Landis and the Keystone Kops



B

Bill C

Guest
http://tinyurl.com/yo9xcu


Landis spokesman Michael Henson said Monday the head of the French lab
prevented the cyclist's expert, Paul Smith, from entering the lab
Sunday to witness the testing.

"Such behavior constitutes a clear and direct infringement of Landis'
rights while casting severe doubt on the integrity of an already
dubious process," Henson said in a statement.

Bordry confirmed the incident had taken place but said it stemmed from
a prior agreement stipulating that Landis' expert would attend the
test with two USADA experts.

Smith was excluded Sunday because the USADA experts didn't show up,
Bordry said.

Messages left by The Associated Press at USADA general counsel Travis
Tygart's office were not immediately returned.

I'd say, unbelievable, but unfortunately it's become pretty typical.
It's impossible to have any faith in the integrity, and competence of
any of these people. They can't even do something this high profile
right with plenty of advance planning.
Bill C
 
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:01:48 -0400, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/yo9xcu
>
>
> Landis spokesman Michael Henson said Monday the head of the French lab
> prevented the cyclist's expert, Paul Smith, from entering the lab
> Sunday to witness the testing.
>
> "Such behavior constitutes a clear and direct infringement of Landis'
> rights while casting severe doubt on the integrity of an already
> dubious process," Henson said in a statement.
>
> Bordry confirmed the incident had taken place but said it stemmed from
> a prior agreement stipulating that Landis' expert would attend the
> test with two USADA experts.
>
> Smith was excluded Sunday because the USADA experts didn't show up,
> Bordry said.
>
> Messages left by The Associated Press at USADA general counsel Travis
> Tygart's office were not immediately returned.
>
> I'd say, unbelievable, but unfortunately it's become pretty typical.
> It's impossible to have any faith in the integrity, and competence of
> any of these people. They can't even do something this high profile
> right with plenty of advance planning.
> Bill C
>


This is so bad, I'm thinking of ceasing to watch or follow cycling. It
appears that everyone is guilty until proven innocent, instead of the
other way around. They release tons of information that should not be
released. They constantly perform tests they shouldn't be performing.
They use tests they don't understand. The entire USADA should be fired,
along with the French lab.

--
Bob in CT
 
On Apr 23, 9:01 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/yo9xcu
>
> Landis spokesman Michael Henson said Monday the head of the French lab
> prevented the cyclist's expert, Paul Smith, from entering the lab
> Sunday to witness the testing.
>
> "Such behavior constitutes a clear and direct infringement of Landis'
> rights while casting severe doubt on the integrity of an already
> dubious process," Henson said in a statement.



Not according to article 198 of the Chapter 14 of the UCI rules ("lab
may restrict attendance")

bjorn
 
On Apr 23, 12:12 pm, "Bob in CT" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:01:48 -0400, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> >http://tinyurl.com/yo9xcu

>
> > Landis spokesman Michael Henson said Monday the head of the French lab
> > prevented the cyclist's expert, Paul Smith, from entering the lab
> > Sunday to witness the testing.

>
> > "Such behavior constitutes a clear and direct infringement of Landis'
> > rights while casting severe doubt on the integrity of an already
> > dubious process," Henson said in a statement.

>
> > Bordry confirmed the incident had taken place but said it stemmed from
> > a prior agreement stipulating that Landis' expert would attend the
> > test with two USADA experts.

>
> > Smith was excluded Sunday because the USADA experts didn't show up,
> > Bordry said.

>
> > Messages left by The Associated Press at USADA general counsel Travis
> > Tygart's office were not immediately returned.

>
> > I'd say, unbelievable, but unfortunately it's become pretty typical.
> > It's impossible to have any faith in the integrity, and competence of
> > any of these people. They can't even do something this high profile
> > right with plenty of advance planning.
> > Bill C

>
> This is so bad, I'm thinking of ceasing to watch or follow cycling. It
> appears that everyone is guilty until proven innocent, instead of the
> other way around. They release tons of information that should not be
> released. They constantly perform tests they shouldn't be performing.
> They use tests they don't understand. The entire USADA should be fired,
> along with the French lab.


Just last week we were talking about this being the likely result of
the French lab being allowed to test the only samples that would prove
their own competence.

And lo and behold but they turn up with accurate results and yet the
observers were excluded.

Anyone surprised by this?

It's time for a major overhaul of the USAC, USADA and WADA.
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'd say, unbelievable, but unfortunately it's become pretty typical.
> It's impossible to have any faith in the integrity, and competence of
> any of these people. They can't even do something this high profile
> right with plenty of advance planning.


Sub-text: Can't pour **** out of a boot with the directions on the heel.

--
Michael Press
 
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
:


> The UCI rules don't even discuss the question of B sample
> testing in the case of a negative A sample. It's not explicitly
> stated, but all the rules governing B samples are written
> as if they assume the A sample has already yielded a positive.
> This is what happens when you start bending one rule;
> it becomes harder and harder to apply any of the other rules
> consistently.


However, it is not unusual for non-judicial panels to seek additional
illumination. The A/B part has to do with the testing procedure to obtain a
sanction, but there is not a limitation on receipt of relevant, additional
evidence, or the input from experts not offered by either side of the
dispute. Going back to the UCI rules, the samples are the property of UCI
when received, and what they do with them is their decision.

It was suggested in another comment, that Landis could take heart if all the
other samples turned out negative, just one day in the middle being suspect
; that would suggest that the single occurrence was not due to him. Now he
is forced to contest the exogenic testosterone finding across several
samples, which may lead his strategy to discrediting the specific exo-test.

When this goes to TAS, I suspect they are not going to be able to forget
this new series of tests, although I won't guess at what the first panel
decides. It may well decide that the A test is itself patently unreliable,
and it could be WADA that is forced to appeal.
>
> That said, not allowing Landis's representative to attend
> clearly violates the _spirit_ of a fair process whether or not
> it is within the letter of the rules. Of course, if you were a
> cynic, you thought that process had been violated anyway.
> It gives more ammunition for those who want to argue that
> USADA and the lab don't care about doing it the right way.
> I will be curious to see what USADA says about it, but I
> expect defend and deny rather than any regrets.
> Even a guilty man can be framed.


Procedural niceties were, it appears, satisfied, even if they were not
cordial. Most procedure is technical and drowned in minutiae.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
 
On Apr 23, 5:27 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Procedural niceties were, it appears, satisfied, even if they were not
> cordial. Most procedure is technical and drowned in minutiae.
> --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR


Doesn't sound like the agreed upon procedures even came close to being
followed:

http://floydlandis.com/blog/
Quoted:

Scott said, "In my years at the UCLA lab, I've never seen anything
like what I experienced at the LNDD yesterday. The limitation placed
on me and Simon [Davis - an Isotope Ratio Mass Spectometry expert also
selected by Landis to observe the retesting] demonstrates the lack of
objectivity in this process, USADA's interest in controlling and
limiting our observation of the retesting is an example of one of the
most egregious problems in the fundamental science of anti-doping that
I have experienced."

Lots more there. If this is actually true then noone could even begin
to consider the results and procedures to be credible.
This is pretty damning malfeasance of everyone involved IMO. Of
course he's saying what I've been saying all along. The labs know what
results are wanted, and are being massively pressured to deliver those
results. I don't know if they are actually rigging results but the
system reeks.
Bill C
 
CowPunk wrote:
> On Apr 23, 10:01 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/yo9xcu

>
>
> I thought the purpose of the B sample testing was to prove the
> validity of the test?
>
> If the A samples were negative, and the B's positive, that would
> indicate that the test is inaccurate.
> To me this would prove that the equipment and/or testing procedures
> are invalid and exonerate Landis. Too bad the equipment at UCLA is
> conveniently "down for repairs".


No -- the test that was done on the B samples is a carbon isotope test, which was never done on the associated A samples. It is only indicated if other tests indicate a suspect sample, due to the cost.
 
[email protected] wrote:

>On Apr 23, 12:12 pm, "Bob in CT" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:01:48 -0400, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:


>> This is so bad, I'm thinking of ceasing to watch or follow cycling.


This has occurred to me as well. It's not going to be possible to
watch the TdF this year without knowing that those abusing drugs are
getting away with it, and that those accused of abusing drugs might
NOT be using drugs. I wonder how many of us would have to boycott
watching the "big show" this year to get someone's attention? I'm
ready.

>> It
>> appears that everyone is guilty until proven innocent, instead of the
>> other way around. They release tons of information that should not be
>> released. They constantly perform tests they shouldn't be performing.
>> They use tests they don't understand. The entire USADA should be fired,
>> along with the French lab.

>
>Just last week we were talking about this being the likely result of
>the French lab being allowed to test the only samples that would prove
>their own competence.
>
>And lo and behold but they turn up with accurate results and yet the
>observers were excluded.
>
>Anyone surprised by this?


Oh, and by the way - now they've used up ALL the samples that could
have been independently tested to prove the lab screwed up.

>It's time for a major overhaul of the USAC, USADA and WADA.


NO kidding! But wait - it gets even WORSE.

USADA isn't commenting "because they don't have the results from the
lab yet"... this comes AFTER freaking L'Equipe PUBLISHES THE RESULTS.

How out of control and laughable CAN this fiasco get?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
On Apr 23, 6:27 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 5:27 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Procedural niceties were, it appears, satisfied, even if they were not
> > cordial. Most procedure is technical and drowned in minutiae.
> > --
> > Bonne route !

>
> > Sandy
> > Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

>
> Doesn't sound like the agreed upon procedures even came close to being
> followed:
>
> http://floydlandis.com/blog/
> Quoted:
>
> Scott said, "In my years at the UCLA lab, I've never seen anything
> like what I experienced at the LNDD yesterday. The limitation placed
> on me and Simon [Davis - an Isotope Ratio Mass Spectometry expert also
> selected by Landis to observe the retesting] demonstrates the lack of
> objectivity in this process, USADA's interest in controlling and
> limiting our observation


dumbass,

are you sure he didn't mean USAC ?
 
Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Bill C <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Apr 23, 5:27 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Procedural niceties were, it appears, satisfied, even if they were
>> not cordial. Most procedure is technical and drowned in minutiae.
>> --
>> Bonne route !
>>
>> Sandy
>> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

>
> Doesn't sound like the agreed upon procedures even came close to being
> followed:
>
> http://floydlandis.com/blog/
> Quoted:
>
> Scott said, "In my years at the UCLA lab, I've never seen anything
> like what I experienced at the LNDD yesterday. The limitation placed
> on me and Simon


So, he said something, he complained. Completely without detail, please
note. Let's get the detailed complaint, first. Maybe they didn't let him
bring his coffee to the lab table.

[Davis - an Isotope Ratio Mass Spectometry expert also
> selected by Landis to observe the retesting] demonstrates the lack of
> objectivity in this process, USADA's interest in controlling and
> limiting our observation of the retesting is an example of one of the
> most egregious problems in the fundamental science of anti-doping that
> I have experienced."


So far, too general to be of use. Details, then cross-examination. I don't
presume one or another reality, but this is just a whining complaint, so
far.

> Lots more there. If this is actually true then noone could even begin
> to consider the results and procedures to be credible.
> This is pretty damning malfeasance of everyone involved IMO. Of
> course he's saying what I've been saying all along. The labs know what
> results are wanted, and are being massively pressured to deliver those
> results.


Well, this is the fundamental problem of all testing worldwide. "Bad"
results are sought. Good results don't move either WADA or lab volume
forward. I am willing to be patient to listen to what everyone has to say.
Here, you are latching onto the verbiage you hope to hear, and crowning it
the TRUTH.

> I don't know if they are actually rigging results but the
> system reeks.


This is news?

> Bill C


Valerian is supposed to be good to control stress, Bill. Take a legal dose,
after declaring it a necessary drug to your licensing authority.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
 
Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> CowPunk wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 10:01 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yo9xcu

>>
>>
>> I thought the purpose of the B sample testing was to prove the
>> validity of the test?
>>
>> If the A samples were negative, and the B's positive, that would
>> indicate that the test is inaccurate.
>> To me this would prove that the equipment and/or testing procedures
>> are invalid and exonerate Landis. Too bad the equipment at UCLA is
>> conveniently "down for repairs".

>
> No -- the test that was done on the B samples is a carbon isotope
> test, which was never done on the associated A samples. It is only
> indicated if other tests indicate a suspect sample, due to the cost.


Quite the opposite! If 6/7 of the Type A tests failed to show positive,
then Type A testing in no good. One could imagine that all Tests A of all
riders are positive, and that Landis was, with his bad luck, found positive
randomly.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
 
On Apr 23, 5:27 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> However, it is not unusual for non-judicial panels to seek additional
> illumination. The A/B part has to do with the testing procedure to obtain a
> sanction, but there is not a limitation on receipt of relevant, additional
> evidence, or the input from experts not offered by either side of the
> dispute. Going back to the UCI rules, the samples are the property of UCI
> when received, and what they do with them is their decision.


dumbass,

testing the b-sample when the a-sample is negative would constitute
retroactive testing. something that there isn't a WADA protocol for.
in this case it was requested by USADA, but there isn't a clear answer
how the result of this test can impact landis' sanction for the
original positive test.
 
Wow, what a surprise.

Floyd guilty, as we already knew.

Floyd claims innocence and tries to throw up lots of smoke and mirrors.

Time to give him his 2 year ban and move on...
 
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Apr 23, 5:27 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> However, it is not unusual for non-judicial panels to seek additional
>> illumination. The A/B part has to do with the testing procedure to
>> obtain a sanction, but there is not a limitation on receipt of
>> relevant, additional evidence, or the input from experts not offered
>> by either side of the dispute. Going back to the UCI rules, the
>> samples are the property of UCI when received, and what they do with
>> them is their decision.

>
> dumbass,
>
> testing the b-sample when the a-sample is negative would constitute
> retroactive testing. something that there isn't a WADA protocol for.
> in this case it was requested by USADA, but there isn't a clear answer
> how the result of this test can impact landis' sanction for the
> original positive test.


Just posit for argument's sake, that the tests are validly conducted and
that the results are also valid. Then they are just evidence, not the basis
for a sanction. The sanction still relates to only one test event. The
additional tests are relevant evidence, however, and they may be used to
weigh in on the side of USADA's case. No, there is not a clear answer, as
we don't have any actual evidence presented to the panel. That's where the
game is.
 
On Apr 24, 1:12 am, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:[email protected],
> Bill C <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 5:27 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>


>
> Valerian is supposed to be good to control stress, Bill. Take a legal dose,
> after declaring it a necessary drug to your licensing authority.
> --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


I shouldn't get worked up about it, but I have NO faith that we'll
ever get the chance for an examination which would give us any shot at
getting near the truth. I'd love for you to have the chance to cross-
examine all these folks under oath, and a bunch of the techs and
others under immunity or protection.
Usada has done what, it seems, is the standard procedure. Screw-up
then clam-up because noone can investigate them or make them tell the
truth, or even if they do validate it, because they wont allow
anything they do to be independently verified. Except by people they
employ.
You made a comment on politicians. This is exactly how we ended up in
the Iraq war. They screwed with the evidence, lied to everyone, then
hired people to say it was all true. Now we know differently after how
many victims have been damaged?
Bill C