Dans le message de ,
Ryan Cousineau a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Apologies for this rather short question at the end of your long and
useful analysis, but isn't the big problem that if legitimate problems
with the testing are raised, that any attempt to convict from there on
out becomes a case of "fake, but accurate"?

No evidence is foolproof. Findings of fact are seldom inescapable. But
when the process requires a decision, you can make the best out of the best
evidence. Fake evidence has not been presented, even if some of it is very
controversial as to accuracy and methodology.

Perhaps I don't understand the purview of this hearing, but I would
have assumed that their job was primarily to confirm that the testing
was done to protocol (I assume the protocols themselves, like it or
not, are essentially taken as having "judicial notice" barring
extraordinary evidence to the contrary).

Judicial notice can be taken, for example, of the periodic chart of
elements. As to the protocols, they are "the law of the case", in part,
although not exclusively. Unless the parties demand, the panel could also
just issue a result without findings of fact or other logical basis. I
doubt that will happen. And they can decide that the law of the case is
unconscionable, thus not looking exclusively at scientific evidence. Just
because a panel does not follow the law is not a reason for discarding an
award. Really.

As for the testimony of Joe Papp, well, is he any better as a witness
of the state of performance enhancement than the aspiring pro who
posted here about his kenacort problem? I know they just brought him
in to counter the "T is a useless drug for instant performance"
assertion from the Landis side, but while it's one thing if you've
got Dr. Puffinstuff declaring that he did a proper study with 10
athletes, and found out that testosterone doping was like rocket fuel
you could drink, but if the most compelling evidence you can find is
Joe Papp, nearly-pro rider, who has apparently ridden in "multi-day
stage races like the Tour de France" (what, the Giro, the Vuelta,
some other 21-day tour I haven't heard about? RAAM?), then I begin to
wonder if you don't have a very good case on that point.

If there were a rule that stated that chewing bubble gum was a violation,
you would need nothing more than proof of it to issue a final ruling.

http://www.joepapp.com/index.php?pag...ws&element=219

Oh dear heavens. Papp is Kenacort Guy:

"During the Landis hearing, Papp acknowledged systematically doping
under the guidance of medical professionals in the United States,
Europe and Latin America. He admitted to using at various times EPO,
HGH, cortisone, insulin, thyroid hormone, anabolic steroids and
amphetamines"

Aren't insulin and cortisone like the two-fer of drugs for dumb
athletes?

Looking into the heart or soul of Landis would seem to be a bit
outside of the purview of this hearing, but I'm not a member of the
AAA. or AA. I'm an enemy of Bill W.

If the submission from USADA identifies the scope of review by the panel to
no more than confirming the scientific findings, then they should limit
their review to that. However, it makes so much more sense that a panel of
experts would do that. Except, of course, that there is a division of the
experts. So, the submission is more likely made on the overall grounds that
Landis used a PED in violation of UCI rules. That finding would lead to
discipline.

--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR