The court accepts that (i) in opposition to ITIA's assertions, Simona took a supplement contaminated with roxadustat, but at the same time considers that (ii) in parallel, Simona had ANOTHER source from which she CONSTANTLY ingested ALL roxadustat.
What's more, the Tribunal itself admits that the conclusion it reached is completely improbable: "241. We admit that our conclusions imply a statuary that is, in itself, highly improbable: that, at the same time in 2022, Simona Halep ingested Roxadustat from 2 completely separate sources, the KetoMCT supplement and another source that was never identified. It is common sense and logic that if our previous reasoning has led to this questionable conclusion, we should ask ourselves whether one of the intermediate premises is wrong. But I did it. [...]"
A decision that admits in the reasons that it does not quite believe the conclusion it reached is a decision susceptible to criticism. No matter how impressive the cursive, refined style of reasoning may be to the public, the principles of logic remain applicable here: if the accused proves a REAL source of contamination fixed with that substance, how plausible would it be to convict him by saying "never mind, let that you will be taken elsewhere?".
As for (i) sanctioning for variations in the biological profile, or (ii) the idea that the roxadustat in the supplement would not have been sufficient to explain the urinalysis, the conviction is based on a scientific "he said/she said". Simona had expertise in medical matters, the integrity of which cannot be doubted and which widely presented the opposite version of the ITIA.
The decision decided to go in the hands of the ITIA experts without claiming (nor could he!) any scientific competence that would allow him to cancel the theses of the (multiple) experts brought by Simona.
In fact, the Tribunal itself (not Simona!) admits that it is embarrassed by the fact that 2 of the experts brought by ITIA reached the conclusion of "likely doping" only temporally after the athlete's identity was known: "345. At the June term, the Tribunal expressed its discomfort that, at the time when Professor d'Onofrio and Dr. Garvican Lewis (but not Dr. Morkeberg) expressed their opinion in the sense of <<probable doping>, they already knew it was Mrs. Halep>>".
In short, let's not take for granted the conclusions of a decision susceptible to appeal, especially since she herself declares them "extremely improbable".
https://www.treizecizero.ro/news/simona-si-o-condamnare-mirata-de-propriile-rationamente?fbclid=IwAR0q7BSBOdYWDfCNoFqP3z6moX1dR1gH1h1IOKBs6w-gvYYe1osuDBLQnMAThe court accepts that (i) in opposition to ITIA's assertions, Simona took a supplement contaminated with roxadustat, but at the same time considers that (ii) in parallel, Simona had ANOTHER source from which she CONSTANTLY ingested ALL roxadustat.
What's more, the Tribunal itself admits that the conclusion it reached is completely improbable: "241. We admit that our conclusions imply a statuary that is, in itself, highly improbable: that, at the same time in 2022, Simona Halep ingested Roxadustat from 2 completely separate sources, the KetoMCT supplement and another source that was never identified. It is common sense and logic that if our previous reasoning has led to this questionable conclusion, we should ask ourselves whether one of the intermediate premises is wrong. But I did it. [...]"
A decision that admits in the reasons that it does not quite believe the conclusion it reached is a decision susceptible to criticism. No matter how impressive the cursive, refined style of reasoning may be to the public, the principles of logic remain applicable here: if the accused proves a REAL source of contamination fixed with that substance, how plausible would it be to convict him by saying "never mind, let that you will be taken elsewhere?".
As for (i) sanctioning for variations in the biological profile, or (ii) the idea that the roxadustat in the supplement would not have been sufficient to explain the urinalysis, the conviction is based on a scientific "he said/she said". Simona had expertise in medical matters, the integrity of which cannot be doubted and which widely presented the opposite version of the ITIA.
The decision decided to go in the hands of the ITIA experts without claiming (nor could he!) any scientific competence that would allow him to cancel the theses of the (multiple) experts brought by Simona.
In fact, the Tribunal itself (not Simona!) admits that it is embarrassed by the fact that 2 of the experts brought by ITIA reached the conclusion of "likely doping" only temporally after the athlete's identity was known: "345. At the June term, the Tribunal expressed its discomfort that, at the time when Professor d'Onofrio and Dr. Garvican Lewis (but not Dr. Morkeberg) expressed their opinion in the sense of <<probable doping>, they already knew it was Mrs. Halep>>".
In short, let's not take for granted the conclusions of a decision susceptible to appeal, especially since she herself declares them "extremely improbable".
https://www.treizecizero.ro/news/simona-si-o-condamnare-mirata-de-propriile-rationamente?fbclid=IwAR0q7BSBOdYWDfCNoFqP3z6moX1dR1gH1h1IOKBs6w-gvYYe1osuDBLQnMA
