Landis case newsflash

iainf72

The hearing has been closed.

Verdict should be delivered by the 22nd.

andyp

So the best part of 15 months to reach a verdict. Is that a new record?

What's the betting he gets off, mainly on a technicality?

iainf72

andyp wrote:

So the best part of 15 months to reach a verdict. Is that a new record?

What's the betting he gets off, mainly on a technicality?

A lot of the time as been taken up with working through what was presented with a WADA expert.

What if he did get off because they decided it wasn't actually a positive? That would be an interesting situation.

Dope testing is a technical process - Technicality is everything.

andrewgturnbull

iainf72 wrote:

andyp wrote:

So the best part of 15 months to reach a verdict. Is that a new record?

What's the betting he gets off, mainly on a technicality?

A lot of the time as been taken up with working through what was presented with a WADA expert.

What if he did get off because they decided it wasn't actually a positive? That would be an interesting situation.

Dope testing is a technical process - Technicality is everything.

Yeah - I'll get last years PTP points back!

RyanBrook

After reading what Greg Lemond said about a conversation with Landis over the phone it doesn't matter what the outcome of this trial is, everyone knows he doped.

iainf72

RyanBrook wrote:

After reading what Greg Lemond said about a conversation with Landis over the phone it doesn't matter what the outcome of this trial is, everyone knows he doped.

I don't think there was anything in the Lemond conversation that would absoltely confirm it.

jimmythecuckoo

I hope this idiot gets his just deserves.

Reading this months Procycling that race organiser in the US is so deluded by claiming the whole thing had been a hoax concocted by the Europeans.

iainf72

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Reading this months Procycling that race organiser in the US is so deluded by claiming the whole thing had been a hoax concocted by the Europeans.

To return to my question a bit, what if they decide it wasn't actually a positive in conjunction with WADA?

Unlikely but I enjoy what if scenarios.

andyp

iainf72 wrote:

To return to my question a bit, what if they decide it wasn't actually a positive in conjunction with WADA?

Unlikely but I enjoy what if scenarios.

So how do you explain the presence of exogenous, i.e. synthetic, testosterone in his urine sample then? Do you think they spiked his Jack Daniels? :shock:

iainf72

andyp wrote:

Unlikely but I enjoy what if scenarios.

So how do you explain the presence of exogenous, i.e. synthetic, testosterone in his urine sample then? Do you think they spiked his Jack Daniels? :shock:[/quote]

That's what I'm saying - If they decide based on what has been presented that LNDD were wrong and there is not exogenous testosterone. Or they could not be confident in the findings.

ut_och_cykla

I dont like the guy but its a case of damned if he's freed and damned if he ain't.

If the test is not 100% reliable then you can't take a person's livelihood away without further checks.

Just imagine if people caught speeding/drink driving were caught using equipment that was so sensitive it could give any manner of strange readouts that had to be interpreted or gave false positives because someone had drunk cough medicine.

As I've said before I've worked in an analysis lab and I know how much there is that, even with the best will in the world, can go wrong. When it did we had to start again, with increased supervision, new standard samples made up by other personnel etc. Important tests were constantly being checked off against standard and non-standard samples at other labs.

Cycling is in a mess - but its partly of its own doing. I hope things get sorted soon as teh one's who will suffer are the lads and lasses looking to join clubs - put off by worried parents adn lack of sponsorship in general.

Radsman

it all comes down to the science and the foolproofness of the testing procedures. If you believe the tests are accurate and the testers properly followed procedures, then there is little doubt. Personally, I think there are concerns with both. Yet, I also believe it is high likely that Floyd and most TDF contenders are on some kind of juice.

girofan

8) 8) Yes, those goddam nasty European's have it in for our boys. Clean living, good natured, kind to his mom, (if not to Sheryl Crowe), paragon of virtue, Lance found this out when they started to write articles and books about his preparation.

SteveR_100Milers

iainf72 wrote:

andyp wrote:

So the best part of 15 months to reach a verdict. Is that a new record?

What's the betting he gets off, mainly on a technicality?

A lot of the time as been taken up with working through what was presented with a WADA expert.

What if he did get off because they decided it wasn't actually a positive? That would be an interesting situation.
Dope testing is a technical process - Technicality is everything.

The reaction of the other riders would be extremely interesting wouldnt it, especially if ASO allowed him to ride next year, assuming any team would want to touch him. Can't see it happening even if he is acquitted in the wake of the Rasmussen affair. BTW any news on him? Has he fessed up yet or is he still crying into his frikadeller?

jimmythecuckoo

I read on her that he looked like he had some botox and he was wearing a black leather jacket.

iainf72

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

The reaction of the other riders would be extremely interesting wouldnt it, especially if ASO allowed him to ride next year, assuming any team would want to touch him. Can't see it happening even if he is acquitted in the wake of the Rasmussen affair.

I'm not so sure.

But it makes me laugh - If he did get aquitted there is absolutely no reason not to hire him, and no rules against it.Yet people would be quite happy for that to happen.

top_bhoy

ut_och_cykla wrote:

As I've said before I've worked in an analysis lab and I know how much there is that, even with the best will in the world, can go wrong. When it did we had to start again, with increased supervision, new standard samples made up by other personnel etc. Important tests were constantly being checked off against standard and non-standard samples at other labs.

I have no doubt that on occassions things go wrong - thats the nature of human fallability. That is why there is an appeals procedure and also probably why it has taken so long and there is no verdict as yet.

If tests are carried out by accredited labs and personnel then either they are trusted to do it right, with the safeguards of an appeals procedures in place, or testing is abandoned for all court cases where drug or DNA is the sole evidence used to convict or find guilt.

If science testing is anything like defence and aerospace testing, there will be strict procedures in place covering equipment, calibration, documentation, etc..from which an accredited lab cannot deviate from - its not like they start making their own test proceedures up as they go along. Then again, maybe the scientific world is completely unregulated!!

RyanBrook

iainf72 wrote:

RyanBrook wrote:

After reading what Greg Lemond said about a conversation with Landis over the phone it doesn't matter what the outcome of this trial is, everyone knows he doped.

I don't think there was anything in the Lemond conversation that would absoltely confirm it.

Are you referring to the same articel that I read by Paul Kimmage? He categorically states that Landis called him in the wake of the scandal like a "dear in the headlights". Asking him for advice on what to do about the situation. Lemond quoted Landis saying he was afraid to confess due to the fact his family and friends would disown him and it would ruin his career. That confirms it for me.

Radsman

I think Lemond told him to confess and Landis said 'what good would that do'. At least that is what he said in the hearing. that could be damning or not depending on your interpretation but not a slam dunk confession.

flattythehurdler

did you ever script write for bill clinton?

dammit_peter

iainf72 wrote:

The hearing has been closed.

Verdict should be delivered by the 22nd.

1. Nothing particularly dramatic has happened. So it hardly merits the term "newsflash".

2. Delivering the verdict on a Saturday sounds unlikely.

3. Where did you get this stuff from?

iainf72

dammit_peter wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

The hearing has been closed.

Verdict should be delivered by the 22nd.

1. Nothing particularly dramatic has happened. So it hardly merits the term "newsflash".

2. Delivering the verdict on a Saturday sounds unlikely.

3. Where did you get this stuff from?

1) People have been asking when the verdict was due, I thought I'd be dramatic when I found out.

2) It sounds unlilkely, but the Hamilton CAS verdict was announced on a Sunday

3) From a Landis blog but now it's in all the major media outlets.

skut

I think it's interesting how much faith many people on this forum put in the anti-doping authorities and testing procedures. Personally, I think lots of cyclists/athletes have doped and do dope - but just because a laboratory says they did, it doesn't mean that they definitely did.

Remember, the Birmingham Six and Judith Ward were convicted largely on the basis of forensic evidence that was later discredited (and that should have been discredited at the time). In the wider world, scientific fraud and misconduct are frequent occurences.

andrewgturnbull

skut wrote:

I think it's interesting how much faith many people on this forum put in the anti-doping authorities and testing procedures. Personally, I think lots of cyclists/athletes have doped and do dope - but just because a laboratory says they did, it doesn't mean that they definitely did.

Remember, the Birmingham Six and Judith Ward were convicted largely on the basis of forensic evidence that was later discredited (and that should have been discredited at the time). In the wider world, scientific fraud and misconduct are frequent occurences.

Yeah and OJ was innocent too...

leguape

andrewgturnbull wrote:

skut wrote:

I think it's interesting how much faith many people on this forum put in the anti-doping authorities and testing procedures. Personally, I think lots of cyclists/athletes have doped and do dope - but just because a laboratory says they did, it doesn't mean that they definitely did.

Remember, the Birmingham Six and Judith Ward were convicted largely on the basis of forensic evidence that was later discredited (and that should have been discredited at the time). In the wider world, scientific fraud and misconduct are frequent occurences.

Yeah and OJ was innocent too...

So the convictions which were overturned as unsound in the case of the Birmingham Six and the countless miscarriages of justice attributed to supposedly "foolproof" forensic methods such as fingerprint identification are all just poppycock and we should ignore them.

Or that there are plenty of people around who will tell you how the balance of proof is entirely against the athlete from the outset and the anti-doping measures rely on them not bieng brought into question because once they are people might start questioning things and pointing to things like procedural error and false positives.

Remember how long it took Mark Richardson to clear his name? And all the time the authorities refused to even countenance the possibility that they might have got it wrong.

andrewgturnbull

leguape wrote:

andrewgturnbull wrote:

skut wrote:

I think it's interesting how much faith many people on this forum put in the anti-doping authorities and testing procedures. Personally, I think lots of cyclists/athletes have doped and do dope - but just because a laboratory says they did, it doesn't mean that they definitely did.

Remember, the Birmingham Six and Judith Ward were convicted largely on the basis of forensic evidence that was later discredited (and that should have been discredited at the time). In the wider world, scientific fraud and misconduct are frequent occurences.

Yeah and OJ was innocent too...

So the convictions which were overturned as unsound in the case of the Birmingham Six and the countless miscarriages of justice attributed to supposedly "foolproof" forensic methods such as fingerprint identification are all just poppycock and we should ignore them.

Or that there are plenty of people around who will tell you how the balance of proof is entirely against the athlete from the outset and the anti-doping measures rely on them not bieng brought into question because once they are people might start questioning things and pointing to things like procedural error and false positives.

Remember how long it took Mark Richardson to clear his name? And all the time the authorities refused to even countenance the possibility that they might have got it wrong.

A genuine newsflash this time - OJ has just been charged with armed robbery!

How many cases are convicted based on finger print evidence on a yearly basis do you think? And however many miscarriages of justice are there in there?

Yes you might be right, but I'll back the short odds.

Cheers, Andy

andrewgturnbull

Another newsflash - and f**k me, more celebrity legal nonsense. It looks like Phil Spector might get off too.

I should read the entertainment news more closely and skip the sport section altogether.

Based on this, I'm sure Floyd will be acquitted next.

nick hanson

when you look at the debacle that was the OJ case,then Floyd is as innocent as the driven snow,should recieve the TDF 2006 title,and the freedom of Paris (not Hilton though :oops: )