not exactly wrote:
That link is from an appeal regarding Slaney's accusation that IAAF had overstepped its authority and/or incorrectly determined her guilty of doping. It is not the actual IAAF case against her, as you seem to believe.
WHAT AREN'T YOU UNDERSTANDING? The Independent Tribunal found that the IAAF was correct, and even went so far as to point out that Slaney REFUSED to tender her medical records to the (IAAF) Tribunal.
The only reson why the USATF hearing went in Slanyey's favor is that 2 out of the 3 memebers of that hearing had direct connections to Slaney or her lawyers. The USATF hearing was a farce, which was why the IAAF took the unprecedented action to step in an rehear Slaney's case in front of an IMPARTIAL jury.
"With the evidentiary procedure established, the Tribunal continued to consider whether Slaney had committed a doping offense. The Tribunal noted that the IAAF had established that both of Slaney's specimens had been analyzed as having T/E ratios significantly higher than 6:1. [9.5:1 and 11.6:1] The tribunal also observed that Slaney's longitudinal study revealed a previous T/E ratio high of 3:1 ; meaning that her present ratio, by the most modest of calculations, was more than three times greater than she had ever previously tested. Thus the burden was shifted to Slaney to produce a valid explanation for the findings. The Tribunal noted that Slaney had produced no evidence, let alone that of a clear and convincing nature, to prove that her elevated ratio was the result of pathological or physiological factors. Since Slaney had withdrawn from the proceedings, and refused to tender her medical records to the Tribunal, the panel was forced to conclude under the burden-shifting procedure it had outlined that Slaney was guilty of a doping offense on June 17, 1996."