For Landis : Dr Davis

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

On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" wrote:

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.

A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the shelf.
His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo testing
and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a lab
machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that
anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine
for a test already being performed has to believe that the old machine
and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the effort and
justify the risk.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" wrote:

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.

A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the shelf.
His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo testing
and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a lab
machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that
anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine
for a test already being performed has to believe that the old machine
and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the effort and
justify the risk.

Is semi-quack engineering more or less common among medical guys than in
other enterprises?

But yeah, for all the reasons indicated in this case, I think that
automating any routine test is probably the way to go, as much as
possible. Process control and all that.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:45:42 GMT, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
Is semi-quack engineering more or less common among medical guys than in
other enterprises?

More. As is their maths, just ask REChung.

--
E. Dronkert

On Wed, 23 May 2007 15:56:59 +0200, Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
maths, just ask REChung.

Whose name, btw, is just one letter shy of maths (sort of) in German.

--
E. Dronkert

On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:45:42 GMT, Ryan Cousineau
wrote:

Is semi-quack engineering more or less common among medical guys than in
other enterprises?

It took two months and two visits for our last robot to be cleared for
use. At our end. Same for the one before that. The robots had to be
certified for the processes that we use them for; then we had to show
that we had the processes and personnel to run them. Doubt that a
certified lab has much room for quack engineering.

Now there are labs that have relationships that permit them to stray
later - like a local lab here in Baltimore that was a captive for a
hospital and didn't stay up to snuff. OTOH, if you are in the open
marketplace, you have to maintain marketplace recognized
certifications, and that doesn't really leave you a lot of room to run
quack engineering or quack processes. You and the machines get tested
regularly and you have to score in the upper fractions of the upper
percentile to keep the certs. Everyone does.

I'm always personally most suspicious of labs that have cozy
relationships as their predominant market. The less open the market,
IMO the less scrutiny and the more chance for drift.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" wrote:

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.

A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the shelf.
His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo testing
and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a lab
machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that
anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine
for a test already being performed has to believe that the old machine
and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the effort and
justify the risk.

I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm thinking of the
test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of questions raised about that one
for me when they guy who created it said that he didn't need to do tests for false
positives, let alone demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it
showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in positive results
than good results.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Dans le message de
,
Howard Kveck a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" wrote:

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.

A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the
shelf. His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo
testing and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a
lab machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that
anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine
for a test already being performed has to believe that the old
machine and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the
effort and justify the risk.

I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm
thinking of the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of
questions raised about that one for me when they guy who created it
said that he didn't need to do tests for false positives, let alone
demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it
showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in
positive results than good results.

I find it amusing to speculate what would ensue, should a lot of labs fail
to find positive samples in any cases over a substantial period of time.
Would WADA claim that the stuff is there, but deviously masked from
detection ? A certain GWB tried that approach in a different context. It
could never be, in that scenario, that there was simply no doping going on.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

In article ,
"Sandy" wrote:

Dans le message de
,
Howard Kveck a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" wrote:

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.

A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the
shelf. His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo
testing and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a
lab machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that
anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine
for a test already being performed has to believe that the old
machine and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the
effort and justify the risk.

I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm
thinking of the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of
questions raised about that one for me when they guy who created it
said that he didn't need to do tests for false positives, let alone
demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it
showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in
positive results than good results.

I find it amusing to speculate what would ensue, should a lot of labs fail
to find positive samples in any cases over a substantial period of time.
Would WADA claim that the stuff is there, but deviously masked from
detection ?

Yes, they would be correct, and were they to express the notion
equably they would attract sympathy from people who are not
looking for scapegoats.

--
Michael Press

On May 24, 3:32 pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,





"Sandy" wrote:
Dans le message de
,
Howard Kveck a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" wrote:

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.

A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the
shelf. His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo
testing and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a
lab machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that
anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine
for a test already being performed has to believe that the old
machine and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the
effort and justify the risk.

I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm
thinking of the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of
questions raised about that one for me when they guy who created it
said that he didn't need to do tests for false positives, let alone
demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it
showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in
positive results than good results.

I find it amusing to speculate what would ensue, should a lot of labs fail
to find positive samples in any cases over a substantial period of time.
Would WADA claim that the stuff is there, but deviously masked from
detection ?

Yes, they would be correct, and were they to express the notion
equably they would attract sympathy from people who are not
looking for scapegoats.

--
Michael Press- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Except they'd lose their Wada certification in a heartbeat and Pound
would be accusing them of enabling and assisting the dopers.
Bill C