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