The AP article about this experiment is some incredibly shoddy journalism - to the point where I almost wonder if it's AI-generated...
First - they refer to the drug in question as temozolomide, which is a form of chemotherapy used to treat brain cancers. The actual drug is trimetazidine. Not a difficult mistake for a layperson to make - but very careless for a journalist, and calls into question whether this piece was appropriately researched and vetted.
Second - reading the article makes it pretty clear that the pull quote "we have to stop that urgently" is being taken out of context. The full text of Niggli's messages that appear in the body of the article are as follows:
"
Gunter we have a big issue. How come we have Saugy doing an opinion for Valieva, super favorable to her. … If it is a RUSADA opinion, we should absolutely not be involved in anyway. … this is a big issue on our side to get involved in such an opinion that will be used in court. We have to stop that urgently.”
Note how Niggli states twice that WADA should not be "involved" - by which it stands to reason he is referring to the fact that, as mentioned in the AP article, WADA acted as an intermediary between RUSADA and Saugy:
"RUSADA followed the custom at the time and asked WADA to serve as an intermediary with Saugy. In this case, WADA connected the Russians with the well-respected scientist."
Reading the full text, doesn't it make more sense to interpret Niggli's messages as objecting to WADA's decision to solicit an opinion from Saugy, who
represented the Russian sports ministry at Sochi 2014 where doping was known to have occurred, and who was the director of the lab that destroyed 67 samples from Russian athletes during London 2012, despite a directive from WADA not to do so? Certainly, someone who has been reasonably suspected of past wrongdoing in Russia's favor is not an ideal candidate to submit an opinion on behalf of a Russian athlete!
The article, however, subtly implies that the quote "we have to stop that urgently" was in response to the fact that the opinion was favorable to Kamila:
"When details from a scientific experiment that could have helped clear embattled Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva landed at the World Anti-Doping Agency, the leader of that organization’s reaction was unequivocal: 'We have to stop that urgently,' he wrote."
While Niggli's message did mention that the opinion was favorable to Kamila, look closely at the question he is asking:
"How come we have Saugy doing an opinion," not "How come we have an opinion that is favorable to Valieva." I don't see any reasonable way to interpret these messages other than "we have to stop an opinion by a questionable source from being used in court."
Third - as many have already pointed out in this thread, whether contamination via cutting board was possible was not the material question of the case. The article itself even says as much:
"In this case, WADA connected the Russians with the well-respected scientist, who conducted an experiment to see whether traces of a cut-up tablet of the banned drug Temozolomide, known as TMZ, could cause a positive test. The answer, according to the people with knowledge of the case who spoke to AP: yes.
This would have fit with one of the defenses the Russians were using for Valieva: that her grandfather made a strawberry smoothie for her, possibly using the same cutting board or utensils he used to cut TMZ tablets for himself. Using this defense, if Valieva could prove her grandfather made the smoothie and she drank it within a certain time frame before her positive test, there was a chance she could’ve received a 'no-fault' positive due to contamination that would have resulted in a less-stringent sanction.
Sports’ highest court ultimately refused that defense, stating that while there were plausible scientific explanations for contamination, Valieva didn’t meet the burden of proving she drank a tainted smoothie within that time frame."
In other words - Valieva didn't need to prove that contamination via cutting board is possible; she needed to prove that the trimetazidine in her test was the result of contamination via cutting board
.
Finally - the results of Saugy's experiment would have no impact on the decision, because another expert witness was called by Kamila's team and testified to the same thing!
Here is part of the testimony of Prof. Pascal Kintz, from page 119 of
the full CAS decision:
"The urine concentration of 2.1 ng/mL is, according to Prof. Kintz, consistent with contamination. As Prof. Kintz says, 'there is nothing in the scientific literature that prevents the scenario of contamination.'"
It makes no sense to argue that an expert opinion stating contamination was a possible cause would have changed the outcome of the proceedings in the least - because the proceedings already included an expert opinion stating contamination was a possible cause! Saugy's opinion was completely unnecessary - which is no doubt why both RUSADA and Kamila's team proceeded without referencing it.
This article strikes me as nothing more than clickbait - a pretty clumsy attempt at a "gotcha" to stir up the controversy again and generate views.
www.ap.org
. 
. I'm sure there are people who would try to make the argument 175 > 238 of course, but they would be wrong 
