# Landis Case review from EnviromentalScience.com



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

http://blog.environmentalchemistry.com/2007/05/when-science-peer-review-independent.html


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

BikinCO said:


> http://blog.environmentalchemistry.com/2007/05/when-science-peer-review-independent.html


I've actually read every bit of testimony in the transcripts on Trust But Verify, and it is truly scary how messed up WADA is, and how unfair their process is, and poor their test results are. It's pretty clear that the labs make assumptions and guesses about data, eyeball things, and deviate from what we would call science. At this point, whether or not Landis doped is irrelevant, because they couldn't prove it either way. I think Landis will win the case, and he should. Hopefully, this will lead to changes at WADA (fire Dick Pound) and adherence to their own internal standards and procedures by the labs that do the testing. I won't hold my breath on that.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

*I totally agree*



mohair_chair said:


> I've actually read every bit of testimony in the transcripts on Trust But Verify, and it is truly scary how messed up WADA is, and how unfair their process is, and poor their test results are. It's pretty clear that the labs make assumptions and guesses about data, eyeball things, and deviate from what we would call science. At this point, whether or not Landis doped is irrelevant, because they couldn't prove it either way. I think Landis will win the case, and he should. Hopefully, this will lead to changes at WADA (fire Dick Pound) and adherence to their own internal standards and procedures by the labs that do the testing. I won't hold my breath on that.


I don't think it matters what people think of Landis or if he doped. This arbitration has shed light on how bad the current system is and on this I think everyone should agree.


----------



## moneyman (Jan 30, 2004)

*I'm no scientist*



BikinCO said:


> http://blog.environmentalchemistry.com/2007/05/when-science-peer-review-independent.html


But from what I read there, the procedures followed by the lab are pretty disturbing. How does one obtain objective data when the process is so questionable? Seems to me that if the data are bad, the results are not worth the paper they are written on.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> I've actually read every bit of testimony in the transcripts on Trust But Verify, and it is truly scary how messed up WADA is, and how unfair their process is, and poor their test results are. It's pretty clear that the labs make assumptions and guesses about data, eyeball things, and deviate from what we would call science. At this point, whether or not Landis doped is irrelevant, because they couldn't prove it either way. I think Landis will win the case, and he should. Hopefully, this will lead to changes at WADA (fire Dick Pound) and adherence to their own internal standards and procedures by the labs that do the testing. I won't hold my breath on that.


...I am still reading [re-reading] Monday stuff, but I share your conclusions...
I am glad these proceedings were open...

...I bet the Tennis Federation is REALLY glad they yanked their business from LNDD...


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

moneyman said:


> But from what I read there, the procedures followed by the lab are pretty disturbing. How does one obtain objective data when the process is so questionable? Seems to me that if the data are bad, the results are not worth the paper they are written on.


 What's really sad is that a lot of forensic testing used in criminal prosecutions in the US is no better. Unlike Floyd, most criminal defendants don't have the money and connections to get expert scientists to rebut the prosecution's junk science.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Of course, there are some glaring innacuracies in this article - like the contention that data was overwritten which was simply not the case - and an over reliance on the say so of Bill Hue, an observer who doesn't even pretend to be impartial and whose criticism of the case largely seems to rest on the fact that he finds witnesses 'non credible' or 'bratty' even though he doesn't speak their language. His characterisation of Frelat, particularly, is purely emotional 'I don't believe a word she says' he states with absolutely no reason. And this red herring about her knowing whose urine she was analysing - it would be extremely difficult not to, considering Landis's representatives were there to attest to the fact that the sample belonged to him.

That's not arguing on the science, that's arguing emotively, with total bias and making completely unsupported character assasinations. Christine Ayotte testified that she was easily able to follow the chain of custody from the documents she had - tellingly, she wasn't pressed on this during the cross examination. USADA have a complete timeline in their brief, available for all to read. Oh, I forgot, can't be true because it comes from the evil empire.

I followed this link hoping for/expecting an unbiased summation of the facts - instead it's yet another piece that could have come straight from the Landis PR machine. Shame, I was expecting better.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

The contention that data was overwritten which is simply not the case? The testimony of Cynthia Mongongu:

Q: time entry at 19:52:43 same day. 20:17:24 the result is run, and again at 21:08:26, on the Blank F2.
A: yes.

Q: of course the data from the preceding one is gone.
A: yes.

If the data wasn't deleted, how could it be gone? Where did it go? How could anyone not interpret that as deleting data? After all, Mongongu admits it!!! Are you suggesting that you know more that she does about what she did?


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Bianchigirl said:


> Of course, there are some glaring innacuracies in this article - like the contention that data was overwritten which was simply not the case - and an over reliance on the say so of Bill Hue, an observer who doesn't even pretend to be impartial and whose criticism of the case largely seems to rest on the fact that he finds witnesses 'non credible' or 'bratty' even though he doesn't speak their language. His characterisation of Frelat, particularly, is purely emotional 'I don't believe a word she says' he states with absolutely no reason. And this red herring about her knowing whose urine she was analysing - it would be extremely difficult not to, considering Landis's representatives were there to attest to the fact that the sample belonged to him.
> 
> That's not arguing on the science, that's arguing emotively, with total bias and making completely unsupported character assasinations. Christine Ayotte testified that she was easily able to follow the chain of custody from the documents she had - tellingly, she wasn't pressed on this during the cross examination. USADA have a complete timeline in their brief, available for all to read. Oh, I forgot, can't be true because it comes from the evil empire.
> 
> I followed this link hoping for/expecting an unbiased summation of the facts - instead it's yet another piece that could have come straight from the Landis PR machine. Shame, I was expecting better.



Please correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will) but, doesn't Ms. Ayotte work for the French Canadian Sister-Lab to the LNDD?????
So, in following your logic here Bianchigirl, what you're saying is that everything she say's should be taken objectively too, right????? :wink5:


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*and hopefully*

LNDD will finally be removed from the business

I agree, Landis' innocence or guilt is completely buried under poor lab work


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

The whole piece is just cut and paste from trustbutverify, and they are self-proclaimed to be biased for Floyd.

Why not read the review on Floyd's own site after the case is over? LOL!


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

Bianchigirl said:


> Of course, there are some glaring innacuracies in this article - like the contention that data was overwritten which was simply not the case - and an over reliance on the say so of Bill Hue, an observer who doesn't even pretend to be impartial and whose criticism of the case largely seems to rest on the fact that he finds witnesses 'non credible' or 'bratty' even though he doesn't speak their language. His characterisation of Frelat, particularly, is purely emotional 'I don't believe a word she says' he states with absolutely no reason. And this red herring about her knowing whose urine she was analysing - it would be extremely difficult not to, considering Landis's representatives were there to attest to the fact that the sample belonged to him.
> 
> That's not arguing on the science, that's arguing emotively, with total bias and making completely unsupported character assasinations. Christine Ayotte testified that she was easily able to follow the chain of custody from the documents she had - tellingly, she wasn't pressed on this during the cross examination. USADA have a complete timeline in their brief, available for all to read. Oh, I forgot, can't be true because it comes from the evil empire.
> 
> I followed this link hoping for/expecting an unbiased summation of the facts - instead it's yet another piece that could have come straight from the Landis PR machine. Shame, I was expecting better.




...got your panties in a wad again...???

...or just exercising some "female solidarity" with Ayotte and the LNDD lady techs...???

...skip the articles and read the scientific testimony...


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Mohair, there are definite inconsistencies here, and they may have overwritten data. We don't know what the data was, because it was literally overwritten, they can't get at previous versions of the file.

USADA is making the case that this data was from priming the machine or some such, Floyd contends otherwise. Trustbutverify and other 'news' sources take floyd's position and declare it fact...when it's really just their argument. We'll see what the arbitrator's decide.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

SilasCL said:


> USADA is making the case that this data was from priming the machine or some such, Floyd contends otherwise. Trustbutverify and other 'news' sources take floyd's position and declare it fact...when it's really just their argument. We'll see what the arbitrator's decide.



Does / Can it really take THAT long to "prime" a machine????? I doubt it personally.

From the amount of time in between tests it looks more like they didn't get the results they wanted
the 1st time, so on, and so on....


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

DMFT said:


> Does / Can it really take THAT long to "prime" a machine????? I doubt it personally.
> 
> From the amount of time in between tests it looks more like they didn't get the results they wanted
> the 1st time, so on, and so on....


Who is to say? I really don't pretend to understand the details behind these arguments. I'm happy that the wiser folks on RBR already understand the case, and the allegations against the tests. Undoubtedly they have been watching live coverage of the event online and drawing their own conclusions to the testimony, and not relying on any of the 'news' sources covering the event. /sarcasm ends

I don't believe that the 3 arbitrators are intrinsically biased, so I will be quite happy to go along with whatever conclusions they reach at the end of the hearing.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Most of the <u>commentary</u> on Trustbutverify is derived from the testimony. I know, because I've read every single word of the transcripts. The commentary definitely leans towards Landis, but I think if you read all the testimony, you would arrive at the same conclusions. Subtract all the irrelevant stuff about messing with Lemond and concentrate on the bad science, and I think it's hard not to "lean" towards Landis. The USADA case is very weak, and their witnesses were also weak. If I were an arbiter, this would be an easy decision to make.

In computers, an overwrite is the same as a delete. If the overwrite is smaller than the original data overwritten, then you may be able to recover whatever untouched data remains at the end. It would incomplete and probably unusable. Therefore, it's a delete.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

SilasCL said:


> Who is to say? I really don't pretend to understand the details behind these arguments. I'm happy that the wiser folks on RBR already understand the case, and the allegations against the tests. Undoubtedly they have been watching live coverage of the event online and drawing their own conclusions to the testimony, and not relying on any of the 'news' sources covering the event. /sarcasm ends
> 
> I don't believe that the 3 arbitrators are intrinsically biased, so I will be quite happy to go along with whatever conclusions they reach at the end of the hearing.



- Nor do I. That's why I asked the question....
No sarcasm intended.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

DMFT said:


> Please correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will) but, doesn't Ms. Ayotte work for the French Canadian Sister-Lab to the LNDD?????? :wink5:


I don't think "sister-lab" is really accurate. they're both wada certified but they're also on different continents. Im sure they're also both ISO certified too but I don't think they're "sisters" with every ISO facility on the planet. at some point you just have to trust that someone's motives aren't suspect, otherwise all the witnesses might as well save the airfare. that, thankfully, is what the arbitrators are for. hopefully they're more sober in their judgment than us.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

blackhat said:


> I don't think "sister-lab" is really accurate. they're both wada certified but they're also on different continents. Im sure they're also both ISO certified too but I don't think they're "sisters" with every ISO facility on the planet. at some point you just have to trust that someone's motives aren't suspect, otherwise all the witnesses might as well save the airfare. that, thankfully, is what the arbitrators are for. hopefully they're more sober in their judgment than us.


Didn't you read the memo? All of WADA is corrupt with the ultimate goal of......bringing down Floyd Landis!

That's right, hundreds of millions spent to bring down one cyclist...


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

blackhat said:


> I don't think "sister-lab" is really accurate. they're both wada certified but they're also on different continents. Im sure they're also both ISO certified too but I don't think they're "sisters" with every ISO facility on the planet. *at some point you just have to trust that someone's motives aren't suspect,* otherwise all the witnesses might as well save the airfare. that, thankfully, is what the arbitrators are for. hopefully they're more sober in their judgment than us.



...it's the LNDD competency that's suspect...

...did you read the testimony transcripts that detailed the "training" that the Jr LNDD tech got...???...it's a joke...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

SilasCL said:


> I don't believe that the 3 arbitrators are intrinsically biased, so I will be quite happy to go along with whatever conclusions they reach at the end of the hearing.


Well it's a good bet 2 of 3 are heavily biased. Landis' selection is opposed to the whole way WADA works on principal. He even voted in favor of Hamilton (no doubt this is why Landis picked him). I assume the USADA appointment is probably pretty biased in their favor. Which leaves one neutral.

I believe when it gets to CAS there will be 3 neutrals.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

SilasCL said:


> Mohair, there are definite inconsistencies here, and they may have overwritten data. We don't know what the data was, because it was literally overwritten, they can't get at previous versions of the file.
> 
> USADA is making the case that this data was from priming the machine or some such, Floyd contends otherwise. Trustbutverify and other 'news' sources take floyd's position and declare it fact...when it's really just their argument. We'll see what the arbitrator's decide.


Erasing or overwritting data is a huge no-no in experiments, I currently work in a cutting edge medical facility and this just screams unprofessionalism. For me, after hearing that I see no reason to believe that Floyd flunked the test. Not that he didn't use PEDs but the tests are worthless.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*exactly*



Henry Porter said:


> Erasing or overwritting data is a huge no-no in experiments, I currently work in a cutting edge medical facility and this just screams unprofessionalism. For me, after hearing that I see no reason to believe that Floyd flunked the test. Not that he didn't use PEDs but the tests are worthless.


and precisely

the only thing we can conclude is for Scientists those folks are hacks


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

blackhat said:


> I don't think "sister-lab" is really accurate. they're both wada certified but they're also on different continents. Im sure they're also both ISO certified too but I don't think they're "sisters" with every ISO facility on the planet. at some point you just have to trust that someone's motives aren't suspect, otherwise all the witnesses might as well save the airfare. that, thankfully, is what the arbitrators are for. hopefully they're more sober in their judgment than us.



- I do believe I am right blackhat. The 2 lab's are owned by the same person/people IIRC.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

*A request*



Bianchigirl said:


> Of course, there are some glaring innacuracies in this article - like the contention that data was overwritten which was simply not the case - and an over reliance on the say so of Bill Hue, an observer who doesn't even pretend to be impartial and whose criticism of the case largely seems to rest on the fact that he finds witnesses 'non credible' or 'bratty' even though he doesn't speak their language. His characterisation of Frelat, particularly, is purely emotional 'I don't believe a word she says' he states with absolutely no reason. And this red herring about her knowing whose urine she was analysing - it would be extremely difficult not to, considering Landis's representatives were there to attest to the fact that the sample belonged to him.
> 
> That's not arguing on the science, that's arguing emotively, with total bias and making completely unsupported character assasinations. Christine Ayotte testified that she was easily able to follow the chain of custody from the documents she had - tellingly, she wasn't pressed on this during the cross examination. USADA have a complete timeline in their brief, available for all to read. Oh, I forgot, can't be true because it comes from the evil empire.
> 
> I followed this link hoping for/expecting an unbiased summation of the facts - instead it's yet another piece that could have come straight from the Landis PR machine. Shame, I was expecting better.


Do yourself and us a favor and read the transcripts before you type anything else. ut:


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

DMFT said:


> - I do believe I am right blackhat. The 2 lab's are owned by the same person/people IIRC.



I doubt it. I have no idea who "owns" the toronto lab and Im not looking it up but the LNDD is funded by the French Ministry of Youth and Sport. it's a government lab, France's national anti-doping laboratory.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

well, it will be interesting to see how Davis comes out on cross. His testimony today certainly did not make LNDD look very good-basically said the techs there didn't understand the machine and pretty effectively deconstructed their results. I'm not for a minute blinded into thinking Landis is innocent, but LNDD isn't exactly helping make the case airtight. Given the enormous number of positives they have in comparison to other labs, conspiracy theorists also have something to chew on from them...


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

*From Dr. Simon Davis*



Bianchigirl said:


> His characterisation of Frelat, particularly, is purely emotional 'I don't believe a word she says' he states with absolutely no reason.





> Q: you watched Mongongu and Frelot conduct their procedures.
> a: yes.
> 
> q: did you see them during retesting?
> ...


She does not know what she is doing, I would say that is a pretty good reason not to believe anything she says.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

blackhat said:


> I doubt it. I have no idea who "owns" the toronto lab and Im not looking it up but the LNDD is funded by the French Ministry of Youth and Sport. it's a government lab, France's national anti-doping laboratory.


Not sure who owns what, but not sure it really matters, either. An important point about WADA that was revealed in testimony is that in order to be certified as a WADA lab, you cannot testify against another lab. So ownership isn't important. WADA labs are required to form a united front, or they lose their WADA certification. This is rather disturbing.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> Not sure who owns what, but not sure it really matters, either. An important point about WADA that was revealed in testimony is that in order to be certified as a WADA lab, you cannot testify against another lab. So ownership isn't important. WADA labs are required to form a united front, or they lose their WADA certification. This is rather disturbing.



are you referring to the caitlin testimony or was there something I missed? I don't remember caitlin saying anything about losing certification, just receiving pressure-maybe lots of it- after providing testimony helpful to zach lund. still, you've got to trust at some point that witnesses aren't corruptable or the whole things meaningless. just pick your team and discredit everyone else.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Catlin mentioned it in his cross:

q: could you explain what WADA accred consists of?
a: oh gosh. you do a lot of work, you have to put a petition forward through USADA, once that filed, then work begins to show the accred is merited. That could take 3-5 years. You are accumulationg people, standards, qc work, start taking proficiency tests to show you know what you're doing, and after this, if you are successful you become accredited.

q: so it takes 3-5 years.
a: wouludn't want to say exactly. nowadays 3.

q: what does it take to maintain it?
a: you get proficiency samples, and get the right answers.

q: what is the proficincy sample?
a: a uring sample prepared elsewhere, either spiked or from someone given the drug, as blind samples. typically 6, 4 of which contain a drug or two, and to analyse them to get the right answers?

q: how oftern?
a: 3x/yr.

q: anything else to keep accred.
a: goes on and on; file reports, do research, not doing certain things, and get a "good citizen" to wada world of labs.

q: what is a good citizen?
a: participate, and not testify against your neighbor.

q: in order to maintain your accreditation, you may not testify against other labs?
<b>a: it's very clear it is not permitted to testify against other labs.</b>

<hr>

True, he didn't directly say the lab would lose certification, but I don't know how else to interpret his statement. If it is explicitly stated that the way you keep your accreditation is to be a "good citizen," and you aren't, then it's not likely you'll keep your accreditation.

http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2007/05/hearing-sat-after-lunch.html


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> Of course, there are some glaring innacuracies in this article - like the contention that data was overwritten which was simply not the case - and an over reliance on the say so of Bill Hue, an observer who doesn't even pretend to be impartial and whose criticism of the case largely seems to rest on the fact that he finds witnesses 'non credible' or 'bratty' even though he doesn't speak their language. His characterisation of Frelat, particularly, is purely emotional 'I don't believe a word she says' he states with absolutely no reason. And this red herring about her knowing whose urine she was analysing - it would be extremely difficult not to, considering Landis's representatives were there to attest to the fact that the sample belonged to him.
> 
> That's not arguing on the science, that's arguing emotively, with total bias and making completely unsupported character assasinations. Christine Ayotte testified that she was easily able to follow the chain of custody from the documents she had - tellingly, she wasn't pressed on this during the cross examination. USADA have a complete timeline in their brief, available for all to read. Oh, I forgot, can't be true because it comes from the evil empire.
> 
> I followed this link hoping for/expecting an unbiased summation of the facts - instead it's yet another piece that could have come straight from the Landis PR machine. Shame, I was expecting better.


Wow, your gonna ride that sinking ship right to the bottom of the ocean, huh. Everything is out there and people are seeing that lab for what it is, a joke. Again this isn't anti-French, it's THE TRUTH. You are certainly losing any credability for objectivity on this forum with your blind defense of all things French. Most of what you say is patently false ( Data was overwritten) or half truths.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

They were NOT overwriting data - simply priming the equipment - but, hey, TBVs precised testimony says so, so it must be true.

I speak French, I watched the lab technicians and Ayotte testify and heard the yes BUT, no BUT qualifications that are entirely absent from the TBV transcript.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

*Mongagu Testimony*



Bianchigirl said:


> They were NOT overwriting data - simply priming the equipment - but, hey, TBVs precised testimony says so, so it must be true.
> 
> I speak French, I watched the lab technicians and Ayotte testify and heard the yes BUT, no BUT qualifications that are entirely absent from the TBV transcript.


q: next page 13:06, saving file, and of course the second save erased the first one, and is no longer part of the record, correct?

a: yes.

q: why did you run mixcal acetate again here?
a: because the first was undoubtedly not correct.

q: did you take any contemporaneous notes of the first being not correct?
a: no.

q: so the record of the one that was not correct no longer exists?
a: no (meaning yes?)

q: you remember the first is not correct from memory alone?
a: if I did a second, it's because the first was not correct.

So it is OK to rerun, without any notes as to why you reran, as long as you don't like the results? 

http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2007/05/hearing-weds-mongagu-part-iii.html


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Bianchigirl said:


> They were NOT overwriting data - simply priming the equipment - but, hey, TBVs precised testimony says so, so it must be true.
> 
> I speak French, I watched the lab technicians and Ayotte testify and heard the yes BUT, no BUT qualifications that are entirely absent from the TBV transcript.


Let's repeat, IT IS NOT OKAY TO LOSE DATA. It doesn't matter whether it's a rogue technician or procedural. Any lab that does this will not be taken seriously..


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Henry Porter said:


> Let's repeat, IT IS NOT OKAY TO LOSE DATA. It doesn't matter whether it's a rogue technician or procedural. Any lab that does this will not be taken seriously..


All that matters in this case is if the WADA protocol disallows it. If not, then it doesn't do diddly squat for Landis.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

*Well*



Bianchigirl said:


> That's not arguing on the science


USADA seems to have given up on the science.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may23news



> The character of 2006 Tour de France Champion Floyd Landis was put under the microscope today, as United States Anti-Doping Agency attorneys chance to cross-examined the cyclists finally arrived, a day later than originally scheduled. Amongst the barrage of questions put to Landis by USADA attorney Matt Barnett were those focusing on the events that allegedly saw his now former business manager Will Geoghegan tamper with witness Greg LeMond.





> *Barnett, choosing to focus more on character than actual science during his cross-examination*, made a point of questioning Landis on his reasons for making an internet post last November in which he threatened to make public personal details that LeMond, a three time Tour de France winner, had told him in a private conversation. When LeMond took to the start last Thursday and revealed the details of Geoghegan's phone call, he also revealed that he had been sexually abused as a child - which was discussed with Landis during their earlier conversation.


Looks like they know their case is crap.:blush2:

Oh, and if you scroll down the the technical director of Mass Spec Solutions, which manufactures the mass spectrometer, testified that LNDD does not know what the fvck they are doing.



> "I think they are totally unreliable," said Davis, who was present at the lab's re-testing of Landis' sample in April this year.
> 
> "They clearly did not understand the instrument," he added in a scathing assessment of the technician's abilities. "I had to help them load the reprocessed data on the machine. They tried to help each other during the processing and did not seem to know how the software worked."


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> All that matters in this case is if the WADA protocol disallows it. If not, then it *doesn't do diddly squat for Landis*.



...speaking for myself [and possibly others] Landis guilt/innocence has almost become a sidebar in this fiasco...it cannot be determined... {edit:but no basis for charges}

...what has been determined [to my satisfaction anyway] is that LNDD has serious problems...

...the magnitude of their mess is absolutely stunning...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

bonkmiester said:


> what has been determined [to my satisfaction anyway] is that LNDD has serious problems...


That may be the case and it may still be true that Landis hasn't provided an explanation for his positive T/E ratio and carbon isotope test results.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

blackhat said:


> I doubt it. I have no idea who "owns" the toronto lab and Im not looking it up but the LNDD is funded by the French Ministry of Youth and Sport. it's a government lab, France's national anti-doping laboratory.



Aside from who owns them go back a read from the Catlin transcrips what it takes to eb a accredited WADA lab i.e. being a good WADA citizen which involves not ever saying that another lab got anything wrong. Therefore one WADA lab testifying another LAb got it right is pointless they are required to say that therefore their support of each other is worthless as testimony, USADA should have done them selves a favor and gotten outside experts like Landis's side did but then maybe there is a good reason they didn't.


----------



## 633 (Feb 10, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> That may be the case and it may still be true that Landis hasn't provided an explanation for his positive T/E ratio and carbon isotope test results.


It's possible I"m misunderstanding some of this, but it sounds like:

1) Amory, the UW guy who consults for USADA on these kinds of cases, is saying that he doesn't believe there _was_ a positive T/E test because of the oddity of the circumstances and the way it jumped overnight from 1.5/1 to 11/1. 

2) Meier-Augenstein is saying the carbon isotope test results don't look right and that he wouldn't put any validity on it.

3) Davis, one of the guys who designed the testing machine LNDD uses, provides an explanation for both by saying that:

They don't have the machine set up right #1: there's evidence of contamination coming into the machine.
They don't the machine set up right #2: the magnets are not set up right, and the magnetic fields are off, skewing everything they do in the direction of false positives.
The techs don't really know how to use the machine, and don't even have a copy of the manual on-site.
 Because they don't know how to use the machine, they manually start and stop things, and when results don't fit from one run the the next, they "adjust" them to make them fit. This part was really unbelievable to me, but that's the clear conclusion from yesterday's testimony. That was part of the A-sample/B-sample issue, if I understood it right. It sounds like they didn't really match up until the techs "adjusted" things. 

All that seems to go a long way toward explaining that 300% higher positive rate that LNDD has than any other lab.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> That may be the case and it may still be true that Landis hasn't provided an explanation for his positive T/E ratio and carbon isotope test results.


At this point its clear that the test results are highly suspect it very hard to prove a negative esp for somthing that dosn't exist like these results according to scientific method. Thast right in real lab the "results" would be tossed for the trash they are and the experiment would be restarted.


----------



## StormShadow (Feb 27, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> That may be the case and it may still be true that Landis hasn't provided an explanation for his positive T/E ratio and carbon isotope test results.


From my understanding, this isn't like the US criminal justice system, there isn't any reasonable doubt. At the end of the day the panel of arbitrators can decide that even though LNDD may not be able to detect sugar in kool-aid, it still doesn't explain why Landis had ExoT in his system.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

StormShadow said:


> At the end of the day the panel of arbitrators can decide that even though LNDD may not be able to detect sugar in kool-aid, it still doesn't explain why Landis had ExoT in his system.


Well, I think the point is that the test results are so out of whack, they may not indicate the presence of ExoT. Check out this excellent summary of Davis' testimony so far on Trust but Verify http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2007/05/hearing-tue-todays-davis-attempted.html

JSR


----------



## StormShadow (Feb 27, 2005)

JSR said:


> Well, I think the point is that the test results are so out of whack, they may not indicate the presence of ExoT. Check out this excellent summary of Davis' testimony so far on Trust but Verify http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2007/05/hearing-tue-todays-davis-attempted.html
> 
> JSR


...and I agree with you. I was just saying that the arbitrators seem to be able to interpret things the way they want.

When the final ruling is made is there an explanation given, or is it just guilty or innocent?


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

StormShadow said:


> ...and I agree with you. I was just saying that the arbitrators seem to be able to interpret things the way they want.


Ah, point well taken. It's good to remember that this is not court, it's arbitration of a civil matter between USADA (UCI, WADA, et al) and Landis. The agreements between the riders union and UCI, and between UCI and WADA/IOC, set the rules.

The rule basically is that WADA sets the rules. WADA says their tests are infallible and if they say you've doped, then you've doped. The burden of proof is on Landis to show that "something is really, really wrong here." 

The arbitrators may well return a decision in favor of USADA without having heard definitive evidence that Landis doped. They only have to say that Landis failed to prove that the test doesn't show he doped. Wash hands. Adjourn to CAS.

JR


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

StormShadow said:


> ...and I agree with you. I was just saying that the arbitrators seem to be able to interpret things the way they want.
> 
> When the final ruling is made is there an explanation given, or is it just guilty or innocent?


I believe there is whole document generated, or at least CAS did this for Hamilton's case. Not sure about USADA but it's largely irrelevant as the case will almost certainly go to CAS whatever the decision by the arbitrators.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

unless Landis's team decides to pursue some sort of civil recourse against USADA and forget about CAS, which is a closed hearing. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Team Landis did some very aggressive legal move following the arbitration decision-- given how stacked the panel is I'm sure Team Landis would love to get this whole process exposed in a civil case. If you were Landis would you want to spend hundreds of thousand of dollars on a CAS case, which is even more of a kangaroo court that this hearing???

I'm not for a minute naive enough to think Landis is as pure as fresh snow, but the testimony about LNDD is absolutely appalling, particularly Davis's testimony. Garbage in-Garbage out hasn't been more true.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

Why are ya'll arguing over the data? The fact is that Landis wore a black suit which makes him an unsavory character! Black suit=guilty conscious.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

dagger said:


> Why are ya'll arguing over the data? The fact is that Landis wore a black suit which makes him an unsavory character! Black suit=guilty conscious.



he brought that on himself. it was him, you'll remember, that was quoted telling people that he wore black to express his sentiment towards lemond. had he just put on his suit and kept his mouth shut, it wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Confusing*



blackhat said:


> he brought that on himself. it was him, you'll remember, that was quoted telling people that he wore black to express his sentiment towards lemond. had he just put on his suit and kept his mouth shut, it wouldn't be an issue.


Don't confuse contempt with guilt. Landis's contempt for Lemond is not a legtimate issue in a doping case. 

I am really suprise at how easily people are led astray from the issue at hand.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

dagger said:


> Landis's contempt for Lemond is not a legtimate issue in a doping case.
> 
> .



it wouldn't be if it weren't for geoghegan and his cell phone.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*???*



blackhat said:


> it wouldn't be if it weren't for geoghegan and his cell phone.


Still chasing rabbits blackhat. Lemond has nothing to do with the facts on whether Landis doped or not. I am still suprised that any grown assed man wants to continue down that road.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Still off track*

How does an intimidating phone call to an immaterial witness in an arbitration hearing change the facts. Lemond wasn't handling the data or testing in the lab which is the issue here. Lemond is NOT a legitimate material witness and should never have been introduced.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

the panel has said clearly that they'll weigh Lemond's testimony for what it's worth. BUT, the black suit was a stupid, stupid idea. It shows a lack of discipline. It also shows that Suh doesn't have his client under control. I doubt Landis informed him of the call prior to Lemond's testimony as well. Suh should ***** slap him for both...


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Again*

Contempt for a "perceived" blabbermouth is irrelavent. It was an unvocalized objection. They should have moved to bar the witness since he had no bearing. But the suit was a protest and could not have had any bearing on the witness's statement. Again if it doesn't have anything to do with the credibility of the lab or it's methods it should not be allowed as it is immaterial to the case. The arbitrators screwed that up as they allowed it to get out of hand by allowing him to show up.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*its done*



Henry Porter said:


> Let's repeat, IT IS NOT OKAY TO LOSE DATA. It doesn't matter whether it's a rogue technician or procedural. Any lab that does this will not be taken seriously..


I agree 100%. Put a fork in this one.

They dont lose the data , they overwrite it. Thats priceless.So what happens to the overwritten data was it recorded, oh golly we dont know because its overwritten??????? What a crock. The labs screwed up, they admit they cant testify against one another, its a farce and a CYA.

Floyd will not get nailed by the labs by ther use of science in its purest sense. What a crock....


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*dont forget*



dagger said:


> Why are ya'll arguing over the data? The fact is that Landis wore a black suit which makes him an unsavory character! Black suit=guilty conscious.


Black suits are also very slimming........Johnny Cash had a great song about Men in Black. What can we all do. Its just so obvious, slimming clothes, distatse for hearsay, wow, he has to be guilty now........


----------



## wyomingclimber (Feb 26, 2004)

To an extent it seems like the dopers themselves make character an issue. In essence, aren't Floyd and Hamilton saying, "I would never do such a thing because I'm such a great guy and all these lab people are evil minions out to get me!"

At this point, I can only make the following conclusions:

1: Floyd Landis is not a a great guy.

2: This has no bearing on the case. 

3: Floyd doped. The exoT tests, while not perfect, seem fairly damning.

4: Floyd would be a moron not to dope when he puts food on his table by lining up against the Operation Puerto crowd. I would.

5: The lab's incompetence is substantial enough to rule in Floyd's favor. 

6: The anti-doping minions need to either get their sh!t together or just go away. They are destroying the sport.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

wyomingclimber said:


> 3: Floyd doped. The exoT tests, while not perfect, seem fairly damning.


Really? Since the experts can't say what's there how can you?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> They were NOT overwriting data - simply priming the equipment - but, hey, TBVs precised testimony says so, so it must be true.
> 
> I speak French, I watched the lab technicians and Ayotte testify and heard the yes BUT, no BUT qualifications that are entirely absent from the TBV transcript.


I was wondering how much TBV's transcripts were edited. He left out parts such as Floyd's racing backgrounds, which seemed to be for brevity only (and quite reasonable) but who knows what he's choosing to write down. Once again, he's a biased source, can you trust any 'facts' on his blog?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*yeah seems like*



32and3cross said:


> Really? Since the experts can say what there how can you?


the exoT tests are some of the worst in regards to bench science standards


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

SilasCL said:


> I was wondering how much TBV's transcripts were edited. He left out parts such as Floyd's racing backgrounds, which seemed to be for brevity only (and quite reasonable) but who knows what he's choosing to write down. Once again, he's a biased source, can you trust any 'facts' on his blog?


Well, it is possible to make up your own mind based on empirical evidence. You can read TBV transcripts and then direct quotations in other sources. Do the two agree? You can also compare the transcripts to summaries in the press from reliable sources such as N.Y. Times, L.A. Times, Cyclingnews, Velonews, and on and on. Compare the summaries to the transcripts and see if the summaries are picking up things that the transcripts don't. From that, you should be able to form an opinion as to whether the transcripts are distorting the testimony.

This smacks of the same blind comdemnation of data that comes from manufacturers. Just because somone or some organization has a bias, does not mean they are incapable of presenting data fairly. Many peeople are able to maintain a distinction between presenting accurate data and opinion and commentary.


----------



## wyomingclimber (Feb 26, 2004)

32and3cross said:


> Really? Since the experts can't say what's there how can you?


You are saying that there are no experts who think Landis doped? Why was this case brought? Why is it in arbitration? Who are the doping people calling to the stand? 

As I said, I think Landis should get off. But if someone put a gun to my head and asked me to bet my life on whether the guy was doping or not? I think I'd say yes.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

wyomingclimber said:


> You are saying that there are no experts who think Landis doped? Why was this case brought? Why is it in arbitration? Who are the doping people calling to the stand?
> 
> As I said, I think Landis should get off. But if someone put a gun to my head and asked me to bet my life on whether the guy was doping or not? I think I'd say yes.


The case was brought because of a fairly automatic process. The A sample tested positive. The B sample tested positive. Ding! We have a case.

We're in arbitration because Landis believes (or knows) he is innocent, and he is a victim of faulty testing.

Why would someone put a gun to your head and ask you if Landis was doping or not? There is no answer you could give with any certainty. You have absolutely no idea either way.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

asgelle said:


> Well, it is possible to make up your own mind based on empirical evidence. You can read TBV transcripts and then direct quotations in other sources. Do the two agree? You can also compare the transcripts to summaries in the press from reliable sources such as N.Y. Times, L.A. Times, Cyclingnews, Velonews, and on and on. Compare the summaries to the transcripts and see if the summaries are picking up things that the transcripts don't. From that, you should be able to form an opinion as to whether the transcripts are distorting the testimony.
> 
> This smacks of the same blind comdemnation of data that comes from manufacturers. Just because somone or some organization has a bias, does not mean they are incapable of presenting data fairly. Many peeople are able to maintain a distinction between presenting accurate data and opinion and commentary.


..thank you...:thumbsup:


----------



## wyomingclimber (Feb 26, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> The case was brought because of a fairly automatic process. The A sample tested positive. The B sample tested positive. Ding! We have a case.


Suggesting that there are experts who believe he's doping.



mohair_chair said:


> We're in arbitration because Landis believes (or knows) he is innocent, and he is a victim of faulty testing.


Again, suggesting there are experts who believe he is doping



mohair_chair said:


> Why would someone put a gun to your head and ask you if Landis was doping or not? There is no answer you could give with any certainty. You have absolutely no idea either way.


This is a figure of speech. For instance, if I said "I'm really under the gun at work," my boss isn't actually pointing a firearm at me.

A year ago I would have made this statement about Basso and Jan U. It would appear I would still be alive.

Oh, no. Wait. Basso was just thinking about doping. Guess I'd be dead.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

*But*



wyomingclimber said:


> Suggesting that there are experts who believe he's doping.


But they are being exposed as not being experts




wyomingclimber said:


> Again, suggesting there are experts who believe he is doping


Again, they are being exposed as not being experts.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Rather like Davis who lied about his expertise on his CV? And who has admitted that the photo he took of the ,magnets on the machine was not the machine that was actually used? Seems those involved on the Landis side are quite prepared to cheat and obscure the truth in order to help the cause. And Herr Doktor is, by his own admission, not an expert at all in the detection of testosterone. Still, guess the £750 a day he's receiving helps ease that pain - that and the being flown around at Landis's personal expense.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

BikinCO said:


> But they are being exposed as not being experts
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you're reading too much into this. they <i>may</i> be misinterpreting data, may not too, but AFAIK no one's really had their credentials successfully called into question.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Bianchigirl said:


> Rather like Davis who lied about his expertise on his CV?


And this is why your credibility is going the way of USADA's. I assume this is the exchange to which you refer.

"q:staff scientist at LBL?
a: yes.

"q: that wasn't your title was it?
a: title when I left.

"q: when did it become your title?
a: can't say after the top of my head?

"q: difference between Staff scientist and post-doc fellow?
a: not sure there is a post-doc fellow at berkeley.

"q: let me show you another resume. instead of staff scientist, this resume says post-doc fellow.
a: correct.

"q: so there is a post-doc?
a: my description."

There are no lies here. He was promoted to staff scientist (a job title) from post-doc felllow (a job description) while at LBL. Two resumes from different times were each accurate at the time they were written. The change from job description (the meaning of post-doc fellow is clear to anyone in the field) to job title is a choice of style. There is no deception in using one over the other.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

The best way to tell if this guy is lying or not is to examine what he is wearing. Wearing all black, for instance, is incontrovertible evidence that he is hiding something.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

asgelle said:


> Well, it is possible to make up your own mind based on empirical evidence. You can read TBV transcripts and then direct quotations in other sources. .....



my largest complaint with TBV is his frequent asides. hed be easier to take seriously if he didn't insert his own opinion of the testimony into his transcriptions. it makes him look like a tool.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

blackhat said:


> my largest complaint with TBV is his frequent asides. hed be easier to take seriously if he didn't insert his own opinion of the testimony into his transcriptions. it makes him look like a tool.


Bill Hue, who runs TBV, is a Wisconsin State Circuit Court Judge. I think that makes him well qualified to comment on the testimony, and his insights are revealing. In the last testimony of Brenna, it was very interesting for him to point out when Brenna was not quite answering the questions. On cross, Brenna was asked if he was misleading the panel, and even that answer was non-committal.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

blackhat said:


> my largest complaint with TBV is his frequent asides. hed be easier to take seriously if he didn't insert his own opinion of the testimony into his transcriptions. *it makes him look like a tool*.



*...kind of like they way you insert your prejudice into this thing...????*

....if you'd spent any amount of time over at DPF, you'd understand the personalities, AND that in his blog TVB is relatively neutral, as neutral as he says he can be...on DPF he is more adamant in his support of FL...

...take a step back and just look at the amazing amount of effort he's put into TVB since last summer...guy deserves much respeck...:thumbsup:

...as someone else mentioned [in the GL thread?], just because someone is "selling something" doesn't mean they are lying...

...everyday when you post something here, you're "selling" your cred, no...???

...so take a breath, there really IS a bigger issue here [than FL]...the entire anti-dopage system has been exposed as something not really cracked up to what it's supposed to be...

...there are bright people on both sides of the issue staking their cred, and grants & business, and lives on this mess...

...I've read your posts over the years...your a bright guy...

...why don't you apply your intellect to the big picture, and back off on the vehemence...

...if you don't, your gonna have to ask yourself...whose the tool...???


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bonkmiester said:


> ...as someone else mentioned [in the GL thread?], just because someone is "selling something" doesn't mean they are lying...


Look up four posts


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

asgelle said:


> Look up four posts


..thanks AGAIN...

:thumbsup:
b0nk


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

bonkmiester said:


> *...kind of like they way you insert your prejudice into this thing...????*
> 
> ...if you don't, your gonna have to ask yourself...whose the tool...???



the difference is Im not running a blog. he discloses his bias so its a minor point, but the asides aren't that informative and theyre often snarky (much like my posts...but Im not runnign a blog). and by "tool" in this particular instance, I meant a "tool of the landis camp" not the more pejorative meaning of the word.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

blackhat said:


> the difference is Im not running a blog. he discloses his bias so its a minor point, but the asides aren't that informative and theyre often snarky (much like my posts...but Im not runnign a blog). and by "tool" in this particular instance, I meant a "tool of the landis camp" not the more pejorative meaning of the word.




...thanks for your candor, and the clarification of your meaning of "tool"...
i see a double entendre there that I chalk up to your intellect & wit..:thumbsup:

...tell me, what to _you_ think of the technical testimony...???

...have you had time to review today's cross and rebutal testimonies...???


----------



## Art853 (May 30, 2003)

And if you want to find out about Landis' wardrobe you can check the major news media sites.

LA Times headline
Landis asked about wardrobe
Cross-examination of Tour de France winner focuses on why he wore black on day LeMond testified and why he waited to fire manager.
posted May 23, 2007

NY Times
Landis's Character is the Focus of Questioning
published May 23, 2007
"One of the most prominent doping cases in sports history is coming down to a crank call, a black suit and a beer or two."

"With a fresh haircut and his trusty yellow tie, he leaned forward in his chair and spoke clearly into the microphone."


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

bonkmiester said:


> ...tell me, what to _you_ think of the technical testimony...???


I think there's enough there that you can reinforce whatever position you already had. I didn't see anything that would lead me to believe that the huge quantity of errors the lab made actually <i>caused</i> his positives and AFAIK that was what he had to do. so...Im gonna flip. I said going in I thought he'd get off. I think landis is toast. especially if the arbitrators put much of any weight on the "theatrics" (lemond, black suits, etc.)


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

blackhat said:


> I think there's enough there that you can reinforce whatever position you already had. *I didn't see anything that would lead me to believe that the huge quantity of errors the lab made actually caused his positives* and AFAIK that was what he had to do. so...Im gonna flip. I said going in I thought he'd get off. I think landis is toast. especially if the arbitrators put much of any weight on the "theatrics" (lemond, black suits, etc.)



...so, your not buying teh Davis/M-A testimonies...any specific reason(s) why...???...


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

bonkmiester said:


> ...so, your not buying teh Davis/M-A testimonies...any specific reason(s) why...???...



no, I buy it. the manual adjustment method seems like a poor way to do a test with any consistency and fwiw the lab workers don't appear to have a complete grasp of how the machinery works. and he got a picture of magnets on a machine that they didn't use on landis's test. that's not what landis had to show though, he had to show that the errors of the testing were such that they caused all of his positives. not saying Ill be dumbfounded if he gets off, I just don't think he actually showed how all of these mistakes somehow culminated in a bunch of landis +'s.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

Art853 said:


> And if you want to find out about Landis' wardrobe you can check the major news media sites.
> 
> LA Times headline
> Landis asked about wardrobe
> ...



Did the closing arguments conclude the hearing today?... and if not, will Landis wear a white suit, belt and shoes tomorrow?


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

*The trial according to Toto*

If the lab technician [email protected], the results must be discarded!


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*I dunno*



blackhat said:


> I think you're reading too much into this. they <i>may</i> be misinterpreting data, may not too, but AFAIK no one's really had their credentials successfully called into question.


the 2 docs who spoke for Landis' side sure did point out and call into question the creds of the lab 'experts'


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

No, Landis doesn't have to prove the lab caused his positives. He has to show that the lab deviated from SOP and WADA standards, thereby making the results invalid or questionable. There is a difference.


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

So Landis is guilty of doping, and the labs are guilty of being idiots, and procedures have been compromised. Its virtually impossible to argue that. 
Now, that being said, is Landis gonna get off? Have their been wholesale changes for this years tour, and giro? 
IMO, I'd like to see landis get off. I doubt he'll race for a decent team, anytime soon. Even if he aint stripped and banned.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> No, Landis doesn't have to prove the lab caused his positives. He has to show that the lab deviated from SOP and WADA standards, thereby making the results invalid or questionable. There is a difference.


Im just regurgitating what I read...from <a href="http://velonews.com/news/fea/10679.0.html">legally speaking</a> at velonews.com

..."The rider must then rebut the presumption that the sample analysis and custodial procedures were conducted in accordance with WADA's International Standard for Laboratory Analysis. If the rider rebuts this presumption, the UCI or the National Federation then have the burden to establish that the proven departure from the International Standard did not cause the adverse analytical finding. And so on"....

I read that to mean that as long as usada can show that the "departure" didn't "cause the adverse analytical finding" than it's not enough. I guess that's what the arbitrators are here for.


----------

