The Lab knows the names.

Now a strong accusation :

'I can prove to you, and will demonstrate to you, that the people at the laboratory are not objective about this. I have evidence to indicate they have the names of the riders connected to the numbers. "

If Landis can show the evidence, he did a point

http://sport.monstersandcritics.com...p/Landis_tells_BBC_his_doping_test_was_flawed

 

[[email protected]]

why the hell didn't he have a lab elsewhere do a test on the b sample
to confirm the results ? it's his right isn't it ?

 

[gds]

[email protected] wrote:
> why the hell didn't he have a lab elsewhere do a test on the b sample
> to confirm the results ? it's his right isn't it ?

no

 

[chester]

[email protected] wrote:
> why the hell didn't he have a lab elsewhere do a test on the b sample
> to confirm the results ? it's his right isn't it ?
>
it may be is right (I dunno), BUT if you were him AND you were guilty
and knew it, THEN perhaps it would be in your best interest to have the
same lab test the samples. Even if you were innocent, discrediting the
lab is a viable alternative.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> why the hell didn't he have a lab elsewhere do a test on the b sample
> to confirm the results ? it's his right isn't it ?

No, that is not his right. The rules allowed him the opportunity to
observe all aspects of the b-sample test, and to have his own experts
on-hand to observe and take notes. Oddly, he sent lawyers, not
scientists to be his observers. Why?

This behavior alone indicates to me that his defense will be based on
technicalities and not scientific critique of the process. He had time
to discuss strategy with his lawyers (who are already experienced in
anti-doping cases). This speaks volumes to me. It says that he did
not expect to be able to find anything wrong with the testing method,
so he's likely going to stick with the "produced by my own organism"
defense. He'd best spend his time doing his homework on carbon
isotopes (as opposed to going on Jay Leno).

 

[Yves LaDouche]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> why the hell didn't he have a lab elsewhere do a test on the b sample
>> to confirm the results ? it's his right isn't it ?
>
> No, that is not his right. The rules allowed him the opportunity to
> observe all aspects of the b-sample test, and to have his own experts
> on-hand to observe and take notes. Oddly, he sent lawyers, not
> scientists to be his observers. Why?
>
> This behavior alone indicates to me that his defense will be based on
> technicalities and not scientific critique of the process. He had time
> to discuss strategy with his lawyers (who are already experienced in
> anti-doping cases). This speaks volumes to me. It says that he did
> not expect to be able to find anything wrong with the testing method,
> so he's likely going to stick with the "produced by my own organism"
> defense. He'd best spend his time doing his homework on carbon
> isotopes (as opposed to going on Jay Leno).
>
Landis' behavior means he knows that when a lab corrupts a sample, the test
results are also corrupted.
There's no sense in lending credibility to the test results by "observing"
the test.

 

[Stu Fleming]

I wonder if the L'Equipe leak goes both ways...?

 

[Donald Munro]

Stu Fleming wrote:

> I wonder if the L'Equipe leak goes both ways...?

A leak that goes both ways ? L'Equipe must be bisexual.