tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post5116671377192496613..comments2023-10-06T03:21:26.130-07:00Comments on trust but verify: Saturday RoundupDBrowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-65832713598890737322007-10-15T20:15:00.000-07:002007-10-15T20:15:00.000-07:00Hey, thanks for the mention. The poke comes from ...Hey, thanks for the mention. The poke comes from the fact that I was, er... am, burnt out on all of the doping talk. I have to question if there is anything we can even do at this point.Cycling Phunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07407316752929288793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-55426986664281956602007-09-23T11:42:00.000-07:002007-09-23T11:42:00.000-07:00Hi BustinBilly,This is a fruitful discussion, and ...Hi BustinBilly,<BR/><BR/>This is a fruitful discussion, and I'm giving it first class treatment with its <A HREF="http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2007/09/discussion-with-bustinbilly-on-matching.html" REL="nofollow"> own post here</A>.<BR/><BR/>Let's continue there.<BR/><BR/>thanks,<BR/>-TBVDBrowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-49136379778360901102007-09-23T11:03:00.000-07:002007-09-23T11:03:00.000-07:00I meant the 3 big peaks in the middle.I meant the 3 big peaks in the middle.BustinBillyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11888737601383744232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-13759838681594007532007-09-23T11:02:00.000-07:002007-09-23T11:02:00.000-07:00The F3 is the 5-alpha-androstandiol-5beta-pregnand...The F3 is the 5-alpha-androstandiol-5beta-pregnandiol difference this whole shebang is about. The A sample F3 is @ pages 35, 36. The GC/MS and GC/C/IRMS plots are identical. The two metabolites above and the 5-beta-androstandiol are the 3 peaks in the middle of the GC/C/IRMS plot.BustinBillyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11888737601383744232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-46215665038118161682007-09-23T05:39:00.000-07:002007-09-23T05:39:00.000-07:00oops, "now we can have", instead of "not we can ha...oops, "now we can have", instead of "not we can have."<BR/><BR/>Hint: things are not what they appear to be.DBrowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-83476378330580304162007-09-23T05:38:00.000-07:002007-09-23T05:38:00.000-07:00BustinBilly,Excellent, not we can have some useful...BustinBilly,<BR/><BR/>Excellent, not we can have some useful discussion.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure you understand that only the F3 fractions are relevant; why the others were included is a mystery.<BR/><BR/>Your commend say the plots are "exactly the same"<BR/><BR/>In what ways do you think they are the same? Once you identify some of those we'll have something to talk about.<BR/><BR/>thanks!<BR/>TBVDBrowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-32170232186841034372007-09-23T00:14:00.000-07:002007-09-23T00:14:00.000-07:00Don't debate the retention times just look at the ...Don't debate the retention times just look at the damn plots. They are printed @ UsadaAndLandis-FinalAward20-09-07[1].pdf pages 41, 42. They are exactly the same. No doubt. <BR/><BR/>I used to believe Floyd until I saw the evidence.BustinBillyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11888737601383744232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-22124204072110315122007-09-22T20:52:00.000-07:002007-09-22T20:52:00.000-07:00wschart,The majority arbs used previous decisions ...wschart,<BR/><BR/>The majority arbs used previous decisions that allowed only the IRMS testing to prove a positive. Of course, they only referenced cases that allowed them to find Landis guilty. <BR/><BR/>The obviously, conviently left out the Landaluze CAS finding because that wouldn't help them with a guilty verdict.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05043995499810157859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-15828776015787687862007-09-22T20:14:00.000-07:002007-09-22T20:14:00.000-07:00Sportsjunkie:Sigh...Floyd's ride on Stage 17 has b...Sportsjunkie:<BR/><BR/>Sigh...Floyd's ride on Stage 17 has been explained time and again. It was not a spike in performance and did not defy logic. Good Lord, but you really need to stay on top of the new information. The "Floyd's Stage 17 effort was superhuman" argument is so six months ago.Jim Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904567945546421314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-31467022899705441922007-09-22T19:07:00.000-07:002007-09-22T19:07:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.strbukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00814462555882571936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-25123629153245002922007-09-22T17:51:00.000-07:002007-09-22T17:51:00.000-07:00OK, I have a question: I thought, per WADA policy,...OK, I have a question: I thought, per WADA policy, both an A and a B positive were required to sanction an athlete. The panel says the one positive A sample must be thrown out, but says that is OK to hang Landis based on the positive B samples, none of which now have a proper S positve to go with them. Is my understanding of the rules wrong, or did the panel bilaterally revise the rules on their own.wscharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580006249706915137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-30532128646734225812007-09-22T17:33:00.000-07:002007-09-22T17:33:00.000-07:00GMR,you are spot on. Expect more on this point.TB...GMR,you are spot on. Expect more on this point.<BR/><BR/>TBVDBrowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-11734875854567919082007-09-22T17:24:00.000-07:002007-09-22T17:24:00.000-07:00Is this the Landis family blog to defend Floyd? Yo...Is this the Landis family blog to defend Floyd? <BR/><BR/>You state that "TBV tries to be objective, making reference to all points of view", but you also say "TBV is personally biased towards Floyd."<BR/><BR/>That sounds about as "foolish" (I'm talking to you strbuk) as believing in Floyd's miraculous come-back in the Tour. Spikes in performance that defy logic normally have a logical explanation, and it seems that the UCI has explained the reason for Floyd's success - he's a CHEATER!sportsjunkiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00922673104447857631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-24785070705171456182007-09-22T12:10:00.000-07:002007-09-22T12:10:00.000-07:00If I was Oscar, I wouldn't say anything at all, kn...If I was Oscar, I wouldn't say anything at all, knowing the only reason I was in second place to begin with is that Floyd let me make up 30 minutes on stage 12 to jump from 46th to 1st.apochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05161850554034839181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-9715739412439383152007-09-22T10:50:00.000-07:002007-09-22T10:50:00.000-07:00When I read through the decision, and the dissent,...When I read through the decision, and the dissent, and then read comments of LeQuirk and McQuaid, I can't help but think that they truly believe a conviction of ANY kind, is better than justice. I mean with their admissions of flawed procedure, it seems okay to just keep testing and KEEP testing until some operator on some machine somewhere comes up with a result that they can file a case with. I feel sorry for any pro that has to answer to these guys.<BR/>Keep fighting, <BR/>FiddyC-Fiddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13633420390910820764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-33766339508466804782007-09-22T09:28:00.000-07:002007-09-22T09:28:00.000-07:00Ken at gv,I am coming to a similar conclusion. The...Ken at gv,<BR/><BR/>I am coming to a similar conclusion. The panel says there are two machines with retention times of 25, and 45 minutes so you can't use absolute numbers. OK so under WADA TD2003IDCR then relative retention times need to be within 1% difference. Dr. M-A calculates the difference on LNDD test as 7%. Sounds like an ISL right? But then the arbs (read Dr. Botre) say well because there are two machines you can't use relative retention times!?! I see nothing in the above document that says it applies only to one machine. I don't see a paragraph that says if you use two machines then these rules apply. I would think that either the relative retention times applies and therefore constitutes an ISL or the LNDD is not following TD2003IDCR and that implies an ISL in and of itself.<BR/><BR/>TBV, Ken, what do you think?<BR/><BR/>GMRGMRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13827404930085676519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-19341047636570502682007-09-22T09:02:00.000-07:002007-09-22T09:02:00.000-07:00I read the decision this morning. It looks like t...I read the decision this morning. It looks like to me that Dr. Wolfgan Meier-Augustein was called either incompetent or a liar to come up with the decision that the IRMS data does find evidence of synthetic testosterone. I would like to hear his comments on this. I think this is the key to the appeal.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07586627433830934980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-9371732229027087392007-09-22T08:30:00.000-07:002007-09-22T08:30:00.000-07:00Floyd should announce that he's appealing and tell...Floyd should announce that he's appealing and tell everyone how hard he's working on his appeal, while secretly doing nothing. Then USADA would have to prepare for an appeal and spend lots of money.<BR/><BR/>When it comes time for the hearing, Floyd just wouldn't show up. Let USADA know how it feels to be bled dry for nothing.<BR/><BR/>Too bad something like that wouldn't work.Jim Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904567945546421314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-12507218175950696032007-09-22T08:20:00.000-07:002007-09-22T08:20:00.000-07:00If you were Peireo, with your own family to feed, ...If you were Peireo, with your own family to feed, and a contract with your team, would you turn it down?<BR/><BR/>He's in an impossible position, and nothing he says is going to ingratiate him to everyone. I can see why Landis fans are annoyed, but, frankly, that's an audience of diminishing influence. He's doing what Landis himself probably would have done before all this happened -- more or less believe and trust the system. <BR/><BR/>TBVDBrowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-25932514741294703172007-09-22T07:09:00.000-07:002007-09-22T07:09:00.000-07:00A question for commenters here:If you were in Osca...A question for commenters here:<BR/><BR/>If you were in Oscar Pereiro's shoes, but know what you know about Landis’ case, would you accept the Tour title considering the evidence that Landis presented? Could Pereiro turn it down, and if he did, what would be the repercussions to him and the Tour?<BR/><BR/>Just as how Landis knows in his heart, he won the tour, I wonder if Pereiro believes in his heart, he really came in second.PEMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00483105340485916799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-65630785874473186002007-09-22T06:50:00.000-07:002007-09-22T06:50:00.000-07:00Residents of Montreal and London, be on guard, I k...Residents of Montreal and London, be on guard, I know of 2 crooked lawyers practicing in both cities. If given the opportunity, they make up the rules as they go. In their eyes, proving that a system is corrupt will not exonerate you from the system claiming you are guilty. It appears they can be bought. On the other hand, if you are guilty but have lots of money, get these guys to defend you. They are masters for that.PEMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00483105340485916799noreply@blogger.com