From Chemometrics to Genealogy

Test results of EQAS samples reported by a Laboratory are transformed into a z-score. Absolute z-scores below 2 are satisfactory, between 2 and 3 are questionable and over 3 are unsatisfactory (see my blog on z-scores). Under normal circumstances we expect that by natural variability scores will vary between -2 and 2 and that by exception a value below -2 or over +2 is found. However, also in the case that all z-scores obtained over time remain within the interval [-2,+2] there might still be a problem with the laboratory.

Indeed, it is very unlikely that a laboratory would generate a series of z-scores all with equal sign. This indicates the presence of a laboratory (+method) bias. This can be checked by evaluating the RSZ = Sum(z)/sqr(m) statistics (m = number of z-scores) (RSZ = Rescaled Sum of Z). Moreover it is very unlikely that all the time z-scores are found at one of the extremes of the [-2,+2] interval. This is evaluated by calculating the RSSZ statistics (Reduced Sum of Squares of Z) = Sum(z²)/m. Both RSZ and RSSZ test values can be evaluated by using the appropriate statistical test.

It is quite striking that several accreditation bodies (e.g. the Standards Concil of Canada, the European Department for the Quality of Medicines of the Council of Europe and the CANMET-MMSL ISO document ) incorporate this time aspect in their guidelines and WADA does not. This despite the fact that in doping testing the detection of systematic errors (or bias) is of great importance.

We should nevertheless warn against an over-interpretation of z-scores

- Comparing z-scores between rounds or between laboratories has to be done with great caution. A single laboratory operating consistently in line with the fitness for purpose criterion would typically produce z-scores in successive rounds covering the range –2 to +2: the following set [0.6, -0.8, 0.3, 1.7, 0.7, -0.1] would be typical. The small ups and downs between the scores do not indicate a change in performance – they arise by chance. So 1.7 is not ‘worse’ than 0.3: it does not indicate deterioration in performance!!

- Because of this ‘natural variation’ it is not sensible to make a ‘league table’ of laboratories (or to attribute points) based on their z-scores in a round. It is not valid to claim that a laboratory scoring 0.3 in a round is better than another scoring 1.7.

- Judgments based on a time-averaged z-scores require caution as well. Averages of z-scores obtained on a number of different analytes should not be used: they may well hide the fact that one of the analytes consistently gives a poor z-score. Averages of scores from the same analyte over several rounds need expert interpretation on a statistical basis, as we indicated above.

The WADA Athlete Biological Passport Guidelines (Jan 2010) prescribe that each athletes' blood sample is analyzed in duplicate. Because of instrumental variation and for other reasons these duplicates will always give a different result. The Guideline defines a maximally accepted difference between duplicates for Hemoglobin (0.1 g/Dl) and for Reticulocytes Percentage (0.15 if first measurement < 1% and 0.25 if first measurement > 1%). In principle the accepted maximum  difference between duplicates should be equal to the repeatability of the method. By imposing these values WADA requires a certain minimal performance. Several aspects need some more discussion.

First one should define what a duplicate analysis really is. From the Guideline it appears that WADA means a duplicate injection. Such (bad) practice only includes the instumental variation and disregards the effect of a poor sample preparation (e.g. homogenization). In analytical method validation practice all steps should be duplicated, including the sample preparation. I gues this also applies to clinical tests.

Second, both test results, the 1st one and the 2nd one have the same status. There is no statistically basis for deciding which test result to be reported. It is therefore unclear on which grounds WADA decided that the first result should be reported only and e.g. not the mean of these two results. Two analyses have been performed and it is logical to use all information obtained on the athletes blood sample.

Third, the Guideline is quite vague on what to do when a duplicate analysis fails the requirement of maximum difference. It mentions that a new duplicate analysis is necessary. This implicitely means that the results of the first duplicate are void. However, a too large value between duplicates in fact means that the method  performs outside specifications. In principle this should be evaluated by the analysis of control samples. If the deviation persists, then instrument or other factors should be checked. It is only when the method is back within specifications that the measurement of samples can be continued. In this case it is logical that the results obtained with the second duplicate are reported. Without including such additional check with control samples and/or indication of an instrument malfunction, four (statistically) equivalent test results are collected on a single sample. Again there is no statistical evidence for only reporting the first one of the second duplicate. It would be better to consider all four results together and to check for a possible outlier.

The way it is now described by WADA, a test laboratory may repeat duplicate analysis until (by chance) good duplicates are obtained and then report the so called 'best' result. Such practice is unacceptable as it masks possibly large test variations.

In 2009, eight of 35 WADA accredited laboratories did not comply to clause#2 of the letter of support when applying for accreditation. This letter of support should “Guarantee that, within two (2) years of obtaining accreditation, a minimum of 3000 samples from Code-compliant clients (as determined by WADA) will be provided annually to the laboratory for 3 years”. All eight laboratories were included in the statistics at least since 2006.

In addition WADA states that “in order to maintain proficiency, WADA accredited laboratories are required, within two (2) years of the effective date of the current version of the ISL (effective 1 January 2009), to analyze a minimum of 3000 Doping Control Samples provided annually by the Code-compliant Testing Authorities... If the number of samples falls below 3000 per year, WADA laboratory accreditation may be suspended or revoked...“. What happens when the 2010 statistics reveals a continuing violation of this rule by these eight laboratories? Last year the accreditation of one of these eight laboratories, the Malaysian laboratory, was revoked on June 18, 2010. What happened with their 35 Adverse Analytical Findings (mostly Anabolic Agents) reported in 2009?

In Technical document TD2010DL, WADA updated the Decision Limits (DL) of Threshold Substances. The finding of a value that exceeds the DL in a confirmatory analysis results in an Adverse Analytical Finding.

WADA accepts that the uncertainty associated to analytical findings may be different for different accredited laboratories. Therefore WADA formulated maximum limits for this uncertainty (called the Maximum Combined Standard Uncertainty, u_{c, Max}) at the Threshold level (T) for such substances present in the urine or blood. WADA distinguishes three levels (expressed as a percentage of T) of this uncertainty: 5, 10 and 15%. By participating in the EQAS programme, laboratories should demonstrate their compliance to this uncertainty requirement. We will discuss this aspect later on.

Based on u_{c, Max} WADA defines a guard band (g) which is a multiple of the Maximum Combined Standard Uncertainty. This guard band (g) should be added to the Threshold value in order to obtain the Decision Limt (DL).

DL= T + g

A value > DL is considered an Adverse Analytical Finding. A clean athlete with a value above DL is a false positive.

Question now is what the false positive rate is for clean athletes (thus also without involuntary intake of a Threshold Substance by self-medication or by using supplements). For that we need to make some assumptions. For instance, we assume a normal distribution (not evident) for the natural fluctuation of these substances in urine and/or blood. Furthermore we assume a normal distribution (not evident) for the test variability. We have also to assume that T is defined such that in only 2.5% (or perhaps 5%) of a large group of clean athletes a Threshold Substance may be present above T just by chance. The establishment of T is still a debate in literature and media.

For all substances that are measured with an allowed maximum uncertainty of 10% , WADA defined DL and the guard zone (g) such that (DL – T)/g = 2. For a normal distribution this gives a probability of 2, 27% of finding a value above DL when the true value equals T.

However, as we assumed that only 2.5% of clean athletes will have values above T (by chance), the probability that a false positive is found for a clean athlete is 2,5% of 2,27% equal to 0,0567%. This is 1 on 1764 samples! Is this good enough? It all depends on the consequences.

From the WADA statistics over 2008 we read that 274615 samples were analyzed with a total of 5523 adverse findings. If we assume no false positives in these findings, then there are 269092 clean samples and therefore expect a limit of 153 false positive samples (=0,0567% of 269092 clean samples) (this number can be refined by iteration). A total of 5523 adverse findings were reported over 2008. This means that maximally 2,77% of these findings may be a false positive.

It is questionable whether this is good enough to protect athletes against unfair allegations.

Ironically, the athlete is better off here when a laboratory with a high performance level (uncertainty less than u_{c, Max} ) analyzes his/her samples as the guard band (g) is a multiple of u_{c, Max} !

So contrary to the situation with Prohibited Substances, better Laboratory Performance than required is now an advantage for the athlete in the situation of Threshold substances.

In their Technical Document on Minimum Required Performance Levels for the detection of prohibited substances, WADA recognizes that some accredited laboratories will be able to identify a wider range or lower concentrations of prohibited substances than other laboratories. Considering that such individual capabilities are encouraged by WADA, the need to define Minimum Required Performance Levels (MRPL) at which all accredited laboratories should minimally operate, was recognized by them. The MRPL is the level of a prohibited substance that an accredited laboratory should be able to routinely detect. For instance, all laboratories should be able to detect Clenbuterol at a level of 2ng/ml.

However, some accredited laboratories may have the capability to detect a prohibited substance such as Clenbuterol, at a much lower level. Indeed the level of Clenbuterol of 50 pg found for Alberto Contador is ~20 times lower than the MRPL defined by WADA!

According to WADA such a result below the MPRL should be considered to be an Adverse Analytical Finding leading to sanctions for the athlete.

This means that if the urine of Contador would have been analyzed by a different WADA accredited laboratory lacking the capability of a routine detection of Clenbuterol at a level lower than 2 ng/ml (the MRPL level), but complies to the WADA requirements, no Adverse Analytical Finding would have been obtained for Contador!

This arbitrariness caused by different performance levels of the laboratories that perform the analysis generates a devils dilemma.

One the one hand when a prohibited substance is detected the athlete should be sanctioned. On the other hand, from the point-of-view of the equality of rights, the conclusion that an athlete used a prohibited substance should not depend on the laboratory that did the analysis.

Indeed, from the reported WADA statistics we observe that for instance in 2008, the laboratory of Ghent reported 3% Adverse Analytical Findings, whereas the mean of all laboratories is about 1%. It is not excluded that this higher percentage of Adverse Analytical Findings is due to a better analytical capability of that laboratory. I guess that possible difficulties caused by different analytical capabilities of WADA accredited laboratories are avoided by their clause that “A” and “B” samples of an athlete are analyzed by the same analyst (and thus the same laboratory).

WADA states that:

Athlete samples (of urine or blood) are divided into an “A” and “B” sample. An adverse analytical finding obtained in an aliquot of sample “A” may be confirmed by analyzing another aliquot of the original “A” sample by a more sensitive or selective method. This confirmation testing may be repeated to obtain greater confidence in the adverse finding.

After the report of the adverse finding to the athlete, the “B“ sample is analyzed within 7 days, unless within that period the athlete waives his/her right for the analysis of the “B” sample and accepts the results of the “A” sample.

Initially WADA requested that a different analyst performs the “A” and “B” confirmation test. However, WADA states now in its Revision document that this requirement is considered unwarranted and technically unjustified due to the demonstration of satisfactory competence by a mandatory participation of the laboratory in the EQAS system.

This point-of-view is highly questionable as this procedure only includes a single source of variation: time. Other more important sources of variation are the analyst and laboratory. The assessment of the between-laboratory variation requires the set-up of collaborative studies. If the between-laboratory variation is an important factor, which I believe it is, the “B” sample should preferentially be analyzed by a second independent WADA accredited laboratory. As to some extent the between-laboratory variation may be estimated from the between-analyst variation, the analysis of the “B” sample by another analyst of the initial laboratory may be acceptable.

In any case a laboratory should estimate its between-analyst variation within the context of method validation. Indeed, it is highly improbable that a confirmation test will always be performed by the same analyst.

In my opinion, It should be the right of an athlete to request that the “B”sample is analyzed by a different WADA accredited laboratory than the “A” sample.

Accredited laboratories are requested to participate to the WADA Quality Assurance system. For that purpose WADA distributes blind and double blind samples (see flaw#1) having either a known nominal value or a consensus value. The preparation of such samples needs great attention as it may effect the homogeneity of the blood or urine sample and therefore the nominal value.

A concern is that WADA does not specify how a consensus value is obtained in case that the nominal value of a threshold substance is unknown. It is common practice to invite several expert laboratories to quantify the threshold substance in a urine or blood sample using their method of choice. The consensus value is then the mean of the results reported by these laboratories. However because the reported results will vary, an uncertainty should be associated to this consensus value. There is, however, a complication that extreme or outlying values may be found. Therefore WADA should have procedures implemented for detecting and/or removing outlying results when calculating the consensus value. It is generally known that outliers should be removed with extreme care as it may render the uncertainty unrealistically low. However WADA ISL 2009 does not consider this uncertainty at all in their calculation of the laboratory score. Moreover these uncertainties are not available to athletes defenders.

Accredited doping control laboratories are required to participate in an external quality assurance system (EQAS). EQAS reveals the between-laboratory variation. WADA directives mention that 4 rounds are organized per year, each round including (minimally) 5 samples. Blind (distinguishable from regular samples but levels are unknown) and double blind samples (indistinguishable from regular samples, levels are unknown) are distributed.

WADA stipulates that

“All procedures associated with the handling and testing of the EQAS samples by the probationary laboratory and Laboratory are, to the greatest extent possible, to be carried out in a manner identical to that applied to routine Laboratory Samples, unless otherwise specified by WADA. No effort should be made to optimize instrument (e.g., change multipliers or chromatographic columns) or method performance prior to analyzing the EQAS samples unless it is a regularly scheduled maintenance activity. Only methods or procedures used in routine testing should be employed”

However, it is generally accepted that EQAS using blind samples only, results in a too optimistic view on differences between laboratories. It is very humane that a blind EQAS sample receives more attention than ordinary samples. Because the International Standard for Laboratories 6.0 (January 2009) of WADA does not specify the number of double blind samples it is hardly possible to judge the adequacy of their external quality assurance system. Moreover WADA does not disclose their interlaboratory results.

Tests op doping zijn nog het beste te vergelijken met klinische tests die ziekenhuislaboratoria dagelijks in grote aantallen uitvoeren. Een klinisch laboratorium dient twee zaken aan te tonen: (1) dat de test gemiddeld het juiste resultaat oplevert en (2) dat het laboratorium de test goed uitvoert. Aantonen dat een test gemiddeld het juiste antwoord geeft vereist een zg. 'collaborative study'. Hieraan moeten tenminste 8-12 laboratoria deelnemen. Door hun grote aantal is voor klinische laboratoria het opzetten van een dergelijke studie meestal geen probleem. Anders ligt het bij testlaboratoria voor doping, waarvan er slechts een klein aantal gespecialiseerd zijn op dit gebied. Dat een testlaboratorium een test goed uitvoert moet blijken uit haar kwaliteitssysteem en/of haar deelname aan een extern kwaliteitsborgingsprogramma. Bij elke wijziging in de wijze waarop de test uitgevoerd wordt, bv. een andere analyst of een nieuw apparaat, dient de kwaliteit (juistheid en betrouwbaarheid) opnieuw geborgd te worden. Het geheel van die activiteiten vallen onder de noemer methodevalidatie dat onderdeel is van een kwaliteitssysteem. Gecertificeerde laboratoria dienen een dergelijk kwaliteitssysteem te gebruiken. Certificering betekent echter vaak alleen dat een adekwaat kwaliteitssysteem aanwezig is. Het gaat om het administratieve aspect. Het betekent dus niet meteen dat de kwaliteit van een test voldoende is voor het doel waarvoor die uitgevoerd wordt. Daarenboven weet ik uit eigen ervaring dat een kwaliteitssysteem niet garant staat dat geen grote verschillen tussen laboratoria gevonden worden. Het is minstens verdacht wanneer laboratoria hun validatieresultaten niet (vrijwillig) willen overleggen aan de verdediging van een van doping verdachte sporter. Dit, terwijl voor de sporter soms zijn/haar gehele carriere op het spel staat. Zijn de validatieresultaten dan ondermaats? En zijn dus de gehanteerde testlimieten betwisbaar? De commissie van beroep van de KNSB oordeelde dat de verdediging van Wesley Lommers dit recht op inzage niet onthouden had mogen worden. Het ontbreekt aan elke realiteitszin van CAS indien zij deze uitspraak niet zou overnemen. Het wordt hoogtijd dat de testlaboratoria met de billen bloot komen. 

Tot nogtoe waanden testlaboratoria zich onfeilbaar. Een positieve test was een onomstotelijk bewijs van het gebruik van doping. Maar zo eenvoudig liggen de zaken uiteraard niet. De uitslag van een test moet altijd met een zekere marge genomen worden, zeg maar 'met een korreltje zout'. Vergelijk het met de marge die genomen wordt als een flitspaal je betrapt op te snel rijden. Hoe groot die marge moet zijn hangt af van de betrouwbaarheid van de test en van de betrouwbaarheid van de uitvoering van die test door het laboratorium. Die betrouwbaarheid kan dus per testlaboratorium verschillen. Zelfs is het mogelijk dat er verschillen optreden tussen laboratoria. Het is dan niet ondenkbaar dat je op grond van een test in het ene laboratorium wel veroordeelt wordt en op grond van het resultaat in een ander laboratorium niet. Deze verschillen worden zichtbaar wanneer bijvoorbeeld twee laboratoria een groot aantal keer hetzelfde bloed- of urinemonster analyseren. Die procedure staat bekend onder de naam 'methodevalidatie'. Om een sporter te kunnen veroordelen op grond van een te hoge (of te lage) waarde van een testresultaat is het van cruciaal belang dat het testlaboratorium haar validatiegegevens overlegt. Tot nogtoe werd een dergelijk verzoek altijd door de anti-doping agentschappen afgewimpeld. De commissie van beroep van de KNSB oordeelde nu als eerste dat door het weigeren van het overleggen van validatiegegevens, de verdediging cruciale informatie was onthouden voor haar verweer. En wat was het resultaat? Omdat het Gentse testlaboratorium dit heeft geweigerd gaat Wesley Lammers vrijuit. Voor het eerst niet op grond van vormfouten, maar op een inhoudelijke grond!  De race is echter pas gelopen indien ook het Internationale Sporttribunaal (CAS) van Lausanne de uitspraak heeft aanvaard. Herman Ram van de Nederlandse dopingautoriteit heeft echter alle vertrouwen dat de CAS de uitspraak niet zal overnemen omdat volgens de WADA validatiegegevens niet overhandigd dienen te worden. Maar of dit standpunt ook bij de civiele rechter stand zal houden is nog maar de vraag. Ook de rechtsregels van CAS en WADA dienen zich te houden aan het Internationale recht. Dit heeft de zaak van Wickmayer laten zien. 

Als de uitspraak stand houdt zou dit betekenen dat nu een inhoudelijk verweer op een beschuldiging van doping mogelijk wordt. Validatiegegevens en procedures dienen aan de verdediging overlegd te worden. Verweer is dan mogelijk op zowel de deugdelijkheid van de gevolgde validatieprocedure als op de gehanteerde limietwaarden.

Bron: Trouw 8 januari 2011

To his surprise, Hein Lodewijkx, a Dutch statistician and psychologist, discovered that never a statistical study was conducted on the correlation between doping and the average velocity in big cycling tours. He was not less surprised by his observation that studies on which the conclusions of anti-doping agencies are based, are not at all representative for the professional sporter. In 2008, two double blind experiments were conducted, but on recreative sporters only. 'Double blind' means that subjects and researchers have no information on treatments. His hypothesis was that if epo influences the performance of a professional sporter, this should be seen when analyzing historical data, e.g. by comparing data before and after epo was introduced in the peleton in 1990. So, he compared the average velocities of the three largest cycling tours (France, Italy and Spain) in the period from 1903 until now. Moreover he compared the velocities of the montain stages and time trials. Guess what! No significant difference was found!. Eighty nine percent of the differences was explained by non-doping related factors such as the length and the altitude of the stages. This of course is an interesting observation that in my vieuw leads to the conclusions that (1) the effect of doping (here epo) is completely masked by other non-controllable factors and (2) that the usage of doping does not falsify the result of a contest.

Remains the question why sportifs (and their assistants) believe in the effect of epo and other forms of (blood) doping. Or, does epo provide a psychological advantage, the feeling of a winner? The effect of such psychological factors is the subject of a 4-years study conducted by the team of Hein Lodewijkx. Unfortunately, I very much fear that Alberto Contador's fate will be sealed long before this psychological study may prove his innocence.

Source: Edo Sturm, Interview with Hein Lodewijkx, "Effect doping wordt vaak schromelijk overdreven", Trouw, 11 november 2010

On October 30, 2010 Sijmen de Jong passed away in the age of 64 after a short illness. Sijmen was a skilbaseleader Statistics at Unilever Research Vlaardingen. He got his PhD in a theoretical chemistry subject, after he joined Unilever. I met Sijmen for the first time at the first Comett Chemometrics School in Leeds. His first reaction after the course was that there was nothing new under the sun. Chemometrics was nothing else than applied statistics. This opinion changed quickly when he discovered the beauty of our science. He couldn't sleep until he found out which criterion was optimized by Partial Least Squares (PLS), a method that until then was applied in a more ore less heuristic way. His discovery that it was a covariance that was optimized put him immediately in the spotlight of the chemometrics community. The logical result of that discovery was his algorithm SIMPLS that outperformed NIPALS by far. I had the opportunity to collaborate with Sijmen for several years after I joined Unilever myself. With a team of six authors, Sijmen and me co-authored two volumes of the Handbook of Chemometrics. For several years these six authors met every month to discuss each others chapters. Sijmen clearly was the teams' expert in linear algebra and multivariate statistics. I also remember our bi-annual meetings with the group of Prof. Massart at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel in the framework of ChemoAC, a consortium sponsored by several industries. During our Unilever time I travelled a lot with Sijmen when visiting our Statistics colleagues working at the other Unilever research sites. His spiritual jokes during his presentations, at the bar or during our meals are memorable. It is with great respect that I say good bye to a distinguished colleague and fellow chemometrician who controbuted significantly to our science.

WADA (World Anti Doping Association) eiste een paar weken geleden nog een zwaardere straf dan de een jaar schorsing van Wickmayer en Malisse opgelegd door het Vlaams Doping Tribunaal. Beide tennissers hadden driemaal nagelaten hun whereabouts in te vullen, hetgeen gelijk gesteld wordt aan het gebruik van doping met als gevolg de eis van een schorsing voor een periode van twee jaar. In kortgeding stelde de Brusselse rechtbank van eerste aanleg gisteren in één zin “dat artikel zes van het Europees Verdrag van de Rechten van de Mens geschonden is als een atleet in beroep moet gaan bij een louter privaatrechterlijke instantie als het Tribunal Arbitral du Sport. Dat kan niet in de eigen taal, bovendien kan daar ineens een derde partij (als het Wereld Antidoping Agentschap WADA, red.) tussenkomen om een zwaardere straf te eisen. Er was ook geen controle van een Belgische rechter." (bron: Nieuwsblad.be).

Maar het privaat Tribunal Arbitral du Sport, die de veroordeling van Pechstein bekrachtigde, neemt het zelf ook niet zo nauw met de rechten van de sporter, zoals door chemometricus K. Faber werd geopperd naar aanleiding van zijn nadere studie van de wetenschappelijke argumenten waarop de uitspraak in de zaak Pechstein mede gebaseerd was. De verwijzing van de Zwitserse civiele rechtbank naar vormfouten toen ze de veroordeling van Pechstein door het arbitragehof opschortte, is door de Brusselse rechtbank niet alleen overgenomen maar ook verder gespecificeerd. De doping tribunaals zullen hun procedures ernstig moeten herzien willen ze nog rechtsgeldige veroordelingen kunnen uitspreken op grond van het biologische paspoort. Het kan dus niet anders dan dat de in het verschiet liggende vervolgingen op grond van het biologische paspoort in de ijskast komen te liggen. Het geeft experts nu extra tijd om het biologische paspoort met wetenschappelijke argumenten naar de prullenbak te verwijzen.

zie ook: http://www.wikio.com/article/wickmayer-malisse-launch-legal-attack-wada-151904895

Considerations why the conviction of Pechstein based on her biomedical passport is at least debatable

1. The biomedical passport was introduced to set 'personal' limits for each individual sporter. These limits depend on personal conditions and situations of the sporter.
2. The %Ret limit equal to 2,4 applied to convict Pechstein is not derived from her passport but is the 'accepted' limit based on the %Ret values of a large population of sportifs.
3. The limit accepts a 5% probability of a false positive by chance, whereas a probability of 0,5% is more appropriate (see: Dr. K. Faber)
4. The number of observations collected in her biomedical passport to date is too small to be able to derive reliable individual limits.
5. In order to be able to set limits in a biomedical passport with a given probability of false positives, the distribution of the observations should be known.
6. Assuming a normal distribution on a limited number of observations is not allowed.
7. The measurement uncertainty should be taken into account when checking a new value against the limit.
8. A reliable indication of the measurement uncertainty of the involved laboratory is not provided
9. Observations above the limit are evaluated by panel of three experts. Their decision is based on a subjective 'visual' inspection of the passport without providing a hard statistical evidence

All future convictions of other sportifs based on their biomedical passport should be judged against above considerations 

Zojuist heeft een Zwitserse burgerrechter het vonnis van het CAS arbitragehof wegens mogelijke vormfouten voor een periode van 30 dagen opgeschort waardoor Claudia Pechstein kan starten in Salt Lake City. Bevestiging van die vormfouten zou betekenen dat de ISU en CAS het kennelijk niet zo nauw nemen met hun procedures en ook niet de nodige zorgvuldigheid betrachten bij het vervolgen van vermeende doping gevallen. Zou Goliath dan toch door David verslagen zijn? (zie vorige post). In ieder geval zou een dergelijke uitspraak betekenen dat de kaarten tussen ISU en sporters danig door elkaar geschud zijn. Een strijdbare Pechstein wil meteen het onderste uit de kan en nu via de burgerrechter ook deelname aan de OS afdwingen. Wordt vervolgd.