That two pharmacologists are apparently in Essendon's corner should come as no surprise. In criminal trials, for example, both the defence and prosecution inevitably manage to find and pay for 'credible' experts whose opinion's support their positions, no matter how ludicrous.
I have even seen this operate in drug trials where two experts will have conflicting opinions on whether the composition of a particular substance classifies it as illicit.
I have even seen this operate in drug trials where two experts will have conflicting opinions on whether the composition of a particular substance classifies it as illicit.