At lunch today I saw a CNN news crawl to the effect that there were errors concerning Landis’ B sample.
Anyone see this? Google gives me nothing.
At lunch today I saw a CNN news crawl to the effect that there were errors concerning Landis’ B sample.
Anyone see this? Google gives me nothing.
Wow
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/more/11/15/bc.cyc.frenchdoping.lab.ap/index.html
its on yahoo sports…
here’s a link to SI
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/more/11/15/bc.cyc.frenchdoping.lab.ap/index.html
.
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20061115_134855Dev.html
in french…
the B sample was numbered 994 474 instead of 995 474.
Jacques de Ceaurriz has admitted the mistake that was qualified as minor and didn’t change anything re. the testing itself. Both A and B samples were positive. And both A and B samples belonged to Landis.
There is another thread on this, but it’s on page 3 or 4: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=1072359#1072359
Here is my question, so what? In their report they have a typo. I thought Landis said all along that his B would be positive because of naturally occurring conditions in his body/alcohol/dehydration/excuse of the day.
and they mentioned ‘big discrepancies’…wow…994 XXX instead of 995 XXX on a hand written label…that’s a huge thing…
Here is my question, so what?
Reasonable doubt. It is easy to say it is a typo, but who knows if it is a typo or a different sample? When you start adding errors to errors, at what point do you start to suspect the conclusion?
because there was no other sample with the same 994 sequence…and it’s the only mistake admitted. the other mistakes are claimed on Landis’s side…but they haven’t said what they were…
Last (but not least) the whole thing is bogus…Pereiro isn’t any cleaner and everyone behind is in the same bag…no one really cares. All the Operacion Puerto guys are coming back and will be encouraged…
Stop cycling for 10 years, get rid of everyone, start up clean…many other sports should do the same…
Or just allow everything…but what is being done now is going nowhere.
The key word in the first part of your response is “admitted.” The Landis camp claimed there were errors and we now have one error. It may be minor, but it still lends credence to what the Landis camp said and puts a shadow of doubt on the lab.
The second part of your statement is a strawman and has zero to do with this conversation. We are not talking about how many people dope, but about the issues with one lab.
But this isn’t a criminal case so the burden of proof may not be reasonable doubt. The standard of proof could be quite a bit lower as in civil cases.
I agree. In fact, Rule 45 of CAS provides that the parties may select the governing law for the proceeding. I believe the hearing is going to be in the U.S., so preponderance of evidence could well be the standard.
your first point: indeed…the director of the lab agreed that it’s something Landis’s side will try to use to their advantage. But he said he was confident it will not have any impact in the end.
second point: afaik I can talk about what I want, feel free to ignore my rant.
your first point: indeed…the director of the lab agreed that it’s something Landis’s side will try to use to their advantage. But he said he was confident it will not have any impact in the end.
second point: afaik I can talk about what I want, feel free to ignore my rant.
Interesting way to avoid answering what I actually said.
Only if you can’t read. I answered.
Only if you can’t read. I answered.
I suppose if you consider answering what I posted with some BS canned answer from the lab instead of think on your own.
Did you read the analysis threads at Daily Peloton? Interesting stuff…
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=1772