I posted the slide show to make arguement that perhaps Floyd Landis did not fail his drug test after all. What I’m looking for, and have yet to find, is any opposing view (WADA or USADA?)that argues against the findings and facts as presented in the slide show. If there is an opposing view to the evidence as presented in the slide show, I would love to see it.
The case will be argued in court.
I think Landis is quick to argue in the court of public opinion because there is no chance for rebuttal and it doesn’t hurt to get the public on your side.
**Public Disclosure of Pending Cases. ** No later than 2 business days after it has been determined in a hearing in accordance with the USADA Protocol that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred, or such hearing has been waived, or the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation has not been timely challenged, USADA shall publicly report the disposition of the anti-doping matter. from usada website… Have not found anything about disclosure only after both samples are tested.
dude! wow! seriously you are the only one wathching those!
I agree a lot of the report is good lawyer trying to discredit all possible evidence, which is what he is paid to do. But, I do know if my company operated the way that Lab is run we would not be in business for very long.
based solely on what the other side claims the dysfunction of the lab to be? I seriously doubt the accuracy of that argument to begin with.
Story - A friend is a firefighter. He fought a fire a couple of weeks ago in a small town. the Home that unfortunately burned down was built high on a hill without hydrants or water resource. It was a 2 million dollar home. they arrived in less than 10 minutes from the time of the call. Its documented.
the homeowner has publicly stated that the fire department took nearly an hour to arrive. I understand the evolution of time is skewed when your home is burning. The media happily printed this as fact.The public happily embraced it as true.
so - now my friend has to spend his personal time defending the dept. response time against angry citizens that are familiar with the poor guy that lost his house.
Does that make his story accurate? The media printing it did, because most people will not critically debate the information ingested. It is accepted as fact. No sense in waiting for the courts to debate it. Lets decide now.
With respect to Landis - I want the whole story - then will delineate fact from fiction and that includes a supposedly discredited lab. I want proof of this before a certified lab is taken out as incompetent.
According to their own timeline, no public disclosure until after both the B sample test and a review panel. A minimum of 6 1/2 weeks…clearly this was not followed.
read again - it is not policy but a guideline, or am I reading that wrong?;
** ANNEX F Time Line Approximate Timelines and Notices Under USADA Protocol (This timeline is for general guidance only and does not create any obligation, requirement or right under the USADA Protocol)**
.
LOL - Okay, I think we are likely on similar pages anyway. I just want to see this mess resolved in a balanced format, for the sake of sport, for the sake of Landis and for the sake of my kids future in sporting disciplines.
My point is simply that I am not a fan of media related debate. It is always partial to one side or another, while the story always appears to be complete and damning for that side. ( this of course extends well beyone sport… )
Integrity above all else in sport would be ideal. I hope we can get there someday.
Integrity above all else in sport would be ideal. I hope we can get there someday.
Sounds good, but I don’t think it will happen as long as there is a winner.
ps. We all need to just be participants, forget that striving to improve yourself crap.
I agree the passing judgement based on one sided information is always a bad choice. I work in a semi-conductor plant, we provide very valuable materials to customers who accept zero mistakes. I don’t work directly our the lab facility but have a good appreciation of the attention to detail that is exercised there. Mistakes will always occur, but they need to have air tight explanations or the lab is held responsible never the customer. If the report is even partially accurate it looks like sloppy lab work, and guilty or not Floyd will get off.
totally agreed. Similar scenario since we also have a lab - a drug lab for a private pharmaceutical company. In our lab for example, MDL ( minimal detectable limits ) need to be established. Since absolute zero for some tests is neither achievable ( standard deviation of testing equipment, interferences etc )nor practical, it is always a challenge to establish those limits. They are in the parts per million and the parts per billion scenario’s. Now, to the ‘other side’ zero is zero. One second in a light year is considered zero to a lab with accepted protocols. to a media savvy legal team, zero is zero, never mind the logic. Its about agenda, vs. reality. Our lab, and I would have to assume any accredited lab, works under very tight protocols. I highly doubt those protocols would be ignored, given the magnitude of the eventual possible outcomes of these tests. Mistakes happen though, and we will see if this is the case once all evidence is levied.
if the glove does not fit, you must aquit…what a sham, what a shame.
I’ve not debated this case at all, but, “THERE’S TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY”!!! As a cop for 22 years, I know this to be very true!! I’ll wait to hear BOTH sides of the case.
I am just replying to Pooks statement, but am not addressing him specifically:
I find it quite interesting that in this thread and the matter in general I see a lot of people getting aggro against anti-doping agencies who have made statements in the past that the rules of competition are more or less open for debate and/or interpretation…
(may I just remind of the “Drafting is not cheating, it is just committing a foul…” comment in another thread?).
I think some people would help Landis more by just staying quiet. An accused murderer who is publicly declared innocent by OJ Simpson is certainly not going to improve his chances with the jury…
For Pooks:
You got Slowmans opinion on this matter down to the letter of the word… You get an A+ for that!
Errrr…not to nitpick or anything…but a light year would be a measure of distance (~5,878,625,373,183.61 statute miles), whereas a second is a unit of time. You may want to try using “a millimeter to a light year” for your analogy.
I heard LA on Dan Patrick’s show on ESPN radio yesterday(11/20 2:45pm central).
Patrick asked LA about Landis. LA not only said he did not think Landis was guilty, but also thought that the French lab was a complete disgrace. He said they should be out of business given their sloppiness in general.
He also reworded his statement about the NY marathon being the hardest thing he has ever done. He said given the fact he undertrained and was out of shape the pounding of the marathon hurt more than any other race.
Public Disclosure of Pending Cases. No later than 2 business days after it has been determined in a hearing in accordance with the USADA Protocol that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred, or such hearing has been waived, or the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation has not been timely challenged, USADA shall publicly report the disposition of the anti-doping matter. from usada website… Have not found anything about disclosure only after both samples are tested.
Mitch, I thought a violation is only considered to have occured if both samples have tested positive. Using your logic, if the A sample tested positive, it would have been announced, then if the B sample tested negative, they would have had to “un-announce” their announcement.
Working upstream from the lab in the process flow I have become very comfortable in blaming the lab when problems occur. Easy targets because there work is so detail detpendant that finding errors is easy, especially when you know what to look for.
( i hope no one from our lab is a slowtwitch member. based on the fact that those guys think sedoku is a sport though i think i am safe). ****
