(Extracted and modified from some comments)
The law is something more than just what the powers that be say it is. The law is something more than what the judges say it is, and it's something more than what proves to be practically useful.
Otherwise, I could have written two sentences:
1. If your "B" sample was analyzed by the same person who analyzed your "A" sample, there's no AAF.
2. Otherwise, you're screwed.
Rules are rules. They have a language and a meaning separate and apart from how they are applied. 500 years ago, wars were fought over whether the Bible would be published in the vernacular, because the powers that be knew that words have their own power. 80 years after the Declaration of Independence, some "idiots" read that all men were created equal, and decided that meant the end of slavery. Yeah, it's laughable to discuss professional cycling in the same breath with Reformation and Abolition, but the principle is a big one even if the questions we consider here are not as big.
"Stop" does not mean "go", "war" does not mean "peace", "freedom" does not mean "slavery", no matter what anyone else might say and how much power they might have.
It's interesting. In my preface to this series, I warned everyone that they'd come to the end of the series and wonder what it was all supposed to be about. And I've been thinking about what I might say if I was asked to write an epilogue to this opus.
Here's why I wrote the series. What I wanted was for people to read the Hamilton case, say "that's full of shit", and be able to employ the combined logical power of science and law to back their argument.
I wanted Mr. Idiot to read what the FL arbitrators said about matrix interference, say "that's full of shit", and use the combined logical power of science and law to back his argument.
If my article did what it was supposed to do, you guys can make your arguments not by plucking ISL rules from here and there, but by employing the ISL as an coherent whole, as a document with a logic and a purpose connected not to the exigencies of WADA World, but to the imperatives of science.
I wanted to put the lawyers and the scientists on the same page. There are many things wrong with the ISL, but even WADA World could not completely screw up a document that derives from ISO 17025 and is intended to provide standards for scientists. I was tired of hearing from you, and Ali, and Mr. Idiot, how the science and the law are at cross-purposes. If my article did what it was supposed to do, then you can now read the ISL (at least the portions of the ISL covered in the article) consistently with sound principles of good science.
I'm relatively confident that the article did not manage to do all I wanted it to do. I'm relatively confident that my article is a cautious step in the right direction. I'm reasonably happy with that.
I wish that Larry is right, that actually understanding the regulations and rules would lead to an ability to argue them successfully given a set of facts. I'm afraid that in the geo-political circus that seems to be the environment here, that will not be the case. In honesty, we know Atticus Finch did not have a good chance on appeal with Tom Robinson, as much as we might wish it were otherwise, and as much as belief in the law might lead us to hope.
I'm very pleased to have Larry's work shed light into the rules that seem so likely to be misinterpreted. If you are failing to provide completely clear answers, it is because the situation has been made intentionally murky by those who wrote the rules and interpret them.
Thanks to Larry for the piece, and to those who've taken the time to get through all the pieces
Should Larry work up the steam to look at quality control, we'll be happy to run that as well.
D-47 and counting.
Up to the Introduction; back to part 14; to the Table of Contents