Go Bananas!, Landis Case Info Now Posted Options

[Will]

http://www.floydlandis.com/blog/

Suggestions:

Fresh Pot of Coffee
Fresh Toner Cartridges
Fresh Ream of Paper

Translator:
http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en

Go to Trustbut.com for all the other info.

[sundaymorning]

http://www.floydlandis.com/blog/

Suggestions:

Fresh Pot of Coffee
Fresh Toner Cartridges
Fresh Ream of Paper

Translator:
http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en

Go to Trustbut.com for all the other info.

hey will, i can't get the wada files extracted. is it working for you?

[wildeone]

hey will, i can't get the wada files extracted. is it working for you?

my computer seems to be working on it. a little too hard, if you ask me.... success yet?

[sammy]

No go for me only the slide show works

[sundaymorning]

my computer seems to be working on it. a little too hard, if you ask me.... success yet?

no, winzip says its not a valid archive. i'm very interested in seeing the documents after looking at dr. baker's archives. to put his presentation into context.

[dbrower]

A complete mirrored set with introduction and roadmaps and some initial commentary is available at http://trustbut.blogspot.com. The mirrors also include individual page files, which will be good for linking into discussions.

I *really* recommend using those page links and the index.

The mirrors are hosted at archive.org, so speed should not be a problem.

-dB

[sundaymorning]

A complete mirrored set with introduction and roadmaps and some initial commentary is available at http://trustbut.blogspot.com. The mirrors also include individual page files, which will be good for linking into discussions.

I *really* recommend using those page links and the index.

The mirrors are hosted at archive.org, so speed should not be a problem.

-dB

great job wth the mirror!

the first 20 mb pdf at Floyd_Landis_2006_Case_Documents5 won't open. it's USADA_A.PDF

This post has been edited by sundaymorning: Oct 12 2006, 09:25 AM

[wildeone]

The mirrors are hosted at archive.org, so speed should not be a problem.

actually it's quite slow. i think everybody and their roosters are on it. but it DOES work. thank you!!!

This post has been edited by wildeone: Oct 12 2006, 09:31 AM

[RADUSA]

actually it's quite it's quite slow. i think everybody and their roosters are on it. but it DOES work. thank you!!!

I don't see any mention of the sample B, does show something different than Sample A? Is it more damning?

I have no scientific mind, so won't even try to look at the docs. Plus I am lazy

This post has been edited by RADUSA: Oct 12 2006, 09:27 AM

[wildeone]

I don't see any mention of the sample B, does show something different than Sample A? Is it more damning?

I have no scientific mind, so won't even try to look at the docs. Plus I am lazy

darlin, i think everybody's still downloading as am i. if you're lazy, you'll have to practice a wee bit of patience. "all good things..." and all that.

[RADUSA]

darlin, i think everybody's still downloading as am i. if you're lazy, you'll have to practice a wee bit of patience. "all good things..." and all that.

thanks chief, i will be patient then instead of getting all roostered up.

[wildeone]

thanks chief, i will be patient then instead of getting all roostered up.

look at dbrower's web site too -- he's already starting culling some of the more interesting pages. moi, i'm still downloading....

[Carlton Reid]

Do I get extra points for using 'roostered' in my headline about today's LDP publication on FL.com?

Arnie Baker's PowerPoint presentation looks persuasive to me (esp the T and E levels slide) but I'm easily swayed by people who appear to know what they're talking about. It'll be excellent to see the comments from all the sleepyhead experts who can start debating the points raised when they surface later today.

PS
TBV is definitely the best place to download the info. Excellent work, dB. And, seriously, your site has got to be nominated for a blog award.

[sundaymorning]

ok i'm real tired but i looked at the t/e ratio tests (the carbon ratio stuff is beyond my experience), usada_b thru usada_d and it looks to me like floyd's sample was tested three times (two preparations). twice (in duplicate) for the A sample and once on a different machine (i think), though both are gc's, for the B sample. looks like the ratios were 50/11 (4.5) and 61/14 (4.4) for the A sample and 65/4 (16.8) for the B.

i can't figure out where floyd's doctor baker gets a reading of 172/18 for one of the results from.

one way or another it brings up a crucial point. even if floyd's results vary (and it looks to me like it's the e that's the most variable), both his A and B results were over the legal ratio of four.

i can't speak to the other points about contamination or carbon ratio discrepancies, but if baker is relying on the t/e results and someone mistaking a 4 for a 1 or a 6 for a 4 he's producing a very thin argument.

[sammy]

For such an important document that sure is some terrible handwriting

[Lonnie]

Is it just me or are the severs/webpage roostered up?

The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.

[Hombre]

Is it just me or are the severs/webpage roostered up?

LOL, I couldnt even get on the website.
As I look at all of you trying to get on and read the stuff and realize I am also doing this, I have reached a startling conclusion.
We all seriously need to get a life.

[RADUSA]

LOL, I couldnt even get on the website.
As I look at all of you trying to get on and read the stuff and realize I am also doing this, I have reached a startling conclusion.
We all seriously need to get a life.

even worse realization, all this boring science crap is more interesting than my day job.

[weezy]

ok i'm real tired but i looked at the t/e ratio tests (the carbon ratio stuff is beyond my experience), usada_b thru usada_d and it looks to me like floyd's sample was tested three times (two preparations). twice (in duplicate) for the A sample and once on a different machine (i think), though both are gc's, for the B sample. looks like the ratios were 50/11 (4.5) and 61/14 (4.4) for the A sample and 65/4 (16.8) for the B.

i can't figure out where floyd's doctor baker gets a reading of 172/18 for one of the results from.

one way or another it brings up a crucial point. even if floyd's results vary (and it looks to me like it's the e that's the most variable), both his A and B results were over the legal ratio of four.

i can't speak to the other points about contamination or carbon ratio discrepancies, but if baker is relying on the t/e results and someone mistaking a 4 for a 1 or a 6 for a 4 he's producing a very thin argument.

is the variation between the three results "significant" so as to throw all the results into dispute?

if i test something that is doped using a fair testing method, shouldn't i get basically the same results each time -- if i am doing the test correctly?

[House]

I would think going from just over the legal limit on the A sample to being way over the limit on the B sample would indicate some sort of issue in the testing.