http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zirbel-den...-ingesting-dhea

The sample was given at the end of August. He was not notified that the A was positive until November. The B has still not been tested. Obviously there are some strange things going on here.

Zirbel says the B sample was tested in early December: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zirbel-den...-ingesting-dhea.

Why do guys say things like: "I didn't know what DHEA was until I was first notified about my A sample positive." I mean, how can that be possible?

This one is a bummer - I always like to see the journeyman domestic pro get his chance to ride on a top team and do the big races. And I hardly think guys like Zirbel using DHEA are the big problem in cycling; rather I think it is the top-down influence that ends up destroying guys like Zirbel (btw, not commenting one way or the other on Zirbel until the B comes back).

This casts suspicion on his 4th place in the World's TT.

Some journeyman... hanging out with interesting people.

Zirbel hired Paul Scott to oversee the opening of the B sample

Groan. Suh and Jacobs next?

The clean team just dropped down another spot on the credibility index.

Dave.

Seriously. This sounds like all the athletes in the past who have taken banned substances found in over-the-counter supplements and then claimed that they didn't know what was in the supplements (!!) and thought that since they were available at their local nutrition store, they were okay. This kind of excuse plays well to the people willing to forgive the poor, naive athlete, but come on: you're a professional athlete subject to testing, and you need to know what's going into your body.

Likewise with Zirbel: if you live in the cycling world, it's your job to know what's out there. If *I* know about these substances--and I've never sniffed an *amateur* bike race--then I expect that a pro should know about it. This just sounds like a disingenuous excuse offered to placate those who already *want* to believe he's innocent.

D'ya think as an American pro cyclist Zirbel might have heard of Tyler Hamilton before?

Friday, April 17, 2009 - DHEA: Done! Hamilton Ends ((It)) All
One-Time Lance 2.0 Felled by DHEA?

At least Zirbel hasn't claimed it was depression medicine, but maybe he doesn't read much - at least not the headlines. May he is a 'selective' reader:

DHEA

TYPE OF SUBSTANCE Anabolic agent
WHAT FORM DOES THE DRUG TAKE? capsules, chewing gum, drops that are placed under the tongue, creams
CLINICAL USE Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) has been prescribed in the treatment of many disorders, including cardiovascular disease, breast cancer and obesity, although some scientists argue there is no hard data to support DHEA's claim of being a "wonder drug." It is a legal over-the-counter drug in the United States but banned for competitive use.
WHY ATHLETES USE IT & WHY IT'S BANNED DHEA is thought to have anabolic effects, decreases body fat and promotes muscle growth.
SPORTS MOST ASSOCIATED WITH ITS USE swimming, cycling

But, who would have thought a come out of nowhere 4th place in a capacities-influenced event like the World TT champs would raise any eyebrows?

It isn't like he came out of nowhere and took the silver while riding the last 5k on a flat tire or anything before getting picked up by Garmin.

Dave

Yea, if that quote is true, then I've heard all I need to know as to what the truth is.

Or anyone else (cough, Williams) that has tested positive for DHEA?

That's a ridiculously hard pill to swallow (that he had not heard of DHEA). Anyone paying attention to cycling (and it is, after all, Zirbel's job to pay attention to cycling) has heard of DHEA. All one had to do was read the news. Is he saying that he has not read cycling news in the last year? Horse hockey. All pros read what's going on, because they are so entwined in the sport. You do the sport because you love it, from the lowliest cat 5 to the best Pro, I don't know of anyone except some of the Domestiques from dirt poor families who don't love it to some extent.

from Velonews' interview with Zirbel: "TZ: I think that (Vaughters) understands the situation. The more familiar you are with DHEA and other illegal drugs, you know that DHEA is not something that anyone with half a brain would take, getting tested as much as I do."

Thus, should the B sample come back positive, we can be safely assured that TZ might very well not have had enough intelligence to read the Hamilton headlines.

Alas, I am also wondering if DHEA sales are about to take off. Remember when McGwire got caught with andro (not then against the rules of baseball, or the law of the land), and it seemed like every teenager looking to bulk up bought it?

The moral so far? invest in a DHEA-producing company.

-lochness.

Supplement purity is a myth. Remember the supp companies and the lawsuits from 2002 and the SLC Olympics. It is SO EASY to sprinkle pixie dust in to anything, and not have the consumer know it, yet feel 'better' to the point where they'll recommend it to others. Not even multivitamins are regulated.

So yeah, it's easy to accidentally ingest something like DHEA and not know it. These athletes should be talking with or suing Orrin Hatch, who created the DSHEA law, which basically stripped the feds of the ability to control what goes in to supplements. The burden of proof is on them, not on the supp companies to prove that they're not selling sawdust.

Check out supplemen####ch.com or other sites. Zero Tolerance by USADA is dumber than dumb. Too bad their attorneys aren't held to the same drug standards.

Sure, Whareagle. Sure. It is all Orrin Hatch's fault.

Then again, some could find it odd that you would even have knowledge of which Senator championed this law.

Isn't it also really easy to go into your corner supplement store, the one with the big bulging muscle mascot on the door, and ask which one is better, wink, wink? You know, which one produces real results... wink, wink?

After all, aren't they just product specialists looking to keep their customers happy?

If the mfg'r messes up (accidentally on purpose?) and puts in DHEA, and if the consumer knows that the mfg'r will mess up and (accidentlly on purpose?) buys the stuff, then what?

My LBS stopped carrying Accelerade, which is my preferred bottle mix.

I searched around and found it at a supplement store. When I told the clerk I was a cyclist, he advised that a LOT of cyclists come to his shop - and proceeded to name some of his big (Cat 1) clients. Obviously they weren't buying Accelerade since the market had shrunk to the point that LBS couldn't sell any.

Dave.

Unfortunately, it is looking more and more like that is a true statement.

Dave.

Hatch did it because the supp industry is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and guess where a lot of these companies are HQ'd? Utah. Not saying that any single Corp. Is guilty of stuff, but what Hatch did was put the burden of proof on the Feds to prove ingredient accuracy, efficacy, and delivery, then he literally gutted the department within the FDA that was responsible for this under the guise of killing off big government and federal intrusion. I don't know about you but I personally would like proof or reassurance that what I thought I was consuming really was what I was consuming and nothing more or less. However since that's not the case, I for one can see how Zirbel may have accidentally ingested something not listed on the ingredients.

We should also wait to see what level of DHea was in his bloodstream. Tyler's were miniscule, but good old zero tolerance f'ed him, like it's going to f zirbel unless reason wins out. Finally, dhea just isn't that effective for much of anything without strong and consistent dosage over a long pd of time. Zirbel is a victim.

Right.

But, according to you Tyler and Floyd are also victims. At least they all have good company.

At least you could have suggested that Vaughters was a victim, since he had just added this guy. But, then again, maybe that is wishfull thinking on my part as that argument could be easily demolished.

The only victim of another doping case in cycling is the sport itself.

Zirbel simply provides another data point that all performances should be held suspect.

I would like to qualify that by stating especially those at the World TT championships (or an Olympic or Vuelta TT)...

But, then we would have to add any climb in the Tour or Giro, etc. or any sprint, or any breakaway Champs Elysee finish... to the point that any qualification is absurd.

Dave.

I'm still stumbling over why you two are having this debate in the first place.

Tom Zirbel is a professional cyclist and has been for 3 years. While Priority Health / Bissell aren't Pro Tour, they DO have access to team physicians, nutritionists, coaches, and soigneurs.

Why is it that in 2009, a professional cyclist is still taking ANY kind of over-the-counter supplement when the effective chemistry of each is known to the medicos and can be mimicked using alternative sources? Why isn't EVERYTHING consumed by the athletes provided by the team and, even better, prepared by the team? It's not like the stuff you buy at GNC has some super-secret uber-ingredient not known to anyone else in the medical community. If you know what you are taking a supplement for (assuming, of course, that you are taking it for it's APPROVED ingredients), then why not isolate those ingredients and prepare your own supplements?

Just a thought.

Remember, the guy cannot read.

Dave.

Good points. Without making any judgment on Zirbel, and while acknowledging that his comment that not knowing what DHEA is tests positive (both samples) for disingeniousness, one would be surprised at what can legally go into supplements in very small amounts without tipping the FDA scales. That is why buying pharmaceutical-grade supplements when possible, which is what I do, including my buying even items as innocuous as fish oil, gives one a much better chance at purity.

Hey, even kissing the lips of a cocaine-infused woman is said to have registered on a laboratory's Richter Scale!

Bingo!

Of course, you're in SF where "pharmaceutical-grade supplements" takes on a whole new meaning.

If I were a pro athlete, I'd sure stay as far away from supplements as humanly possible given all the athletes who have accidentally tested positive as a result of ingesting them.

One might almost conclude that taking supplements is just plain dumb. Unless of course the supplement excuse is just that--an excuse, and they don't believe the excuses themselves. Either way, dumb, dumb, dumb.



Hmm. I've certainly read things which suggest it has immediate benefits, but either way, it appears to have benefits and is banned. Are drugs which work over the long term exempt from guilt in your opinion?

I don't know how one could conclude (you sound quite sure) that Zirbel is a victim. Maybe we should wait until we see the level in his bloodstream before making conclusive statements of his innocence and victimhood, as well as his guilt.

At the end of the day, I'm not sure what your position is. That he took a tainted supplement, or that DHEA doesn't work and he'd not have taken it, or that that zero tolerance is wrong, or all three? Either way, a pretty spirited defense before we know anything really. Defending cyclists from doping charges seems a dicey business. Personally, I'd wait 'till I knew more, but I agree the assumption that he's guilty shouldn't be made 100% either.

Isuppose the key question here is, did Zirbel take DHEA knowingly or was it a case of contamination of a supplement. And futhermore what was the level present which might give us a clue to which is was or perhaps not.
As far as DHEA being a performance enhancing drug:
"DHEA supplements are sometimes used as muscle-building or performance-enhancing drugs by athletes. However, a randomized placebo-controlled trial found that DHEA supplementation had no (statistically significant) effect on lean body mass, strength, or testosterone levels.[14]"
More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehydroepiandrosterone
DHEA is the most common hormone in the body and has been found useful to adjust to a higher level for the over 65 age. Often referred to as the "master" or "youth" hormone, after age 25 our bodies poroduce approx. 1% less per year. Low levels have been linked to the common "aging or deteriorative" diseases.
Is it possible it was a case of cross contamination?
It's quite possible this is the case if the supplements were manufactured in a facility where DHEA is made or encapsulated... this wouldn't be the first time that cross contamination of a hormone occurred in a supplement. Often due to not cleaning the machines used to capsule machines well. The same occurs with food: if you recall notes on packages warning that the food was (or was not) processed in a facility packaging peanuts and other nuts - a matter of allergies.
It happens.
I know of two companies that test their products to see you only get whats on the label. USANA is the only company I know of that offers a million dollar policy for athletes if a positive happens while taking their supplements. They also offer sponsorships if you are an elite or pro. (They sponsored Jelly Belly team a few years back.)
I've also read where supplement manufacturers have often used some hormones in the first batches of their "New Improved" supplements to get the buzz going as a marketing strategy. No doubt there are some bad actors in this business that might drop to this level in an attempt to increase sales of their latest nutritional product. (It all comes down to morals/ethics and greed doesn't it?)
Regards the DHSEA Law: One needs to know some history of nutritional research and the supplement industry. The American Medical Association and Drug industry have tried to outlaw vitamins and supplements for sale without a prescription for over 40 years. The doctors would have loved to see you drop in for a paid visit for a prescription for something as innocuous as Vitamin C or Vitamin B Complex and the drug manufacturers would prefer to happily overcharge you by a factor of 10, for the same supplements that today are relatively inexpensive. (as they are happy to do with the drugs they produce)
If this had not been passed this would have been the scenario today. It also would have slowed or stopped the tremendous amount of research in nutrition. Oddly enough in spite of the consistent claims of the AMA that vitamins have no value on; survey 85% of doctors use supplements.
In my viewpoint it would have been criminal to allow the AMA and Drug companies their way with this.
In saying this, I don't cut any slack for nutrition companies who are careless in producing supplements that are contaminated with something not on the label.
The "strict liability" clause is generally applied or has been in the past though the trace amount was so small that it was noted in the decision, that no performance increase or bernefit would have been possible. This seems draconian to me, but hasn't stopped wada or usada from seeking bans.
I'll also note here that I take DHEA, but I'm 64 years old and I'm not racing. If I was racing I'd stop taking it. It might make more sense that DHEA be allowed under a doctors supervision for riders over 45 - 50 under doctors supervision for the masters classes which might benefit their overall health. But I leave it at that.
So it is possible, but its also possible that even if it was contamination and it can be proven Zirbel will face a almost certain punishment although he never intended on cheating and gained nothing in the way of increased performance from the tainted supplement.
One last thing here, Tyler Hamilton's case is quite different as Hamilton made a choice and new DHEA was in the supplement he took. He might have faired better if he had gotten a prescription from a doctor and applied for a TUE. So it's a bit nonsequitor that his name is mentioned in this thread at all.
Happy New Year!
V

Not buying it unless there is really hard proof this was an accident. After all, you're responsible for what's in your body or you aren't. With all the athletes over the years shouting about how they got a positive from a tainted supplement, you have to say that taking over the counter supplements is irresponsible. Or you just don't believe those claims and you go ahead and take them.

I can't remember a single American doping positive where people haven't argued that the dope in question didn't do anything for cyclists. I can't remember any case where that hasn't been proven false over time by the preponderance of pros taking that substance over the years, or some whistle-blower explaining it, or both.

Nope, not buying it. Prove it was an accident.

Going with the Happy New Year note, let's give Tyler credit.

For whatever the reason was that he took DHEA, at least Tyler admitted he had taken it when he got caught. This is the same Tyler who, with his attorneys sprung one of the most notorious doping defenses ever - but at least he admitted to the DHEA.

Now we have another positive for DHEA, and one of the oldest doping defenses ever - pretend it didn't happen. Given that Tommy hired Paul Scott, he obviously isn't shy about getting notorious doping defenders.

Tyler is in this thread because he makes Tommy look the fool.

Dave.

Like MicoMico, I study everything diligently before I ingest it or even recommend it. It CAN come back to haunt you. That said, yes - I would prefer that the FDA have more control over the purity, potency, and delivery of supplements. Unfortunately, the company I used to recommend, which had a great and graphical description of their process, went under, perhaps because they couldn't compete against lesser-priced, lower-quality, supplements.

It is what it is.

And yes, Tyler knew what he was taking, but only because he was desperate. His meds were gone, it was the weekend, and he was already going bipolar. It was also allegedly being exacerbated by alcohol. Again, I'm not close to the source beyond what I've read in the same press as you. What he SHOULD have done was check himself in to an ER, or even have himself committed as a danger. But you know that that also brings a stigma, and he wasn't in his right mind. As a result, he tested positive, and we know the rest.

Why do I defend 'dopers'? Because I know a lot of really smart people who look at the evidence being presented, and don't see doping. They see crappy labwork. Hell, they're chemists and biologists and Ex. Physiologists at places like Cooper Institute and UT Southwestern, and they don't see doping in some of these cases. So yeah, as someone who was once wrongly accused of something akin to the "Duke" affair a couple of years ago, and was vilified in his community for 8 months before the real truth was allowed to come out, I DO have a skeptical eye towards this stuff, and I also know that Justice does not always prevail.

You're all set in your ways, but don't vilify this guy Zirbel before you know all, and I mean, all, of the facts. Just like this guy Leach - we don't know all the facts, but it sure is looking like the kid was a problem, his dad was a problem, and the allegations of the school aren't quite panning out. Not that Leach isn't a megalomaniac, and didn't make mistakes, but the accusations, counter-accusations, the fact that it's a member of the press (ESPN), which makes that case sound a LOT like some of the stuff going on over at LeMonde, should make you question everyone and everything before casting a judgmental eye.

I have to go build out my second studio. Good luck in your winter training.

How does that saying go?

You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some people all of the time?

Dave.

i agree with most, but are you telling me that if you were wrongfully accused of something you wouldn't hire the best attorney you could find? after all they are notorious criminal defenders. this argument doesn't hold water.

If I felt that I were wrongfully accused I probably would have said something long ago - as in immediately after a positive A test. Not four months later. There are too many secrets here already. The only reason that this appears to have become news is that Zirbel was announced as a new rider on Garmin, and then did not show up on their roster... leading to questions...

I would likely do my best to avoid Paul Scott or anyone else tainted with Floyd. If at all possible (i.e. if it were not a conflict of interest and if he was willing and if I could afford him), I would try and hire Dick Pound.

Fundamentally, I would hire someone that I trust ethically. After all, it is an ethical battle in the end.

I would also state that I fully support the anti-doping authorities and the anti-doping cause, and whether I agree with the results of the test or not, I will support their decision. I would also offer myself for an immediate retest, if desired and/or a DNA sample for them to test further. (Remember Floyd?)

And, in case you do not find this position sincere, please note that hiring Dick Pound, for example, was proposed before in past posts as a recommendation to Floyd.

Dave.

While I agree that Tyler may have been desperate, the problem I have with him here is that he took the drugs test and said nothing. He only came clean when the A sample proved positive. To me this says he hoped to get away with doping - admittedly not performance enhancing - when he could have put his hands up and confessed to the DHEA at the time

Presumably it would also be a good idea to get all his supplements tested, that way the source of the contamination can be identified...

WHoa... like good point!

...and the manufacturer notified and WADA put on alert so that other clean athletes don't suffer the same problems...

Dave.

i don't doubt your sincerity regarding your defense of self, i just find it disturbing when anyone suggests that who a person hires as counsel is evidence of anything. the positive test is the evidence and not who he chooses to hire for his appeal.

This is a good point, but some do appear more notorious than others - and they bring their notoriety with them.

Best legal advice I ever received, for example, was to avoid 'aggressive' litigators. Are they serving your purpose or theirs?

Dave.

From Tejay Van Garderen's interview in cyclingnews (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/van-garder...r-protour-debut):



Maybe we can hope that the "contaminated supplement" lessons have not been lost on every rider . . . . Or, at a minimum, we may believe that TVG is not holding this one in a ready quiver of excuses should there be an AAF.

PEZ adds to the debate with a good interview:

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=7867

Thanks Kiwi.

And, thanks to Richard if you are reading this. I promise to show up for a ride soon...!

Some choice bits

Well, we know all pros know this game inside-out, and he is seasoned pro.

Diet will be a major factor in his training and I'm sure he knows exactly what supplements and food he has taken
...
4) He is a dumb-ass: applying Occam's razor principle (ie. the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one) this seems the most likely."

We will likely never know the truth; but if 4) is correct, what a waste of a great career and potential great 2010 with Garmin. I can't believe someone at his level can test positive for DHEA - its not like EPO or CERA, it has no big benefits but it carries the same penalty."

Dave.

I really don't have any qualms about what the guy is saying, but I do believe that there is more contamination than people might think, since getting the 'all clean' cert is more expensive than people realize. But just give me a skosh of credit for bringing contamination up, and look back at the 2002 winter olympics, and the scandal around Brian Frank and E-caps a couple of years ago. It's sad, really, on both sides. But scruples apply to both sides. Don't throw Tom under the bus just yet.

Is it possible that there will be a day when you will admit that any American cyclist that has tested positive, actually was positive? (this is not meant as an ad hominem)

In marketing, there are the early adopters, the late market and the laggards. Most of us have already gotten over the fact that there is doping in the peloton, including among American cyclists. Some of us are even personally familiar with some doping American cyclists, and do not have a problem recognizing that these 'friends' of ours have lifetime bans.

In fact, the irony is that the rise of US Cycling in the peloton has corresponded with the rise of EPO and blood vector doping.

At least, let's hope it is an irony.

There was also an irony in the 70s and 80s where some poor, small, communist country also saw its athlete's fortunes rise across many sports. Heck, I remember being told I had to adopt their technique, because obviously they had superior technique. Turns out there was some degree of organization behind that apparent irony.

Dave.

And as always, the laggards believe they're the early adopters ... that's what slows them down. They never adopted anything, they just accepted that an extension to their existing beliefs must define the state of the art. I don't need to pass comment on that, it speaks for itself.

I think you'll find the early adopters are those whose opinions differ from the masses and not the opposite, as you propose ...

Geezus, Dave. Try to have an enlightening discussion about possibilities, and kaboom, off you go accusing me of something I never stated. Joe Papp doped. I believe that. I believe Frankie. I believe tons of 'em did - I just don't believe the labs and USADA are looking at the problem wholistically, and I also think that innocent athletes are getting caught up in the dragnet. I don't think Adham Sbieh doped. I watched him train. He aced that TT in Mississippi. Yet he was literally too poor to defend himself. Thus, he got steamrolled. The athletes are never given the fair chance, and they're not being given the opportunity of innocence before guilt. Zirbel deserves this.

But in your eyes, they're all guilty, they should all get the maximum punishment, and let God sort 'em out, right? Man, I'm sure you'd make a great headmaster somewhere.

Anyway, here's something that is 'food' for thought.

http://www.slate.com/id/2240688/pagenum/all/#p2

Whareagle, thanks for explaining why you take the positions you take on doping. I usually don't agree with you but at least this gives some context to your posts.

You say your smart friends don't see doping, they see crappy labwork. But If I look at guys like Schumacher, Rebellin and Di Luca for example, who were all recently caught doping, I can only ask the question - why did it take so long? They were obvious dopers and each had presented obvious signs of doping (affiliations with doping facilitators, previous abnormal test results, videos of doping etc.) so their being caught only serves to confirm that the labs are doing a pretty good job. I can't think of many doping cases where it was a big surprise. Some of the caught dopers, more than we might think, even confess which does nothing to support your theory. Not to mention the uncovering of doping clinics like Fuentes that serve hundreds of athletes, including many cyclists. Or the revelations that some teams practiced organised doping as recently as a few years ago.

Are there any cases where sloppy labwork has incorrectly led to a false accusation? No system is perfect no matter how many controls exist, but it is not a credible theory that a significant number of false positives have occured.

Of course the strict liability issue is another debate altogether.

Thanks Whareagle,

And apologies if my comments appeared overstated.

I think I would make a poor Headmaster, but will give it some consideration.

Of course, it is easy to believe Joe and Frankie because they admitted it. BTW - Joe is a friend of a good friend of mine. Thus, like probably everyone on this forum, I am no more than one step removed from a known doper. Actually, I know at least one person on a first name, let's go for a ride basis, that has a lifetime ban. But, since he hasn't admitted it, there are likely folks on this forum that think he got screwed. I don't. He is a doper. I can tell that from training rides. He is a really nice guy, but he is definitely a doper.

I don't think that they are all guilty.

But, and of course there is a but, the inescapable truth is that more dope than get caught.

Otherwise, they all would have been caught already, WADA would no longer exist, and TeamLance wouldn't be throwing medical waste out in the trash again.

Of course there are possibilities that some AAF's may get overturned. There is the possibility that some even have rational explanations.

As I composed the previous post, I was doing some research on industrial safety and saw some potentially striking analogies.

From research back in the 1040s (yes, like doping, industrial safety has been around for a while), there was a 300:29:1 ratio. For every serious injury, there were 29 minor injuries and 300 accidents without injury. (and there were another 300 near misses for every accident).

Almost certainly a similar ratio applies in doping.

For every AAF, there are unrefutably a larger number of committed full-Monty dopers that do not test positive, and an even larger number of dabblers. Could these ratios be ~300:29:1? Possibly, maybe even probably.

So, is it possible that Zirbel got contaminated by accident? Yes.

Is is probable? No.

Will he come clean and admit it? No.

Dave.

Wow, now we all know where things stand. No need for doping controls, just put DQ out on a training ride with them and problem solved ...

Just so I'm not mistaken, did DQ actually claim to be able to infer the doping status of cyclists by simply going for a ride with them ? Man, there's arrogance and then there's DQ ...

Sorry, but the universal translator appears to be malfunctioning.

I am sure that it was an important retort, if not fully supportive of the research conducted and applied.

Moreover, I will offer further and readily concede that when it comes to analogies, all can be quickly broken down. In this case, however, is not doping a serious injury to the sport?

Finally, I will even offer a further concession - I would happily allow that the 300:29:1 ratio could be viewed by some to apply to the meaningful contributions of my posts.

On one condition, however. And that condition would be that you would further agree that the 300^2 'near misses' ratio applies to yours.

Dave.

Of course, Paul Scott is not a lawyer.

But if I wanted someone to observe the B test, someone who has worked in a WADA approved lab would be at or near the top of the list.

I believe Zirbel stated he had no objection to how the B test was handled, based on his and Scott's observations. Has he retained Scott for anything beyond observing the B test?

Cross contamination or not, zero tolerance is the rule. I don't really have that much of a problem with that. I wouldn't mind a burden shifting scheme, where once there's a positive test, the burden shifts to the athlete to prove by clear and convincing evidence (a higher standard than by a preponderance of the evidence) that the positive test was a result of cross contaminiation. I also think that it would be extremely difficult for athletes to meet this standard.

Right, he is a Doctor of Jurisprudence

JD, Rutgers Law School, 1997

Prior to joining the UCLA laboratory, he was a practicing patent attorney at the New York offices of Sidley, Austin, Brown and Wood where his practice was primarily in the biochemical and pharmaceutical industries

Dave.

Fair enough. Has he represented Zirbel in his capacity as a lawyer? He's not licensed to practice in CA, and as far as I can tell, not registered to practice in New York. And I suspect he's not licensed to practice in Utah either. A JD doesn't make you a lawyer. Being a member of the bar in good standing does.

Has he had any role other than as an observer of the B test?

Does a now or formerly practicing attorney need to have been a member of the bar?

Are yousuggesting that his JD and experience as a practicing attorney are not a valuable, and valuably perceived, part of his credentials?

Now, I may not argue with you about how valuable this experience is, but I took that stuff of his own web site http://scottanalytics.com/about/index.html.

One paragrah on the UCLA lab and one paragraph on his legal qualifications and experience. And, that is it.

If he thinks that it is important for his business and presents valuable experience to potential clients, then why would you argue with that?

C'mon already. Just admit you goofed and stop being argumentative.

Dave.

You're asking me to stop being argumentative?

Sure, I goofed. I didn't know he had a JD and used to be a practicing lawyer. But I'm trying to save some grace by pointing that that, in spite of my ignorance, I was still technically correct. At least give me that.

If he's not currently licensed to practice law, he can't practice law. He can't represent clients as a lawyer, and he can't provide legal advice. There is no attorney-client privilege that attaches to communications between him and his clients as a result of any status that he has. In other words, he is not currently a lawyer.

None of that means that his prior legal experience is not valuable.

I'm not sure that we can make that much of a deal from Zirbel's hiring of Scott at this point, based upon whatever taint we think attaches to Scott from his participation in the Landis case. I'm not aware that Zirbel has hired him for anything other than the observation of the B sample testing. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I think there's much more to be made of some of Zirbel's apparently disingenuous responses.

+1 to you!

Dave.

In other news, Zirbel's B test is positive. My favorite quote from the article here:



Indeed Tom, how many times?