Windbreaker

You go Cruxpearl!! Great contribution! When you have nothing inteligent to add just take a cheap shot - that'll be sure to shut 'em up every time! So where did you hear your "truth"?

Ok now back to some of thge specifics on the FL case a) The testing process of the samples has yet to be scrutinised and the chain of evidence needs to be absolutely intact. We can't just assume that it's all kosher in light of the above - right? b) W.r.t. FL's performance on the day - there is actual PT data that can be compared with his training rides, other riders data and this has been done. I haven't seen a single analysis of this data where someone has stated that it is physiologically impossible or highly irregular data. Most people actaully state that the peloton made a tactical error letting him go on the assumption that he would bonk again. There is also the fact that he went through 75 bottles of water used for cooling on the day - surely that and the constant attention he had at his disposal from the car (good feeding intervals etc) must have played a part in his excellent performance on the day c) I still haven't read anything that describes any physical benefits of a single dose of testosterone. d) I haven't read any literature where the effects of long term use of testosterone for road racing is beneficial. d) I am sure that they would have re-tested his prior samples for synthetic testosterone (on the assumption that he just got the balance wrong on the day) which would have highlighted longer term use. It would not be true to form for them to have kept these further tests results quiet had they been positive so we have to assume that they were clean and we are back to just the single test. e) Why are there discrepancies between his A & B samples? Think about it.

Linnega, Again regarding WADA and "The Lab". These guys provided details to Le Equippe allowing them to create the picture that "LA WAS GUILTY" based on tests which were being DEVELOPED under the auspices of research. They broke a whole bunch of their own regulations and you don't think that they should be facing some scrutiny themselves??? As for the "Science" - the procedures have still never been verified by another independant lab, they were unwilling to provide details of the procedures, and it goes on and on. Read the conclusion by the INDEPENDANT investigator below. So don't tell me that just because they say Landis samples were positive that I have to automatically assume his guilt without going through due process (metaphorically speaking that is ...) "... The results summarized in the LNDD reports however, are questionable in a number of other ways and for a number of other reasons as well. The investigator has studied those summaries and finds them deficient and not credible in a number of ways. The research reports are merely summaries, while the underlying iso-elctropherograms and other essential documents - necessary to evaluate the findings presented in both reports - have not been produced. The process that generated those results and the subsequent reports was so deficient that it would be improper in this report to discuss these reports in more detail as it would give the reported results more credibility than they could possibly merit.

C'mon, gimme a break. Le'Equippe has had a boner for LA for so long that they forgot what balanced reporting is. But I wasn't referring to them specifically - every publication that reported "AS FACT" that FL had been cheating (or LA in 99 for that matter) is lop-sided. As for WADA and the Lab - read the Vrijman report and draw your own conclusions. Oops - I forgot that you have but read this again "The fact that WADA President Dick Pound and the LNDD?s Professor De Ceaurriz were willing to discuss the research project and its results in great detail with the media, while they at the same time were unwilling to cooperate with a proper investigation by the organization with jurisdiction over this matter, raises substantial questions regarding their reasons for doing so and makes one wonder as to what complete cooperation would disclose. The obligation of the LNDD, in its capacity as a WADA-accredited laboratory conducting doping control testing for the UCI, to cooperate fully with this investigation, does not only follow from the fact that this investigation examines what the LNDD was doing with UCI urine samples in its possession and subsequent publication of the analyses results. It also follows from the requirements as contained in the ISO/IEC international standard. The LNDD contends that the decision to create research reports, containing ?additional information? - i.e. the code numbers present on the original glass bottles used when conducting doping controls at the 1999 Tour de France, necessary for determining the identity of those riders having provided one or more of these urine samples during the 1999 Tour de France, and the analysis results for each of these urine samples - was the result of improper pressure WADA and the French Ministry exerted on the LNDD. WADA President Dick Pound has admitted that he directed the LNDD to prepare these research reports containing the ?additional information? WADA had been requesting. These disclosures, combined with WADA?s request that the UCI conduct this investigation to determine whether or not the findings of the LNDD might constitute proof of a potential anti-doping rule violation, as well as the questions that remain about WADA?s involvement in the research, all impose a clear obligation on WADA to cooperate fully and timely with this investigation, especially when keeping in mind the importance of the role WADA is supposed to fulfil in the international fight against doping in sport. WADA however, has refused to do so. To the extent that this report is incomplete or does not reach definite conclusions on certain issues, the responsibility lies with the French Ministry, the LNDD, and WADA. If the representations in the WADA Code and other rules, regulations and laws about athletes? rights are to have any credibility and if the WADA Code is meant to be a document that is as enforceable against its signatories as it is against athletes, it is essential that an organization with sufficient authority - whether that is the IOC, CAS, the WADA Foundation Board, the UCI, or a court of law - order the French Ministry, the LNDD, and WADA to produce all documents that relate in any way to this matter, and cooperate fully with the independent investigator in answering all remaining unanswered questions."Windbreaker2006-10-06 04:13:12

The public have the right to have a balanced view - not just what sensationalist media or organisations with axes to grind want us to know. And that is my beef with the Landis thing. WADA aren't playing to their own rules. And the media don't have any rules anyway. He definitely only received the results of the tests a few weeks ago. His lawyers started to defend him immediately the media went on their feeding frenzy (stoked by selective release of information) as you would expect them to do - but he was essentially in the dark. It's clear from my previous postings that I disagree with the notion that there is absolutely no chance that the lab was wrong. A small percentage of their test results have been overturned regularly - some on technicalities I would guess, some because the science is just not perfect and probably a smaller percentage just because they plain screwed up. But when the very organisations who MUST be COMPLETELY impartial start to get involved in the politics of it all ("The lab" did do that with the LA '99 thing) then their work must be considered with as much suspicion as the actual allegations themselves to arrive at a fair conclusion. Remember that WADA and the testing institutions subscribe to certain rules & regulations so as to avoid "technicality based acquitals" in the first place. They can't just ignore them when they feel like it. They have done so regularly in the past few years. I don't have an opinion (yet) on whether FL is guilty or not - I am trying to build a balanced view of the whole picture. Like others though I guess that I am hoping that he is innocent - for the sake of our sport & the spirit that he represented on that day.

Hey Widget, I am vehemently opposed to drugs in sport. But I am as vehemently supportive of the concept of inocent until proven guilty. I am also human so I tend to draw conclusions like anyone else but ... What do you read into the fact that Landis and his well paid lawyer were only furnished with facts a matter of a couple of weeks ago? Would you agree that trial by media is wrong?

Ja maybe lets agree to disagree. But I enjoy these sorts of discussions so lets disagree some more first ... Everyone accepts that testosterone is only physically beneficial over a long period - specifically to build muscle mass. So why take it for one day only? And why take it when the desire is to keep such a fine power/weight ratio. The TdF is not the 100m sprint. There are people that say that the aggression or mental benefit was the desired effect. Others say that the aggression only occurs after prolonged usage. But even if he took it for the benefit of "aggression" in mind to win back the time, he knew that he would have to win the stage to do that and therefore would be tested. Doesn't make sense. Last night I read some stuff where tests were done which showed that alcohol has the effect of raising the ratio from -30% to 300% on different people. This doesn't answer the synthetic issue but it does explain why FL being completely unaware of the tests (unlike selected media) could have responded the way he did. At the end of the day he was treated very unfairly by the UCI and WADA. I can understand that the public were demanding information but the correct thing would have been to furnish FL with anything that they were going to release a day or two before they did release it to the public. That would have placed them above recrimination and everyone would have had much more confidence in the process. For McQuaid to come out and say "if we didn't release it then the lab would have leaked it anyway" is like saying if I don't loot this abandoned car now then someone else will steal it anyway. He cast more doubt on the integrity of "The Lab".Windbreaker2006-10-05 08:08:41

Widget, you will learn in time that money is the root of all evil. And believing that it is impossible that everyt teckie at the lab is completely incorruptible is naive. The point I made is that they have been shown to have ignored their own protocols INCLUDING protection of the chain of evidence in the past. Their tests have also been overturned in the past for the same reasons so on the balance of it I am inclined to believe that IT IS JUST AS LIKELY THAT THEY SCREWED UP AS IT IS THAT FL and/or LA ARE GUILTY. Anyone that sticks to the premise that because they are WADA approved they cannot be at fault is naive. I am guessing that FL has insistewd on the public hearing because they intend to expose a whole bunch of irregularities that have been kept hidden to now. Why else??

And if anyone else thinks that "The Lab" is squeeky clean and want to enlighten themselves then make the effort to read this http://www.velonews.com/media/report1999.pdf#search=%22%22Emile%20Vrijman%22%22 Beware it's 132 pages long. In my humble opinion it still leaves a whole bunch of questions unanswered about Lance (sorry Jason) but it makes me very suspicious of their motives and the fact is if they cannot follow their own and WADA's protocols then ... So I have to conclude that it is just as possible that someone in the lab set up Lance and Floyd as it is that they are guilty.

Did you read the report? I mean the report' date=' not the velonews article or the LA press release. Take the time and read what questions were asked and understand how pointless the investigation was. [/quote'] Yes, I actually downloaded the full report and took the time to read it. His findings condemned the actions of the Lab on a whole host of fronts and condemned Dick Pound specifically for undermining the integrity of the WADA by not following procedures.

Now, I'm being dopey. Never saw the second page of postings - ignore tyhe above - it's all been said.

Gary Smith Cyclelab '66 Clean

I recently changed my laptop and thought that I had to buy a new licence for Cycling Peaks. After I bought the second one they advised that I now "had one in the bank". Free to someone with a PT or SRM and doesn't have Cycling Peaks yet. Seriously, you need to have a power sensor or it would be a waste. PM me.

Cool, more to play with! There is a section on it in the "Training and Racing with Power" book. Haven't read it yet ... ps Bruce I lost track of the thread about your 60m TT - you do it??

Cycling Peaks doesn't have a scatterplot chart does it?