QUOTE(D-Queued @ Jul 3 2008, 09:58 AM)
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.
QUOTE(frenchfry @ Jul 3 2008, 10:02 AM)
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?