I'm beat, so Part 5 is gonna wait for me to recover. I'm going to try the Floyd after S16 approach, maybe without the IV.
Quote of the Day
I'm finding that Floyd doesn't have a lot of fair weather friends. They seem willing to go to the mat for him.(link)
No news so far today. Really.
Dugard thinks Basso is wise to avoid giving a DNA sample, what with the sleazy ADA setup, and looking into the future and seeing a possibly Pink Floyd.
Anonymous Fortune Teller (AFT) returns to TBV comments with answers to some complaints and criticism about his prognostications. The building sense of the comments is that he's a a good fake with bad science.
Jason Sager shares his tale of woe about the USADA.
Steve's Peeves brings Rumsfeld and Landis together again, trying to explain the difficulty of proving a negative.
Correspondent AJ wonders if another reason USADA got itchy was because of the requirement to run the arbitration under the California rules, and offered these links as being interesting:
Arbitration in Entertainment
Review of recent law affecting arbitration
1282.6. (a) A subpoena requiring the attendance of witnesses, and a subpoena duces tecum for the production of books, records, documents and other evidence, at an arbitration proceeding or a deposition under Section 1283, and if Section 1283.05 is applicable, for the purposes of discovery, shall be issued as provided in this section. In addition, the neutral arbitrator upon his own determination may issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and subpoenas duces tecum for the production of books, records, documents and other evidence. (b) Subpoenas shall be issued, as of course, signed but otherwise in blank, to the party requesting them, by a neutral association, organization, governmental agency, or office if the arbitration agreement provides for administration of the arbitration proceedings by, or under the rules of, a neutral association, organization, governmental agency or office or by the neutral arbitrator. (c) The party serving the subpoena shall fill it in before service. Subpeonas shall be served and enforced in accordance with Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1985) of Title 3 of Part 4 of this code.
1283.05. To the extent provided in Section 1283.1 depositions may be taken and discovery obtained in arbitration proceedings as follows: (a) After the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators, the parties to the arbitration shall have the right to take depositions and to obtain discovery regarding the subject matter of the arbitration, and, to that end, to use and exercise all of the same rights, remedies, and procedures, and be subject to all of the same duties, liabilities, and obligations in the arbitration with respect to the subject matter thereof, as provided in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1985) of Title 3 of Part 4, and in Title 4 (commencing with Section 2016.010) of Part 4, as if the subject matter of the arbitration were pending before a superior court of this state in a civil action other than a limited civil case, subject to the limitations as to depositions set forth in subdivision (e) of this section.
Some law out there that the state arbitration code will apply to intrastate commerce questions only and the federal arbitration act will apply to interstate commerce questions. CA also has a unique neutral arbitrator ethical disclosure rule that has recently been decided not to be pre-empted by the FAA (but is pre-empted by the special rules in a securities arbitration under a different act). And the parties can have choice of law and procedural rules in their agreement. My best guess and that's all it is, just choosing CA as the site does not change the procedural rules adopted by USADA, ie, the AAA modified rules. Those rules address exchange of information, so I would think it would pre-empt the state rules, plus this is definitely at least interstate commerce, so we would be looking at the FAA and federal rules applying. The Gaines case linked earlier was heard in SanFrancisco and discovery issues were briefed on the basis of federal rules. But maybe someone with experience with USADA will show up and give a better answer.
At DPF, an ultimately unresolved discussion of false positive rates with masking vs. the tested population, which does include a nice picture of the doping process, by Tom Fine:
Waaaay back in August, NYVeloCity did some evaluation of the Praying Landis TT position. They don't seem to have ever gotten to Part II. Did something happen?