Landis nil; 12; nil;........WTF !!!!!!!!!

[widget]

Which medical standpoint would that be?

 

Hi Monty, Uummm, lets see...................how about approx 70 years family combined experience in medicine.

 

Where did I say "Landis is guilty" - I said the evidence against him is "overwhelming"  - unless you didnt read correctly thats not the same.

 

Do yourself a favour, spring R149.00 and go buy the book "Panic nation" written by a medical Professor (Prof Feldman)  - spend two days and read it, maybe you will re-think your comments.

 

....but then again, maybe not.!

[Windbreaker]

Do yourself a favour' date=' spring R149.00 and go buy the book "Panic nation"   

[/quote']

 

Widget, what's it about? I guess that it has to do with doping but in what sense? Where do I get it?

 

 

[widget]

Windbreaker, yes I agree I also enjoy the discussion, I dont see it as a condemn session, its simply a few points of view put forward by folk who have some ideas to share - we discuss the state of the roads over dinner, the poor performance of the Bokke  why not Mr Landis??

 

Anyway, lets think about this - have you ever wondered why accused sport personalities hire highly paid solicitors to put a spin on their story - yet Labs dont??

 

Its simple - they dont need to - they work with hard and fast genetic facts - laywers on the other hand work with words trying to discredit and throw doubt on the reports and they are always a lot more voiceferous.

 

Labs work quietly behind the scenes - lawyers make a lot of noise (in their clients favour of course)

 

Did you know that Tylers solicitors drew up 134 lever arch files of data trying to discredit the labs report which was 12 pages in total - let me repeat - 134 lever arch files as opposed to 12 pages - and they lost, kinda makes you think eh?

 

As the black sheep of my family I studied law and everyone else studied medicine - so when I look at these reports from the Landis camps etc I see a very highly paid solicitor (and a very good one at that) who puts an excellant spin on the story to suit his well heeled client - unfortunately you can only twist the wording so much which is why most still get convicted. 

 

widget2006-10-06 02:31:42

[widget]

Do yourself a favour' date=' spring R149.00 and go buy the book "Panic nation"   

[/quote']

 

Widget, what's it about? I guess that it has to do with doping but in what sense? Where do I get it?

 

 

 

Yes, it has an entire section devoted to sport doping, cheats and performance enhancing via drugs or other means - not quite balanced rather leaning towards the athlete in my opinion but still rather interesting.

 

It should be in the usual book stores or its available on Amazon.

[Windbreaker]

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?

[widget]

.........Of course we all draw conclusions winbreaker, thats what makes it interesting - imagine if we all agreed, or if we all sat back and said lets wait and see - dead boring!.

 

Trial by media....................Hmmm, I dont know, I think the public has a right to be informed and if this means a "trial by media" then I think its fine. 

 

I trust the courts to be impartial (well mostly)and thats all that really matters.

 

I wasnt aware that Floyds lawyers only recieved the documents a few weeks ago - but I am surprised if thats the case as they were quite actively defending him from day 1. 

[linnega]

I suppose the whole debate about the Vrijmen report underlines exactly why it was a waste of money.  I understand the mandate - my point is that the mandate was wrong.  The only issues that needed attention were - was there EPO in LA's blood (DNA test would resolve this) and, if so, how could it be explained (given that there is a possibility that the sample was tampered with and that we don't know if frozen blood is useable).

 

On trial by media, I would go as far as to say that is fundamental to a democratic society particularly in a sport with a history of deception.  Without the media bringing issues to light there would not even be drug testing.

[Windbreaker]

... I think the public has a right to be informed and if this means a "trial by media" then I think its fine. 

 

...

 

I wasnt aware that Floyds lawyers only recieved the documents a few weeks ago - but I am surprised if thats the case as they were quite actively defending him from day 1. 

 

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.

[Windbreaker]

I suppose the whole debate about the Vrijmen report underlines exactly why it was a waste of money.  I understand the mandate - my point is that the mandate was wrong.  The only issues that needed attention were - was there EPO in LA's blood (DNA test would resolve this) and' date=' if so, how could it be explained (given that there is a possibility that the sample was tampered with and that we don't know if frozen blood is useable).

 

On trial by media, I would go as far as to say that is fundamental to a democratic society particularly in a sport with a history of deception.  Without the media bringing issues to light there would not even be drug testing.

[/quote']

 

This is fun!

 

Investigative journalism is great - Go Manbat!!!  Lop-sided sensationalism cheapens everything that it touches and is essentially detrimental to everyone other than the owners who sell more advertising on the hype.

 

We both agree that the media has a positive role to play but don't you also think that if the organisations that are supposed to be completely beyond reproach fail then the whole system is threatened?

 

If you do agree then the Vrijman report is absolutely invaluable in that it can and should be used to get WADA back on the moral high gound and draw everyone's attention to iregularities that have occured within "The lab" so that they too can be placed back on their pedestal.

 

 

 

 

[linnega]

I am not sure that you could by any stretch of the imagination classify l'Equipe as lopsided or sensational.  Perhaps Paul Kimmage's comments may be considered such, but l'Equipe has a full time dedicated team that solely focuses on the issue of drugs in sport.  It is not limited to cycling.  In terms of balanced, in-depth reporting, I would say that l'Equipe is way ahead of any publication anywhere in the world - certainly daily publications.

As for WADA or Chatenay-Malabry, I believe they have done exceptionally well in handling of doping cases (the LA case was not a doping case).  The incidence of false-negatives are incredibly low and have generally been the result of tests being badly designed (and poorly performed in 3rd world countries like ours).  They have been able to defend cases against Landis and Heras, who both spent a fortune on the best lawyers around.

[Windbreaker]

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

[montyzuma]

Cruxie, personal attacks don't achieve anything. I have a good life thanks.

"Drug use is 3-5 years ahead of doping controls". That's a sweeping statement. However in this case we are not talking about some undetectable wonder drug - we are talking about good old-fashioned testerone, which has been around a long time, the physiology of which is well understood and which is detectable. I don't dispute that exogenous testosterone may have been found in the sample. I do question why it didn't show up in other tests taken in the immediate period surrounding the positive test, as there is no point in taking it on a single occasion. Think a bit. Or is it less hassle to just write it off as a doping mistake?

[Windbreaker]

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.

[Windbreaker]

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.

 

 

[Cruxpearl]

Whatever.... You'll never believe the truth anyway....

[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"?