This is my second attempt at this, my first version got trashed when I left my comp.
in the care of
my kids.
If I am recalling the details correctly - not from first-hand knowledge - but, Butch's
case had to
do with a couple names being scratched over and names being re-written on different
lines on the
Chain-of-Custody collection form. I believe there were about a dozen or so names on
this one COC
collection form.
I am involved with employment drug testing in the U.S., and this would have been a
fatal flaw, such
that the drug testing lab would have refused to test the sample because the chain of
custody would
have been considered broken - that there would be doubt as to which sample matched up
to which donor
name on the COC collection form.
With regards to U.S. employment testing - and this is what was odd with the IAAF
collection
procedures that were in place at the time of Butch's case - there would not have been
a donor
collection list, but each specimen has its own self contained COC. The list with
multiple names
would have been a log to verify how many specimens were in a particular shipment, not
for
identifying and matching bottles of urine to names on a list (which was a flawed
procedure to begin
with, but I think this was an attempt to maintain anonymity.)
Also, if I recall correctly, the steroid that was reported in the specimen was one
that was
generally considered used by throwers and not sprinters. After the apparent final
order of donor
names on the COC form was determined, Butch's name was between two throwers, which was
part of his
evidence.
Again with regards to U.S. employment testing, there would have been more than enough
evidence to
show doubt in the integrity of the chain of custody, or that specimens were not
properly matched up
to donors' names on the collection list.
I don't recall what evidence - if any - the IAAF presented in the lower court case.
But I think it
was interesting that the IAAF showed up on the appeal to use the U.S court system
against Butch and
to successfully argue that the lower court had no jurisdiction to award a $27 million
judgment on an
organization outside of the U.S.
IMHO, Butch's case had more to do with an individuals rights and "European
aristocrats" than what
might be considered philosophical reasoning that has been discussed on this thread.
Michael Contopoulos wrote:
> I know the butch reynolds case but don't know what his evidence was, or how
> he could have known, that his sample was someone else's. can someone
> enlighten me on Butch's "facts"
>
> Thanks,
> M
>
> _
> Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer--
> sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
