Deleted data files at the LNDD, Some supposedly copied to CDROM, instrument wiped Options

[dbrower]

Landis announced data erasure at LNDD, release at TBV. Expert Simon Davis says the files on the instrument disk have been wiped, and what remains are what are claimed to be copies on CDROM with different dates. Other files are said to be completely missing.

I don't know what this means, really. If they are straight file copies with wrong mod-times, that would be no-harm, but there's no way to know; and if other files were only on the drive that got wiped, they probably aren't coming back. It would have been smart to get MD5s or checksums of the files on the instrument,
and to have taken a complete backup before wiping it.

-dB

[Bill Hue]

Landis announced data erasure at LNDD, release at TBV. Expert Simon Davis says the files on the instrument disk have been wiped, and what remains are what are claimed to be copies on CDROM with different dates. Other files are said to be completely missing.

I don't know what this means, really. If they are straight file copies with wrong mod-times, that would be no-harm, but there's no way to know; and if other files were only on the drive that got wiped, they probably aren't coming back. It would have been smart to get MD5s or checksums of the files on the instrument,
and to have taken a complete backup before wiping it.

-dB

When evidence is destroyed, it is seldom good, except when the good guys do it and then it is ok,
I'm sure.

[jr.]

I am sure this another part of the agreement that Suh and Jacobs forgot about or didn't read and left a big loophole for hard nosed litigation techniques and Landis is just using this as PR and its all a big lie. Of course such hard nosed litigation techniques in US would now lead to multimillion dollar penalties from the courts. Luckily for LNND they are not in the US. Perhaps USADA can keep LNND from announcing it was on instructions from them, because USADA is in the US. But I digress, of course, its all lies from the Landis camp.

[Bill Hue]

This story must be in L'Equipe today. An investigative journalist there must have sources to explain it.

This post has been edited by Bill Hue: Apr 30 2007, 02:13 AM

[swimyouidiot]

I am sure this another part of the agreement that Suh and Jacobs forgot about or didn't read and left a big loophole for hard nosed litigation techniques and Landis is just using this as PR and its all a big lie. Of course such hard nosed litigation techniques in US would now lead to multimillion dollar penalties from the courts. Luckily for LNND they are not in the US. Perhaps USADA can keep LNND from announcing it was on instructions from them, because USADA is in the US. But I digress, of course, its all lies from the Landis camp.

Now your gettn' the hang of it, jr.!

Is there any way to know if this includes the missing mass spec data? Or is it a different type of information altogether?

Peace

[floyd]

Now your gettn' the hang of it, jr.!

Is there any way to know if this includes the missing mass spec data? Or is it a different type of information altogether?

Peace

Tell me Mr. Idiot, what good reason could there be, or what loophole could exist that would make it explainable that the hard drive had been physically removed and placed in another computer and parts of the info saved and then the entire hard drive deleted? I guess I am assuming that you read the order that required that it be done by the independant expert who was appointed by the arbitrators. Also, do you not find it strange that it happened just after the damage done by the leaked "alleged" positives? To me it looks like they delayed it just long enough.

This post has been edited by floyd: Apr 30 2007, 02:36 AM

[jr.]

was the independent expert tasked with retrieving the information the arb's expert or someone else? And even if you were just trying to create a disk, or backup, there wouldn't be any need to wipe the disk, or is this equipment different from a normal computer where you would copy something, not do a wipe disk?? Of course, I've gone beyond my computer expertise, so maybe I'll wait for Tom to show up and set loose a new wild goose.

Well I guess, FL just answered my question on whose expert. And he's probably a little steamed right now to understand the sarcasm, so hopefully swim will forgive him.

This post has been edited by jr.: Apr 30 2007, 02:32 AM

[Jimmy]

Landis announced data erasure at LNDD, release at TBV. Expert Simon Davis says the files on the instrument disk have been wiped, and what remains are what are claimed to be copies on CDROM with different dates. Other files are said to be completely missing.

I don't know what this means, really. If they are straight file copies with wrong mod-times, that would be no-harm, but there's no way to know; and if other files were only on the drive that got wiped, they probably aren't coming back. It would have been smart to get MD5s or checksums of the files on the instrument,
and to have taken a complete backup before wiping it.

-dB

Data storage like this annoys me when it happens to my data but I can understand why; the PC attached to the instrument can't store data forever it has to be transferred elsewhere at some point. I'd rather not onto CD myself, but here I can kind of see that it might work. You back-up the data onto CD and store the CD in the paper file along with the rest of the hard copy stuff. There's one place I use that only keeps the data on a hard drive for a cycle (3 months) before they delete it from their hard drives and the only long term storage is on CD. What's in the headers for these files will tell whether the files are from the right dates or not. Interesting to find out what has been kept and what has not.

[Old Runner Guy]

So, let's review.

We have two LDP for stage 17 (one given to Lanids in Spetember by USADA and the other given to Landis by the LNDD in February). Both are marked as "original" yet both are different (i.e. corrections to the cross out in the LNDD version).

Neither document has the original data from which it was produced. So, no one is able to reconstruct these documents - neither Landis or the LNDD.

We have "copies" of the original data and their is no telling how much this data has been "revised." This is especially troublesome given Landis wiki defense. Has the LNDD been ready this fourm and TBV and "correcting" this data all along since last October? We'll never know.

We have press reports that "several" of the re-tested samples some "traces" of T. Yet we have no documentation of this. We also have witnesses saying they were denied access to critical parts of the retesting.

So, why doesn't WADA do away with LDP and documentation. Just announce someone tested positive and dispense witht the hearings. They are too expense anyway.

In fact, why don't they do away with all lab testing, it just too expensive and messy. Let's have a panel of WADA experts watch the competitions and read the press and base AAFs on their emotional reactions to decide if someone doped.

Then they can finally bust Armstrong.

This post has been edited by Old Runner Guy: Apr 30 2007, 02:36 AM

[jr.]

But, Jimmy, if I read the release correctly, they may have done a resave in January, but the disk thing happened within hours of the scheduled arrival of the arb's expert. That's too coincidental for comfort.

[floyd]

But, Jimmy, if I read the release correctly, they may have done a resave in January, but the disk thing happened within hours of the scheduled arrival of the arb's expert. That's too coincidental for comfort.

You read it correctly.

[Jimmy]

But, Jimmy, if I read the release correctly, they may have done a resave in January, but the disk thing happened within hours of the scheduled arrival of the arb's expert. That's too coincidental for comfort.

I should probably read tbv then is what you're saying???

[jr.]

well its biased and unreliable but at least one version of the facts is out, and no harm ever came from reading.

[Bill Hue]

Data storage like this annoys me when it happens to my data but I can understand why; the PC attached to the instrument can't store data forever it has to be transferred elsewhere at some point. I'd rather not onto CD myself, but here I can kind of see that it might work. You back-up the data onto CD and store the CD in the paper file along with the rest of the hard copy stuff. There's one place I use that only keeps the data on a hard drive for a cycle (3 months) before they delete it from their hard drives and the only long term storage is on CD. What's in the headers for these files will tell whether the files are from the right dates or not. Interesting to find out what has been kept and what has not.

This has got to be the most important thing this instrument has (had) on it. Space limitations is not a good reason to remove the data to free up the instrument to store data for some other bad guy.
That sounds like something at least McLaren might buy though. Let's see if USADA sells it that way.

This post has been edited by Bill Hue: Apr 30 2007, 02:43 AM

[swimyouidiot]

Tell me Mr. Idiot, what good reason could there be, or what loophole could exist that would make it explainable that the hard drive had been physically removed and placed in another computer and parts of the info saved and then the entire hard drive deleted? I guess I am assuming that you read the order that required that it be done by the independant expert who was appointed by the arbitrators. Also, do you not find it strange that it happened just after the damage done by the leaked "alleged" positives? To me it looks like they delayed it just long enough.

Eh, Floyd, my comment to jr. was sarcastic! I just hate emoticons.

I am overjoyed by the news (in the sense that it totally helps your case) and think it is incredibly damning of the lab and USADA and the whole process. I am just trying to contain my glee a little (that they would commit such an obvious act of desperation), having been on this roller-coaster ride for a few months now.

Peace,
Mr. Idiot

This post has been edited by swimyouidiot: Apr 30 2007, 02:46 AM

[duckstrap]

Now your gettn' the hang of it, jr.!

Is there any way to know if this includes the missing mass spec data? Or is it a different type of information altogether?

Peace

The electronic files that were requested did include the mass spec data. Based on what they've said, we have no way of knowing what files were copied, and allegedly possibly altered, and what is missing altogether. Nonetheless, I hate to say I told you so, but here earlier in April, and here in November. It will be very interesting to see what the independent observer (hired by the arbitrators?) says.

[Jimmy]

well its biased and unreliable but at least one version of the facts is out, and no harm ever came from reading.

Here I was thinking that dbrower would post the most important points here and save me the bother of actually reading more than I need too - what was he thinking leading with the weaker stuff?? How is he going to get click through traffic that way . . . . Yes the timing is 'curious' indeed. Maybe they need to get that HD to the FBI. they seem to be good at this stuff.

[Bill Hue]

Eh, Floyd, my comment to jr. was sarcastic! I just hate emoticons.

I am overjoyed by the news (in the sense that it totally helps your case) and think it is incredibly damning of the lab and USADA and the whole process. I am just trying to contain my glee a little (that they would commit such an obvious act of desperation), having been on this roller-coaster ride for a few months now.

Peace,
Mr. Idiot

Swim, the Panel by a 2 to 1 vote is still going to give this a pass, i think. It isn't a smoking gun. It is incredibly frustrating to witness the systemic dismantling of justice right before your eyes and when its your life they are screwing with, it must be unbearable.

[duckstrap]

Tell me Mr. Idiot, what good reason could there be, or what loophole could exist that would make it explainable that the hard drive had been physically removed and placed in another computer and parts of the info saved and then the entire hard drive deleted? I guess I am assuming that you read the order that required that it be done by the independant expert who was appointed by the arbitrators. Also, do you not find it strange that it happened just after the damage done by the leaked "alleged" positives? To me it looks like they delayed it just long enough.

Will the independent observer confirm this?

[jr.]

Pure speculation on my part, DS, but since he was hired to observe for and speak to the arbs, I doubt anything public will come out from him before the hearings.