Anybody care to say something intelligent about Landis' web defense ?

Just wondering as there are a few fairly learned folk here, what do you
make of it ?

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/...1600/ss2.0.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense


Jeff

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.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Just wondering as there are a few fairly learned folk here, what do you
make of it ?

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.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Chris" wrote in message
et...
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.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Just wondering as there are a few fairly learned folk here, what do you
make of it ?

In article . 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

Thomas A. Fine wrote:
In article . 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.



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.

On 12 Oct 2006 18:35:08 -0700, "Scott" wrote:


Thomas A. Fine wrote:
In article . 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.



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.

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

On Oct 12, 9:35 pm, "Scott" wrote:

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

in message om, Scott
') 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...ul06/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...ul06/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.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Wise man with foot in mouth use opportunity to clean toes.
;; the Worlock

in message .com,
RicodJour ') wrote:

I think some more transparency in the {evil} machinations of WADA and
the labs will help. Â*Fate picked Floyd to be the lightning rod - Fate
being a disgruntled French lab worker. Â*Whether it was from
incompetence, over-confidence in what "really" happened, or intrique,
it's tough to say. Â*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
UC****ingI 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.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'd rather live in sybar-space