First rumour I got, from an unidentified emailer, was that the USADA review board passed the case on without looking at the merits because they couldn't get the 370 page LDP translated from French, so they just punted.
The second rumour, also from an email, is a specific example of the kind of "gross errors" alluded to in Jacobs summary of the filing. The ISL protocol for corrections on forms requires a crossout that is initialled by the person making the change along with the change. Many of the forms in the pack are properly corrected in this way, by people familiar with the protocol. However, some of the forms contain changes that are not done properly -- there is white-out over the "error", with a "correct" value filled in, and no attribution of who made the change.
First rumour I got, from an unidentified emailer, was that the USADA review board passed the case on without looking at the merits because they couldn't get the 370 page LDP translated from French, so they just punted.
The second rumour, also from an email, is a specific example of the kind of "gross errors" alluded to in Jacobs summary of the filing. The ISL protocol for corrections on forms requires a crossout that is initialled by the person making the change along with the change. Many of the forms in the pack are properly corrected in this way, by people familiar with the protocol. However, some of the forms contain changes that are not done properly -- there is white-out over the "error", with a "correct" value filled in, and no attribution of who made the change.
Whiteout? Medical labs in the U.S. are specifically prohibited from using whiteout in any records. You must just put one line through the wrong value, initial and date and put new value. Strikeout but not obliterate what the original value was.
First rumour I got, from an unidentified emailer, was that the USADA review board passed the case on without looking at the merits because they couldn't get the 370 page LDP translated from French, so they just punted.
The second rumour, also from an email, is a specific example of the kind of "gross errors" alluded to in Jacobs summary of the filing. The ISL protocol for corrections on forms requires a crossout that is initialled by the person making the change along with the change. Many of the forms in the pack are properly corrected in this way, by people familiar with the protocol. However, some of the forms contain changes that are not done properly -- there is white-out over the "error", with a "correct" value filled in, and no attribution of who made the change.
Whiteout? Medical labs in the U.S. are specifically prohibited from using whiteout in any records. You must just put one line through the wrong value, initial and date and put new value. Strikeout but not obliterate what the original value was.
I wonder if they can remove the whiteout w/o ruining what it covers.
First rumour I got, from an unidentified emailer, was that the USADA review board passed the case on without looking at the merits because they couldn't get the 370 page LDP translated from French, so they just punted.
The second rumour, also from an email, is a specific example of the kind of "gross errors" alluded to in Jacobs summary of the filing. The ISL protocol for corrections on forms requires a crossout that is initialled by the person making the change along with the change. Many of the forms in the pack are properly corrected in this way, by people familiar with the protocol. However, some of the forms contain changes that are not done properly -- there is white-out over the "error", with a "correct" value filled in, and no attribution of who made the change.
Whiteout? Medical labs in the U.S. are specifically prohibited from using whiteout in any records. You must just put one line through the wrong value, initial and date and put new value. Strikeout but not obliterate what the original value was.
You do realize we're talking about a French lab, right? Maybe it wasn't whiteout. Maybe it was brie.
First rumour I got, from an unidentified emailer, was that the USADA review board passed the case on without looking at the merits because they couldn't get the 370 page LDP translated from French, so they just punted.
The second rumour, also from an email, is a specific example of the kind of "gross errors" alluded to in Jacobs summary of the filing. The ISL protocol for corrections on forms requires a crossout that is initialled by the person making the change along with the change. Many of the forms in the pack are properly corrected in this way, by people familiar with the protocol. However, some of the forms contain changes that are not done properly -- there is white-out over the "error", with a "correct" value filled in, and no attribution of who made the change.
Having to initial changes is fairly cynical. It should be done on the honor system. If any of the changes are initialed D^2P^2 that's [censored] "Double Penetration" Pound. It's his jailhouse nickname and he's quite proud of it.
If you had the original the value can often be seen from the back side, but if photocopy, no can do.
"Tere" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
nobody said:
dbrower said:
First rumour I got, from an unidentified emailer, was that the USADA review board passed the case on without looking at the merits because they couldn't get the 370 page LDP translated from French, so they just punted.
The second rumour, also from an email, is a specific example of the kind of "gross errors" alluded to in Jacobs summary of the filing. The ISL protocol for corrections on forms requires a crossout that is initialled by the person making the change along with the change. Many of the forms in the pack are properly corrected in this way, by people familiar with the protocol. However, some of the forms contain changes that are not done properly -- there is white-out over the "error", with a "correct" value filled in, and no attribution of who made the change.
Whiteout? Medical labs in the U.S. are specifically prohibited from using whiteout in any records. You must just put one line through the wrong value, initial and date and put new value. Strikeout but not obliterate what the original value was.
I wonder if they can remove the whiteout w/o ruining what it covers.
I presume USADA passed on it as it didn't want the responsibility and ridicule assuming they would agree with the Landis legal arguments. The an open hearing while won't neutralize all detractors and dissenters, it will allow Landis his day(s) and those in the world who give a flip to see the arguments from both sides to agree with whatever conclusion.
Most likely also if the USADA ruled without a hearing, then the world would think it was patriotism and that the UCI and WADA would have openned their investigation. This isn;t going to be over until all sides exhaust their paths as each side has too much to loose.
"dbrower" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
First rumour I got, from an unidentified emailer, was that the USADA review board passed the case on without looking at the merits because they couldn't get the 370 page LDP translated from French, so they just punted.
The second rumour, also from an email, is a specific example of the kind of "gross errors" alluded to in Jacobs summary of the filing. The ISL protocol for corrections on forms requires a crossout that is initialled by the person making the change along with the change. Many of the forms in the pack are properly corrected in this way, by people familiar with the protocol. However, some of the forms contain changes that are not done properly -- there is white-out over the "error", with a "correct" value filled in, and no attribution of who made the change.
I presume USADA passed on it as it didn't want the responsibility and ridicule assuming they would agree with the Landis legal arguments. The an open hearing while won't neutralize all detractors and dissenters, it will allow Landis his day(s) and those in the world who give a flip to see the arguments from both sides to agree with whatever conclusion.
Most likely also if the USADA ruled without a hearing, then the world would think it was patriotism and that the UCI and WADA would have openned their investigation. This isn;t going to be over until all sides exhaust their paths as each side has too much to loose.
I missed the r.b.r speeling reg on loose, lose and luge. If ingles ain't yer native tongue, I'm awful sory.
If you speak the Kings English, its "lose" with no u as in "colour".
(perhaps it would be best if we eliminate "lose" and go with "looze" just to pay homage to the muther country).
I presume USADA passed on it as it didn't want the responsibility and ridicule assuming they would agree with the Landis legal arguments. The an open hearing while won't neutralize all detractors and dissenters, it will allow Landis his day(s) and those in the world who give a flip to see the arguments from both sides to agree with whatever conclusion.
Most likely also if the USADA ruled without a hearing, then the world would think it was patriotism and that the UCI and WADA would have openned their investigation. This isn;t going to be over until all sides exhaust their paths as each side has too much to loose.
I missed the r.b.r speeling reg on loose, lose and luge. If ingles ain't yer native tongue, I'm awful sory.
That's 'too much Toulouse', dumbass.
-- [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ "This young man has not the faintest idea how socialists think and does not begin to understand the mentality of the party he has been elected to lead. He is quite simply a liberal" -- Ken Coates MEP (Lab) of Tony Blair
I presume USADA passed on it as it didn't want the responsibility and ridicule assuming they would agree with the Landis legal arguments. The an open hearing while won't neutralize all detractors and dissenters, it will allow Landis his day(s) and those in the world who give a flip to see the arguments from both sides to agree with whatever conclusion.
Most likely also if the USADA ruled without a hearing, then the world would think it was patriotism and that the UCI and WADA would have openned their investigation. This isn;t going to be over until all sides exhaust their paths as each side has too much to loose.
I missed the r.b.r speeling reg on loose, lose and luge. If ingles ain't yer native tongue, I'm awful sory.
Chris wrote: > I presume USADA passed on it as it didn't want the responsibility and > ridicule assuming they would agree with the Landis legal arguments. The > an open hearing while won't neutralize all detractors and dissenters, it > will allow Landis his day(s) and those in the world who give a flip to > see the arguments from both sides to agree with whatever conclusion. > > Most likely also if the USADA ruled without a hearing, then the world > would think it was patriotism and that the UCI and WADA would have > openned their > investigation. This isn;t going to be over until all sides exhaust > their paths as each side has too much to loose.
I missed the r.b.r speeling reg on loose, lose and luge. If ingles ain't yer native tongue, I'm awful sory.
