Basso to join Discovery team

Italy's Ivan Basso, arguably the world's top stage racer and the runner-up to Lance Armstrong in the 2005 Tour de France, has signed with the Austin-based Discovery Channel Cycling Team. Full Story
Wayne

Portland, OR

#202 Dec 8, 2006
Jon wrote:
I do not know what you mean by a "medical profile" perhaps Landis's doctor has enough data to present to the arbitrators, I don't know that.

.
I may be using the wrong term, but from what I remember from the WADA test procedure, they keep baseline data on athletes; I am sure they have such data on Floyd. Why it is never discussed seems strange to me.

---Salem OR USA---
Will

Havre De Grace, MD

#203 Dec 8, 2006
Jon wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, sadly the answer to your question is this: no baseline values exist to compare the Stage 17 IRMS results to, no baseline IRMS exists for Landis. T/E ratio from other Stages do exist and could possibly be used as a baseline T/E if LNDD would release the documents....
T/E ratios from other stages ALSO would have to have had IRMS tests performed on them as well -- otherwise, Landis can NOT show that these other-stage T/E ratios were anything more than simply DOPED samples with the proper amount of exogenous T and exogenous E masking agent to allow the samples to pass the T/E screen and avoid further testing.
TrustButVerify

Redwood City, CA

#204 Dec 8, 2006
There are (low accuracy) absolute measurements in the screening tests; they can certainly be compared against each other for trend analysis. Their values can't be usefully compared to the IRMS confirmation tests.

TBV
Will

Havre De Grace, MD

#205 Dec 8, 2006
Their "low accuracy" values can't be "usefully" compared to ANYTHING -- nor can they RULE OUT the possibility that Landis was indeed DOPING when these very T/E samples were given.
TrustButVerify

Santa Rosa, CA

#206 Dec 9, 2006
Why can't they be compared to themselves?

It's hard to say what their utility would be when we don't know what they were. It's not clear what they can rule in or rule out. A cynic might suggest if they hurt Landis, they would have been provided as part of the LDP, as they are in USADAs posession. Without their introduction as evidence to form a longitudinal study, there is hard to make the charge of elevated T/E ratio stick, because a longitudinal study is required for that.

The T/E ratio charge is irrelevant if the CIR test for exogenous holds up. If the CIR does not hold up, then there is only this TE charge that is problematic. Unless someone wants to count the non-existent illegal-IV accusation, which has not been made in a relevant forum.

TBV
Wayne

Portland, OR

#208 Dec 9, 2006
TrustButVerify wrote:
It's hard to say what their utility would be when we don't know what they were. It's not clear what they can rule in or rule out. A cynic might suggest if they hurt Landis, they would have been provided as part of the LDP, as they are in USADAs posession.

TBV
BINGO !

---Salem OR USA---
Will

Havre De Grace, MD

#209 Dec 9, 2006
Recheck your BINGO card! Non-stage 17 T/E ratios, WITHOUT IRMS CONFIRMATIONS, CANNOT RULE OUT the possibility that Landis was indeed DOPING when those very T/E samples were given -- if you think they can do so, please explain HOW THEY CAN.

And there may be LOTS of stuff that might "hurt Landis", BUT THE CONTENTS OF THE LABORATORY DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE IS DEFINED BY RULE IN THE RELEVANT TECHNICAL DOCUMENT -- no more and no less documentation goes into the LDP. So, "cynics" might suggest whatever they want to as a tactic to get USADA to provide documentation that LANDIS hopes will help his cause, but the tactic goes nowhere.

And from the "Oft-Repeated Lie" Department, we hear the hoary chestnut that "a longitudinal study is "required" in order to "make the charge of elevated T/E ratio stick" -- that is a MISCHARACTERIZATION/SPIN of the language of Tech Doc-TD2004EAAS, unless somebody and specifically point out under what circumstances a logitudinal study is REQUIRED.
TrustButVerify

Santa Rosa, CA

#210 Dec 9, 2006
Feel free to quote the relevant parts of that support your position. I'll start with this snip from

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/e...

The results of the IRMS analysis and/or of the steroid profile measured by GC/MS shall be
used to draw conclusions as to whether a doping violation may have been committed. If
the IRMS study does not readily indicate exogenous administration, the result should be
reported as “inconclusive” and if necessary further longitudinal studies performed.

· When available, the athlete’s previous tests on record at the Testing Authority should be
accessed and the corresponding steroid profile data requested from the relevant Laboratory.
These results should be examined and considered together with the existing evidence
(longitudinal study).

So if there is no proven exogenous finding, there is funny language about "necessary further longitudinal studies"; but then the next paragraph says, "when available, the athletes previous tests on record at the testing authority should be accessed"

The first paragraph on page 4 says new tests "in which the elevated parameter is again measured is to be analysed by IRMS"

The data that is available are the screening tests. No longitudinal study with IRMS has been done, though Landis requested it in August.

From this we are probably in litigation land. Some people (including me) think a longitudinal is necessary to make a TE violation stick without a CIR. Others, like Will, think it's not needed. I don't believe we have examples of case law at hand either way.

Now, if one gives credit to Duckstrap's and you3's analysis, the TE results reported are suspect because of miscalibration of the response curves to low-E values, and failure to identify and correct for eluted peaks.

TBV http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research and comment.
ricky rider

AOL

#211 Dec 9, 2006
TrustButVerify wrote:
Feel free to quote the relevant parts of that support your position. I'll start with this snip from
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/e...
The results of the IRMS analysis and/or of the steroid profile measured by GC/MS shall be
used to draw conclusions as to whether a doping violation may have been committed. If
the IRMS study does not readily indicate exogenous administration, the result should be
reported as “inconclusive” and if necessary further longitudinal studies performed.
· When available, the athlete’s previous tests on record at the Testing Authority should be
accessed and the corresponding steroid profile data requested from the relevant Laboratory.
These results should be examined and considered together with the existing evidence
(longitudinal study).
So if there is no proven exogenous finding, there is funny language about "necessary further longitudinal studies"; but then the next paragraph says, "when available, the athletes previous tests on record at the testing authority should be accessed"
The first paragraph on page 4 says new tests "in which the elevated parameter is again measured is to be analysed by IRMS"
The data that is available are the screening tests. No longitudinal study with IRMS has been done, though Landis requested it in August.
From this we are probably in litigation land. Some people (including me) think a longitudinal is necessary to make a TE violation stick without a CIR. Others, like Will, think it's not needed. I don't believe we have examples of case law at hand either way.
Now, if one gives credit to Duckstrap's and you3's analysis, the TE results reported are suspect because of miscalibration of the response curves to low-E values, and failure to identify and correct for eluted peaks.
TBV http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research and comment.
TBV, I wrote my last post ("Forde") before visiting your website and then rushing to my as-yet-unread copy of the Times. We can hope that regardless of what happens to FL the lid gets blown off WADA and that mechanisms are put in place to make certain that athletes are treated fairly by the antidoping agencies, and that those agencies start operating in an open and ethical manner. No one wants to see dopers hijack competitive sports, but a worse scenario is ineffectual labs operating in secret with unethical antidoping officials. It is clear that the labs must take their work seriously and not permit sloppy work on the part of their staffs. It is also clear that at a minimum, the LNDD lab is guilty of that. Sloppy lab work, whether in the tests themselves or on the administrative side can have the ugly effect of rendering false negatives as well as false positives. Yet there are nitwits who post in this forum who are quite willing to accept the sloppy work of the LNDD lab in the Landis case because the result was an AAF. Would they be so willing to swear to the lab's virtue if the sloppy work had resulted in a doper not being detected. Let's face it, the work of the LNDD lab MUST BE VETTED before convicting or acquitting FL. Secondly, no governing body, regulatory agency or sports organization should operate without effective checks and balances.
Wayne

Portland, OR

#212 Dec 9, 2006
ricky rider wrote:
No one wants to see dopers hijack competitive sports, but a worse scenario is ineffectual labs operating in secret with unethical antidoping officials. It is clear that the labs must take their work seriously and not permit sloppy work on the part of their staffs. It is also clear that at a minimum, the LNDD lab is guilty of that. Sloppy lab work, whether in the tests themselves or on the administrative side can have the ugly effect of rendering false negatives as well as false positives.

Let's face it, the work of the LNDD lab MUST BE VETTED before convicting or acquitting FL. Secondly, no governing body, regulatory agency or sports organization should operate without effective checks and balances.
good post !

---Salem OR USA---
Will

Havre De Grace, MD

#213 Dec 9, 2006
TrustButVerify wrote:
.... If
the IRMS study does not readily indicate exogenous administration, the result should be
reported as “inconclusive” and if necessary further longitudinal studies performed....
The language from the above-quoted Tech Doc TD-2004EAAS is CLEAR and SPEAKS FOR ITSELF -- its meaning is only obscure and ambiguous to people with an agenda to try to make the language appear obscure and ambiguous. I don't think the arbitrators will have any trouble properly construing it.
Gman

Foster City, CA

#214 Dec 9, 2006
Short on talent? Levi Leipheimer?? come on dude! Levi is probably the one guy that isn't doping.
Wayne wrote:
Good move by Discovery..........they were short of talent this year.
What was CSC thinking, to let Ivan get away????
---Salem, OR USA---
Wayne

Portland, OR

#215 Dec 9, 2006
Gman wrote:
Short on talent? Levi Leipheimer?? come on dude! Levi is probably the one guy that isn't doping.
<quoted text>
I like Levi, and think he is getting better all the time. But in the 2006 TdF, he placed well down.......somewhere around 13th overall? Discovery can do better.

As to who is doping, I have zero information, and doubt if you have any either. The only guy I feel confident about is eternal Lanterne Rouge Jimmy Casper
( OK, so he got beat out this year by the wily Wim Vansevenant.......)

---Salem OR USA---
Jon

Salt Lake City, UT

#216 Dec 10, 2006
Will wrote:
<quoted text>
The language from the above-quoted Tech Doc TD-2004EAAS is CLEAR and SPEAKS FOR ITSELF -- its meaning is only obscure and ambiguous to people with an agenda to try to make the language appear obscure and ambiguous. I don't think the arbitrators will have any trouble properly construing it.
I beg to differ. Tech Doc TD-2004EAAS has too many subjective gray areas and leaves too much room for judgement calls. Clearly, in this case, three follow up tests were called for with IRMS analysis. Two metabolites above the 3delta unit is suspect by any definition. Also, an androsterone to testosterone ratio A/T and a T/LH test should have been run, since both were suggested as "supportive evidence." This is irresponsible behavior on the part of LNDD/WADA/UCI. However, it is not too late to establish a control/baseline IRMS by means of out-of-competition testing if the UCI wants to conduct three more tests. The fact that these tests have not been run yet under the three month guideline is the responsibility of the UCI since Landis has already requested the tests to be run and the UCI has responded. Something the AAA arbitrators should consider.
Jon

Salt Lake City, UT

#217 Dec 10, 2006
CORRECTION: The UCI has NOT responded to Landis' requests for further testing.
Will

United States

#218 Dec 10, 2006
Jon wrote:
<quoted text>
I beg to differ. Tech Doc TD-2004EAAS has too many subjective gray areas and leaves too much room for judgement calls. Clearly, in this case, three follow up tests were called for with IRMS analysis...blah,blah,blah....
Your fanciful interpretation of Tech Doc TD-2004EAAS is so noted.
Jon

Salt Lake City, UT

#219 Dec 10, 2006
Will wrote:
<quoted text>
Your fanciful interpretation of Tech Doc TD-2004EAAS is so noted.
I think you should re-read the document, which is another example of LNDD sloppy work, it is not even footnoted correctly.
Jon

Salt Lake City, UT

#220 Dec 10, 2006
Or I should have said WADA sloppy writing, which leads to sloppy work by WADA accredited labs, such as LNDD. That is a factual statement, not a fanciful one.
Will

Havre De Grace, MD

#221 Dec 10, 2006
We'll see how close your "factual statement" and your "non-fanciful" interpretations track with the arbitrators' construction of the Tech Doc's provisions.
Raymond

Lyon, France

#222 Dec 11, 2006
Quote:- Basso to join Discovery team .

Still?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Floyd Landis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Can Armstrong ever be forgiven? Sep 8 Rider 1
Not Even Lance Deserves This (Dec '13) Jul '14 DCDierking 38
Opinion: Should we just stop asking about doping? (Jul '13) Apr '14 Carly Jane 2 31
Lance Armstrong doping documentary contrasts be... (Oct '13) Apr '14 Carly Jane 2 4
Trick or Treat! (Oct '13) Nov '13 My Opinion_El Pas... 5
Tygart waits for Armstrong to be part of the so... (May '13) Aug '13 My Opinion_El Pas... 3
Tour convenes former riders for 100th edition (Jul '13) Jul '13 My Opinion_El Pas... 6
•••
•••

Floyd Landis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••