[Will]

This is exactly the kind of wishful thinking - scratching the surface - that consistently failed to convince arb panels in TH case. I am not sure it will work any different in Floyd's case.

If you can not show that the evidence is material "to the comfortable satisfaction" of the arb panel the evidence will be swept away as immaterial. That is, using a whiteout may indeed be an incorrect way of changing markings but if it is to prove that the sample belongs to Floyd and that the chain of custody was fine it will be thrown away as immaterial.

RH, you really just don't see it.

If you run your lab, from the administrative to test execution, in a way that so greatly departs from the ISL/ISO, so much in fact that CAS upholds a recent dismissal for in kind departure, how do you expect that the AAA or CAS will flagrantly ignore these egregious violations?

No manual for the machine (ISO VIOLATION). Old, error prone software (ISO/ISL VIOLATION). Failure to secrue the data (ISO/ISL VIOLATION), etc. etc. etc. etc.

It becomes easy to see how they could be doing it wrong, again and again and again, etc. The presumption cannot be that they have done EVERYTHING perfectly, as they have not.

Keep in mind, the whole of the defense is not public. Simply put, you don't know what you don't know. What I do know is that you are now too closed minded, and trying WAY TOO HARD to compare Floyd's case with Tyler's to realize that the Lab BOMBED the testing. Perhaps they will use the "we were overworked/understaffed" excuse like they did in Landaluze?

I think the heart of the issue is that since you are from the scientific world, you are personally invested in seeing the science prevail. Any question of the science, the procedure, the errors is being taken as a shot at YOU. RH, you did not do the test. Ask yourself this, had YOU produced this lab pack, these results, would you stand up in the hearing, in front of the public, on TV and say to the Arb’s that based on your work, as is, Floyd doped? If you answer yes, then I think many here will be done with, as will be I. If you are taking this personally, then so be it, that is your problem. I have bigger fish to fry.

[rational head]

RH, you really just don't see it.

If you run your lab, from the administrative to test execution, in a way that so greatly departs from the ISL/ISO, so much in fact that CAS upholds a recent dismissal for in kind departure, how do you expect that the AAA or CAS will flagrantly ignore these egregious violations?

No manual for the machine (ISO VIOLATION). Old, error prone software (ISO/ISL VIOLATION). Failure to secrue the data (ISO/ISL VIOLATION), etc. etc. etc. etc.

It becomes easy to see how they could be doing it wrong, again and again and again, etc. The presumption cannot be that they have done EVERYTHING perfectly, as they have not.

Keep in mind, the whole of the defense is not public. Simply put, you don't know what you don't know. What I do know is that you are now too closed minded, and trying WAY TOO HARD to compare Floyd's case with Tyler's to realize that the Lab BOMBED the testing. Perhaps they will use the "we were overworked/understaffed" excuse like they did in Landaluze?

I think the heart of the issue is that since you are from the scientific world, you are personally invested in seeing the science prevail. Any question of the science, the procedure, the errors is being taken as a shot at YOU. RH, you did not do the test. Ask yourself this, had YOU produced this lab pack, these results, would you stand up in the hearing, in front of the public, on TV and say to the Arb’s that based on your work, as is, Floyd doped? If you answer yes, then I think many here will be done with, as will be I. If you are taking this personally, then so be it, that is your problem. I have bigger fish to fry.

Thanks for your reply, Will.

Yes, you are right, I am from a scientific world and I want to see science prevail.

Where you are not correct is in characterizing my position as personally invested . I was and remain Floyd’s fan. I said and will repeat it again and again. I will re-watch his S17, I will buy his books, I will criticize unfairness of draconian 2-year suspensions, I will consistently support his rights and his absolute need for ALL relevant documents that are unfairly denied him and are needed, I will ask hard questions (like why such a huge discrepancy between screening and confirmation T/E) .

But I will not compromise my professional opinion about the available evidence if it contradicts my liking of Floyd. This is a matter of INDEPENDENT and intellectual honesty I own ONLY to myself.

Before you make a statement about my personal views and biases you need to remind everyone what is YOUR relation to the case, that you are - a heavily invested and no doubt honest and loyal friend of Floyd, who manages his OVERALL defense.

What I am doing here is EXACTLY what Floyd and you wanted me to do - I am looking into the evidence in LDP and passing my opinions here. It was called a wiki-type novel kind of defense where “free brain trust” was counted on. It was understood it may not always be friendly.

If my opinions aren’t always in line with whoever positions I am willing to discuss them.

And to conclude, I NEVER used words like Floyd is guilty and I NEVER used a single disrespectful word for Floyd or you for that matter. It is not possible because I have tremendous respect for both of you and the difference of opinions is not likely to change it.

You are responsible for your opinions and I am willing to live with it.

[gsteinb]

It isn't the first time I've seen an ardent supporter of Floyd's blame someone for not getting it. It appears that a significant factor of the defense strategy is to attack anyone who disagrees with any aspect of it. Honestly, while I realize that many here are fascinated by those who have joined DPF to discuss the case (Floyd included) do we really need that aspect of it here? The defense has put its information out there so people could gain insight into what they view us an unjust and poorly run process. They have benefited mightily from some significant scientific minds weighing in on the data and procedures. Yet, when someone has some level of dispute with a finding they are treated suddenly as some sort of enemy. It seems to be right in alignment with the treatment that they've been complaining about, and what the nastiest of political adversaries do. I have a sad vision of the balme game that will go on if Floyd isn't ultimately exonerated and it's formed entirely based on the treatment people receive here.

[Double R]

RH,
I wasn't talking about my wishfull thinking, I was just trying to outline what I think is the defence strategy from Floyds team. I'm not saying that this strategy will win the case either. I just feel that you are shooting on the wrong target, it's not about one of those small lab-mistakes, it's about what all those mistakes does with the total picture.

[rational head]

It isn't the first time I've seen an ardent supporter of Floyd's blame someone for not getting it. It appears that a significant factor of the defense strategy is to attack anyone who disagrees with any aspect of it. Honestly, while I realize that many here are fascinated by those who have joined DPF to discuss the case (Floyd included) do we really need that aspect of it here? The defense has put its information out there so people could gain insight into what they view us an unjust and poorly run process. They have benefited mightily from some significant scientific minds weighing in on the data and procedures. Yet, when someone has some level of dispute with a finding they are treated suddenly as some sort of enemy. It seems to be right in alignment with the treatment that they've been complaining about, and what the nastiest of political adversaries do. I have a sad vision of the balme game that will go on if Floyd isn't ultimately exonerated and it's formed entirely based on the treatment people receive here.

I am not easy to intimidate by personal attacks if it hasn’t been clear yet. Quite opposite, it is likely to add more focus and diligence to my self-examination of facts and subsequent vigorous defense of them if they passed my own filters.

I will spill a tiny fact here and NOW as it seems relevant to Wills post.

I received few questions and more than sincere appreciations from Will in our personal communications.

When my research and opinions AGREED I was thanked privately, when they disagreed I am attacked publicly. And you may find a similar pattern on other pro-Floyd sites.

Added few minutes later: Upon some more thinking I will spill another tiny fact. The whole situation of Floyd being here is directly but not wholly related to me and if Will wants I let him to tell the interesting story.

[Thomas A. Fine]

Right - why not clear up any misunderstanding or fallacies by doing some simple tests? If I were clean, no steroids because #### it is not possible that my blood show anything because I never took anything.. then I'd be volunteering vials-full of any body liquid that would help clear the matter once and for all.

If the whole point is to attack the sloppiness of the lab - that is another issue all together. I mean sloppy is one thing, and I am all for the labs running a tighter ship but does sloppy equate unusable evidence? Depends of course on the degree, the variables involved etc. But the burden of proof in that event rest squarely on Floyd's defence team.Sloppy isn't good, but - say as an example - you don't have be able to eat off the kitchen floor for a resturantto get a operating license either....

What exactly could be found in your blood that could exonerate you, if you were in Floyd's shoes? They have a sample and it DID show something. If you have a different sample that doesn't show anything, that's completely meaningless.

You probably couldn't even use DNA to determine whether or not the sample is yours, because the original sample was a URINE sample, and in most cases, you don't find DNA in urine.

So since you can't prove anything at all about what was or was not in your system based on additional samples of your blood, and the other side has "proof" that you did it, do you think you'd attack the sloppiness of the lab? Especially if it appeared that they were so sloppy that measured values were very likely strongly impacted by their sloppiness (try to wade through the last day of the "Discrepancy..." topic)?

tom

[rational head]

What exactly could be found in your blood that could exonerate you, if you were in Floyd's shoes?

OOps. Firstly it is urine, secondly you could prove that you have naturally high T as was stated at some point by floyd personally and reported by the world media.

If you have a different sample that doesn't show anything, that's completely meaningless.

Well, we may want to see if "not showing anything" is due to "sloppy science" or due to something more sinister.

You probably couldn't even use DNA to determine whether or not the sample is yours, because the original sample was a URINE sample, and in most cases, you don't find DNA in urine.

This is an expressely incorrect statement. Do your home work if you don't have time search this forum.

So since you can't prove anything at all about what was or was not in your system based on additional samples of your blood, and the other side has "proof" that you did it, do you think you'd attack the sloppiness of the lab?

When you go in frontal attack against machine guns you lose.

[Will]

I am not easy to intimidate by personal attacks if it hasn’t been clear yet. Quite opposite, it is likely to add more focus and diligence to my self-examination of facts and subsequent vigorous defense of them if they passed my own filters.

I will spill a tiny fact here and NOW as it seems relevant to Wills post.

I received few questions and more than sincere appreciations from Will in our personal communications.

When my research and opinions AGREED I was thanked privately, when they disagreed I am attacked publicly. And you may find a similar pattern on other pro-Floyd sites.

Added few minutes later: Upon some more thinking I will spill another tiny fact. The whole situation of Floyd being here is directly but not wholly related to me and if Will wants I let him to tell the interesting story.

RH, you have misread my statement. I really do appreciate the time and energy you put into this discussion, the research you have contributed and the response to my direct inquiries. I have watched your progression from open-minded and willing to discuss the evidence available derail to a position where you appear to feel personally liable for trying to uphold an indefensible scientific position. You may as well say the test is "foolproof" as did De Ceaurriz. In lieu of additional defense info, you are working angles that are fruitless.

I am not attacking you. However, you failed to addres my question: Had YOU produced this lab pack, these results, would you stand up in the hearing, in front of the public, on TV and say to the Arb’s that based on your work, as is, Floyd doped?

[Pelotonium]

Will and RH,

Have you guys both gone completely nuts or what??!!!

RH, you're in the process of divulging stuff that someone sent you in a PM. That's a no-no in any forum. Really - don't do this. Among other things, it's not nice. It's not polite.

Will, you've just put a ton of words in RH's mouth. What were you thinking?? RH has provided tons of free analysis for you. You don't just decide that it's bridge-burning time just because he's no longer useful to your defense of Floyd.

Now, come on, guys!

This topic is about the Hiltzik chat transcripts. We started covering stuff that was in the chats. Now let's continue...

Andy

This post has been edited by Pelotonium: 07 March 2007 - 07:21 PM

[rational head]

Will:

RH, you have misread my statement. I really do appreciate the time and energy you put into this discussion, the research you have contributed and the response to my direct inquiries. I have watched your progression from open-minded and willing to discuss the evidence available derail to a position where you appear to feel personally liable for trying to uphold an indefensible scientific position. You may as well say the test is "foolproof" as did De Ceaurriz. In lieu of additional defense info, you are working angles that are fruitless.

As I said above. Gentlemen’s game is MY game and the only people who enjoy my disrespect are those I have strong proof want to purposely hurt me. You are not even close by a long shot. Floyd is totally safe even if he come out with blazing guns. As to “open-mindedness” we really differ on the definition. My positions are based only on the available LDP evidence. If new scientific evidence comes out my position most definitely can change. LNDD director speaks for himself, I speak for me and have no knowledge who he is.

Will:

I am not attacking you. However, you failed to address my question: Had YOU produced this lab pack, these results, would you stand up in the hearing, in front of the public, on TV and say to the Arb’s that based on your work, as is, Floyd doped?

I will gladly answer it even though it is not phrased the way I would.

Few interpretations are possible.

1. If you meant that “if I was found “positive” and the LNDD document package (with all its alleged inconsistencies) was ALL that the accusation were based on, would I accept it.

Answer: Yes, if I knew I was guilty. No, if I knew I am not guilty.

2. If I was the scientist participating in the preparation of LNDD package,
Would I proclaim Floyd’s guilt?

I would say that based on MY specific involvement and limited contribution (whatever it was) I stand by MY results if I was deeply and honestly sure of it. I would say that the matter of guilt is up to the arb panel and is not a scientific term.

3. If I was an independent expert in front of the panel I would say that the scientific evidence (as is known from LDP) is damning but I would need absolutely ALL calibration, tuning and traceability data for all tests to confirm my conclusions. I would refuse to answer a question if it was phrased as “guilt”.

[frenchfry]

It isn't the first time I've seen an ardent supporter of Floyd's blame someone for not getting it. It appears that a significant factor of the defense strategy is to attack anyone who disagrees with any aspect of it. Honestly, while I realize that many here are fascinated by those who have joined DPF to discuss the case (Floyd included) do we really need that aspect of it here? The defense has put its information out there so people could gain insight into what they view us an unjust and poorly run process. They have benefited mightily from some significant scientific minds weighing in on the data and procedures. Yet, when someone has some level of dispute with a finding they are treated suddenly as some sort of enemy. It seems to be right in alignment with the treatment that they've been complaining about, and what the nastiest of political adversaries do. I have a sad vision of the balme game that will go on if Floyd isn't ultimately exonerated and it's formed entirely based on the treatment people receive here.

This is an excellent analysis. There is just something that doesn't feel right about Floyd's PR/defence strategy. This is what I think amifan tried to flush out with her "my main problem with Landis" thread. If you dare to make comments that go against the Landis spin, wham. Will's comments to RH are innapropriate given that it was him and the Landis team that thought they were so smart by opening up the case to the general public. Funny, but I also get the feeling that now they are less willing to share information. Is this because there appears to be more harm than good that came out of the process? A bit hypocritical if you ask me. And another point that surprises me is that when Will throws out the missing manual and outdated software as key issues I really get the impression that they have given up on trying to prove Floyd didn't have exogenous testosterone in his system, but are reduced to searching for administrative errors that don't appear to have any direct relation to the test results (I am relying on analysis provided by others to form this opinion).

Although RH doesn't come out and call Floyd guilty, it is clear that he doesn't follow the "science" arguments advanced by the Landis team. And I respect his decision to remain faithful to his independent stance.

[amifan]

....

What a bizaare post.


Although I must admit I like being labeled as bogus, presumptuous and against free will and free speech.

You forgot to mention about me being a 'dummie' too

[OAR]

After reading this latest exchange,,,,,,,,,,, I think it is time for some intervention.

Not surprised the usual members have to come in and support information they deem correct. You guys claim to want a discussion but have resorted to personal attacks. One side say they believe in FL argument and the other side says your delusional, other colorful metaphors.

What I find absolutely amazing is the off topic direction this thread took once TH was mentioned. (before you get your correct underwear in a bunch I am including myself in this!)

[dbrower]

Where you are not correct is in characterizing my position as personally invested .

If you honestly believe this, I suggest you take a week off, then go back and re-read a bunch of your posts with a fresh eye. You have, in my opinion, been expressing a great deal of personal investment and concern here in ways that frankly lead me and perhaps others to question your rationality and objectivity in the matter.

The way you badgered Hiltzik the other day and some of your moderation decisions seem to go quite beyond the behavior of an objective observer, and perilously close to that of emotionally threatened person who feels trapped. Do not take my word. PM some other parties you might think of as having neutral positions and see what they think. I would exclude chris_t, DQ, amifan and bellabici from the list of candidates.

-dB

[amifan]

I would exclude chris_t, DQ, amifan and bellabici from the list of candidates.

-dB

This really is bizaare!

OK exclude anyone who is not in alignment with Floyd's defense ...? Anyone who is willing to take a contra stand? I'm looking, I'm reading, I'm hoping I see something that will convince me that my dream is true that Floyd, Ulle, all the rest are just victims of some misfortune...But it ain't happening for me dB it ain't happening!

Does anyone else find this sad?

.

[dbrower]

This really is bizaare!

OK exclude anyone who is not in alignment with Floyd's defense ...? Anyone who is willing to take a contra stand?
.

Yes, when looking for a "neutral" observer, I would exclude those who are vociferously taking the contra stand. I'm not asking him to poll supporters, but to honestly query people who have neutral positions.

Your intentional misreading is telling in its own right.

-dB

[Thomas A. Fine]

This really is bizaare!

OK exclude anyone who is not in alignment with Floyd's defense ...? Anyone who is willing to take a contra stand? I'm looking, I'm reading, I'm hoping I see something that will convince me that my dream is true that Floyd, Ulle, all the rest are just victims of some misfortune...But it ain't happening for me dB it ain't happening!

Does anyone else find this sad?

I guess you didn't see the word "neutral" in his original post. That would exclude lots of people on the other side of the fence too. But I'm guessing he didn't list them (us?), because of his perception (and mine) that RH to a significant degree now sits on one particular side of the fence.

tom

[zarathustra]

This really is bizaare!

Please amifan, you must not complain. You are against doping and therefore you hate Cycling and the cyclists and so you have to end on the black list.

[RADUSA]

Please amifan, you must not complain. You are against doping and therefore you hate Cycling and the cyclists and so you have to end on the black list.

I would definitely not consider amifan neutral, she has a bias, she believes strongly that many top cyclists dope and thus there must be overwhelming evidence that Floyd didn;t dope before she will believe it...that is rightful position and maybe the correct one given cycling's history but not a neutral one .