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?
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.