If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...



S

Sandy

Guest
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
Howard Kveck <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> At the jerk-offs in this forum who piled on Lemond, although it is
>> obvious and a fact that the Landis defense tried amateurishly to
>> intimidate him.

>
> His pal Will G. did that, no doubt. But he isn't part of the
> defense, is he?


That's true, but it was Landis who wrote the first threat to disclose the
same in Daily Peloton. Landis said so.
 
D

Doug Taylor

Guest
On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:33:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Zabel did it, therefore Floyd *surely* did. Nice logic. I hope that you're one of
>the jillions of people who ignore their jury summonses...


Dumbass. I'm not on any jury, don't have any requirement to be
impartial, and don't even have to pretend I don't have a brain and
can't think critically.

Let's talk logic and statistics:

O.J. Simpson case: Married woman is murdered.
Statistical likelihood it was the husband: close to 100%

Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
Statistical likelihood the test was correct?

You tell me, retard.
 
B

Bob Schwartz

Guest
Doug Taylor wrote:
> Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
> Statistical likelihood the test was correct?
>
> You tell me, retard.


Dumbass,

If you have bad baseline resolution and peak shouldering, what is
the statistical probability that there were problems with the test
run?

You tell me, dumbass. That is an upstream issue. You have to
correctly resolve it before you can move on to your assertion that
Floyd tested positive for dope.

Thanks,

Bob Schwartz
 
D

Doug Taylor

Guest
On Fri, 25 May 2007 08:53:58 -0500, Bob Schwartz
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Doug Taylor wrote:
>> Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
>> Statistical likelihood the test was correct?
>>
>> You tell me, retard.

>
>Dumbass,
>
>If you have bad baseline resolution and peak shouldering, what is
>the statistical probability that there were problems with the test
>run?
>
>You tell me, dumbass. That is an upstream issue. You have to
>correctly resolve it before you can move on to your assertion that
>Floyd tested positive for dope.


How are things upstream in la la land, Bob?

Please stop dumping your sewage in the public stream; the stench is
clouding the minds of the credulous.
 
W

wimpyVO2

Guest
On May 25, 6:14 am, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:33:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
> Statistical likelihood the test was correct?


After reading much of the expert testimony that found a zillion flaws
in LNDD testing, statistical likelihood of correct results is low.
Very low. The tests are so bad there's no way of knowing if we're
dealing with a true positive or a false positive.
 
D

Doug Taylor

Guest
On 25 May 2007 07:53:10 -0700, wimpyVO2 <[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 25, 6:14 am, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:33:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
>> Statistical likelihood the test was correct?

>
>After reading much of the expert testimony that found a zillion flaws
>in LNDD testing, statistical likelihood of correct results is low.
>Very low. The tests are so bad there's no way of knowing if we're
>dealing with a true positive or a false positive.


Yeah. And pigs fly.

Will we EVER find the real killers?
 
B

Bob Schwartz

Guest
Doug Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 08:53:58 -0500, Bob Schwartz
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Doug Taylor wrote:
>>> Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
>>> Statistical likelihood the test was correct?
>>>
>>> You tell me, retard.

>> Dumbass,
>>
>> If you have bad baseline resolution and peak shouldering, what is
>> the statistical probability that there were problems with the test
>> run?
>>
>> You tell me, dumbass. That is an upstream issue. You have to
>> correctly resolve it before you can move on to your assertion that
>> Floyd tested positive for dope.

>
> How are things upstream in la la land, Bob?
>
> Please stop dumping your sewage in the public stream; the stench is
> clouding the minds of the credulous.


Dumbass,

You remind me of this classic from Ed Meese:

U.S News: You criticize the Miranda ruling, which gives suspects the
right to have a lawyer present before police questioning. Shouldn't
people, who may be innocent, have such protection?
Meese: Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is,
you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's
contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.

A blast from the past,

Bob Schwartz
 
S

Sandy

Guest
Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

> Being a blue state intellectual snob lawyer, I'm smart enough to know
> when to cite Miranda and when to read handriting on the wall.
>

sad
 
D

Doug Taylor

Guest
On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:57:11 GMT, Bob Schwartz
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Even so, you don't flush someone with test results that
>were improperly conducted. And you don't rig the process
>so that you regularly hand out sanctions to innocent
>people like they did with Beke, like they did with
>Berasategui, like they did with Rodríguez, like they did
>with Lund. The damage you do to the credibility of the
>process extends way beyond the individual case. A lawyer
>ought to understand that. Are you sure you're a lawyer?
>Or do you just play one on TV.



>The point of the Meese quote was that he felt that there
>was no need for any protections because innocent people
>aren't accused of crimes. That sailed completely over
>your head. Very well. Once someone takes out a pro
>license any accusation that anyone pulls out of their
>ass is as good as gold and they should be banned. They
>all do it, so testing positive for a pro license should
>be enough.


I'm enough of a lawyer not to confuse US criminal law with WADA
hearing. Apples and oranges.

Yes, the athlete is presumed innocent and WADA has to prove its case,
but the standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the US
Constitution is 100% irrelevant. As are other athlete's cases. We'll
see how it plays out, but, yeah, my mind was made up in July 2006
listening to Floyd's lame excuses and non-explanations. He's guilty
as sin.

Meanwhile, I'm enough of a normal citizen to be outraged and disgusted
that one pampered athlete who can't take responsibility for his own
actions engages high paid suits and throws innocent people under the
bus in the process of turning a hearing on a positive drug test into a
media circus.

Which is what it is.
 
B

Bob in CT

Guest
On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:00:10 -0400, Doug Taylor <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:57:11 GMT, Bob Schwartz
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Even so, you don't flush someone with test results that
>> were improperly conducted. And you don't rig the process
>> so that you regularly hand out sanctions to innocent
>> people like they did with Beke, like they did with
>> Berasategui, like they did with Rodríguez, like they did
>> with Lund. The damage you do to the credibility of the
>> process extends way beyond the individual case. A lawyer
>> ought to understand that. Are you sure you're a lawyer?
>> Or do you just play one on TV.

>
>
>> The point of the Meese quote was that he felt that there
>> was no need for any protections because innocent people
>> aren't accused of crimes. That sailed completely over
>> your head. Very well. Once someone takes out a pro
>> license any accusation that anyone pulls out of their
>> ass is as good as gold and they should be banned. They
>> all do it, so testing positive for a pro license should
>> be enough.

>
> I'm enough of a lawyer not to confuse US criminal law with WADA
> hearing. Apples and oranges.
>
> Yes, the athlete is presumed innocent and WADA has to prove its case,
> but the standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the US
> Constitution is 100% irrelevant. As are other athlete's cases. We'll
> see how it plays out, but, yeah, my mind was made up in July 2006
> listening to Floyd's lame excuses and non-explanations. He's guilty
> as sin.
>
> Meanwhile, I'm enough of a normal citizen to be outraged and disgusted
> that one pampered athlete who can't take responsibility for his own
> actions engages high paid suits and throws innocent people under the
> bus in the process of turning a hearing on a positive drug test into a
> media circus.
>
> Which is what it is.
>
>
>


I don't think Floyd asked Lemond to testify. In my opinion, it's Lemond
who turned the trial into a circus. It makes me want to replace my Lemond.

--
Bob in CT
 
B

Bill C

Guest
On May 25, 4:00 pm, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:57:11 GMT, Bob Schwartz
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Even so, you don't flush someone with test results that
> >were improperly conducted. And you don't rig the process
> >so that you regularly hand out sanctions to innocent
> >people like they did with Beke, like they did with
> >Berasategui, like they did with Rodríguez, like they did
> >with Lund. The damage you do to the credibility of the
> >process extends way beyond the individual case. A lawyer
> >ought to understand that. Are you sure you're a lawyer?
> >Or do you just play one on TV.
> >The point of the Meese quote was that he felt that there
> >was no need for any protections because innocent people
> >aren't accused of crimes. That sailed completely over
> >your head. Very well. Once someone takes out a pro
> >license any accusation that anyone pulls out of their
> >ass is as good as gold and they should be banned. They
> >all do it, so testing positive for a pro license should
> >be enough.

>
> I'm enough of a lawyer not to confuse US criminal law with WADA
> hearing. Apples and oranges.
>
> Yes, the athlete is presumed innocent and WADA has to prove its case,
> but the standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the US
> Constitution is 100% irrelevant. As are other athlete's cases. We'll
> see how it plays out, but, yeah, my mind was made up in July 2006
> listening to Floyd's lame excuses and non-explanations. He's guilty
> as sin.
>
> Meanwhile, I'm enough of a normal citizen to be outraged and disgusted
> that one pampered athlete who can't take responsibility for his own
> actions engages high paid suits and throws innocent people under the
> bus in the process of turning a hearing on a positive drug test into a
> media circus.
>
> Which is what it is.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


That explains a lot.
What a contrast between Sandy who believes in justice, rational,
reasoned thought, and equitable treatment and someone who obviously
has a man crush on Alberto Gonzales.
Bill C
 
B

Bill C

Guest
On May 25, 12:59 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:[email protected],
> Doug Taylor <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > Being a blue state intellectual snob lawyer, I'm smart enough to know
> > when to cite Miranda and when to read handriting on the wall.

>
> sad


Everyone can serve as an example, as both of you do. Not much question
who I think is typical of the worst of the profession.
Bill C
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article
<[email protected]
com>,
Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:

> Zabel did it, therefore Floyd *surely* did. Nice logic. I hope that you're one of
> the jillions of people who ignore their jury summonses...


I did not know folks ignore the summons. What are the
consequences?

Not that I would ignore them. I show up in a suit, and
am so scrupulous and forthright that nobody wants
anything to do with me.

Once I filled out a prospective juror survey in a
capital murder case. It was a model of fair-mindedness
and rectitude. When I came in for voir dire nobody
asked me questions. The prosecutor got up and said that
counsel for defense and for prosecution excused me.

--
Michael Press
 
R

RonSonic

Guest
On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:00:10 -0400, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:57:11 GMT, Bob Schwartz
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Even so, you don't flush someone with test results that
>>were improperly conducted. And you don't rig the process
>>so that you regularly hand out sanctions to innocent
>>people like they did with Beke, like they did with
>>Berasategui, like they did with Rodríguez, like they did
>>with Lund. The damage you do to the credibility of the
>>process extends way beyond the individual case. A lawyer
>>ought to understand that. Are you sure you're a lawyer?
>>Or do you just play one on TV.

>
>
>>The point of the Meese quote was that he felt that there
>>was no need for any protections because innocent people
>>aren't accused of crimes. That sailed completely over
>>your head. Very well. Once someone takes out a pro
>>license any accusation that anyone pulls out of their
>>ass is as good as gold and they should be banned. They
>>all do it, so testing positive for a pro license should
>>be enough.

>
>I'm enough of a lawyer not to confuse US criminal law with WADA
>hearing. Apples and oranges.
>
>Yes, the athlete is presumed innocent and WADA has to prove its case,
>but the standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the US
>Constitution is 100% irrelevant. As are other athlete's cases. We'll
>see how it plays out, but, yeah, my mind was made up in July 2006
>listening to Floyd's lame excuses and non-explanations. He's guilty
>as sin.
>
>Meanwhile, I'm enough of a normal citizen to be outraged and disgusted
>that one pampered athlete who can't take responsibility for his own
>actions engages high paid suits and throws innocent people under the
>bus in the process of turning a hearing on a positive drug test into a
>media circus.
>
>Which is what it is.


The main debate is when did it become a circus. My vote is when the ringmaster
said "we are publicly announcing this information that we aren't supposed to
because we're afraid it'll be leaked." Or whatever phrasing was used.

The clowns started piling out of the car to the tune of "with IRMS no error is
possible."

Ron
 
R

RonSonic

Guest
On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:41:53 -0700, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article
><[email protected]
>com>,
> Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Zabel did it, therefore Floyd *surely* did. Nice logic. I hope that you're one of
>> the jillions of people who ignore their jury summonses...

>
>I did not know folks ignore the summons. What are the
>consequences?
>
>Not that I would ignore them. I show up in a suit, and
>am so scrupulous and forthright that nobody wants
>anything to do with me.
>
>Once I filled out a prospective juror survey in a
>capital murder case. It was a model of fair-mindedness
>and rectitude. When I came in for voir dire nobody
>asked me questions. The prosecutor got up and said that
>counsel for defense and for prosecution excused me.


I make them use up a pre-emptive challenge. In criminal cases it'll be the
defense and in civil, the plaintiff.

Your problem is being obviously thoughtful and articulate. You present the
danger of being influential in deliberations. They don't like that.

Ron

Ron

Effect pedal demo's up at http://www.soundclick.com/ronsonicpedalry
 
On May 25, 6:14 am, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dumbass. I'm not on any jury, don't have any requirement to be
> impartial, and don't even have to pretend I don't have a brain and
> can't think critically.
>
> Let's talk logic and statistics:
>
> O.J. Simpson case: Married woman is murdered.
> Statistical likelihood it was the husband: close to 100%
>
> Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
> Statistical likelihood the test was correct?
>
> You tell me, retard.


Dumbass,

Bob Schwartz already more or less summed up my
position, but I'll just point out that you failed
to comprehend my last post. I am not a Landis
defender. I think he did something. But I also
think that the testing lab only marginally caught
him, and that they and the dope-testing authorities
are now forced into railroading him because they
cannot admit any sloppiness or error in their
procedures. As Bob alluded to, I've said many times
in rbr that even a guilty man can be framed.

Although this is not a US criminal law proceeding
and the standards of proof are different, someone
who supports the dope testing regimen as a means
to cleaning up doping should be disturbed by
irregularities in the procedure. It makes the process
useless as a clean-up instrument: you don't know
whether it catches the worst dopers, the unluckiest
dopers, or the unlucky whether doping or not (for ex
Beke, Berasategui, Zach Lund.) On the other hand,
if you know they're all dopers and it's only a question
of bringing in as many as the net can hold, qualms
like mine are irrelevant. Suspend 'em all and let
the sponsors sort it out; individual athletes are
replaceable. Up to a point.

Ben
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article
<[email protected]>,
RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:

> The main debate is when did it become a circus. My vote is when the ringmaster
> said "we are publicly announcing this information that we aren't supposed to
> because we're afraid it'll be leaked." Or whatever phrasing was used.


'Twas Paddy McQuart got out the news to preempt the
Chatenay-Malabry---l'Equipe axis.

"When Pat McQuaid, president of the International Cycling Union,
explained why the union leaked the initial news of Landis's
positive test, he said, "We know that the French laboratory has a
close connection with L'Equipe" - France's leading sports
newspaper - "and we did not want this news to come through the
press, because we are sure they would have leaked it." Labs are
not supposed to be able to identify samples or leak information.
This is a fundamental principle of ethical scientific testing."

Ah, ethics.

> The clowns started piling out of the car to the tune of "with IRMS no error is
> possible."


--
Michael Press
 
H

Howard Kveck

Guest
In article <9und53tbemgok3t3es982ftlc[email protected]>,
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:33:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Zabel did it, therefore Floyd *surely* did. Nice logic. I hope that
> > you're one of
> >the jillions of people who ignore their jury summonses...

>
> Dumbass. I'm not on any jury, don't have any requirement to be
> impartial, and don't even have to pretend I don't have a brain and
> can't think critically.


After reading a few of your posts on this, I'm really starting to agree with you
on those last two points (heh)...

> Let's talk logic and statistics:
>
> O.J. Simpson case: Married woman is murdered.
> Statistical likelihood it was the husband: close to 100%
>
> Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
> Statistical likelihood the test was correct?
>
> You tell me, retard.


As has been pointed out by multiple people, there are some good questions
regarding the accuracy of the tests or propriety of the procedures. As for whether or
not FL actually did take something, well, I'm not sure. But the issues with the tests
and procedures make me question the whole thing. I know you believe that the
arbitration procedure and a criminal case are "apples and oranges" but there are some
similarities. It is the defense's job not to show that their guy didn't do it but
that the case against them isn't good enough, for whatever reason. The idea that he's
been charged seems to be good enough for you (hence the Meese comments are apt). You
seem to like using the Simpson case as an example, so I'll do that too. Even though I
believe that OJ did kill two people, if I was on the jury, I would have voted to
acquit because the prosecution presented a case that was full of holes and didn't
rise to the level needed to convict.

You're really a lawyer? Wow.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
D

Doug Taylor

Guest
On Sat, 26 May 2007 16:43:18 GMT, Bob Schwartz
<[email protected]> wrote:


>> He is a guilty person milking the system, throwing anyone is his way
>> under the bus.
>>
>> He is NOT an innocent person trying to prove his innocence.
>>
>> That is something that you seem to be totally unable to grasp.

>
>Wow. You're moving into Lafferty territory here. That's not
>a good thing. You've convicted him on nothing more than an
>intense personal dislike.
>
>I gave up getting into it with whack jobs a long time ago.
>First Kunich, then Lafferty. Now you.


http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12315.0.html

Deal with it
 
B

Bill C

Guest
On May 26, 4:32 pm, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 16:43:18 GMT, Bob Schwartz
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> He is a guilty person milking the system, throwing anyone is his way
> >> under the bus.

>
> >> He is NOT an innocent person trying to prove his innocence.

>
> >> That is something that you seem to be totally unable to grasp.

>
> >Wow. You're moving into Lafferty territory here. That's not
> >a good thing. You've convicted him on nothing more than an
> >intense personal dislike.

>
> >I gave up getting into it with whack jobs a long time ago.
> >First Kunich, then Lafferty. Now you.

>
> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12315.0.html
>
> Deal with it


How's your FFA, Future Fascists of America, career coming. Have you
gotten around to applying for the racial profiling division of
Gonzales' "Justice??" dept? We all know the bastards are all guilty,
and I'm sure you could produce some confessions and stats to prove we
should lock 'em all up in camps and only let out those who can
"prove", to your satisfaction they are innocent.
It's alittle more work to have to invent the evidence, but Hey if
that's what it takes to get those bastards you just KNOW are guilty,
then so be it, right?
Bill C