|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UC Davis Bike Auction May 5 | [email protected] | Marketplace | 0 | April 25th 07 12:23 AM |
UC Davis Bike Auction, Oct. 14 | twotired | Marketplace | 0 | September 22nd 06 11:08 PM |
Davis Phinney: how can we help? | Veloise | General | 1 | May 25th 05 07:10 PM |
Dr Robert Davis on the radio | Colin McKenzie | UK | 30 | December 7th 04 06:11 PM |
Tour for Allan Davis? | Kenny | Racing | 1 | June 27th 04 04:18 PM |