Lance The Hacker

This article was published in Le Monde, so it is a given (as stated in
the article) that:

1. The lab proved that Armstrong took EPO in 1999.

2. All testimony against Armstrong in the civil trial, which he won
with unprecedented
punitive damages, must be true.

The tide may finally be turning though, check out this article:

http://hebdo.nouvelobs.com/p2194/articles/a324754.html

-ilan

Dan Gregory said:

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3242,36-837797,0.html?xtor=RSS-3242
Although the police don't know if he was behind the LNDD hacks they are
looking into his activities in 2005...

Quoted message said:

1. The lab proved that Armstrong took EPO in 1999.

There is evidence in the testing of old samples that Lance *may* have taken
EPO. The lab did not prove anything. The samples weren't meant for anything
beyond research, and there was no guarantee of chain-of-custody issues etc
attached to them.

Guess the relevant question is what constitutes "proof?" I suspect that it's
a bundle of circumstantial evidence which, tied together, is enough to
convince *you* and thus "prove" his guilt. Which is fine. But to take this
one piece of the puzzle and say it provides "proof" is incorrect. It
provides evidence, but not proof.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"ilan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This article was published in Le Monde, so it is a given (as stated in
the article) that:

1. The lab proved that Armstrong took EPO in 1999.

2. All testimony against Armstrong in the civil trial, which he won
with unprecedented
punitive damages, must be true.

The tide may finally be turning though, check out this article:

http://hebdo.nouvelobs.com/p2194/articles/a324754.html

-ilan

Dan Gregory said:

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3242,36-837797,0.html?xtor=RSS-3242
Although the police don't know if he was behind the LNDD hacks they are
looking into his activities in 2005...

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1. The lab proved that Armstrong took EPO in 1999.

There is evidence in the testing of old samples that Lance *may* have
taken EPO. The lab did not prove anything. The samples weren't meant for
anything beyond research, and there was no guarantee of chain-of-custody
issues etc attached to them.

Guess the relevant question is what constitutes "proof?" I suspect that
it's a bundle of circumstantial evidence which, tied together, is enough
to convince *you* and thus "prove" his guilt. Which is fine. But to take
this one piece of the puzzle and say it provides "proof" is incorrect. It
provides evidence, but not proof.

Which is probably the reason why Le Monde didn't write that the lab proved
(`a prouvé'😉 that Armstrong took EPO, but "made it clear" (`a mis en
évidence'😉.

Benjo

When Marion Jones waited 6 weeks to test the B sample for EPO, they accused
her of delaying the tests to give the traces of EPO disipate.

How can anyone claim to accurately test a 6 - 7 year old sample, when they
claim 6 weeks is dodgy?

Must have been really potent at one time or a farse to cast a cloud over
LA's wins knowing that it can't be proved one way or the other.

"mal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When Marion Jones waited 6 weeks to test the B sample for EPO, they
accused her of delaying the tests to give the traces of EPO disipate.

How can anyone claim to accurately test a 6 - 7 year old sample, when they
claim 6 weeks is dodgy?

Quoted message said:

Breaking a rule doesn't have to be unethical. It's quite possible that

the

Quoted message said:

man who leaked the results was morally outraged that a man of whom he was
convinced that he was cheating and lying, was making millions and
presented himself as a paragon of honesty and sincerety. He might have
thought it would be ethically in the public interest that the truth was
revealed. If that's the case, you might still be convinced that the
obligation to keep the samples secret was morally of prior importance, but
that doesn't mean that his point of view was unethical.

Benjo

It's an issue of trust.
Labs should do what labs do, without extending their role. Anyone who
violates that trust should be removed.
People's livelihoods are being impacted by shoddy ethics, then organizations
paper over the cracks and still expect the death penalty.
A sportsman's career is not a public interest issue.

A quote from a magistrate I knew. "The public may be interested, but that
doesn't mean it's in the public interest."

Either way, attributing an active role to the laboratory in this case
means unethical
conduct on their part, since they had an obligation to keep the samples
secret.
Compare with the case of a doctor making an AIDS diagnosis public:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6180906.stm

-ilan

benjo maso said:

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Which is probably the reason why Le Monde didn't write that the lab proved
(`a prouvé'😉 that Armstrong took EPO, but "made it clear" (`a mis en
évidence'😉.

Benjo

"ilan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Either way, attributing an active role to the laboratory in this case
means unethical
conduct on their part, since they had an obligation to keep the samples
secret.
Compare with the case of a doctor making an AIDS diagnosis public:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6180906.stm

Breaking a rule doesn't have to be unethical. It's quite possible that the
man who leaked the results was morally outraged that a man of whom he was
convinced that he was cheating and lying, was making millions and presented
himself as a paragon of honesty and sincerety. He might have thought it
would be ethically in the public interest that the truth was revealed. If
that's the case, you might still be convinced that the obligation to keep
the samples secret was morally of prior importance, but that doesn't mean
that his point of view was unethical.

Benjo

I might agree with as you are talking about an individual leak, or
about the
L'Equipe reporter (who lied extensively to get his story). However, the
subject of
discussion is the laboratory, which must adhere to a code of conduct,
especially
since its purpose is to destroy the career and reputation of those who
don't.

-ilan

benjo maso said:

Breaking a rule doesn't have to be unethical. It's quite possible that the
man who leaked the results was morally outraged that a man of whom he was
convinced that he was cheating and lying, was making millions and presented
himself as a paragon of honesty and sincerety. He might have thought it
would be ethically in the public interest that the truth was revealed. If
that's the case, you might still be convinced that the obligation to keep
the samples secret was morally of prior importance, but that doesn't mean
that his point of view was unethical.

Benjo

Quoted message said:

Breaking a rule doesn't have to be unethical. It's quite possible that the
man who leaked the results was morally outraged that a man of whom he was
convinced that he was cheating and lying, was making millions and
presented himself as a paragon of honesty and sincerety. He might have
thought it would be ethically in the public interest that the truth was
revealed. If that's the case, you might still be convinced that the
obligation to keep the samples secret was morally of prior importance, but
that doesn't mean that his point of view was unethical.

Is the lab's role to discover evidence, or to prosecute the guilty? I would
have serious issues with a lab whose employees feel that it's their primary
job to bring people down, rather than provide evidence of guilt or
innocence.

In general, we (western society, the part of the world that you & I
represent) try to separate the police from those who enforce judgement.
Heck, we'll even be so timid as to put a jury and judge in-between the two.
There are very good reasons for doing so.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Breaking a rule doesn't have to be unethical. It's quite possible that
the man who leaked the results was morally outraged that a man of whom he
was convinced that he was cheating and lying, was making millions and
presented himself as a paragon of honesty and sincerety. He might have
thought it would be ethically in the public interest that the truth was
revealed. If that's the case, you might still be convinced that the
obligation to keep the samples secret was morally of prior importance,
but that doesn't mean that his point of view was unethical.

Is the lab's role to discover evidence, or to prosecute the guilty? I
would have serious issues with a lab whose employees feel that it's their
primary job to bring people down, rather than provide evidence of guilt or
innocence.

In general, we (western society, the part of the world that you & I
represent) try to separate the police from those who enforce judgement.
Heck, we'll even be so timid as to put a jury and judge in-between the
two. There are very good reasons for doing so.

Sure, it would be completely objectionable if the man (or men) who leaked
the information would have interfered in the legal priocess. But of course
that was not te case. After all, the culprit(s) might have thought the
evidence was been completely convincing, he (or they) must have known that
it was completely inadmissible. And by the way, I'm not defending the
culprit(s), I'm only arguing that it would be too easy to call the leak
simply `unethical'.

Benjo

"ilan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I might agree with as you are talking about an individual leak, or
about the
L'Equipe reporter (who lied extensively to get his story). However, the
subject of
discussion is the laboratory, which must adhere to a code of conduct,
especially
since its purpose is to destroy the career and reputation of those who
don't.

But hasn't the information about Amstrong been leaked by one or more
individuals, although he of she or they might have been employees of the
laboratory? After all, the laboratory in itself wasn't guilty: it's only a
thing.

Benjo

"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"ilan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I might agree with as you are talking about an individual leak, or
about the
L'Equipe reporter (who lied extensively to get his story). However, the
subject of
discussion is the laboratory, which must adhere to a code of conduct,
especially
since its purpose is to destroy the career and reputation of those who
don't.

But hasn't the information about Amstrong been leaked by one or more
individuals, although he of she or they might have been employees of the
laboratory? After all, the laboratory in itself wasn't guilty: it's only a
thing.

Bike racing doesn't have a doping issue, just individuals do?

The director of the laboratory agreed to have an interview published in
the L'Equipe
issue in which the article was published in which he said his test was
foolproof.
Since he represents the laboratory, this means the laboratory approved
of the
leaks and the methods used by the L'Equipe reporter (lying), since no
objection
was raised by the director, either in that interview or later.
Objections to the
leaks and to the article were later made by the IOC and the UCI.

-ilan

benjo maso said:

But hasn't the information about Amstrong been leaked by one or more
individuals, although he of she or they might have been employees of the
laboratory? After all, the laboratory in itself wasn't guilty: it's only a
thing.

Benjo

In article <[email hidden]>,

benjo maso said:

"ilan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Either way, attributing an active role to the laboratory in this case
means unethical
conduct on their part, since they had an obligation to keep the samples
secret.
Compare with the case of a doctor making an AIDS diagnosis public:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6180906.stm

Breaking a rule doesn't have to be unethical. It's quite possible that the
man who leaked the results was morally outraged that a man of whom he was
convinced that he was cheating and lying, was making millions and presented
himself as a paragon of honesty and sincerety. He might have thought it
would be ethically in the public interest that the truth was revealed. If
that's the case, you might still be convinced that the obligation to keep
the samples secret was morally of prior importance, but that doesn't mean
that his point of view was unethical.

If he gave his word to keep certain data confidential,
then he broke his word, and that is worse than being
unethical.

A lawyer discovers that he has overcharged a client,
and that the client has paid the overcharge.
Immediately an ethical dilemma arises: should he tell
his partner?

--
Michael Press

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In general, we (western society, the part of the world that you & I
represent) try to separate the police from those who enforce judgement.
Heck, we'll even be so timid as to put a jury and judge in-between the
two. There are very good reasons for doing so.

Sure, it would be completely objectionable if the man (or men) who leaked
the information would have interfered in the legal priocess. But of course
that was not te case.

Why do you make feel confident making the assumption that someone who cannot
be trusted to follow lab/UCI rules, and in fact has *not* followed those
rules, hasn't interfered in the "legal proess?" This is what I find so
surprising. The people working in the lab shouldn't act like they're part of
the punishment process. Because they're not. They're part of the
evidence-finding process. And that's ALL. Rules are set up that govern how
that evidence is dealt with. Rules that are not being followed. The
implication is that people working in the lab have an agenda that is not
part of the lab's charter, and that, to many, makes their work suspect.

Quoted message said:

After all, the culprit(s) might have thought the evidence was been
completely convincing, he (or they) must have known that it was completely
inadmissible. And by the way, I'm not defending the culprit(s), I'm only
arguing that it would be too easy to call the leak simply `unethical'.

I'm lost on that last paragraph. Not sure if you're supporting the case for
it being unethical or the opposite. Also not sure what you're saying about
the evidence being inadmissible. Are you saying that, due to the errors,
somebody knew the results wouldn't stand up, and so leaked them to gain
public support for a finding of guilt?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Breaking a rule doesn't have to be unethical. It's quite possible that
the man who leaked the results was morally outraged that a man of whom
he was convinced that he was cheating and lying, was making millions and
presented himself as a paragon of honesty and sincerety. He might have
thought it would be ethically in the public interest that the truth was
revealed. If that's the case, you might still be convinced that the
obligation to keep the samples secret was morally of prior importance,
but that doesn't mean that his point of view was unethical.

Is the lab's role to discover evidence, or to prosecute the guilty? I
would have serious issues with a lab whose employees feel that it's their
primary job to bring people down, rather than provide evidence of guilt
or innocence.

In general, we (western society, the part of the world that you & I
represent) try to separate the police from those who enforce judgement.
Heck, we'll even be so timid as to put a jury and judge in-between the
two. There are very good reasons for doing so.

Sure, it would be completely objectionable if the man (or men) who leaked
the information would have interfered in the legal priocess. But of course
that was not te case. After all, the culprit(s) might have thought the
evidence was been completely convincing, he (or they) must have known that
it was completely inadmissible. And by the way, I'm not defending the
culprit(s), I'm only arguing that it would be too easy to call the leak
simply `unethical'.

Benjo

"ilan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The director of the laboratory agreed to have an interview published in
the L'Equipe
issue in which the article was published in which he said his test was
foolproof.
Since he represents the laboratory, this means the laboratory approved
of the
leaks and the methods used by the L'Equipe reporter (lying), since no
objection
was raised by the director, either in that interview or later.
Objections to the
leaks and to the article were later made by the IOC and the UCI.

In the interview you're referring to, the director was indirectly denying
the information was leaked by an employee of his laboratory, claiming that
"his laboratory, as usual, had worked on anonymous urine samples, without
ever knowing to which riders they belonged to". He certainly didn't say he
approved of the leaks, nor was he asked if he did.

Benjo

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"ilan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I might agree with as you are talking about an individual leak, or
about the
L'Equipe reporter (who lied extensively to get his story). However, the
subject of
discussion is the laboratory, which must adhere to a code of conduct,
especially
since its purpose is to destroy the career and reputation of those who
don't.

But hasn't the information about Amstrong been leaked by one or more
individuals, although he of she or they might have been employees of the
laboratory? After all, the laboratory in itself wasn't guilty: it's only
a thing.

Bike racing doesn't have a doping issue, just individuals do?

True. Bike racing doesn't have a doping issue, bike racers do - and a lot op
people around them.

Benjo

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In general, we (western society, the part of the world that you & I
represent) try to separate the police from those who enforce judgement.
Heck, we'll even be so timid as to put a jury and judge in-between the
two. There are very good reasons for doing so.

Sure, it would be completely objectionable if the man (or men) who leaked
the information would have interfered in the legal priocess. But of
course that was not te case.

Why do you make feel confident making the assumption that someone who
cannot be trusted to follow lab/UCI rules, and in fact has *not* followed
those rules, hasn't interfered in the "legal proess?" This is what I find
so surprising. The people working in the lab shouldn't act like they're
part of the punishment process. Because they're not. They're part of the
evidence-finding process. And that's ALL. Rules are set up that govern how
that evidence is dealt with. Rules that are not being followed. The
implication is that people working in the lab have an agenda that is not
part of the lab's charter, and that, to many, makes their work suspect.

You're right of course that people working in the lab shouldn't act like
they're part of the punishment process (or is it proess?). But they are
also human, making moral judgments, and perhaps breaking rules when they're
thinking justice isn't done. Quite laudable in some cases, quite condemnable
in others.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

After all, the culprit(s) might have thought the evidence was been
completely convincing, he (or they) must have known that it was completely
inadmissible. And by the way, I'm not defending the culprit(s), I'm only
arguing that it would be too easy to call the leak simply `unethical'.

I'm lost on that last paragraph. Not sure if you're supporting the case
for it being unethical or the opposite.

I only said that it's not a simple matter of ethical vs.unethical, but both
parties might convinced that they are morally right. I'm not judging whcih
of them is right or wrong.

Quoted message said:

Also not sure what you're saying about the evidence being inadmissible.
Are you saying that, due to the errors, somebody knew the results wouldn't
stand up, and so leaked them to gain public support for a finding of
guilt?

It was inadmissible because of the chain of custody, etc., etc., etc., -
discussed a least a thousand times in this newsgroup.

Benjo