I just caught up on this story, and it seems that a similar problem existed in the Floyd case, relative to the starting and stopping of equipment. Not trying to open a can of worms here but also found it interesting that a member of the Landis legal team assisted in the case, and they prevailed on technical issues similar to the Landis case.
Important is this portion of the story:
In one of the more flagrant rule violations, the Beijing lab submitted documents that seemed to show that a testing instrument had been running continuously and properly when in fact its operation had been interrupted. The panel's written opinion referred to the document as a "cut and paste representation.''
According to the opinion, "If an athlete is to be sanctioned solely on the basis of the provable presence of a prohibited substance in his body, it is his or her fundamental right to know that [the testing agency] has strictly observed the mandatory safeguards. Strict application of the rules is the quid pro quo for the imposition of a regime of strict liability for doping offenses.''
It is amazing to me that had Landis prevailed on a technicality (and it seemed there were dozens) in his case, then it is probable that none of the current events would be occurring.
If anyone is inclined or cares, getting the relevant portions from the CAS ruling would be an interesting read.
Important is this portion of the story:
In one of the more flagrant rule violations, the Beijing lab submitted documents that seemed to show that a testing instrument had been running continuously and properly when in fact its operation had been interrupted. The panel's written opinion referred to the document as a "cut and paste representation.''
According to the opinion, "If an athlete is to be sanctioned solely on the basis of the provable presence of a prohibited substance in his body, it is his or her fundamental right to know that [the testing agency] has strictly observed the mandatory safeguards. Strict application of the rules is the quid pro quo for the imposition of a regime of strict liability for doping offenses.''
It is amazing to me that had Landis prevailed on a technicality (and it seemed there were dozens) in his case, then it is probable that none of the current events would be occurring.
If anyone is inclined or cares, getting the relevant portions from the CAS ruling would be an interesting read.