Publicus said:
Just curious, how do you feel about the Ovtcharov case? Are you equally as dubious about his argument and why? And just to lay my cards on the table, I see AC's case and the handling by RFEC, from a legal theory, to be essentially the same as Ovtcharov's, so I'm trying to understand how folks who are critical of the legal theory advanced in AC's case, find it persuasive in Ovtcharov's case.
You've already received quite a bit of feedback on this question, pointing out some of the differences in the two cases. My opinion, FWIW, is that he does have a better case than Bert, which is not to say that he definitely did not dope. I have felt all along that the extremely low probability of ingesting CB-contaminated meat in the West is the biggest obstacle Bert faces, and since Ovtcharov consumed meat in China, he may dodge that bullet.
I say may, because I don't think anyone knows what the prevalence of tainted meat is in China. There have been some suggestive stories and apparently a small study, but I wouldn't draw any solid conclusions from them. But at least it MAY turn out that eating contaminated meat is common in China, whereas all the evidence says it isn't in Europe. IIRC, several of O's teammates, who ate the same meat, also tested positive, which provides further support for the claim. Bert's case would have been helped considerably if his teammates who he said ate the same meat had also been tested, but as we know, they weren't.
The hair test is another point in O's favor, though not IMO compelling evidence against doping (it tests for chronic use of CB in the past, so is more of a "character" reference, it can't address the possibility of a one-time usage of the drug, even though it seems to have little value taken in that manner). I posted a link here last week to a study finding that CB could be detected at least 6 months after ingestion in hair, and given this was more than a decade ago, and sensitivity of detection is greater now, probably that time frame could be extended. For me, the fact that Bert would not even submit to a hair test is telling. What does he have to lose?
You note that Bert was tested far more in the period preceding his positive. I agree that is a point in his favor, but we know that passport tests can be beaten, that they are not even close to a guarantee that transfusion will be spotted, even if they are carried out close in time to when the transfusion took place. For at least a limited time frame, therefore, the hair test is probably a superior indicator. If a CB positive is to result from transfusion, the athlete would probably have to take a reasonably large dose of the drug regularly over a period of time, and therefore be vulnerable to a positive hair test. So for Bert, for whom microdosing seems to be ruled out, the hair test is a critical piece of evidence--actually more so than for O.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram