One expert for Landis - but on what ?

Dr Meier-Augenstein testified coherently and intelligibly to the effect that
the instrumentation and the technique at LNDD was well below par. No real
need to discuss how he comes to his conclusions. As a scientist, he comes
across fairly well. But he has significant self-interest in his testimony.
He has designed and built an instrument that is not used by any WADA lab,
using software he has engineered to this instrument, and he has no
experience at all in the analyses that are in dispute. Nonetheless, he
comes across as authoritative.

On the other hand, I see the dilemma that the arb panel will be faced with,
ineluctably. They will be compelled to either remain faithful to the WADA
standard of proof that the biochemistry involved succeeds or fails to
establish the chemical contents of Landis' body, on a particular date and
test ; OR, they may be bold enough to confront the question of whether or
not Landis used PED's. They are _not_ the same issue. The latter deals
with conduct, and the former with controversial interpretations of different
styles of analysis, of different instrumentation, of different software, of
different personalities. He is also a fan of automatic software, untouched
by humans. As software is written by humans, and as I like the species
(more than 50%), I think he's wrong, there, as do all other witnesses.

To find a violation, the panel must agree :

- that the disputes between the biochem experts favors USADA's side ;
- that there is no reasonable explanation of these results being "natural" ;
- that Landis' refusal to admit is a product of the general code of silence.

The panel does _not_ have to decide :

- that any illicit product produces a benefit to its user ;
- that there is a single scientific rule of analysis ;
- that WADA procedures, if followed, can be found lacking.


--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

While editing, I misplaced a sentence. Move the last 2 sentences of P2 to
the last sentence of P1.

Dans le message de ,
Sandy a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Dr Meier-Augenstein testified coherently and intelligibly to the
effect that the instrumentation and the technique at LNDD was well
below par. No real need to discuss how he comes to his conclusions. As a
scientist, he comes across fairly well. But he has significant
self-interest in his testimony. He has designed and built an
instrument that is not used by any WADA lab, using software he has
engineered to this instrument, and he has no experience at all in the
analyses that are in dispute. Nonetheless, he comes across as
authoritative.
On the other hand, I see the dilemma that the arb panel will be faced
with, ineluctably. They will be compelled to either remain faithful
to the WADA standard of proof that the biochemistry involved succeeds
or fails to establish the chemical contents of Landis' body, on a
particular date and test ; OR, they may be bold enough to confront
the question of whether or not Landis used PED's. They are _not_ the
same issue. The latter deals with conduct, and the former with
controversial interpretations of different styles of analysis, of
different instrumentation, of different software, of different
personalities. He is also a fan of automatic software, untouched by
humans. As software is written by humans, and as I like the species
(more than 50%), I think he's wrong, there, as do all other
witnesses.
To find a violation, the panel must agree :

- that the disputes between the biochem experts favors USADA's side ;
- that there is no reasonable explanation of these results being
"natural" ; - that Landis' refusal to admit is a product of the general
code of
silence.
The panel does _not_ have to decide :

- that any illicit product produces a benefit to its user ;
- that there is a single scientific rule of analysis ;
- that WADA procedures, if followed, can be found lacking.

Sandy wrote:
...
To find a violation, the panel must agree :
...
- that there is no reasonable explanation of these results being "natural" ;

Isn't this exactly what the defense is trying to show, as well?

Matt

In article ,
(Matthew David Hills) wrote:

Sandy wrote:
...
To find a violation, the panel must agree :
...
- that there is no reasonable explanation of these results being "natural" ;

Isn't this exactly what the defense is trying to show, as well?

Matt

They're trying to show that the results aren't even unnatural.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos