USADA goes for sanction, Landis for for surgery and wants public hearing.

[dbrower]

Covered at http://trustbut.blogspot.com

Without any word from USADA, it's not even clear they read the filing.
I still want to see the response, and now the recommendation from the
ADRB as well.

-dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and
comment.

 

[B. Lafferty]

"dbrower" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Covered at http://trustbut.blogspot.com
>
> Without any word from USADA, it's not even clear they read the filing.
> I still want to see the response, and now the recommendation from the
> ADRB as well.
>
> -dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and
> comment.
>
Under the rules, USADA has an independent panel of experts review the
results and make a recommendation to sanction the rider or not. Landis can
either accept the panel's findings and penalty recommendation, or appeal to
NA CAS which Landis plans to do. Under USADA rules they will not comment on
the substance of anything on an active case. Landis should be able to make
the expert panel's findings public. Should be interesting reading.

 

[dbrower]

B. Lafferty wrote:
Landis should be able to make
> the expert panel's findings public. Should be interesting reading.

They did. Full report now at http://trustbut.blogspot.com as "There
you go."

-dB

 

[nobody]

On 23 Sep 2006 06:36:37 -0700, "dbrower" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>B. Lafferty wrote:
> Landis should be able to make
>> the expert panel's findings public. Should be interesting reading.
>
>They did. Full report now at http://trustbut.blogspot.com as "There
>you go."
>
>-dB

http://www.floydlandis.com/blog/2006/09/11/183/

Look here for more information on the three or four points Jacobs
presents...
...........snip..........
WADA’s own protocols require that all testosterone metabolite
differentials provide clear evidence of testosterone usage to find an
athlete positive. Given the data, three of the four testosterone metabolite
differentials tested in Landis’ sample are reported as negative considering
the margin of error.

The only testosterone metabolite that can even be argued as positive under
the WADA Positivity Criteria resulted from an unknown laboratory error and
is not the result of testosterone usage.

The one metabolite that has been identified by WADA-accredited
laboratories as the best, and longest-term indicator, of exogenous
testosterone usage was reported as negative in Landis’ urine samples.

In the case of the mismatched sample identification codes, the alleged
confirmed T/E data on the ‘B’ sample is from a sample number that was not
assigned to Landis. The differences in sample identification numbers also
point to issues in the chain of custody of the Landis sample.
...........snip..........

 

[B. Lafferty]

"nobody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 23 Sep 2006 06:36:37 -0700, "dbrower" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>B. Lafferty wrote:
>> Landis should be able to make
>>> the expert panel's findings public. Should be interesting reading.
>>
>>They did. Full report now at http://trustbut.blogspot.com as "There
>>you go."
>>
>>-dB
>
> http://www.floydlandis.com/blog/2006/09/11/183/
>
> Look here for more information on the three or four points Jacobs
> presents...
> ..........snip..........
> WADA's own protocols require that all testosterone metabolite
> differentials provide clear evidence of testosterone usage to find an
> athlete positive. Given the data, three of the four testosterone
> metabolite
> differentials tested in Landis' sample are reported as negative
> considering
> the margin of error.
>
> The only testosterone metabolite that can even be argued as positive under
> the WADA Positivity Criteria resulted from an unknown laboratory error and
> is not the result of testosterone usage.
>
> The one metabolite that has been identified by WADA-accredited
> laboratories as the best, and longest-term indicator, of exogenous
> testosterone usage was reported as negative in Landis' urine samples.
>
> In the case of the mismatched sample identification codes, the alleged
> confirmed T/E data on the 'B' sample is from a sample number that was not
> assigned to Landis. The differences in sample identification numbers also
> point to issues in the chain of custody of the Landis sample.
> ..........snip..........
>
I'd like to see any findings from the Independent Review Panel; not just the
Terry letter.

 

[dbrower]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "nobody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On 23 Sep 2006 06:36:37 -0700, "dbrower" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> Landis should be able to make
> >>> the expert panel's findings public. Should be interesting reading.
> >>
> >>They did. Full report now at http://trustbut.blogspot.com as "There
> >>you go."
> >>
> >
> I'd like to see any findings from the Independent Review Panel; not just the
> Terry letter.

I believe the Terry letter IS the full report of the findings of the
ADRB, at least according the the self-claimed "source close to the
investigation" who sent me the image of the FAX.

I'm underwhelmed, but retrospectively not surprised. It was the easy
way out.

-dB

 

[nobody]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:37:13 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"nobody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 23 Sep 2006 06:36:37 -0700, "dbrower" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> Landis should be able to make
>>>> the expert panel's findings public. Should be interesting reading.
>>>
>>>They did. Full report now at http://trustbut.blogspot.com as "There
>>>you go."
>>>
>>>-dB
>>
>> http://www.floydlandis.com/blog/2006/09/11/183/
>>
>> Look here for more information on the three or four points Jacobs
>> presents...
>> ..........snip..........
>> WADA's own protocols require that all testosterone metabolite
>> differentials provide clear evidence of testosterone usage to find an
>> athlete positive. Given the data, three of the four testosterone
>> metabolite
>> differentials tested in Landis' sample are reported as negative
>> considering
>> the margin of error.
>>
>> The only testosterone metabolite that can even be argued as positive under
>> the WADA Positivity Criteria resulted from an unknown laboratory error and
>> is not the result of testosterone usage.
>>
>> The one metabolite that has been identified by WADA-accredited
>> laboratories as the best, and longest-term indicator, of exogenous
>> testosterone usage was reported as negative in Landis' urine samples.
>>
>> In the case of the mismatched sample identification codes, the alleged
>> confirmed T/E data on the 'B' sample is from a sample number that was not
>> assigned to Landis. The differences in sample identification numbers also
>> point to issues in the chain of custody of the Landis sample.
>> ..........snip..........
>>
>I'd like to see any findings from the Independent Review Panel; not just the
>Terry letter.

Yes. Though I think he may have actually found some marginal problems, he's
probably pumping it up a little. I mean if there's really a blatant sample
identification problem, then 'game over' for WADA...er so to speak.

In fact for the first point 'only three of four indicators positive' is
really protocol, then it fails the requirements for action. He fudges with
'within the margin of error' - he may be reading the error bars wrong, hard
to tell.

If the long term metabolite is really negative, wel-l-l, maybe not so
important.

We'll see...I hope. Be the pits to everyone not get to see the actual data
and get an independent verification of Jacob's contentions.

Not sure what the 'unknown laboratory error' refers to. Is this the
labeling error or an additional error?

 

[B. Lafferty]

"nobody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:37:13 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"nobody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On 23 Sep 2006 06:36:37 -0700, "dbrower" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>> Landis should be able to make
>>>>> the expert panel's findings public. Should be interesting reading.
>>>>
>>>>They did. Full report now at http://trustbut.blogspot.com as "There
>>>>you go."
>>>>
>>>>-dB
>>>
>>> http://www.floydlandis.com/blog/2006/09/11/183/
>>>
>>> Look here for more information on the three or four points Jacobs
>>> presents...
>>> ..........snip..........
>>> WADA's own protocols require that all testosterone metabolite
>>> differentials provide clear evidence of testosterone usage to find an
>>> athlete positive. Given the data, three of the four testosterone
>>> metabolite
>>> differentials tested in Landis' sample are reported as negative
>>> considering
>>> the margin of error.
>>>
>>> The only testosterone metabolite that can even be argued as positive
>>> under
>>> the WADA Positivity Criteria resulted from an unknown laboratory error
>>> and
>>> is not the result of testosterone usage.
>>>
>>> The one metabolite that has been identified by WADA-accredited
>>> laboratories as the best, and longest-term indicator, of exogenous
>>> testosterone usage was reported as negative in Landis' urine samples.
>>>
>>> In the case of the mismatched sample identification codes, the alleged
>>> confirmed T/E data on the 'B' sample is from a sample number that was
>>> not
>>> assigned to Landis. The differences in sample identification numbers
>>> also
>>> point to issues in the chain of custody of the Landis sample.
>>> ..........snip..........
>>>
>>I'd like to see any findings from the Independent Review Panel; not just
>>the
>>Terry letter.
>
> Yes. Though I think he may have actually found some marginal problems,
> he's
> probably pumping it up a little. I mean if there's really a blatant sample
> identification problem, then 'game over' for WADA...er so to speak.

Let's assume they tested the wrong B sample but the have the correct B
sample in storage with an intact chain of custody. Speculate.



>
> In fact for the first point 'only three of four indicators positive' is
> really protocol, then it fails the requirements for action. He fudges with
> 'within the margin of error' - he may be reading the error bars wrong,
> hard
> to tell.
>
> If the long term metabolite is really negative, wel-l-l, maybe not so
> important.
>
> We'll see...I hope. Be the pits to everyone not get to see the actual data
> and get an independent verification of Jacob's contentions.
>
> Not sure what the 'unknown laboratory error' refers to. Is this the
> labeling error or an additional error?
>
>

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Let's assume they tested the wrong B sample but the have the correct B
> sample in storage with an intact chain of custody. Speculate.

I assume their "intact chain of custody" to be highly questionable.

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:10iRg.3721$vC3.970@dukeread02...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Let's assume they tested the wrong B sample but the have the correct B
>> sample in storage with an intact chain of custody. Speculate.
>

How can we assume they didn't test the wrong A sample?

 

[nobody]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:52:42 -0500, "Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:10iRg.3721$vC3.970@dukeread02...
>>
>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Let's assume they tested the wrong B sample but the have the correct B
>>> sample in storage with an intact chain of custody. Speculate.
>>
>
>How can we assume they didn't test the wrong A sample?

Exactly.

 

[Stu Fleming]

"nobody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:52:42 -0500, "Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:10iRg.3721$vC3.970@dukeread02...
>>>
>>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> Let's assume they tested the wrong B sample but the have the correct B
>>>> sample in storage with an intact chain of custody. Speculate.
>>>
>>
>>How can we assume they didn't test the wrong A sample?
>
> Exactly.
>

Has anyone seen the pineapple juice I left in the fridge?

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:10iRg.3721$vC3.970@dukeread02...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Let's assume they tested the wrong B sample but the have the correct B
>> sample in storage with an intact chain of custody. Speculate.
>
> I assume their "intact chain of custody" to be highly questionable.
>
That dos not follow necessarily. The chain of custody for an incorrectly
pulled b sample could well be intact though for the wrong person. I'd like
to know more about their use of bar codes and whether or not the
signature/initials on the seal are/were intact. Also, I'd like to know
whether or not Landis' representatives, who were at the lab for the b test,
verified any of this. One would think that his representative would have
ascertained if the b was his. It will be better than a winter helmet
thread.

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>>> Let's assume they tested the wrong B sample but the have the correct B
>>> sample in storage with an intact chain of custody. Speculate.
>>
>> I assume their "intact chain of custody" to be highly questionable.
>>
> That dos not follow necessarily. The chain of custody for an incorrectly
> pulled b sample could well be intact though for the wrong person. I'd
> like to know more about their use of bar codes and whether or not the
> signature/initials on the seal are/were intact. Also, I'd like to know
> whether or not Landis' representatives, who were at the lab for the b
> test, verified any of this. One would think that his representative would
> have ascertained if the b was his. It will be better than a winter helmet
> thread.

Yes it does. I didn't say a wrong B sample means the whole chain of custody
is broken. I can see a case where an entire group of samples has a
verifiable custody chain, but within that group the wrong sample was
selected. However, I would expect that selecting the wrong sample shows
errors within the system that need to be examined. I don't know if a bar
code could be the sole means of identification, i.e. there should still be a
serial number than can be read manually. There would not be a satisfactory
way for the athlete (or his representative later on) to know if the bar code
on the sample matches the bar code on his receipt, assuming subtle
differences in the thicknesses of the bars would mean different IDs.

In hindsight, it would seem prudent for the athlete's representative to
verify the athlete's sample, but I have never been involved with that aspect
of testing before so I don't know the protocol.

 

[nobody]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:52:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:10iRg.3721$vC3.970@dukeread02...
>>
>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Let's assume they tested the wrong B sample but the have the correct B
>>> sample in storage with an intact chain of custody. Speculate.
>>
>> I assume their "intact chain of custody" to be highly questionable.
>>
>That dos not follow necessarily. The chain of custody for an incorrectly
>pulled b sample could well be intact though for the wrong person. I'd like
>to know more about their use of bar codes and whether or not the
>signature/initials on the seal are/were intact. Also, I'd like to know
>whether or not Landis' representatives, who were at the lab for the b test,
>verified any of this. One would think that his representative would have
>ascertained if the b was his. It will be better than a winter helmet
>thread.

But, see, Jacobs is going to try and -not- get into any details.

He hopes to bring up this sample mixup and get the thing dismissed almost
on the force of that alone. It could work. I think he hoped to scare USADA
into skipping the trial and declaring it advantage Floyd. If they'd have
been smart they'd have done that. Now they have to take a mud pie in the
face (if Jacobs assertion proves out).

If they have to get into details, then it's advantage WADA and Jacobs has
got to battle up hill with QC issues.

My 2 cents, anyway.

 

[nobody]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:22:50 -0500, "Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>>> Let's assume they tested the wrong B sample but the have the correct B
>>>> sample in storage with an intact chain of custody. Speculate.
>>>
>>> I assume their "intact chain of custody" to be highly questionable.
>>>
>> That dos not follow necessarily. The chain of custody for an incorrectly
>> pulled b sample could well be intact though for the wrong person. I'd
>> like to know more about their use of bar codes and whether or not the
>> signature/initials on the seal are/were intact. Also, I'd like to know
>> whether or not Landis' representatives, who were at the lab for the b
>> test, verified any of this. One would think that his representative would
>> have ascertained if the b was his. It will be better than a winter helmet
>> thread.
>
>Yes it does. I didn't say a wrong B sample means the whole chain of custody
>is broken. I can see a case where an entire group of samples has a
>verifiable custody chain, but within that group the wrong sample was
>selected. However, I would expect that selecting the wrong sample shows
>errors within the system that need to be examined. I don't know if a bar
>code could be the sole means of identification, i.e. there should still be a
>serial number than can be read manually. There would not be a satisfactory
>way for the athlete (or his representative later on) to know if the bar code
>on the sample matches the bar code on his receipt, assuming subtle
>differences in the thicknesses of the bars would mean different IDs.

All Jacobs has to do is establish that:
1. there really was the wrong sample run with photos and arrows
2. that this means you can't be sure the first sample wasn't wrong also (in
rebuttal).

If he truly does this, I don't think it needs to go further. The layperson
and the judge is going to immediately see it's a wrap. The key will be how
much influence there is behind the scenes to maybe push an agenda.

>In hindsight, it would seem prudent for the athlete's representative to
>verify the athlete's sample, but I have never been involved with that aspect
>of testing before so I don't know the protocol.

Well, think about it. It's actually better for the rep -not- to have
anything more to do with the custody or IDing. If it's totally in the lab's
hands, there's always a chance the lab can be blamed. If the rep goes and
verifies, then that whole line of misadventure is stipulated on the part of
the athlete. Make sense?

 

[dbrower]

nobody wrote:
>> Also, I'd like to know
> >whether or not Landis' representatives, who were at the lab for the b test,
> >verified any of this. One would think that his representative would have
> >ascertained if the b was his. It will be better than a winter helmet
> >thread.
>
> But, see, Jacobs is going to try and -not- get into any details.
>
> He hopes to bring up this sample mixup and get the thing dismissed almost
> on the force of that alone. It could work. I think he hoped to scare USADA
> into skipping the trial and declaring it advantage Floyd. If they'd have
> been smart they'd have done that. Now they have to take a mud pie in the
> face (if Jacobs assertion proves out).
>
> If they have to get into details, then it's advantage WADA and Jacobs has
> got to battle up hill with QC issues.
>
> My 2 cents, anyway.

(1) It wasn't Buxeda's job to yell HALT if there were something wrong;
he was only there to be able to attest to the presence or absence of
Nazi Frogmen. If the lab tested the wrong sample, it's their fault,
not his.

(2) I have been told by someone who has seen them that the samples are
not sealed by the bar coded id label in any way. That is just applied
to the bottle. The bottles are apparently sealed with a top that
requires a special tool to open, though rumour says a pair of
channel-locks will do in a pinch.

(3) I don't believe Landis was really expecting the ADRB to reject the
case, and he was pretty well planning on it getting to hearing.

(4) I don't believe he wants to get off on a CoC technicality defense,
unless it shows that the B wasn't his. The presence or absence of
cortisone metabolites in the CIR tested samples might do a lot to
validate or invalidate the concerns about the chain of custody.

(5) I believe Landis is interested in a decision that scientifically
shows he didn't do it, because he is concerned for his reputation as
well as his competitive fate.

(6) Since this is going to hearing, I'm hoping Landis is forthcoming
with the lab documentation and his ADRB filing. The attempt to give
the Powers a break by keeping the details quiet obviously didn't work,
so there's nothing to lose by going public with it all anymore.
Getting the ADRB result FAX was a good start.

(7) yes, this will be much better than an winter helmet discussion.


-dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and comment.

 

[nobody]

On 23 Sep 2006 18:01:59 -0700, "dbrower" <[email protected]> wrote:

>nobody wrote:
>>> Also, I'd like to know
>> >whether or not Landis' representatives, who were at the lab for the b test,
>> >verified any of this. One would think that his representative would have
>> >ascertained if the b was his. It will be better than a winter helmet
>> >thread.
>>
>> But, see, Jacobs is going to try and -not- get into any details.
>>
>> He hopes to bring up this sample mixup and get the thing dismissed almost
>> on the force of that alone. It could work. I think he hoped to scare USADA
>> into skipping the trial and declaring it advantage Floyd. If they'd have
>> been smart they'd have done that. Now they have to take a mud pie in the
>> face (if Jacobs assertion proves out).
>>
>> If they have to get into details, then it's advantage WADA and Jacobs has
>> got to battle up hill with QC issues.
>>
>> My 2 cents, anyway.
>
>(1) It wasn't Buxeda's job to yell HALT if there were something wrong;
>he was only there to be able to attest to the presence or absence of
>Nazi Frogmen. If the lab tested the wrong sample, it's their fault,
>not his.

Cool, thanks for the point by point db.

Uh, but ya lost me here. Bruxeda?

>(2) I have been told by someone who has seen them that the samples are
>not sealed by the bar coded id label in any way. That is just applied
>to the bottle. The bottles are apparently sealed with a top that
>requires a special tool to open, though rumour says a pair of
>channel-locks will do in a pinch.

Check.

>(3) I don't believe Landis was really expecting the ADRB to reject the
>case, and he was pretty well planning on it getting to hearing.

Check.

>(4) I don't believe he wants to get off on a CoC technicality defense,
>unless it shows that the B wasn't his. The presence or absence of
>cortisone metabolites in the CIR tested samples might do a lot to
>validate or invalidate the concerns about the chain of custody.

It's good to have ideals. Listen to Jacobs would be my suggestion.

>(5) I believe Landis is interested in a decision that scientifically
>shows he didn't do it, because he is concerned for his reputation as
>well as his competitive fate.

That may be risky. I say take the 'sample's shitz, you can't convict'
stance. (again, if proven wrong sample) ;-)

>(6) Since this is going to hearing, I'm hoping Landis is forthcoming
>with the lab documentation and his ADRB filing. The attempt to give
>the Powers a break by keeping the details quiet obviously didn't work,
>so there's nothing to lose by going public with it all anymore.
>Getting the ADRB result FAX was a good start.
>
>(7) yes, this will be much better than an winter helmet discussion.

Superb job on the site man. You're being picked up too!

>
>
>-dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and comment.

 

[dbrower]

nobody wrote:

> >(1) It wasn't Buxeda's job to yell HALT if there were something wrong;
> >he was only there to be able to attest to the presence or absence of


> >(5) I believe Landis is interested in a decision that scientifically
> >shows he didn't do it, because he is concerned for his reputation as
> >well as his competitive fate.
>
> That may be risky. I say take the 'sample's shitz, you can't convict'
> stance. (again, if proven wrong sample) ;-)

If you suspend personal predilection, and take at face value his
statements that he is completely innocent, then it's consistent
for him to want vindication rather than a "not guilty" determination.
It is, exactly, the OJ problem.

His future earning potential is heavily dependant on reputation,
so as long as he believes he has a chance to clear it, it seems
worth the effort to pursue.

So far, based on the science we haven't seen in the report
they are sitting on, he is presenting the face that he can get
the vindication he wants. If the science was a slam dunk
against him, you'd think he'd be presenting the CoC issues
in a way that was more important than he has so far. To date,
he's offered the CoC issues only as an indication of the
pervasive sloppiness of the process that reflects more
seriously in the obtained results.

If the tune changes, that suggests the science has
stopped looking like a vindication is in play, and they
are playing for survival and 'not guilty' instead.

-dB

 

[RonSonic]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 19:24:40 -0400, nobody<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:52:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:10iRg.3721$vC3.970@dukeread02...
>>>
>>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> Let's assume they tested the wrong B sample but the have the correct B
>>>> sample in storage with an intact chain of custody. Speculate.
>>>
>>> I assume their "intact chain of custody" to be highly questionable.
>>>
>>That dos not follow necessarily. The chain of custody for an incorrectly
>>pulled b sample could well be intact though for the wrong person. I'd like
>>to know more about their use of bar codes and whether or not the
>>signature/initials on the seal are/were intact. Also, I'd like to know
>>whether or not Landis' representatives, who were at the lab for the b test,
>>verified any of this. One would think that his representative would have
>>ascertained if the b was his. It will be better than a winter helmet
>>thread.
>
>But, see, Jacobs is going to try and -not- get into any details.
>
>He hopes to bring up this sample mixup and get the thing dismissed almost
>on the force of that alone. It could work. I think he hoped to scare USADA
>into skipping the trial and declaring it advantage Floyd. If they'd have
>been smart they'd have done that. Now they have to take a mud pie in the
>face (if Jacobs assertion proves out).

I don't know about that. All USADA did was say "let's see the whole thing." It
is WADA, LNDD and UCI that will be in serious danger.

>If they have to get into details, then it's advantage WADA and Jacobs has
>got to battle up hill with QC issues.
>
>My 2 cents, anyway.

Very interested to see how this plays out.

Ron