The Panel also bears in mind the following:
a. As Prof. Rabin explained, if the Athlete was exposed to TMZ residues and thus to a low dose (i.e. between 0.5 mg and 7.5 mg and not between 7.5 mg and 35mg) then she would have a urine concentration of 1-1.7 ng/mL three days after the last intake – which meant that her reported urine concentration of 2.1 ng/mL on 25 December 2021 was not consistent with a scenario whereby she was exposed to TMZ contamination on or before 21 December 2021 in Moscow. If she did ingest the substance in Moscow it could only be explained on the basis that she ingested not residues but an entire pill. (When asked about this Prof. Kintz agreed that there were “serious doubts” that contamination could have occurred in Moscow.)
b. It thus became important for the Athlete to be able to say that her exposure to the TMZ continued after 21 December 2021, which she has now done by reference to the strawberry dessert, which she says she carried with her and ate over the days she spent in St Petersburg, with her last in time eating of the dessert some 50 hours prior to the test.
c. There is therefore a coherent basis to say, as the Appellants have done, that the account now advanced by which the contamination did not take place in Moscow but in St Petersburg by dint of the Athlete taking with her a strawberry dessert and eating it in the days leading up to her competition has been crafted in order to fit the science.