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



On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:05:14 -0400, RonSonic <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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.


Yeah, I got my 'ADA's mixed up. You're right.

>>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.


Yeah but part of me will hate to watch. ;-)

>
>Ron
 
On 23 Sep 2006 18:48:19 -0700, "dbrower" <[email protected]> wrote:

>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


Granted. I'm just suggesting the simpler the better.

I'd think Jacobs would love to walk in, file something get an admission
from the other side to which they had no rebuttal and get it dismissed or
something in minutes.

You'd hate to see a guy lose just because he went for some extra moral high
ground. He thinks it's critical to his rep, but it's probably not so much,
once charges are dropped.

Again, just offering a thought. I certainly get your point. Thx.
 
Stu Fleming wrote:
> Has anyone seen the pineapple juice I left in the fridge?


Whats wrong with good old fashioned orange juice taken with a thimble.
 
"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:KljRg.3725$vC3.3341@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.

>
> Yes it does. I didn't say a wrong B sample means the whole chain of
> custody is broken.

We'll have to disagree. These are somewhat different legal issues.

>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 agree with your latter statement

>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.
>
 

Similar threads