[swimyouidiot]

Maybe you are a troll, maybe not.

That wasn't the point, and you know it. The point was that your reference to Pound was a troll, and you know it.

I do read your posts, because even if I have fundamental disagreements I do find your comments of interest.

You have gone from trying to use Dick Pound as a lightning rod to justifying the use of the term 'witch hunt'. That is an even bigger troll, and, if you read what you wrote, an even bigger farce.

Omerta as an anology does fit. Ludwig having just provided yet another excellent rationale for why it works.

Nobody was using spectre evidence against Floyd. Your point is specious. Unless, of course, it is the spectre or, rather, spectacle of Will.

And, when we are talking about hard evidence or shut up, then why don't you do us all a favor and cut the bull#### pseudo science arguments. Err, follow your own rules?

Dave.

I'll let my previous comments stand. I was not trying to be inflammatory with the comments about Dick Pound or witch hunts. Others will have to decide their value.

Dave, if you still think the arguments against Floyd's guilt are "pseudo science," then I have to conclude you stopped trying to understand the science of the case long ago. If you are talking specifically about my dexamethasone and methylprednisolone arguments, then your comment is understandable. There is one key piece of information lacking from that argument, which is whether the metabolites of dexa and methyl would elute anywhere near 5aA under the chromatographic conditions of Floyd's tests. I have tried, through what's available on online, at my local med school, and through emails to people who might know, unsuccessfully to find out that bit of information. I have presented what is possible. If the metabolites of dexa and/or methyl elute anywhere near 5aA under the chromatographic conditions of Floyd's tests, then it is a highly plausible explanation for the results of his tests.

At minimum, the salient fact is that LNDD never produced the complete mass spec data for the peaks of interest. After trying to understand this for a year, I understand now exactly why that is so important. It's old news, but I repeat, without the complete mass spec data they have not proven that they measured ONLY 5aA in that peak in the IRMS. I believe TD2003IDCR requires them produce that information, but that is the legal issue, not the science.

Peace

[D-Queued]

... If you are talking specifically about my dexamethasone and methylprednisolone arguments, then your comment is understandable.
...
Peace

As that is the most recent subject, then that would have to be what I am talking about.

Thanks for confirming.

Base upon Part 3, however, it looks like Floyd has again proven for you that he is no stranger to perpetuating junk science.

Dave.

[swimyouidiot]

Here is Part 3.

http://beta.velonews.com/article/71317

Floyd interprets tests and science. I got lost.

The general point he was making about margin of error was fine. I just haven't been able to figure out which results he was talking about from his tests.

As best I can tell, he was either talking about the CIR measurements of the internal standard, or that the reprocessing of the electronic data files didn't yield the same results. The former seems more likely based on what he said. But I don't think that is a very good argument. It would be much harder to get consistent results with the deeply sloping base line and closely bunch peaks at the beginning of the chromatogram, than it would later where things have settled down more. I'm not defending their work - I think the chromatograms SHOULD be much cleaner, even in this early section. But it still doesn't have much to do with the reading of the 5aA number, as I understand it.

But, then, maybe he was talking about something else altogether.

Peace

[admt]

[OAR]

[one-mint-julich]

The Moninger case has been rehashed here before.

Papp was called to testify because part of Floyd's case was based on the premise that testosterone is not performance enhancing, and therefore riders would not take it. Papp confirmed that riders do take it.

I don't recall a technician saying her margin of error in the IRMS was 1.2 or 1.6, or whatever, though i did not follow all the testimony that closely.

I thought Floyd's discussion of the margin of error was understandable and fair, up to a point. Then he says this:

"Relatively speaking, my example is in no way directly comparable to the way that test works, just in a matter of numbers. But relatively speaking, what they did was say, this has to come out between 3 and 7, because we assume it’s 5, and our margin of error means it can be plus or minus 2. Their [known negative sample] came out to 7.4 and 1.3, but they said, well, whatever, that’s close enough. No, that’s not close enough...They knew the answer should be 5, and they knew the machine has variations, the answer is never going to just be 5, sometimes its 6, sometimes its 4, sometimes its 7, sometimes its 3, but that is the range we are aiming at, and we know the machine is working and we get that. But when you get 7.4 your machine is not working. And that is what they based their measurements on."

He's saying the IRMS values of the control urine samples were not within the expected range. That's news to me. The values as presented in Floyd's documents were a little skewed negative, but this has been found in other studies, and the key point is that the iRMS values of Floyd's samples were far more negative. In the case of 5a, far beyond any margin of error.

[OAR]

The Moninger case has been rehashed here before.

Papp was called to testify because part of Floyd's case was based on the premise that testosterone is not performance enhancing, and therefore riders would not take it. Papp confirmed that riders do take it.

I don't recall a technician saying her margin of error in the IRMS was 1.2 or 1.6, or whatever, though i did not follow all the testimony that closely.

I thought Floyd's discussion of the margin of error was understandable and fair, up to a point. Then he says this:

"Relatively speaking, my example is in no way directly comparable to the way that test works, just in a matter of numbers. But relatively speaking, what they did was say, this has to come out between 3 and 7, because we assume it’s 5, and our margin of error means it can be plus or minus 2. Their [known negative sample] came out to 7.4 and 1.3, but they said, well, whatever, that’s close enough. No, that’s not close enough...They knew the answer should be 5, and they knew the machine has variations, the answer is never going to just be 5, sometimes its 6, sometimes its 4, sometimes its 7, sometimes its 3, but that is the range we are aiming at, and we know the machine is working and we get that. But when you get 7.4 your machine is not working. And that is what they based their measurements on."

He's saying the IRMS values of the control urine samples were not within the expected range. That's news to me. The values as presented in Floyd's documents were a little skewed negative, but this has been found in other studies, and the key point is that the iRMS values of Floyd's samples were far more negative. In the case of 5a, far beyond any margin of error.

my knee hurts