Landis - its all making sense now

http://doucheblogcycling.blogspot.co...05/framed.html

On 10 May 2007 16:06:42 -0700, Burt wrote:

http://doucheblogcycling.blogspot.co...05/framed.html

As conspiracy class theories go, it's as good as anyone else's got.

I actually think it's a lot simpler than that, that no actual premeditation (or
serious thought of any kind) is required. The lab ****ed up a test, it happens.
Someone leaked the result, it got announced. Everyone went into idiot defense
mode and started saying really stupid stuff and stuck to it.

Ron

On Thu, 10 May 2007 21:03:49 -0400, RonSonic
wrote:

On 10 May 2007 16:06:42 -0700, Burt wrote:

http://doucheblogcycling.blogspot.co...05/framed.html

As conspiracy class theories go, it's as good as anyone else's got.

I actually think it's a lot simpler than that, that no actual premeditation (or
serious thought of any kind) is required. The lab ****ed up a test, it happens.
Someone leaked the result, it got announced. Everyone went into idiot defense
mode and started saying really stupid stuff and stuck to it.

Occam's razor fits.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On May 10, 9:03 pm, RonSonic wrote:
On 10 May 2007 16:06:42 -0700, Burt wrote:

http://doucheblogcycling.blogspot.co...05/framed.html

As conspiracy class theories go, it's as good as anyone else's got.

I actually think it's a lot simpler than that, that no actual premeditation (or
serious thought of any kind) is required. The lab ****ed up a test, it happens.
Someone leaked the result, it got announced. Everyone went into idiot defense
mode and started saying really stupid stuff and stuck to it.

Ron


I agree...my real opinion of what really happened is that the lab made
an error in a mass spec analysis that is difficult to run and
difficult to interpret (remember, the dates show that the mass spec
analysis was actually done before the T/E ratio screening) - It didn't
help that the lab analysts don't seem to be able to follow good
documentation practices or get sample numbers right. Once the 'A'
sample results were leaked by McQuaid, everyone involved HAD to see
the result be right, so everyone either went into "cover your ass
mode" and/or thought they could use Floyd to turn "state's evidence"
on the guy they could never get (LA).

The think that I find upsetting about the whole process is the blatent
double standard that exists. Sally Jenkins correctly pointed out that
if you're an athlete, you're supposed to adhere to a standard of
strict liability by which anytime you have a test show up positive for
any reason you get fried. If you work at the LNDD, UCI, WADA, USADA,
or are a member of the Arbitration Panel, you can **** up, not follow
the rules, leak information to the press, etc., etc., and its all
okay, so long as you're working toward the "greater good" of trying to
catch drug cheats...the fact that those "cheats" may actually be
innocent never seems to cross their mind.

Dans le message de
ups.com,
Burt a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
On May 10, 9:03 pm, RonSonic wrote:
On 10 May 2007 16:06:42 -0700, Burt wrote:

http://doucheblogcycling.blogspot.co...05/framed.html

As conspiracy class theories go, it's as good as anyone else's got.

I actually think it's a lot simpler than that, that no actual
premeditation (or serious thought of any kind) is required. The lab
****ed up a test, it happens. Someone leaked the result, it got
announced. Everyone went into idiot defense mode and started saying
really stupid stuff and stuck to it.

Ron


I agree...my real opinion of what really happened is that the lab made
an error in a mass spec analysis that is difficult to run and
difficult to interpret (remember, the dates show that the mass spec
analysis was actually done before the T/E ratio screening) - It didn't
help that the lab analysts don't seem to be able to follow good
documentation practices or get sample numbers right. Once the 'A'
sample results were leaked by McQuaid, everyone involved HAD to see
the result be right, so everyone either went into "cover your ass
mode" and/or thought they could use Floyd to turn "state's evidence"
on the guy they could never get (LA).

The think that I find upsetting about the whole process is the blatent
double standard that exists. Sally Jenkins correctly pointed out that
if you're an athlete, you're supposed to adhere to a standard of
strict liability by which anytime you have a test show up positive for
any reason you get fried. If you work at the LNDD, UCI, WADA, USADA,
or are a member of the Arbitration Panel, you can **** up, not follow
the rules, leak information to the press, etc., etc., and its all
okay, so long as you're working toward the "greater good" of trying to
catch drug cheats...the fact that those "cheats" may actually be
innocent never seems to cross their mind.

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.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Sandy wrote:

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.

Are you out of your mind?! Test NYSE brokers? If that high-pressure,
fast-paced environment, with big money at stake and cut-throat
competitiors nipping at their heels doesn't _require_ boosting to stay
competitive, I don't know what does! It's not at all like
cycl.......errrr, nevermind.

Of course the brokers I know of that were heroin and ecstasy addicts
probably didn't have a Good Doctor to help them choose their drugs
wisely.

I find it curious that you would even attempt to hold brokers and the
military to such an unrealistic standard. No drugs, indeed! It's not
like those _jobs_ are of critical global importance - it's not bike
racing, Sandy! They probably don't even have their own newsgroups!

R

"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.

On May 11, 5:59 am, "Sandy" wrote:

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.

dumbass,

this is the stupidest line of argument i've heard.

many professions have rules one agrees to abide by as part of the job,
this is not unique to the cycling profession.

brokers can be punished for breaking the rules (which would constitute
cheating at their job) even if they aren't charged with a crime.
military personnel can also be penalized for breaking rules that
aren't written into law.

Dans le message de
ups.com,
a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
On May 11, 5:59 am, "Sandy" wrote:

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.

dumbass,

this is the stupidest line of argument i've heard.

many professions have rules one agrees to abide by as part of the job,
this is not unique to the cycling profession.

brokers can be punished for breaking the rules (which would constitute
cheating at their job) even if they aren't charged with a crime.
military personnel can also be penalized for breaking rules that
aren't written into law.

Really, really clever of you to pick out and treat the ironic part as if it
were crucial, yet fail completely to get the point. Take another stab at
it. You usually don't seem quite so dense. And the general rule is that NO
ONE is given the right to break the criminal law, be that a stockbroker, a
fireman, Daryll Strawberry or an idiot. And your lame idea that employment
law is fair and just when administered by the boss is as cute as any Grimm
fairy tale.
--
Sandy
--
Il n'est aucune sorte de sensation qui soit plus vive
que celle de la douleur ; ses impressions sont sûres,
elles ne trompent point comme celles du plaisir.
- de Sade.

Sandy wrote:

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.

Your argument hinges on knowing which of those seven tests was the one
that tested negative. If it was the first one, it is possible that he
didn't start topping up until between the first and second test dates. I
don't think this piece of information (which test date was not positive)
was made public.