tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post4074455780696484538..comments2023-10-06T03:21:26.130-07:00Comments on trust but verify: Judging Floyd - Part VI - The Report CardDBrowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-6269596938582911362007-07-13T14:12:00.000-07:002007-07-13T14:12:00.000-07:002-1 for Floyd depending on Mr. Brunet. I think al...2-1 for Floyd depending on Mr. Brunet. I think all the arbitrators are concerned about cycling and doping, and their perspective on this issue will color their interpretation of the evidence. <BR/><BR/>Mr. Campbell - the system is flawed and seen as prejudicial to athletes. This is not good for clean sports in the long term as athletes and fans will discount doping enforcement. Vote for Floyd<BR/><BR/>Mr. McLaren - any deviation from a strict interpretation of the rules is condoning doping. Vote for USADA<BR/><BR/>Mr. Brunet (I hope based on watching him at the hearings) - We could be facing this over and over again with every positive test. The evidence is clear that the LNDD violated international standards in Floyd's case, and it is public. WADA, USADA, the other ADAs and the Labs need to get themselves in order. Vote for FloydCheryl from Marylandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09410608438374264074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-56083395589322849302007-07-13T08:33:00.000-07:002007-07-13T08:33:00.000-07:00I think Floyd can lose 2-1 without any tortured lo...I think Floyd can lose 2-1 without any tortured logic. The way I see it the panel is deciding between three things. 1) The testing is not flawed, Floyd is guilty. 2) The testing is flawed, but not enough to give the adverse result, Floyd is guilty. 2) The testing is flawed, and enough to give the adverse results. Floyd is not guilty. I think everyong agrees that case 1 is out here!, so we're looking at 2 and 3, and although I agree the testing is flawed, I don't know wether it's flawed enough to rule out number 2. this is what I think the panel is deciding, and if they decide on 2 then we have to accept he was guilty and the repurcussions are quite big. If they go for 3 then the repurcussions are enormous. Let's just hope if the outcome is 3 that they are strong enough to deliver that verdict. The problem I have is that if they deliver outcome 2 there will be uproar here due to the biased nature of most posters!! I think I'm one of the few who will accept the panels decision either way!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13504739363067950189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-83902586474608231902007-07-13T03:50:00.000-07:002007-07-13T03:50:00.000-07:00Just for the record before the ruling is released ...Just for the record before the ruling is released (maybe today, although I doubt it): I join Judge Bill and think the ruling will be 3-0 in favor of Floyd.<BR/><BR/>syiMike Solberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11784753552166129987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-36703791447033792712007-07-12T19:12:00.000-07:002007-07-12T19:12:00.000-07:00In my earlier comment, my reason for suggesting th...In my earlier comment, my reason for suggesting the prosecuting lawyers may believe Landis is innocent is the fact that they themselves did not focus on the scientific evidence in the closing remarks, but on character issues. I perceive this as an indirect admission that they concede to not having a strong scientifically based case. Perhaps this is a clouded way for them to let the arbiters find Landis innocent, without actually dropping the case.<BR/><BR/>With this train of thought, I have some questions for the lawyers:<BR/><BR/>If you are prosecuting, must you have a predisposition believing the defendant is guilty of the crime? If you believe he is innocent, do you still prosecute as best you can and leave it up to the judge and jury? Are you expected to be impartial enough to be able to prosecute or defend any case?<BR/><BR/>In civil cases, must you try to get as much as possible for your client? For example, consider a divorcing couple. You start out trying to get as much as you can for your client. During the hearing, you realize your client is the knave. Do you still try to get as much as you can or do you stop and say this person deserves nothing?<BR/><BR/>Did Landis have to go shopping for a lawyer that believed him and USADA do the same? Or are lawyers just guns for hire?<BR/><BR/>Lots of questions. Thanks to anyone who answers.<BR/><BR/>Peter.PEMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00483105340485916799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-79894998678340478722007-07-12T16:27:00.000-07:002007-07-12T16:27:00.000-07:00Excellent work... very thoughtful and thorough. I ...Excellent work... very thoughtful and thorough. I really enjoyed reading this post.Motorboat Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10047416443890507155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-50340847266763138732007-07-12T14:51:00.000-07:002007-07-12T14:51:00.000-07:00Jason,Agreed. I was referring to the Zach Lund ca...Jason,<BR/><BR/>Agreed. I was referring to the Zach Lund case and the fact that the ARBs admitted that they knew the athlete wasn't trying to gain an advantage.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure I agree with the athlete being 100% responsible. What about tainted supplements? I think one Pro rider proved his samples were tainted and it didn't help much.<BR/><BR/>As for my Hamilton comment, is the blood test that found him guilty even being used by WADA? I've heard/read they stopped using it after his case although I've never been able to confirm it. If this is true, how could he have been found guilty for a faulty or no longer used test?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05043995499810157859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-65468177293236131452007-07-12T11:24:00.000-07:002007-07-12T11:24:00.000-07:00Mike,My observation is somewhat different. I find ...Mike,<BR/><BR/>My observation is somewhat different. I find the problem, to "KNOW the athlete wasn't trying to gain an advantage", requires (I believe) a subjectivity that is best left out of the process. The cost to prosecute cases that allow for excuses could be enormous. I can side with WADA on the attempt to make the athlete 100% responsible. It provides some objectivity, although NOT a perfect system. It could be an attempt to be cheap I suppose. What I don't find acceptable is the lack of quality in the tests. In this case, it seems, we will not ever know if FL had dope in his system, regardless of intent. The process, in the least, should provide that much. Then we can argue over intent.<BR/><BR/>Jasonjbrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09891582036779942604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-78493399197579828962007-07-12T09:13:00.000-07:002007-07-12T09:13:00.000-07:00PEM,What would be interesting would be to hear Jac...PEM,<BR/><BR/>What would be interesting would be to hear Jacobs take of Hamilton's case vs. Floyd's case. My gut feeling is they were very similar.<BR/><BR/>And reading past Arbs decisions, they didn't act professionally IMO. Finding athletes guilty when they KNOW the athlete wasn't trying to gain an advantage is PLAIN WRONG.<BR/><BR/>MikeAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05043995499810157859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-582946949262779302007-07-12T00:04:00.000-07:002007-07-12T00:04:00.000-07:00TBV, why so pessimistic? As much as I believe Lan...TBV, why so pessimistic? As much as I believe Landis’ claim of innocence, I also believe the arbiters will be professional in their judgement. My prediction is 3-0 in favour of Landis.<BR/><BR/>I also think the prosecuting lawyers think he is innocent, but they had a job to do.<BR/><BR/>Peter.PEMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00483105340485916799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-11500238917643751652007-07-11T16:48:00.000-07:002007-07-11T16:48:00.000-07:00Re Final predictions.Hue = heartTBV = mind?Re Final predictions.<BR/><BR/>Hue = heart<BR/><BR/>TBV = mind<BR/><BR/>?carltonreidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08562756592703892556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-48704021703440881012007-07-11T13:52:00.000-07:002007-07-11T13:52:00.000-07:00Thank you Judge Hue and TBV for your continuing ef...Thank you Judge Hue and TBV for your continuing efforts in discussing and making understandable the varied aspects of the Landis case. Many MANY people I have come in contact with have expressed their appreciation for all of the hard work you two gentlemen have done on the "Judging Floyd" series as well as at the hearings themselves. <BR/><BR/>strstrbukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00814462555882571936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-44421238602891186612007-07-11T13:48:00.000-07:002007-07-11T13:48:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.strbukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00814462555882571936noreply@blogger.com