Much of this report is based on non-scientific procedures, taking the word of the pharmacist that such and such was done, a polygraph test of Impey (oh, come on), and passport review (irrelevant). Here is the actual scientific evidence, as far as I can see from the link:
In my posts 308 and 317 upthread, I estimated that a dose as low as 10-20 ug might be detectable, so no problem detecting this level. And fmk cited a study showing as much as nearly 10 mg of a drug might contaminate a pill counter, so 2.5 mg is possible.
The problem I have is that they did very little to close the gap between plausible and probable. They did not test the capsules Impey took, assuming any remained; they did not run fresh capsules through the counter to demonstrate that they picked up this amount of prob; they didn’t even test the counter after a run to see how much contaminant was actually present. What we get is this:
Why in the world would she not attempt to measure the amount, at the least, if not also demonstrate how much could be transferred to capsules? This is not poor science, it’s anti-science. Anyone can claim she saw white powder. A scientist would measure it, and provide all the details involved in doing this so that it could be replicated by someone else.
But as far as I can see, this is all one of Impey’s experts used to conclude the level of contamination was consistent with what Impey ingested:
Concluded on the basis of what? That a white residue was visible? Since when does a scientist make a quantitative determination based on how much can be seen with the eye?
And to repeat a point I made earlier, even if the amount on the counter were determined to be roughly the amount Impey ingested, one still needs to demonstrate that most of this amount was actually picked up by capsules. Suppose ten mg were found on the counter. How much of it actually found its way onto the capsules?
On top of all this, there is uncertainty if in Impey's actual case, the instrument was contaminated:
The pharmacist gives a detailed statement confirming a convenient timeline that would make it possible for Impey's capsules to be contaminated (and maybe, it seems to me, making him liable to a lawsuit from other customers claiming their drugs were contaminated), but he can't even say whether the instrument was cleaned or not? Is there not a strict rule that all employees are aware of that the counter is to be cleaned following dispensing of any drug, or at least of any non-coated drug? What kind of show is he running there?
So it's possible the counter was contaminated, it's possible that the contamination was 5-10 mg, it's possible this amount got on the capsules. A lot of unproven possibilities. Standard statistics tells us what the likely probability of several possibilities is.
I haven’t seen the actual decision yet, but based on this information, this appears very sloppy. As I noted in an earlier post, given the possibility that other athletes will use the same rationale (and they have in the past, I cited a case previously), this case should have been probed in great detail. Much more could have been done that wasn’t done.
In my posts 308 and 317 upthread, I estimated that a dose as low as 10-20 ug might be detectable, so no problem detecting this level. And fmk cited a study showing as much as nearly 10 mg of a drug might contaminate a pill counter, so 2.5 mg is possible.
The problem I have is that they did very little to close the gap between plausible and probable. They did not test the capsules Impey took, assuming any remained; they did not run fresh capsules through the counter to demonstrate that they picked up this amount of prob; they didn’t even test the counter after a run to see how much contaminant was actually present. What we get is this:
Why in the world would she not attempt to measure the amount, at the least, if not also demonstrate how much could be transferred to capsules? This is not poor science, it’s anti-science. Anyone can claim she saw white powder. A scientist would measure it, and provide all the details involved in doing this so that it could be replicated by someone else.
But as far as I can see, this is all one of Impey’s experts used to conclude the level of contamination was consistent with what Impey ingested:
Concluded on the basis of what? That a white residue was visible? Since when does a scientist make a quantitative determination based on how much can be seen with the eye?
And to repeat a point I made earlier, even if the amount on the counter were determined to be roughly the amount Impey ingested, one still needs to demonstrate that most of this amount was actually picked up by capsules. Suppose ten mg were found on the counter. How much of it actually found its way onto the capsules?
On top of all this, there is uncertainty if in Impey's actual case, the instrument was contaminated:
The pharmacist gives a detailed statement confirming a convenient timeline that would make it possible for Impey's capsules to be contaminated (and maybe, it seems to me, making him liable to a lawsuit from other customers claiming their drugs were contaminated), but he can't even say whether the instrument was cleaned or not? Is there not a strict rule that all employees are aware of that the counter is to be cleaned following dispensing of any drug, or at least of any non-coated drug? What kind of show is he running there?
So it's possible the counter was contaminated, it's possible that the contamination was 5-10 mg, it's possible this amount got on the capsules. A lot of unproven possibilities. Standard statistics tells us what the likely probability of several possibilities is.
I haven’t seen the actual decision yet, but based on this information, this appears very sloppy. As I noted in an earlier post, given the possibility that other athletes will use the same rationale (and they have in the past, I cited a case previously), this case should have been probed in great detail. Much more could have been done that wasn’t done.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram