Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.

I read all 84 pages. That is "read" not "analyzed in depth" or "researched." It
appears to be well reasoned, moderate, careful and prudent (TK will now call me
a retard or homo). There appears to be one very major different presumption that
made the difference between the majority and minority findings.

The majority ruling appears to say that judging this case by the very specific
rules given and presuming that all technical personnel testifying or performing
tests in this matter acted in good faith, they had no choice but to find that
the AAF alleged was valid, barely, under the broad and sloppy standards set by
WADA and despite the obvious problems and marginal competencies shown by LNDD.

The dissenting opinion (which I only scanned) seems based on a refusal to accept
the presumption that the lab was acting in good faith and finds against USADA
that the obvious sloppiness could cover up misconduct or permitted manipulation
of the results, which to his eyes appears to be the case.

Both positions are well supported.

Hopefully, LNDD, WADA and UCI will read the majority decision as something other
than vindication. I see it as a screaming, in their face wake up call to
promulgate stringent technical, administrative and ethical standards and meet
them. I would expect that another such trainwreck would completely destroy the
presumptions of competence and good faith that very narrowly decided this case.

Ron

On Sep 21, 12:41 pm, RonSonic wrote:
I read all 84 pages. That is "read" not "analyzed in depth" or "researched." It
appears to be well reasoned, moderate, careful and prudent (TK will now call me
a retard or homo). There appears to be one very major different presumption that
made the difference between the majority and minority findings.

The majority ruling appears to say that judging this case by the very specific
rules given and presuming that all technical personnel testifying or performing
tests in this matter acted in good faith, they had no choice but to find that
the AAF alleged was valid, barely, under the broad and sloppy standards set by
WADA and despite the obvious problems and marginal competencies shown by LNDD.

The dissenting opinion (which I only scanned) seems based on a refusal to accept
the presumption that the lab was acting in good faith and finds against USADA
that the obvious sloppiness could cover up misconduct or permitted manipulation
of the results, which to his eyes appears to be the case.

I just gave the dissenting report a quick read, but I thought there
was more there there. It said that LNDD violated WADA standards in a
manner that destroyed the evidence trail supporting the results. The
technicians piece together data from different runs in a manner that
destroyed some raw results in the critical isotope analysis.

Hence, standards were violated and the evidence was compromised.

But heck, I'm never going to look at it closely, and emotionally I am
on Landis side.

I just hope they reform the anti-doping system big-time.


Both positions are well supported.

Hopefully, LNDD, WADA and UCI will read the majority decision as something other
than vindication. I see it as a screaming, in their face wake up call to
promulgate stringent technical, administrative and ethical standards and meet
them. I would expect that another such trainwreck would completely destroy the
presumptions of competence and good faith that very narrowly decided this case.

Ron

Tyler is still guilty by reason of stupidity. You were talking about Tyler
Hamilton weren't you?


"RonSonic" wrote in message
...


I read all 84 pages. That is "read" not "analyzed in depth" or
"researched." It
appears to be well reasoned, moderate, careful and prudent (TK will now
call me
a retard or homo). There appears to be one very major different
presumption that
made the difference between the majority and minority findings.

The majority ruling appears to say that judging this case by the very
specific
rules given and presuming that all technical personnel testifying or
performing
tests in this matter acted in good faith, they had no choice but to find
that
the AAF alleged was valid, barely, under the broad and sloppy standards
set by
WADA and despite the obvious problems and marginal competencies shown by
LNDD.

The dissenting opinion (which I only scanned) seems based on a refusal to
accept
the presumption that the lab was acting in good faith and finds against
USADA
that the obvious sloppiness could cover up misconduct or permitted
manipulation
of the results, which to his eyes appears to be the case.

Both positions are well supported.

Hopefully, LNDD, WADA and UCI will read the majority decision as something
other
than vindication. I see it as a screaming, in their face wake up call to
promulgate stringent technical, administrative and ethical standards and
meet
them. I would expect that another such trainwreck would completely destroy
the
presumptions of competence and good faith that very narrowly decided this
case.

Ron

Dumbass wrote:
I just hope they reform the anti-doping system big-time.

I just hope global warming doesn't cause the ice caps to melt.

Donald Munro wrote:
Dumbass wrote:
I just hope they reform the anti-doping system big-time.

I just hope global warming doesn't cause the ice caps to melt.


Allow me to be the first to call you a retarded homosexual for making
that statement.

There's got to be some sort of corollary to Godwin's Law that kicks in
now. Game, set and match goes to anyone accused of either being retarded
or a homosexual.

"Fred Fredburger" wrote in message
...
Donald Munro wrote:
Dumbass wrote:
I just hope they reform the anti-doping system big-time.

I just hope global warming doesn't cause the ice caps to melt.


Allow me to be the first to call you a retarded homosexual for making that
statement.

There's got to be some sort of corollary to Godwin's Law that kicks in
now. Game, set and match goes to anyone accused of either being retarded
or a homosexual.

What about Nazi?

In article ,
RonSonic wrote:

Hopefully, LNDD, WADA and UCI will read the majority decision as something
other than vindication. I see it as a screaming, in their face wake up call
to promulgate stringent technical, administrative and ethical standards and
meet them. I would expect that another such trainwreck would completely destroy
the presumptions of competence and good faith that very narrowly decided this
case.

Well, I really have to believe that those organizations will see the decision as a
vindication. After all, at least one of them has already essentially stated that it's
infallible. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to spend much, if any, time
re-examining the way things happened and their part in the process. It reminds me of
those cases where a prosecutor has gotten a conviction and when evidence strongly
suggests that conviction is in error, refuses to reopen the case - he's happy with a
conviction and doesn't really care if it's a *just* conviction. Nifong *******s...

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Sep 21, 12:35 pm, Dumbass wrote:
On Sep 21, 12:41 pm, RonSonic wrote:

Hopefully, LNDD, WADA and UCI will read the majority decision as something other
than vindication. I see it as a screaming, in their face wake up call to
promulgate stringent technical, administrative and ethical standards and meet
them. I would expect that another such trainwreck would completely destroy the
presumptions of competence and good faith that very narrowly decided this case.

I just hope they reform the anti-doping system big-time.


Dumbasses,

Hope away. Way back when during the Clarence Thomas
confirmation hearings, when it wasn't clear what kind of
judge he'd turn out to be, I was listening to a call-in show on
WBAI New York radio (ultra-liberal) and a crotchety guy called
in and said, "Hope and a token will get you on the subway."

Arbitrators are not judges. They also do not run LNDD or WADA
or USADA. There is no institutional memory in arbitration
panels, and there is no principle of building up a history of
opinions and precedents, as there is in the judicial system.
The next time somebody gets busted, even if the athlete can
afford a phalanx of lawyers and take it to arbitration, if it's in the
US the athlete can pick Chris Campbell, but the other two
arbitrators can be people that have no memory of the previous
case. Nor, I think, are they allowed to consider evidence
outside that presented. It's not like a district court where
the judge can admonish the DA and say he better show up with
a less sloppy case next time.

The fact that they nailed the guy with sloppy procedures does
not mean they have an incentive to clean up and "play true."
If Travis Tygart issues a statement about how justice was
served, but they learned a lesson and promise not to **** up next
time, I'll eat my La Vie Claire cap. And feed my Clenbuterol to
my dog. And I don't even _have_ a dog.

Ben

wrote:
And feed my Clenbuterol to my dog. And I don't even _have_ a dog.

Dumbass,
Rather feed it to your peace doves. They may even become
racing pigeons, after all if you can make a race horse from
a donkey...

Dumbass wrote:
I just hope they reform the anti-doping system big-time.

Donald Munro wrote:
I just hope global warming doesn't cause the ice caps to melt.

Fred Fredburger wrote:
Allow me to be the first to call you a retarded homosexual for making
that statement.

With the US patent office being the way it is, Kunich has probably
already patented the above terms. You can expect a call from the
Kunich Korporation intellectual property lawyers.