Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Tuesday Roundup

Quote of the Day

Irony is like pewtery, only harder link

McQuaid compares Landis to Puerto in CyclingNews. Says the Landis case is worse for the public image, but Puerto signifies deeper internal problems because testing didn't catch anyone. PJ calls this backpedalling doubletalk on both cases.

RoadCycling covers release.


Now that's Amateur does an excellent detailed review picking out new oddities and inconsistencies, with references to the TBV page archive. This is the kind of look we'd hope for, three cheers. NTA also has an editorial introduction where he tries to be as skeptical as he can be about the Landis claims.

Sample number handwriting complaints considered by blogger; he thinks they are bunk.

Floyd.com praised for Birmingham hip ad
Uh oh, competition in the celebrity hip endorsement market.

Transformatum thinks it's tit for tat with the ADA leaks.
Chattablogs takes both sides.
RaceJunkie meanders around, slagging everyone, Floyd, Ivan and Jan, I think.
RawEditorial pulls no punches: It's them Frenchies.

Portugese homage: "O Powerpoint de Floyd Landys"
En Espanol, two more: here and here; the latter looks almost interesting, try google translation.

DPF splits the discussion of Landis out of Doping into its own forum. There is a new thread there called Science for Dummies, meaning those of us who have gotten lost when the subscripts started coming into the discussion. A different discussion on Legal Matters touches on discovery, and folks seem too used to the US legal system to fathom the constraints that apply.

Substantively, some of the skeptics staring at the data, reports, and scientific literature are starting to turn Landis's direction in this thread and this one.

On Usenet, Dirtdogs Birmingham Cycling is being persuaded, as is Oxford Cycling. RBR wonders what reaction he'll get if cleared, and who gets him next year.

Our deepest condolences to Rant, whose dad, a real nuclear scientist, passed away.



Cheryl from Maryland said...

Thanks TBV for the link to Now that's Amateur. Readers like me need an overall scorecard. I kept thinking the hearing might consider the contamination of the B sample as immaterial as those readings are consistent with the A sample readings, rules be damned. But "Now that's Amateur" explains it -- the A sample screening which showed no contamination was done days before the other tests. It also had a significantly lower T/E ratio. Is there any way to determine the A sample was contaminated for those subsequent tests?