----- Original Message -----
From: Highfill, Floyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'franno' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Paul Halford
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; T-F LIST <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 10:50 AM
Subject: RE: t-and-f: IAAF inconsistencies
There is no way, short of divine
> intervention, that the specific gravity of a sample of urine could change
> even 1-2% in handling, much less enough to cause a 4 fold increase in the
> nandrolone concentration determination. >
> Floyd Highfill
> (Chemist/theoretical scientist)
Mr. Highhill
Based on my experience on this list, I know that you will never admit that
you're anything but the world's greatest expert on Nandrolone and drug
testing. But if you and anyone else on the list is interested, I submit an
extract of the Merlene Ottery ruling by the Arbitration panel. If after
reading this you cannot see or agree with the differences between her case
and the rest, then I give up.
FYI Mr. Highill, the specific gravity reading fell from 1.025 to 1.019.
Dropping below 1.020 requires an adjustment to the calculations done by the
lab. These calculations were not done. If they were done, Otteys
nandrolone readings would be 4.53 ng/l, below the 5 ng/l limit.
Stephen Francis
Extract from the Arbitration panel on Merlene Ottey:
The IOC produced a document for the guidance of accredited laboratories,
entitled "Analytical Criteria for Reporting Low Concentrations of
Anabolic Steroids" (August 1998), which was introduced into evidence by the
parties at this hearing. The document recommends that a report should not
be issued for non-pregnant females if the concentration in the test sample
is less than 5ng/ml. It also recommends that adjustment of the reporting
concentration must be made if the specific gravity of the urine sample is
greater than 1.020. If so, the IOC recommends increasing this minimum with
regard to the amount by which the specific gravity of the urine sample
exceeds 1.020. This is recommended as the IOC recognises that among other
factors, during intense physical activity a degree of dehydration may
occur, using urine to become concentrated. This may increase the measured
concentration of excreted substances, possibly up to fourfold. The James
Report, a report to the UK Sports Council from the Expert Committee, dated
18 January, 2000 referred to by all parties at this hearing, approves of
this IOC recommended procedure as the most appropriate method of correction
when necessary.
On 5 July, 1999 Ms. Ottey competed in both the 100m and 200m events in
less than 90 minutes on a day that produced a temperature ranging from 25.5
to 28 C between the hours of 13h00 and 19h00. She had travelled to the
meeting by air carrier. All factors tend to support a finding of urine
concentration due to some dehydration justifying a specific gravity reading
of 1.025 when her sample was collected at the time of the voiding.
Applying the correction recommended by the IOC and as approved by the James
Commission, the urinary 19-NA concentrations detected equalled an average
of 4.53 ng/ml of urine which does not exceed the IOC suggested reporting
threshold of 5ng/ml for non-pregnant females. Thus Ms. Ottey's urine failed
to display the characteristics of a sample from an athlete who has
exogenously administered nandrolone or its metabolites.
In applying the principles enunciated above, IAAF has failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the quantity of 19-NA found in the Merlene Ottey's
samples exceeds normal endogenous production. According to the evidence and
the literature placed before the Arbitration Panel, it is generally accepted
that a finding of higher than 5ng/ml is not attributable to normal
endogenous production.
Nevertheless, the same scientific literature, including the IOC
recommendation accepted by the parties, provides the correction formula
mentioned in paragraphs 18 and 20. The parties also accepted that the
specific gravity dipstick reading (as converted) would fall below 5ng/ml,
if it were to be corrected.
Under these circumstances, the issue the Arbitration Panel had to
determine was which specific gravity reading to rely upon, either the
reading taken at the time of the voiding of the sample (1.025), or the
later readings at the time of laboratory testing (1.019) for the purpose
of triggering the correcting formula. The Arbitration Panel found that the
correct specific gravity reading to accept would be that taken at the time
of voiding, which would thus trigger the application of the correction
formula. As a consequence, the Arbitration Panel accepts that the adjusted
19-NA reading falls below 5ng/ml and therefore would not require the
reporting of the finding of a prohibited substance. In any event, the IAAF
failed to discharge its burden of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that
for the 19-NA reading to be at 15ng/ml, the time for the determination of
the specific gravity had to be the time of the laboratory testing and not at
the time of voiding. Therefore the IAAF has failed to discharge its burden
of proof that a doping offence has occurred beyond reasonable doubt.
