Newsletter

No light yet – sport

With his first words, the presiding judge, Stephan Oberholz, indicates what this Thursday will be about. Oberholz clears his throat, waves his pen around, then gets started. The task now, he says, is to bring “more light” into the darkness and to avert “the danger of a scientific battle”. But that is exactly what cannot be avoided in this negotiation: light and dark, delicate shading on image diagrams – and the confrontation of two scientific schools of thought, which sometimes only have sarcasm left for themselves.

The “Golden Goal” room on the DFB campus in Frankfurt, the second day of negotiations in the alleged doping case of HSV professional Mario Vuskovic. After Oberholz’s first sentences, a few hours will pass, experts and witnesses will testify, arguments will be picked apart and put back together again. In the late afternoon, Oberholz then announced: The verdict will be postponed, on March 10th it will continue at the DFB sports court. To clarify detailed scientific questions, another “independent expert report” should be prepared by then, explains Oberholz. Vuskovic, whose playing career is in jeopardy after the positive epo sample, is quietly acknowledging it. But his lawyers, advisors and representatives of Hamburger SV are outraged: Is that supposed to be an independent expert? More on that later.

Vuskovic has always maintained his innocence and refused to hope that a confession would result in a lenient sentence. It will now depend on nuances for him. Because in the case of a positive Epo sample – unlike, for example, the blood alcohol level in alcohol – no data is collected and no threshold values ​​are exceeded. Images serve as analysis material, which in turn must be interpreted. A “highly complex procedure”, as everyone in the room agrees for once. Only the interpretation of the result is fundamentally different: From the point of view of the employees of the laboratory in Kreischa, Saxony, which evaluated both the A and the B sample on behalf of the National Anti-Doping Agency Germany (Nada), it is a positive doping test.

The HSV lawyers don’t see it that way. They have commissioned four alternative reports, from “world-class independent experts,” they say. And they come to exactly the opposite conclusion: No, the test was negative – and the Kreischa people made mistakes.

A brief moment of relaxation: Mario Vuskovic (middle), player of the second division soccer team Hamburger SV, at the meeting of the sports court of the German Football Association.

(Photo: Frank Rumpenhorst/dpa)

The analysis images are based on a black, oval spot. If this casts a shadow, it can be assumed that the rehearsal is a non-physical epo. On Thursday, a projector will project Vuskovic’s rehearsals onto the wall. A shadow can indeed be seen, but that’s not enough for the presiding judge, especially since the original images were sharpened using a computer program. Oberholz says: “You can hardly see any differences between the positive and negative samples.” Sven Voss, the head of the institute from Kreischa, then compares the analysis of an Epo sample with that of an X-ray image: “Only those who have analyzed it thousands of times will recognize a hairline crack.” A layman would not recognize that.

The experts appointed by HSV vehemently take the opposite position

Are the professors Perikles Simon (doping researcher from the University of Mainz) and Lorenz Hofbauer (Dresden University Hospital) therefore lay people? In any case, the two experts appointed by HSV vehemently took the opposite position: the delicate shadow could be attributed to improper post-processing of the pictures. The material also suggested that Vuskovic’s urine sample must have an increased protein concentration, which can only be explained by the amount of urine examined being filled in too high, the administration of medication such as ibuprofen, or an interruption in the cold chain during transport of the sample. The HSV/Vuskovic side therefore assumes a false-positive sample with a probability of “80 to 90 percent”; Kreischa institute director Voss disagreed, but did not want to commit to any accuracy.

Those involved leave the factual level again and again, but there is a lot at stake: the career of a talented defender, an investment of millions by HSV – and the reputation of scientists. Jean François Naud, an epo specialist from Canada, who has been commissioned by the court to draw up an independent report, is now supposed to provide some enlightening information. Only: Naud, together with Kreischa-Mann Voss, is part of an eight-strong EPO expert panel that advises the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) on EPO issues. The HSV lawyers see a dubious closeness between Naud and Voss and want to take action against it. According to the presiding judge, you shouldn’t get your hopes up. “We rule out bias,” said Oberholz.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Trending