The amazing story of how Jarrion Lawson cleared himself: He showed the head of a WADA lab provided false testimony against him

c7runner7 wrote:

It seems that an athlete can microdose HGH, EPO, testosterone and other naturally occurring compounds with a decent chance of getting away with it. Yet you can be busted for .65 ng/mL of other stuff. So why in the world would anyone take trenbolone? )

In some cases, it seems that drug coaches learned their trade in the era when tests were much less sensitive and haven't evolved with the times. Also, if you have good connections who look the other way for the right price, or a national organization that's in cahoots, you don't worry as much.

Prof Cowen mislead Parliament in the Edwards case

He was head of the London lab .

Did not do calibration set up but said he did.

Broke IOC medical code.

Head of UKAD involved in the case.

casual obsever wrote:

"more likely than not": they didn't exactly clear him, but ok.

Fair enough. Yes. Jarrion Lawson could still be a doper. So could Ajee Wilson, my brother, Evan Jager, Emma Coburn, Jenny Simpson, etc. We just don't know.

What I do know is the head of a lab can't be inaccurate in her testimony.

Jarrion IS A DOPER. As is Ajee Wilson.

I don't care that they are getting off the hook. This tainted beef excuse is crap and they know it. DOPERS.

This is the single biggest revelation from the case, and should be front and center, moving forward. as soon as the person in position of authority demonstrates a willingness to be untruthful, they must immediately be removed from said position. I honestly don't think I can support AIU efforts anymore, until they remove Ayotte from her position. It's just a no brainer, this isn't some "oh I messed up the calculations" issue, this is straight up lying, no question.

rojo wrote:

What I do know is the head of a lab can't be inaccurate in her testimony.

Why risk it wrote:

So....why would any professional athlete risk eating meat at this point having seen what Jarrion and Ajee (& others) have gone through?

So athletes should just not eat meat?! That's ridiculous. These labs need to get their sh!t together. Hopefully he's cleared to possibly make the Olympics.

rojo wrote:

To put that in context for you, that's approximately 1/90,000 the weight of a grain of salt per mL.

So basically she lied (or I guess you could say she misspoke if you think it was not intentional) and he was banned but now has been cleared.

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2020/04/the-amazing-story-of-how-jarrion-lawson-cleared-his-name-he-showed-that-the-head-of-a-wada-lab-provided-false-testimony-against-him/

Good article and glad to see Lawson cleared.

'To put that in context for you, that's approximately 1/90,000 of a grain of salt per mL' does not put it into context at all unless you explain how big an mL is.

Nowhere in the judgment or Gault's article does it say Ayotte lied, or 'gave false testimony' as is plastered across the letsrun home page. It does seem like a significant and unfortunate error, but these takes from Letsrun do a disservice to Gault's careful and balanced reporting.

What I do know is the head of a lab can't be inaccurate in her testimony.

I don't see any evidence in the article of inaccuracy. The description of the article on letsrun's home page reads "Jarrion Lawson was able to prove Ayotte lied while testifying against Lawson."

The story itself quotes the CAS's finding that concentrations of trenbolone in some athletes "'were large.'"

The story does not quote Ayote as testifying to the contrary. It does quote her claim that her testimony has been misrepresented by Paul Doyle: "I of course, disagree with Mr. Doyle’s characterization of my evidence."

Can the story's author, Jonathan Gault, let us know, buy quoting it, what her testimony was that justifies characterizing it as "proof" of a "lie."?

I see paraphrase, one piece of primary evidence, and two parties disagreeing on the veracity of testimony. Could we see the testimony? Or could Jonathan Gault or Letsrun provide a link to it?

I assume the allegations of lying were written by Letsrun editors rather than the article's author.

The CAS judgment is here:

https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/downloads/pdfs/disciplinary-process/en/CAS_2019_A_6313-Lawson-v.-IAAF_FINAL-AWARD.pdf

paragraphs 62 to 64 are the relevant ones.

The initial IAAF Disciplinary tribunal judgment is here -

https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/downloads/pdfs/disciplinary-process/en/CAS_2019_A_6313-Lawson-v.-IAAF_FINAL-AWARD.pdf

You can say that you just know that he is a doper, but it might well be the case that most of us have this kind of very low concentration of steroids from eating meat in a country where they don't strictly forbid giving animals steroids.

"The sudden increase" in positive tests at the Montreal lab "coincides with the decrease in inspection by the Trump administration."

The report also states that Ayotte misled them.

one thought wrote:

In the interest of drawing some appropriate lines in the sand, what would be our most prominent reasons for agreeing that Ayotte should resign immediately?

Trump lies pretty much every day, and I assume most folks from across the ideological spectrum can agree that, but I don't know that most conservatives, including me, agree that he should resign?

"Consider also the most frequent lie about Trump - the claim that he himself is an extraordinary and inveterate liar, somehow even worse than his predecessor or his defeated electoral rival. But the “lies” Trump is accused of telling fall mainly into the category of opinions over which the left differs with him, or the exaggerations of a salesman who makes off-the-cuff claims without bothering to check the facts (not the same thing as a lie proper).

Trump has never been accused of telling a lie with the life-altering consequences of Obama’s claim that “ISIS is on the run and al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat,” or that the Benghazi attack was over a video, or that you can keep your doctor if you like him. These led to electoral victories, complacency in the face of terrorist attacks and massive legislative programs. Nor has Trump lied to the FBI, the Congress and the American people about the existence of classified documents which he exposed to America’s enemies, as Clinton has."

fractions wrote:

I assume the allegations of lying were written by Letsrun editors rather than the article's author.

The CAS judgment is here:

https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/downloads/pdfs/disciplinary-process/en/CAS_2019_A_6313-Lawson-v.-IAAF_FINAL-AWARD.pdf

paragraphs 62 to 64 are the relevant ones.

The initial IAAF Disciplinary tribunal judgment is here -

https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/downloads/pdfs/disciplinary-process/en/CAS_2019_A_6313-Lawson-v.-IAAF_FINAL-AWARD.pdf

You can argue whether Ayotte intentionally lied, or simply presented a false statement that she believed to be true. But there's no doubting she presented a false statement.

Per the CAS decision, "she testified that Trenbolone and metabolite levels measured in her laboratory were always low and therefore intentional cheaters could not be separated from athletes measured at levels of picograms consistent with food contaminated by hormones."

Then, "but in fact, her lab records showed that some levels measured were large and that the Athlete's level was below 18 out of the 21 reported since 2013."

So she says positive tests for Trenbolone always feature low concentrations. But her own lab records reveal some "large" concentrations. So her initial statement was false.

Jonathan Gault wrote:

You can argue whether Ayotte intentionally lied, or simply presented a false statement that she believed to be true. But there's no doubting she presented a false statement.

Jon, you have, as usual, written a great article, but I would argue that her statement is not clearly false. She says the tren in the 21 samples is not large. The panel says some are, but there are no numbers given for comparison, only that 18 were larger than Lawson’s 0.65 ng/mL. That doesn’t really tell me much. Paul Doyle seems to indicate that the average of the 21 was about 2 ng/mL (208% higher than Lawson). If anything, Doyle’s statement makes Ayotte look better to me (and also makes me question how Agee ended up with 8 ng/mL).

I am admittedly much more likely to side with a scientist over a lawyer and thought Dolye’s attacks on her were quite inappropriate.

To be clear, Doyle didn't say the average of the 21 was 208% higher; he said it was 208 times higher (so 135 ng/mL). They didn't provide the specific numbers in the CAS decision, but based on the wording of the decision and what Doyle told me, it seems clear that her statement was false.

Why is an unregistered use the person who can produce the documents that are relevant? Maybe letsrun should hire them to do investigative reporting?

Regarding Gault's claim: "You can argue whether Ayotte intentionally lied, or simply presented a false statement that she believed to be true. But there's no doubting she presented a false statement."

1) The letrsun website claims that the lie has been proven.

2) You have not presented a single statement from Ayotte that could be proven false or not.

It's not a matter of doubting whether her statements are true, its a matter of the article's author proving he knows what statements she made.

For example, you write that "based on the wording of the decision and what Doyle told me, it seems clear that her statement was false. " It seems like you have read two accounts of her statements. Have you read hers?

Can you just quote the statement of hers you're referring to? Do you have the document where that statement exists? I'm asking the article's author here, not the letsrun crowd. (Although I do appreciate the legwork!)

For example, you paraphrase what should probably be presented as a quote here:

"She testified that in recent years, positive tests for trenbolone in her lab had always featured low concentrations of the substance, making it impossible to separate intentional cheaters from those who had ingested contaminated meat."

Can you just quote that testimony?

And you write that "The actual records revealed Ayotte’s claim was not accurate."

Can you cite the records and also her claim? It would be illuminating to see both. But the article only gives paraphrases from sources that aren't named.

Please go up a few posts where I explained this clearly.

I do not have her exact statement to quote from because that was not made available in the AIU or CAS decisions (both of which I read in their entirety before posting the article. But in both cases, they summarized what she said. The CAS outlines it clearly. This is the statement I'm referring to:

"She testified that Trenbolone and metabolite levels measured in her laboratory were always low and therefore intentional cheaters could not be separated from athletes measured at levels of picograms consistent with food contaminated by hormones."

CAS then says her own lab records refute this statement. Thus the statement is false.