[D-Queued]

I recall a comment early on about why US media had not picked this story up. Looks like it is now mainstream with a big article in the NY Times as more information is leaking out and Landis and Arnie continue to make headlines. Turns out they were the key to what is now a much bigger investigation:

According to a case file compiled by the investigating judge, Thomas Cassuto, and reviewed by the International Herald Tribune, investigators stumbled on to the case almost by accident, in the wake of a doping scandal at the Tour de France in 2006.

...in November 2006, the French anti-doping agency filed a criminal complaint charging that confidential documents related to Mr. Landis’s drug tests had been stolen and sent to the news media and other labs. The documents had been altered in what lab officials said appeared to have been an effort to discredit or embarrass them by casting doubt on the handling of test samples. Investigators concluded that one such e-mail message was sent from a computer using the same Internet protocol address used by Arnie Baker, then Mr. Landis’s coach.

...They did, however, make use of the pilfered documents in their unsuccessful campaign to overturn Mr. Landis’s cycling ban

...Mr. Quiros initially denied any knowledge of the lab hacking, but when presented with incriminating evidence found on his computer, he confessed, telling investigators he had been paid €2,000 to €3,000, or $2,800 to $4,000, for hacking into the lab

...In the doping lab case, Mr. Dominguez, who has been described in the French media as a photographer with links to French intelligence, told investigators that he had acted only as a middleman, passing on the data he received from Kargus to another man, who has not been located.

Judge Cassuto summoned Mr. Landis and Mr. Baker to Paris in May for questioning, but neither appeared for the hearing.

The judge has the power to issue international arrest warrants for both men, although he has not indicated yet whether he intends to do so.

Mr. Landis did not respond to requests for comment

Maybe Arnie really did have nothing to do with this. Did Will ever have access to Arnie's IP address? Anyone else?

What else might someone might have used Arnie's IP address for?

Dave.

[Chris E]

...
Mr. Landis did not respond to requests for comment[/indent]Maybe Arnie really did have nothing to do with this. Did Will ever have access to Arnie's IP address? Anyone else?

What else might someone might have used Arnie's IP address for?

Dave.

Are you serious?

[D-Queued]

Are you serious?

Somebody isn't telling the truth. Maybe there is a possibility that Arnie is a nice guy after all?

Dave.

[Steve in ATL]

Somebody isn't telling the truth. Maybe there is a possibility that Arnie is a nice guy after all?

Dave.

Maybe. Alternately, someone doesn't understand how easy it is to spoof an IP address.

Maybe. Alternately, someone doesn't understand how easy it is to spoof an IP address.

And on another thought, perhaps the IP was not a static IP, since AOL, and some other ISPs assign IPs dynamically.

[MacRoadie]

Maybe. Alternately, someone doesn't understand how easy it is to spoof an IP address.
And on another thought, perhaps the IP was not a static IP, since AOL, and some other ISPs assign IPs dynamically.

From the article:

The trail, picked up by a special cybercrime unit of the French Interior Ministry, led to a French computer specialist, Alain Quiros. He was caught in Mohammedia, Morocco, and questioned by French and Moroccan officials there (It is not clear from the case file exactly when).

At the (ever present) risk of baiting the French-bashers, wouldn't you think a "special cybercrime unit of the French Interior Ministry" would take those possibilities into account?

This post has been edited by MacRoadie: 03 August 2009 - 12:09 AM

[D-Queued]

Maybe. Alternately, someone doesn't understand how easy it is to spoof an IP address.
And on another thought, perhaps the IP was not a static IP, since AOL, and some other ISPs assign IPs dynamically.

1. Wouldn't you need to know what the IP was to spoof it?

So you are saying that someone started this huge espionage thing, and to throw everyone off the trail the cyber espionage experts decides to steal Floyd's file from the LNDD, using Arnie's IP address to throw the cops off the trail? Gosh,they are devious. How did they even think about using Arnie's address and not Floyd's? Those cyber espionage guys sure are tricky.

And, look, it almost worked... oopsie it backfired. It was the LNDD hack that opened up the whole mess.

Is believeing that it could have been Arnie too pedestrian or something?

2. Boy, you don't have much faith in the experts here do you? They claim that they traced it to Arnie's computer, then maybe they actually took that introduction to computer networking course and already figured out all they need to know about static and dynamic IP addresses.

Even if it was dynamic, you can trace time, etc., right back to where it was assigned. This is not that difficult at all. ISPs used a fixed range of IP addresses, and for spamming, and other cyber-crimes, as well a e-commerce, time of use biling, dynamic software licensing, etc., need to keep track of all of this. If it wasn't, all of the ISPs, let alone e-commerce or any Internet security, would be in big trouble.

Voila, dynamic or static, it was Arnie's IP address!

But, maybe Rock will back Floyd again and let him waste more time and money by taking this to court?

Dave.

[Steve in ATL]

2. Boy, you don't have much faith in the experts here do you?

Sometimes many have too much.

[D-Queued]

Sometimes many have too much.

And... ?

You may or may not have a hate-on for WADA or LNDD, but what does this assersion you have made have to do with this situation?

Dave.

[Steve in ATL]

And... ?

You may or may not have a hate-on for WADA or LNDD, but what does this assersion you have made have to do with this situation?

Dave.

Simply that I have little to no faith in "experts" who would not acknowledge that it was possible to fully spoof an IP address on an e-mail, all the way down to showing it transmitted from a person's computer, provided that they had the right information. I'm not saying that that is what happened here, but you're the one who brought up hope and faith.

On the other note, I don't have a "hate-on" for WADA or the LNDD, at least not to the extent that you may or may not have one for certain riders, however, I have a healthy distrust for organizations who make basic mistakes such as using white-out on laboratory forms in contravention of basic practices, or in organizations that conduct intra-lab verification testing but refuse to disclose the results.

[Surftel]

Maybe. Alternately, someone doesn't understand how easy it is to spoof an IP address.
And on another thought, perhaps the IP was not a static IP, since AOL, and some other ISPs assign IPs dynamically.

True, old school dial up internet like AOL does have dynamic IP's But remember the way they traced his IP is through multiple large files sent to reporters worldwide by Arnie. The possibility that he would be assigned the same IP multiple times over many months is very low. That he was using dial up to send out those big files is hard to believe as well.

The most likely possibility is that Arnie sent those emails with the hacked files.

[D-Queued]

..., I have a healthy distrust for organizations who make basic mistakes such as using white-out on laboratory forms in contravention of basic practices, or in organizations that conduct intra-lab verification testing but refuse to disclose the results.

To focus on whiteout and how the results of audits (or intra-lab verification tests) are released means that you are pusuing the PR strategy and not the defense strategy.

Neither of these is central to the case - and are at best peripheral. Where did the defense contest that the samples tested were not Floyd's? Where did the defense discuss how a failure to disclose intra-lab testing results harmed their client, let alone demonstrate it?

It may appear to be be a subtlety to you and this focus on whiteout and how the results of intra-lab tests are disclosed, but I have a healthy distrust for people that lie, cheat and steal.

We have plenty of evidence on all three here. There is thus far uncontested evidence that documents pertaining to Floyd's file were stolen, and 'adjusted' by someone using Arnie's IP address. That is lying, cheating and stealing.

Where are Jacobs and Suh now?

Dave

This post has been edited by D-Queued: 03 August 2009 - 06:18 AM

[Steve in ATL]

To focus on whiteout and how the results of audits (or intra-lab verification tests) are released means that you are pusuing the PR strategy and not the defense strategy.

Bullsqueeze. Coming from a QA background, these are important issues, as I've pointed out before. Don't try to pigeonhole me, thanks.

True, old school dial up internet like AOL does have dynamic IP's But remember the way they traced his IP is through multiple large files sent to reporters worldwide by Arnie. The possibility that he would be assigned the same IP multiple times over many months is very low. That he was using dial up to send out those big files is hard to believe as well.

The most likely possibility is that Arnie sent those emails with the hacked files.

You would be surprised, then, to know that several ISPs offer dynamic IP assignment on DSL.

[D-Queued]

Bullsqueeze. Coming from a QA background, these are important issues, as I've pointed out before. Don't try to pigeonhole me, thanks.
You would be surprised, then, to know that several ISPs offer dynamic IP assignment on DSL.

Steve, I am not trying to diminish your QA background, but neither of these is a real issue in this case.

Certainly they pale in comparison to corporate espionage.

With the Whiteout, we have a mistake in a lab where the identity of the sample was never in question. This is quite different from what we know in the hacking case, where there was a deliberate attempt to change Floyd's data.

As for dynamic IP addresses, your ISPs have a list of IP addresses that they 'assign'. This is how, when you do an IP trace, or get any sort of web site activity statistics, you can see exactly which ISP the activity came from. The ISPs know exactly which customer is using which address and when. Tracing is really not very difficult at all.

Dave.

[MacRoadie]

Sooner or later, this is going to devolve into "I know you are but what am I?"

[Steve in ATL]

Steve, I am not trying to diminish your QA background, but neither of these is a real issue in this case.

Certainly they pale in comparison to corporate espionage.

With the Whiteout, we have a mistake in a lab where the identity of the sample was never in question. This is quite different from what we know in the hacking case, where there was a deliberate attempt to change Floyd's data.

As for dynamic IP addresses, your ISPs have a list of IP addresses that they 'assign'. This is how, when you do an IP trace, or get any sort of web site activity statistics, you can see exactly which ISP the activity came from. The ISPs know exactly which customer is using which address and when. Tracing is really not very difficult at all.

Dave.

As I have stated before, the whiteout could be indicative of other, deeper issues, which is why any ISO 9000 certification agency would consider it an important issue. We've rowed over that water before.

On the ISP issue, yeah, it's simple when you phrase it that way. Right up until you, for instance, run through a proxy IP server. Then fake the IP address in the message headers. Ooopsie. Yeah, it probably didn't happen, but then, when Vassuer claimed that his signature had been forged, we doubted the police would ever stoop to something that improbable as well.

[Surftel]

You would be surprised, then, to know that several ISPs offer dynamic IP assignment on DSL.

I am not surprised, it is what I do for a living.

Yes, a few DSL and some cable providers do use Dynamic IP's. However they seldom change the address on a daily or even monthly basis.

I suppose there is a small chance someone could have gone through the effort to frame Arnie, but there is zero evidence of this. OTOH there is evidence that Arnie paid a hacker to hack LNDD and then we have Arnie sending out the hacked documents from the same IP address he has used for months.

[Steve in ATL]

I suppose there is a small chance someone could have gone through the effort to frame Arnie, but there is zero evidence of this...

And if the hacker were good enough, there never would be. That's the point.

[Surftel]

And if the hacker were good enough, there never would be. That's the point.

How do you know it was a hacker that framed Arnie? It could have been a space alien or a well trained Sasquatch (They are supposed to be very smart)

[Steve in ATL]

How do you know it was a hacker that framed Arnie? It could have been a space alien or a well trained Sasquatch (They are supposed to be very smart)

Setting aside the fact that it can be proven that hackers exist (and we already know that hacking was taking place), as I've said, I don't. How do you know Arnie did it? Because someone told you?

[MacRoadie]

Setting aside the fact that it can be proven that hackers exist (and we already know that hacking was taking place), as I've said, I don't. How do you know Arnie did it? Because someone told you?

It was probably Ron Keifel. We don't have proof on sasquatch, but we know of at least one Wookie...