tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post5349505634147100827..comments2023-10-06T03:21:26.130-07:00Comments on trust but verify: Judging Fl ^H^H USADA/CAS-AAA, Part IVDBrowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-68084502927576111592007-04-17T20:20:00.000-07:002007-04-17T20:20:00.000-07:00Great advice Bill, thanks. DanGreat advice Bill, thanks. Danblackmingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15347023205840338203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-50449636097306450252007-04-17T18:07:00.000-07:002007-04-17T18:07:00.000-07:00Hi anon.The first turn or flip belongs to USADA. T...Hi anon.<BR/>The first turn or flip belongs to USADA. They have already been successful because a WADA certified lab has confirmed an adverse analytical from stage 17.<BR/>The second turn, or flip, is Landis', to try and show a violation of International Standards in the way the lab tested the urine.<BR/><BR/>The third burden turn or flip is USADA's to show the Standards violation(s) did not "cause" the adverse anylitical results.<BR/>The 4th burden turn or flip might be Landis' but now we are straying into uncharted territory.<BR/>There also has been some discussion as it relates to the metabolite(s) issue that there might be another burden turn in the middle of thata one.<BR/>Confused?<BR/>How about if they just gave the ADA the burden of proof to the Panel's comfortable satisfaction, once and avoid all this?<BR/><BR/>Tom,<BR/>That is an interesting question and speaks to the 4th burden flip.... it just doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that the Code contemplates.<BR/><BR/>Daniel,<BR/>I get letters from people all the time.<BR/>You know what works?<BR/>Hand write it, with a hand written return address.<BR/>Speak from your heart and don't be afraid.<BR/>Keep your letter under a page.<BR/>People can tell letters that are manufacured. Sometimes more than 1 exactly the same come in the same day. Then they allcan be ignored.<BR/>So, my advise is to do your best and it will be fine.<BR/>BillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-12931679444548307042007-04-17T17:58:00.000-07:002007-04-17T17:58:00.000-07:00last anon, see "Burden of Proof and Burden Shifts"...last anon, see "Burden of Proof and Burden Shifts" in <A HREF="http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2007/03/judging-floyd-part-iii.html" REL="nofollow"> Part III</A>.<BR/><BR/>TBVDBrowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-22534106965427356932007-04-17T17:51:00.000-07:002007-04-17T17:51:00.000-07:00Could someone please describe (in layman's terms) ...Could someone please describe (in layman's terms) what a burden turn and burden flip might be? Are they the same? Are there 4 of them or more? Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-45737287586758705722007-04-17T13:13:00.000-07:002007-04-17T13:13:00.000-07:00Thanks Bill. Good reasoning, especially with the ...Thanks Bill. Good reasoning, especially with the information about what happens "under the rules of construction." You could well be right about this.<BR/><BR/>I guess I just don't yet want to believe that the process is THAT unfair.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-74164761700630645662007-04-17T10:46:00.000-07:002007-04-17T10:46:00.000-07:00Some of you guys are more optomistic than I am abo...Some of you guys are more optomistic than I am about using negative "B" sample on the "4th burden turn" because that use if it even exists (see below) is foreseeable. If you are writing an advisory opinion about potential uses of evidence at trial, pre-trial,you want to cover any foreseeable use as long as you are banging away. The 2 arbiters apparantly could not think of specific uses for admission of negative samples and thus I doubt they think such negatives would be relevant to or that a 4th burden turn even exists. In fact, the Panel excluded some UCLA tested "A" samples from evidence in the decision. /those WOULD be relevant in the 4th burden turn so i think the Panel is thinking that no such opportunity exists under the Code.<BR/>If the 2 arbiters believed that there would be ANY chance of the "B" samples being negative, then some specific list of their allowable uses at hearing would have been included on the specific list. Yet no such use was listed like 4 other specific instances of permitted non-negative samples were.<BR/><BR/>Don't let the "catch-all" mislead you in that respect. Under the rules of construction, in instances where specifics are listed followed by a "catch-all", the "catch-all" is generally limited to instances of things like the specific things listed, i.e. uses for non-negative samples, just in case USADA argued that they could be used for some purpose the Panel didn't think about.<BR/><BR/>That said, it would be a breath of fresh air to see negative "other" samples heretofor treated as irrelevant, actually be admitted for some unforeseen purpose. Unfortunately, any use I can think of and the Panel too, apparantly, appears to be irrelevant to the specific issues at hearing..<BR/><BR/>The burden turns have to stop somewhere. They are not infinate. It not only wouldn't be a mis-use of discretion for the Panel to stop them after the ADA overcomes FL sucessful flip, it just might not be feasable under the WADA Code.<BR/><BR/>BillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-46220898594585841432007-04-17T09:52:00.000-07:002007-04-17T09:52:00.000-07:00Tom, my own view is that Bill is not quite fair to...Tom, my own view is that Bill is not quite fair to the arbs on this question. As you probably know, the fifth "admissibility" reason they give in their decision is that results "may be admissible for reasons unknown at this time." That seems to me to leave the door wide open to the results being used as exculpatory evidence. Bill doesn't agree.<BR/><BR/>I think the strongest part of Bill's argument is his description of how they had to add two words, "leads to," into the definition of an AAF. I think Bill (and Campbell) are spot on about this, and I think the admissibility of the B sample results is good grounds for appeal to the CAS (if Floyd can afford it).<BR/><BR/>PeaceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-76162222162729451722007-04-17T09:24:00.000-07:002007-04-17T09:24:00.000-07:00I think given the example of these other B's being...I think given the example of these other B's being allowed for USADA in the 3rd burden flip, there is a good case to be made that the other results could be admitted for Landis in the 4th flip. They would not be demonstrating that he didn't dope (which isn't allowed), but that there are problems with the testing procedure and consistency. At least, that's conjecture we raise above. Whether that would actually be allowed might depend on what result the deciding Panel intends.<BR/><BR/>TBVDBrowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-19018675429868373022007-04-17T09:14:00.000-07:002007-04-17T09:14:00.000-07:00Is there really no circumstance in which these oth...Is there really no circumstance in which these other B samples could be used in Floyd's defense?<BR/><BR/>Their negative status, in and of itself may not be useable, but what if the specific numeric results are such that they could support an alternate theory? Suppose Floyd's team didn't simply want to argue "hey look, they're negative", but wanted to argue that some particular measurement is a clear indication of something besides exogenous testosterone influencing the results?<BR/><BR/>tomThomas A. Finehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15734341507092908270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-33256816999821284562007-04-17T06:36:00.000-07:002007-04-17T06:36:00.000-07:00I understand. Thanks.-FerrenI understand. Thanks.<BR/><BR/>-FerrenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-2465083259494410952007-04-17T06:15:00.000-07:002007-04-17T06:15:00.000-07:00Ferren, the reason would be to get the same sample...Ferren, the reason would be to get the same sample tested in more than one place. <BR/><BR/>TBVDBrowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-35244704115962670332007-04-17T04:51:00.000-07:002007-04-17T04:51:00.000-07:00Thanks Mr.s Hue and Brower.I was wondering, if one...Thanks Mr.s Hue and Brower.<BR/><BR/>I was wondering, if one was going to write a letter to a congressional leader, what an articulate and concise summary of concerns with USADA would be. Perhaps, Mr. Hue, given your level of familiarity and articulate pen, could you draft a little something something for one to send out? Would you emphasize the unequal ability to test and admit results to the panel? Can we name drop famous and influential scientists with a concern over LNDD technical competence? My best guess is that Congress moves its ass faster when the fabulously rich or popular take to a cause.<BR/><BR/>Could you prepare a draft that one could personalize? I would think FFF would have done this but perhaps they are new to these types of things.blackmingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15347023205840338203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-25309068934544310462007-04-17T00:10:00.000-07:002007-04-17T00:10:00.000-07:00Why would the panel order testing on the OoC B sam...Why would the panel order testing on the OoC B samples? This is about CIR tests and the OoC samples have already undergone CIR tests.<BR/><BR/>-FerrenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com