N
nobody
Guest
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$vC3.970@dukeread02...
>>>>
>>>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's assume they tested the wrong B sample but the have the correct B
>>>>> sample in storage with an intact chain of custody. Speculate.
>>>>
>>>> I assume their "intact chain of custody" to be highly questionable.
>>>>
>>>That dos not follow necessarily. The chain of custody for an incorrectly
>>>pulled b sample could well be intact though for the wrong person. I'd like
>>>to know more about their use of bar codes and whether or not the
>>>signature/initials on the seal are/were intact. Also, I'd like to know
>>>whether or not Landis' representatives, who were at the lab for the b test,
>>>verified any of this. One would think that his representative would have
>>>ascertained if the b was his. It will be better than a winter helmet
>>>thread.
>>
>>But, see, Jacobs is going to try and -not- get into any details.
>>
>>He hopes to bring up this sample mixup and get the thing dismissed almost
>>on the force of that alone. It could work. I think he hoped to scare USADA
>>into skipping the trial and declaring it advantage Floyd. If they'd have
>>been smart they'd have done that. Now they have to take a mud pie in the
>>face (if Jacobs assertion proves out).
>
>I don't know about that. All USADA did was say "let's see the whole thing." It
>is WADA, LNDD and UCI that will be in serious danger.
Yeah, I got my 'ADA's mixed up. You're right.
>>If they have to get into details, then it's advantage WADA and Jacobs has
>>got to battle up hill with QC issues.
>>
>>My 2 cents, anyway.
>
>Very interested to see how this plays out.
Yeah but part of me will hate to watch. ;-)
>
>Ron
wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 19:24:40 -0400, nobody<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:52:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:10iRg.3721$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