Other than having wasted time over procedural complaints, eventually settlerd, and being a bit hard for laymen to follow, Herr Doktor appeared to be pushing the bunny out of the hat.
What I think I heard was:
- You need more then the 44/45 or 2/1 traces alone for proper identification, and we don't have them all;
- That aside, the retention times aren't anything near the WADA spec for matching the GCMS and the IRMS, so he really doesn't know what he's looking at.
- It's easy for unclean peaks to have problems with background subtraction nibbling into true data;
- Overlapping peaks often lead to skews between first and second peaks in reports that do not match the truth.
- Lost peaks can affect the integration and isotope results.
- Wandering internal standard values suggest something odd is going on that has not been diagnosed.
- There is literature including the newly admitted Cologne study that says the delta-delta values should always be within -2 units.
- The peak identification isn't up to WADA spec, providing a legally triggering ISL violation.
- The overlapping peaks probably account for some variation in delta values that is not correct.
- The ratio variance between the samples as inferred from the other studies, includig cologne, stronly suggest there is some other substance included in the measurements.
- This other substance might account for the big 5a swings.
It may not be hopping around, but there may be rabbit ears poking out.
What is missing is a systemic explanation that accounts for all the other results, because all of the examples given were cited from the S17 A and B samples.
We note that Suh successfully invoked the "Young Gambit", getting things admitted that might not ordinarily, by citing USADA's previous use of the "expedited nature" of arbitration.