Quote Originally Posted by PscyclePath View Post

In simple words, a measurement is only as good as the ruler you use to make it. And in the case of the French lab which ran the samples, they botched both the job, and the paperwork to document it. And if your quality control measures don't match, you can't use the results as any sort of conclusive fact. The initial decision by the California panel was flawed in that while they discounted the results of the initial test, they said the follow-on test using isotopic ratios as sufficient proof of synthetic steroid. Legally, you can't do that -- it's called the "fruit of the poisoned tree" and if the initial screen is bogus, then you can't use the results of any follow-up of the invalid test. These panel arbitrations don't appear to be bound by the common law, though...
Exactly.