- The first study - the IAAF find "bouncing locomotion at lower metabolic cost"
- The second study - how Herr selectively ignored data to make Pistorius look more similar when the evidence said massive differences and advantages existed
- The mechanical advantages that explain why Pistorius has a running advantage
- “Pistorius’ sprinting mechanics are anomalous, advantageous and directly attributable to how much lighter and springier his artificial limbs are,” Weyand said in a statement. “The blades enhance sprint running speeds by 15-30 percent.”
- "We are pleased to finally be able to go public with conclusions that the publishing process has required us to keep confidential until now. We recognized that the blades provide a major advantage as soon as we analyzed the critical data more than a year and a half ago (my emphasis)"
And while it's only being published now, it seems to me that this possibility has been known by those intimately involved in the case, but not disclosed, when it needed to be. Why not? The CAS process in 2008 disregarded the entire peer-review process in the lead-up to the judgment. They clearly did not consider all the evidence, but framed a very specific question regarding the IAAF research. Whether the research was published or not was irrelevant to the CAS back in 2008 when they cleared Pistorius. So saying the finding was not published is not an excuse for not disclosing it back then. The result was a verdict based not on truth, but selected manipulation of opinion, by scientists, lawyers, or both.
Inconsistencies in the process
- "Based on the data collected at Rice, the blades do not confer an enhanced ability to hold speed over a 400m race" (16 May, 2008)
- "We recognized that the blades provide a major advantage as soon as we analyzed the critical data more than a year and a half ago," said Weyand and Bundle in a statement (17 November, 2009 - both refer to the same time period)
Then there is the issue of scientific disagreement, which happens all the time. Indeed, the Weyand article in JAP tomorrow is a counterpoint article with Hugh Herr, who was another of the scientists involved in the research process. This suggests that one half are saying there is an advantage, one half saying there is not. Such is the nature of science - different interpretations of the data happen all the time.
But this only serves to emphasize that the decision should never have been made the way it was, in the absence of this very debate. The scientific peer-review process serves to bring out the truth, whereas what transpired at the CAS did not - at best, it failed to reveal all sides to the scientific debate. At worst, it allowed them to be deliberately buried.