[fab]

We just know:
- hacking of LNDD was ordered,
- hacked documents were used
- IP Arnie Baker was used.

Who has interest to hack LNDD?

If it were a big conspiracy, why that revelation did come so late? It were better if it has occured just before Landis' hearing. So I don't believe in a big conspiracy of aliens.

Who has used Arnie's IP? Everyone who was in Arnie's house or who hacked his WIFI connexion ( return to aliens' conspiracy : why do they send LNDD forged documents? Why do they need Arnie's connexion? )

Maybe someone else had ordered the hacking and had sent anonymously the documents to Arnie, then he duplicate themn and re-sent them everywhere. But why was he silent after LNDD was known?

[D-Queued]

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?

We don't know if Arnie did it. We do know that his IP address was involved. And, yes, we know that because someone told us.

And, since you won't listen to a couple of experts on the subject, let's set aside the first principle argument(s) on IP traceability and dynamic versus static IP addresses for now.

Arnie runs a web site (www.arniebakercycling.com - Hello?) and an e-commerce activity. He almost certainly has a static IP address.

Oddly, in some sort of really weird and surreal 'truth is stranger than fiction' scenario, you can now get a copy of his latest book entitled: The Wiki Defense 2.0: How the French Lab (LNDD) & US Anti-Doping Agency Failed. Complete with "20+ Fraudulent Documents/False Statements From LNDD/USADA"

Wouldn't it be strange if some of his alleged fraudulent documents are actually fraudulent as suggested by the case before the French Courts where Arnie's IP address is implicated in an attempted fraud? Fortunately for Arnie, perhaps, his book is free and that fact may be a good defense if someone were to try and suggest he personally profited from the attempt(s) to falsify the LNDD documents.

But, maybe you are right.

Maybe it was a wookie that framed him, or maybe a sasquatch. Maybe both!

Lo and behold, I read on MSNBC the other day that someone actually proved that Obama was born in the US and wasn't the child of some space alien. Now that was a pretty good conspiracy theory - his mother secretly planned to have her unconceived child become president of the United States, and just to mess everyone up gave birth on 'alien' soil and faked the birth certificate. Sure, that happens all the time. Someone better start looking into the background of that Abe Lincoln guy, 'cuz maybe he wasn't legit. How do we know that Honest Abe was honest? Maybe he was really some sort of commie. He sure looks like a hippie. (yes, this is sarcasm)

I guess if people believe that kind of conspiracy, then they will believe that someone spoofed Arnie's IP address just after the multiple choice excuses, but well before the Willcapades and apparent attempted witness tampering, the Fools for Floyd and its false pretenses and its absurd (later modified after some DPF poster pointed out the absurdity) arguments, the 'Call your Congressman' nonsense, the threats on DPF, the 'Groundhog Day' appeal after appeal, the spin doctoring on the hearing, the Wiki defense, the TBF zealots - or the book Postively False (which, oddly enough, does neatly summarize Floyd's grounds for contesting his AAF and suspension and/or his multiple brain-dead excuses).

And, if you don't believe that Arnie would be dumb enough not to mask his IP address, then please take a look at his web site and assess his sophistication. Or, perhaps you can just tell us why Will was dumb enough not to block his cell number when he called LeMond? The evidence before us suggests that these guys really are not very electronically sophisticated - and definitely have a difficult time separating right from wrong.

Yup, that was anything but a series of sleazy acts, extreme spin doctoring, cutting a few ethical corners, or questionable actions by the Floyd camp. Nothing at all to suggest any sort of predictable pattern.

You will have to excuse some of us who might actually consider this to appear more like the best example yet in athlete doping of 'Oh what a tangled web we weave'. Even extreme from a doping in cycling perspective. The twins cannot compete with Wikigate.

Doesn't it look like someone took the proposal to Floyd from Lance to 'ride like you stole something' proposal too much to heart here, and actually did try and steal something? That Lance is a pretty smart fella to know what button to push.

But, the question that I would really like to know the answer to is this:
If it was Arnie, or someone else in the Floyd camp that used Arnie's IP address, that made contact with these cyber-espionage guys, where did they actually get the connection/reference to the cyber-crooks from? Who has a connection to these guys that the Floyd camp would have access to? What is the nature of that connection, and how was it obtained? Have they ever sought out their services before to hack into anyone else's computer?

Dave.

[Steve in ATL]

We don't know if Arnie did it. We do know that his IP address was involved. And, yes, we know that because someone told us.

And, since you won't listen to a couple of experts on the subject, let's set aside the first principle argument(s) on IP traceability and dynamic versus static IP addresses for now.

Arnie runs a web site (www.arniebakercycling.com - Hello?) and an e-commerce activity. He almost certainly has a static IP address.

Surftel I'll listen to as an expert, possibly. But after typing this and noting the leaps gaps in logic here, I wouldn't count you as one if you are the other in the "couple of experts." That's setting aside the fact that I am perfectly willing to listen to you, but you seem totally unable or unwilling to listen to me, since your mind is already made up.

[Surftel]

Arnie's website is hosted by these guys. http://www.enduranceinternational.com

It is pretty easy to high jack a wifi connection, but to do it multiple times? I think Arnie would get suspicious of somebody parking outside his house looking at a laptop.

Spoofing an IP is *rather* simple....but so is figuring out if it has been spoofed or not, it takes about 30 seconds and you can see the routers the email passed through.

The most likely possibility is Ron Keifel.

[D-Queued]

Surftel I'll listen to as an expert, possibly. But after typing this and noting the leaps gaps in logic here, I wouldn't count you as one if you are the other in the "couple of experts." That's setting aside the fact that I am perfectly willing to listen to you, but you seem totally unable or unwilling to listen to me, since your mind is already made up.

Look, Steve, I have never claimed to be any kind of an expert on anything. Typically, my posts and criticisms are based on logic and/or Internet searching to cite the expertise of others. If you want to question my credibility on anything related to IP addresses - which you are free to - no problem. Unlike Surftel, I don't work in that area any more. Not for at least a year or two now. But, if you want citations, feel free to inbox me.

WRT whiteout - Please go back and look at my posting record. I agree with you that whiteout should not be used (I took surveying in college, and erasure is verbotten). I do not necessarily agree with your desire to have tests between labs made public. These are not public institutions. Though, I do agree with your sentiment on this.

If my mind is made up, then why do I keep asking questions?

If we are going to listen to each other, then can we stay on topic here?

The topic is the LNDD hacking, and Arnie's IP address. The topic is not whiteout. Sorry, but the whiteout issue was part of the Wiki PR strategy, and not the defense. As such, my apologies, but the whiteout issue can make me see red, as in red herring. I am sure that there are many other threads on whiteout.

If there is a linkage between the whiteout issue and the LNDD hacking, it must be that the hacked documents sent from Arnie's IP address had the whiteout change made. Maybe the person sending the hacked documents was the one that used the whiteout.

Otherwise, what is the connection between the whiteout and this thread topic?

Dave.

[MacRoadie]

I still haven't heard a rational explanation as to how these questions wouldn't already have been addressed, especially by a special cybercrime unit of the French government.

If a bunch of so-called or self-avowed "experts" (no offense to anyone) on an internet cycling forum can posit these questions, wouldn't a government unit whose very purpose is the investigation of cybercrimes not already have ruled these possibilities out?

Just askin....

[dbrower]

My understanding is that Baker's purported IP address has only come up in the context of things sent out, not in the context of the original hack. These things seem to get conflated quite a lot, but they are different.

-dB

[patrick]

My understanding is that Baker's purported IP address has only come up in the context of things sent out, not in the context of the original hack. These things seem to get conflated quite a lot, but they are different.

-dB

well that's a little different

[Steve in ATL]

I still haven't heard a rational explanation as to how these questions wouldn't already have been addressed, especially by a special cybercrime unit of the French government.

If a bunch of so-called or self-avowed "experts" (no offense to anyone) on an internet cycling forum can posit these questions, wouldn't a government unit whose very purpose is the investigation of cybercrimes not already have ruled these possibilities out?

Just askin....

The simplest one would have been if someone found out Dr. Baker's password for the mail account connected to his website. Telnet through a proxy IP that spoofs a local IP for Baker's area (even easier if Baker's home uses a static IP) and then log in using a webmail client. Send a e-mail using the webmail client that most re-hosters use, and it will look exactly as if Baker had logged in and sent an e-mail.

It works because it's been done before.

Improbable, yes. Impossible? No.

[MacRoadie]

The simplest one would have been if someone found out Dr. Baker's password for the mail account connected to his website. Telnet through a proxy IP that spoofs a local IP for Baker's area (even easier if Baker's home uses a static IP) and then log in using a webmail client. Send a e-mail using the webmail client that most re-hosters use, and it will look exactly as if Baker had logged in and sent an e-mail.

It works because it's been done before.

Improbable, yes. Impossible? No.

I'm not saying any of this COULDN'T be done. I'm asking if it can be done so easily, and if even non-experts know how it can be done, wouldn't a special government cybercrime unit start their investigation by immediately ruling out these obvious (or possibly not so obvious as they probably know more than the average bear) possibilities?

[Steve in ATL]

I'm not saying any of this COULDN'T be done. I'm asking if it can be done so easily, and if even non-experts know how it can be done, wouldn't a special government cybercrime unit start their investigation by immediately ruling out these obvious (or possibly not so obvious as they probably know more than the average bear) possibilities?

The tools to do it are rather complex and obscure, but they exist. For some (investigate "4chan" sometime), it's a game of one-upsmanship that is played continuously on the web. This site has been vandalized previously (2x) by people playing games like that...

[Surftel]

The tools to do it are rather complex and obscure, but they exist. For some (investigate "4chan" sometime), it's a game of one-upsmanship that is played continuously on the web. This site has been vandalized previously (2x) by people playing games like that...

You had to introduce these guys to 4chan.....not good. I can only image what OAR is going to get up to.

The simplest one would have been if someone found out Dr. Baker's password for the mail account connected to his website. Telnet through a proxy IP that spoofs a local IP for Baker's area (even easier if Baker's home uses a static IP) and then log in using a webmail client. Send a e-mail using the webmail client that most re-hosters use, and it will look exactly as if Baker had logged in and sent an e-mail.

It works because it's been done before.

Improbable, yes. Impossible? No.

The Telnet part, I am not so sure. the rest certainly possible.

This post has been edited by Surftel: 04 August 2009 - 12:34 AM

[dbrower]

well that's a little different

No, it's a lot different. I guess I have to spell it out.

If Baker's IP is involved in contacting the hacker to start the hack, that is one thing.

If Baker has received information from unknown sources and passed it on in a way that uses his IP, that is something else entirely.

The former involves possibly illegal activity; the latter does not involve any illegality.

Presenting these as being the same is a conflation that confuses the issue rather than illuminating the likelihood of criminal activity..

I don't buy the IP spoofing theory -- it can be done, but it seems very complicated. It's more likely to me that Baker sent something out with his address, which is consistent with his statements that he got them from an anonymous source.

We have not heard anything that ties Baker's IP to anything earlier than the initial report that Labs had received something; this is consistent with the theory he was only involved with distribution. We have not seen anything like a timeline that indicates where and when Baker's IP came to anyone's attention, or in what context.

I suspect those putting the story of the investigation out are being parsimonious with the facts to leave the impression Baker is involved somehow in the initial hack. Yet there have not been, to anyone's public knowledge, any formal invitations, warrants, subpoenas, extradition or deposition requests of any merit made. If there was concrete evidence associating Baker with the initial hack, one might have expected something along those lines.

The "invitation" given Baker in email is not a formal notification that anyone would be obliged to respond to, yet he did seek clarification, and that was spun as if there was something like a "court date" that he was skipping. If the police in a city across the country email you an invitation for an interview, you probably disregard it unless is it properly served and held up by competent local authority.

It does seem likely that if Baker travelled to France he would be invited to answer some official questions. There's no way of knowing from the outside if that would be grounded or limited by fact, or would be a fishing expedition for something else.

And I'd guess the same holds true for Landis.

It's hard to believe there aren't officials in France who would love to get Floyd in for questioning, hoping that he could be interrogated and made to spill any beans he may have, trapped in some perjurious contradiction, or worked to say something that he'd prefer to be confidential that would be leaked and used against him -- For instance, about someone's sexual preferences or how his feelings about some sacred cow, like stinky cheese. And the opportunity for "unintentional" awkward and embarrassing translation would also be present, witness the mangling of Contador's comments about Armstrong. Such twisting can happen at the time of questioning and whenever anything leaked or released.

I might suspect the apparent confusion about Baker's involvement could partly be a tactic to discourage Landis from returning to France until it all blows over -- perhaps conveniently after he is too old to meaningfully race there.

Please note that I am not making any truth claims about anyone's involvement or culpability in anything in the above, nor engaging in ad-hominem discussion about people here or the agencies involved. There may or may not be any connection between Baker, Landis, and the original hack. It does seem to provide a pretext for continuing to make things uncomfortable for Baker and Landis. Depending on your positions on other matters, you may or may not view this as karmically appropriate, and I'm not going to change anybody's mind about any of that here.

-dB

[Surftel]

No, it's a lot different. I guess I have to spell it out.

If Baker's IP is involved in contacting the hacker to start the hack, that is one thing.

If Baker has received information from unknown sources and passed it on in a way that uses his IP, that is something else entirely.

The former involves possibly illegal activity; the latter does not involve any illegality.

Presenting these as being the same is a conflation that confuses the issue rather than illuminating the likelihood of criminal activity..

I don't buy the IP spoofing theory -- it can be done, but it seems very complicated. It's more likely to me that Baker sent something out with his address, which is consistent with his statements that he got them from an anonymous source.

We have not heard anything that ties Baker's IP to anything earlier than the initial report that Labs had received something; this is consistent with the theory he was only involved with distribution. We have not seen anything like a timeline that indicates where and when Baker's IP came to anyone's attention, or in what context.

I suspect those putting the story of the investigation out are being parsimonious with the facts to leave the impression Baker is involved somehow in the initial hack. Yet there have not been, to anyone's public knowledge, any formal invitations, warrants, subpoenas, extradition or deposition requests of any merit made. If there was concrete evidence associating Baker with the initial hack, one might have expected something along those lines.

The "invitation" given Baker in email is not a formal notification that anyone would be obliged to respond to, yet he did seek clarification, and that was spun as if there was something like a "court date" that he was skipping. If the police in a city across the country email you an invitation for an interview, you probably disregard it unless is it properly served and held up by competent local authority.

It does seem likely that if Baker travelled to France he would be invited to answer some official questions. There's no way of knowing from the outside if that would be grounded or limited by fact, or would be a fishing expedition for something else.

And I'd guess the same holds true for Landis.

It's hard to believe there aren't officials in France who would love to get Floyd in for questioning, hoping that he could be interrogated and made to spill any beans he may have, trapped in some perjurious contradiction, or worked to say something that he'd prefer to be confidential that would be leaked and used against him -- For instance, about someone's sexual preferences or how his feelings about some sacred cow, like stinky cheese. And the opportunity for "unintentional" awkward and embarrassing translation would also be present, witness the mangling of Contador's comments about Armstrong. Such twisting can happen at the time of questioning and whenever anything leaked or released.

I might suspect the apparent confusion about Baker's involvement could partly be a tactic to discourage Landis from returning to France until it all blows over -- perhaps conveniently after he is too old to meaningfully race there.

Please note that I am not making any truth claims about anyone's involvement or culpability in anything in the above, nor engaging in ad-hominem discussion about people here or the agencies involved. There may or may not be any connection between Baker, Landis, and the original hack. It does seem to provide a pretext for continuing to make things uncomfortable for Baker and Landis. Depending on your positions on other matters, you may or may not view this as karmically appropriate, and I'm not going to change anybody's mind about any of that here.

-dB

Why is it every time Floyd, or one of Floyd's boys, screws up it is because of a French conspiracy?

[MacRoadie]

The tools to do it are rather complex and obscure, but they exist. For some (investigate "4chan" sometime), it's a game of one-upsmanship that is played continuously on the web. This site has been vandalized previously (2x) by people playing games like that...

Too complex and obscure for a high-level government agency specializing in cyber crimes to identify (or even consider the possibility)?

I must be really dense, but I still don't see how the possibility that the IP address was faked hasn't been investigated already and if it has, why they are still considering Baker as part of the investigation(unless it really was traced back to his computer).

I keep getting told how easy it is, or how many ways there are to do it, which is fine and dandy. Nobody seems the least bit curious as to why the French government seems satisfied that the IP address was legit.

[dbrower]

Why is it every time Floyd, or one of Floyd's boys, screws up it is because of a French conspiracy?

Legal strategy is not a conspiracy, please don't throw mud.

If Landis/Baker are involved what is being done by the Authorities is justified, if perhaps weak because of lack of formal requests. If their involvement is not known, the same may be true. If they are not involved in the hack, and this is known, then official obtuseness to that might be payback. But we are unlikely to know the state of mind of the investigators, so give them the benefit of doubt.

Since no one here knows, then it's probably right to think it would be appropriate for the Authorities to want to question Baker and Landis given an opportunity. That formal steps have not been pursued so far raises questions how seriously their potential involvement is taken, whether it is really being pursued, and what strategy is being employed.

If I were investigating and had probable cause that would withstand scrutiny, I may have gone after them formally by now. Why hasn't that happened? We don't know.

Let me repeat, I don't buy the IP spoofing theory -- that seems too complicated and conspiratorial. I do question when, where and in what context Baker's IP turned up.

-dB

[D-Queued]

Why is it every time Floyd, or one of Floyd's boys, screws up it is because of a French conspiracy?

Exactly

...

It's hard to believe there aren't officials in France who would love to get Floyd in for questioning, hoping that he could be interrogated and made to spill any beans he may have, trapped in some perjurious contradiction, or worked to say something that he'd prefer to be confidential that would be leaked and used against him -- For instance, about someone's sexual preferences or how his feelings about some sacred cow, like stinky cheese. And the opportunity for "unintentional" awkward and embarrassing translation would also be present, witness the mangling of Contador's comments about Armstrong. Such twisting can happen at the time of questioning and whenever anything leaked or released.

...

That may or may no be hard for you to believe.

Oddly, there are some of us that may not find it so hard to believe you would promote this kind of conspiracy nonsense here on DPF.

Questions about sexual preferences? Sacred cows? Stinky cheese?

C'mon db, isn't this just more ridiculous spin doctoring and thinly disguised French-bashing designed to try and further the PR strategy?

And, if a police jurisdiction sent me an email, I don't think I would ignore it - though I might consult with an attorney first. But, since you mentioned legal strategy, is this what you, and the folks at trustbut, would recommend as legal strategy?

BTW - speaking of which, I thought your website was 'closed'?

"CLOSED 31-DEC-2008"

Why are you still promoting it? Odd, again, that I would be the one suggesting that this ain't over until it's over.

I definitely agree with you on at least one point, however. I too would like to know "when, where and in what context Baker's IP turned up." Then we can discuss what is a legal or an illegal act.

Dave.

[fab]

Even if Arnie Baker had received the documents from an unknown souce, by using stolen documents and by changing them, he had probably violated some US laws.
At least, before using them to his own profit he should have verified their authenticities.

Some of the documents, especially the letters, sent to labs and to thers were clearly forgeries. We can have doubt that a french could have forged them in a way to damage his own result.

It has been reported earlier than Arnie Baker has been officially invited to testify about the hacking, it's the first step of the legal procedure.

To believe that all of that is done to discourage Landis to race in France it's really an ab hominem attack, it's a will to put discredit on a lot of people without any little clue. That doping case is not the center of universe, even not the center of TDF now.

[Steve in ATL]

Too complex and obscure for a high-level government agency specializing in cyber crimes to identify (or even consider the possibility)?

I must be really dense, but I still don't see how the possibility that the IP address was faked hasn't been investigated already and if it has, why they are still considering Baker as part of the investigation(unless it really was traced back to his computer).

I keep getting told how easy it is, or how many ways there are to do it, which is fine and dandy. Nobody seems the least bit curious as to why the French government seems satisfied that the IP address was legit.

Didn't say it was easy - I said it was possible. Dint even say it was likely, again, I said it was possible.

The thing that everybody is missing here is that the hard bit was already done (hacking the LNDD computers to get the info in the first place). It's interesting to me that everyone takes that for granted, but the spoofing an IP part is bordering on nigh impossible. Funny.

[dbrower]

Even if Arnie Baker had received the documents from an unknown souce, by using stolen documents and by changing them, he had probably violated some US laws.
At least, before using them to his own profit he should have verified their authenticities.

Some of the documents, especially the letters, sent to labs and to thers were clearly forgeries. We can have doubt that a french could have forged them in a way to damage his own result.

It has been reported earlier than Arnie Baker has been officially invited to testify about the hacking, it's the first step of the legal procedure.

To believe that all of that is done to discourage Landis to race in France it's really an ab hominem attack, it's a will to put discredit on a lot of people without any little clue. That doping case is not the center of universe, even not the center of TDF now.

What law are you referring to that would make distribution of copied of documents illegal? Copyright? Trade Secret? I'm unaware of any. If they were forgeries - and Baker first presented them publicly as unauthenticated - then the worst that could happen is ridicule. Perhaps if they were filed in court with a claim to authenticity, like for example Orly Taitz and a birth certificate, there might be legal sanction, but that did not occur.

The content of those documents has never been questioned since LNDD admitted sending them during document production for the first hearing. The main issues of "forgery" seem to be document format and letterhead, which may be artifacts of scanning. I ask anyone to cite a anything that identifies "clear forgery" of the substantive content. I recall complaints about grammar, suggesting no native-speaker would ever make such a misteak, and therefore the entire thing must be fake, and I recall questions about the letterhead and page size -- on TBV -- that suggested things had been printed from electronic copies of some sort.

It has been reported that Baker was "invited" to talk by "officials", with notable lack of clarity about whether is is a formal, legal request of any weight. That does not make it clearly an "official request". I do not believe a proper, official legal demand has been made, only an informal, email request. Feel free to go back and re-read those reports with that in mind, looking for where there is anything but (so-far not done) speculation about future legal action. Usually when Police have the goods, they don't announce that they might request a warrant later -- they just do it.

As I said, I don't believe it is ALL done to discourage Landis. I freely admitted above the Authorities would be negligent to not ask questions. It is the lackluster pursuit that makes me wonder how seriously they are taking the legal question, and whether there are other considerations in play.

-dB