"Sandy" wrote in message
...

To follow a slightly different course, presuming innocence (what a laugh
!) -

-Let's leave the nationality of the lab out of this, and even not discuss
its competence.
-Let's leave personalities out of it for just a moment ; if you don't like
someone, you can always find a way to interpret results against them ; the
contrapositive holds true also.

So, we know that only ONCE in seven tests did Landis test positive on a
Test A.
We know that Test B shows that 6/7 times he tests positive on the same
samples.
Ergo (pardon my "French"), Test A is useless as an indicator of
culpability. It should be abandoned.
One Test B fails to show exogenous testosterone, when it had to be there.
Ergo, Test B is similarly unreliable.

If Test A is bad, just shown, then there should be no testing using Test
B, since inadequate proof of a violation CAN NOT lead to Test B.
If Test B is also faulty, then neither the first Test B, nor the
subsequent 6, should be bases for belief of a violation.

The principle of disqualifying cheaters is a good one. Nonetheless, when
you have a protocol which encourages finding violations, you have an
environment which mandates finding them. When the premise is that
innocence is presumed (which is not the case under the UCI Pro Tour Code
of Ethics), and the proof is deemed inadequate, then the case goes to a
quiet death. In short, when neither conduct nor contents are susceptible
of overwhelming proof, then you let the guy race.

Operation Puerto is different. There has been evidence of _conduct_, and
that is clearly punishable under most legal theories. There are legions
of prisoners who were convicted of "attempting" to commit a crime, or
"conspiring" to commit a crime. Basic legal theory does not demand that
one allow bad conduct to culminate in a violation before you are allowed
to take action or to convict.

The basic problem faced, is that the desire to root out sophisticaed
cheats has brought about reliance on scientific testing, which is biased
in favor of finding fault, not on finding out reality. And it is all a
question of money. More funding for WADA ; more frequent and more costly
lab activity ; more control over who decides which racers race ; more
bickering over who gets how much of an increasingly rich pot of gold.

I'm not being naïve about cheating, but I am not overwhelmed by it. I am
overwhelmed by the holier-than-thou practices and statements of the
parties who benefit most from the practices : the organizers, the
federations, the UCI, the enforcers, and the losers. The latter being all
the ones who just can't win any race at all, blaming everything on the
misconduct of winners.

Tell you what - let's test all NYSE brokers for drugs. Out of
"competition". Recreational and otherwise. Cold remedies, too. Alcohol.
Caffeine. Same for the military. Same for civil servants. Any time of
day, day of week, season. For their entire working life. Suspension on
suspicion. Two year bans for first offenses. Lifetime bans for
repeaters.

Very well stated Sandy.