tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post7804606275607877568..comments2023-10-06T03:21:26.130-07:00Comments on trust but verify: Some details in decision, bad for LandisDBrowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-68983631300185270642006-12-20T14:25:00.000-08:002006-12-20T14:25:00.000-08:00ORG here ...
Reading through your points above, i...ORG here ...<br /><br />Reading through your points above, if the CAS rejected every argument and said you cannot argue the science, etc, then why did they throw out the positive test?<br /><br />If the CAS is going to become a stickler for details, fine, then toss Landis case for the mis-labled samples.<br /><br />I have to believe they had more doubts than just a procedural error was made.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-70481720916796151902006-12-20T14:15:00.000-08:002006-12-20T14:15:00.000-08:00So, just out of curiosity, how can one prove his i...So, just out of curiosity, how can one prove his innocence? If you can't dispute the science, you can't bring up past cases, you can't challenge the lab . . . what then? Obviously you can't go back to the day in question and retest. What's a guy to do? <br /><br />I keep seeing posts on DPF asking Floyd to just tell the truth. Obviously, those saying that believe he's lying so he's damned if he do damned if he don't. But, if he's telling the truth how is he supposed to back it up since he can't seem to use any of the tools one would think you could use? With a unicorn and a pixie? Runes and tea leaves? Fortune telling monkeys?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com