Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

This is why no one questions the isotope test...

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Thomas A. Fine

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 2:53:28 PM8/18/06
to
I originally posed the question here: "Why doesn't anyone
question the isotope test???". Well, I think Bob Mionske's
VeloNews column from yesterday does a fine job of answering
that question:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10721.0.html

Basically, there is one kind of test where you legally assume that
the test shows evidence of doping, but the athlete can challenge
this assumption by offering evidence that his body naturally can
produce whatever effect would be needed for a positive result.
The T/E test is this type of test.

And there is another kind of test that is considered to be reliable.
The results of this test can not be challenged during an anti-doping
proceeding. And this is what the isotope test is.

So from a procedural standpoint, Floyd Landis could walk in with
iron-clad evidence that his body produced the 3.99 per mil isotope
differential between his testosterone and his comparison compound,
and it would be ignored. If every scientist in the world were to
agree that this result was a natural result of Floyd's biology,
it still wouldn't matter. There's no room in the procedures that
have been created for such evidence to be used at all.

So, Floyd's lawyers, being familiar with these legal proceedings
have determined that it would be a complete waste of time to
look into problems with the test at this point. No matter how
convincing an argument they could build, it could not be used.

By the procedures that the UCI and WADA have laid out, the ONLY way he
can win this case is by what some have been calling a "technicality" -
by showing some kind of procedural problem in obtaining the result.
It's the ONLY legal option available to him now.

Unfortunately, this lack of attention from Floyd and his lawyers, while
being the only legally responsible choice, happens to be a public-
relations disaster. The incorrect claims that this is a "foolproof"
test have gone unanswered in public, and this has cost Floyd heavily in
the court of public opinion. Many are wondering why he hasn't been
questioning the test, and take it as evidence that he "knows it's
correct". Most Americans are now fully convinced that Floyd is a
doper, and aren't likely to be shaken from that position.

Mionske's column hints that maybe the rules aren't the same for a
CAS appeal. Maybe there he can question the test. But by then,
one to two years from now, no one will care anymore, and it's
unlikely they'd be moved by the highly technical evidence, even if
he were to win the appeal.

I can understand now the attraction of the conspiracy theory - a big
scandal with falsified tests and such, if such a thing were uncovered,
would lead to big news, and Floyd's reputation being cleared. And
that's about the only scenario that I can imagine that would clear his
reputation.

Unfortunately I'm an eternal optimist. If I wasn't, I'd tell Floyd not
to waste the next two years fighting a losing battle - just quit
cycling and get on with your life.

tom

gds

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 3:21:21 PM8/18/06
to

OK, I won't argue the science behind the tests but isn't the basic idea
that tests are put into the non questionable column because the
overwhelming scientific opinion is that the they are valid and
reliable? I know you are arguing otherwise.

Geraard Spergen

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 3:23:13 PM8/18/06
to
Thomas A. Fine wrote:

> I can understand now the attraction of the conspiracy theory - a big
> scandal with falsified tests and such, if such a thing were uncovered,
> would lead to big news, and Floyd's reputation being cleared. And
> that's about the only scenario that I can imagine that would clear his
> reputation.

Without comment on the likelihood of such a scenario...

If Floyd's legal team arranges to have his B samples from the other
sample dates analyzed and there is no exogenous testosterone in those
samples, then that would strongly point to sabotage of the sample that
he did fail. His legal team would have to show that it would be nearly
impossible for the exogenous testosterone to show up on Thursday at
whatever concentration it was detected, and not show up on Saturday or
Sunday. In the minds of many that would exonerate Floyd, whether his
title is stripped or not.

Ray_...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 3:32:39 PM8/18/06
to

Or the lawyers could be planning to have a public hearing and raise the
issue before a public forum.

Also, my recollection is that the IRMS results where in the press
before they had been submitted to the UCI. This is a breach of the
rules which may be used to bar the test results for being used. Thus
leaving only the T/E question.

Floyd's lawyers have a limitation you have not considered, money. FL
is not a rich person with unlimited funds. His defense is likely to
use much of what he does have or, in the worst case, all.

Thomas A. Fine

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 4:08:41 PM8/18/06
to
In article <1155928881....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,

gds <gary...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>OK, I won't argue the science behind the tests but isn't the basic idea
>that tests are put into the non questionable column because the
>overwhelming scientific opinion is that the they are valid and
>reliable? I know you are arguing otherwise.

I'm not sure if the idea is that there should be overwhelming
opinion or not. It's far from the reality.

Basically, not many people in the world are studying this. There are
anti-doping people studying it. They've come up with a few studies
that demonstrate quite well that this test is highly reliable with
normal people in normal circumstances. The studies are probably fine,
as far as they go. But the question is, do they go far enough?

In this case, it occurred to them that diet could cause false positives
on this test. So they studied it. One study with five authors and six
test subjects (who were not elite athletes and were not consuming
8000-10000 caloires a day) confirmed that diet could influence the
results, but not enough to fail the test. As far as I'm aware, that's
the only study.

In real medical tests, the amount they study it depends on how much
harm it can do. If a few false positives mean a few people are put
on bed rest for a month when they didn't have to be, that's not going
be studied very intensely. If a false positive can decide in favor
of high-risk surgery, they're going to study the hell out of it.

So how much should you study when the stakes for a false positive are
a ruined career, a ruined reputation, a public pariah, plus damage to
the entire sport, and to the most respected race in the world?

I don't know how much study that requires, but I know this: one study
of six people who aren't athletes is not enough.

tom

gds

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 4:19:54 PM8/18/06
to

Well I certainly agree that just one study with 6 subjects that may or
may not represent the target group is not sufficient to prove anything.

But since there is a column A set of tests which can be questioned and
a column B which cannot I have a hard time understanding that tests
would be in B without data to justify it.

If that is not the case then I agree that the whole system is bogus.
But that would also open up the agencies to massive lawsuits from
riders, sponsors, and races who are then the victims of serious
economic harm based on- in that case- nothing. So, if what you are
saying is true, that there is no basis for saying the isotope test is
boht valid and reliable for the purpose for which it was used; then
perhaps Floyd will wind up with more $$ than he could have possibly won
on the road.

But that is also why I remain skeptical that there is nothing to back
up the testing.

billb

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 4:20:21 PM8/18/06
to
I think you have overstated the matter to an extent -- the article is
really addressing shifting and differing burdens and standards of
proof. Further, there is a concept in the law of something called
"judicial notice" when a matter is so well established that a court
will give it presumptive recognition of validity -- similar to res ipsa
loquitur (which means the "thing speeaks for itself" for instance if an
elevator falls it is deemed negligence because the state of elevator
tech is so good that they don't fall unless someone was negligent). The
article you cited talks around these concepts in layman's terms but
does not seem to state that contesting the test is precluded -- just
that certain presumptions apply and therefore shift and make more
difficult the standards of proof necessary to rebut those presumptions.
Best,
Bill Black

Simon Brooke

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 4:50:21 PM8/18/06
to
in message <1155928881....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, gds
('gary...@msn.com') wrote:

>
> Thomas A. Fine wrote:
>> I originally posed the question here: "Why doesn't anyone
>> question the isotope test???". Well, I think Bob Mionske's
>> VeloNews column from yesterday does a fine job of answering
>> that question:

[snip]


>>
>> Unfortunately I'm an eternal optimist. If I wasn't, I'd tell Floyd
>> not to waste the next two years fighting a losing battle - just quit
>> cycling and get on with your life.
>

> OK, I won't argue the science behind the tests but isn't the basic idea
> that tests are put into the non questionable column because the
> overwhelming scientific opinion is that the they are valid and
> reliable? I know you are arguing otherwise.

Well, heck, you know that the President of the United States doesn't
believe in global warming despite overwhelming scientific opinion, so
surely no patriotic American is going to be worried by a mere drugs
test?

After all, if you can believe in Jesus, why worry about mere facts and
possibilities? Have faith, brother. Jesus rose. Floyd naturally produced
exogenous testosterone. And global warming isn't happening, and even if
it were, there wouldn't be anything we could do about it. Praise the
Lord.

--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundum variat.

b...@mambo.ucolick.org

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 6:11:07 PM8/18/06
to
gds wrote:

> Well I certainly agree that just one study with 6 subjects that may or
> may not represent the target group is not sufficient to prove anything.
>
> But since there is a column A set of tests which can be questioned and
> a column B which cannot I have a hard time understanding that tests
> would be in B without data to justify it.

You should read the discussions in this group's archives about
Tyler Hamilton's positive test for autologous blood markers,
and the studies of the tests and the testers' attitude about the
possibility of false positives. (Basically, they or the WADA
representatives in front of CAS asserted that false positives
were flatly impossible and therefore did not have to be studied.)
While I believed that Ty-Ty actually was busted, disgusted,
and couldn't be trusted, the attitude of the dope cops was not
impressive nor did it inspire the type of confidence you are
expressing. For ex, see this thread and the linked pdfs

<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/9427b5c14d58b1ae/6e6246d1dc36bdcd?#6e6246d1dc36bdcd>
(In this post I sound more reassured, but later in the thread
Chung convinces me they may be BS'ing.)

Ben

gds

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 6:20:34 PM8/18/06
to
Thanks for the reference.
I understand the argument. However, regardless of the style of
presentation that folks make there still has to be something to back it
up- I'd think. Otherwise why won't all the injured parties that claim
innocence and faulty tests simply go to court and claim monetary
damage. At that point regardless of the rules of any private
organization the defendant would have to convince a judge/jury that
it's decsion was not arbitrary. Otherwise I'd think it would cost them
a lot. I understand that rules of evidence and burden of proof
standards vary from political entity to entity but certainly both the
US and western European countries recognize the principle that folks
can not simply cause economic damage with no justification.

Philo

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 6:48:03 PM8/18/06
to
I agree the legal team should have the other B samples analyzed for T/E
ratio and conduct exogenous tests on them.

However, it is also my understanding that the secretion of T into urine
is a very short-lived event, so it is well possible to test clean
shortly before and shortly after a positive T/E test, both from a ratio
test and an isotope test standpoint. Merely showing clean samples from
the day before and the day after the infraction would therefore be
insufficient to establish innocence.

It is all moot, is it not? I believe Floyd has accepted that exogenous
testosterone was in his system on that day. He is now trying to
explain how it got there. Maybe this is not true; I cannot keep up
with his current legal strategy. Too bad he didn't get more time to
prepare his defense.

b...@mambo.ucolick.org

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 7:31:03 PM8/18/06
to

The standards of proof in a scientific paper and a court case are
different. Winning such a case will be difficult. You can't use the
lack of a lawsuit as positive evidence that a test has been
scientifically validated to the degree of reliability that you want to
assert. The proof of test validity should be on the dope cops, not
the accused's lawyers.

It's not a question of the test being arbitrary - the autologous blood
doping test is _probably_ good (unless they fuck up eyeballing
the markers), the T/E test is likely good, the 13C/12C test is
probably valid. The question is, to what level of probability? In
what sample of subjects? For ex, the EPO test was firmly tested
for everybody; except whoops, not for Rutger Beke. All of these are
well established in the medical-study sense. But there is a good
reason why careful scientists tend not to believe any one single
medical study; there are many hard-to-control variables. I don't
think there is a large chance most of these athletes are innocent,
I'm just not impressed by the cavalier attitude of WADA and its not
quite independent research subsidiaries.

gds

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 7:56:11 PM8/18/06
to

OK Thanks. I understand but isn't this an issue in all sorts of
instnaces,
Take DUI. Most states have an absolute blood alcohol level which is
"proof" of driiving under the influence. Let's put aside and issues of
validity and reliability. It is certainly the case that different folks
react differently to alcohol. And while 0.8 may well mean that almost
everybody who tests at that level should not be driving I imagine that
there are individuals who can show that at 0.8 thye can drive better
than many "non impaired" folks. But the answer is pretty much "toough
the standard is 0.8, you're guilty." And that is a criminal case that
in its extreme can mean jail time.
So,it seems that courts accept test results tha may well vary in terms
of the individual all the time.
What am I missing?

photos...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 8:11:45 PM8/18/06
to

Interesting idea. Mr Landis has a vested interest in showing that his
other "non-adverse" urine samples taken at the tour were free of
exogenous testosterone. They probably were not tested with the isotope
method because the ratios were within limits.

I wonder why Mr Landis does not seem to be seeking such additional
testing? Fear of a lifetime ban perhaps? That would subject him to
multiple violations if caught. Hmm. But he is clean, so he should have
nothing to fear. The ratios were good, so that means his carbon
weights should be normal too.

A related question: As Mr. Hamilton contends that he must have been a
chimera, do you not find it interesting that he has never undergone an
independent test of his own to at least verify this? Either he has done
so (and found no confirmation) or he already knows the answer.

In Landis' case, a "reputation exoneration" is within his reach, yet he
inists on remaining up on the crucifix. He chooses to go down in
flames, just like Hamilton did.

Sandy

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 8:21:12 PM8/18/06
to
gds a écrit :

> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>> The standards of proof in a scientific paper and a court case are
>> different. Winning such a case will be difficult. You can't use the
>> lack of a lawsuit as positive evidence that a test has been
>> scientifically validated to the degree of reliability that you want to
>> assert. The proof of test validity should be on the dope cops, not
>> the accused's lawyers.
>>
To clear this up, it IS the requirement that the 'dope cops' prove their
case. That, however, is easy under the rules. The rider has a UCI
federation license that expressly agrees to the cheating rules, the
discipline proceedings, and the definitions of what biological test
results mean.

So, at the start of the proceeding, the 'dope cops' present these three
elements, and anything else they think is pertinent. To show the rider
knowingly violated rules (scienter), they may want to add that into the
mix. That is 100% of all that is necessary for a discipline committee
to condemn the rider PROVIDED the rider leaves this uncontested.

Once a rider contests any or all of these three elements, then the panel
is being asked to consider the additional evidence which could exculpate
this rider. If the rider fails to convince, then the panel will declare
a violation and administer a penalty.

To Recap :
Dope Cops show their proof
Rider may show his counterproof
Decision is made.

Really, things are much simpler than it looks, regardless of how
journalists and forum contributors make it seem so complicated.


>
> OK Thanks. I understand but isn't this an issue in all sorts of
> instnaces,
> Take DUI. Most states have an absolute blood alcohol level which is
> "proof" of driiving under the influence.

Same story here
Prosecutor proves his case
Defendant gets to rebut it
Decision is made as to what to believe, and justice is dealt.

Don't you just love how all this legal stuff is simple ? Really ! It's
just like that.

In all cases, there is no administration of any sort of justice without
the proof of a violation. Whereas in France, not quite so kind for
drunken drivers, speeders, etc., all of whom can lose their licenses
right there on the road. Appeals, however are allowed, though that is
really playing with a loaded gun.

dbrower

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 12:07:56 AM8/19/06
to
photos...@gmail.com wrote:

1. We don't know if those other B samples exist -- they may have been
destroyed after the A sample was not positive on the T/E ratio. If
they were tossed, there is no way to go this direction.

2. Landis has not said in any detail what his defense strategy will
be, so we have no idea what is or is not refusing to do; and it may not
be possible if there are no samples. That Hamilton did not do
additional testing is one of the things that bothered me a lot about
his defense strategy, and why Landis' re-use of Jacobs is something to
wonder about. Is he going to get it right the second time around, or
repeat the same failed strategy?

3. Floyd is rather pre-occupied at the moment, and he seems to have
learned it's not paying to keep talking too much in public.

4. Yeah, it's gonna cost. Anybody got some money to throw his way?
In my opinion, it would be a better planet if he could vindicate
himself and discredit a few self-righteous jerks at the same time, so
I'm thinking about what I can afford.

By way of blatent traffic whoring, I'm trying to keep a round-up of
relevant news and opinion on http://trustbut.blogspot.com

-dB

Robert Chung

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 1:59:28 AM8/19/06
to
b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/9427b5c14d58b1ae/6e6246d1dc36bdcd?#6e6246d1dc36bdcd>
> (In this post I sound more reassured, but later in the thread
> Chung convinces me they may be BS'ing.)

That doesn't mean that the tests aren't valid, as you (and I) have pointed
out. The problem from a public policy perspective is that in both the
homologous blood test and the exogenous T test, important parts of the
protocols are being buried.


Donald Munro

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 3:41:44 AM8/19/06
to
b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> But there is a good reason why careful scientists tend not to believe
> any one single medical study; there are many hard-to-control variables.

Particularly when the test sample sizes are small.


Simon Brooke

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 4:08:37 AM8/19/06
to
in message <1155960476.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,

dbrower ('dbr...@gmail.com') wrote:

> 4.   Yeah, it's gonna cost.   Anybody got some money to throw his way?
> In my opinion, it would be a better planet if he could vindicate
> himself and discredit a few self-righteous jerks at the same time, so
> I'm thinking about what I can afford.
>
> By way of blatent traffic whoring, I'm trying to keep a round-up of
> relevant news and opinion on http://trustbut.blogspot.com

You know, I'm a Basso fan. I'm not, and never have been, a Landis fan.
But I'm not so deluded as not to know when things look bad. I still hope
Basso didn't dope; the evidence against him isn't yet conclusive. I
still hope he'll race next year. But I'm not indulging in absurd
consipracy fantasies against the Spanish police (or even the UCI -
although that would be less absurd), and I'm not building my hopes up on
the basis of credo quia impossibile.

Landis doped. Accept it.

And then, look at why, and accept that he's human. Look at the pressures
we - the tifosi - put our heroes under to succeed. Look at the pressures
their managers and teams and sponsors put them under. And doping doesn't
negate the achievements of our heroes. All the dope in the world won't
get you up the Alpe d'Huez in the absence of courage and determination
and grit.

Furthermore, doping isn't magic. Taking EPO can enhance your blood's
ability to carry oxygen, but it's banned and therefore cheating.
Likewise blood doping. Training at altitude can enhance your blood's
ability to carry oxygen, and it isn't banned and isn't cheating. Two
cyclists ride up the Alpe d'Huez together; one has trained at altitude,
one has taken EPO. Which of them has the more courage, determination and
grit? Which performance is the more beautiful, the more worthy of
admiration and honour?

Under the rules as they are at present, doping is cheating. And it's
probably a good thing that that is so. So Landis cheated, and, as a
cheat, he has to lose his title and face his ban. Cheating isn't a good
or honourable thing to do, but it doesn't make him evil. It makes him
human. Of course, in the position the sport is in just now, it isn't a
good thing for cycle racing as a whole, and, consequently, cycle racing
needs to be seen to sanction him. But these are young - some of them
very young - men under enormous pressures and faced with real
temptations.

Of course you're disappointed. It's natural and reasonable to be
disappointed. But it isn't natural - or rational - either to cast your
hero down from his pedestal and rail at him (vide countless 'f*ck you,
Floyd' posts passim), or to pile improbability on unlikelihood to
produce a teetering pile of theoretical hypothesis which, against all
the evidence, would let your hero fly free.

Floyd cheated. The consequences for him and his friends have already been
disastrous and traumatic. His old room-mate, cycling buddy and father in
law has died. His team owner - clearly someone Floyd respected and
liked - has lost his team. Floyd's suffered already far more than any
punishment that the cycling authorities have the power to impose. He
doesn't deserve either the vilification from his erstwhile fans or the
febrile defences of those still clinging desperately to the rags of
their faith. Let the guy rest. Let him gather together his dignity and
face his accusers, and then get on with the rest of his life.

But, having said all that, notice that I haven't said 'Basso cheated',
or 'Basso has to lose his title and face his ban'. I'm not yet ready to
say that. I am still clinging, not to faith, but to hope. I don't hope
Basso can get off on a technicality. I hope Basso didn't dope. If he did
dope, I hope he will find the courage to say so. But whether Basso doped
or not, whether he owns up or not, I'm /still/ a Basso fan, and I'll go
on being a Basso fan. I've enjoyed following his career; I've sat on the
edge of my seat willing him up climb after climb. He's given me a lot of
enjoyment, and nothing can take that away.

If he cheated and has to face a ban for the good of the sport, that is
sad, but it doesn't make him evil. I for one will look forward to seeing
him come back after his ban, as David Millar has, to ride for us all
again.

;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning.

Donald Munro

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 5:28:24 AM8/19/06
to
Simon Brooke wrote:
> Well, heck, you know that the President of the United States doesn't
> believe in global warming despite overwhelming scientific opinion, so
> surely no patriotic American is going to be worried by a mere drugs
> test?
>
> After all, if you can believe in Jesus, why worry about mere facts and
> possibilities? Have faith, brother. Jesus rose. Floyd naturally produced
> exogenous testosterone. And global warming isn't happening, and even if
> it were, there wouldn't be anything we could do about it. Praise the
> Lord.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushpopegeorge.htm

Sandy

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 5:52:13 AM8/19/06
to
Simon Brooke a écrit :

Thanks for an adult point of view.

b...@mambo.ucolick.org

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 1:55:09 PM8/19/06
to
gds wrote:

Gary,

First you asserted that the tests must be scientifically valid
because the people who create the tests are responsible
scientists, and because if they weren't someone could sue
and make bank for lost wages. Now you're arguing about
strict liability, like in the blood alcohol case, where if your
BAC is over 0.08 (not 0.8), you're guilty no matter whether
somebody else might be more or less impaired than you
That is fine, but it is a completely different argument. It
in no way proves that anti-doping tests are reliable.
Also, the biological link between BAC and alcohol
consumption is fairly well tested.

(As an aside, unless you are really small, you have to
drink a fair amount to reach 0.08, so it is a conservative
standard, and has probably been validated by more
studies than the average anti-doping test.)

I'm not interested in arguing about the validity of tests
without data, so do me a favor and actually read the
previous thread, including the pdfs that were linked
earlier, where WADA basically says that they don't need
to define the protocol because there is no possibility
of error.

dbrower

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 9:53:15 PM8/19/06
to
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <1155960476.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> dbrower ('dbr...@gmail.com') wrote:
>
> > 4. Yeah, it's gonna cost. Anybody got some money to throw his way?
> > In my opinion, it would be a better planet if he could vindicate
> > himself and discredit a few self-righteous jerks at the same time, so
> > I'm thinking about what I can afford.
> >
> > By way of blatent traffic whoring, I'm trying to keep a round-up of
> > relevant news and opinion on http://trustbut.blogspot.com
>
>
> Landis doped. Accept it.
>

Yeah, that's possible, and the current evidence and process is stacked
towards that conclusion. If that happens, it happens. At this
point, concluding "he doped" at this point is the cynical, hopeless
position to take. It shows how bad the sport and the system still is,
and chases sponsorship and honor away. Maybe that's true. It's
hard to be wrong when you're a cynic, and I've been called "the most
cynical person I've ever met."

On the other hand, sometimes it's nice not to be quite that jaded. In
this case, there is a chance until a decision is reached. As I
mentioned in a part that got snipped, I think it would be a better
world and sport if Landis can prove his innocence in a clear and
convincing way that salvages his reputation. A procedural win
wouldn't meet that goal, because it would leave his reputation in
tatters.

Until judgement is reached, I prefer to think there's a positive
chance, and I'd hate to think it got squandered for lack of funding.
Maybe it's good money after bad, but it's still choosing hope over
despair, which is not a bad place to be if you can afford it.

-dB

Kyle Legate

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 1:51:26 AM8/20/06
to
dbrower wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>>
>>Landis doped. Accept it.
>>
>
> Yeah, that's possible, and the current evidence and process is stacked
> towards that conclusion. If that happens, it happens. At this
> point, concluding "he doped" at this point is the cynical, hopeless
> position to take.
>
It was the cynical, hopeless position to take before the tests came back
positive.

dbrower

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 10:21:30 PM8/20/06
to

Ah, I get it. Now it's the "I CALLED IT!!!" position, like Colbert on
Pluto's planethood.

Procedurally, and technically, it's not over until the inevitable CAS
ruling. Those who want to be expect the worst can go ahead and do
so, and will rarely be disappointed.

-dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com (trust but verify)

Simon Brooke

unread,
Aug 21, 2006, 4:50:59 AM8/21/06
to
in message <1156038795.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,

dbrower ('dbr...@gmail.com') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> in message <1155960476.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> dbrower ('dbr...@gmail.com') wrote:
>>
>> > 4. Yeah, it's gonna cost. Anybody got some money to throw his
>> > way? In my opinion, it would be a better planet if he could
>> > vindicate himself and discredit a few self-righteous jerks at the
>> > same time, so I'm thinking about what I can afford.
>> >
>> > By way of blatent traffic whoring, I'm trying to keep a round-up of
>> > relevant news and opinion on http://trustbut.blogspot.com
>>
>> Landis doped. Accept it.
>
> Yeah, that's possible, and the current evidence and process is stacked
> towards that conclusion. If that happens, it happens. At this
> point, concluding "he doped" at this point is the cynical, hopeless
> position to take. It shows how bad the sport and the system still is,
> and chases sponsorship and honor away. Maybe that's true. It's
> hard to be wrong when you're a cynic, and I've been called "the most
> cynical person I've ever met."

I'm not cynical, not even about Landis. However, either he doped, or an
utterly bizarre and improbable conspiracy was mounted by the UCI to
undermine their own sport and by the ASO to destroy their own flagship
event. As that didn't happen, Landis doped. It isn't cynical to say so;
it's merely realistic.

> On the other hand, sometimes it's nice not to be quite that jaded. In
> this case, there is a chance until a decision is reached. As I
> mentioned in a part that got snipped, I think it would be a better
> world and sport if Landis can prove his innocence in a clear and
> convincing way that salvages his reputation.

It would be nice, but it isn't possible. It's fairy stories.

;; Human history becomes more and more a race between
;; education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"

Simon Brooke

unread,
Aug 21, 2006, 4:53:38 AM8/21/06
to
in message <1156126890.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

dbrower ('dbr...@gmail.com') wrote:

> Kyle Legate wrote:
>> dbrower wrote:
>> > Simon Brooke wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Landis doped. Accept it.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yeah, that's possible, and the current evidence and process is
>> > stacked
>> > towards that conclusion. If that happens, it happens. At this
>> > point, concluding "he doped" at this point is the cynical, hopeless
>> > position to take.
>> >
>> It was the cynical, hopeless position to take before the tests came
>> back positive.
>
> Ah, I get it. Now it's the "I CALLED IT!!!" position, like Colbert on
> Pluto's planethood.
>
> Procedurally, and technically, it's not over until the inevitable CAS
> ruling.

But as the CAS ruling is, as you point out, inevitable, it /is/ over. The
only thing still in question is whether it drags out for two years and
bankrupts Landis, or whether he 'fesses up tomorrow and takes his
medicine, and gets to keep his house and maybe a bike or two.

' ' <------- this blank intentionally spaced left

gds

unread,
Aug 21, 2006, 6:31:18 PM8/21/06
to

b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> First you asserted that the tests must be scientifically valid
> because the people who create the tests are responsible
> scientists, and because if they weren't someone could sue
> and make bank for lost wages. Now you're arguing about
> strict liability, like in the blood alcohol case, where if your
> BAC is over 0.08 (not 0.8), you're guilty no matter whether
> somebody else might be more or less impaired than you
> That is fine, but it is a completely different argument. It
> in no way proves that anti-doping tests are reliable.
> Also, the biological link between BAC and alcohol
> consumption is fairly well tested.
>
> (As an aside, unless you are really small, you have to
> drink a fair amount to reach 0.08, so it is a conservative
> standard, and has probably been validated by more
> studies than the average anti-doping test.)
>
> I'm not interested in arguing about the validity of tests
> without data, so do me a favor and actually read the
> previous thread, including the pdfs that were linked
> earlier, where WADA basically says that they don't need
> to define the protocol because there is no possibility
> of error.

Yep on the decimal point!

As to the last paragraph. I did read them. I understand why folks are
not pleased with WADA saying the protocols cannot result in error. My
point is that only works in the non legal system of sport. If one is
harmed by the tests and goes to court to get damages based on that harm
then I can not imagine that WADA and the lab will have to prove to the
satisfaction of the court that the test is valid and reliable. So the
public statements really aren't relevant to that situation.

photos...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 21, 2006, 7:26:22 PM8/21/06
to

dbrower wrote:
<snip>

>
> 1. We don't know if those other B samples exist -- they may have been
> destroyed after the A sample was not positive on the T/E ratio. If
> they were tossed, there is no way to go this direction.

If they still had samples laying around from the 1999 TDF (kept on
ice), I have a strong feeling that they probably saved the material.
Even if the B-sample was tossed, we do not know how much of the
A-sample is destroyed in the testing process. Regardless, it would not
hurt for Mr Landis to ask. The questions is: Will he ask?

>
> 2. Landis has not said in any detail what his defense strategy will
> be, so we have no idea what is or is not refusing to do; and it may not
> be possible if there are no samples. That Hamilton did not do
> additional testing is one of the things that bothered me a lot about
> his defense strategy, and why Landis' re-use of Jacobs is something to
> wonder about. Is he going to get it right the second time around, or
> repeat the same failed strategy?

Since he chose to send lawyers to his B-sample testing (instead of
scientists) I think his will be a strategy of legal maneuvering (as
opposed to an attack of the facts)

>
> 3. Floyd is rather pre-occupied at the moment, and he seems to have
> learned it's not paying to keep talking too much in public.
>
> 4. Yeah, it's gonna cost. Anybody got some money to throw his way?
> In my opinion, it would be a better planet if he could vindicate
> himself and discredit a few self-righteous jerks at the same time, so
> I'm thinking about what I can afford.

OJ said something similar. His NFL pension affords him a nice
retirement lifestyle that allows him to play golf each day. Yet the
independent investigation he promised never materialized (he says due
to the cost).

For a few thousand bucks, Floyd could probably have those other
"non-adverse" samples tested for exogenous testosterone. With the
crappy way the rules are written (see, I acknowledge the flaws), it
probably still won't prevent him from being suspended, but he'd at
least be able to show the world that he was likely seriously wronged.
His case would be better served by his publicly calling for that as
opposed to him offering yet another excuse.

I think he knows exactly what he is saying and exactly what he is
doing.

dbrower

unread,
Aug 23, 2006, 5:36:43 PM8/23/06
to
Simon Brooke wrote:
> > Kyle Legate wrote:
> >> dbrower wrote:
> >> > Simon Brooke wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>Landis doped. Accept it.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, that's possible, and the current evidence and process is
> >> > stacked
> >> > towards that conclusion. If that happens, it happens. At this
> >> > point, concluding "he doped" at this point is the cynical, hopeless
> >> > position to take.
> >> >
> >> It was the cynical, hopeless position to take before the tests came
> >> back positive.
> >
> > Ah, I get it. Now it's the "I CALLED IT!!!" position, like Colbert on
> > Pluto's planethood.
> >
> > Procedurally, and technically, it's not over until the inevitable CAS
> > ruling.
>
> But as the CAS ruling is, as you point out, inevitable, it /is/ over. The
> only thing still in question is whether it drags out for two years and
> bankrupts Landis, or whether he 'fesses up tomorrow and takes his
> medicine, and gets to keep his house and maybe a bike or two.

For what it's worth, I've sliced some relevant parts of this discussion
on http://trustbut.blogspot.com in today's post on burden of proof. I
don't think I've misrepresented anybody, but if you have a complaint,
feel free to share it.

cheers,
-dB

dbrower

unread,
Aug 23, 2006, 5:46:36 PM8/23/06
to
Thomas A. Fine wrote:
> I originally posed the question here: "Why doesn't anyone
> question the isotope test???". Well, I think Bob Mionske's
> VeloNews column from yesterday does a fine job of answering
> that question:
>
> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10721.0.html
>
> Basically, there is one kind of test where you legally assume that
> the test shows evidence of doping, but the athlete can challenge
> this assumption by offering evidence that his body naturally can
> produce whatever effect would be needed for a positive result.
> The T/E test is this type of test.
>
> And there is another kind of test that is considered to be reliable.
> The results of this test can not be challenged during an anti-doping
> proceeding. And this is what the isotope test is.
>
> So from a procedural standpoint, Floyd Landis could walk in with
> iron-clad evidence that his body produced the 3.99 per mil isotope
> differential between his testosterone and his comparison compound,
> and it would be ignored. If every scientist in the world were to
> agree that this result was a natural result of Floyd's biology,
> it still wouldn't matter. There's no room in the procedures that
> have been created for such evidence to be used at all.
>

Which may be very sad. I followed up Tom Prail's possible False
Positive at http://trustbut.blogspot.com yesterday, as it seems the
sort of thing that one could pursue to raise those questions -- a
stalking horse for the real case.

The system does appear stacked to allow tests with what ought to be
unacceptable false positive rates go into use and stay in use. Mark
Sisson, ex-triathlon doping czar is particularly skeptical of the T/E
test, which he thinks should have been retired a long time ago.

At the same time, there are more that slip by than are caught. That
some other proportion of TdF riders /didn't/ show positive says nothing
about Floyd Landis.

(I'm not giving up my "I don't know" on him yet, no matter what Simon
Brooke says.)

-dB

photos...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 23, 2006, 6:53:41 PM8/23/06
to

That's like being skeptical of cops who pull drivers over for swerving
(and then administer a breathalizer test). All the T/E test does is
give them the ammo they need to conduct the isotope test. Actually,
the rules allow them to rule "adverse" on the T/E ratio test alone, but
they take it one step further by doing the isotope test on top of it.

I'd see your point if they stopped at T/E, but clearly they go further.
With both A and B samples (and two seperate tests for each sample)
that means that Landis had FOUR seperate findings of wrongdoing
discovered by the lab (on two different days). Double checking one's
work is good. Quadruple checking is even better.

I'd be very supportive of a rule that required both T/E A N D the
isotope tests to support a finding of "adverse". Would that satisfy you?

dbrower

unread,
Aug 23, 2006, 7:59:55 PM8/23/06
to

I don't have enough data to form a judgement. There are arguments
presented that /both/ are imperfect tests, and I don't know where the
error bars are, or what the values reported for anything may be.
Were the E values measured accurately or guesstimated as allowed by the
protocol? What were the IRMS readings, really? How do we reconcile
Prails curious results with the claims of infallibility?

I'm certainly willing to concede the possibility that he had exgenous T
and/or E present, but not yet. And if present, short of someone
confessing to having tampered with the sample, I think he gets
suspended.

At the same time, I'd really like to see the analytical results of T/E
and IRMS of the pre/post samples to see what tale they tell, and a
longitudinal (long term) one to see what else may be going. Those
are likely to give what I'd consider conclusive factual evidence of the
presence or absence of a doping program, or of a one-time event. This
doesn't effect the process result (suspension or not), but probably
makes a big difference for his reputation and career outcome. Doing
these tests, assuming the samples exist, is probably cheaper than
scorched-earth litigation through the CAS, and might be necessary for
having any grounds to appeal to the CAS.

All of that becomes moot if Floyd truly confesses to either a program
or to a one-time attempt to juice up.

Now, he could acknowledge the finding without admitting guilt. If he
did the tests and they admitted the possibility of natural result, then
he'd look like he got screwed by the system. If they look perfectly
normal, then he's left with tampering, either of the sample or somebody
slipping him something, which will be accepted only by the tin-foil hat
crowd, of which I am not one. If he doesn't do the tests, it implies
he's scared to do it for some reason which is bad, equally daming.

So, it seems to salvage his reputation, he has to get the other
samples tested, do his own long term testing, perhaps with a drunken
experiment, and release the results. If he was doping, it won't
help, and he should just confess; if he wasn't, it seems like the only
good faith effort he can make.

Now, some of y'all are saying he's guilty, dirty, etc., and you may be
right. I don't see why you find it necessary to try to browbeat
others into accepting that point of view until it plays out more
completely. Does it make you more right if I agree now, or less
right if I agree later? You could just smugly say, "Some people
aren't yet convinced, but they will. And we'll get a 'told you so'
out of it."

-dB

http://trustbut.blogspot.com

Michael Press

unread,
Aug 23, 2006, 11:52:26 PM8/23/06
to
In article
<1156369003.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"dbrower" <dbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

I did not visit the site. From what you say, you act unethically.

--
Michael Press

dbrower

unread,
Aug 24, 2006, 12:17:04 AM8/24/06
to
Michael Press wrote:

> I did not visit the site. From what you say, you act unethically.
>
> --
> Michael Press

Would you care to explain what you think is unethical? I don't
believe so, but there may be something I am not aware of. I believe
I've accurately attributed everything, and quoted from a public forum,
even when the comments are critical of my views; nor am I making any
money off it. So, what is it exactly you are charging me with doing
unethically?

thanks,

-dB (usenet user since 1983).

Michael Press

unread,
Aug 24, 2006, 3:55:21 AM8/24/06
to
In article
<1156393024.6...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"dbrower" <dbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > I did not visit the site. From what you say, you act unethically.
>

> Would you care to explain what you think is unethical? I don't
> believe so, but there may be something I am not aware of. I believe
> I've accurately attributed everything, and quoted from a public forum,
> even when the comments are critical of my views; nor am I making any
> money off it. So, what is it exactly you are charging me with doing
> unethically?

Using the published work of others without permission.

Were you to internalize the points of view from here, then
express your thoughts or understanding of various points
of view, that would be a contribution.

--
Michael Press

Sandy

unread,
Aug 24, 2006, 4:44:56 AM8/24/06
to
photos...@gmail.com a écrit :
It would not satisfy me. The reason, specifically, is that the rule is
written to describe a condition found, not a consumption made. Same for
the old hematocrit limits, had they been validated as absolute. If the
test that describes the content does not also provide certainty that
consumption occurred, it should be accepted as prima facie proof, not
incontrovertible proof, of cheating. The rules, however, work
differently. They place the finding at a much higher level of proof
than that, and the fever to punish, incorporated in rules and in the
makeup of the TAS panel (60% from the avowedly strict enforcers and 40%
representing flaccid followers) lead to petrified visions of the ways
things work. The punishment issued also allows no middle ground
position to be taken by either side, just Manichean polarity.

--

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
--
Mobilité et stabilité ne sont pas antinomiques :
un cycliste n'est stable sur sa bicyclette
qu'en avançant.
- Chirac, J (who must have read Einstein)

Simon Brooke

unread,
Aug 24, 2006, 5:51:23 AM8/24/06
to
in message <jack-4EBA40.2...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,

I did visit the site. He quotes what I said, exactly; he also posted to
say he'd done it in a place he knew I would read. I have no complaints.
dB, you might (or might not) want to link to my own essay on the subject,
which is here:
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/dogfood/story/article_52.html

;; Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Lusers are from Uranus.

Simon Brooke

unread,
Aug 24, 2006, 5:53:15 AM8/24/06
to
in message <jack-1D482D.0...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,

Michael Press ('ja...@abc.net') wrote:

> In article
> <1156393024.6...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "dbrower" <dbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>
>> > I did not visit the site. From what you say, you act unethically.
>>
>> Would you care to explain what you think is unethical? I don't
>> believe so, but there may be something I am not aware of. I believe
>> I've accurately attributed everything, and quoted from a public forum,
>> even when the comments are critical of my views; nor am I making any
>> money off it. So, what is it exactly you are charging me with doing
>> unethically?
>
> Using the published work of others without permission.

Quoting in part with correct attribution is fair use. I repeat, I'm not
complaining. Debate is an essential part of a good society, and as good
a way as we have available at getting towards truth.

;; may contain traces of nuts, bolts or washers.

Simon Brooke

unread,
Aug 24, 2006, 5:57:41 AM8/24/06
to
in message <1156369596.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,

dbrower ('dbr...@gmail.com') wrote:

> (I'm not giving up my "I don't know" on him yet, no matter what Simon
> Brooke says.)

I sympathise. I'm (resolutely) not giving up my "I don't know" on Basso
yet, but I appreciate that this is not wholly rational behaviour.

...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider?

dbrower

unread,
Aug 24, 2006, 10:13:05 AM8/24/06
to

Simon Brooke wrote:
>ly.
>
> I did visit the site. He quotes what I said, exactly; he also posted to
> say he'd done it in a place he knew I would read. I have no complaints.
> dB, you might (or might not) want to link to my own essay on the subject,
> which is here:
> http://www.jasmine.org.uk/dogfood/story/article_52.html

Delighted to so. Debate is good.

I would like to file a complaint about the unreadable color scheme,
though...

cheers,
-dB

photos...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 24, 2006, 6:42:51 PM8/24/06
to

The "rules" say nothing about consumption or cheating. They simply
make the rider 100% responsible for keeping certain substances out of
their bodies. I believe the governing bodies were very smart and
intelligent for setting the rules up in this manner.

If a rider honestly feels that they are in constant danger of renegade
massuers rubbing testosterone on them or a mafioso spiking their water
bottle, they can prevent such infractions by testing themselves berfore
showing up to race. It might not be practical, but that is certainly
"fair".

Sandy

unread,
Aug 24, 2006, 7:21:10 PM8/24/06
to
photos...@gmail.com a écrit :

I suggest you read what you wrote above. Then tell us all that it's not
about cheating, a second time, or eat your words. Any substitute
electrons will do.

photos...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 25, 2006, 12:54:45 PM8/25/06
to

Cheating is the motivation, for certain, but we've simplified things in
a manner that we don't have to sit through ridiculous tales of
outrageous claims now. We already have to listen to a billion excuses
given by the offenders in the media. Why should the people reviewing
the doping cases have to listen to "the dog ate my homework" over and
over and over again during the process? They've done all of us a
favor. The only question to be answered now is "Is this exogenous
testosterone in your urine sample. Yes or no?" Not "Yes, but with a
really good excuse" or "No, why would I cheat?". Yes or no. Simple.

Everything else is up to the rider. If they have to employ a force of
1,000 bodyguards to protect them against "ambient testosterone" being
ingested, then that's their problem. We shouldn't have to listen to it
anymore. It insults our intelligence.

Keep the shit out of your system. If you are such a sad-sack that has
banned substances hurled at you all day long, tough shit. If you have
a body that oh-so-conveniently spawns chimeria twins, amazingly
cooincidental problems with testosterone carbon 13 levels, etc...Well,
tough shit. The world needs construction workers too.

I'll bet that if your kid gets busted for drinking vodka on campus a
week before high school graduation, (and is subsequently expelled),
you'd be the parent who hires an attorney to sue the schoiol district
to reinistate him.

dbrower

unread,
Aug 25, 2006, 1:41:44 PM8/25/06
to
photos...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Keep the shit out of your system.

What will you say if it turns out that having beer and eating absurd
amounts of muesli for two weeks will skew the T/E ratio and result in
those CIR values? See the 'Hey, maybe it was the beer' discussion.

-dB
---
http://trustbut.blogspot.com for collected Landis news and comment.

Sandy

unread,
Aug 25, 2006, 5:27:11 PM8/25/06
to
Will a dictionary help ? I suspect not. Cheating is simply consciously
(scienter) doing something that violates a set of rules.

> I'll bet that if your kid gets busted for drinking vodka on campus a
> week before high school graduation, (and is subsequently expelled),
> you'd be the parent who hires an attorney to sue the schoiol district
> to reinistate him.
>
>

You have a lot of nerve, but not connected to a cerebrum, evidently. I
AM a lawyer. I do have kids, and they perhaps older than you, and I
doubt that most of the so-called "dopers" act with the intention to
attain stardom. And most disputes are better settled outside court, by
grown-ups. Take a rest. It shows courage and maturity not to try to
sustain a position that is untenable.

--

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
Je veux seulement ne pas être là
quand elle arrivera.

0 new messages