landis

Dan Gregory wrote on 23/04/2007 23:08 +0100:

Quoted message said:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/23/sports/s134340D85.DTL

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0,36-900809,0.html

Landis' response is at
http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2007/04/landis-comments-from-phone-press.html

Curious that, under what is probably the most high profile scrutiny of
the LNDD lab they still manage to leak the results to L'Equipe

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven wrote on 24/04/2007 00:06 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Dan Gregory wrote on 23/04/2007 23:08 +0100:

Quoted message said:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/23/sports/s134340D85.DTL

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0,36-900809,0.html

Landis' response is at
http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2007/04/landis-comments-from-phone-press.html

Curious that, under what is probably the most high profile scrutiny
of the LNDD lab they still manage to leak the results to L'Equipe

Seems that not only did they leak the results to L'Equipe, they also
barred his expert observers from the retesting and in fact the retesting
was done unobserved and destroyed the B samples so there can be no
independent checking of their results. You couldn't have made it up in
the old USSR!
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/26714/Former-UCLA-boss-cries-foul-in-Landis-case

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven said:

Tony Raven wrote on 24/04/2007 00:06 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Seems that not only did they leak the results to L'Equipe, they also
barred his expert observers from the retesting and in fact the retesting
was done unobserved and destroyed the B samples so there can be no
independent checking of their results. You couldn't have made it up in
the old USSR!http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/26714/Former-UCLA-boss-cries-foul-in-La...

Assuming all the above is correct the latest test has to be dismissed
as inconclusive. Anything else would be a travesty. When the
incompetence of the original lab is a such a key factor in Landis'
defence it's beyond belief that this same lab would be allowed to
perform the B test.

The obvious chicanery surrounding the test is such that it's really
difficult to believe the procedure was not fraudulent. There will
always be doubt of course as the last remaining samples have now been
destroyed but it looks more likely than ever that Landis is innocent.

--
Dave...

dkahn400 said:

The obvious chicanery surrounding the test is such that it's really
difficult to believe the procedure was not fraudulent. There will
always be doubt of course as the last remaining samples have now been
destroyed but it looks more likely than ever that Landis is innocent.

or even if he /is/ guilty then the utter incompetence with which the lab
tried to nail him means he should get away with it, since even if you're
guilty you're technically innocent if that can't be proved.

We'll never know now, regrettably, and it's the lab's incompetence in
providing a transparent and verifiable procedure that is entirely to
blame for that.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch wrote on 24/04/2007 14:06 +0100:

Quoted message said:

dkahn400 said:

The obvious chicanery surrounding the test is such that it's really
difficult to believe the procedure was not fraudulent. There will
always be doubt of course as the last remaining samples have now been
destroyed but it looks more likely than ever that Landis is innocent.

or even if he /is/ guilty then the utter incompetence with which the lab
tried to nail him means he should get away with it, since even if you're
guilty you're technically innocent if that can't be proved.

We'll never know now, regrettably, and it's the lab's incompetence in
providing a transparent and verifiable procedure that is entirely to
blame for that.

Pete.

I think one can only place so much blame on the lab. In the latest
round the authorities played as big a role as the lab. For example the
USADA sent the samples to LNDD over their own test lab at University of
California Los Angeles. They refused Landis' request to split the
samples so that they could be tested at both labs so we now have no
samples left to allay any questions. They anonymised the six Landis
samples with three other samples except the lab knew they were getting
six from Landis and the six from Landis were packaged differently from
the other three making it very obvious which was which. The tests at
LNDD were unobserved because the USADA observers didn't bother to turn
up. With them not present the lab refused to let the Landis observers
in and so nobody observed the testing.

Its just one [censored] up after another but the actions of the USADA are such
a blatant attempt at a stitch up that it would take a miracle for him
not to be found guilty. For me though the whole drugs testing regime
has lost every shred of credibility which is the biggest failure because
we need a strong independent and objective body to drive the drugs out
of the sport.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell