[vanishingPoint]

I think Landis lost because the test results were compelling. I think his lawyers bad tactics gave him no chance to overcome those compelling results.

That argument is for those who've already bought the loud, fat, arrogant, cheating, american cliche. Maybe CAS needed a translator to get to "what" was said rather than "how" it was said.

[Old Runner Guy]

you are right. all the dopers are idiots for doping since if has no positive effects and they risk their careers.

No, you suggested the S17 win by 8 minutes was due to Landis rubbing some T gel on his chest. I asked if you thought t gel would make than much difference in one stage?

[one-mint-julich]

In the meantime, can you show me another doping conviction anywhere that gets world-recognized experts in the field of forensic science to devote this much energy to explain to their peers how this decision was all wrong and what they can learn from the mistakes? I thought the AAA and CAS said their was nothing wrong with the science.

Tyler Hamilton's case comes close. Certainly he had renowned experts testifying on his behalf, and arguing even after the decision was handed down that justice was not done. And is with Floyd's case, other experts shot some holes in the points made by Tyler's advisors. No seminars called "Bad Science" that I'm aware of, but if Tyler had gone the Wiki route, we might well have seen such.

But I find it a little strange that you even ask this question. If, as you imply, Floyd's case is absolutely unique in that it has gotten some (by no means all or even a majority of) experts to disagree with the outcome, doesn't that speak pretty well of the WADA that you claim Floyd's supporters want "to bring down". Only one case that renowned experts disagree with? Sounds like a damned good track record to me.

[frenchfry]

If it makes you feel better keep saying that to yourself. (remember my position is I don't know and the science in this case was so bad nobody knows so he should have been not guilty.)

In the meantime, can you show me another doping conviction anywhere that gets world-recognized experts in the field of forensic science to devote this much energy to explain to their peers how this decision was all wrong and what they can learn from the mistakes? I thought the AAA and CAS said their was nothing wrong with the science.

The name Geneviève Jeanson comes to mind. She had some kind of expert that volunteered his time to show how "science" proved her innocence.

OOps, bad example. She was convicted of doping and even finished by confessing the obvious.

Sometimes experts aren't what they seem to be.

[D-Queued]

My, such sloppiness and incompetence. The LNDD never announced anything, nor was the information that it was Floyd ever leaked to the press, either. And just in general terms, no drug testing lab ever "announces" that so and so failed a drug test. Ever.

Surely then the results can't be trusted if they get such simple and basic information wrong? God only know's what else they've screwed up.

It is an interesting opportunity for discussion in what is a pretty dry field.

ORG has aligned two different quotes here, effectivley putting words in the mouth opf Goldberger.

In a publish or perish environment, Goldberger is taking advantage of his 15 minutes for clear personal gain. At least someone from the Floyd camp can have a direct career benefit. In his case, accuracy doesn't really matter -- this is about 'credentials' and getting the next research grant. In academia, if you don't have anything profound to add to the body of knowledge, there is always room to promote controversy and challenge norms.

Laurence Peter, 'The Peter Principle' said it best.

Paraphrasing: The reason that there is so much infighting in academia is because there is so little to be gained...

Alternately,

"Education is a method whereby one acquires a higher grade of prejudices."

He also coined the DPF mantra:

"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance."

Dave.

[frenchfry]

My, such sloppiness and incompetence. The LNDD never announced anything, nor was the information that it was Floyd ever leaked to the press, either. And just in general terms, no drug testing lab ever "announces" that so and so failed a drug test. Ever.

Surely then the results can't be trusted if they get such simple and basic information wrong? God only know's what else they've screwed up.

I had exactly the same reaction.

ORG repeatedly says that Floyd's A positive was made public by a leak, when as I recall it was announced by Phonak (who by then had a lot of experience dealing with positives within their team). Tehy may have said that they made the positive public to beat any leaks, but I don't think any actual leak did occur in this case. Correct me if I am wrong.

You are right Velo, for so called "experts" to kick off a supposed conference using misinformation is a good indicator of what is to follow.

[sundaymorning]

That argument is for those who've already bought the loud, fat, arrogant, cheating, american cliche. Maybe CAS needed a translator to get to "what" was said rather than "how" it was said.

Don't paint me with that brush. This has nothing to do with anybody being from the US.

You'd think that Howard Jacobs, being such a veteran in these matters, would have figured out how to focus his effort. You'd think he would hire at least one expert who could illuminate problems with the lab standards this whole shebang is about. You'd think he would not waste so much time on grandstanding, maybe that would work better before juries. You'd think Maurice Suh wouldn't begin his opening statements in the CAS hearing with an argument about an internal standard that had been proved false by multiple witnesses at the AAA hearing. You'd think he would give Floyd a sensible campaign that gave him the best chance to win.

This post has been edited by sundaymorning: 03 July 2008 - 03:07 PM

[frenchfry]

ORG, Your posts are much appreciated. The french could sniff out synthetic T in a truffle.

In fact we use dogs for that. Wouldn't that be interesting, Fido could have a go at the family jewels.

[Old Runner Guy]

It is an interesting opportunity for discussion in what is a pretty dry field.

In a publish or perish environment, Goldberger is taking advantage of his 15 minutes for clear personal gain. At least someone from the Floyd camp can have a direct career benefit. In his case, accuracy doesn't really matter -- this is about 'credentials' and getting the next research grant. In academia, if you don't have anything profound to add to the body of knowledge, there is always room to promote controversy and challenge norms.

Surely you are not ignorant enough to think that Goldberger testifying for Landis constitues his 15 minutes of fame?

And, ragarding your argument, doesn't it apply multiple thime over the WADA's "star" expert Brenna? A guy that has a seven figure WADA grant and charged more per hour than any one else.

I had exactly the same reaction.

ORG repeatedly says that Floyd's A positive was made public by a leak, when as I recall it was announced by Phonak (who by then had a lot of experience dealing with positives within their team). Tehy may have said that they made the positive public to beat any leaks, but I don't think any actual leak did occur in this case. Correct me if I am wrong.
You are right Velo, for so called "experts" to kick off a supposed conference using misinformation is a good indicator of what is to follow.

The media leak came from either the lab or the UCI (not sure if this has been settled). Phonak had many many reporters calling about it. At that point it was out and going to get published even if they denied so they decided to confirm and clarify. They did not initiate it.



Regarding the flyer for the conference, why don't you hold the LNDD to the same standard?

[D-Queued]

Surely you are not ignorant enough to think that Goldberger testifying for Landis constitues his 15 minutes of fame?

And, ragarding your argument, doesn't it apply multiple thime over the WADA's "star" expert Brenna? A guy that has a seven figure WADA grant and charged more per hour than any one else.


The media leak came from either the lab or the UCI (not sure if this has been settled). Phonak had many many reporters calling about it. At that point it was out and going to get published even if they denied so they decided to confirm and clarify. They did not initiate it.



Regarding the flyer for the conference, why don't you hold the LNDD to the same standard?

Are you promoting that you are an expert on ignorance?

Is Brenna speaking at the same conference as Goldberger? What is the title of his paper?

But, you are probably right. Rather than try and get podium building on his credentials as star witness for the doping trial of the century, he is probably more apt to tell his friends that he was in the court room when they exposed Will for calling LeMond. Now that would be a real leverage of 'fame'. Sorry, maybe I was getting confused with 'infamy'.

Get your facts straight: The 'leak' was an official announcement from his team.

Dave.

[frenchfry]

...
The media leak came from either the lab or the UCI (not sure if this has been settled). Phonak had many many reporters calling about it. At that point it was out and going to get published even if they denied so they decided to confirm and clarify. They did not initiate it.
...

The UCI announced that there was an "adverse analytical finding following an anti-doping test carried out at the Tour de France 2006." There was no name mentioned. I believe this is standard procedure.

The same day, Phonak announced that the adverse finding was Landis. My understanding is that because Landis withdrew from several lucrative post-Tour criteriums, Phonak realised that the situation would soon be public knowledge anyway.

At no time did the lab, the UCI, or the press leak the information.

Keep on spouting this nonsense anyhow, quite honestly I don't think anyone but me is listening (and D-Queued who is only looking for fodder to increase his post count).

[N.B.O.L.]

The UCI announced that there was an "adverse analytical finding following an anti-doping test carried out at the Tour de France 2006." There was no name mentioned. I believe this is standard procedure.

Your right, there was no name mentioned. Patty just said, "and it's a worst case scenario." What could he have possible meant by that, "Oh, my good we've lost our Lanterne Rouge "?

Edit: Because you should ckeck spelling even when you cut and paste.

This post has been edited by N.B.O.L.: 03 July 2008 - 04:07 PM

[smug]

No, you suggested the S17 win by 8 minutes was due to Landis rubbing some T gel on his chest. I asked if you thought t gel would make than much difference in one stage?

not really, but maybe it helped him create the gap in the first place or some other role. if he did that clean, the most remarkable performance I've ever witnessed, than nobody needs to dope.

[MacRoadie]

Your right, there was no name mentioned. Patty just said, "and it's a worst case scenario." What could he have possible meant by that, "Oh, my good we've lost our Lantern rogue"?

Well, as a matter of fact, they had just lost their "rogue".

"Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud."

This post has been edited by MacRoadie: 03 July 2008 - 04:21 PM

[fab]

How many media leaks to l'equipe of A-samples have their been from the LNDD?

It's funny... Always the same... lab has no name linked to samples, especially for A sample!
The leaks can only be done by people able to match a sample with a name... like UCI, WADA !

Who are the opponent to the washer Verdrugen inside UCI?

No, you suggested the S17 win by 8 minutes was due to Landis rubbing some T gel on his chest. I asked if you thought t gel would make than much difference in one stage?

Maybe it would be good to revisit his blood values...

[Old Runner Guy]

not really, but maybe it helped him create the gap in the first place or some other role. if he did that clean, the most remarkable performance I've ever witnessed, than nobody needs to dope.

So you're guessing. Try page 80 here:

http://arniebakercycling.com/floyd/book_ma...fense%202.0.pdf

His power output was not extraordinary. S17 was not about a superhuman effort. It was about the bad tactics of the other teams in letting him go too far. Liggett and Sherwin had repeatedly said this.

This post has been edited by Old Runner Guy: 03 July 2008 - 04:08 PM

[N.B.O.L.]

Well, as a metter of fact, they had just lost their "rogue".

"Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud."

[smug]

So you're guessing. Try page 80 here:

http://arniebakercycling.com/floyd/book_ma...fense%202.0.pdf

His power output was not extraordinary. S17 was not about a superhuman effort. It was about the bad tactics of the other teams in letting him go too far. Liggett and Sherwin had repeatedly said this.

not really guessing. i'm also basing it on that he failed a doping test, which even the revenerable gibson dunn can't overturn.

This post has been edited by smug: 03 July 2008 - 04:09 PM

[Velo]

No, you suggested the S17 win by 8 minutes was due to Landis rubbing some T gel on his chest. I asked if you thought t gel would make than much difference in one stage?

St 17 was won by Landis using EPO or undergoing a blood transfusion during the Tour itself, as evidenced by his increasing hematocrit and hemoglobin levels two days before the start of the Tour (44. 8 and 15.5, respectively) to after the 10th stage (48.2 and 16.1). Testosterone was just what he got caught for.

This post has been edited by Velo: 03 July 2008 - 04:31 PM

[fab]

So you're guessing. Try page 80 here:

http://arniebakercycling.com/floyd/book_ma...fense%202.0.pdf

His power output was not extraordinary. S17 was not about a superhuman effort. It was about the bad tactics of the other teams in letting him go too far. Liggett and Sherwin had repeatedly said this.

Yes Will could have said the same!

But is it normal to do a so extraordinary come back after a such bonk?

Could we have confidence in the average wattage provided by Landis' boys?

Even after Pyerenees and before the famous 17 stage, cyclismag is very suspicious about Landis' performance, they said that without the 'top" riders like Vino, Ullrich,...the power is the same...
http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2445