The Bottom Line?

B. Lafferty said:

If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for; B
sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A sample;
the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of synthetic
testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there some way around
these findings. Don Catlin says no, the drug "police" don't lose those
types of cases. Any rbr "experts" want to weigh in with fact/argument and
not hyperbole.

Nope, IMO that happens, he's toast and needs to be sanctioned per the
standing penalties.
I'll cheer like hell if they follow through that route, negative or
positive.
Bill C

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

Quoted message said:

If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for;
B sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A
sample; the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of
synthetic testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there
some way around these findings. Don Catlin says no, the drug "police"
don't lose those types of cases. Any rbr "experts" want to weigh in
with fact/argument and not hyperbole.

There are quite a few "ifs" in your comments, but one is missing. If
Floyd's samples both test positive, does that mean he took
performance-enhancing drugs? _That_ seems to me to be the most important
question. No doubt that if both samples are positive, he will be
immediately stripped of his TdF title without an immediate and
convincing explanation, and no doubt the entire business will follow him
around the rest of his life regardless of the eventual outcome of this
case. There are simply too many unknowns at this point, IMHO, to make
speculation worthwhile. As there are innocent people behind bars and
criminals who go free, so too it is in the world of drug testing of
professional cyclists. All that a positive drug test means is exactly
that, a positive drug test.

You ask us to refrain from hyperbole, but the dictionary defines
hyperbole as "extravagant exaggeration", and exaggeration as "to enlarge
beyond the truth." If there is no truth to yet be had here, hyperbole
isn't possible. So far in this case, anything is possible. Maybe he
did, maybe he didn't, maybe if he did, he knew, maybe he didn't know,
maybe someone else knows some things that he doesn't and/or that we
don't, etc.., etc., etc.

Better to go out and ride a bike or otherwise get a life than to
consider every facet of this case.

Just my opinion, not an "expert."

-S-

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:55:29 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for; B
sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A sample;
the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of synthetic
testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there some way around
these findings. Don Catlin says no, the drug "police" don't lose those
types of cases. Any rbr "experts" want to weigh in with fact/argument and
not hyperbole.

That would be it yes, since the CIR/IRMS showed exogeneous
testosterone on the A sample, there isn't much to look forward to, the
game is over, it seems the media who fail to report that are either
incompetent or want to let it sink in.

"Keith" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
| On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:55:29 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>
| wrote:
|
| >If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for; B
| >sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A
sample;
| >the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of synthetic
| >testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there some way around
| >these findings. Don Catlin says no, the drug "police" don't lose those
| >types of cases. Any rbr "experts" want to weigh in with fact/argument
and
| >not hyperbole.
|
| That would be it yes, since the CIR/IRMS showed exogeneous
| testosterone on the A sample, there isn't much to look forward to, the
| game is over, it seems the media who fail to report that are either
| incompetent or want to let it sink in.

Or actually are waiting for an official source like UCI, USAC, Phonak,
Landis, WADA, LNDD to announce it. Oh, I forgot, LNDD doesn't announce test
results. That would be ethically wrong.

in message <[email hidden]>, B.

Lafferty (') said:

If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for; B
sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A
sample; the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of
synthetic testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there
some way around these findings.

If there's proven to be synthetic testosterone (in either sample), then
as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the argument; it there's none,
then I'd need more convincing.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:38:53 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, B.

Lafferty (') said:

If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for; B
sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A
sample; the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of
synthetic testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there
some way around these findings.

If there's proven to be synthetic testosterone (in either sample), then
as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the argument; it there's none,
then I'd need more convincing.

What if the same kind of synthetic testosterone was in use in the lab, say,
as a reference standard? Would the defense even be allowed to determine
this given the lab's apparent lack of cooperation previously?

What about retesting the athlete in an independent lab? Permitted, or not?

Ratio might have changed, but the traces of the 'so-called' exogenous T
should still exist.

Keith said:

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:55:29 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for; B
sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A sample;
the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of synthetic
testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there some way around
these findings. Don Catlin says no, the drug "police" don't lose those
types of cases. Any rbr "experts" want to weigh in with fact/argument and
not hyperbole.

That would be it yes, since the CIR/IRMS showed exogeneous
testosterone on the A sample, there isn't much to look forward to, the
game is over, it seems the media who fail to report that are either
incompetent or want to let it sink in.

Why would they report it?

It has not been announced by any responsible party.

Ron

On 07/29/2006 02:46 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Keith" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

That would be it yes, since the CIR/IRMS showed exogeneous
testosterone on the A sample, there isn't much to look forward to, the
game is over, it seems the media who fail to report that are either
incompetent or want to let it sink in.

Source?

B. Lafferty said:

If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for; B
sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A sample;
the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of synthetic
testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there some way around
these findings. Don Catlin says no, the drug "police" don't lose those
types of cases. Any rbr "experts" want to weigh in with fact/argument and
not hyperbole.

Interesting hypothetical which deserves a few comments (which have not
been previously raised).

1. Despite the report in LE that the CIR test was done, I have a
reservation. If the CIR/IRMS had been in fact performed on the A
sample, then the charge should have been that Landis had exogenous
testosterone and not merely that he failed the T/E ratio test for
endogenous testosterone.

2. What if it turns out that the CIR test was not performed on the A
sample, but is on the B sample and on the B sample it turns out
positive for exog testosterone. The question becomes "Can Landis's
lawyers now beat the case by arguing that the CIR test /must/ have
been done on /both/ the A and the B samples. Having failed to do so,
the results must be thrown out and never made public."

3. It so will lawyers come to be considered witches for having
breathed life into the dead

in message <[email hidden]>, nobody

(') said:

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:38:53 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, B.

Lafferty (') said:

If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for;
B sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A
sample; the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of
synthetic testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there
some way around these findings.

If there's proven to be synthetic testosterone (in either sample), then
as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the argument; it there's
none, then I'd need more convincing.

What if the same kind of synthetic testosterone was in use in the lab,
say, as a reference standard? Would the defense even be allowed to
determine this given the lab's apparent lack of cooperation previously?

The athlete has the right to have an expert witness observe the testing
of the 'B' sample. The allegations of malfeasance by the lab are
completely outrageous, and merely illustrates the immaturity, petulance
and xenophobia of (some of) our leftpondian correspondents.

Quoted message said:

What about retesting the athlete in an independent lab? Permitted, or
not?

By an independent lab? That's been done. By one nominated by the athlete?
No for obvious reasons.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To murder men and give God thanks?
Desist, for shame! Proceed no further: God won't accept your thanks for
murther
-- Robert Burns, 'Thanksgiving For a National Victory'

Quoted message said:

The athlete has the right to have an expert witness observe the testing
of the 'B' sample. The allegations of malfeasance by the lab are
completely outrageous, and merely illustrates the immaturity, petulance
and xenophobia of (some of) our leftpondian correspondents.

Slow down. Having an observer present is little protection when the
tester, chosen by the prosecutor knows the sample before him is that of
the accused. These tests are not necessarily black and white and
there are many shades of gray. If the matter is to be proven, then
let the testor (the "scientist" we hear so much about) prove that he
can in fact identify dirty samples, i.e. those which in this case have
exogenous T. Give the testor 30 samples and tell him to identify
those with exogenous T. Now the athlete's expert can compare the
testor's results and grade him to determine the error rate.

This is the kind of scientific data that is needed before one can claim
something is "proven"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What about retesting the athlete in an independent lab? Permitted, or
not?

By an independent lab? That's been done. By one nominated by the athlete?
No for obvious reasons.

No it is not so obvious. Or is it?

The prosecutor chose the lab and refuses to consider an alternative.
Now that is obvious.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The athlete has the right to have an expert witness observe the testing
of the 'B' sample. The allegations of malfeasance by the lab are
completely outrageous, and merely illustrates the immaturity, petulance
and xenophobia of (some of) our leftpondian correspondents.

Slow down. Having an observer present is little protection when the
tester, chosen by the prosecutor knows the sample before him is that of
the accused. These tests are not necessarily black and white and
there are many shades of gray. If the matter is to be proven, then
let the testor (the "scientist" we hear so much about) prove that he
can in fact identify dirty samples, i.e. those which in this case have
exogenous T. Give the testor 30 samples and tell him to identify
those with exogenous T. Now the athlete's expert can compare the
testor's results and grade him to determine the error rate.

This is the kind of scientific data that is needed before one can claim
something is "proven"

Hell, that's the sort of thing that's required in a police line up to do
something so simple as recognize a guy's face.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What about retesting the athlete in an independent lab? Permitted, or
not?

By an independent lab? That's been done. By one nominated by the athlete?
No for obvious reasons.

No it is not so obvious. Or is it?

The prosecutor chose the lab and refuses to consider an alternative.
Now that is obvious.

You would think that in a world of science (this is science, right?) it would be
easy to agree on some third party lab.

Ron

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> What about retesting the athlete in an independent lab? Permitted, or
> not?

By an independent lab? That's been done. By one nominated by the athlete?
No for obvious reasons.

No it is not so obvious. Or is it?

The prosecutor chose the lab and refuses to consider an alternative.
Now that is obvious.

You would think that in a world of science (this is science, right?) it would be
easy to agree on some third party lab.

Ron

You would really think so. I think what stops them is the tests are
replete with subjective elements that do not produce consistant
results. They would loose credibiliy if they where to admit errors
are made. It is easier to stonewall it and release the data or
permit comparison.

I think the atheles should wise up. When they give a urine sample to
the authorities to immediate take another and keep it for themselves.
If Landis had done this, he would have a sample is his control (kept by
an outside custodian) which could be sent to an independant lab for
testing. The results from the independent lab could be used in his
defense.

Of course this is hindsight, and it always easier to look back.

[email hidden] a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> What about retesting the athlete in an independent lab? Permitted, or
>> not?
>>
> By an independent lab? That's been done. By one nominated by the athlete?
> No for obvious reasons.
>
>
No it is not so obvious. Or is it?

The prosecutor chose the lab and refuses to consider an alternative.
Now that is obvious.

You would think that in a world of science (this is science, right?) it would be
easy to agree on some third party lab.

Ron

You would really think so. I think what stops them is the tests are
replete with subjective elements that do not produce consistant
results. They would loose credibiliy if they where to admit errors
are made. It is easier to stonewall it and release the data or
permit comparison.

I think the atheles should wise up. When they give a urine sample to
the authorities to immediate take another and keep it for themselves.
If Landis had done this, he would have a sample is his control (kept by
an outside custodian) which could be sent to an independant lab for
testing. The results from the independent lab could be used in his
defense.

Of course this is hindsight, and it always easier to look back.

New business : private, secured, refrigerated lock-ups. Money to be
made here.

--

Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, nobody

(') said:

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:38:53 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, B.
Lafferty ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

> If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for;
> B sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A
> sample; the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of
> synthetic testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there
> some way around these findings.

If there's proven to be synthetic testosterone (in either sample), then
as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the argument; it there's
none, then I'd need more convincing.

What if the same kind of synthetic testosterone was in use in the lab,
say, as a reference standard? Would the defense even be allowed to
determine this given the lab's apparent lack of cooperation previously?

The athlete has the right to have an expert witness observe the testing
of the 'B' sample. The allegations of malfeasance by the lab are
completely outrageous, and merely illustrates the immaturity, petulance
and xenophobia of (some of) our leftpondian correspondents.

Absolutly correct !

Damned Usenet who gives to this stupids the opportunity to spread their
xenophobia.
They can even recuse the medication and prefer to die because the medecine
comes from a french lab....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What about retesting the athlete in an independent lab? Permitted, or
not?

By an independent lab? That's been done. By one nominated by the athlete?
No for obvious reasons.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To murder men and give God thanks?
Desist, for shame! Proceed no further: God won't accept your thanks for
murther
-- Robert Burns, 'Thanksgiving For a National
Victory'

Sandy said:

[email hidden] a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> What about retesting the athlete in an independent lab? Permitted, or
>>> not?
>>>
>> By an independent lab? That's been done. By one nominated by the athlete?
>> No for obvious reasons.
>>
>>
> No it is not so obvious. Or is it?
>
> The prosecutor chose the lab and refuses to consider an alternative.
> Now that is obvious.
>
You would think that in a world of science (this is science, right?) it would be
easy to agree on some third party lab.

Ron

You would really think so. I think what stops them is the tests are
replete with subjective elements that do not produce consistant
results. They would loose credibiliy if they where to admit errors
are made. It is easier to stonewall it and release the data or
permit comparison.

I think the atheles should wise up. When they give a urine sample to
the authorities to immediate take another and keep it for themselves.
If Landis had done this, he would have a sample is his control (kept by
an outside custodian) which could be sent to an independant lab for
testing. The results from the independent lab could be used in his
defense.

Of course this is hindsight, and it always easier to look back.

New business : private, secured, refrigerated lock-ups. Money to be
made here.

Not real sexy, securing and guarding pisspots. But what'll a guy pay for a
second sample held by a private agency that knows how to maintain and document a
chain of custody.

I'll secure the bonding, renew my old PI licenses and get a current passport
with fresh pages. You, line up the storage facility and the eurodoctor to advise
on state of the art storage. We'll get some chump to finance this thing...

Ron

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Quoted message said:

By an independent lab? That's been done. By one nominated by the
athlete? No for obvious reasons.

No it is not so obvious. Or is it?

So Doctor Fuentes' lab, for example, or Doctor Ferarri's?

Of course a crooked athlete will know where to find a crooked lab. He's
been a client of one for years. It is in a crooked athlete's interest to
find a crooked lab. It is not in the event organiser's interest to
employ a crooked lab; quite the contrary. An athlete's reputation may be
damaged by a false positive result, but the event's reputation is also
damaged.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The athlete has the right to have an expert witness observe the testing
of the 'B' sample. The allegations of malfeasance by the lab are
completely outrageous, and merely illustrates the immaturity, petulance
and xenophobia of (some of) our leftpondian correspondents.

Slow down. Having an observer present is little protection when the
tester, chosen by the prosecutor knows the sample before him is that of
the accused.

If the seal is intact on the "B" sample as observed by Landis or his
representative, and the chain of custody is complete, there is virtually no
chance that the sample has been tampered with. Once opened in the presence
of Landis or his representative, it will then be tested in his presence. An
expert representative of Lanids' choosing can observice the testing
procedure to insure that there is no tampering once the sample has been
opened.

Quoted message said:

These tests are not necessarily black and white and
there are many shades of gray.

Unlike some other tests, the T/E and CIR are simple and straight forward,
particularly the latter. The former simply notes an elevated T?E ratio that
could be natural. The CIR determines natural or synthetic as to the T found
in the T/E ratio test.

Quoted message said:

If the matter is to be proven, then
let the testor (the "scientist" we hear so much about) prove that he
can in fact identify dirty samples, i.e. those which in this case have
exogenous T. Give the testor 30 samples and tell him to identify
those with exogenous T.

This is actually done as part of the lab certification process.
Additionally, such tests are done periodically (blind as to the technicians)
as a check and to maintain lab certification.

Quoted message said:

Now the athlete's expert can compare the
testor's results and grade him to determine the error rate.

The lab certifiaction records are open for review in an adversarial
proceding.

Quoted message said:

This is the kind of scientific data that is needed before one can claim
something is "proven"

If the T/E comes up the same for the B as the A and the CIR confirms
synthetic T in the A and B samples, it's proven.

[snip]

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Quoted message said:

By an independent lab? That's been done. By one nominated by the
athlete? No for obvious reasons.

No it is not so obvious. Or is it?

So Doctor Fuentes' lab, for example, or Doctor Ferarri's?

Of course a crooked athlete will know where to find a crooked lab. He's
been a client of one for years. It is in a crooked athlete's interest to
find a crooked lab. It is not in the event organiser's interest to
employ a crooked lab; quite the contrary. An athlete's reputation may be
damaged by a false positive result, but the event's reputation is also
damaged.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.

Wada doesn't give a [censored] about the eventy or sports reputation. They
aren't in the business of running any sports. The health of the sport
is irrelevant to the, and it should be. The IOC has called for
suspension of this lab, they don't care about pro-cycling either. That
alone should be enough to force Wada to either release all the
information relating to the IOC call, and why they are still using that
lab.
If they have evaluated everything and cleared the lab, then they need
to say so and provide the documentation on it.
Using one government lab that is subject to political pressure is
irresponsible.
It's a lot like Bush's expert study groups decalring there was
concrete evidence of WMDs. Anyone who didn't find what the politicians
wanted was pushed out and blackballed. With the huge PR push to "get
the dopers" how much pressure do you think these people are under?
Not saying they did anything wrong, but the pressure and possibility
is there. If you use two labs, one reputable lab of the athletes choice
then this possible problem is greatly reduced.
Bill C