I can't speak for you, but I was talking about when uncertainty gives you a choice, you consistently chose negatively. I did not talk about dehydration. As an example, when there is a high measured blood value, the underlying cause(s) of the high value is uncertain, and we can chose between likely doping or non-doping causes, e.g. altitude or hypovolemia, depending on external facts. As you have correctly observed, sometimes their is little uncertainty, because the effects are well known and modeled. Even then, you have ignored what is well known and argued the cause is likely doping, in one case contradicting 11/12 experts, and siding with the unpopular 1 dissenting opinion. You are free to argue what you want, on any basis imagined or real, but siding with 1 dissenter is not a moderate position. Regarding "declaration of war", this was not an IAAF response, but a Coe response, during a presidential campaign. Since you are so close to Dick Pound, you will recall that the WADA-IC did not concur with or uphold Ashenden's and Parisotto's opinions about the IAAF's actions and alleged lack of thereof. They acknowledged the contradictions and inconsistencies between these scientists' public statements, and their peer-reviewed statements. But they felt it wasn't the WADA-IC's role to reconcile the contradictions. Despite Dick Pound's opinion that no one has the appetite to catch dopers, he supported the IAAF's actions and responses to suspicious blood values, and their pro-active role in developing the ABP. Given the lack of victory for them, I wonder if it's not Ashenden and Parisotto that finally regret their role in this saga, and the subsequent damage to their credibility.