French Will Rule Thurs. on Floyd Landis

Will wrote:

Under the UCI's Anti-Doping Rules -- and under virtually all Olympic Movement sporting organization's anti-doping rules -- a testing labs "mistakes" are irrelevant UNLESS they are PROVEN to have PROBABLY CAUSED the adverse test results.
The topic: French Will Rule Thurs. on Floyd Landis

...but they will not rule out that wwW is #1 WANKer boy!

Will wrote:

Under the UCI's Anti-Doping Rules -- and under virtually all Olympic Movement sporting organization's anti-doping rules -- a testing labs "mistakes" are irrelevant UNLESS they are PROVEN to have PROBABLY CAUSED the adverse test results.
The topic: French Will Rule Thurs. on Floyd Landis

I think that's a bit over the top. What lab mistakes will be tolerated will be decided by precedent, i.e., from AFLD decisions, the arbitration panel outcome, etc. Your overly broad claim to the contrary, I suspect if the lab mistakes are too serious or too numerous, they may well let Floyd walk.

( think Landaluze )

----Wayne---

"Too serious", yes -- but "serious" only means that the mistakes PROBABLY CAUSED the adverse test results.

"Too numerous", no -- if the mistakes did not PROBABLY CAUSE the adverse test results, there is NO rule and NO caselaw which would permit counting the mistakes so as to let Landis "walk"; after all, the anti-technicality rule does not include a numerical "mistake threshold". There is, in fact, caselaw which holds that the arbitrators' job is not to conduct or to enforce a PERFORMANCE AUDIT of the labs, as this is the province of the lab certification bodies.

And I don't think you appreciate the legal nuances behind the Landaluce outcome and why that outcome is extremely unlikely to recur with Landis.

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
I think that's a bit over the top. What lab mistakes will be tolerated will be decided by precedent, i.e., from AFLD decisions, the arbitration panel outcome, etc. Your overly broad claim to the contrary, I suspect if the lab mistakes are too serious or too numerous, they may well let Floyd walk.
( think Landaluze )
----Wayne---

Good point Wayne. I don't see how the Arbs can ignore those mistakes. I hope that they can learn from the mistakes and improve the procedures within the testing labs.

1) Besides Landaluce, what other examples of arbitrators addressing the issue of "mistakes" can any of you cite?

2) How extensively do any of you know and understand what led to the outcome in Landaluce? What facts were determinative in Landaluce? How are those determinative facts different or the same in Landis' case?

Will wrote:

..........And I don't think you appreciate the legal nuances behind the Landaluce outcome and why that outcome is extremely unlikely to recur with Landis.

As I understand it, the CAS cleared Inigo because the lab used the same technicians on the B sample analysis that had been used for the A. They said this breach of WADA rules was serious enough to invalidate the results.

Of course Landis is not yet to the CAS stage.......but it does show that lab mistakes may well be grounds for dismissal of the AAF.

( PS....Landaluze was also accused of TESTOSTERONE doping, same as Landis.)

---Wayne---

How many of you have actually read the Landaluce case?

Anyone interested can read a translation at http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluc...

TBV

TrustButVerify wrote:

Anyone interested can read a translation at http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluc...
TBV

Thanks again TBV for supplying the info for us here.

TrustButVerify wrote:

Anyone interested can read a translation at http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluc...
TBV

Yes, I read this machine translation...pretty bad. But the reason given by HEAP for dismissing the charge against Inigo is that " The rules are clear and inflexible...HEAP cannot modify such rules " ...

.........In other words, LNDD, by using the same techs on the A and B, violated the rules.......... and HEAP has no choice or flexibility to allow the results and ignore such rules..

---Wayne---

I'll read the French version... and then if I see anything importantly different (that's a higher threshold than WADA uses in it's (cough)'SCIENCE'), I'll let y'all know...

ZENbilangue

Will wrote:

Under the UCI's Anti-Doping Rules -- and under virtually all Olympic Movement sporting organization's anti-doping rules -- a testing labs "mistakes" are irrelevant UNLESS they are PROVEN to have PROBABLY CAUSED the adverse test results.
The topic: French Will Rule Thurs. on Floyd Landis

They PROBABLY did.

How is it that there is any surprise or indignation regarding anything French? It’s quite simple, the French Anti-Doping Agency has proven it can not and should not be allowed to test anyone at any time. Incompetent at best, corrupt at its worst, no one should be shocked at the latest, and certainly not the last, installment in French poor behavior.

Mark wrote:

How is it that there is any surprise or indignation regarding anything French? It’s quite simple, the French Anti-Doping Agency has proven it can not and should not be allowed to test anyone at any time. Incompetent at best, corrupt at its worst, no one should be shocked at the latest, and certainly not the last, installment in French poor behavior.

I think you go a bit far in saying French this and French that. The French, as a people, are certainly no better or worse than the Brits, or Yanks. It's that particular lab and that particular organization that are at best incompetent, and at worst, corrupt.

The AFLD has more or less set a "drop-dead date" for rendering its judgment on Landis' doping activities in the 2006 TdF. I suspect much of this anti-French trash talk will cease if/when the AFLD yanks the plug on the Landis fog machine.

Meanwhile, the trashers of the Chatenay Lab can't seem to figure out which is correct -- is the Chatenay Lab so incompetent that it doesn't know which end of a beaker is up...or is the Chatenay Lab so SUPERCOMPETENT that it can miraculously pull off a substitution of a July, 2006 Ghost Rider's A Sample for Landis' August 3, 2006 sealed, frozen B Sample, ALL WHILE LANDIS' LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND LAB EXPERT ARE WITNESSING THE WHOLE THING?

Ricky Rider wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you go a bit far in saying French this and French that. The French, as a people, are certainly no better or worse than the Brits, or Yanks. It's that particular lab and that particular organization that are at best incompetent, and at worst, corrupt.

...you are absolutely correct Ricky.As for this WILL guy,I assume he is not French,don't know if he is a BRIT or a YANK,but I sure as hell know he's a ''WANK''.

The AFLD has more or less set a "drop-dead date" for rendering its judgment on Landis' doping activities in the 2006 TdF. I suspect much of this anti-French trash talk will cease if/when the AFLD yanks the plug on the Landis fog machine.

Meanwhile, the trashers of the Chatenay Lab can't seem to figure out which is correct -- is the Chatenay Lab so incompetent that it doesn't know which end of a beaker is up...or is the Chatenay Lab so SUPERCOMPETENT that it can miraculously pull off a substitution of a July, 2006 Ghost Rider's A Sample for Landis' August 3, 2006 sealed, frozen B Sample, ALL WHILE LANDIS' LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND LAB EXPERT ARE WITNESSING THE WHOLE THING?

"French Will Rule Thurs. on Floyd Landis"

which they didn't, so this topic is dead except for parrots.

TBV

Mark wrote:

How is it that there is any surprise or indignation regarding anything French? It’s quite simple, the French Anti-Doping Agency has proven it can not and should not be allowed to test anyone at any time. Incompetent at best, corrupt at its worst, no one should be shocked at the latest, and certainly not the last, installment in French poor behavior.

Parochial prat

Athos wrote:

<quoted text>
Parochial prat

It would appear that my comment has struck a nerve.....good....it should have.....silly boy