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 23 May 2007 05:02:39 -0700, RicodJour wrote:

On May 23, 5:32 am, "Sandy" wrote:

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?????

WWKSD? What Would King Solomon Do?

Cut Landis in half, suspend the guilty half and let the clean half
ride.

Which half gets the good hip?

Ron

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...

On 23 May 2007 05:02:39 -0700, RicodJour
wrote:

WWKSD? What Would King Solomon Do?

Cut Landis in half, suspend the guilty half and let the clean half
ride.

R

Only works if his real mother is in the audience. Keep to the story
line.

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

In article ,
"Sandy" wrote:

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.

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"?

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).

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.

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.

Also, and this has now gone from tangent to personal dissing, but can
anyone please explain the case of Joe Papp's missing wife? Like any
red-blooded American (note clever Joe Papp riding-the-Tour elision!) I
think Hugo Chavez is the devil, but if she was hiding in Venezuela, what
thing was preventing her from traveling to Europe, or the US, or for
that matter, just to Brazil? As far as I know, the country's borders are
still open, along with its airports.

--
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

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

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

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...