Anybody care to say something intelligent about Landis' web defense ?
raa...@hotmail.com
make of it ?
Jeff Jones
raa...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Just wondering as there are a few fairly learned folk here, what do you
> make of it ?
Johnnie Cochran would be proud:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/1913/3884/1600/ss2.0.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense
Jeff
Chris
rather to let him rather than them to shine some light on the issues with
the current system. Use him as the bad guy to expose what they've know all
along yet needed to stay quite as not to be controversial with their peer
organizations.
<raa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160672104.3...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Mike Jacoubowsky
> rather to let him rather than them to shine some light on the issues with
> the current system. Use him as the bad guy to expose what they've know
> all along yet needed to stay quite as not to be controversial with their
> peer organizations.
Am I the only person who thinks the use of the term "arbitration" to
describe the process is, even if technically accurate, a bit misleading to
the public at large?
When I think of arbitration, I think of two sides that can't come to an
agreement, and a tacit acknowledgment that both sides have legit issues that
can't properly be addressed by the facts of the case alone.Arbitration in
civil cases typically (not always) results in a finding somewhere between
what each side is asking for.
"Arbitration" in a matter like this sounds like something done after someone
has already been found guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. An American
concept of criminal justice, of course.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Chris" <Chri...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:VByXg.16123$7I1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
Thomas A. Fine
<raa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Just wondering as there are a few fairly learned folk here, what do you
>make of it ?
>
There's some issues in there with some real teeth, but I don't think they
have the best possible presentation.
The "positivity" criteria, or why did only one of his metabolites test
as positive? This has been presented as a technicality, arguing legal
minutae. And to the extent that this argument is useful in the hearing,
that might even be true. But there's a deeper issue here. If they tested
four of Floyd's metabolites (four things that all came from his testosterone)
how could only one of them be positive? If the theory behind the test is
correct, they should all have fairly similar values and they don't. So
logically this would mean that the theory behind the test is invalid.
One reasonable interpretation is that the one test is wrong, and the other
three are right. By accepting a single test of four, WADA is ignoring
both that the result contradicts the test theory, and ignoring basic
statistics about the likelihood of which result is wrong.
Unfortunately Floyd isn't explicitly allowed to present arguments about
the scientific underpinnings of the test, so all that's left is that surface
technicality on the wording of metabolite versus metabolites.
Another big issue relates exactly to the metabolite that he tested positive
for. When they test him, they also run the tests against a negative control.
It seems that the negative control also tested positive (or came really
close) for synthetic testosterone on the same metabolite that failed Floyd.
They're arguing that this can only be the result of a miscalibration
for this particular compound, and it's a pretty darn strong argument.
Perhaps the biggest issue in terms of his winning (but not in terms of
demonstrating his innocence) is that the sample seems to exceed an explicit
WADA limit on contamination, that should rule the sample invalid.
Of course all of this needs to be looked at more closely to see if the
things they're claiming match up with the documents that have been provided.
Luckily, since all the documents are there, this is a simple matter of
legwork.
tom
Scott
You're missing the point in your analysis of the "positivity" criteria.
It's not about whether one is positive and three are negative, and is
the test unreliable, or whatever... but rather, until the test results
meet the established criteria for a positive result, it's not a
positive result.
Floyd in particular and the sport of pro cycling in general have lost
HUGE amounts of money because some monkey at the lab and WADA declared
a test, which clearly doesn't meet the standard for a positive test, a
positive test.
Oh, yea... as soon as the first person with half a brain AND the
authority to rule on it saw that the samples were mishandled in regards
to the chain of custody, this whole thing should've been stopped then.
I'm glad Landis and his defense team have requested an open hearing.
It's high time that we all see the depths to which this thing has been
screwed up. Something needs to be done about it, and if the hearings
had been held in secret, we might not have ever seen the truth behind
how badly folks have tried to railroad him.
RonSonic
By then the information had been leaked and everyone was in full ass covering
mode with declarations that the test is foolproof and that there can be no error
and all like that.
>I'm glad Landis and his defense team have requested an open hearing.
>It's high time that we all see the depths to which this thing has been
>screwed up. Something needs to be done about it, and if the hearings
>had been held in secret, we might not have ever seen the truth behind
>how badly folks have tried to railroad him.
Agreed.
Ron
RicodJour
>
> Oh, yea... as soon as the first person with half a brain AND the
> authority to rule on it saw that the samples were mishandled in regards
> to the chain of custody, this whole thing should've been stopped then.
It's starting to sound like a Monty Python sketch.
Customer:
(deliberately) Have you in fact got any cheese here at all.
Owner:
Yes, sir.
Customer:
Really?
(pause)
Owner:
No. Not really, sir.
Customer:
You haven't.
Owner:
No sir. Not a scrap. I was deliberately wasting your time, sir.
Customer:
Well I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to shoot you.
Owner:
Right-Oh, sir.
(The customer takes out a gun and shoots the owner)
Customer:
What a senseless waste of human life.
> I'm glad Landis and his defense team have requested an open hearing.
> It's high time that we all see the depths to which this thing has been
> screwed up. Something needs to be done about it, and if the hearings
> had been held in secret, we might not have ever seen the truth behind
> how badly folks have tried to railroad him.
I think some more transparency in the {evil} machinations of WADA and
the labs will help. Fate picked Floyd to be the lightning rod - Fate
being a disgruntled French lab worker. Whether it was from
incompetence, over-confidence in what "really" happened, or intrique,
it's tough to say. Of course he could be guilty as sin, but this is
hardly a good way to go about proving it.
R
Simon Brooke
('hendric...@hotmail.com') wrote:
> Floyd in particular and the sport of pro cycling in general have lost
> HUGE amounts of money because some monkey at the lab and WADA declared
> a test, which clearly doesn't meet the standard for a positive test, a
> positive test.
To be strictly accurate, Landis in particular and pro cycling in general
have lost huge amounts of money (and reputation and public profile, which
may be more important), Landis' team has disbanded in disgrace and the
Tour de France has lost at least one major sponsor, because the UCI
decided to leak a test result before there had been time to do even the
most basic audit check as to whether it was reliable.
The UCI leaked 'one test positive' on 27th July:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/tour06/news/?id=/news/2006/jul06/jul27news
The journalists (as anyone sensible would have expected them to) then
chased it down and by the following day Landis had been identified:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/tour06/news/?id=/news/2006/jul06/jul28news
Contrast athletics, for example. If a track and field athlete fails a test,
the first the media and the public hear of it is months later, when the
case is actually heard.
At best the UCI have made a huge failure of judgement here. By jumping the
gun and accusing Landis (and Ullrich and Basso and all the others) on the
basis of evidence which is at best imperfect, it has brought cycling into
disrepute, to coin a phrase, entirely unnecessarily. At worst, the UCI
have quite cynically used Landis (and Ullrich and Basso and all the
others) to prosecute a turf war against the ASO. Either way, MacQuaid has
to resign.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Wise man with foot in mouth use opportunity to clean toes.
;; the Worlock
Simon Brooke
RicodJour ('rico...@worldemail.com') wrote:
> I think some more transparency in the {evil} machinations of WADA and
> the labs will help. Fate picked Floyd to be the lightning rod - Fate
> being a disgruntled French lab worker. Whether it was from
> incompetence, over-confidence in what "really" happened, or intrique,
> it's tough to say. Of course he could be guilty as sin, but this is
> hardly a good way to go about proving it.
Actually, no 'disgruntled French lab worker' leaked the report. The
UCfuckingI leaked the report. Later, when challenged on why they had done
this, they said that if they hadn't, a disgruntled French lab worker might
have; but they didn't wait to find out.
Don't blame the French for anything but incompetence. The intrigue - for
there undoubtedly was intrigue - was Irish.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; I'd rather live in sybar-space
RicodJour
On Oct 13, 6:07 am, Simon Brooke <s...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
> in message <1160717468.493002.242...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> RicodJour ('ricodj...@worldemail.com') wrote:
> > I think some more transparency in the {evil} machinations of WADA and
> > the labs will help. Fate picked Floyd to be the lightning rod - Fate
> > being a disgruntled French lab worker. Whether it was from
> > incompetence, over-confidence in what "really" happened, or intrique,
> > it's tough to say. Of course he could be guilty as sin, but this is
> > hardly a good way to go about proving it.Actually, no 'disgruntled French lab worker' leaked the report. The
> UCfuckingI leaked the report. Later, when challenged on why they had done
> this, they said that if they hadn't, a disgruntled French lab worker might
> have; but they didn't wait to find out.
>
> Don't blame the French for anything but incompetence. The intrigue - for
> there undoubtedly was intrigue - was Irish.
You are indubitably correct, but I'll never admit to that in writing.
The way I see it, there's enough blame to go around. If Landis had
rolled over and given up hope of winning, instead of having a
monumental ride, we wouldn't be in this mess.
R
RonSonic
The bastard shoulda just rolled over and realized he was beaten and just rode
along with the peloton.
Ron
Andre
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > Perhaps the USADA wants to go to arbitration, not to prove Landis guilty,
> > rather to let him rather than them to shine some light on the issues with
> > the current system. Use him as the bad guy to expose what they've know
> > all along yet needed to stay quite as not to be controversial with their
> > peer organizations.
>
>
> Am I the only person who thinks the use of the term "arbitration" to
> describe the process is, even if technically accurate, a bit misleading to
> the public at large?
>
> When I think of arbitration, I think of two sides that can't come to an
> agreement, and a tacit acknowledgment that both sides have legit issues that
> can't properly be addressed by the facts of the case alone.Arbitration in
> civil cases typically (not always) results in a finding somewhere between
> what each side is asking for.
>
> "Arbitration" in a matter like this sounds like something done after someone
> has already been found guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. An American
> concept of criminal justice, of course.
>From Latin Arbitratus. It's like a referee, hopefully neutral.
dbrower
am I correct in noticing a distinct change in your position on Landis?
-dB
----
http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research and comment.
Simon Brooke
('dbr...@gmail.com') wrote:
> Simon,
>
> am I correct in noticing a distinct change in your position on Landis?
Yup, you are. In fact, I think I said so upthread. Here in Scotland, in
criminal trials we have three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty, and
not proven. On the evidence that was initially presented I thought it
looked open and shut and that Landis was guilty - which surprised and
disappointed me, since it didn't seem consistent with his public persona.
Now more of the mess has been exposed the verdict is at worst not proven,
and my hunch is swinging towards not guilty.
There's /way/ too much politics going on here, and it's pretty dirty
politics. It seems to me that MacQuaid, Pound et al see harm - up to and
including permanent loss of reputation and livelihood - to individual
cyclists as acceptable collateral damage in conflicts which are
essentially about empire building and the relative power of different
sporting organisations. This is not really about doping, and there ain't
no moral high ground here to occupy.
Just watched edited highlights of Paris Tours on the television; Guesdon
and Arveson hanging onto a breakway lead by the skin of their teeth right
into the finishing straight, and then nearly throwing it all away by
playing tactical games with the peloton barrelling down behind them.
That's bike racing for you. That's what it's all about. Skill and
endurance and guts and speed and a cool head. This sport does not need
MacQuaid and Pound and their cynical manouvering.
And I am personally very disappointed that we won't see Basso back in black
and white tomorrow.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out
of copper roove nails.
Mike Jacoubowsky
Pretty significant different between a referee and a judge. A referee is
brought in for a fight, which is different from a finding of truth. Not that
the finding of truth in a court case doesn't often go to the person best
prepared and able to "fight" as it were.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Andre" <ANDREJA...@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
news:1160764804.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
CowPunk
raa...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Just wondering as there are a few fairly learned folk here, what do you
> make of it ?
Make me wonder if not only FL's test were contaminated, but also
Hamilton
and the LA test in question?
Hands down FL wins the case or it gets dropped beforehand.
Smart move on FL's part to make this info public. Now he has
public support going into the hearing.
Ask Lafferty "if lawyers could be disbarred for life by drug testing,
would he send his sample to this lab"? I think not.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> Thomas A. Fine wrote:
> > Another big issue relates exactly to the metabolite that he tested positive
> > for. When they test him, they also run the tests against a negative control.
> > It seems that the negative control also tested positive (or came really
> > close) for synthetic testosterone on the same metabolite that failed Floyd.
> > They're arguing that this can only be the result of a miscalibration
> > for this particular compound, and it's a pretty darn strong argument.
>
> You're missing the point in your analysis of the "positivity" criteria.
> It's not about whether one is positive and three are negative, and is
> the test unreliable, or whatever... but rather, until the test results
> meet the established criteria for a positive result, it's not a
> positive result.
>
> Floyd in particular and the sport of pro cycling in general have lost
> HUGE amounts of money because some monkey at the lab and WADA declared
> a test, which clearly doesn't meet the standard for a positive test, a
> positive test.
WADA's criteria for positivity are taken from Potter Stewart's
definition of pornography (which to be fair, even Stewart later
disavowed). They know it when they see it. Or maybe we
should say that WADA creates its own reality.
If a test is close enough to positive, it can be redefined as
positive. Bob Schwartz has pointed this out in the Bergman case:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/4e0a6289982ef74b
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/8297405bd607f59f
So you might think that this is a strong point for Floyd,
and maybe it is. But don't be surprised if the arbitration
panel rolls over for WADA and decides that any problems
weren't material issues.
Ben
Andre
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>From Latin Arbitratus. It's like a referee, hopefully neutral.
>
> Pretty significant different between a referee and a judge. A referee is
> brought in for a fight, which is different from a finding of truth. Not that
> the finding of truth in a court case doesn't often go to the person best
> prepared and able to "fight" as it were.
>
The person best prepared could also manipulate the truth and turn it to
a lie.
Colin Campbell
> Just wondering as there are a few fairly learned folk here, what do you
> make of it ?
>
>
Isn't this the same lab that leaked Lance Armstrong results? Why do
they still get the business from WADA, or the national federation(s), or
whoever? Surely there is an honest and incorruptible lab somewhere in
the former Soviet Union, isn't there?
(This is NOT supposed to qualify as "something intelligent"!)
Mike Jacoubowsky
No argument there. My point (clumsily made) was that, once it goes to
"arbitration", there's an assumption that there is no longer any clear-cut
truth.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Andre" <ANDREJA...@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
news:1160792596.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Andre
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >> >>From Latin Arbitratus. It's like a referee, hopefully neutral.
> >>
> >> Pretty significant different between a referee and a judge. A referee is
> >> brought in for a fight, which is different from a finding of truth. Not
> >> that
> >> the finding of truth in a court case doesn't often go to the person best
> >> prepared and able to "fight" as it were.
> >>
> >
> > The person best prepared could also manipulate the truth and turn it to
> > a lie.
>
> "arbitration", there's an assumption that there is no longer any clear-cut
> truth.
Point taken. But aren't there always 3 truths?