
Too costly to be otherwise is the explanation.
No, this is wrong. Normal civil and criminal standards do apply. you cannot use a sports code to avoid law. They are still subject to law.
What the WADA code says it that they are 'distinct in nature from criminal and civil proceedings' which is correct. a subtle but important difference. And one that i would expect a 'lab expert' to know.
I agree that sports codes do not sit outside the law. But that is what the original code was insisting.
Whilst the current code does make ref to Human Rights this has been bolted on of late.
To say they are distinct in nature functions as the same as “not “ …
You see this in reasons why they should not criminalise doping as they say criminal standards can’t be applied.
It is this original separation of sports laws that perpetuates the separation of sports doping science from normal science .
Note the existence of second opinions from WADA is not in question, but whether such second opinions from WADA labs and staff are "independent".
It is not in question? Color me surprised. For seven days, you kept insisting that "the laboratories are all bound by rules saying that they cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab". Now you are saying that of course they can (as it "is not in question"), but it might not be truly independent?
So you were wrong all the time, and just, ummm, tricking me into keeping the thread alive? Well played.
Perhaps if current EPO testing is declared invalid we might see a few years of full throttle doping again from the Moroccans, Spanish, and Kenyans. Katir and Manangoi both under 3:24 in 2025.
Note the existence of second opinions from WADA is not in question, but whether such second opinions from WADA labs and staff are "independent".
It is not in question? Color me surprised. For seven days, you kept insisting that "the laboratories are all bound by rules saying that they cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab". Now you are saying that of course they can (as it "is not in question"), but it might not be truly independent?
So you were wrong all the time, and just, ummm, tricking me into keeping the thread alive? Well played.
Or -- now bear with me -- you are still wrong.
"Second opinions" were explicitly given from my very first post on Day 1, had you paid better attention back then.
"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."
More notes:
- Getting a "second opinion" is not "disputing a conclusion". Far from it.
- You seem to ignore Boye's context and conclusions in the guest article in a blog: "how WADA exercises its power over individual athletes" and "there is an unfair balance inherent in the system that favours the views and positions of WADA and weakens the arguments of athletes." Highlighting that by design WADA/ADAs/ADOs/AAA/CAS/etc. have greater access to WADA labs in a dispute that athletes do not, only makes Boye's overall conclusion stronger. If nothing else, there is a strong selection bias. This is particularly egregrious considering it is the athlete's burden to prove the process was wrongly executed and/or interpreted, but WADA labs, who know these processes best, would be ethically prohibited from saying so, if that were the case.
- You like to look at upvotes/downvotes as a measure of truth and worth, and my first post currently has 33 upvotes/3 downvotes. All your posts have 3 or 4 upvotes.
Your pedantic objection to the 100% truthfulness of the words "cannot dispute", because they can be for everyone but the athlete, is missing the bigger picture of the inherent imbalance against the athlete.
You also wrote "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 just wonder if you had never posted, if anyone else would have even noticed this "distraction", but for your highlighting it and arguing it for 7 days. It's almost like you created this distraction with a different agenda.
Your pedantic objection to the 100% truthfulness of the words "cannot dispute"
So what, was I wrong or pedantic?
In my humble opinion, it's neither wrong nor pedantic to factually point out the difference between a rule prohibiting something and a rule limiting something.
It would have stopped right there after I pointed out that difference for the first time about a week ago, but you had to go on and on that I was wrong somehow, and then of course you had to start with the insults. You still say I am wrong - unbelievable.
But it is wrong, in my humble opinion, to claim that there is no difference between a rule prohibiting something and a rule limiting something. That should be obvious, but yet, here we are.
Example:
Only natural-born citizens of the United States, who are least 35 years old, and have been a resident of the United States for 14 years, may become US President.
is substantially different from:
No one may become US President.
Pointing that out that fact does not mean overlooking the restrictions, or supporting the restrictions; and pointing it out is not wrong, no matter how much you may hate the restrictions.
Your pedantic objection to the 100% truthfulness of the words "cannot dispute"
So what, was I wrong or pedantic?
In my humble opinion, it's neither wrong nor pedantic to factually point out the difference between a rule prohibiting something and a rule limiting something.
It would have stopped right there after I pointed out that difference for the first time about a week ago, but you had to go on and on that I was wrong somehow, and then of course you had to start with the insults. You still say I am wrong - unbelievable.
But it is wrong, in my humble opinion, to claim that there is no difference between a rule prohibiting something and a rule limiting something. That should be obvious, but yet, here we are.
Example:
Only natural-born citizens of the United States, who are least 35 years old, and have been a resident of the United States for 14 years, may become US President.
is substantially different from:
No one may become US President.
Pointing that out that fact does not mean overlooking the restrictions, or supporting the restrictions; and pointing it out is not wrong, no matter how much you may hate the restrictions.
Maybe both. In my humble opinion, it is wrong to pluck statements out of context so they lose their originally intended meaning.
To better understand the intended meaning of Boye's statement was as easy as clicking on the conveniently provided qualification link within the same statement "(discussed in a recent publication from our group)", where his group discussed what the WADA Lab's duties should have been during the adjudication of the specific cases of Karus and Colvert, and concluding with:
"Moreover, it seems that they (WADA 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)."
In my humble opinion, it's neither wrong nor pedantic to factually point out the difference between a rule prohibiting something and a rule limiting something.
It would have stopped right there after I pointed out that difference for the first time about a week ago, but you had to go on and on that I was wrong somehow, and then of course you had to start with the insults. You still say I am wrong - unbelievable.
But it is wrong, in my humble opinion, to claim that there is no difference between a rule prohibiting something and a rule limiting something. That should be obvious, but yet, here we are.
Example:
Only natural-born citizens of the United States, who are least 35 years old, and have been a resident of the United States for 14 years, may become US President.
is substantially different from:
No one may become US President.
Pointing that out that fact does not mean overlooking the restrictions, or supporting the restrictions; and pointing it out is not wrong, no matter how much you may hate the restrictions.
Maybe both. In my humble opinion, it is wrong to pluck statements out of context so they lose their originally intended meaning.
To better understand the intended meaning of Boye's statement was as easy as clicking on the conveniently provided qualification link within the same statement "(discussed in a recent publication from our group)", where his group discussed what the WADA Lab's duties should have been during the adjudication of the specific cases of Karus and Colvert, and concluding with:
"Moreover, it seems that they (WADA 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)."
Distribution of Wada grants and various goodies do their predicable jobs in maintaining order.
Apparently you agreed all along with my and Boye's explanation that a rule prevents it: "no WADA lab employee may serve as expert witness for the Defense - which is indeed a rather unfortunate and stupid rule" but curiously found it more important to argue essentially that Boye should have said "should not" rather than "cannot".
Almost correct. Boyle should have said "rarely dispute..." or "are limited in disputing...". And the rule doesn't prevent it, it limits it. Is that really so complicated?
Why "curiously"? What about
rekrunner wrote:
Thank you -- accuracy and perspective is paramount. Otherwise we are solving problems that don't really exist, or with the wrong priorities.
A simple "You are correct: he should have said that differently" would have sufficed, but you went all out from claiming I was wrong - repeatedly over several days - to calling me names - repeatedly over several days.
Apparently you agreed all along with my and Boye's explanation that a rule prevents it: "no WADA lab employee may serve as expert witness for the Defense - which is indeed a rather unfortunate and stupid rule" but curiously found it more important to argue essentially that Boye should have said "should not" rather than "cannot".
Almost correct. Boyle should have said "rarely dispute..." or "are limited in disputing...". And the rule doesn't prevent it, it limits it. Is that really so complicated?
Why "curiously"? What about
rekrunner wrote:
Thank you -- accuracy and perspective is paramount. Otherwise we are solving problems that don't really exist, or with the wrong priorities.
A simple "You are correct: he should have said that differently" would have sufficed, but you went all out from claiming I was wrong - repeatedly over several days - to calling me names - repeatedly over several days.
I thought you gave up.
OK, in the spirit and interest of complete accuracy, although I think Prof. Boye's statement makes sense from the point of view of the athlete, I will agree that adding a few words will address your point for these rare exceptions.
I didn't actually call you names, but described your behavior. Nevertheless, I will also apologize for my rare outburst. It was not necessary.
