tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post2080223839344902829..comments2023-10-06T03:21:26.130-07:00Comments on trust but verify: Monday RoundupDBrowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-23813220983780564622006-11-06T09:57:00.000-08:002006-11-06T09:57:00.000-08:00So, as the rules are written, the "doping cops" ge...<i><br />So, as the rules are written, the "doping cops" gets to spread all the available info on the kitchen table (so to speak) and cherry pick the best case from that and the accused is not allowed to see what they decided not to use.<br /></i><br /><br />That certainly a plausible interpretation. Those making the rules probably would not characterize the situation that way. They would probably reduce it to saying that they have presented the facts immediately relevant to the case, and no more are necessary to judge culpablity.<br /><br />Whether that is a correct, fair, or just position is something decided outside the process.<br /><br />TBVDBrowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-59224599904762292052006-11-06T07:46:00.000-08:002006-11-06T07:46:00.000-08:00TBV question:
If USADA/WADA/UCI wanted to do a lo...TBV question:<br /><br />If USADA/WADA/UCI wanted to do a longitudinal study (comapring his AAF to other tests around that datem correct?), they could use this data. Correct? Because they elected not to, Landis cannot see it. Also, correct?<br /><br />So, as the rules are written, the "doping cops" gets to spread all the available info on the kitchen table (so to speak) and cherry pick the best case from that and the accused is not allowed to see what they decided not to use.<br /><br />Is any of this intepretation wrong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com