Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II
Well, for what its worth, here's a link to a scan of the decision.
From skimming it, it seems that "not enough" is not so much a "there is reasonable doubt in the study" kind of thing.
The court's opinion goes something like this. The data they had suggested that the Cheetah brings both advantages and disadvantages to the user relative to a normal leg.
The study, however, was specified to measure only the part where he had the advantage. It proceeds to conclude, naturally, that the guy receives a massive advantage from Cheetah.
It is a case of biased sampling, so to speak. |
Thanks for the link. I did not realize that there were actually 3 tests done. The 'Rome Observation", the "Cologne Test" and then for purposes of the appeal, the "Houston Report". I must say, having read the full report and the panels findings, the IAAF does not come out unblemished on this.
But for all intents, the finding pertains
only to the athlete in question
and to exhibit A - the Cheetah Flex-Foot. i.e. that model only. And this finding in his favour only helps him if he qualifies.