Landis' defence
Tony Raven
and I have to say, having read it it looks like c**k up and mistakes end
to end in the testing process. Whether he did or not there are so many
mistakes identified that its impossible to say anything for certain
other than the testing lab and some others should be fired.
http://ia331328.us.archive.org/1/items/Floyd_Landis_2006_Case_Documents5/Landis_Baker_Slides.pdf
http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/10/its-here.html
--
Tony
"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
David Martin
Tony Raven wrote:
> A presentation of Floyd Landis' main defence arguments is now on the web
> and I have to say, having read it it looks like c**k up and mistakes end
> to end in the testing process. Whether he did or not there are so many
> mistakes identified that its impossible to say anything for certain
> other than the testing lab and some others should be fired.
> http://ia331328.us.archive.org/1/items/Floyd_Landis_2006_Case_Documents5/Landis_Baker_Slides.pdf
> http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/10/its-here.html
There must be some red faces in Paris.. and at USADA.
It is a staggering degree of incompetence. Can't really believe that it
would be so poorly controlled.
Will a certain lab's accreditation by under question?
..d
Simon Brooke
Also today, charges against Ivan Basso have finally been dropped for lack
of evidence. The Italian Olympic Committee say they may reopen the case if
new evidence comes to light, and the UCI may appeal the case to the Court
of Arbitration in Sport, but Ivan expects to race on Saturday.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Wannabe a Web designer?
<URL:http://userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/97dec/19971206.html>
Simon Bennett
> Also today, charges against Ivan Basso have finally been dropped for
> lack of evidence. The Italian Olympic Committee say they may reopen
> the case if new evidence comes to light, and the UCI may appeal the
> case to the Court of Arbitration in Sport, but Ivan expects to race
> on Saturday.
This is all absolutely amazing news. Landis, Ullrich and Basso -- all
innocent! Great for them, and great for the sport!
AndyMorris
I've a nasty feeling that this will described as 'getting off on a
technicality'
If its true, its an almighty cock up by the testing authorities.
--
Andy Morris
AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK
Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
David Martin
AndyMorris wrote:
>
> I've a nasty feeling that this will described as 'getting off on a
> technicality'
>
> If its true, its an almighty cock up by the testing authorities.
But it would be wrong to describe this as 'getting off on a
technicality', unless by 'technicality' you mean 'not actually having a
positive test'
The lab has screwed up big style at all levels. Sample handling, sample
recording, interpretation of the results and so on. This is not a legal
technicality, it is technically known in the scientific community as 'a
shambles'.
If the Landis evidence is correct, then there are multiple independent
lines that make the test invalid. We can have no assurance that;
1. the sample tested was his (chain of evidence is incomplete/wrong)
2. the sample had been appropriately stored/handled (measures of sample
breakdown indicated the sample to be untestable)
3. The tests had been appropriately analysed (a) the repeat analyses
were in a different ball park,and b) the thresholds required to
indicate positive were not met)
The only 'off on a technicality' bit was the incorrect correction of a
sample id (with white-out instead of crossing out.)
If a grad student or postdoc came to me wanting to publish results
based on such evidence, they'd get sent back to the lab with a flea in
their ear.
One has the suspicion that someone was a bit disgruntled at another
american winning, so concocted the case hoping no-one would look at the
details. It has done enough damage to cycling whether he is guilty or
not.
..d
Simon Bennett
> If the Landis evidence is correct, then there are multiple independent
> lines that make the test invalid. We can have no assurance that;
You do have to be sceptical about the evidence presented by Landis here;
he's unlikely to publish anything which makes the test out to be anything
other than shambolic.
Tony Raven
>
> If its true, its an almighty cock up by the testing authorities.
>
Drugs should not be tolerated in sport but at the moment the more I
learn about WADA and the testing labs, the more I think someone needs to
clean them up big time before one can say anything about the athletes.
The file put forward by Landis' defence, assuming they have not faked
the evidence, points to a system that is failing widely at the most
basic level and has endemic sloppiness and non adherence to procedures
and protocols. Maybe getting one number transcribed wrongly could be
accepted as a mistake but having it happen multiple times at multiple
stages and then try to claim the ID numbers provide an audit trail
between athlete and test result is farcical.
The spotlight really needs to be turned on the testing process and those
who have tolerated and defended it operating in this out of control manner.
I am certainly pleased Landis has been brave enough to put everything
into the public domain where experts can pore over the information and
to not challenge the tests and results but the whole integrity of the
process that produced them.
Tony Raven
>
> But it would be wrong to describe this as 'getting off on a
> technicality', unless by 'technicality' you mean 'not actually having a
> positive test'
>
A bit like calling escapng a speeding fine as "getting off on
technicality" because it wasn't your numberplate and you weren't
actually speeding. The press might find it difficult to back down
though from the obvious errors in what they were all writing about him
having elevated testosterone.
>
> If a grad student or postdoc came to me wanting to publish results
> based on such evidence, they'd get sent back to the lab with a flea in
> their ear.
>
Here too. And in my days when I was running companies, we would have
been shut down and suffered a huge fine if the regulatory auditors had
found that degree of systemic failure. I bet if the auditors went into
LDNN they would find this is just the tip of the iceberg. This sort of
failure indicates an attitude and approach that will have pervaded all
aspects of their work.
Tony Raven
>
> You do have to be sceptical about the evidence presented by Landis here;
> he's unlikely to publish anything which makes the test out to be anything
> other than shambolic.
>
>
Actually you can read the whole unadulterated lab file that he has
published to reference the full LDNN data set - although at 370 pages
its quite a lot to wade through. So your hypothesis is either wrong or
the whole file produced by the lab makes them out to be nothing other
than shambolic. From my review of it so far, I think your hypothesis is
correct ;-)
http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/10/lab-documentation-package.html
Be warned, it's a 170Mb pdf to download.
Simon Bennett
> I bet if the auditors went
> into LDNN they would find this is just the tip of the iceberg. This
> sort of failure indicates an attitude and approach that will have
> pervaded all aspects of their work.
Have there been other reports of slack practices at this lab? Or has Landis'
legal team unearthed this on their own?
Steve
> David Martin wrote:
>
>> [2 quoted lines suppressed]
>
> You do have to be sceptical about the evidence presented by Landis here;
> he's unlikely to publish anything which makes the test out to be anything
> other than shambolic.
Even if you ignore all the evidence, you are left with a lab that has a
reputation for leaking information to newspapers over a period of many
years. If there is information going out, then there is money going in,
this alone is enough to discredit every test they have done.
After the last L'Equipe/Chatenay-Malabry affair regarding 10 year old
armstrong samples, how was this lab allowed to keep testing?
Steve
Simon Bennett
> From my review of it so far, I think your
> hypothesis is correct ;-)
At 170Mb, I think I'll let you get on with it!
Tony Raven
Yes, the whole 1999 Lance Armstrong retrospective testing debacle where
the same lab was heavily criticised, as were WADA, by the independent
expert investigator appointed by the UCI. You can read his damning
report at http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport%20HR%20zonder.pdf
Paras 1.14 and 1.15 are a succinct summary of the problems found with
LNDD and WADA by the investigator. I am not aware of anything happening
as a result of this report.
When I say the testing regime needs cleaning up, the whole system from
WADA down seems to be in aggressive attack denial of the obvious
problems being pointed out to them.
Dan Gregory
> Also today, charges against Ivan Basso have finally been dropped for lack
> of evidence. The Italian Olympic Committee say they may reopen the case if
> new evidence comes to light, and the UCI may appeal the case to the Court
> of Arbitration in Sport, but Ivan expects to race on Saturday.
>
He's still not on the start list for Lombardy...
David Martin
Tony Raven wrote:
> Simon Bennett wrote on 13/10/2006 08:30 +0100:
> >
> > You do have to be sceptical about the evidence presented by Landis here;
> > he's unlikely to publish anything which makes the test out to be anything
> > other than shambolic.
> >
> >
>
> Actually you can read the whole unadulterated lab file that he has
> published to reference the full LDNN data set - although at 370 pages
> its quite a lot to wade through. So your hypothesis is either wrong or
> the whole file produced by the lab makes them out to be nothing other
> than shambolic. From my review of it so far, I think your hypothesis is
> correct ;-)
> http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/10/lab-documentation-package.html
>
> Be warned, it's a 170Mb pdf to download.
Which hypothesis?
A) That he has only picked out bits which show errors, and in other
documents there is a clear audit trail showing correct custody of the
sample, correctly performed and interpreted analyses on the correct
sample with no reporting errors (equivalent to having accidentally
been sent two speeding tickets in the same envelope and claiming that
because one of them showed the wrong car not speeding, that the other
one showing clear speeding in the right car can be ignored)
or B) it is a cockup all the way through and there is no sound audit
trail, no positive results and the whole thing is a fabrication and
cover up.
..d
Simon Bennett
> He's still not on the start list for Lombardy...
He's still under investigation in Spain. That would exclude him from
competition, wouldn't it?
Tony Raven
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Simon Bennett wrote on 13/10/2006 08:30 +0100:
>>> You do have to be sceptical about the evidence presented by Landis here;
>>> he's unlikely to publish anything which makes the test out to be anything
>>> other than shambolic.
>>>
>>>
>> Actually you can read the whole unadulterated lab file that he has
>> published to reference the full LDNN data set - although at 370 pages
>> its quite a lot to wade through. So your hypothesis is either wrong or
>> the whole file produced by the lab makes them out to be nothing other
>> than shambolic. From my review of it so far, I think your hypothesis is
>> correct ;-)
>> http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/10/lab-documentation-package.html
>>
>> Be warned, it's a 170Mb pdf to download.
>
>
> Which hypothesis?
>
Simon's hypothesis that Landis is "unlikely to publish anything which
makes the test out to be anything other than shambolic" and that his
publishing of the unadulterated complete lab file from LDNN is
consistent with this.
Sirius631
As much as I want drug cheats out of cycling, the Spanish investigation
has become nothing but trial by innuendo. It will be a long time before
the investigation comes to any actionable conclusions, in the meantime
anyone who has been implicated, has had their careers disrupted.
Remember that nobody has been found guilty as yet, in fact all those
riders from the Astana team have been exonerated, and yet their whole
team could not take part in the Tour de France because of Operation
Puerto.
David Lloyd
The pub is responsible for my opinions.
Sirius631
feelings floating around France. One might think that they see it as
their patriotic duty to bring down a Yank, forgetting that there isn't
a Frenchman within shouting distance of the podium, let alone the final
yellow jersey.
If you want independant testing, the lab would have to be outside
France. IMHO.
David Lloyd,
Simon Brooke
('sben...@YOUAREALLNETDENIZENSwiderworld.co.uk') wrote:
I have a nasty suspicion that what this really boils down to is a turf-war
between the UCI/ProTour and the owners of the three big Grand Tours, at
the expense of the cyclists. The UCI was happy to pre-emptively leak and
talk up the evidence - as it turns out, wholly inconclusive - against the
winners and major stars of the Giro and the Tour de France and it seems to
me the motivation may have been to damage the pre-eminence of the Grand
Tours, and to increase the influence of the UCI.
It seems to me that the cyclists whose reputations have been traduced have
a real complaint against the UCI, one which I would expect Landis, at
least, to turn into legal action. The UCI has committed two major sins:
they've played dirty, and they've lost. I would not like to be in Pat
McQuaid's shoes this morning.
Personally, I shall be bouncing up and down on the sofa on Saturday
afternoon, yelling 'Basso! Basso! Basso!' with the best of them.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Due to financial constraints, the light at the end of the tunnel
has been switched off.
dkahn400
> It seems to me that the cyclists whose reputations have been traduced have
> a real complaint against the UCI, one which I would expect Landis, at
> least, to turn into legal action.
Apart from his loss of earnings and the damage to his reputation so far
Landis faces the problem that his name being cleared, which now seems a
certainty, is likely to be perceived by the average person as some kind
of lucky escape. It therefore seems to me that legal action from him is
almost inevitable as the only way he can really establish his innocence
in the minds of the public.
--
Dave...
David Martin
Especially as if the USADA clear him then they will perhaps be seen as
weak or 'protecting one of the boys'.
What a mess.. The only people to come out of this with any credit are..
.. answers on the back of a postage stamp please.
..d
Ewoud Dronkert
> his name being cleared, which now seems a certainty
Hah!
--
E. Dronkert
Simon Brooke
('dangr...@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk') wrote:
No, and apparently Bjarne says he won't be.
I'm really disappointed. I appreciate there are lots of possible reasons,
but I will be really sad if Ivan leaves CSC.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; may contain traces of nuts, bolts or washers.
Simon Brooke
('sben...@YOUAREALLNETDENIZENSwiderworld.co.uk') wrote:
The Spanish courts have said that he's not, and that the Operacion Puerto
evidence is inadmissible anyway in any case against cyclists.
This whole house of cards is falling apart.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider?
Alexander Lackner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Brooke" <si...@jasmine.org.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing,uk.rec.cycling
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: Landis' defence
> Personally, I shall be bouncing up and down on the sofa on Saturday
> afternoon, yelling 'Basso! Basso! Basso!' with the best of them.
Knock yourself out, but he's not starting. Riis seems reluctant to offer him
a platform now that they appear to be parting ways.
Alexander
Rob Morley
David Martin <martin...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> What a mess.. The only people to come out of this with any credit are..
>
Dan Gregory
> I have a nasty suspicion that what this really boils down to is a turf-war
> between the UCI/ProTour and the owners of the three big Grand Tours, at
> the expense of the cyclists. The UCI was happy to pre-emptively leak and
> talk up the evidence - as it turns out, wholly inconclusive - against the
> winners and major stars of the Giro and the Tour de France and it seems to
> me the motivation may have been to damage the pre-eminence of the Grand
> Tours, and to increase the influence of the UCI.
At last something that makes sense!
Although having seen Landis close up on that day I am convinced he was
on a charge!
RonSonic
Probably more doped than the riders.
Ron
EasyC...@sgtrock.net
>
>Simon Bennett wrote:
>> Dan Gregory wrote:
>>
>> > He's still not on the start list for Lombardy...
>>
>> He's still under investigation in Spain. That would exclude him from
>> competition, wouldn't it?
>
>As much as I want drug cheats out of cycling, the Spanish investigation
>has become nothing but trial by innuendo. It will be a long time before
>the investigation comes to any actionable conclusions, in the meantime
>anyone who has been implicated, has had their careers disrupted.
>Remember that nobody has been found guilty as yet, in fact all those
NOBODY expects the Spanish In...er, well, you know. ;-p
RonSonic
Almost every bike race I have ever been a part of has had the final placings
decided by a gut check of some sort. It's probably more a factor among the
barely competent mountain bikers and cross racers that I ride among, but it
applies at every level. It ain't just dope. It ain't just guy's at the pro tour
level either.
But, when it is a rider of that class and caliber it is truly awesome to see.
Floyd won and deserved it.
Ron
dkahn400
> Although having seen Landis close up on that day I am convinced he was
> on a charge!
He was, but it's not now possible to know conclusively whether the
source of that charge was chemical or psychological. His ride that day
was either one of the great solo efforts of cycling history, somewhat
aided by confusion in the rival teams, or it was simple cheating.
Personally I'm now happy to give Landis the benefit of the doubt, but
thanks to the machinations of the French so-called laboratory we'll
never really know. If he was cheating there is certainly no meaningful
evidence of it as far as we now know.
In future I think A and B samples should be processed in separate
laboratories, preferably on separate continents.
--
Dave...
tgh
dkahn400 wrote:
> Dan Gregory wrote:
>
snip
>
> In future I think A and B samples should be processed in separate
> laboratories, preferably on separate continents.
>
> --
> Dave...
I have wondered why this isn't part of the protocol already.
tgh.
David Martin
It costs money. These tests are not cheap to perform once the
appropriate infrastructure costs are taken into account.
With the admin, calibration, audit trail, refrigerated transport and
storage, it adds up to a significant cost per sample. It is cheaper to
test the whole load in one batch (due to calibration/setup costs) than
it is to do an overnight analysis (which is perfectly possible, just
expensive.)
The incremental cost per sample is not much, it is the setup and
infrastructure costs that really make the difference.
..d
Sirius631
EasyC...@sgtrock.net wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2006 02:41:14 -0700, "Sirius631" <siri...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >As much as I want drug cheats out of cycling, the Spanish investigation
> >has become nothing but trial by innuendo. It will be a long time before
> >the investigation comes to any actionable conclusions, in the meantime
> >anyone who has been implicated, has had their careers disrupted.
>
>
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition to come to a conclusion any time
soon, without having dragged many innocent riders' name through the
mud, whilst leaving the footballers, atheletes and tennis stars alone.
Carl Sundquist
"David Martin" <martin...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1160756240.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
What is the cost compared to the inevitiable attorney's fees? If nothing
else, the infrastucture costs could be borne by the defendant/accused if
they opt to have a second lab test the B sample.
As I mentioned before, there is nothing keeping the athlete from keeping
part of his sample for his own use. It wouldn't be admissible as evidence,
but could be used by the athlete as a reference to be tested on their own,
should the A sample come back positive.
dbrower
They don't test many B samples. The incremental expense would be
trivial.
-dB
mdp
<1160736545.1...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
,
"David Martin" <martin...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
I.
Rod King
I am noe led to understand that what every top class professional athlete
does at the end of a knackering day when they have really ridden badly is
have a few beers and Jack Daniels as Landis said he did and as a result
accidently increase his testosterone level.
Now I have done a few long rides, got rather knackered as well, but I have
never felt that a few beers and whiskies were the right medicine to enable
me to perform well the following day.
I'm afraid that in my mind Flawed Landis was convicted by the words which
came from his own mouth. I think he is guilty.
Best regards
Rod King
"Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.com> wrote in message
news:4p7g3qF...@individual.net...
> A presentation of Floyd Landis' main defence arguments is now on the web
> and I have to say, having read it it looks like c**k up and mistakes end
> to end in the testing process. Whether he did or not there are so many
> mistakes identified that its impossible to say anything for certain
> other than the testing lab and some others should be fired.
>
http://ia331328.us.archive.org/1/items/Floyd_Landis_2006_Case_Documents5/Lan
dis_Baker_Slides.pdf
> http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/10/its-here.html
Tony Raven
> Hang on
>
> I am noe led to understand that what every top class professional athlete
> does at the end of a knackering day when they have really ridden badly is
> have a few beers and Jack Daniels as Landis said he did and as a result
> accidently increase his testosterone level.
>
Perhaps starting from some facts would help. Landis' testosterone level
was not elevated. It was perfectly normal according to the published
lab results, although virtually all the press have got this one wrong.
It was his epitestosterone that was unusually low. Perhaps the doctors
have invented an inverse syringe that sucks epitestosterone out of the body
In addition the published lab reports show that the samples failed the
degredation/contamination checks and under the WADA protocols should
have been discarded and not tested
Finally his athelete identification number is different from the numbers
on the schedule of samples transported to the lab that day which is
different again from the number on the test result sheets. The only
test sheet with the correct number on had the originally number Tippexed
out and Landis' number written over the top. This is contrary to WADA
protocols and contrary to basic lab book good practice.
Do you still think that is evidence of guilt?
Ib
> Perhaps starting from some facts would help. Landis' testosterone level
> was not elevated. It was perfectly normal according to the published
> lab results, although virtually all the press have got this one wrong.
> It was his epitestosterone that was unusually low. Perhaps the doctors
> have invented an inverse syringe that sucks epitestosterone out of the body
>
But low epitestosterone is a signature of artificially boosted testosterone.
> Finally his athelete identification number is different from the numbers
> on the schedule of samples transported to the lab that day which is
> different again from the number on the test result sheets. The only
> test sheet with the correct number on had the originally number Tippexed
> out and Landis' number written over the top. This is contrary to WADA
> protocols and contrary to basic lab book good practice.
>
He can't have it both ways, at one point he states the paperwork doesn't
tie the sample to him, and then later he claims that the medical
history statements would identify him to anyone wanting to fix the test.
I don't think anyone is seriously doubting it is his sample, just
looking for a failure in protocol.
Which leaves:
> In addition the published lab reports show that the samples failed
the > degradation/contamination checks and under the WADA protocols
should > have been discarded and not tested
>
I'm no chemist, so I'm not going to speculate whether this is a
technical infringement that would have no bearing, or a serious
contamination issue.
Personally, I think he's guilty, I think Joe Public think he's guilty,
and I think the rest of the peleton think he's guilty - most of whom are
just thinking "there but for the grace of god..."
Rod King
I accept what you are saying. Its just that Landis claimed that at the end
of his ride he had several beers and a few Jack Daniels and that was the
cause of his testosterone inbalance.
Well what is not credible is the fact that a highly trained and professional
athlete would take alcohol to that level in the middle of a competeition.
Certainly any such action is not going to do his body any good whatsoever
and is not a recipe for success the folowing day. If a few beers and Jack
Daniels were the only stimulant he took then certainly brewery shares should
have climbed better the following day than even Landis did.
I am afraid on a very subjective level I believe him guilty.
Best regards
Rod
"Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.com> wrote in message
news:4paf0hF...@individual.net...
Tony Raven
>
> But low epitestosterone is a signature of artificially boosted
> testosterone.
>
Artificially boosted to normal levels?
>
> He can't have it both ways, at one point he states the paperwork doesn't
> tie the sample to him, and then later he claims that the medical
> history statements would identify him to anyone wanting to fix the test.
> I don't think anyone is seriously doubting it is his sample, just
> looking for a failure in protocol.
The medication form is a different form from the test result sheets so
the number can be right on one and wrong on the other. Unfortunately
the quality of the medication sheet is so poor I can't make out the
numbers to tell what number it says, but certainly you can't say he is
having it both ways on the evidence
>
> Which leaves:
>
> > In addition the published lab reports show that the samples failed
> the > degradation/contamination checks and under the WADA protocols
> should > have been discarded and not tested
> >
>
> I'm no chemist, so I'm not going to speculate whether this is a
> technical infringement that would have no bearing, or a serious
> contamination issue.
>
It doesn't matter. Those are the rules WADA have set for testing and
discarding samples for contamination and/or degradation. You cannot
change the rules for one competitor after the event. If their own rules
say they should be discarded they should follow their own rules.
It is clear you are no chemist. Anyone with the rudiments of Good
Laboratory Practice would know that there are plenty enough errors and
failures to follow procedure to make the results meaningless.
Simon Brooke
('ro...@therosebankcentre.co.uk') wrote:
> Hang on
>
> I am noe led to understand that what every top class professional athlete
> does at the end of a knackering day when they have really ridden badly is
> have a few beers and Jack Daniels as Landis said he did and as a result
> accidently increase his testosterone level.
Except we now know there's no credible evidence that his testosterone level
did increase. The sample in which the testosterone level was thought to
have increased had its identifying number confused not once but twice, so
no-one really knows whose sample it was; and the data on which the
supposed increase is based seems inconsistent with anything but a
misadministered test.
You wouldn't hang a dog on this evidence.
> I'm afraid that in my mind Flawed Landis was convicted by the words which
> came from his own mouth. I think he is guilty.
Well, that was my view as recently as six weeks ago:
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/dogfood/story/article_52.html
But on what I've seen since I've changed my mind. I don't know that he was
innocent, but I do know that the UCI are more interested in the conviction
than the truth.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; my other religion is Emacs
David Martin
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <452ffb3d$0$8742$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Rod King
> ('ro...@therosebankcentre.co.uk') wrote:
>
> > Hang on
> >
> > I am noe led to understand that what every top class professional athlete
> > does at the end of a knackering day when they have really ridden badly is
> > have a few beers and Jack Daniels as Landis said he did and as a result
> > accidently increase his testosterone level.
>
> Except we now know there's no credible evidence that his testosterone level
> did increase. The sample in which the testosterone level was thought to
> have increased had its identifying number confused not once but twice, so
> no-one really knows whose sample it was; and the data on which the
> supposed increase is based seems inconsistent with anything but a
> misadministered test.
>
180% instead of the maximum permitted 30%. As a practising scientist I
am appalled at the quality of the lab results. If I was the lab manager
I wouldn't let them leave the lab - just report a failed analysis.
Looking at the data I'm now pretty convinced he is innocent. I'm
absolutely conviced that there is no substantial evidence to link him
to one, let alone two correctly performed positive tests.
> You wouldn't hang a dog on this evidence.
Wouldn't even speak to it in a mildly disapproving voice.
> > I'm afraid that in my mind Flawed Landis was convicted by the words which
> > came from his own mouth. I think he is guilty.
>
> Well, that was my view as recently as six weeks ago:
> http://www.jasmine.org.uk/dogfood/story/article_52.html
>
> But on what I've seen since I've changed my mind. I don't know that he was
> innocent, but I do know that the UCI are more interested in the conviction
> than the truth.
If the case does not get dropped by a hot potato then noises should be
made demanding the resignation of:
UCI head (though it was not on his watch, he still bears
responsibility)
Head of WADA
Head of the testing lab.
And whoever sanctioned whether explicitly or tacitly the leaking of
confidential medical data to the press.
Landis may not be innocent. But he is clearly not proven guilty on this
evidence and therefore should be considered as innocent.
It is also interesting that we now see the difference between those
competent to review this evidence and those who want to go with the
media hysteria.
..d
Mike Jacoubowsky
> part of his sample for his own use. It wouldn't be admissible as evidence,
> but could be used by the athlete as a reference to be tested on their own,
> should the A sample come back positive.
Curious as to how large a sample is required for testing. What happens when
an athlete can't produce enough? Or does it require so little that it's not
an issue?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Carl Sundquist" <car...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:cfPXg.18040$vC3.4598@dukeread02...
Carl Sundquist
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
news:eSVXg.10124$TV3...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> As I mentioned before, there is nothing keeping the athlete from keeping
>> part of his sample for his own use. It wouldn't be admissible as
>> evidence, but could be used by the athlete as a reference to be tested on
>> their own, should the A sample come back positive.
>
> Curious as to how large a sample is required for testing. What happens
> when an athlete can't produce enough? Or does it require so little that
> it's not an issue?
>
Although ISTR it was only about 100-150 ml, in cases of dehydration at the
end of a long, hot race it could potentially be hours before you had enough
urine to produce a sample. Drug control provides water, juices, and sodas in
sealed containers for those who need additional fluids. I don't recall
having a situation where I wasn't able to provide the required amount on my
first attempt, but I would imagine that if you were only able to pee about
100 ml, you have to start from scratch on your next attempt due to chain of
custody issues on an unsealed container. They measure specific gravity of
the urine as well.
Frank Drackman
Chris Horner talks about this in one of his online diary entries. He had to
wait for fast Freddie who was called for a random. I think he said that
they waited at least 90 minutes.
Carl Sundquist
> Although ISTR it was only about 100-150 ml,
That amount is split into the two (A&B) samples
dbrower
Carl Sundquist wrote:
> > Although ISTR it was only about 100-150 ml,
>
> That amount is split into the two (A&B) samples
As shown in
http://ia331328.us.archive.org/3/items/Floyd_Landis_2006_Doping_Case_Documents4/pdf2eng.pdf
The amount they had from Landis in the A sample was 65ml.
For riders X and Y, they had 95 and 85 ml.
-dB
Tony Raven
>
> Although ISTR it was only about 100-150 ml
>
Ah, so not the three point eight water bottles full shown on Slide 14
then ;-)
http://ia331316.us.archive.org/2/items/Floyd_Landis_2006_Case_Documents7/14_Landis_Baker_Slides.pdf
Simon Brooke
('ro...@therosebankcentre.co.uk') wrote:
> I accept what you are saying. Its just that Landis claimed that at the
> end of his ride he had several beers and a few Jack Daniels and that was
> the cause of his testosterone inbalance.
Landis said a lot of foolish things under pressure from journalists in the
immediate aftermath of the accusation. What would you have done, if you
had just achieved your life's ambition and people were accusing you of
cheating? Yes, his story wasn't consistent, and that doesn't look good.
Would you have done better?
Let's be clear about this. Landis' long time riding partner and father in
law has committed suicide. His former employer has been forced to
liquidate his business in ignominy. At least two significant sponsors -
iShares and Skoda - have very significantly reduced their commitment to
cycling (iShares have pulled out altogether; Skoda have pulled out of the
TdF but may retain other cycling contracts). This is not a minor scandal.
If, after this, the UCI cannot produce clear and compelling evidence of
Landis' guilt, the UCI has a lot of apologising to do. I say 'the UCI'
specifically, because the UCI were responsible for the leak.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Want to know what SCO stands for?
;; http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030605
Ib
> It doesn't matter. Those are the rules WADA have set for testing and
> discarding samples for contamination and/or degradation. You cannot
> change the rules for one competitor after the event. If their own rules
> say they should be discarded they should follow their own rules.
>
For me there are 2 different issues here; was the test performed
correctly and did Landis take testosterone. Landis seems to be trying to
disprove the former, and whatever the outcome there will always be
those that believe the latter...
Tony Raven
>
> For me there are 2 different issues here; was the test performed
> correctly and did Landis take testosterone. Landis seems to be trying to
> disprove the former, and whatever the outcome there will always be
> those that believe the latter...
And on the latter, like Armstrong in 1999, we will never know, unless he
comes out and admits it, because LNDD cocked it up so badly, again.
It will join Armstrong, Roswell and the Marie Celeste as one of those
mysteries to which we will never know the answer but there will always
be the convinced on both sides.
EasyC...@sgtrock.net
wrote:
>in message <45300bd5$0$8735$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Rod King
>('ro...@therosebankcentre.co.uk') wrote:
>
>> I accept what you are saying. Its just that Landis claimed that at the
>> end of his ride he had several beers and a few Jack Daniels and that was
>> the cause of his testosterone inbalance.
>
>Landis said a lot of foolish things under pressure from journalists in the
>immediate aftermath of the accusation. What would you have done, if you
>had just achieved your life's ambition and people were accusing you of
>cheating? Yes, his story wasn't consistent, and that doesn't look good.
>Would you have done better?
>
>Let's be clear about this. Landis' long time riding partner and father in
>law has committed suicide. His former employer has been forced to
>liquidate his business in ignominy. At least two significant sponsors -
>iShares and Skoda - have very significantly reduced their commitment to
>cycling (iShares have pulled out altogether; Skoda have pulled out of the
>TdF but may retain other cycling contracts). This is not a minor scandal.
>
>If, after this, the UCI cannot produce clear and compelling evidence of
>Landis' guilt, the UCI has a lot of apologising to do. I say 'the UCI'
>specifically, because the UCI were responsible for the leak.
C'mon, Simon. I'm a very strong supporter of Landis, but I can tell you,
that when the person in question starts talking a lot and making lots of
'excuses' that usually signifies dissembling.
I only hope in this case it was due to everyone around Floyd telling him
what to do and say and he got some bad advice. Note that Lance suggested
fairly early on that FL shut up and wait to see what happens. ;-)
If it were me, on the day, I'd be cussing up a storm and threatening to
engage in fisticuffs, b/c I know I'm clean. There'd be no 'excuses' or long
'explanations'. The next day I'd simply issue a categorical statement that
I never doped, Period, and that I'm probably the cleanest person in the
Peloton. (In Floyd's case that might be (relatively) true)
Again, I support Landis and I think he is being railroaded, and that the
lab has screwed up the process and the testing and I'd like to see him
cleared.
David Martin
EasyC...@sgtrock.net wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:11:34 +0100, Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk>
> wrote:
> C'mon, Simon. I'm a very strong supporter of Landis, but I can tell you,
> that when the person in question starts talking a lot and making lots of
> 'excuses' that usually signifies dissembling.
Look bck again at what was known when 9or thought to be known.
Rumours circulate through L'Equipe that a top rider has tested
positive. It emerges over the next few days that that claimed positive
test was for high testosterone and from Landis after stage 17. This is
two weeks later.
All Landis has to go on is the reports in the press as he has not
recieved the documentation from the lab, just their word that it is
positive. He requests the B sample which is again tested.
At this point he, as with everyone outside of a few in LNDD believe
that he really has been found with a high testosterone. He thinks back
to the events of two weeks previously and tries to rationalise how this
might have come about. He remembers having a beer and a Jack Daniels,
it is known that these can elevate testosterone a little so he perhaps
exaggerates the quantities a bit in an attempt to rationalise an
explaination for a state of affairs he does not expect, nor understand.
We now know from reading the evidence that there is no positive test,
that most of the testing was shoddy and poorly controlled and that all
these excuses were attempts to explain away a state of affairs which
wasn't actually the case.
Looking at things in an appropriate historical perspective the
behaviour of Landis is perfectly understandable whether he is innocent
or guilty. What I find hard to understand is the behaviour of LNDD and
the UCI.
..d
Simon Brooke
Well, I'm not a supporter of Landis. I really didn't want him to win; I
wanted Sastre to win. I don't want another American yellow jersey, for a
while at least. But people put under enormous pressure behave in odd ways.
It doesn't seem to me at all inconceivable that if Landis really was
innocent and had no idea what had happened, he might come up with lots of
half baked notions, and under stress might discuss these with
sympathetic-seeming journos. This isn't to say I believe he /is/ innocent;
I simply don't know. But I certainly don't know that he's guilty, and the
probability of his guilt given the available evidence seems a lot less now
than it did at the end of July.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Human history becomes more and more a race between
;; education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"
Tony Raven
>
> C'mon, Simon. I'm a very strong supporter of Landis, but I can tell you,
> that when the person in question starts talking a lot and making lots of
> 'excuses' that usually signifies dissembling.
>
> I only hope in this case it was due to everyone around Floyd telling him
> what to do and say and he got some bad advice. Note that Lance suggested
> fairly early on that FL shut up and wait to see what happens. ;-)
>
> If it were me, on the day, I'd be cussing up a storm and threatening to
> engage in fisticuffs, b/c I know I'm clean. There'd be no 'excuses' or long
> 'explanations'. The next day I'd simply issue a categorical statement that
> I never doped, Period, and that I'm probably the cleanest person in the
> Peloton. (In Floyd's case that might be (relatively) true)
>
That's you. You are not Landis. People react in a whole variety of
ways to a situation from total withdrawal to full on attack. For weeks
he was being told through the press that he had elevated testosterone
and he had nothing else to go on because the data wasn't released to
him. Now we see it, he didn't have elevated testosterone at all.
Even the drink thing has become exaggerated. Rod said "Landis claimed
that at the end of his ride he had several beers and a few Jack Daniels
and that was the cause of his testosterone inbalance."
Actually the transcript on Velo News says "I did what a normal person
would do on an ordinary bad day and had a beer and a little bit of Jack
Daniels and felt much better, relaxed, and laughed with my teammates and
then got some sleep." in response to a direct question about him having
a drink and driven by speculation about a Swedish study showing an link
[1]. So suddenly a beer and a little bit of JD has become several beers
and a few JDs!!!
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10609.0.html
[1] Effect of ethanol on the ratio between testosterone and
epitestosterone in urine.
Falk O, Palonek E, Bjorkhem I. Clin Chem. 1988 Jul;34(7):1462-4.
EasyC...@sgtrock.net
wrote:
>in message <3qr1j25fge1tmpuc4...@4ax.com>,
>EasyC...@sgtrock.net ('EasyC...@sgtrock.net') wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:11:34 +0100, Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk>
>> wrote:
<snip>
>> C'mon, Simon. I'm a very strong supporter of Landis, but I can tell you,
>> that when the person in question starts talking a lot and making lots of
>> 'excuses' that usually signifies dissembling.
>
>Well, I'm not a supporter of Landis. I really didn't want him to win; I
>wanted Sastre to win. I don't want another American yellow jersey, for a
>while at least. But people put under enormous pressure behave in odd ways.
>It doesn't seem to me at all inconceivable that if Landis really was
>innocent and had no idea what had happened, he might come up with lots of
>half baked notions, and under stress might discuss these with
>sympathetic-seeming journos. This isn't to say I believe he /is/ innocent;
>I simply don't know. But I certainly don't know that he's guilty, and the
>probability of his guilt given the available evidence seems a lot less now
>than it did at the end of July.
I think it's called the 'cooked spaghetti' defense - if accused of
something throw up a lot of excuses and see if anything sticks. LOL.
After the first couple comments, I was prepared to offer Landis the benefit
of the doubt. But then he just kept going on and on and then did the 'I'll
say no' comment. If he'd have just said 'no, I didn't dope. We'll let
evidence speak for itself.' and then kept his mouth shut and acted like an
innocent person, he'd be in a lot better shape.
My gut feeling is that of all the dopers, Landis is probably one who dopes
relatively little, for instance a little help in the off season and maybe
something extra on the ITT and or the mountain stages. If I had to make a
guess it would be that not being that experienced in the subtleties of
doping, he forgot about the T/E ratio.
Still, if the lab screwed up, then I'd say for all intents and purposes, he
didn't test positive and you can't convict.
EasyC...@sgtrock.net
wrote:
>EasyC...@sgtrock.net wrote on 14/10/2006 15:13 +0100:
>>
>> C'mon, Simon. I'm a very strong supporter of Landis, but I can tell you,
>> that when the person in question starts talking a lot and making lots of
>> 'excuses' that usually signifies dissembling.
>>
>> I only hope in this case it was due to everyone around Floyd telling him
>> what to do and say and he got some bad advice. Note that Lance suggested
>> fairly early on that FL shut up and wait to see what happens. ;-)
>>
>> If it were me, on the day, I'd be cussing up a storm and threatening to
>> engage in fisticuffs, b/c I know I'm clean. There'd be no 'excuses' or long
>> 'explanations'. The next day I'd simply issue a categorical statement that
>> I never doped, Period, and that I'm probably the cleanest person in the
>> Peloton. (In Floyd's case that might be (relatively) true)
>>
>
>That's you. You are not Landis. People react in a whole variety of
>ways to a situation from total withdrawal to full on attack. For weeks
>he was being told through the press that he had elevated testosterone
>and he had nothing else to go on because the data wasn't released to
>him. Now we see it, he didn't have elevated testosterone at all.
Good point. In fact I was wondering what Landis was thinking when told he
had elevated T. Sometimes it's more apparent based on what he -didn't- say.
He didn't say 'no, I've -never- taken Testosterone, you're crazy'
He didn't say 'There's no WAY my T is elevated beyond what it is every
other day, because I don't take PEDs'.
If he had said 'well maybe there's some sort of reaction between the test
and the TUE approved cortisone?' and left it at that and a few outraged
denials, then it would have been acceptable.
Though your comments were accurate and a good assessment, I think the
public perception is that he said too much and thus harmed his case.
Let's hope that the lab problems are true and that the case gets dropped
and he can ride again. (fingers crossed)
Tony Raven
>
>
> My gut feeling is that of all the dopers, Landis is probably one who dopes
> relatively little, for instance a little help in the off season and maybe
> something extra on the ITT and or the mountain stages. If I had to make a
> guess it would be that not being that experienced in the subtleties of
> doping, he forgot about the T/E ratio.
>
How about we get rid of WADA and LNDD and we can do drug testing by
asking you for your gut feeling instead. We don't need to bother with
any of that inconvenient evidence then.
EasyC...@sgtrock.net
wrote:
>EasyC...@sgtrock.net wrote on 14/10/2006 18:50 +0100:
>>
>>
>> My gut feeling is that of all the dopers, Landis is probably one who dopes
>> relatively little, for instance a little help in the off season and maybe
>> something extra on the ITT and or the mountain stages. If I had to make a
>> guess it would be that not being that experienced in the subtleties of
>> doping, he forgot about the T/E ratio.
>>
>
>How about we get rid of WADA and LNDD and we can do drug testing by
>asking you for your gut feeling instead. We don't need to bother with
>any of that inconvenient evidence then.
I think that's a great idea. I'd base it on the degree of animation at the
finish line.
5 arm pumps and rapidly shaking your head back and forth and almost jumping
off the bike (similar to LA's first TdF stage victory) would be the
absolute limit - after that, I'm invoking the 'too much hot sauce' rule.
Otherwise, no problem. ;-p
Tony Raven
>
> Good point. In fact I was wondering what Landis was thinking when told he
> had elevated T. Sometimes it's more apparent based on what he -didn't- say.
>
> He didn't say 'no, I've -never- taken Testosterone, you're crazy'
>
> He didn't say 'There's no WAY my T is elevated beyond what it is every
> other day, because I don't take PEDs'.
>
> If he had said 'well maybe there's some sort of reaction between the test
> and the TUE approved cortisone?' and left it at that and a few outraged
> denials, then it would have been acceptable.
>
Ah, you are following the teachings of the other Floyd:
"That one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me! Get him up
against the wall!"
EasyC...@sgtrock.net
wrote:
>EasyC...@sgtrock.net wrote on 14/10/2006 19:01 +0100:
>>
>> Good point. In fact I was wondering what Landis was thinking when told he
>> had elevated T. Sometimes it's more apparent based on what he -didn't- say.
>>
>> He didn't say 'no, I've -never- taken Testosterone, you're crazy'
>>
>> He didn't say 'There's no WAY my T is elevated beyond what it is every
>> other day, because I don't take PEDs'.
>>
>> If he had said 'well maybe there's some sort of reaction between the test
>> and the TUE approved cortisone?' and left it at that and a few outraged
>> denials, then it would have been acceptable.
>>
>
>Ah, you are following the teachings of the other Floyd:
>
>"That one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me! Get him up
>against the wall!"
http://www.jorgstyle.com/Topbannerbuttons/far-side-bears.gif
;-)
Rod King
I would like to feel that cycle sport was getting itself clean and can
undertand that under pressure strange things are said.
What I cannot understand is why a professional athlete would have even one
beer and spirit after a full days cycling and dehydration.
If he actually did that then he was pretty stupid as alcohol is not good for
the body in those conditions.
If he was just lying, then he was and is a liar.
If he wasn't lying and did after a full day with dehydration, then consume
alcohol and then went on to a remarkable recovery then I just cannot
undertand how he did it.
By the way, I am just a casual observer.I don't follow the sport in detail,
but these are my reactions and I think them reasonably valid.
Best regards
Rod
"Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.com> wrote in message
news:4pclvjF...@individual.net...
Tony Raven
> Tony
>
> I would like to feel that cycle sport was getting itself clean and can
> undertand that under pressure strange things are said.
>
> What I cannot understand is why a professional athlete would have even one
> beer and spirit after a full days cycling and dehydration.
Who hasn't succumbed after a bummer of a day? He'd just seen his
chances of winning the Tour apparently go right out the window.
> If he actually did that then he was pretty stupid as alcohol is not good for
> the body in those conditions.
Probably true
> If he was just lying, then he was and is a liar.
>
> If he wasn't lying and did after a full day with dehydration, then consume
> alcohol and then went on to a remarkable recovery then I just cannot
> undertand how he did it.
And testosterone does not help the understanding. Apart from it being
at normal levels, it's a long term drug for building muscle mass. Its
effect overnight would me non-existent. So if it was a drug enhanced
recovery it was a drug they didn't detect, not the (lack of) testosterone
>
> By the way, I am just a casual observer.I don't follow the sport in detail,
> but these are my reactions and I think them reasonably valid.
>
It would help if you checked your facts though and didn't inflate a
single beer & JD to an alcoholic binge.
Simon Brooke
('ju...@raven-family.com') wrote:
> EasyC...@sgtrock.net wrote on 14/10/2006 18:50 +0100:
>>
>> My gut feeling is that of all the dopers, Landis is probably one who
>> dopes relatively little, for instance a little help in the off season
>> and maybe something extra on the ITT and or the mountain stages. If I
>> had to make a guess it would be that not being that experienced in the
>> subtleties of doping, he forgot about the T/E ratio.
>
> How about we get rid of WADA and LNDD and we can do drug testing by
> asking you for your gut feeling instead. We don't need to bother with
> any of that inconvenient evidence then.
Hey, given the track record of the above named agencies, it couldn't make
things any worse.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; MS Windows: A thirty-two bit extension ... to a sixteen bit
;; patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a
;; four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that
;; can't stand one bit of competition -- anonymous