Thread by @NickJMButler

ARD Doping Editorial Team thread response to @wada_ama statement about "Guilty: How athletes can unintentionally become dopers". To summarise, their statement was misleading and betrayed one goal: to downplay the documentary's findings wada-ama.org/en/media/news/… 1/ @hajoseppelt

Contrary to WADA claims, it is likely sabotage through skin contact far more extensive than a "very small number of prohibited substances, e.g. clostebol". The experiment involved four anabolic steroids, with results due to be released in full in upcoming academic paper 2/

But criminal forensic scientist Hellmut Mahler, who first tipped us off that skin attacks were possible, was irritated by WADA reaction. He believes at least 80% of substances on the WADA Prohibited List could be transmitted this way, via a carrier substance. 3/

Hellmut Mahler believes any low molecular substance could be transmitted through skin, eg. anabolic steroids, SARMS, stimulants, narcotics, diuretics, Beta-2 agonists and more. We await seeing @wada_ama evidence to contrary and hope they will now investigate further 4/

WADA's claim that sabotage is a "very rare occurrence based on small number of such cases that have arisen" is unsurprising given Experiment showed that skin transfer is undetectable. Yes, sabotage can be #doping excuse, but seems to have been very little research into it 5/

German lawyer Michael Lehner responds on this point to ARD: "If I don't accept the cases, then of course I don't have many. WADA has never put its focus on attacks. Dismissed it as an excuse. Always said the athlete is responsible for what goes into their body." 6/

As for WADA's defence of the strict liability system, it skirts around the fact that an athlete's case is completely dependent on them financing and organising their own defence, creating a tier system where some have far higher capability to do so than others 7/

When challenged about financial cost, WADA Dir Gen Olivier Niggli claimed athletes can sometimes be reimbursed, adding: "It could be a real burden on the athletes. But often, too, we prosecute cases and, you know, and get no cost in return. Is that fair?". Not quite the same! 8/

Reimbursing does not seem common. German lawyer Michael Lehner says: “I don't know of any cases where an athlete was compensated if it turned out afterwards that it was not intentional. I don't know of any clause in the WADA Code that provides for that." Others say the same. 9/

And, while WADA claims that some of the athletes whose cases we showed in documentary were “exonerated”, they nonetheless still lost medals and income, and were not reimbursed. Athletes can spend over $100,000 mounting defence 10/

WADA claims system is improving but others think the opposite. Because today scientific laboratory analysis is able to detect such small traces of a substance, leading to #doping case, even though a performance-enhancing effect through such a quantity is ruled out. 11/

To summarise, clearly, as we spend most of our time investigating, doping remains a huge problem. But current system seems to sometimes target the wrong people. And WADA here seem to automatically prioritise protecting the status quo over improving system 12/

Athletes agree. Ex javelin champion Christina Obergföll, e.g, says: "If I think about what could be possible with these new findings, it's brutal, it shakes up the whole system." Full film and report, with English subs, here rbb24.de/sport/beitrag/… @malterb @joergww @JOpfermann