How come no discussion about the science in Floyd's hearing?

[scottcw2]

I see a lot of posting about "character" and innuendo, but how come this article generates no discussion?

http://velonews.com/news/fea/12293.0.html

Bottom line, it does not appear that the facts (science) validate the accusations against Floyd. Wildly fluctuating readings over the course of several tests, carbon isotope tests that do not match the readings from the other tests.

Discuss.

[David Kirk]

At the risk of sounding like a Moron ...........I just don't understand a good bit of it. I read most of it and in the end it always feels like a "he said, she said" type deal and that neither side is right.

Shallow I know but there you are.

Dave

[gdw]

Probably because an awful lot of us are pretty sick of the whole sorbid affair.

[gt6267a]

The proceedings in general have me mystified. The arbiters are lawyers / judges. No doubt when two sides are debating a contract that is they are the right people, but the evidence in this case is not contractual, legal, it is scientific. So, we have lawyers presenting science to other lawyers. Is there not something f-ed up about that?

It appears there are two aspects to this case. 1) the science and 2) the procedures and rules of WADA / UCI. Therefore, it seems that there really should be TWO arbitration panels. One of scientists and one of lawyers. No?

[Steelhead]

I threw in the towel after that whole drama fest with the prank calls to LeMond, etc..et al. It's sad to say that Floyd is probably dirty like most of the rest of the pro peloton. AND even if he was/did race clean, his image has been tarnished so badly that he will always be followed by a big question mark. Bummer for him, for all of pro cycling.

[Hardlyrob]

Here's a great review of the science and lab...http://blog.environmentalchemistry.com/2007/05/when-science-peer-review-independent.html

This covers the basic issues, and uncovers a number of the conflicts of interest for the LNDD and WADA / USADA.

In short, the laboratory practices and chain of custody of the samples at LNDD do not meet the WADA current guidelines. The training of the technicians is suspect and the data itself appears to have been discarded until they got the answer they were looking for, and for further salt in the woulds, the lab tech that tested the A samples signed off on the B - and knew that the B was Floyd's after the A results had been leaked. Do you think there might have been some pressure to find that the B was positive?.

There are seriously out of range readings that the WADA is basically saying "close enough" - even when outside their own guidelines by 300 to 600%.

As mentioned earlier, this also brings up an aspect of science that is generally unpopular in the era of CSI - it is still subjective in the end. Zero keeps getting smaller, and determining when you have enough information to make a statement about whether a chemical is there or not is not exact. The data is the data in all cases, but what that data means, and what should be done about it is not at all clear much of the time.

Based on the data presented, and the seriously sloppy lab practices, it doesn't look like WADA can say with certainty that Floyd's samples were positive.

Cheers!

Rob

[Bud_E]

At the risk of sounding like a Moron ...........I just don't understand a good bit of it. I read most of it and in the end it always feels like a "he said, she said" type deal and that neither side is right.

Shallow I know but there you are.

Dave

That covers it for me as well. In these kinds of disputes it seems that either side is able to find a very well qualified "expert" who will support the assertions made by that side in a way that is designed to sound convincing to the layman. I believe that the lab made some minor errors or was sloppy with the labelling, etc. but does that mean the results of the tests are invalidated ?

Sometimes the "ego and innuendo" are pretty obvious but a really slick lawyer or scientist with an agenda can make a very persuasive argument designed to conceal the truth.

I've become a cynical lout with regard to these high profile trials.

[scottcw2]

Aside from the chain of command and the same person testing the B sample, etc., it boils down to 2 points for me.

- Floyd was tested other than Stage 17. All the other tests were normal. If he doped, the testosterone would still be at abnormally high levels in the later tests. I have confirmed this with a doctor that I know. The testosterone would stay in his system for 7-10 days at a higher level than normal.

- the carbon isotope test results do not match the results of the other test. If Floyd were using synthetic testosterone, then the results of both tests would be similar.

[jhcakilmer]

Well, I can't make any comments on the concetration, or ratio of testosterone that was in his samples. But the simple fact that the testosterone was "exogenous", is enough to prove his guilt, for me. Basically there was two type of testosterone in the sample.....one that his body naturally produced, and one/or more that was not naturally produced...

I've worked with many of the instruments that they use for testing the samples, and I can testify that they are quite durable. They don't just become uncalibrated over-night, usually it's a slow drift from the standards.

So unless there has been foul-play he's very guilty.

[jhcakilmer]

Aside from the chain of command and the same person testing the B sample, etc., it boils down to 2 points for me.

- Floyd was tested other than Stage 17. All the other tests were normal. If he doped, the testosterone would still be at abnormally high levels in the later tests. I have confirmed this with a doctor that I know. The testosterone would stay in his system for 7-10 days at a higher level than normal.

- the carbon isotope test results do not match the results of the other test. If Floyd were using synthetic testosterone, then the results of both tests would be similar.

It is my understanding that the lab re-tested the previous samples (from earlier stages), that did not test positive (below ban ratio E/P), and "exogenous" testosterone was also found in those samples, although not at the concentration of the original sample. So maybe he accidently injected a higher volume, or higher concentration after the grooling stage 16, where he lost so much time?

Also, I would say it's very difficult to say how long the high concentration of this steroid would last in his system. Sure the average person might have a certain urinary excretion rate, but these guys are pushing themselves to unnatural limits, and consuming large volumes of liquid.

[Geoff]

Well, I can't make any comments on the concetration, or ratio of testosterone that was in his samples. But the simple fact that the testosterone was "exogenous", is enough to prove his guilt, for me. Basically there was two type of testosterone in the sample.....one that his body naturally produced, and one/or more that was not naturally produced...

I've worked with many of the instruments that they use for testing the samples, and I can testify that they are quite durable. They don't just become uncalibrated over-night, usually it's a slow drift from the standards.

So unless there has been foul-play he's very guilty.

I too have used some of these instruments (GCMS not IRMS) in a research lab and my experience is that in general they opperate consistly, they do have issues with keeping them operating correctly. Also, it is very easy to make samples/stds come out they way you want it to on a GC by moving the intergration start stop. To me this is one of the biggest problems with the LNDD data. They have no documantation and it looks to me like they kept runnning stds until they got ones that would confirm linearity. If they had not intentionally deleated the MS data we would know the answers. This in itself looks very bad for them.

G

[Hardlyrob]

I agree with Geoff, and worked with GCMS and Ion spectrometry in a past life.

The other thing that is disconcerting about this is that WADA only requires one of the testosterone metabolites to show exogenous testosterone. In several analyses this came down to a single ion they were looking at. Looking at only one of the four metabolites and saying without any doubt that it is exogenous, when other labs require more doesn't seem right.

[scottcw2]

So unless there has been foul-play he's very guilty.

That's the point - these discrepancies point to foul play. One spike of testosterone does not make sense scientifically.

Carbon isotope testing showing exogenous testosterone, but not matching the other tests does not make sense scientifically.

OTOH - both of these scientific anomolies can easily be explained by tampering.

[jhcakilmer]

Well, I didn't want to go there...we too often have these wild conspiracy theories.


Anyway, it's seem like it could be easily fixed by having two separate lab test the samples. One sample sent to a lab to be initially tested, while another sample is stored at a separate location. If there is an issue, the second sample is tested by a separate lab.

It's not like they need a huge sample for testing, many of the samples that we worked with were in the microliters.......so it's not going to effect the riders to take a couple extra ml or so.

[gt6267a]

Well, I didn't want to go there...we too often have these wild conspiracy theories.


Anyway, it's seem like it could be easily fixed by having two separate lab test the samples. One sample sent to a lab to be initially tested, while another sample is stored at a separate location. If there is an issue, the second sample is tested by a separate lab.

It's not like they need a huge sample for testing, many of the samples that we worked with were in the microliters.......so it's not going to effect the riders to take a couple extra ml or so.

I have to agree with him on this one. The riders give up their blood all the time for testing. What is the big deal about them running a DNA test?

A few other thoughts:

* Other than the OP debacle, has DNA has been a factor in busting cyclists in the past? I don't remember it being relevant.

* Within OP, just knowing it was Basso’s or Jan’s or whoever’s blood does not prove anything. It’s not like getting busted with testosterone in your blood. It’s clearly super duper shady, but unless I am not getting it, having blood in a cooler / freezer does not prove use. For example, unless the authorities are able to prove Basso used the blood bags, what case do they have against him? He looks bad, but they can’t prove he is.

* Even if the protocols don’t allow for them obtaining DNA info on each cyclists, that does not mean the UCI / WADA has not collected it. Further, they may very well have tested every blood bag found in OP, AND they may very well know which cyclist lines up with which bag. Even if that information is not in prosecutable form just yet, with that information in hand, they would have a big leg up on which hay stack to try and find a needle.

[jhcakilmer]

I think the storage of blood is actually banded.....since I think they're worried about transfusions. Why would a cyclist need to store bags (large volumes), not viles, of blood? I can understand taking samples, for testing.

Also, I think one theory is that Landis wasn't necessarily taking Testosterone during the Tour, but that he could of have gotten a transfusion, from previously stored blood.....fresh pre-season blood, that had testosterone in it......still doping, but basically a stupid mistake on his part.

[scottcw2]

Also, I think one theory is that Landis wasn't necessarily taking Testosterone during the Tour, but that he could of have gotten a transfusion, from previously stored blood.....fresh pre-season blood, that had testosterone in it......still doping, but basically a stupid mistake on his part.

Then how was it gone from his system so quickly? Again, the science makes no sense. Science is impartial, science is objective.

[DukeHorn]

As a lawyer who spent a number of years doing benchwork (lab bench not judicial bench), I just can't bring myself to care. To a certain extent, money does buy justice so I could care less about dueling experts in this case.

I'll just go with the gut instinct (whether baseball or cycling). We all know folks out there are cheating. Type A personality athletes usually will take measures to keep up with other athletes. With the cheaters knowing how the tests work, of course, they're going to direct their methodology towards having an adequate work-around. Maybe Landis messed up his protocol? I don't know, but the "excuses" that he should have tested positive earlier is something I highly doubt. Unless your doctor is actively involved in benchwork, he won't know either (and yes, I do try to distinguish between the MDs who treat people and have never seen a PCR machine and the PhDs or MD/PhDs who actually do benchwork).

Just because something can't be "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't mean the person is innocent. Our criminal justice system favors letting a guilty person go free rather than putting an innocent person in jail (though some jurisdictions don't believe in that), but that doesn't mean from a civil perspective, we can't believe in a preponderance of the evidence or just plain common sense.

[Big Dan]

blame the french.............

:cool:

[scottcw2]

I don't know, but the "excuses" that he should have tested positive earlier is something I highly doubt.

This is what kills me. People are perfectly willing to write Floyd off based on misinformation instead of learning the facts. WADA and the USADA are counting on this - if they can get people to agree that this is all just a big mess without looking at the facts, they win.

Nobody said anything about testing positive earlier. It's the spike followed by the drastic reduction to normal levels. Science does not support it.

God forbid I should ever be on trial in this country. People are more concerned with making bad things go away by any means instead of questioning to find the truth.

[Len J]

is that there are only 2 possibilities in this whole thing....

1.) Landis doped.....exogenous Testosterone, c'mon
2.) Someone decided that he had to have doped to win and created a massive conspiracy involving the lab, and several other people.

I don't buy the conspiracy....sorry.

Len

[weiwentg]

is that there are only 2 possibilities in this whole thing....

1.) Landis doped.....exogenous Testosterone, c'mon
2.) Someone decided that he had to have doped to win and created a massive conspiracy involving the lab, and several other people.

I don't buy the conspiracy....sorry.

Len

not really. it could be 3) the lab's methodology was so poor that their tests came up false positive.

even if Floyd is guilty I have no confidence in the LNDD. however, I think that whether he's guilty or not, he's cooked. if he's found not guilty, most people will still think he is, and in any case there's a good chance that he is in fact guilty like most of the peloton.

[scottcw2]

not really. it could be 3) the lab's methodology was so poor that their tests came up false positive.

Or...

4. Someone tired of Americans winning the TDF tainted his sample.
5. The lab mixed up Floyd's sample with someone else's for that stage.

5 is not unlikely if you look at the presentation on Floyd's site. Sample numbers don't match, handwritten changes, etc.

[Len J]

Or...

4. Someone tired of Americans winning the TDF tainted his sample.
5. The lab mixed up Floyd's sample with someone else's for that stage.

5 is not unlikely if you look at the presentation on Floyd's site. Sample numbers don't match, handwritten changes, etc.

Again...conspiracy.......I don't buy it, sorry.

Len

[Big Dan]

Amazing.

[Avispa]

After perusing the VeloNews article I have come to the utter conclusion that American (pro) athletes do not dope!!! Wow... That's it!

Had Floyd been French or German, sure... He'd done for sure... He'd been Spanish, no doubt! But he is a good old American boy and athlete.

Oh, the same goes with Tyler and Lance, and the Ball and Football players...

:butt: American athletes my friends, just don't know how to dope!!! :butt:

[scottcw2]

Again...conspiracy.......I don't buy it, sorry.

Len

Give me a non-conspiracy theory that is supported by the science. The science don't lie.

[goonster]

In short, the laboratory practices and chain of custody of the samples at LNDD do not meet the WADA current guidelines. The training of the technicians is suspect and the data itself appears to have been discarded until they got the answer they were looking for, and for further salt in the woulds, the lab tech that tested the A samples signed off on the B - and knew that the B was Floyd's after the A results had been leaked.

Bingo.

In my line of work, we make biological products whose quality has to be assured and the data is subject to inspection by multiple agencies. You don't have to be "perfect" but you have to do what you say you will do. For example, if your protocol says you'll do tests x and y by qualified operators and the results will be in a certain range, noone will ask for test z, but you had better produce records that show this, along with up-to-date training records for everyone involved.

So, in this particular legal case, and not the court of public opinion, the following three items should be enough for an acquittal, imo:
1. Fuxored sample number on data sheets
2. White-Out on official records*
3. Overwritten data files from multiple test runs

(* = Don't think that's a big deal? Ask an FDA inspector.)

I too have used some of these instruments (GCMS not IRMS) in a research lab and my experience is that in general they opperate consistly, they do have issues with keeping them operating correctly. Also, it is very easy to make samples/stds come out they way you want it to on a GC by moving the intergration start stop. To me this is one of the biggest problems with the LNDD data. They have no documantation and it looks to me like they kept runnning stds until they got ones that would confirm linearity.

Bingo Nr. 2

Yes, the instruments are generally reliable, but they are complex systems whose configuration parameters should be standardized and documented comprehensively. Yes, I also have first-hand experience of jiggering a GCMS until the results were more "presentable."

Landis doped.....exogenous Testosterone, c'mon


That was my original reaction too . . . until I looked at the test more closely. Doesn't seem like such a slam dunk anymore.

At the very top, the anti-doping efforts are led by non-scientists. There's an attitude that if they get "serious" enough, and throw lots of money at the problem, any doper will be caught eventually. The white lab coats and the expensive machines add an aura of "scientific" assurance.

A question for all the folk here who have first-hand instrumental analysis experience: Does any of your work involve testing a single sample from a single human subject that is actively trying to evade your test? Does a physician ever make a final diagnosis with a single blood test result, possibly excluding all other symptoms and evidence?

What approach would a scientist take to combat the doping problem?

I think that the current T-Mobile approach is the way to go. Lots of tests, lots of data, lots of folks reviewing that data, mild internal sanctions if something goes a bit awry.

[Louis]

It seems to me that it's in the interests of the FL defense team to muddy the water as much as possible. Sort of like the OJ defense. That way folks will just give up and say "Yeah, it's just a mess, and because of the confusion they can't prove with 100% certainty that FL did use PEDs." Once the prosecution gets down in the mud playing the Dueling Experts game they've essentially lost the battle, IMO.

Non-experts like us have little chance of understanding the truth in this, and all the information we get is filtered through some web site that is pro-Floyd, or some news-site that can only report part of the testimony. So we end up talking about things we can understand, like Bozos on the FL team who call folks to threaten them...

Louis

[bcm119]

I can't believe how much has been written here on this topic over the last year. Maybe I have a short attention span, but I lost interest in it a long time ago. He probably doped, its likely many others did too; it doesn't color my impression of his stage 17 win that much though... Landis' case seems like a trivial detail in all this.

[Len J]

Give me a non-conspiracy theory that is supported by the science. The science don't lie.

simple.

Exo Testoterone.

Len

[Xyzzy]

It doesn't have to be a malicious conspiracy.

I vote for a CYA conspiracy.

Somebody made the initial mistake. A few people "piled on" and leaked stuff. Then they had to keep the ball rolling to keep from looking stupid. None of these people planned this, it just happened. Obviously WADA benefits from all this.

"Hey! We are doing something!"
"We freaking stripped a TdF winner of his win. Top that!"

I spent a long time in the Army. Shït like this happens every day. Because there are no checks and balances in place. Well, there are, but they are biased towards those higher up. They need to make a name for themselves. They do what they do subconsciously. And if you hung out in their circle, they'd be cool dudes. If you worked under them, well, you get the idea.

Look at the Tillman affair. All we had to do was tell the truth. Yeah, we'd look stupid. (We already do.) but at least we'd have done the right thing.

In my line of work I had to meet a new troop and gauge his character in 5 minutes or less. I got pretty good at it.

I wish I had 5 minutes with FL or GL.

So I vote for human error and stupidity.

Never underestimate the power of large groups of stupid people.

In my book, I can forgive anything. Anything.

Except a lie.

[Archibald]

It's better just to try to bluff your way through it!

Clipped from CyclingNews.com
After a hostile morning in the witness chair, Landis was afforded the chance to smile later in the afternoon when Dr Simon Davis was called to the witness stand. Davis, a British technical director of Mass Spec Solutions, which manufactures the mass spectrometer, faulted the Chatenay-Malabry Laboratoire National de Dépistage du Dopage's (LNDD) instrumentation practices in a brutally forensic afternoon with Landis' attorney Marice Suh, again armed with a series of multi-coloured slides.

Simon Davis, Technical Director of Mass Spec Solutions,
Photo ©: AFP Photo

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

But hey, screw the fact that the lab had no idea what they were doing or even how to operate the equipment, let's just broil Landis because his manager was mean to Greg and Floyd had the gall to not allow Greg to be the only American to win the tour. Why, he's just like that damnable Lance character! He MUST BE PUNISHED!!! :beer: :banana: :beer:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=15829

While I'm at it, here's why Lemond gets no fluffing from me: He wastes his status and position. Instead of being a wizened mentor, an advisor, a counselor for cyclists and a gentleman for the sport, he always jumps in with his **** Pound theatrics and histronics and if you wait just a minute he'll tell you he's the only American who won the tour clean. Where was Greg when Riis won, Ulrich, Pantani? Eerily silent. It seems only when an American wins does Greg start to limber up and pull his schtick out of the closet.

That's it, I'm done. You may talk amongst yourselves now....:beer:

[DukeHorn]

I'm confused. Since "cheaters" are usually ahead of the curve of the folks testing, why shouldn't there be doubt about people saying "oh he should have tested positive earlier"? What happened if the person cheating messed up following his directions?

That's like saying you have no viruses on your computer because your Norton anti-virus didn't find it. This is an arms race and the testers are usually behind. I know plenty about the science, the law, and how folks manipulate the system. :crap:

That being said, I think Landis had strong witnesses with Davis and the Irish guy. He brought the latter for $35,000 for travel costs alone and I have no idea what the actual consulting fee was. It's really easy to rip laboratory practices using expert witnesses (look at OJ's guys going after the forensics in that case). If the lab technicians are as bad as he claimed then that lab shouldn't be certified at all. As with all experts in legal cases, just assume a bit hyperbole. So, there is a good shot at Landis being exonerated.

But I still have my doubts because if the lab technicians were so blatantly bad, you'd figure they'd have a higher percentage of false positives that should have triggered something before hand. I'll just take my life experience and come up with a different conclusion I guess.

[soulspinner]

I'm confused. Since "cheaters" are usually ahead of the curve of the folks testing, why shouldn't there be doubt about people saying "oh he should have tested positive earlier"? What happened if the person cheating messed up following his directions?

That's like saying you have no viruses on your computer because your Norton anti-virus didn't find it. This is an arms race and the testers are usually behind. I know plenty about the science, the law, and how folks manipulate the system. :crap:

That being said, I think Landis had strong witnesses with Davis and the Irish guy. He brought the latter for $35,000 for travel costs alone and I have no idea what the actual consulting fee was. It's really easy to rip laboratory practices using expert witnesses (look at OJ's guys going after the forensics in that case). If the lab technicians are as bad as he claimed then that lab shouldn't be certified at all. As with all experts in legal cases, just assume a bit hyperbole. So, there is a good shot at Landis being exonerated.

But I still have my doubts because if the lab technicians were so blatantly bad, you'd figure they'd have a higher percentage of false positives that should have triggered something before hand. I'll just take my life experience and come up with a different conclusion I guess.


It cost 35000 to fly round trip and accomodate this guy? Wish I was his travel agent....

[Len J]

It's better just to try to bluff your way through it!

Clipped from CyclingNews.com
After a hostile morning in the witness chair, Landis was afforded the chance to smile later in the afternoon when Dr Simon Davis was called to the witness stand. Davis, a British technical director of Mass Spec Solutions, which manufactures the mass spectrometer, faulted the Chatenay-Malabry Laboratoire National de Dépistage du Dopage's (LNDD) instrumentation practices in a brutally forensic afternoon with Landis' attorney Marice Suh, again armed with a series of multi-coloured slides.

Simon Davis, Technical Director of Mass Spec Solutions,
Photo ©: AFP Photo

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

But hey, screw the fact that the lab had no idea what they were doing or even how to operate the equipment, let's just broil Landis because his manager was mean to Greg and Floyd had the gall to not allow Greg to be the only American to win the tour. Why, he's just like that damnable Lance character! He MUST BE PUNISHED!!! :beer: :banana: :beer:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=15829

While I'm at it, here's why Lemond gets no fluffing from me: He wastes his status and position. Instead of being a wizened mentor, an advisor, a counselor for cyclists and a gentleman for the sport, he always jumps in with his **** Pound theatrics and histronics and if you wait just a minute he'll tell you he's the only American who won the tour clean. Where was Greg when Riis won, Ulrich, Pantani? Eerily silent. It seems only when an American wins does Greg start to limber up and pull his schtick out of the closet.

That's it, I'm done. You may talk amongst yourselves now....:beer:

woulld you expect a Landis witness to say? Professional witnesses can be found to support almost any position.

Len

[J.Greene]

Never underestimate the power of large groups of stupid people.



Please keep the minority who voted for George Bush in 2000 (i'm a memeber of this group unfortunately) out of this please.

JG

[Archibald]

woulld you expect a Landis witness to say? Professional witnesses can be found to support almost any position.

Len
Uh....wow...I'm speachless.

The witness is this case is the TECH DIRECTOR of the company WHO MANUFACTURES the mass spectrometer USED by the LAB who alleges FLOYD tested POSITIVE for MAN JUICE! HIS TESTIMONY was that HIS CUSTOMERS, i.e., the USERS of the MASS SPECTROMETER used in the ANALYSIS did not KNOW HOW TO OPERATE THE EQUIPMENT THEY USED TO DETERMINE FLOYD DOPED. But hey, lets get back to building the funeral pyre!

:banana: :banana: :banana:

[J.Greene]

we'll.....consider that everyone who has ever had a boss has thought that boss has had his or her head up their butt should count for something :banana:

JG
Uh....wow...I'm speachless.

The witness is this case is the TECH DIRECTOR of the company WHO MANUFACTURES the mass spectrometer USED by the LAB who alleges FLOYD tested POSITIVE for MAN JUICE! HIS TESTIMONY was that HIS CUSTOMERS, i.e., the USERS of the MASS SPECTROMETER used in the ANALYSIS did not KNOW HOW TO OPERATE THE EQUIPMENT THEY USED TO DETERMINE FLOYD DOPED. But hey, lets get back to building the funeral pyre!

:banana: :banana: :banana:

[Archibald]

we'll.....consider that everyone who has ever had a boss has thought that boss has had his or her head up their butt should count for something :banana:

JG
I love my boss. He's terribly handsome and very charming. I'd have his baby if I could...Lord knows I've tried!

:banana: :banana: :banana:

[Russell]

After following the hearing on Trust but Verify I pretty much believe Floyd is innocent. Still, all this hoopdeedoo is more about money than cleaning up the sport. Teams condoned and activily supported doping because it made them more money to be successful. Now that sponsers are pulling out, they want to clean up the sport. Also, the testing labs and WADA/USADA make millions from this, so they have to appear to be doing something. There is no way in my mind that D*ck Pound did not put pressure (lose accrediation) on the lab to get a positive result. I figure the inexperienced techs were easier to bully.

This is not a conspiracy to get Floyd, just to get the $$.

[Louis]

I find it ironic that while everyone agrees that doping is rampant in pro-cycling, for some reason some folks can't bring themselves to admit that Floyd might be one of them.

Yeah, he's one of the good guys. As innocent as a choir boy IMO...

[Len J]

Uh....wow...I'm speachless.

The witness is this case is the TECH DIRECTOR of the company WHO MANUFACTURES the mass spectrometer USED by the LAB who alleges FLOYD tested POSITIVE for MAN JUICE! HIS TESTIMONY was that HIS CUSTOMERS, i.e., the USERS of the MASS SPECTROMETER used in the ANALYSIS did not KNOW HOW TO OPERATE THE EQUIPMENT THEY USED TO DETERMINE FLOYD DOPED. But hey, lets get back to building the funeral pyre!

:banana: :banana: :banana:

I'll try to find it again later.....that he was a paid witness.

We also have mds from both sides contradicting one another......it's all who you choose to believe.

I happen to look to the simpliest explanation in any situation like this.....and, frankly, in this case it's pretty obvious what the simplest explanation is. Especially considering the preponderance of competitors that dope.

If you can't prove your innocence obfuscate by attacking the process.

BTW, while I think he doped, I really don't think that that minimizes the stage win.....he still had to do it, and it was still inspiring. I'm not creating any funeral pyre....simply recognizing the reality of the pro peleton.

At the end of the day it is going to be pretty clear that either side of this argument can be supported and we will probably never know (short of an admission by either side) the truth. Me, I believe he doped and frankly it doesn't bother me. What does bother me is that many appear to believe (wether they say it or not) that there is this great conspiracy to bring down any american that succeeds at the tour & that such a conspiracy could be kept quiet. I say Bunk.

YMMV

IMHO, ATMO

Len

[Hardlyrob]

I'm not sure I agree with you Louis. I don't know if Floyd doped or didn't. I suspect that most if not all of the elite riders do - hence I wouldn't be surprised if Floyd gets nailed later on.

What is troublesome about this case is how badly the athlete is treated. Granted the rules are all stacked against the athlete, and presume guilt, but that's what you sign up for if you want to race at that level. The problem is that WADA convicted FLoyd in the press on leaked data that doesn't meet their own internal guidelines. If there were no questions about chain of custody, technician skill or data retention I'd say hang him. The problem is that there are serious questions about each of these, and the stakes are simply too high to allow athlete's careers to be ended by incompetent laboratories.

Labs must be held accountable for the integrity of a sample and the analysis proceedures, or they should acquit the athlete - Floyd or anyone else. The documented poor lab and data procedures at LNDD call into question the other positive findings for athletes who don't have $350,000 to spend on a defense. Did they railroad others? To me this is the important point of the hearings - the Greg LeMond stuff is all hurt feelings, stupid antics and irrelevant to a doping trial - I'm not sure why it was allowed.

Rob

[J.Greene]

Your right on Len,

A "clean" Floyd win would have been great for the Tour. There is no incentive, financial or otherwise for ASO or the UCI to push this. The sport is bleeding money,sponsors are packing up and leaving. The conspiracy theory does not hold up.

JG


At the end of the day it is going to be pretty clear that either side of this argument can be supported and we will probably never know (short of an admission by either side) the truth. Me, I believe he doped and frankly it doesn't bother me. What does bother me is that many appear to believe (wether they say it or not) that there is this great conspiracy to bring down any american that succeeds at the tour & that such a conspiracy could be kept quiet. I say Bunk.

YMMV

IMHO, ATMO

Len

[harlond]

woulld you expect a Landis witness to say? Professional witnesses can be found to support almost any position.

LenWhich one of USADA's experts was not a paid professional? (I suppose you might point to the lab workers, but their professionalism seems to be in question, and in any event, they probably were not testifying while on vacation.)

As long as you recognize that your contempt for Landis's witnesses should apply equally to USADA's, I don't have a problem.

[Russell]

If you can't prove your innocence obfuscate by attacking the process.

But it is the process that finds you innocent or guilty. I think there has been enough evidence, even before the hearing, to question the results.

Yes, I want to believe Floyd is innocent. I don't get any glee out of thinking everyone is guilty. If Floyd is guilty it would sadden me, but not really have any affect on my life nor stop me from watching cycling.

[Louis]

What is troublesome about this case is how badly the athlete is treated.

Rob,

I agree with the majority of what you say.

However, let's keep in mind that the athletes themselves have treated the system pretty poorly. Large numbers of them have cheated, and probably 99.999% know what is truly happening out there but few speak out to try to reform or fix the system in any meaningful manner.

Furthermore, until the system has been bled dry by the bad press and they realize that the money is gone it seems to me that they will have no incentive to do this.

Louis

[scottcw2]

simple.

Exo Testoterone.

Len

Not supported by the science. Exo Testosterone would have remained at above normal levels on tests performed after Stage 17. I believe the next test was Stage 19, 2 days later when Floyd took the yellow jersey. The tests were normal by then. This doesn't happen when a person is using exo testosterone.

Next?

[scottcw2]

It seems to me that it's in the interests of the FL defense team to muddy the water as much as possible. Sort of like the OJ defense. That way folks will just give up and say "Yeah, it's just a mess, and because of the confusion they can't prove with 100% certainty that FL did use PEDs." Once the prosecution gets down in the mud playing the Dueling Experts game they've essentially lost the battle, IMO.

Non-experts like us have little chance of understanding the truth in this, and all the information we get is filtered through some web site that is pro-Floyd, or some news-site that can only report part of the testimony. So we end up talking about things we can understand, like Bozos on the FL team who call folks to threaten them...

Louis

Actually, it is in the interests of the prosecution to muddy the waters. The more people understand the facts of science, the clearer it becomes that Floyd is innocent.

[scottcw2]

I'm confused. Since "cheaters" are usually ahead of the curve of the folks testing, why shouldn't there be doubt about people saying "oh he should have tested positive earlier"? What happened if the person cheating messed up following his directions?

Not the point at all. It's not the "earlier" samples that are in question, it is the later samples. A spike that returns to normal 2 days later is not scientifically possible. The only explanations are botched testing (including testing the wrong person) or intentional tainting.

[Louis]

Actually, it is in the interests of the prosecution to muddy the waters. The more people understand the facts of science, the clearer it becomes that Floyd is innocent.

Scott, I can't tell you how amusing I find this to be... :)

[scottcw2]

Scott, I can't tell you how amusing I find this to be... :)

How so?

The fact is that any exo testosterone taken by a person will remain in the system for 7-10 days. If Floyd took exo testosterone before Stage 17, where are the abnormal test results for subsequent stages? The tests were normal until the lab had to start the CYA process.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand? All of the posters on this thread who work in scientific fields have stated that the tests and their results are f'ed up. Yet every armchair quarterback has no problem ignoring these facts.

[Len J]

Not supported by the science. Exo Testosterone would have remained at above normal levels on tests performed after Stage 17. I believe the next test was Stage 19, 2 days later when Floyd took the yellow jersey. The tests were normal by then. This doesn't happen when a person is using exo testosterone.

Next?

they found a masking agent you & I don't know about.

If the Dr's weren't ahead of the testing all of this would be a mute point.....but history has shown us that the only way dopers have gotten caught is

1.) A dispenser (a la Puerto) gets stung
2.) A carrier gets caught (a la the border crossing of Rumsas (sp?) wife)
3.) They do something stupid (don't take the meds right, use tainted blood, etc.)

IMO, based on the last several years, it is due to carelessness that they get caught, not due to the infallability of the testing.

Are you convinced that Floyd didn't dope? If so why? (Not are you convinced the testing was error free....the questions are different)

Len

[bcm119]

Why is this so difficult for people to understand? All of the posters on this thread who work in scientific fields have stated that the tests and their results are f'ed up. Yet every armchair quarterback has no problem ignoring these facts.
I don't have much of an opinion on Landis, but I can whole heartedly agree w/you on this point in general. everyone is an expert on everything nowadays. The bottom line is that people believe what they want to believe in spite of science. Its always been that way. The media has amplified this recently and sometimes is pretty insulting to those working in scientific fields.

[scottcw2]

Are you convinced that Floyd didn't dope? If so why? (Not are you convinced the testing was error free....the questions are different)

Len

That's not the issue. I am not convinced that the facts (testing, science, etc.) prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did dope. That is the way our justice system works. No court of law tells jurors, "You still have the leeway to vote your opinion of the person even if the facts do not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Either the facts prove the accusations beyond a reasonable doubt or he is innocent. Anything else is a mockery of our justice system.

[scottcw2]

they found a masking agent you & I don't know about.

Oh, and talk about conspiracy theories... :rolleyes:

If this were true, why can't WADA or USADA produce a doctor that does know about this mysterious masking agent? They have produced (paid for) witnesses to state lots of other things - the Papp smear (personal opinion on the recovery effects of testosterone that not supported by real science), LeMond's double secret conversation with Floyd where Floyd admitted nothing yet LeMond has no problem insinuating that he did, etc.

The smoke and mirrors by the prosecution are having their intended effect.

[slowgoing]

"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."[/URL]


This should be end of story.

[Len J]

That's not the issue. I am not convinced that the facts (testing, science, etc.) prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did dope. That is the way our justice system works. No court of law tells jurors, "You still have the leeway to vote your opinion of the person even if the facts do not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Either the facts prove the accusations beyond a reasonable doubt or he is innocent. Anything else is a mockery of our justice system.

our justice system...it's an internal arbitration hearing...there is a hugh difference.

Len

[Len J]

Oh, and talk about conspiracy theories... :rolleyes:

If this were true, why can't WADA or USADA produce a doctor that does know about this mysterious masking agent? They have produced (paid for) witnesses to state lots of other things - the Papp smear (personal opinion on the recovery effects of testosterone that not supported by real science), LeMond's double secret conversation with Floyd where Floyd admitted nothing yet LeMond has no problem insinuating that he did, etc.

The smoke and mirrors by the prosecution are having their intended effect.

it's years and years of pouring money into staying ahead of the inspectors. It's been a known secret for years.

For WADA or USADA to admit this would be to put their own cpability and efficacy to question, something they can't do.

You are looking for black & white in a grey world.

To each their own.

Len

[scottcw2]

our justice system...it's an internal arbitration hearing...there is a hugh difference.

Len

Hugh? hugh and cry? Hugh Jackman?

The point is that I don't buy the case by WADA, USADA and the French lab. It's full of holes. If Floyd is found guilty, then they are just supporting themselves in blatant disregard for scientific facts.

[scottcw2]

To each their own.

Len

Indeed. You choose to pay attention to the big head floating above the pyrotechnics. I choose to look at the old man behind the curtain pulling the levers and call bull$hit.

[Louis]

All of the posters on this thread who work in scientific fields have stated that the tests and their results are f'ed up.

1) As far as I know, not one of the folks posting here is privy to / understands all the data that is being presented in the case. About all we have is the small percentage that is reported in the various printed and online media.

2) About all I can say based on my own personal experiences is that whenever we (the folks I work with at the ol' warplane factory) see technical military aviation matters reported in the media, especially those we deal with on a daily basis, we laugh at how garbled / simplified / distorted everything becomes. I may be wrong, but I beliver that something very similar is happening here. Folks cherry-pick whatever information supports their side of the story, ignore the rest, and say "Scientific data says X."

3) To say that "the results are all f'ed up" is IMO a huge simplification of a complex story. Mountains are made of molehills, and because it's not a a "slam dunk" case (to quote a famous American public figure) all of a sudden the data proves Floyd innocent.

4) I'm not an expert in this area, and I really don't think anyone posting here has enough information, whether he or she is an expert in the field or not, to try argue this in an intelligent manner. We all have opinions and biases. We have little data. That does not make for a very productive conversation.

Louis

[Len J]

Indeed. You choose to pay attention to the big head floating above the pyrotechnics. I choose to look at the old man behind the curtain pulling the levers and call bull$hit.

No one dopes, doping is all a conspiracy by WASA to decide who they want to win (or not win).....what was I thinking?

Floyd is a God....where do I worship?

len

[J.Greene]

Floyd is a God....where do I worship?
len

Kneel and face towards Amgen HQ.

JG

[scottcw2]

No one dopes, doping is all a conspiracy by WASA to decide who they want to win (or not win).....what was I thinking?

Floyd is a God....where do I worship?

len

Funny, I pegged you as a WADA follower based on your previous posts.

[LesMiner]

If Landis loses the arbitration hearing maybe he will take it up as a civil case. He could have grounds for a case based purely on the science.

[ada@prorider.or]

Kneel and face towards Amgen HQ.

JG
+1

[Len J]

Funny, I pegged you as a WADA follower based on your previous posts.

Reality follower. I choose not to take either side of this too seriously, they both have conflicted motivations.

Len

[jhcakilmer]

Hey guys, this thread is getting quite heated, it would be nice to take it down a couple notches, and stop the personal attacks, instigating, etc.

I just wanted to clarify, that Testosterone level could easily be low one day, and high another, since the half-life of T is only about 1 hour......that's really short....which means that blood and urine levels would return to normal very quickly! Plus we also need to consider, that these pro cyclist drink a huge volume of water each day, so the biliary, and urinary excretion rates, would not be anything close to the average sedetary patient.

I also agree with others, I'm sure there are lots of tricks for hiding these doping products. It's not rocket science, just biology. If you download the list of banned substances from the WADA website (all 11 pages), there are several pages of known "masking" agents already banned....so this is not that far fetched.

Only Landis knows the truth.....but I would say the evidence either way is so mucked up that it's only making cycling as a whole look bad!

[scottcw2]

I just wanted to clarify, that Testosterone level could easily be low one day, and high another, since the half-life of T is only about 1 hour......

Are you a doctor? One doctor that I have talked to directly who actually works with low testosterone patients told me that the 1/2 life of testosterone is 7-10 days. He stated unequivocally that the results of the tests are not supported by scientific fact.

[don'TreadOnMe]

Whether or not there's exo test, who knows, the machines & operators & whatnot could be so goofed up...

However - what could cause the massive imbalance between the epi and test?
That's the precursor to this whole mess.
It's supposed to be 1:1, allow up to 1:4, but 1:11 epi to test?
WHA? His test was w/in range, but the epi was gone.

Are we dealing w/something so novel (at least for typical controls) that it's wacking bodily chemistry in a different way?
Perfluorocarbon emulsions? Artificial oxygen carriers? Why did he need soooo much water...
???

[jeffg]

I do not know all the facts, but the tension here as I see it is the following.

1. I do not trust the doping authoirities here, believe they have done a less than exemplary job and that a victory for them here validates sloppy lab work, questionable science, and further erodes people's faith in the system. I would hate to be an accused rider if this is the standard, and as a fan I want to have faith the system is fair and the standards are equally applied.

2. Riders and fans may deserve better (see point #1), but I am not sure Floyd does based on the proceedings thus far.

Can we suspend Floyd and the lab and hold L'Equipe accountable for leaks? I vote for that

[jhcakilmer]

Are you a doctor? One doctor that I have talked to directly who actually works with low testosterone patients told me that the 1/2 life of testosterone is 7-10 days. He stated unequivocally that the results of the tests are not supported by scientific fact.

Well, I guess I should have expanded.....the blood half-life is less then an hour, and it leaved the blood stream very quickly, and is stored in adipose tissue until it's excreted over 1-12 days in the urine.......but urinary excretion of T is very, very slow, and at only a small fraction of what the systemic concentration would be.

And since WADA doesn't take biopsies, urine and blood samples can be very variable!!

I'm not expert, but I've been school for the past decade (biology/chemistry BS, Neurophysiology MS, and currently in med. school), but I defintely wasn't satisfied with my memory, so I check with a few other sources....online, and our endocrinology book, both of which were consistant.

I think they're protocol is the biggest issue in this trial......I just know if I tried to publish anything with that type of data, it would never get accepted, and if I was a lab tech, I would probably be fired.

[Frog Hair]

2) About all I can say based on my own personal experiences is that whenever we (the folks I work with at the ol' warplane factory) see technical military aviation matters reported in the media, especially those we deal with on a daily basis, we laugh at how garbled / simplified / distorted everything becomes. I may be wrong, but I beliver that something very similar is happening here. Folks cherry-pick whatever information supports their side of the story, ignore the rest, and say "Scientific data says X."



I once worked for a company who endured the sharp-end of the media stick. I was so shocked at what I was seeing on the news. There I was, working there and I knew what was happening and yet the media twisted it so badly it was sickening. So I've always feared what the media was doing to the other stories, especially the ones I was interested in.

The fact is that we are never really going to know who is guilty here. This is just another trial of fine print that will test the system more than the truth.

Meanwhile, there are whole other group of pro's who are racing around Italy right now. Can't help but wonder what kind of doping might be going on as we speak...