tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post6515457621635271648..comments2023-10-06T03:21:26.130-07:00Comments on trust but verify: Landis Statement on B Sample TestingDBrowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-23981518973110527352007-04-12T19:28:00.000-07:002007-04-12T19:28:00.000-07:00First of all, my respect to Judge Hue for his stam...First of all, my respect to Judge Hue for his stamina in responding to the DPF. A good forum, but I don't have the intestinal fortitude to cope with it. <BR/><BR/>Second, I also noticed that the arbitration seemed to imply that the "B" results would not be used for a NEW adverse finding. I read that as they could use it to buttress their current finding.<BR/><BR/>Finally, what good can testing samples for which one does not know the outcome do anyone? If the LNDD lab has flaws, it needs to be given samples for which the outcome is secretly known to the testers to see if the lab arrives at the proper outcome. My spouse of the FDA tells me there are companies which make a good living providing samples with a known outcome for drug companies to test the reliablility of their chromatographs, mass specs, etc. Good practices in the testing industry don't seem to be standard here. <BR/><BR/>I can't help but come to the conclusion that the request for additional data (when is asking your congressman to do something objectionable?) and the "B" sample testing (yes, Judge Hue, I bet it happened in December when the samples were sent) bode poorly for the USADA taking the high road and suggest and end game of having adverse data if the ruling is in Mr. Landis' favor.Cheryl from Marylandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09410608438374264074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-68531126655729603872007-04-12T19:06:00.000-07:002007-04-12T19:06:00.000-07:00Everyone,Did you catch the possible ways the 2 Pan...Everyone,<BR/>Did you catch the possible ways the 2 Panel members indicated that the re-tested B samples might be entered into evidence exclude FL using them to prove innocence?<BR/><BR/>Mind Boggling. My comments in parenthesis.<BR/><BR/>“B” samples CIR analysis results are admissible as evidence:<BR/><BR/>(i) to test the credibility of the Athlete and other witnesses<BR/>testimony; <BR/><BR/>(USADA can use them if Landis testifies he didn't dope but they won't be relevant to the testimony of anyone else that <BR/>I can envision testifying)<BR/><BR/>(ii) to satisfy the shifting burden of proof arising from the<BR/>rebuttable presumptions that a departure from an<BR/>International Standard with regard to analytical or custodial<BR/>procedures of a laboratory has occurred as provided by<BR/>Article 3 of the WADA Code;<BR/><BR/>(This goes to USADA's ability to use them on the 3rd burden shift)<BR/><BR/>(iii) to corroborate [see footnote 3 below] the analysis of the “B” sample that was<BR/>performed by the Lab by providing additional scientific<BR/>evidence, albeit insufficient to establish an adverse analytical<BR/>finding;<BR/><BR/>(USADA can use it to bolster the weak B sample results)<BR/><BR/>(iv) to establish the fact of doping by another reliable means;<BR/><BR/>(USADA can use it in lieu of the B sample they already have)<BR/><BR/> and<BR/><BR/>(v) may be admissible for reasons unknown at this time.<BR/><BR/>(Might apply to Landis use but none of the others do)<BR/><BR/>3 Note that such corroboration may not overrule or out weigh the anti-doping rules of the UCI or the WADA<BR/>International Standards that are applicable to the Lab procedures and are alleged by the Respondent to have<BR/>been violated.<BR/><BR/>(Footnote means the B sample use by USADA to corroborate the current B sample result will not trump any other Lab standard deviations Landis may prove up..... in other words, it will be admissible to bolster the fact that he doped, even if he pulls out a Landaluze type win and the Panel can use the samples to talk about how a doper went free through no small effort of their own.... just like the Panel did in Landaluze).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-79238843365341356082007-04-12T18:39:00.000-07:002007-04-12T18:39:00.000-07:00I think they have to allow Landis' representative ...I think they have to allow Landis' representative to be present. But I also thought there was no way the Panel would find authority to test the B sanples in the first place,<BR/>I am not batting with a very good average, here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-53428321179702172162007-04-12T18:29:00.000-07:002007-04-12T18:29:00.000-07:00Trislax here: The absurdity of this is remarkable...Trislax here: The absurdity of this is remarkable in a free society. What is most disconcerting is the decision to allow the heavy fingers of LNDD to test (basically, a do-over to confirm their own data) the B samples. Can anyone say collusion?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-72582666081953631352007-04-12T17:11:00.000-07:002007-04-12T17:11:00.000-07:00ORG again ...Bill,The press release notes the test...ORG again ...<BR/><BR/>Bill,<BR/><BR/>The press release notes the test will be April 16. Can they test without a Lansis witness present? Of course the answer is "yes" but can they "admit" they have been testing his samples without a witness and not be in violation of the March 16 arb ruling?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-40573127037664746082007-04-12T17:08:00.000-07:002007-04-12T17:08:00.000-07:00I really don't believe there will be an "independa...I really don't believe there will be an "independant" witness present. It would not surprise me if testing has already occured.<BR/>Sorry to be so pessimistic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-64673934002373669042007-04-12T17:06:00.000-07:002007-04-12T17:06:00.000-07:00It loks like only LNDD is authorized and it will d...It loks like only LNDD is authorized and it will do all the B sample testing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-75433659634167398532007-04-12T17:04:00.000-07:002007-04-12T17:04:00.000-07:00ORG again ....Do we know who Landis witness will b...ORG again ....<BR/><BR/>Do we know who Landis witness will be (Deboer again)? And who the independent witness will be? <BR/><BR/>What about the ground rules of the arb appointed independent witness? If he/she sees a mistake or ISO violation are they to yell "stop" and instruct the lab trechnician as to the proper procedure? Or, are they to just note the screw ups, let the flawed test go through (with the subsequent leak to l'equipe) and report back to the arbs on what they saw?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-43416955974253986492007-04-12T16:57:00.000-07:002007-04-12T16:57:00.000-07:00ORG here ....TBV/Bill Hue,Did the AAA ruling over ...ORG here ....<BR/><BR/>TBV/Bill Hue,<BR/><BR/>Did the AAA ruling over spliting the sample or is this an open issue? (traveling and on my blackberry - cannot access teh ruling from it)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com