|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"What If Floyd Landis Were Innocent?"
Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/.../edeustice.php |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"What If Floyd Landis Were Innocent?"
MMan wrote:
Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/.../edeustice.php Thanks, a good summary by John Eustice of the points in Floyd's favor (which I'm afraid I think are rather few). If Floyd cannot successfully attack as untrustworthy either the exogenous testosterone test (which he failed), or the lab/process that administered it, he's got little to fall back on. Eustice's question "So where was it [testosterone] in all the other tests?" neatly ducks the concern that riders are using low (under 4:1) levels of testosterone for recovery on a regular basis. Now if Floyd were willing to have his "non-positive" (under 4:1) B samples tested for exogenous T, and they came back negative, that would be a major point in his favor - but given concerns about the lab and the process, no lawyer would allow it. Mark J. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"What If Floyd Landis Were Innocent?"
"Mark" a écrit dans le message de news: ... MMan wrote: Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/.../edeustice.php Thanks, a good summary by John Eustice of the points in Floyd's favor (which I'm afraid I think are rather few). If Floyd cannot successfully attack as untrustworthy either the exogenous testosterone test (which he failed), or the lab/process that administered it, he's got little to fall back on. Eustice's question "So where was it [testosterone] in all the other tests?" neatly ducks the concern that riders are using low (under 4:1) levels of testosterone for recovery on a regular basis. Now if Floyd were willing to have his "non-positive" (under 4:1) B samples tested for exogenous T, and they came back negative, that would be a major point in his favor - but given concerns about the lab and the process, As the Lab is one of the most advanced Lab in the fight against dopping, no chance. no lawyer would allow it. Mark J. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"What If Floyd Landis Were Innocent?"
Montesquiou wrote:
"Mark" a écrit dans le message de news: ... MMan wrote: Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/.../edeustice.php Thanks, a good summary by John Eustice of the points in Floyd's favor (which I'm afraid I think are rather few). If Floyd cannot successfully attack as untrustworthy either the exogenous testosterone test (which he failed), or the lab/process that administered it, he's got little to fall back on. Eustice's question "So where was it [testosterone] in all the other tests?" neatly ducks the concern that riders are using low (under 4:1) levels of testosterone for recovery on a regular basis. Now if Floyd were willing to have his "non-positive" (under 4:1) B samples tested for exogenous T, and they came back negative, that would be a major point in his favor - but given concerns about the lab and the process, As the Lab is one of the most advanced Lab in the fight against dopping, no chance. no lawyer would allow it. Mark J. And the lab has a reputation with Pat McQuaid of the UCI as one of the leakiest in the world, too. So why do they get to test anything related to bicyclists? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"What If Floyd Landis Were Innocent?"
in message , Mark
') wrote: Now if Floyd were willing to have his "non-positive" (under 4:1) B samples tested for exogenous T, and they came back negative, that would be a major point in his favor - but given concerns about the lab and the process, no lawyer would allow it. He could ask to have it tested by a different WADA accredited lab - for example, one in the US. If he even asked for it to be done it would be a point in his favour. -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they ;; do it from Â*religiousÂ*conviction." Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*--Â*Pascal |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"What If Floyd Landis Were Innocent?"
Colin Campbell a écrit : Montesquiou wrote: "Mark" a écrit dans le message de news: ... MMan wrote: Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/.../edeustice.php Thanks, a good summary by John Eustice of the points in Floyd's favor (which I'm afraid I think are rather few). If Floyd cannot successfully attack as untrustworthy either the exogenous testosterone test (which he failed), or the lab/process that administered it, he's got little to fall back on. Eustice's question "So where was it [testosterone] in all the other tests?" neatly ducks the concern that riders are using low (under 4:1) levels of testosterone for recovery on a regular basis. Now if Floyd were willing to have his "non-positive" (under 4:1) B samples tested for exogenous T, and they came back negative, that would be a major point in his favor - but given concerns about the lab and the process, As the Lab is one of the most advanced Lab in the fight against dopping, no chance. This was posted in rec.auto.sport few days ago : http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Homepag...R%20zonder.pdf "The results reported by the LNDD that found their way into the L'Equipe article are not what they have been represented to be. They did not involve proper testing of urine samples, as explained in detail in this report." Have you read that report - in full? Yes. It doesn't criticise the the laboratory or lab's testing procedures. You obviously have not read it. It specifically criticizes just about every aspect of the lab's activities, including procedures, methodologies, ethics, and communications. I could cite specific examples of each of these, but you'll find them easily if you read it. To wich I reply : I'm REALLY FED UP to ear again this propaganda against the LNDD. That's not the opinion of its many european equivalent labs including the national austrian for ex If the french national lab is so "unreliable", "according to" US medias, why is it still acredited by the WADA ? Why both tests, including the last one, were still done there in presence of american lawyers and (national lab?) scientists, with no prior or later protests from the last ones as far as I've heard ? It's funny to see the... World Anti Doping Agency being judged by the UCI on antidoping matters ? Shouldn't it be the contrary ? The LNDD lab says clearly that those tests were made for EPO scientific RESEARCH according to a special procedure "accelerated measurement procedure" made of 3 different (and apparently new ?) technical tests settled by this lab (which invented, should I REMIND it, the EPO test...), and which differs from the antidoping control procedure, since they were NOT placing themselves in a situation of anti doping CONTROL but in one of : SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. Should I remind it as well to this UCI "independent expert". The lab didn't expect AT ALL the names to be revealed. And since it was not an official antidoping control it didn't made (or needed to do) the second test check neither, apparently : only its 3 own new tests. BUT because of the repeated INSISTENCE of the WADA, this antidoping agency obtained from the LNDD lab (after consultation of the french sport ministry which finally didn't opposed to it) the most-demanded "additional information" document, with the names under the codes of urine samples... Nevertheless, under the (perhaps legal?) IMPERATIVE CONDITION that the names should remain CONFIDENTIAL, until... the WADA finally leaked the info to the L'Equipe journalist ! This "independent expert" (even if, as the french national lab rightfully noticed, independent experts in France are only nominated by... courts) tries by all means to convince that the "Helsinki declaration" concerning testing (I repeat DECLARATION !) has a full legal application in France, which I doubt, that the part of the french civil code concerning "research on human subjects" concerns... urine samples (that one makes me laugh :+), furthermore only french courts can interpret code civil definitions), and that the WADA approved "ISO/IEC 17025 international standard" (what is its legal status in France?) must be applied to ALL scientific researches made by a national laboratory, on the single pretext that it is, for the SOLE purpose of antidoping CONTROL, acredited by the WADA. Even so, for its OWN purely personal scientific researches, including when they had originally nothing to do with a particular antidoping control (but with futur ones)..., when on the other hand he deliberately ignores the french procedure concerning the communication of administrative documents (search law n°78-753 at http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad...impleTexte.jsp : according to the combination of art. 1 and 6, the most-demanded and full "additional information" documents should have been communicated to him, AS LONG AS they don't violate scientific copyrights (secret commercial) and privacy (names?), IF ONLY... he had respected the rather simple procedure with the CADA... (http://www.cada.fr ! : the search engine with "recherche" or "secret", for ex. was momentaneously out of order few minutes ago). The WADA could AS WELL... have produced this document, which certainly exists and could certainly have been given, in order to see that the codes on the no less than six samples correspond very probably to the names. But when you understand at the end that the UCI target is the WADA president..., no need to see why the WADA didn't gave it neither to this UCI "independent expert". Funny as well, to see the expert diatribe against the freedom of the press, and his desire to not see accusations made there before full inquiry is completed, when you compare, for example..., with the incredible mediatic campaign made against the alleged infamous french ice-skating judge Mme Le Gougne during the 2002 SLC olympic games, thanks to the "declarations" of Miss Stapelford, MM. Pfenning and Jackson, made even BEFORE the end of the games competitions contrarily to IOC rules... : http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.ht...t.nytimes.com/... I forgot to say that you shouldn't be afraid AT ALL. According to what I've read above, the final UCI report declaring solemnly that the last tests here concerned are "as usual" totally irrelevant and the de-acreditation of this (too curious indeed) french lab urgent, is probably already written. :+)) didier Meurgues no lawyer would allow it. Mark J. And the lab has a reputation with Pat McQuaid of the UCI as one of the leakiest in the world, too. So why do they get to test anything related to bicyclists? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"What If Floyd Landis Were Innocent?"
"didier Meurgues" a écrit dans le message de news: ... Colin Campbell a écrit : Montesquiou wrote: "Mark" a écrit dans le message de news: ... MMan wrote: Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/.../edeustice.php Thanks, a good summary by John Eustice of the points in Floyd's favor (which I'm afraid I think are rather few). If Floyd cannot successfully attack as untrustworthy either the exogenous testosterone test (which he failed), or the lab/process that administered it, he's got little to fall back on. Eustice's question "So where was it [testosterone] in all the other tests?" neatly ducks the concern that riders are using low (under 4:1) levels of testosterone for recovery on a regular basis. Now if Floyd were willing to have his "non-positive" (under 4:1) B samples tested for exogenous T, and they came back negative, that would be a major point in his favor - but given concerns about the lab and the process, As the Lab is one of the most advanced Lab in the fight against dopping, no chance. This was posted in rec.auto.sport few days ago : http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Homepag...R%20zonder.pdf "The results reported by the LNDD that found their way into the L'Equipe article are not what they have been represented to be. They did not involve proper testing of urine samples, as explained in detail in this report." Have you read that report - in full? Yes. It doesn't criticise the the laboratory or lab's testing procedures. You obviously have not read it. It specifically criticizes just about every aspect of the lab's activities, including procedures, methodologies, ethics, and communications. I could cite specific examples of each of these, but you'll find them easily if you read it. To wich I reply : I'm REALLY FED UP to ear again this propaganda against the LNDD. That's not the opinion of its many european equivalent labs including the national austrian for ex If the french national lab is so "unreliable", "according to" US medias, why is it still acredited by the WADA ? Why both tests, including the last one, were still done there in presence of american lawyers and (national lab?) scientists, with no prior or later protests from the last ones as far as I've heard ? It's funny to see the... World Anti Doping Agency being judged by the UCI on antidoping matters ? Shouldn't it be the contrary ? The LNDD lab says clearly that those tests were made for EPO scientific RESEARCH according to a special procedure "accelerated measurement procedure" made of 3 different (and apparently new ?) technical tests settled by this lab (which invented, should I REMIND it, the EPO test...), and which differs from the antidoping control procedure, since they were NOT placing themselves in a situation of anti doping CONTROL but in one of : SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. Should I remind it as well to this UCI "independent expert". The lab didn't expect AT ALL the names to be revealed. And since it was not an official antidoping control it didn't made (or needed to do) the second test check neither, apparently : only its 3 own new tests. BUT because of the repeated INSISTENCE of the WADA, this antidoping agency obtained from the LNDD lab (after consultation of the french sport ministry which finally didn't opposed to it) the most-demanded "additional information" document, with the names under the codes of urine samples... Nevertheless, under the (perhaps legal?) IMPERATIVE CONDITION that the names should remain CONFIDENTIAL, until... the WADA finally leaked the info to the L'Equipe journalist ! This "independent expert" (even if, as the french national lab rightfully noticed, independent experts in France are only nominated by... courts) tries by all means to convince that the "Helsinki declaration" concerning testing (I repeat DECLARATION !) has a full legal application in France, which I doubt, that the part of the french civil code concerning "research on human subjects" concerns... urine samples (that one makes me laugh :+), furthermore only french courts can interpret code civil definitions), and that the WADA approved "ISO/IEC 17025 international standard" (what is its legal status in France?) must be applied to ALL scientific researches made by a national laboratory, on the single pretext that it is, for the SOLE purpose of antidoping CONTROL, acredited by the WADA. Even so, for its OWN purely personal scientific researches, including when they had originally nothing to do with a particular antidoping control (but with futur ones)..., when on the other hand he deliberately ignores the french procedure concerning the communication of administrative documents (search law n°78-753 at http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad...impleTexte.jsp : according to the combination of art. 1 and 6, the most-demanded and full "additional information" documents should have been communicated to him, AS LONG AS they don't violate scientific copyrights (secret commercial) and privacy (names?), IF ONLY... he had respected the rather simple procedure with the CADA... (http://www.cada.fr ! : the search engine with "recherche" or "secret", for ex. was momentaneously out of order few minutes ago). The WADA could AS WELL... have produced this document, which certainly exists and could certainly have been given, in order to see that the codes on the no less than six samples correspond very probably to the names. But when you understand at the end that the UCI target is the WADA president..., no need to see why the WADA didn't gave it neither to this UCI "independent expert". Funny as well, to see the expert diatribe against the freedom of the press, and his desire to not see accusations made there before full inquiry is completed, when you compare, for example..., with the incredible mediatic campaign made against the alleged infamous french ice-skating judge Mme Le Gougne during the 2002 SLC olympic games, thanks to the "declarations" of Miss Stapelford, MM. Pfenning and Jackson, made even BEFORE the end of the games competitions contrarily to IOC rules... : http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.ht...t.nytimes.com/... I forgot to say that you shouldn't be afraid AT ALL. According to what I've read above, the final UCI report declaring solemnly that the last tests here concerned are "as usual" totally irrelevant and the de-acreditation of this (too curious indeed) french lab urgent, is probably already written. :+)) didier Meurgues ***** It will be funny to see the report on the material seized by the Police in Sweden. Some said it can be vitamins and health medication, for some it can be used for blood manipulation, but this material labelled in Russian and found in the Russian Hotel seem to point finger to . ? I wonder why Denis Oswald and Sergei Bubka, IOC athlete's and former Russian pole vault record-holder so vociferously asked for the ban of this highly capable Lab past year. Afraid ? no lawyer would allow it. Mark J. And the lab has a reputation with Pat McQuaid of the UCI as one of the leakiest in the world, too. So why do they get to test anything related to bicyclists? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"What If Floyd Landis Were Innocent?"
Montesquiou a écrit : "didier Meurgues" a écrit dans le message de news: ... Colin Campbell a écrit : Montesquiou wrote: "Mark" a écrit dans le message de news: ... MMan wrote: Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/.../edeustice.php Thanks, a good summary by John Eustice of the points in Floyd's favor (which I'm afraid I think are rather few). If Floyd cannot successfully attack as untrustworthy either the exogenous testosterone test (which he failed), or the lab/process that administered it, he's got little to fall back on. Eustice's question "So where was it [testosterone] in all the other tests?" neatly ducks the concern that riders are using low (under 4:1) levels of testosterone for recovery on a regular basis. Now if Floyd were willing to have his "non-positive" (under 4:1) B samples tested for exogenous T, and they came back negative, that would be a major point in his favor - but given concerns about the lab and the process, As the Lab is one of the most advanced Lab in the fight against dopping, no chance. This was posted in rec.auto.sport few days ago : http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Homepag...R%20zonder.pdf "The results reported by the LNDD that found their way into the L'Equipe article are not what they have been represented to be. They did not involve proper testing of urine samples, as explained in detail in this report." Have you read that report - in full? Yes. It doesn't criticise the the laboratory or lab's testing procedures. You obviously have not read it. It specifically criticizes just about every aspect of the lab's activities, including procedures, methodologies, ethics, and communications. I could cite specific examples of each of these, but you'll find them easily if you read it. To wich I reply : I'm REALLY FED UP to ear again this propaganda against the LNDD. That's not the opinion of its many european equivalent labs including the national austrian for ex If the french national lab is so "unreliable", "according to" US medias, why is it still acredited by the WADA ? Why both tests, including the last one, were still done there in presence of american lawyers and (national lab?) scientists, with no prior or later protests from the last ones as far as I've heard ? It's funny to see the... World Anti Doping Agency being judged by the UCI on antidoping matters ? Shouldn't it be the contrary ? The LNDD lab says clearly I meant of course in the UCI report above about 1999 samples that those tests were made for EPO scientific RESEARCH according to a special procedure "accelerated measurement procedure" made of 3 different (and apparently new ?) technical tests settled by this lab (which invented, should I REMIND it, the EPO test...), and which differs from the antidoping control procedure, since they were NOT placing themselves in a situation of anti doping CONTROL but in one of : SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. Should I remind it as well to this UCI "independent expert". The lab didn't expect AT ALL the names to be revealed. And since it was not an official antidoping control it didn't made (or needed to do) the second test check neither, apparently : only its 3 own new tests. BUT because of the repeated INSISTENCE of the WADA, this antidoping agency obtained from the LNDD lab (after consultation of the french sport ministry which finally didn't opposed to it) the most-demanded "additional information" document, with the names under the codes of urine samples... Nevertheless, under the (perhaps legal?) IMPERATIVE CONDITION that the names should remain CONFIDENTIAL, until... the WADA finally leaked the info to the L'Equipe journalist ! This "independent expert" (even if, as the french national lab rightfully noticed, independent experts in France are only nominated by... courts) tries by all means to convince that the "Helsinki declaration" concerning testing (I repeat DECLARATION !) has a full legal application in France, which I doubt, that the part of the french civil code concerning "research on human subjects" concerns... urine samples (that one makes me laugh :+), furthermore only french courts can interpret code civil definitions), and that the WADA approved "ISO/IEC 17025 international standard" (what is its legal status in France?) must be applied to ALL scientific researches made by a national laboratory, on the single pretext that it is, for the SOLE purpose of antidoping CONTROL, acredited by the WADA. Even so, for its OWN purely personal scientific researches, including when they had originally nothing to do with a particular antidoping control (but with futur ones)..., when on the other hand he deliberately ignores the french procedure concerning the communication of administrative documents (search law n°78-753 at http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad...impleTexte.jsp : according to the combination of art. 1 and 6, the most-demanded and full "additional information" documents should have been communicated to him, AS LONG AS they don't violate scientific copyrights (secret commercial) and privacy (names?), IF ONLY... he had respected the rather simple procedure with the CADA... (http://www.cada.fr ! : the search engine with "recherche" or "secret", for ex. was momentaneously out of order few minutes ago). The WADA could AS WELL... have produced this document, which certainly exists and could certainly have been given, in order to see that the codes on the no less than six samples correspond very probably to the names. But when you understand at the end that the UCI target is the WADA president..., no need to see why the WADA didn't gave it neither to this UCI "independent expert". Funny as well, to see the expert diatribe against the freedom of the press, and his desire to not see accusations made there before full inquiry is completed, when you compare, for example..., with the incredible mediatic campaign made against the alleged infamous french ice-skating judge Mme Le Gougne during the 2002 SLC olympic games, thanks to the "declarations" of Miss Stapelford, MM. Pfenning and Jackson, made even BEFORE the end of the games competitions contrarily to IOC rules... : http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.ht...t.nytimes.com/... I forgot to say that you shouldn't be afraid AT ALL. According to what I've read above, the final UCI report declaring solemnly that the last tests here concerned are "as usual" totally irrelevant and the de-acreditation of this (too curious indeed) french lab urgent, is probably already written. :+)) didier Meurgues ***** It will be funny to see the report on the material seized by the Police in Sweden. Some said it can be vitamins and health medication, for some it can be used for blood manipulation, but this material labelled in Russian and found in the Russian Hotel seem to point finger to . ? I wonder why Denis Oswald and Sergei Bubka, IOC athlete's and former Russian pole vault record-holder so vociferously asked for the ban of this highly capable Lab past year. Afraid ? no lawyer would allow it. Mark J. And the lab has a reputation with Pat McQuaid of the UCI as one of the leakiest in the world, too. So why do they get to test anything related to bicyclists? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"What If Floyd Landis Were Innocent?"
Didier my friend, here is a passage from that report that answers your
question: "The fact that WADA President Dick Pound and the LNDD's Professor De Ceaurriz were willing to discuss the research project and its results in great detail with the media, while they at the same time were unwilling to cooperate with a proper investigation by the organization with jurisdiction over this matter, raises substantial questions regarding their reasons for doing so and makes one wonder as to what complete cooperation would disclose." In short, there really is an elephant under the bed. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Landis backup test also positive; Tour de France title in jeopardy | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 24 | August 8th 06 05:06 AM |
Landis backup test also positive; Tour de France title in jeopardy | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 23 | August 8th 06 05:06 AM |
It's Official: American Floyd Landis Is A Cheat | Sean | Racing | 46 | August 7th 06 02:49 PM |
Fraud Landis: The cheater doesn't want to give up his title | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | August 5th 06 11:58 AM |
Coup de boulela Floyd | Mesa | Racing | 1 | July 28th 06 01:16 AM |