Richard Pound is a ****

[David Kirk]

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/11639.0.html

Dave

[mosca]

I don't think he could possibly conduct himself in a less professional manner. Definitely a ****.

[davep]

The LA Times had a great story a couple months back about just fouled up the whole WADA testing regime is - http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sp-doping10dec10,0,2627563,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines. Its long but a fairly fast read.

[Archibald]

Deek Pound's avatar:

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4369/poundit30wl.gif


:banana: :banana: :banana:

[Johny]

I don't care who is who.
Six EPO positive samples, No?

[BBB]

I agree with the title of this thread, save for that I'd add in LA is also a ****.

It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black when the one criticises the other and its kind of sad that both feel the need to make their tiff public property. Why don't they both shut up?

[atmo]

because at least one of them has some big balls atmo.
makes me sick. yeah.

[lemondsteel]

because at least one of them has some big balls atmo.
makes me sick. yeah.


Remember.......... 3 is a crowd.

[harlond]

I don't care who is who.
Six EPO positive samples, No?Yes if you believe in the integrity of the samples, the procedures, and the testers, and that the applicable and appropriate procedures were followed. No if you don't. I don't know either way, but from what I've read, it's not as simple as six positive samples. Also, the word "positive" has a specific meaning in the context of drug-testing, and as I understand it, the use of the term in the context of the 1999 samples is inapt.

It seems a lot easier to judge **** Pound because he makes so little effort to conceal his zealotry and animus.

[rwsaunders]

The New York Times ran an article on Mr. Pound, the former athlete and attorney, several weeks ago, which did not seem to be complimentary imho.

While I believe that he might stand for a cause, I don't agree with his self-professed tactics of bending the truth in order to draw attention. That's the work of a malpractice attorney, not an athletic organization's leader.

[Big Dan]

It's time for both of them to take the twins and go away....

:cool:

[BBB]

[QUOTE=rwsaunders]The New York Times ran an article on Mr. Pound, the former athlete and attorney, several weeks ago, which did not seem to be complimentary imho.
[QUOTE]

Raising money for cancer research aside, there has been plenty of uncompliementary things written about LA. ATMO they are both in the gutter slinging mud at each other and it is a distraction at best and outright pathetic at worst.

[Too Tall]

Thanks Dave. Yesh. Management rewards incompetence with promotions and recognition and what will his reward be?

[Andreas]

Whole dispute is silly.


Andreas

[chakatrain]

Independent of what Pound is saying, there are six positive samples.
The term positive is not inapt in this context. EPO tests are very reliable and rarely false positive. I have used them for years for research purposes and they are hard to screw up.

The positive test can not be used by the UCI for a case against Hipstrong because it was not an official UCI test at the time and the UCI only accepts test results on old samples that are not older than a certain time span (I think 3 years IIRC, but I may well be wrong).

Not that I care anymore about professional racing/doping. But I understand the matter pretty well. There is no doubt in my mind that he took EPO, as did likely many more. The whole dispute is silly.


Andreas

Ok...this is probably like throwing gas on an open fire...and apologies in advance about perhaps hijacking the thread, but...what about the Valkja's Mr. Emile Vrijman's Independent Report (http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport%20HR%20zonder.pdf) , released May '06, which investigated the matter? That raised enough questions about the tests that I am hard pressed to conclude, from this particular case, that the evidence conclusively determines that Armstrong used EPO in the '99 TdF.

[djg]

Independent of what Pound is saying, there are six positive samples.
The term positive is not inapt in this context. EPO tests are very reliable and rarely false positive. I have used them for years for research purposes and they are hard to screw up.

The positive test can not be used by the UCI for a case against Hipstrong because it was not an official UCI test at the time and the UCI only accepts test results on old samples that are not older than a certain time span (I think 3 years IIRC, but I may well be wrong).

Not that I care anymore about professional racing/doping. But I understand the matter pretty well. There is no doubt in my mind that he took EPO, as did likely many more. The whole dispute is silly.

Andreas

The term "positive" may be apt or inapt, but the statement, "a French accredited laboratory found that he had six positive samples for EPO in 1999," is, as far as I know, simply false. By it's own account, the lab did not set out to maintain samples AS Armstrong's samples (or anyone else's) and did not set out to test the proposition that some particular person took anything in particular. These just weren't part of the transfer, storage, or testing protocols, such as they were. It's entirely plausible that the list of names, Armstrong's included, correlates with the numbered samples in just the way supposed, but I haven't seen a statement from anybody suggesting that the lab (and its sources) were following any sort of protocol designed to insure that would be so. I gather that you have such protocols in your own lab, whether you are doing basic science or clinical research, if it matters at all to your work which samples are which.

If you're in Aetna and you do biomedical research, then I'll guess that you're on the faculty at the Dartmouth College Medical School (or maybe a post doc). I don't do science anymore, and was never a blood guy in any case, so I'll guess that you know quite a bit more about some of the particular tests administered than I do. At the same time, your statement about "the test" is curious, as the lab's account of its procedures for distinguishing synthetic EPO involved comparing the results of several tests, some of which appeared to be subjectively gauged and, by independent accounts, somewhat fussy.

I think folks are pissed because Mr. Pound's statements, time and time again, seem entirely inappropriate for someone who occupies his institutional position. There's a fundamental assymetry between Armstrong and Pound independent of the question whether they both know or believe the same things here. Whether Lance is a saint or a complete jerk or a cheater is sort of immaterial to the question whether we should expect him to defend his personal interests. Pound, on the other hand, represents not himself but an organization and a process and he oughtn't to go mouthing off about what he "knows" (often, it seems, running ahead of the evidence) any more than the head of the FDA ought to go mouthing off about a sure-fire cure that just needs more data (or sure fire malfeasance in advance of a hearing).

[chakatrain]

+1. Well articulated, atmo.

[Archibald]

The term "positive" may be apt or inapt, but the statement, "a French accredited laboratory found that he had six positive samples for EPO in 1999," is, as far as I know, simply false. By it's own account, the lab did not set out to maintain samples AS Armstrong's samples (or anyone else's) and did not set out to test the proposition that some particular person took anything in particular. These just weren't part of the transfer, storage, or testing protocols, such as they were. It's entirely plausible that the list of names, Armstrong's included, correlates with the numbered samples in just the way supposed, but I haven't seen a statement from anybody suggesting that the lab (and its sources) were following any sort of protocol designed to insure that would be so. I gather that you have such protocols in your own lab, whether you are doing basic science or clinical research, if it matters at all to your work which samples are which.

If you're in Aetna and you do biomedical research, then I'll guess that you're on the faculty at the Dartmouth College Medical School (or maybe a post doc). I don't do science anymore, and was never a blood guy in any case, so I'll guess that you know quite a bit more about some of the particular tests administered than I do. At the same time, your statement about "the test" is curious, as the lab's account of its procedures for distinguishing synthetic EPO involved comparing the results of several tests, some of which appeared to be subjectively gauged and, by independent accounts, somewhat fussy.

I think folks are pissed because Mr. Pound's statements, time and time again, seem entirely inappropriate for someone who occupies his institutional position. There's a fundamental assymetry between Armstrong and Pound independent of the question whether they both know or believe the same things here. Whether Lance is a saint or a complete jerk or a cheater is sort of immaterial to the question whether we should expect him to defend his personal interests. Pound, on the other hand, represents not himself but an organization and a process and he oughtn't to go mouthing off about what he "knows" (often, it seems, running ahead of the evidence) any more than the head of the FDA ought to go mouthing off about a sure-fire cure that just needs more data (or sure fire malfeasance in advance of a hearing).
That's quite a spanking you've applied there. Reminds me of my quarrels with Obtuse.

:banana:

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . of the circumstances of this complaint, I'm tired of them both.

BBD

[BBB]

I think folks are pissed because Mr. Pound's statements, time and time again, seem entirely inappropriate for someone who occupies his institutional position. There's a fundamental assymetry between Armstrong and Pound independent of the question whether they both know or believe the same things here. Whether Lance is a saint or a complete jerk or a cheater is sort of immaterial to the question whether we should expect him to defend his personal interests. Pound, on the other hand, represents not himself but an organization and a process and he oughtn't to go mouthing off about what he "knows" (often, it seems, running ahead of the evidence) any more than the head of the FDA ought to go mouthing off about a sure-fire cure that just needs more data (or sure fire malfeasance in advance of a hearing).

That's well put. Certainly you have identified the concern with Pound as he does seem to manage to personalise doping disputes whether in the interests of WADA or not. But, I'd suggest that LA's motivation is not entirely immaterial in this 'debate'. Sure he has a right to defend himself, but he is also defending LA Inc as if the mud sticks then the whole house of cards comes crashing down. There is an awful lot of smoke surrounding LA and as such the notion of whether we should expect him to defend his personal interests is so indelible to the personal issues you raise - the question of whether he is a saint (eg funding for cancer research), a complete jerk (eg slamming Bassons) or a cheater (eg the 6 positives samples in question) - that they realistically cannot be viewed independently. And perhaps LA has encouraged that view by at times appearing to sit in the ivory tower and daring the so-called trolls to tear him down (eg the prove it taunt that ultimately led to the L'Equipe 6 positive samples article). The unfortunate result, or at least so I think, is that both Pound and Armstrong have ended up in the gutter slinging mud (death by media sound bite) so that the actual matters in dispute become a side show and the side show becomes the main game.

[obtuse]

That's quite a spanking you've applied there. Reminds me of my quarrels with Obtuse.

:banana:


me and munson vs. you and dwf.

greco roman style brutha.....


obtuse

[michael white]

Pound ought to stick with what's proven. His priorities are way out of line. Yes, I think LA's motivation ought to be immaterial, at least to Pound. Lots of athletes are jerks; Charles Barkley and the "role model" controversy come to mind. Maybe it takes a big jerk with an ego the size of Texas to do what LA did.

[Andreas]

At the same time, your statement about "the test" is curious, as the lab's account of its procedures for distinguishing synthetic EPO involved comparing the results of several tests, some of which appeared to be subjectively gauged and, by independent accounts, somewhat fussy.



DJG,

thanks for taking the time to educate on some of these issues. I don't have the time to go into details, just a quick response.
Please note that I do not care about LA or Pound or their respective, obvious bias' and agendas, I have neither.

I also do not really care if the evidence is enough by WADA standards, just commenting on the likelihood that LA took EPO at the time.

First some basic background info. The Laboratoire National de Dépistage du Dopage in Paris is an internationally known Labaratory that processes samples from all over the world for research.
Françoise Lasne and Jacques de Ceaurriz published a brief communication in Nature on their work on "Recombinant erythropoietin in urine (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v405/n6787/full/405635a0.html) ". Briefly, it describes their methodology of dectecting rHuEPO. Chemiluminescent immunodetection of blotted EPO after isoelectric focusing is not a "subjective" test, you can look at the images in te Nature publication. They then analyzed 102 samples, of which 28 were out of normal range (0-3.7 iU), and analyzed 14 with the highest concentration (7-20). If I understand correctly, 6 of those 14 were attributed to LA.

Again, I do not know WADA protocols. I understand that Laboratoire National de Dépistage du Dopage could not provide documentation that the urine samples were stored correctly, which btw is not atypical. Too keep a log of temperatures was not too common during that time period.
If there were fluctuations in temperature there is a possibility of enzymatic impact on the analysis of endogenous vs. exogenous EPO. Also, there are concerns about labeling of samples from what I have read.

Given the above, lawyers will enough arguments to prevent this from being conclusive evidence.
OTOH, if there was a storage problem, it would have led to a systematic error and the high samples still would have the highest concentrations of EPO. The fact that a fair number of samples were in the normal range speaks against it. Unless they only had the six samples in a separate fridge (very unlikely).
The number of six samples showing exogenous EPO on samples attributed to one rider is relatively convincing. Mislabeling of all of them in a lab of that experience and reputation in very unlikely.

There are all kinds of other issues involved (privacy, ethical, etc.) of retrospectively testing, leaking and publishing this kind of data.

But, the chance that the person took exogenous EPO at the time is very high.

BTW, microdosing (http://www.medicalhosting.org/archives/FMPro?-db=backissues.fp5&-format=details.html&-lay=show&PMID=16870547&-find=) is the way to go.

Last comment is that the author of the Nature paper, Ceaurriz, has more than 70 peer-reviewed publications - not a slacker by any standards. Most recently on the short term effects of Salbutamol (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstract&list_uids=16195983&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum)


Certainly I do not want this to be a competition. Your comments about Mr. Pound and the dispute that I have not followed make sense to me. One ought to be very careful to make statements in a public function about difficult matters.
Lance certainly has the right to defend his personal interests. They might not be in the interest of cycling or of cleaning it up.
Mr. Pound has an agenda as well, publicity, career, whatever. Likely also not in the interest of cycling or of cleaning it up.

Vrijman's report is a lawyer's look at the issue. I did not read all 132 pages back then. Just remember that it took a totally different approach that I am used to take when testing a hypothesis or peer reviewing papers. But I am not a lawyer.

Do I think he took EPO given the evidence presented - yes.
Do I care - no. My bias is that most riders take stuff. IIRC, 80% of tour riders in 2004 were on some prescription medication. Salbutamol for RAD, steroid for eczema (LA), or whatever.

It was a good ride to work today. -3 F when I left, dry, clean air. Winter storm tomorrow. Didn't take any drugs today.

Have fun riding out there.

Andreas

[shaq-d]

...etc.
First some basic background info. The Laboratoire National de Dépistage du Dopage in Paris is an internationally known Labaratory that processes samples from all over the world for research....etc.


Andreas, this was one of the best posts I've seen on the subject. Thank you.

sd

[keno]

if either of you need legal representation in this matter I'm a disbarred lawyer, formerly from Massachusetts, and quite available. Incidentally, I'd represent both of you as conflicts don't bother me. (Slightly related is a true story about John Unitas when he first played for the Baltimore Colts. The Colt's last pre-season game at the time, an intrasquad game, had Unitas play quarterback for both teams because the weather was so lousy and the coach didn't want to risk the health of his then starting quarterback.)

BTW, I stand by the old adage "if you're explaining, you're losing".

Off to the trainer and the TV, maybe AC/DC's Donington DVD.

keno

[Grant McLean]

Pound would certainly test positive for using over the top language.
Only Rumsfeld was more pretentious.

"Lance Armstrong has probably killed a Brazilian rain forest with all the paper he has used to file his complaints against me," Pound told the paper."

On Floyd: "You'd think he'd be violating every virgin within 100 miles. How does he even get on his bicycle?"

g

[Fixed]

bro he's a lawyer he lives for this stuff ...imho
cheers

[michael white]

right or wrong, a **** is still a ****.

[Tony Edwards]

IMHO, the fact that LA is himself arrogant and outspoken is irrelevant to a discussion of Pound's misdeeds. Pound is essentially a prosecutor, and in this instance is speaking publicly about LA's guilt, notwithstanding the fact that he knows full well that WADA has no basis to pursue an action against him. It's completely unprofessional and, IMO, unethical. Lance, for his part, is certainly not the world's most lovable person, but it seems to me he has every right to defend himself against these types of allegations, and no obligation to keep quiet.

[Andreas]

Andreas, this was one of the best posts I've seen on the subject. Thank you.

sd


Thanks for reading it.

[djg]

if either of you need legal representation in this matter I'm a disbarred lawyer, formerly from Massachusetts, and quite available. Incidentally, I'd represent both of you as conflicts don't bother me. (Slightly related is a true story about John Unitas when he first played for the Baltimore Colts. The Colt's last pre-season game at the time, an intrasquad game, had Unitas play quarterback for both teams because the weather was so lousy and the coach didn't want to risk the health of his then starting quarterback.)

keno

Well thanks Keno. I hope that I don't need representation in this matter, partly because I don't think that I have a horse in this race, and partly because I hope that I don't need legal representation in any case. If I do need representation, and decide not to care that you were disbarred (for improper solicitation?), and that you would do just fine in other ways, I hope that you'll send me the latest mapquest directions to Canada. For reasons too comical to explain (always kills the joke, no?), I actually commenced law school while working NIH--somehow managed to finish up and get admitted to a bar or two, and I've not yet been disbarred. What the heck, the night's still young.

Andreas, as I said, I don't do science anymore and I was never a blood guy. I'm familiar with the fact that there are established scientists associated with the lab in question and with the fact of the Nature publication (not an article, and I believe that the piece describes a technique that is not the whole of the process at issue, but still... fine as far as it goes). I don't mean to pronounce on the excellence of the testing procedure in question. When I first heard of the test results I was seriously disappointed; I very soon thereafter was puzzled. I do think I've seen enough to justify a belief --not resolved by anybody yet -- that there are some basic methodological questions one should ask about what the heck the lab was doing in this case. Let's say that these are not expert technical questions, but the sort of general methodological questions any decent IRB (in the US, obviously, or its counterpoint elsewhere) would raise about the integrity of proposed or ongoing research (or, while we're at it, that would be asked by the editor of a fine general journal)--I don't think that these are merely "lawyers' questions," or, as the cops on TV say "some technicalities" (implying specious technicalities). I've tried to explore some of these concerns on this and other boards, mostly, it seems, to the effect of seriously annoying a small number of folks while boring the heck out of quite a few others. I'll not try to hash these out again, although I'm glad to try a little bit in personal communications, if you actually care. I'll just stick by my initial comments about DP, which I don't think impinge upon your special expertise (which I don't, in fact, question).

[BBB]

Well Pound is going to box on it would seem. Not sure what he thinks this is going to achieve:

www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/feb07/feb14news

[93legendti]

Here's another gem:

"Franke "can't read Spanish"
By Susan Westemeyer

German anti-doping crusader, Dr. Werner Franke, claimed to have read in the Operación Puerto documents that Jan Ullrich paid the Spanish Dr. Fuentes €35,000 for illegal doping products, but after losing a court case, he now has admitted to radsport-aktiv.de that he "can't read Spanish."
On Tuesday, a court in Hamburg, Germany, upheld an injunction against Franke prohibiting him from making such claims against Ullrich. Last summer Franke appeared on German television with the documents in his hand and claimed that this information was contained in this document.

"There are many unbelievable things in these documents, but this sentence does not appear," said the ruling judge. "When you cite a source that doesn't exist, you are out of luck!" The judge noted, however, that there are numerous mentions of Ullrich in the documents prepared by the Spanish Guardia Civil.

Franke's statement "just went a little too far," the judge said, noting that "This deals with the way it was said, not the content," according to the German press agency dpa.

Franke explained yesterday, "It couldn't have been a statement of fact. I couldn't read the report. It is in Spanish and I can't read Spanish.""

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/feb07/feb14news2

[Serpico]

.
whoa, pound is taking it to the matresses

mess with LA, this is what you get (http://www.thegreenhead.com/2006/10/godfather-horse-head-pillow.php) !

omerta

Well Pound is going to box on it would seem. Not sure what he thinks this is going to achieve:

www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/feb07/feb14news

[Frustration]

My problem (actually there are many) with both the Lance case and the Floyd case is simply the lab.


Even the head of the UCI made the comment that he made his info about Floyd public because he felt very sure that the Lab would have the info in Le Equipes hands very soon and wanted to beat them to the punch...

Bottom line is that the person within the lab that keeps making the deals with Le Equipe doesn't benefit if there's no positive... That's a motive in my book.

Before Floyds positive, if you look at the four groups involved (Floyd, the lab, the UCI and WADA) the only one in that group without any credibility issues was Floyd.


D!ck Pound is an absolute A$$... The man needs to shout from the rafters because he's got so little to say that it's the only way he gets heard and he thinks it helps gain funding. He also shouts because Cycling is such a poorly financed sport (Lance aside) that it's star athletes and the governing body are so small time that they're easy to bully...



Cycling's at a horrible place right now where it's governing body feels it needs to bash it's athletes and allow the same from others in order to gain or maintain some credibility...

The UCI should try actually being credible as a better first step.

[Johny]

My problem (actually there are many) with both the Lance case and the Floyd case is simply the lab.

In the Lance case, It's UCI leaking the code to Le Equipe. The lab simply performed the test and did not know which sample belongs to whom.

In the Floyd case, remember, these samples are coded -- again, the UCI but not the lab knows their identity. Nevertheless, the results still show positive.

[Frustration]

In both cases, both parties needed to supply information.

But Pat McQuaid specifically said that he felt the lab would "again" leak the info to Le Equipe on who and what.


He arguably released the info first, but didn't do so till after the initial report from Le Euipe, who had already "acquired" the info from the lab and was trying to veryfy it with him...


This lab is being "incentivised" by Le Equipe... They leaked the full boat on the Lance samples and had provided info again with Floyds case.

The only reason the Lab has a half a naked leg to stand on is that Le Equipe tipped McQuaid by asking for confirmation...


That McQuaid screwed up and blurted it out was just another in decades of screwing riders and the sport so that the UCI seem diligent in their own eyes while being proven nothing but Negligent to the rest of the world (and again, screwing an athlete in the process...)

[Grant McLean]

In the Lance case, It's UCI leaking the code to Le Equipe. The lab simply performed the test and did not know which sample belongs to whom.

In the Floyd case, remember, these samples are coded -- again, the UCI but not the lab knows their identity. Nevertheless, the results still show positive.

Agreed. I don't see how any of the political effects that came AFTER the test
can be used as a reason to doubt the test results in the first place.

Am I wrong that in the Floyd case, the info went:
lab --> UCI -->Phonak --> press

I don't see where the lab gets a bad rap here.

Then again, Scooter Libby is on trial for lying, and yet the whole thing
should be about the fact that no WMD's were found.

All this lab stuff is an unfortunate distraction to the real story.
Time an energy should be focused on the validity of the tests,
and not selling papers.



g

[Frustration]

Am I wrong that in the Floyd case, the info went:
lab --> UCI -->Phonak --> press

I don't see where the lab gets a bad rap here.



Not bashing at all, but yep... That's wrong.


the info went to the press at roughly the same time it went to the UCI... There's actually an arguement as to wether or not Pat McQuaid was notified first by the press or the lab...

Then the UCI went back to the press to confirm info the Press already had and then Phonak.

It also went to the press from the Lab in Lances case, which is why McQuaid admitted to breaking the UCI's rules on non disclosure.

McQuaid was more concerned about the UCI's image as appearing to the public as "second to know" than he was about the rights of the accused...



There's absolutely a question of the validity of a positive test when the lab clearly has outside influence by the press to come up with positives to repeatedly expose early...

[Grant McLean]

Not bashing at all, but yep... That's wrong.


the info went to the press at roughly the same time it went to the UCI... There's actually an arguement as to wether or not Pat McQuaid was notified first by the press or the lab...

Then the UCI went back to the press to confirm info the Press already had and then Phonak.

It also went to the press from the Lab in Lances case, which is why McQuaid admitted to breaking the UCI's rules on non disclosure.

McQuaid was more concerned about the UCI's image as appearing to the public as "second to know" than he was about the rights of the accused...



There's absolutely a question of the validity of a positive test when the lab clearly has outside influence by the press to come up with positives to repeatedly expose early...

I'm sure you know more than me, but I read cyclingnews 5 times a day,
and the way I found out about the Floyd's positive was from a Phonak Press release.

There was a news flash story about a "tour rider who was postive" and then the Phonak
release saying it was Floyd.

I don't consider "the Press" to have broken the news. Phonak broke the news
themselves. All this stuff is totally beside the point.

The scientifiic validity of the test is the only thing that matters to me. If the only reason
why people say the test is invalid becuase McQuaid, Pound, and the French are idiots,
I say, whatever. Can someone please explain why the test should not be believed
because the science is wrong?

People said the sprinter Ben Johnson wasn't postive becuase
it made no sense to take a muscle building steriod in competition. They had
cast doubt on the "test" because the result didn't "make sense". Then
later, they found out his trainer mixed up his bottles with the wrong labels,
and he had indeed taken that steroid. It's a slippery slope, all this attacking
and politics. It's all beside the point.

g

[stevep]

People said the sprinter Ben Johnson wasn't postive becuase
it made no sense to take a muscle building steriod in competition. They had
cast doubt on the "test" because the result didn't "make sense". Then
later, they found out his trainer mixed up his bottles with the wrong labels,
and he had indeed taken that steroid. It's a slippery slope, all this attacking
and politics. It's all beside the point.

g

the coup de grace is that diick pound was johnsons attorney...
too funny.

[Grant McLean]

the coup de grace is that diick pound was johnsons attorney...
too funny.

Amazing how much the world has changed since then.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-41-1409-8966/sports/drugs_sport/clip5

Remember a time when people would be shocked at this news?

g

[Frustration]

The scientifiic validity of the test is the only thing that matters to me.

g

That's like saying "The accuracy of a rifle is the only thing that matters to me"...

The thing can be perfectly accurate and still miss if it's mishandled or loaded with the wrong ammo. And worse than a miss is hitting the wrong target if handled by people with a history of inappropriate behavior.

[Grant McLean]

That's like saying "The accuracy of a rifle is the only thing that matters to me"...

The thing can be perfectly accurate and still miss if it's mishandled or loaded with the wrong ammo. And worse than a miss is hitting the wrong target if handled by people with a history of inappropriate behavior.

I'll wait and see. I'm not prepared to toss out the test result because I don't
like the lab or the result.


g

[93legendti]

Originally Posted by Grant McLean
The scientifiic validity of the test is the only thing that matters to me.

g

That's like saying "The accuracy of a rifle is the only thing that matters to me"...

The thing can be perfectly accurate and still miss if it's mishandled or loaded with the wrong ammo. And worse than a miss is hitting the wrong target if handled by people with a history of inappropriate behavior.

Yeah, who cares about due process, right?

[Grant McLean]

Yeah, who cares about due process, right?

It's a seperate issue. Like Martha Stwart lying to investigators.

It's fine to ask a lot of questions, but I don't hear any answers.
At some point, the smokescreen of questions totally obscures reality,
when isn't the whole point of raising the questions to get at reality?

Is anyone really concerned that Floyd didn't dope, or it is just another
intellectual game of gotcha to the anti-doping investigations?

g

[BBB]

Yep. So was it one beer or a couple of beers and a couple of bourbons (or whatever spirits it was)? It disturbs me when the rider can't follow due process in his excuse making.... :)

[BBB]

It's a seperate issue. Like Martha Stwart lying to investigators.

It's fine to ask a lot of questions, but I don't hear any answers.
At some point, the smokescreen of questions totally obscures reality,
when isn't the whole point of raising the questions to get at reality?


g

Well it seems to be working as the USADA want to re-test the B sample, which I suggest is a response to Landis' public defence. If a re-test is positive then where do this leave Landis? Maybe he can re-instate the drinking defence?

[93legendti]

It's a seperate issue. Like Martha Stwart lying to investigators.

It's fine to ask a lot of questions, but I don't hear any answers.
At some point, the smokescreen of questions totally obscures reality,
when isn't the whole point of raising the questions to get at reality?

Is anyone really concerned that Floyd didn't dope, or it is just another
intellectual game of gotcha to the anti-doping investigations?

g

It's all one issue. Riders shouldn't dope; labs should follow strict protocols for testing, storage AND privacy/disclosure and governing bodies should follow strict protocols agreed upon for handling and disclosing violators. The labs and UCI are required to handle these cases one way. They should not be left off the hook merely because people are sick of doping. Otherwise, you get people bending rules as they see fit to serve their desired result--you know, the end justify the means. Then, you end up with planted police evidence or Dan Rather using fake documents because "he knew the story was true".

Its easy to blow little things like privacy and confidentiality when it serves your view point. I suspect if it was YOUR privacy that was violated you might feel differently.

It the rider fails a doping test, why is it so hard to just follow the prototcol for handling such issues. Why not be as hard on the lab, UCI and the riders as team as we are on the rider?

Maybe the difference is our countries' approach to police searches. When we lived in Ontario in the early 70's, I remember the RCMP knocking on our door and saying they were searching all homes on the block because of some thefts. My father asked to see a search warrant. Hearing my father's USA accent, the RCMP officer informed him there was no such requirement in Canada. We were shocked to learn that.

[Grant McLean]

It the rider fails a doping test, why is it so hard to just follow the prototcol for handling such issues.

A rider did fail a doping test. His name is Floyd.
As I stated earlier, my only interest is "did he really dope"?

If someone wants to explain to me that 11-1 doesn't mean he doped,
or wants to show me that the test popped 11-1 becuase they did the test
incorrectly, i'll be waiting.

The rest of the BS sounds like 'the dog ate my homework' to me.

g

[BBB]

It's all one issue. Riders shouldn't dope; labs should follow strict protocols for testing, storage AND privacy/disclosure and governing bodies should follow strict protocols agreed upon for handling and disclosing violators. The labs and UCI are required to handle these cases one way. They should not be left off the hook merely because people are sick of doping. Otherwise, you get people bending rules as they see fit to serve their desired result--you know, the end justify the means. Then, you end up with planted police evidence or Dan Rather using fake documents because "he knew the story was true".



Agreed, everyone should be following the rules. Even the UCI report on the 6 positive samples leak was itself leaked to the press before its official release (though no one seemed to complain about this).

But, does anyone really believe there is an elaborate sub-plot to find certain riders positive? Sure I accept that leaking results could potentially be the start of a slippery slope, but there is zero evidence that the process is deliberately flawed to catch certain riders out. Had any of Kloden, Sastre, Evans et al won the TdF last year and failed a test there would have been the same media circus. Hamilton came up with a whole lot of smoke and mirrors about the testing procedure, the UCI and so on and so forth and he fell flat on his face (and the extent to which he fell flat on his face can be seen by reading the CAS award). Landis has taken a remarkably similar route using the same lawyer and if the procedural errors alleged are proven he should get off. If not, then he is left with two positive samples and a two year suspension.

[Johny]

That's like saying "The accuracy of a rifle is the only thing that matters to me"...

The thing can be perfectly accurate and still miss if it's mishandled or loaded with the wrong ammo. And worse than a miss is hitting the wrong target if handled by people with a history of inappropriate behavior.

You mean Cheney's shooting skills or the people working with him... :rolleyes:

[93legendti]

Agreed, everyone should be following the rules. Even the UCI report on the 6 positive samples leak was itself leaked to the press before its official release (though no one seemed to complain about this).

But, does anyone really believe there is an elaborate sub-plot to find certain riders positive? Sure I accept that leaking results could potentially be the start of a slippery slope, but there is zero evidence that the process is deliberately flawed to catch certain riders out. Had any of Kloden, Sastre, Evans et al won the TdF last year and failed a test there would have been the same media circus. Hamilton came up with a whole lot of smoke and mirrors about the testing procedure, the UCI and so on and so forth and he fell flat on his face (and the extent to which he fell flat on his face can be seen by reading the CAS award). Landis has taken a remarkably similar route using the same lawyer and if the procedural errors alleged are proven he should get off. If not, then he is left with two positive samples and a two year suspension.

I don't think there is a sub plot, I have no evidence either way. But, if a lab and the UCI can't handle a simple thing like agreed upon privacy/discolusre procedures then, for me, I have serious doubt whether they can handle the seemigly more intricate testing/calibrating/recording and/or reading results properly. Do everything properly, I say. Dot your "i"s and cross your "t"s. Use font from 2004 on a supposed 1970's document and you lose me. I understand others disagree.

[Grant McLean]

I don't think there is a sub plot, I have no evidence either way. But, if a lab and the UCI can't handle a simple thing like agreed upon privacy/discolusre procedures then, for me, I have serious doubt whether they can handle the seemigly more intricate testing/calibrating/recording and/or reading results properly. Do everything properly, I say. Dot your "i"s and cross your "t"s. Use font from 2004 on a supposed 1970's document and you lose me. I understand others disagree.



Homer: Not a bear in sight. The "Bear Patrol" is working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: [uncomprehendingly] Thanks, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. (pause) It's just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: (pause) Lisa, I want to buy your rock.


g

[chakatrain]

...a quote attributed to Hiram W Johnson, the early 20th century California Senator: "The first casualty when war comes is truth."

With all the legal mumbo jumbo, I'm afraid we'll never know the truth. Floyd failed a drug test. Was the test done correctly? Were enough of the protocols followed to allow a certain determination?

I wish I could believe an athlete when they say "I didn't dope," but there is no way to be certain. That, to me, is the hardest part.

If, at the end of the day, the system finds him guilty of doping, I naively hope that he'll admit what he's done, to help the sport move forward. If the system finds too many errors and inconsistencies in the testing and let him off, I still won't know for sure that he didn't actually do it.