tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post111624084916609055..comments2023-10-06T03:21:26.130-07:00Comments on trust but verify: Hearing - Weds: Landis ClosingDBrowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-59725577934785687212007-05-24T19:21:00.000-07:002007-05-24T19:21:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-25477961533492381772007-05-24T13:39:00.000-07:002007-05-24T13:39:00.000-07:00Either way, I don't trust Lemond to tell the truth...<I>Either way, I don't trust Lemond to tell the truth ever since his statements about "every Tour winner" since himself, etc. One shouldn't make these statements without proof.</I><BR/><BR/>Why not? Lemond is entitled to his opinion. The Dr. Ferrari trial showed that Indurain was using EPO. It also showed that Riis was using EPO. As of this week we know that Ullrich was on a team with an EPO program. Pantani's hematocrit was measured at 55% after an accident, and Armstrong's retrotested urine shows EPO use. It seems like Lemond's statements are perfectly reasonable.<BR/><BR/>Face it, when EPO entered cycling, the sport became one big dopefest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-84244132628570137022007-05-24T13:30:00.000-07:002007-05-24T13:30:00.000-07:00LeMond wasn't Landis' friend? Landis certainly wa...LeMond wasn't Landis' friend? Landis certainly wasn't LeMond's. I think LeMond genuinely wants the sport cleaned up. Friend of mine who was on U.S. cycling team said, "you watch, it'll come out on Lance." The sport is drenched. Needs to take a beating. Needs to have a title stripped. Sorry, Floyd, that means you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08499095553013173714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-82172643429121160112007-05-24T06:48:00.000-07:002007-05-24T06:48:00.000-07:00What bothers me is the fact that Lemond seems to k...What bothers me is the fact that Lemond seems to know a few intelligence agent techniques, and uses them well. One of the oldest techniques in intelligence gathering is the "I've confessed, now you confess" technique. He was also able to "confess" something without admitting to any wrongdoing - very smart. Whether his story is true or not is irrelevant - certainly no-one's going to investigate it's truthfulness. He acted as both a saboteur and provocateur in this case. Certainly he provoked Landis in many ways. He may have provoked Geoghegan, unless Geoghegan was on Lemond's side in the first place, and is himself a saboteur.<BR/><BR/>There's a lot of money and power at stake in this hearing. Where there's money and power, there's lying and subterfuge. Landis may well have doped, and is lying about it also.<BR/><BR/>Either way, I don't trust Lemond to tell the truth ever since his statements about "every Tour winner" since himself, etc. One shouldn't make these statements without proof.<BR/><BR/>Greg Lemond used to be a role model for me. Now, even if he's telling the truth, he still appears to be a shady blowhard. It's really not surprising that he can't even speak about various things because he's being sued by his "fellow cyclists".<BR/><BR/>At the same time, Landis should have told Mr. Geoghegan IMMEDIATELY not to let the door hit him in the backside on his way out of town. Talk about someone who looks like a saboteur - I wouldn't ever talk to that creep again for the rest of my life if I were Landis. Geoghegan certainly made him look guilty by association. He and Lemond did a great job of shifting the media's focus away from the facts at hand, eh? <BR/><BR/>Also, Floyd should have also realized a little quicker that Lemond wasn't his friend. Many people will act like one's friend in order to get what they want.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-5644683479873400442007-05-24T06:18:00.000-07:002007-05-24T06:18:00.000-07:00Apparently Dick Pound has nothing better to do tha...Apparently Dick Pound has nothing better to do than post comments on this website! Well done, sir, you've found an anonymous way to smear an accused athlete! What happened, your lawyers talked you out of another public statement? Well, get some sleep, you'll want to rest up for that upcoming trial in Austria!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-43327225505998635702007-05-24T06:12:00.000-07:002007-05-24T06:12:00.000-07:00Jeff-you ask about the "traces" of exo-T that L'Eq...Jeff-you ask about the "traces" of exo-T that L'Equipe reported/leaked after the April B sample tests. Tom A. Fine did some reporting both here and at the DPF saying that there is no such thing as "traces" of exo-T. the tests don't quantify they just show the presence of T with more C13 than "normal". Can't give you the exact cite but if you follow back to the L'Equipe leak there was lots of discussion. L'Equipe obviously doesn't know much science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-78511511642498734572007-05-23T23:03:00.000-07:002007-05-23T23:03:00.000-07:00Thank you TBV, Mr. Hue and everyone associated wit...Thank you TBV, Mr. Hue and everyone associated with this incredible coverage. Your efforts gave all of us a presence in the room that the media reporting just misses out on. First, I'd like to say I'm really disappointed by all of the anonymous/gutless opinions that fill the comments with garbage unrelated to the hearing. Go start a Dick Pound Blog of your own.<BR/>The one question I had before the hearing began was never really answered so maybe some of the contributing "experts" can weigh in. The report on the B samples was that they were positive for TRACES of synthetic T. From the peaks and numbers we've been looking at all week, (even if they were good results), do they show amounts consistent with someone who was trying to dope with T, even in the realm of "micro-dosing" that was presented? Is it possible to determine? Whenever I see the word "traces" in a proceeding, I get suspicious. I guess I expected an argument about the amounts being more consistent with a botched or tampered test or sample. <BR/>I have been wondering about this especially after learning how easily products like androgel are transmitted through contact with the skin. I think it shows if there was someone who was disapointed by Floyd's stage 17 performance, they would find this an easy way to sabotage another American from winning the(ir) Tour. It sure sounds like anyone could have patted Floyd on the back, or given him a hug after the stage. There is a lot of contact with crazy fans on those mountains. Wait, who has been on the podium shaking Lance's hand for seven years? Bernie, what soft hands you have! Why are you smiling so wide? (Impossible to prove, I know...) If it is possible though, how protected and careful do riders have to be? If Dave Z, Tommy D or any American have an incredible year, they'd better live in a bubble and not touch anyone. And I thought Lance was just really paranoid hiring bodyguards and the like.<BR/>One more point. I remember the story that Lance donated a bunch of money to some anti-doping establishment, then I learn the lab that was testing his samples was running a 486 with OS2??? That one really surprised me. Can the FFF send LNDD a new Mac?<BR/>Thanks again TBV/Hue for all the love!<BR/>JeffAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-30136847882283808012007-05-23T22:50:00.000-07:002007-05-23T22:50:00.000-07:00anne,you're missing the point. not to mention you...anne,<BR/><BR/>you're missing the point. not to mention you math is bad.<BR/><BR/>IF LNDD is consistently doing the same things incorrectly, they will generate the same sorts of errors, though not the same specific errors, on any given 'test'. the "results" of any given 'test' under these circumstances are worthless.<BR/><BR/>what, exactly, is a 'positive', anyway? <BR/><BR/>it appears that a 'positive' is what a given WADA lab says it is, applying the WADA criteria to the data the lab generates. The WADA criteria may be fine, but if the data are poor, nobody really knows if the 'positive' is any good.<BR/><BR/>the problem with the system is that a reported 'positive' is treated as more than presumptively correct, and teh burden of proving a negative falls to an athlete who apparently is not even entitled to exculpatory data that a WADA lab may have.<BR/><BR/>nobody has tolerance for cheaters. but the current system undermines the otherwise laudable goals of the anti-doping movement. the best way to take down cheats is via a transparent process that is based on rock solid science and a patient administration that understands that the best way to win the war is NOT to insist on winning every battle at all costs, but rather to both appear and be judicious in winning the clear cut battles that matter.<BR/><BR/>The current WADA regime fails miserably on all these counts. Like the US in the Vietnam War, WADA keeps delivering body counts, but nobody really thinks they're winning the war. Sooner or later tha press will start asking them tough questions about just who these bodies are, and exactly how they ended up dead. Up until now the press has assumed the dead to be enemy combatants. But if things don't change, sooner or later they're going to find a bunch of dead civilians, and the benefit of positive assumptions WADA has shrewdly developed over all these years will be gone in a flash.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-30501530508993629562007-05-23T22:20:00.000-07:002007-05-23T22:20:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-41456187814081558742007-05-23T22:19:00.000-07:002007-05-23T22:19:00.000-07:00I have been reading about (and watching when I can...I have been reading about (and watching when I can get a connection) these procedings from the beginning because I was interested to see if the truth might be revealed. <BR/><BR/>I'll admit I want to believe that Floyd didn't dope. However, like so many (particularly the 13 year old trolls whose hostility sullies these comment sections), I suspect that the sport is so rife with doping that Floyd is likely as guilty as any at his level. But I think that there are many here like me who believe that the anti-doping institutions WADA, USADA, LNDD and UCI are not doing the right things to actually solve the doping problem. <BR/><BR/>I believe that this has been shown here. If Floyd is guilty, These procedings have shown that these institutions can't (objectively)prove it. They can't do their job. If Floyd is guilty, the anti-doping institutions are as culpable as he is. It is they that are ruining the sport with their failures. I believe these failures are obvious here.Adjectivemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00080819400021998469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-53432536404441869652007-05-23T21:53:00.000-07:002007-05-23T21:53:00.000-07:00From what I understand about 0.05% of these cases...From what I understand about 0.05% of these cases prove positive at LNDD (or was it 0.5%, i can't remember, not a high number anyway). Let's assume you are right and they have 3x the number of positives of other labs. I understand Floyd had 5 negatives out of 8 samples tested (1 A + 7 B's). 0.05% (at 3 times normal rate) against Floyds 62.5%. Like I said, one of the statistically most unlucky people in history!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-91747782623170499652007-05-23T21:39:00.000-07:002007-05-23T21:39:00.000-07:00Anne, from what I understand, LNDD's positive rate...Anne, from what I understand, LNDD's positive rate is 3x that of other labs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-37262817890306052902007-05-23T21:35:00.000-07:002007-05-23T21:35:00.000-07:00Anny Lydsay -- the LNDD has three times the rate o...Anny Lydsay -- the LNDD has three times the rate of positive findings that other labs do. So yes, that is another indication that the lab has a problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-16809011435738268912007-05-23T21:25:00.000-07:002007-05-23T21:25:00.000-07:00TBV and Bill. I appreciate your hard work. I can't...TBV and Bill. I appreciate your hard work. I can't believe the amount of effort you put into this thing. No matter where you stand in this "war" folks here at the site better at least be appreciative of your hard work.<BR/><BR/>Tim (someone who is thinking yeah, maybe he was on something but probably not what they got him for. But I don't care because I'd rather have 100 doping TdF winners than one honest rider's career ruined by bad WADA policies funded by MY tax dollars.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-43473020487927553742007-05-23T21:19:00.000-07:002007-05-23T21:19:00.000-07:00If the lab is that bad why is it not throwing up a...If the lab is that bad why is it not throwing up a lot more positives?? You would think from the defense argument that the lab is that incompetent that you would regularly get false positives. Floyds case seems to be the lab practices led to a positive, and that he was unlucky. OK, maybe. But then for four more samples to be positive after testing too, must make him statistically one of the most unlucky people ever!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-47296815449710738742007-05-23T21:16:00.000-07:002007-05-23T21:16:00.000-07:00To their client, in this case. And because WADA h...To their client, in this case. And because WADA has (IMHO) no institutional sense of ethical responsibility to do right, Young and Barnett do WADA's bidding and do not seek the truth either.<BR/><BR/>It is a shame, a damned shame. We are fortunate that Floyd fought so hard and had such competent and knowledgeable people at work for him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-26650910893210499302007-05-23T21:12:00.000-07:002007-05-23T21:12:00.000-07:00Sachi Wilson said...Ken, prosecutors ethically sho...<EM> Sachi Wilson said...<BR/><BR/>Ken, prosecutors ethically should drop cases if they do not believe a defendant committed a crime. They represent the justice system as a whole, and justice is not served if an innocent person is convicted.</EM><BR/><BR/>Right, but Young isn't a prosecutor in the traditional sense. This is part of the problem with the anti-doping system as it is currently set up. Young et al. are an independent law firm hired to represent their client's interests. This totally clouds what their ethical responsibilities are. Is their primary responsibility to their client or to a greater sense of justice based on a personal opinion?Ken (EnvironmentalChemistry.com)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07434682840236999820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-51574603401092585412007-05-23T21:03:00.000-07:002007-05-23T21:03:00.000-07:00I think pride is highly overrated. I'm more of a ...I think pride is highly overrated. I'm more of a humility man myself. But there were many people involved in this case that deserve to be proud of themselves.<BR/><BR/>Dave, Bill, Strbk and Marc thanks for all you've done. I wouldn't have been able to follow events let alone understand them without you.<BR/><BR/>Daniel (aka Rant) thanks for all the insights and for providing a place where I could vent a little.<BR/><BR/>Floyd's team of lawyers and experts was magnificent. You may not win but you did a great job.<BR/><BR/>And I can't believe I'm saying this, but thanks to the arbiters who gave both sides a fair chance to make their cases.<BR/><BR/>~ CubAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-10367844045373329682007-05-23T21:00:00.000-07:002007-05-23T21:00:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-64038432417074712372007-05-23T20:56:00.000-07:002007-05-23T20:56:00.000-07:00Ken, prosecutors ethically should drop cases if th...Ken, prosecutors ethically should drop cases if they do not believe a defendant committed a crime. They represent the justice system as a whole, and justice is not served if an innocent person is convicted. <BR/><BR/>One of the things that disturbs me deeply about WADA is its culture, its assumption, that athletes are guilty of doping. Everything it says and does (listen to the despicable Pound) carries forward that presumption. For an American lawyer, especially a defense lawyer, it is anathema that ANY person is presumed guilty and crucified in the press and in this quasi-legal process rather than being given a fair and impartial overall process *from the beginning*.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-49128170268871907402007-05-23T20:32:00.000-07:002007-05-23T20:32:00.000-07:00TBV/Mr Hue,Thanks for the outstanding work documen...TBV/Mr Hue,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the outstanding work documenting the hearing and evaluating the arguments put forth by the various participants.<BR/><BR/>Your coverage was incredible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-30552646552671266312007-05-23T20:14:00.000-07:002007-05-23T20:14:00.000-07:00Sachi Wilson (7:28), this is why I raised my quest...Sachi Wilson (7:28), this is why I raised my question. Normally a prosecutor totally believes in the defendants guilt and if they cease to believe in the guilt they drop the case. In this case it isn't a prosecutor but an outside legal team "prosecuting" the case. They don't have the luxury of dropping the charges unless their client agrees, which is unlikely. Like a criminal defense lawyer, Young et al. must continue to advocate for their client to the best of their ability. At the same time they can't disclose their own feelings on this matter at least not for a long time, which is why I'd love the question to be asked of them when they can honestly answer and we can be confident they are honestly answering.Ken (EnvironmentalChemistry.com)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07434682840236999820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-72072931945542992252007-05-23T19:56:00.000-07:002007-05-23T19:56:00.000-07:00Anonymous 7:03 PM said: Wow, this is a lot rougher...Anonymous 7:03 PM said: <EM>Wow, this is a lot rougher than where I usually go. Don't you GUYS have anything better to do?</EM><BR/><BR/>Something tells me a lot of people have been calling in sick or have been totally unproductive at work.Ken (EnvironmentalChemistry.com)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07434682840236999820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-77138039620419124712007-05-23T19:51:00.000-07:002007-05-23T19:51:00.000-07:00One simple lesson... Those that strive for the tru...One simple lesson... Those that strive for the truth are not afraid to stand up and be counted. The rest are just anonymous drivel... You know who you are... Cowards the lot of you...<BR/>Mike<BR/>Green MTN. Cyclery<BR/>Ephrata, Pa.<BR/>"Proud to be a FFF Troll"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-68866951387773707502007-05-23T19:47:00.000-07:002007-05-23T19:47:00.000-07:00I think Floyd doped. I hope he walks (rides). No...I think Floyd doped. I hope he walks (rides). No one should get away with lab work that bad. World class events need word class dope controls. This hearing can only help, and it will do the most good if the test results are rejectedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com