Most media have never reported the following statements from various lawyers, CAS panellists, and expert witnesses. Out of respect to players, their names are redacted. “PLAYER” refers to different players at different times. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - THE CHAIR [Beloff]: We perfectly understand that you [Clelland for 32 players, Hallowes for 2 players] have identified this as being a links case, and you say the links are simply insufficient. But we would be assisted, when you come to your closing submissions, to deal with the alternative hypothesis that this could be a strands in the cable case... J34 comment: WADA preferring ‘links in the chain’ approach from the start? - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - DR COX [for WADA]: ...I can't see why Como Compounding Pharmacy, which is a fairly sophisticated doping ring, why they would want to make different compounds... SUBIOTTO [CAS arbitrator]: How did you call Como Compounding -- DR COX: Como Compounding Pharmacy? SUBIOTTO: You called it a doping -- why did you assume it was –- DR COX: I looked at every single mass spectra that they have available. They were doing other compounds such as Viagra, Mechano Growth Factor, other things that were illegal or other companies owned the patent to. SUBIOTTO: They were violating patents? DR COX: Yes, I think so. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - DR VINE [Expert witness for players]: The instrument that Vania Giordani [Alavi’s lab assistant] used at Bio21 is an instrument that's used by multiple users who effectively rent time on the instrument. I'd have to say, my experience with multiple user instruments is that they get knocked about quite considerably and they are less reliable than instruments that are in a well maintained laboratory. It's very difficult for anyone to control what happens to multiple user instruments and it is very easy for them to be maladjusted by the people who are operating them. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - DR VINE: ... It's my view that, if you're going to start putting something in a syringe and injecting it into somebody, you want to be very certain that you're injecting the right material, and I don't believe that measuring something with a potential error of 10 daltons... is consistent with that. I think the expectation of what's to be done in terms of analysis is that you need to be sure you've got the right substance. SPIGELMAN [CAS arbitrator]: Is that based on the assumption that Ms Giordani knew what her calibration error was? DR VINE: I don't think she knew that there was even a calibration error ... I was given other materials, one of which was a report by an expert from ASADA, Dr Watt. I read his material after drawing my own conclusions, and Dr Watt actually agreed with the position I adopted, in terms of saying he did not believe that the evidence was compelling that this was Thymosin Beta-4. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - THE CHAIR: So you have a different view, as it were, to the construction of what's meant by method of accreditation [for test laboratories]... PROF HIBBERT [for the players]: I'm speaking as a former member of the Chemical Testing Advisory Committee of NATA, which is the National Association of Testing Authorities which is the body in Australia that dishes out the certificates... for these proceedings we are dealing with a method that has not had any peer review at all ... But, even if you decide that flexible accreditation is okay, and I would say that that would not happen in Australia. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - PROF HIBBERT: WADA accredited laboratories may modify or add outlines to existing scientific methods to expand their scope or develop new methods that involve technology already within the scope of accreditation without the need for approval by the body that completed the ISO 17025 accreditation of the laboratory... in Australia we would take a rather more narrow view. Perhaps Dr Vine will amplify. DR VINE: Certainly, we would. The view in Australia would be that such an addition does require oversight by an ISO 17025 accreditation body... what's been said here is that this WADA document somehow overrides that. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - SPIGELMAN [CAS arbitrator]: But that was the point, that was the problem with the limited calibration, was the numbers were going to be different. DR VINE: It didn't alleviate my concerns about the method as a whole... Somewhere in there there is something that doesn't quite add up... because the calibration went to 50, then any values above 50 couldn't be relied upon necessarily, because it's beyond the range of calibration. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - PROF HIBBERT: Excuse me, Mr Chairman, ... in fact calibration turns out to be one of my specialities, I wrote books on it, or chapters of books and so on... It was wrong of Dr Thevis [for WADA] to not explicitly explain that he was operating outside his calibration. ... I don't think it was correct of Dr Thevis providing that first report, in giving us tables of data, where he apparently knew that the values above 50 were not valid, and that is where I am taking mild objection. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - PROF HIBBERT: The point I make... is that, whenever you make a measurement, as we've heard, when we get 124.4 as a retest of 142.9, and we hear that if you did it again you might get 137.6 I would say, as a professor of analytical chemistry who does this, that really we should not be quoting these values to four significant figures, because it gives an untoward impression of the accuracy of the results. Of course, if you've only got one number, 142.4, it sounds great, it's fine; then it moves by 20-odd and then it might move again. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - Justice for the 34 renews its call for a Senate or Independent inquiry into anti-doping with wide ranging terms of reference which allow all sporting bodies, all athletes, and all interested parties to make representations. It’s in the national interest. Support an independent inquiry to sort this mess out.