Authoratative in is presentation, he didn't nibble away at the LNDD lab - he
did his best to savage it. At very least, he offered a position one could
take to discredit the results and physical procedures at that lab.

But there is something a little disturbing, which can be read two ways.

His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing,
manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr
Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their
participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths appear, as I
see it.

First, that if the new instrumentation, software, procedures are all the
latest in the state of the art, and the older generation instruments are now
antiques, less reliable too, then the Test B protocol is no better than
informative, but not conclusive, even if properly performed. Everyone
agrees that Test A is unsatisfactory, as it will not identify certain doping
methods. Now, Test B is called into question in the overall scheme. As I
have posited before, both methodologies are suspect, there is variation
between WADA labs on the precise procedures which constitute good practice.

What's the panel to do????? Not an easy task, but one clear avenue is to
discard the entire set of findings on Landis, as the WADA and UCI rules of
finding a violation is not supported by a clear scientific consensus. The
more likely route is to allow this in as evidence of performance of the
proper tests, and more or less properly, but give it limited NOT irrebutable
weight in proof of doping.

What then ????? Then, one is left with the testimony of everyone _except_
the academics, and you have to look at Landis' _conduct_ to be
determinative. Conduct as he himself testified, as well as circumstantial
evidence from other lay witnesses. Also, the testimony of Joe Papp can be
given limited weight to show that doping is done, the kind of product in
question is in common use, and even Landis stated that he searched the
internet to learn about the effects of various doping products.

I think this has turned out to be a very hard case. Most of all, in my
mind, it will need to rest on what Landis proposed himself - you can believe
him or not. If anything, I see this arb as having arrived at exactly the
right issue to be resolved. If UCI loses, and appeals to TAS, and wins
reversal on the basis of all the technical testimony, then we know that WADA
is, unequivocally, an evil. But we already knew that.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR