Notes
A discussion on the proper establishment of the decision limits is given in [5].
Unfortunately, the arbiters have not always been sufficiently accurate in their quotation of the expert witness(es). After a careful comparison of the wordings of the ruling with the taped proceedings of the hearing, it was noticed that some of the “quotes” in the ruling were not consistent with his oral testimony. Nevertheless, the reference has been included as it expresses clearly the view of CAS on matters related to laboratory work and accreditation.
References
Georgakopoulos C (2002) IOC laboratory accreditation of the doping control laboratories, at http://www.cafdis-antidoping.net, 17 January 2002
Van der Veen AMH (2003) Accred Qual Assur 8:334–339
Van der Veen AMH (2003) Accred Qual Assur 8:300–301
Van Eenoo P, Delbeke FT (2003) Accred Qual Assur 8:477–479
Van der Veen AMH (2004) Accred Qual Assur 9:
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) 2002/A/399/Poll v/FINA, Arbitral Award, Lausanne, Switzerland
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van der Veen, A.M.H. Author’s response to the Letter to the Editor of Van Eenoo et al. concerning the paper “Measurement uncertainty and doping control in sport”. Accred Qual Assur 9, 375–377 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-004-0775-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-004-0775-4