"What If Floyd Landis Were Innocent?"
MMan
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/16/opinion/edeustice.php
Mark
> Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously:
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/16/opinion/edeustice.php
Thanks, a good summary by John Eustice of the points in Floyd's favor
(which I'm afraid I think are rather few).
If Floyd cannot successfully attack as untrustworthy either the
exogenous testosterone test (which he failed), or the lab/process that
administered it, he's got little to fall back on.
Eustice's question "So where was it [testosterone] in all the other
tests?" neatly ducks the concern that riders are using low (under 4:1)
levels of testosterone for recovery on a regular basis.
Now if Floyd were willing to have his "non-positive" (under 4:1) B
samples tested for exogenous T, and they came back negative, that would
be a major point in his favor - but given concerns about the lab and the
process, no lawyer would allow it.
Mark J.
Montesquiou
"Mark" <remove.ma...@remove.comcast.this.net> a écrit dans le message
de news: I4adnTWPM-9xMX7Z...@comcast.com...
Montesquiou
"Mark" <remove.ma...@remove.comcast.this.net> a écrit dans le message
de news: I4adnTWPM-9xMX7Z...@comcast.com...
As the Lab is one of the most advanced Lab in the fight against dopping, no
chance.
Colin Campbell
leakiest in the world, too.
So why do they get to test anything related to bicyclists?
Simon Brooke
('remove.ma...@remove.comcast.this.net') wrote:
> Now if Floyd were willing to have his "non-positive" (under 4:1) B
> samples tested for exogenous T, and they came back negative, that would
> be a major point in his favor - but given concerns about the lab and
> the process, no lawyer would allow it.
He could ask to have it tested by a different WADA accredited lab - for
example, one in the US. If he even asked for it to be done it would be a
point in his favour.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
;; do it from religious conviction." -- Pascal
didier Meurgues
Colin Campbell a écrit :
> Montesquiou wrote:
> > "Mark" <remove.ma...@remove.comcast.this.net> a écrit dans le message
> > de news: I4adnTWPM-9xMX7Z...@comcast.com...
> >
> >> MMan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/16/opinion/edeustice.php
> >>>
> >> Thanks, a good summary by John Eustice of the points in Floyd's favor
> >> (which I'm afraid I think are rather few).
> >>
> >> If Floyd cannot successfully attack as untrustworthy either the exogenous
> >> testosterone test (which he failed), or the lab/process that administered
> >> it, he's got little to fall back on.
> >>
> >> Eustice's question "So where was it [testosterone] in all the other
> >> tests?" neatly ducks the concern that riders are using low (under 4:1)
> >> levels of testosterone for recovery on a regular basis.
> >>
> >> Now if Floyd were willing to have his "non-positive" (under 4:1) B samples
> >> tested for exogenous T, and they came back negative, that would be a major
> >> point in his favor - but given concerns about the lab and the process,
> >>
> >
> > As the Lab is one of the most advanced Lab in the fight against dopping, no
> > chance.
> >
This was posted in rec.auto.sport few days ago :
http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport%20HR%20zonder.pdf
> >> "The results reported by the LNDD that found their way into the L'Equipe
> >> article are not what they have been represented to be. They did not
> >> involve proper testing of urine samples, as explained in detail in this
> >> report."
> > Have you read that report - in full?
> Yes.
> > It doesn't criticise the the laboratory or lab's testing procedures.
> You obviously have not read it. It specifically criticizes just about
> every aspect of the lab's activities, including procedures, methodologies,
> ethics, and communications. I could cite specific examples of each of
> these, but you'll find them easily if you read it.
To wich I reply :
I'm REALLY FED UP to ear again this propaganda against the LNDD.
That's not the opinion of its many european equivalent labs including
the national austrian for ex
If the french national lab is so "unreliable", "according to" US
medias, why is it still acredited by the WADA ? Why both tests,
including the last one, were still done there in presence of american
lawyers and (national lab?) scientists, with no prior or later protests
from the last ones as far as I've heard ?
It's funny to see the... World Anti Doping Agency being judged by the
UCI on antidoping matters ? Shouldn't it be the contrary ?
The LNDD lab says clearly that those tests were made for EPO scientific
RESEARCH according to a special procedure "accelerated measurement
procedure" made of 3 different (and apparently new ?) technical tests
settled by this lab (which invented, should I REMIND it, the EPO
test...), and which differs from the antidoping control procedure,
since they were NOT placing themselves in a situation of anti doping
CONTROL but in one of :
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
Should I remind it as well to this UCI "independent expert".
The lab didn't expect AT ALL the names to be revealed. And since it was
not an official antidoping control it didn't made (or needed to do) the
second test check neither, apparently : only its 3 own new tests.
BUT because of the repeated INSISTENCE of the WADA, this antidoping
agency obtained from the LNDD lab (after consultation of the french
sport ministry which finally didn't opposed to it) the most-demanded
"additional information" document, with the names under the codes of
urine samples...
Nevertheless, under the (perhaps legal?) IMPERATIVE CONDITION that the
names should remain CONFIDENTIAL, until... the WADA finally leaked the
info to the L'Equipe journalist !
This "independent expert" (even if, as the french national lab
rightfully noticed, independent experts in France are only nominated
by... courts) tries by all means to convince that the "Helsinki
declaration" concerning testing (I repeat DECLARATION !) has a full
legal application in France, which I doubt, that the part of the french
civil code concerning "research on human subjects" concerns... urine
samples (that one makes me laugh :+), furthermore only french courts
can interpret code civil definitions), and that the WADA approved
"ISO/IEC 17025 international standard" (what is its legal status in
France?) must be applied to ALL scientific researches made by a
national laboratory, on the single pretext that it is, for the SOLE
purpose of antidoping CONTROL, acredited by the WADA. Even so, for its
OWN purely personal scientific researches, including when they had
originally nothing to do with a particular antidoping control (but with
futur ones)..., when on the other hand he deliberately ignores the
french procedure concerning the communication of administrative
documents (search law n°78-753 at
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/RechercheSimpleTexte.jsp :
according to the combination of art. 1 and 6, the most-demanded and
full "additional information" documents should have been communicated
to him, AS LONG AS they don't violate scientific copyrights (secret
commercial) and privacy (names?), IF ONLY... he had respected the
rather simple procedure with the CADA... (http://www.cada.fr ! : the
search engine with "recherche" or "secret", for ex. was momentaneously
out of order few minutes ago).
The WADA could AS WELL... have produced this document, which certainly
exists and could certainly have been given, in order to see that the
codes on the no less than six samples correspond very probably to the
names. But when you understand at the end that the UCI target is the
WADA president..., no need to see why the WADA didn't gave it neither
to this UCI "independent expert".
Funny as well, to see the expert diatribe against the freedom of the
press, and his desire to not see accusations made there before full
inquiry is completed, when you compare, for example..., with the
incredible mediatic campaign made against the alleged infamous french
ice-skating judge Mme Le Gougne during the 2002 SLC olympic games,
thanks to the "declarations" of Miss Stapelford, MM. Pfenning and
Jackson, made even BEFORE the end of the games competitions contrarily
to IOC rules... :
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/...
I forgot to say that you shouldn't be afraid AT ALL.
According to what I've read above, the final UCI report declaring
solemnly that the last tests here concerned are "as usual" totally
irrelevant and the de-acreditation of this (too curious indeed) french
lab urgent, is probably already written. :+))
didier Meurgues
Montesquiou
"didier Meurgues" <erdni...@voila.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:
1155815151.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Colin Campbell a écrit :
http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport%20HR%20zonder.pdf
> Yes.
To wich I reply :
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/...
didier Meurgues
*****
It will be funny to see the report on the material seized by the Police in
Sweden.
Some said it can be vitamins and health medication, for some it can be used
for blood manipulation, but this material labelled in Russian and found in
the Russian Hotel seem to point finger to . ?
I wonder why Denis Oswald and Sergei Bubka, IOC athlete's and former
Russian pole vault record-holder so vociferously asked for the ban of this
highly capable Lab past year.
Afraid ?
didier Meurgues
Montesquiou a écrit :
I meant of course in the UCI report above about 1999 samples
Tom Kunich
question:
"The fact that WADA President Dick Pound and the LNDD's Professor De
Ceaurriz were willing to discuss the research project and its results in
great detail with the media, while they at the same time were unwilling to
cooperate with a proper investigation by the organization with jurisdiction
over this matter, raises substantial questions regarding their reasons for
doing so and makes one wonder as to what complete cooperation would
disclose."
In short, there really is an elephant under the bed.
didier Meurgues
De Ceaurriz declarations were rather laconic and mostly defensive AFTER
the info was released (I didn't checked the paying AFP declaration).
The description of his test methods were described in the review Nature
when he decided to publish them. He has no reason to describe
immediately the new researches since that's not him who is at the
origin of the non respect of the clause of confidentiality he had
imposed to the WADA. It's up to a court to decide, in particular to
know if he had the right to make researches on the samples without the
consent of the persons..., and, for the other people demands, according
to law 78-753 as well. Contrary to what I thought, he says in fact that
when he sent the results to the WADA the names could not be checked by
him and that he didn't know then who was concerned... He just took
the 1999 samples because there was a chance to find EPO in them before
this product was knowned.
There are 2 solutions : 1) the WADA learned the EPO research project on
the 5 years congelated urine samples and made the link between the
names list that they keep and the code numbers, when it obtained the
scientific results. 2) The LNDD warned the WADA that they had found
something abnormal in their results which motivated the insistant WADA
demand of these results. De Ceaurriz has the right to still defend the
validity of his new methods, including on congelated samples, since the
final diclosing of the name doesn't concern him after all. Future
researches will determine if congelated samples can correctly keep EPO
and if he was right or not. He says that the results can be subject to
interpretations but nevertheless that if EPO had been alterated by age
he would simply not have found some anymore (except if it reproduces
itself alone of course :+) what leads him to believe that there was
some since the beginning). Even if he is sure about his method, this is
still a phase of RESEARCH and he'll HAVE to publish his new
"mathematical method" one day or another if he doesn't want to be
discredited. But he is not really concerned by all the story made about
what was diclosed without his agreement, as far as we know today.
That's apparently why, whatever the... worldwide controverse, he
doesn't care to not cooperate FURTHER with the expert, who, besides,
already went to the lab and was duely warned to USE the legal french
procedures by the LNDD juridical service :
http://www.tsr.ch/tsr/index.html?siteSect=800001&sid=6029024 :
« Ces analyses effectuées sur des échantillons anonymes n'avaient
qu'un but de recherche scientifique, et ne visaient pas à "contrôler"
tel ou tel coureur, affirmait mardi le directeur du laboratoire Jacques
de Ceaurriz. »
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20050823_121001Dev.html :
De Ceaurriz s'explique
Jacques de Ceaurriz, directeur du laboratoire national de dépistage du
dopage (LNDD), affirme que sa méthode de détection de
l'érythropoïétine (EPO) est absolument fiable, même sur un
échantillon vieux de cinq ans, comme ce fut le cas pour l'analyse qui
a permis de déceler de l'EPO dans les urines du champion cycliste
Lance Armstrong.
«Pouvez-vous confirmer que les échantillons du Tour de France 1999
où l'on a retrouvé de l'EPO sont ceux de Lance Armstrong?»
«Nous travaillons toujours sur des échantillons anonymes, qui ne
portent qu'un numéro. Et nous ne détenons pas la liste nominative des
sportifs contrôlés. Seuls les pouvoirs sportifs possèdent cette
liste. Mais il est vrai que nous avons analysé l'année dernière des
échantillons datant du Tour de France 1999, et que nous avons mis en
évidence la présence d'EPO dans certains d'entre eux. Nous avons
transmis hier (lundi) nos résultats à l'Agence mondiale antidopage
(AMA), sans savoir que certains concernaient Lance Armstrong».
«Pourquoi une analyse cinq ans après l'épreuve?»
«Il ne s'agissait pas d'un contrôle antidopage. Ces analyses ont
été réalisées dans le cadre d'une recherche scientifique. Notre
objectif était de faire évoluer le test et les critères de
décision. Mais tout cela s'inscrivait dans un programme de recherche
beaucoup plus large, nous cherchons à construire un modèle
mathématique de détection de l'EPO. Rappelons aussi que les
échantillons ont été prélevés en 1999, soit un an avant la
première utilisation officielle de notre test de détection de l'EPO,
aux JO de Sydney. Sur le Tour de France, notre méthode n'a été
appliquée qu'en 2001».
«La méthode de détection est-elle absolument fiable, appliquée sur
un échantillon prélevé cinq ans auparavant?»
«De deux choses l'une: ou bien l'EPO, qui est une protéine, se
dégrade au fil du temps et devient indétectable. Dans ce cas nous
avons des contrôles négatifs. Soit elle subsiste telle qu'elle est.
Nous n'avons donc aucun doute sur la validité de nos résultats».
Didier Meurgues
photos...@gmail.com
MMan wrote:
> Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously:
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/16/opinion/edeustice.php
I think the zinc oxide that he smeared all over his face at USPRO in
1983 must still be on his face (and is now covering his eyes). Oh
Johnny Useless. Wake the hell up.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Wow--you remember that too? I wonder how many psychic scars that
warpaint inflicted.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
>
>
> To wich I reply :
>
> I'm REALLY FED UP to ear again this propaganda against the LNDD.
"I am SO mad at Farah Fawcett-Majors!!"
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/77/77amono.phtml
photos...@gmail.com
I remember seeing the photos of the event in Winning magazine, and his
being on the podium for the stars and stripes (after taking 15th
place). I saw the massive amount of zinc oxide and wondered "who the
hell is this fred?". Only years later did I learn that he's had a bad
cycling accident and he needed to wear the stuff to protect his scars
from UV rays.
Linda Lou
While we're on the Eustice stories, my husband, Mike, had the
misfortune of watching John take a privileged leak on the start line of
a race they both rode in Florida in 1987. Needless to say, Mike doesn't
think much of the man or the rider.
Dan Connelly
> Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously:
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/16/opinion/edeustice.php
>
A flaw in the logic of the power numbers, is average power on such mountainous routes
is reduced by the descents -- essentially zero power on the coasting intervals cannot
be compensated with super-sustainable power on the long climbs. The sustainable power
on interval efforts changed by only approximately 5% per doubling time of the effort.
So this could still represent close to his maximal level of performance from
training. Which if one assumes he was compensating for otherwise natural losses
of whatever juice tends to be depleted 2.5 weeks into a race of this intensity,
he would not be able to exceed, but only match.
Dan