tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post1549742434829865390..comments2023-10-06T03:21:26.130-07:00Comments on trust but verify: Friday RoundupDBrowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-36303962425766264142008-01-25T16:28:00.000-08:002008-01-25T16:28:00.000-08:00butcher -ESL writer, or someone with a condition t...butcher -<BR/>ESL writer, or someone with a condition that makes it difficult for me to comprehend? That's sarcastic and mean. Thanks. Have a great weekend.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17660542059565325092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-37247567833663695792008-01-24T18:03:00.000-08:002008-01-24T18:03:00.000-08:00Castor,You seem to be attempting to take my statem...Castor,<BR/><BR/>You seem to be attempting to take my statement out of context. No matter, it still stands on its own. I wrote that I guessed they were coached. That is different than writing that they were, in fact, “illegally” coached. When one adds words, subtracts words, or doesn’t carefully read the words written, then the meaning will be made to be different or made to seem different. I don’t know you. I don’t know if English is your first language. If it is, then I don’t know if you have some sort of condition that makes it difficult for you to comprehend a post I wrote that is fairly clearly written. <BR/><BR/>My post was, in part, intended to explain and demonstrate the differences between witness coaching that is ethical/legal on one hand, and unethical/illegal on the other. <BR/><BR/>I don’t know if the lab techs from LNDD were coached, but guess they were. There are some indications that they were. If my assumption that they were coached is correct, then I wonder if they were coached ethically/legally or unethically/illegally. <BR/><BR/>This is a very rough explanation/summary. I don’t understand what problem you have with me asking hypothetical questions. <BR/><BR/>I don’t appreciate your mischaracterization of what I wrote. I never stated that the lab techs were “illegally” coached. That is a gratuitous assertion on your part.<BR/><BR/>I make it a policy to avoid interaction with posters who twist my words to make points more to their liking. Discussion/debate between us is now in your court.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09427604865634964926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-4127789525335907962008-01-24T15:22:00.000-08:002008-01-24T15:22:00.000-08:00Castor,I think jrdbutcher was suitably uncommital ...Castor,<BR/><BR/>I think jrdbutcher was suitably uncommital in his question about coaching.<BR/><BR/>I wasn't in my response to his question. I think they were coached as well as they needed to be ... don't answer the questions in an honest, open manner. That's all that was required. As for a conspiracy, I wouldn't describe that as a conspiracy. That was simple, blatant distortion of the truth from some witnesses.<BR/><BR/>AliAlihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00786387057717601356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-66195168648132649572008-01-24T13:54:00.000-08:002008-01-24T13:54:00.000-08:00Jdrbutcher - your comment was I'm guessing the lab...Jdrbutcher - your comment was <I>I'm guessing the lab techs were coached. Given that assumption, the questions that come quickly to mind are: Was the coaching ethical and were the witnesses ethical? Did they stay within bounds or did they cross the line?</I> Your implication from this is clearly that you think the lab techs were coached, especially since you then proceed to make assumptions based on that assumption. And, assuming that you're trying to make a point, what exactly <I>is</I> your point? Coached or not coached? And why do you come to this way of thinking, and, ultimately, what is your point? I'm trying to follow your points about coaching and wondering if it's going to be about a conspiracy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17660542059565325092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-30487608867799414492008-01-24T13:25:00.000-08:002008-01-24T13:25:00.000-08:00Castor,I have not read your whole post(s), but I'l...Castor,<BR/>I have not read your whole post(s), but I'll start by answering the first question you posed to me:<BR/><BR/>A. I did not write that the lab techs were illegally coached. You are attributing words/statements to me that I did not make. Go back and read my post more carefully. <BR/><BR/>Seems you might be on a high horse. The very first question you asked of me is based on a false premise.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09427604865634964926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-25148204541300475772008-01-24T12:05:00.000-08:002008-01-24T12:05:00.000-08:00Michael - I'm not on a high horse. It seems that ...Michael - I'm not on a high horse. It seems that we simply have different sets of personal criteria. My mom told me at an early age that women should not be referred to as girls because it's diminutive and patronizing. All my female friends agree. Understand - this is Floyd in an interview - not a chat discussion or idle conversation.<BR/><BR/>He makes it so difficult for some people, like myself, to fire up much of a rallying cry for his cause. Why can't the man engage in professional behaviour during an interview - it's just stuns me - not because I'm offended (lord knows I've heard far, far worse) but <B>the man is running a charitible foundation for people aflicted with disorders similar to his to help them.</B> If this is the man who is heading that foundation, he ought to pay far better attention to how he conducts himself if he genuinely wants to raise money for those people. <BR/><BR/>If that sounds old fashioned, I'm sorry. I just feel that people who ask for money for charity ought to think of the people that they are representing. It's not only fair, it's respectful.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17660542059565325092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-66611052150772600392008-01-24T11:44:00.000-08:002008-01-24T11:44:00.000-08:00Castor,Come off your high horse. This man (Floyd) ...Castor,<BR/><BR/>Come off your high horse. This man (Floyd) had been vilified by the organizations that were supposed to protect him.<BR/><BR/>So he used some cuss words? Good for him. It's not like he has anything else to lose, especially as far as the public views him. Most of the publie (ie media) have already written him off. <BR/><BR/>I thought the article/interview was perfect. It showed a human being that's been railroaded by broken procedures. We got to see and read what it would feel like to be in Floyd's shoes.<BR/><BR/>So what if he referred to one of the lab techs as a girl. She is a 'girl', correct? Why is that a big deal to you. <BR/><BR/>And as far as professionalism goes, do you really think/believe Floyd has been treated professionally by WADA, the UCI, USADA and US Cycling?<BR/><BR/>He said what most of us have been thinking about the case since it started.<BR/><BR/>MikeAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05043995499810157859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-68256999155103226022008-01-24T11:35:00.000-08:002008-01-24T11:35:00.000-08:00jdr butcher - what makes you say that the French l...jdr butcher - what makes you say that the French lab witnesses were illegally coached? If that were the case, wouldn't they logically have given far more perfect answers? It seems TBV has found plenty of fault with their testimony already. I'm just not sure what proof you have for such an 'almost' accusation.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, Landis' recent interview was a real distraction. Did the man not know he was being interviewed? He says F*** God knows how many times, totally undermining his ability to be professional, and then has the gaul to refer to one of the French lab workers as a 'girl' - excuse me, Floyd, but that's a woman - a professional. We're living in the 21st century, not the 19th.<BR/><BR/>If I or any of us were to use such language within our own professional work life or organizations, we'd be sacked or reprimanded in a second. I don't know what he wants to prove from tha interview, but he's clearly lost any audience that would have trying to understand the science. That man seriously needs a publicist or SOMETHING if he wants to win some public opinion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17660542059565325092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-75475782025517400002008-01-23T15:06:00.000-08:002008-01-23T15:06:00.000-08:00Sorry Ali, The post I intended to point you toward...Sorry Ali, <BR/>The post I intended to point you towards is actually contained in the "Friday Roundup", and was written today (Wednesday). Sometimes I'm slow.<BR/>CheersUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09427604865634964926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-15544225963285455182008-01-23T11:15:00.000-08:002008-01-23T11:15:00.000-08:00jrdbutcher,I saw your post, that's what prompted m...jrdbutcher,<BR/><BR/>I saw your post, that's what prompted me to reply and no, I didn't think we were at cross opinions.<BR/><BR/>Amazing that I didn't realise they were under oath.<BR/><BR/>I'm going to go back and review the testimony, although if I recall correctly, it was mostly verbal sleight-of-hand and unfinished answers (to me, that's lying, but not everybody shares that opinion).<BR/><BR/>AliAlihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00786387057717601356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-19077074386501489762008-01-23T08:34:00.000-08:002008-01-23T08:34:00.000-08:00Ali,Brenna was under oath. If he lied, it's purger...Ali,<BR/><BR/>Brenna was under oath. If he lied, it's purgery. It was up to Floyd's side to make an issue of it/prove it or the arbs to recognize/sanction it.<BR/><BR/>I don't think we're at cross opinions. See my rant posted on this site in the comments section, today, 1/23/08.<BR/><BR/>CheersUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09427604865634964926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-32330072636178935682008-01-23T08:29:00.000-08:002008-01-23T08:29:00.000-08:00jrdbutcher,Given that Brenna was misleading in his...jrdbutcher,<BR/><BR/>Given that Brenna was misleading in his testimony to the point of almost perjuring himself (had he been under oath), I don't think USADA enforced any ethical boundaries on the conduct of their witnesses (quite the opposite, infact).<BR/><BR/>Somebody should point out the fact that they're supposed to be fighting the "win by any means" attitude, not promoting it.Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00786387057717601356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-46439753210368874852008-01-23T07:37:00.000-08:002008-01-23T07:37:00.000-08:00Rehearsing testimony or checking your facts, pre h...Rehearsing testimony or checking your facts, pre hearing, is fair and prudent.<BR/><BR/>Witness coaching gets you into a grey area or an area that you should not be treading in, depending upon the ethics of the coach and witness.<BR/><BR/>If the coaching involves instructions such as: answer the questions truthfully and directly, but don't offer any more detail in the response beyond what the question requires, then that is fine. If the coaching involves asking the witness question he/she is likely to be asked by the opposing side, in order the get the witness comfortable with an adversrial setting, then that is fine too.<BR/><BR/>Coaching a witness to be evasive, misleading, or to outright lie is, of course, out of bounds, unethical, illegal, and should result in severe sanctions as it undermines the very basis of the process.<BR/><BR/>I'm guessing the lab techs were coached. Given that assumption, the questions that come quickly to mind are: Was the coaching ethical and were the witnesses ethical? Did they stay within bounds or did they cross the line?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09427604865634964926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-73504449697578575652008-01-22T20:33:00.000-08:002008-01-22T20:33:00.000-08:00Mr. Rant -You can be certain that all witnesses on...Mr. Rant -<BR/><BR/>You can be certain that all witnesses on both sides rehearsed their testimony. That's pretty much SOP. The last thing we attorneys want in a courtroom is to be surprised by one of our own witnesses.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976868079076669453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-38351157279458582682008-01-22T19:32:00.000-08:002008-01-22T19:32:00.000-08:00Larry,I think your supposition about the techs bei...Larry,<BR/><BR/>I think your supposition about the techs being prepped ahead of the retesting is possible. To my eyes and ears, the testimony of at least one of the lab techs during the May hearings appeared to have been coached.<BR/><BR/>Under questioning by USADA, Cynthia Mongongu seemed much more confident and sure of her answers, and much quicker to respond. Under cross-examination by the Landis side, however, she seemed evasive and appeared not to grasp exactly what she was being asked. Getting a direct answer out of her, for Landis' lawyers, seemed akin to pulling teeth. At least, that's how it appeared to me.<BR/><BR/>That being the case, the possibility that the lab techs were coached before the April retesting wouldn't surprise me at all.<BR/><BR/>Looking forward to reading your Magnum Legal Opusdaniel m (a/k/a Rant)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16126545986721397012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-48339977075139025752008-01-22T14:50:00.000-08:002008-01-22T14:50:00.000-08:00Ali -I won't argue about perversity (if that's eve...Ali -<BR/><BR/>I won't argue about perversity (if that's even a word).<BR/><BR/>The ISL says that the lab only has to produce the items in the LDP. The EDF is not a part of the LDP. The arbitrators have discretion to order the lab to provide more stuff, and the reprocessing of the EDFs (under the control of LNDD and Dr. Botre) was as much as the FL team was able to get. <BR/><BR/>Even in a court proceeding, there are going to be limits on what each side can get from the other side in discovery. I honestly don't know whether FL could have gotten hold of the EDFs if his case had been held under federal or state rules of civil procedure.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976868079076669453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-7096906181656484822008-01-22T09:24:00.000-08:002008-01-22T09:24:00.000-08:00Larry,I don't want to distract you from your legal...Larry,<BR/><BR/>I don't want to distract you from your legal opus, but just one question on the EDF files.<BR/><BR/>There are lots of potential explanations for the CIR results, but the only way they can be validated is to gain access to a copy of the EDFs.<BR/><BR/>How can the ADA be allowed to withold the only evidence that would give the athlete the opportunity to prove his innocence ?<BR/><BR/>I can't get my head around why that's allowed. It's just perverse.<BR/><BR/>Any findings would be subjected to the scrutiny of the ADA and the hearing panel, so there's no scope for deception.Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00786387057717601356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-48737557203322265672008-01-22T08:24:00.000-08:002008-01-22T08:24:00.000-08:00Rant, Ali, Michael, D-Bob -I am living in a modera...Rant, Ali, Michael, D-Bob -<BR/><BR/>I am living in a moderately self-imposed TBV exile at the moment, a state in which I intend to remain until at least part 1 of the Legal Opus is finished and in the hands of the Editor of this Blog. <BR/><BR/>But if you walk through the transcript of the arbitration, you'll see that Suh made a pretty big deal of LNDD's inability to repeat their initial July-August 2006 CIR readings when the EDF files were reprocessed. I know that Suh stresses this in his opening statement, and that he asked Brenna about it in cross-examination. If memory serves, Brenna said something to the effect that he would have been concerned about this if it came up in his lab. I know that this issue was touched on in Ayotte's testimony also, but I don't remember if Suh asked her about it in cross-examination. Again, if memory serves, Ayotte tried to pin the discrepancy on a single reading.<BR/><BR/>Ali, IMHO, this issue does not involve a question of "traceability", which is defined as the ability of a test method to relate to a known standard. It's an issue somewhere in the vicinity of "repeatability", probably closer to "intermediate precision", than any other concepts I've run into in my research. “Repeatability” is a method’s precision measured where the method is performed on identical test items in the same laboratory by the same operator using the same equipment within short intervals of time. “Intermediate Precision” is the variation in results observed when one or more factors, such as time, equipment and operator, are varied within a laboratory. (This is a hint, by the way, of how I'm spending my time in exile.)<BR/><BR/>Guys, in your discussion here, you're neglecting to consider why the EDF re-testing was performed in the first place. The EDF testing was primarily about trying to show whether there would have been an AAF if LNDD had used automatic methods or more up-to-date software to compute the CIR. But the EDF testing indicated that, if anything, the use of better software and automatic CIR computation would have made the 5aA reading worse for FL. THIS was a point stressed by the prosecution in its opening statement at arbitration, and may have been one of the reasons why Suh did not spend more time than he did to bring the EDF retesting front-and-center. <BR/><BR/>Finally, I think you need to look harder at what was involved in the EDF reprocessing. It simply cannot be the case that the LNDD lab technician was unable to locate integration points to match the points used when the data was first analyzed. During the hearing, Suh stressed that LNDD tried something like 20 times during the EDF reprocessing to repeat the results they'd found back in July-August 2006. LNDD KNEW the result they were supposed to duplicate, and I'd bet you all drinks at your local pub that LNDD REHEARSED the EDF reprocessing before they performed it live in front of Dr. Davis et. al. No, there was clearly more involved than searching for the right integration point. I remember there being testimony about moving and creating data points - I think this is where the "using my experience" line came in. I don't exactly know what it means to move data points, so I can't tell you what's involved. And it's not like we can use common sense as a guide here. But common sense tells me that there was more involved than simply trying to find integration points.<BR/><BR/>Back into the cave for me.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976868079076669453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-4751170367217358712008-01-22T07:39:00.000-08:002008-01-22T07:39:00.000-08:00Michael, You said:It seems to me the case was mire...Michael, You said:<BR/><BR/>It seems to me the case was mired in too much scientific mumbo-jumbo...<BR/><BR/>Probably true given that the arbitrators don't have scientific backgrounds. With no offense to the Legal Eagles here, one of the reforms I thought was needed is that the panel should be comprised of three Analytical Chemists (not associated with WADA labs) with a Legal Advisor, instead of it being three Attorneys with a Scientific Advisor.<BR/><BR/>CheersUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05887511747481896873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-90405350653438020382008-01-22T07:26:00.000-08:002008-01-22T07:26:00.000-08:00Michael,Good point. I wouldn't even hazard a guess...Michael,<BR/><BR/>Good point. I wouldn't even hazard a guess, except to say that I think they were rushed to put on their defense after losing so much time dealing with Mme. Mongongu and Mme. Frelat. Perhaps they meant to, but it fell through the cracks.<BR/><BR/>Of course, this also begs the question of why Dr. Botre didn't raise such questions, either, during his assistance to the panel.daniel m (a/k/a Rant)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16126545986721397012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-13639208299564214422008-01-22T05:21:00.000-08:002008-01-22T05:21:00.000-08:00How come Floyd's lawyers didn't ask such simple qu...How come Floyd's lawyers didn't ask such simple questions in the hearing?? I sure would have made the majority arbs decision much harder to defend.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me the case was mired in too much scientific mumbo-jumbo...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05043995499810157859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-2052022222246159492008-01-22T01:09:00.000-08:002008-01-22T01:09:00.000-08:00Rant,I can confirm your speculation as to why thei...Rant,<BR/><BR/>I can confirm your speculation as to why their SOP method couldn't reproduce the same result with the same data ... they don't record what they are doing.<BR/><BR/>They move the integration limits (and hence the background subtraction level) until they are happy they have the right result, which they determine "using their experience" (no other explanation was offered).<BR/><BR/>Once they're happy they just stop there ... "c'est ca !". They don't record what changes they made or where their "experience" finally led them to. So when they have to repeat the analysis, they have to start from scratch each time.<BR/><BR/>That's why they couldn't reproduce the results using their SOP and why they had differences greater than 1.9. The "experience" method clearly isn't a repeatable one. Given that you'd think they would have to record how they got their results, wouldn't you ?<BR/><BR/>That's not just my speculation either. It was an observation by Dr Davis and he sat there and watched them do it.<BR/><BR/>Of course, it does have the advantage of removing all traceability of how they derived the result.<BR/><BR/>It would appear that no standards of professional behaviour are too low for this lab.<BR/><BR/>How can any observer take the ADAs seriously when they not only tolerate such malpractice, but actually publically defend it.<BR/><BR/>Amazing.Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00786387057717601356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-75954870636352002132008-01-21T21:08:00.000-08:002008-01-21T21:08:00.000-08:00Mike,Actually, the point of reprocessing would be ...Mike,<BR/><BR/>Actually, the point of reprocessing would be to see if the numbers do come out the same. If they don't, there's something wrong with how the lab is processing the data. And if they don't come out the same, then the question to be answered is, "Why?"<BR/><BR/>The answer to that question could explain much about the originally reported results -- and whether the original results should even be believed.daniel m (a/k/a Rant)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16126545986721397012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-17957979653711225932008-01-21T21:03:00.000-08:002008-01-21T21:03:00.000-08:00"Why is it that none of the reprocessing methods f..."Why is it that none of the reprocessing methods fails to yield identical results? "<BR/><BR/>Actually, what I meant to say was, "Why is it that none of the reprocessing methods yields identical results?"daniel m (a/k/a Rant)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16126545986721397012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-6558265013487230442008-01-21T20:59:00.000-08:002008-01-21T20:59:00.000-08:00But guys, if there is no variation expected in rep...But guys, if there is no variation expected in reprocessing the EDFs, then why do it at all?<BR/><BR/>If it really is just a matter of running the same numbers through the same number cruncher, it doesn't seem like they would bother. There must be some element of variation there (which they were examining presumably) or else they wouldn't bother to run the numbers.<BR/><BR/>syiMike Solberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11784753552166129987noreply@blogger.com