Landis found guilty of doping

http://tinyurl.com/2syaj2

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:57:03 -0700, Kenny wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/2syaj2

Great. Only six appeals and three years to go...

Lemme see if I got this straight...

The original screening test was found to be "improper" and its result was
thrown out...but the 2nd "confirmation" test result was upheld despite the
fact that it would never have been done in the first place if the first
*had* been done properly and had come up negative?

....this is "justice"???

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:21:44 -0700, Brian wrote:

The original screening test was found to be "improper" and its result was
thrown out...but the 2nd "confirmation" test result was upheld despite the
fact that it would never have been done in the first place if the first
*had* been done properly and had come up negative?

The reason for a test being performed has no bearing on the credibility of
its result.

"Michael Warner" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:21:44 -0700, Brian wrote:

The original screening test was found to be "improper" and its result was
thrown out...but the 2nd "confirmation" test result was upheld despite
the
fact that it would never have been done in the first place if the first
*had* been done properly and had come up negative?

The reason for a test being performed has no bearing on the credibility of
its result.

I disagree, especially as the *same* laboratory that produced the "improper"
initial result also did the follow up...

B.

On Sep 21, 9:29 pm, Michael Warner wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:21:44 -0700, Brian wrote:
The original screening test was found to be "improper" and its result was
thrown out...but the 2nd "confirmation" test result was upheld despite the
fact that it would never have been done in the first place if the first
*had* been done properly and had come up negative?

The reason for a test being performed has no bearing on the credibility of
its result.

I think that if in the USA the police serve a search warrant on your
house by accident (for example, they meant to go to the house next
door), whatever they find there is not admissible evidence, not even
for getting another warrant.

It's a very similar situation with the Landis tests.

I, for one, am very saddened, however, about the final test results.

Brian Huntley wrote:
On Sep 21, 9:29 pm, Michael Warner wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:21:44 -0700, Brian wrote:
The original screening test was found to be "improper" and its
result was thrown out...but the 2nd "confirmation" test result was
upheld despite the fact that it would never have been done in the
first place if the first *had* been done properly and had come up
negative?

The reason for a test being performed has no bearing on the
credibility of its result.

I think that if in the USA the police serve a search warrant on your
house by accident (for example, they meant to go to the house next
door), whatever they find there is not admissible evidence, not even
for getting another warrant.

It's a very similar situation with the Landis tests.

The Landis case doesn't involve a trial. It involves rules surrounding being
involved in sporting competition at the professional level. You can't apply
rules of American criminal procedure to this situation, which is neither
fully American nor criminal.

I, for one, am very saddened, however, about the final test results.

Me, too.

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:55:40 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
wrote:

It's a very similar situation with the Landis tests.

The Landis case doesn't involve a trial. It involves rules surrounding being
involved in sporting competition at the professional level. You can't apply
rules of American criminal procedure to this situation, which is neither
fully American nor criminal.

Good thing too otherwise he'd be open to prosecution for perjury.
--
zk

On Sep 23, 10:49 pm, Zoot Katz wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:55:40 GMT, "Mike Kruger"

wrote:
It's a very similar situation with the Landis tests.

The Landis case doesn't involve a trial. It involves rules surrounding being
involved in sporting competition at the professional level. You can't apply
rules of American criminal procedure to this situation, which is neither
fully American nor criminal.

Good thing too otherwise he'd be open to prosecution for perjury.
--
zk

Who, Landis or the lab tech?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:37:35 -0700, Bob wrote:

On Sep 23, 10:49 pm, Zoot Katz wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:55:40 GMT, "Mike Kruger"

wrote:
It's a very similar situation with the Landis tests.

The Landis case doesn't involve a trial. It involves rules surrounding being
involved in sporting competition at the professional level. You can't apply
rules of American criminal procedure to this situation, which is neither
fully American nor criminal.

Good thing too otherwise he'd be open to prosecution for perjury.
--
zk

Who, Landis or the lab tech?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Pay attention, Bob.
--
zk