Landis Still Expecting Good News

Landis still expecting good news?

But its still a secret.

http://www.thehometownchannel.com/sports/9811...

...yes Raymond, but it's only a secret from the PUBLIC, because public ignorance serves to benefit Landis; you can be certain that it's no secret from UCI/USADA/WADA, who already know everything that the Landis team knows.

By this time on Monday, we all ought to have enough data to form much more informed opinions.

TBV

TrustButVerify wrote:

By this time on Monday, we all ought to have enough data to form much more informed opinions.
TBV

...that's assuming 1) any data is released, 2) the released data is sufficient and not selective, so as to allow informed opinions to be reached, and 3) we have the expertise and competence to rationally interpret any data released, so as to allow informed opinions to be reached.

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
...that's assuming 1) any data is released, 2) the released data is sufficient and not selective, so as to allow informed opinions to be reached, and 3) we have the expertise and competence to rationally interpret any data released, so as to allow informed opinions to be reached.

If (1) and (2) don't happen, I'll be quite irked, disappointed and feeling betrayed. All those items are on the scorecard I prepared yesterday, so I couldn't be accused of moving the goal posts with a spin doctored assesment when it happens tomorrow.

I'd love to see a list of things you'd use as a set grading criteria before it comes out. What are your specific predictions?

TBV

TrustButVerify wrote:

<quoted text>...I'd love to see a list of things you'd use as a set grading criteria before it comes out. What are your specific predictions?....

Sorry, can't help you with that.

Ah, I understand. The plan is to give whatever is done tomorrow an 'F', and, after the face, say it was completely predictable.

Got it.

TBV

TrustButVerify wrote:

Ah, I understand. The plan is to give whatever is done tomorrow an 'F', and, after the face, say it was completely predictable.
Got it.
TBV

...if you say so, since you're the one putting words into my mouth.

TrustButVerify wrote:

<quoted text>
If (1) and (2) don't happen, I'll be quite irked, disappointed and feeling betrayed. All those items are on the scorecard I prepared yesterday, so I couldn't be accused of moving the goal posts with a spin doctored assesment when it happens tomorrow.
I'd love to see a list of things you'd use as a set grading criteria before it comes out. What are your specific predictions?
TBV

I wouldn't be too surprised if you don't see anything come out of the Landis camp tomorrow. I think their best course of action is to make their submittal to the review panel and not issue any public statements until they get a response. As I understand it, the review panel takes the submissions from both sides and determines whether to impose sanctions in private. If the decision is close (in the minds of the panel), saying something publicly cannot help Landis, but could sway the panel in the other direction. IMHO.

It has been my experience that it's almost always better to say too little than to say too much, especially in controversies such as this one. Landis knows that public opinion is not going to influence the private deliberations of the panel. It might be able to affect the outcome of a public hearing though.
I hope for the sake of the sport that there is some unambiguous, unequivocal evidence that proves that the problem was mistakes or mishandling of the samples and not that Landis doped, and that there was never any conspiracy or tampering of the evidence. Either of those outcomes will have a bad effect on the sport, while honest mistakes can be addressed without bloodshed (I'm using the term figuratively, Will).

ricky rider wrote:

<quoted text>
I wouldn't be too surprised if you don't see anything come out of the Landis camp tomorrow. I think their best course of action is to make their submittal to the review panel and not issue any public statements until they get a response. As I understand it, the review panel takes the submissions from both sides and determines whether to impose sanctions in private. If the decision is close (in the minds of the panel), saying something publicly cannot help Landis, but could sway the panel in the other direction. IMHO.
It has been my experience that it's almost always better to say too little than to say too much, especially in controversies such as this one. Landis knows that public opinion is not going to influence the private deliberations of the panel. It might be able to affect the outcome of a public hearing though.....

What you say only CONFIRMS what I've said before -- that "public ignorance serves to benefit Landis"; let me further add that PUBLIC IGNORANCE DOES NOT SERVE TO BENEFIT THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH. It follows logically then, that a benefit to Landis is not a benefit to the search for truth -- I favor truth over Landis, you favor Landis over truth.

CORRECTION: "...It follows logically then, that, WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC IGNORANCE, a benefit to Landis is not a benefit to the search for truth -- SO, WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC IGNORANCE, I favor truth over Landis, you favor Landis over truth."

ricky rider wrote:

<quoted text>... Landis knows that public opinion is not going to influence the private deliberations of the panel. It might be able to affect the outcome of a public hearing though......

As I've said before, it is COMPLETELY UNETHICAL for the public generally or anyone in particular to try to influence the deliberative process, whether of the review panel deciding if sufficient evidence of doping exists to proceed with adjudication, or whether of the arbitrators deciding if a sanction should be imposed for a doping violation. Such influence would be equivalent to "jury tampering" or improperly influencing a judge in an attempt affect his/her decisionmaking. Like judges or juries, the review panel and the arbitrators are FACT-FINDERS, and they are obligated to find the facts BASED SOLELY UPON THE EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE THEM AND BY APPLYING THE RULES PLACED BEFORE THEM, WITHOUT RESORT TO ANY OUTSIDE FACTORS WHATSOEVER.

So where would you Landis-supporters draw the line? Would you approve Landis slipping an envelope with $25,000 to each review panel member and arbitrator? How about if a sufficiently large and threatening group of Landis-supporters gathered inside any public hearing room? How about if a few over-zealous Landis-supporters called in bomb threats to the public hearing facility? How about if threats were made to the families of the review panel or arbitrators? Tell me, WHY DO YOU THINK IT PERMISSIBLE TO TRY,IN ANY WAY, TO INFLUENCE THESE FACT-FINDERS IN MAKING THEIR DECISIONS?

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
What you say only CONFIRMS what I've said before -- that "public ignorance serves to benefit Landis"; let me further add that PUBLIC IGNORANCE DOES NOT SERVE TO BENEFIT THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH. It follows logically then, that a benefit to Landis is not a benefit to the search for truth -- I favor truth over Landis, you favor Landis over truth.

You're wrong again, Willieboy. We don't favor Landis over the truth. We favor doing the right thing. The right thing here is for Landis to prepare his case, if he has one, submit it and wait for the result...and leave the public posturing for later. You have a habit of jumping to conclusions that probably gets you into trouble frequently. Relax, be patient, let the facts come out, then make an INFORMED judgment.

Unlike you ricky, I don't need to wait to see which way the wind is blowing in order to decide what it is that I think -- I can make and have made an INFORMED judgment based upon the established facts, including the fact that Landis has failed multiple drug tests for prohibited substances.

YOU'RE the one doing the "public posturing", since you've already said in these threads that you believe it likely that Landis DID dope for the TdF; thus, it's a "posture" for you to pretend to be keeping "an open mind" under such circumstances, because it just means that you would accept/welcome an "OJ" outcome or some procedural technicality even though Landis likely did dope.

That's why I continue to say that you're a HYPOCRIT, ricky, BECAUSE YOU FAVOR LANDIS OVER THE TRUTH.

Will wrote:

Unlike you ricky, I don't need to wait to see which way the wind is blowing in order to decide what it is that I think -- I can make and have made an INFORMED judgment based upon the established facts, including the fact that Landis has failed multiple drug tests for prohibited substances.
YOU'RE the one doing the "public posturing", since you've already said in these threads that you believe it likely that Landis DID dope for the TdF; thus, it's a "posture" for you to pretend to be keeping "an open mind" under such circumstances, because it just means that you would accept/welcome an "OJ" outcome or some procedural technicality even though Landis likely did dope.
That's why I continue to say that you're a HYPOCRIT, ricky, BECAUSE YOU FAVOR LANDIS OVER THE TRUTH.

Well, you're an idiot then. Or else you haven't read my posts. I've said all along that I don't know if Landis doped and if you think waiting for the facts to come out before making an INFORMED judgment is hypocritical, you must not know the meaning of the word.

ricky rider wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, you're an idiot then. Or else you haven't read my posts. I've said all along that I don't know if Landis doped and if you think waiting for the facts to come out before making an INFORMED judgment is hypocritical, you must not know the meaning of the word.

Hi ricky rider, I have been following these threads for as long as yourself. Some of your threads have been ambigous, so its not fair to call Will a hypocrite. Will has contributed many imformed and detailed contributions. So lets keep it cool.

As Will has said many times "we" all have our own views, based on the published infomation. Our views are just that, the appropriate authorities will make a decision, not us.

Raymond wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi ricky rider, I have been following these threads for as long as yourself. Some of your threads have been ambigous, so its not fair to call Will a hypocrite. Will has contributed many imformed and detailed contributions. So lets keep it cool.
As Will has said many times "we" all have our own views, based on the published infomation. Our views are just that, the appropriate authorities will make a decision, not us.

Raymond,
Just for the record, I called Will an idiot, not a hypocrite and I stand by that assertion.

I have been calling for people to wait until they have the facts before making a judgment about Landis. I have also stated many times that I don't know if he's guilty or not and that it's better to wait until you have the facts before making a judgment. There is nothing ambiguous or hypocritical about that. However, if Landis is cleared of wrongdoing, Willie will have to admit that he's been wrong all along, or he'll have to fabricate some flimsy rationalization that Floyd is guilty anyway.

In the thread entitled "Cycling Teams Urge Phonak Suspension" on 8/24/06, ricky rider wrote:

ricky rider wrote:

Okay, Ive been reading all these posts since the hammer came down on Floyd. It's a shame, but it certainly appears that he doped for stage 17.....

Will wrote:

In the thread entitled "Cycling Teams Urge Phonak Suspension" on 8/24/06, ricky rider wrote:
<quoted text>

will, your good.

ricky "the positioner" talks as if 1) NOBODY CAN REACH AN INFORMED JUDGMENT BEFORE ANYONE ELSE DOES and that 2) magically, ON THE DAY AFTER THE FINAL ARBRITRATION PANEL DECIDES, WE'LL ALL COME TO AN INFORMED JUDGMENT BASED SOMEHOW ON THE ARBITRATORS' DECISION.

Obviously, people can rationally have an informed opinion BASED UPON THE FACTS KNOWN TODAY -- the Phonak team came to a rationally informed opinion that Landis had FAILED HIS A SAMPLE TEST AND HIS B SAMPLE TEST, and on that basis they FIRED Landis pursuant to their Code of Ethics; similarly, the TdF came to a rationally informed opinion that Landis had FAILED HIS A SAMPLE TEST AND HIS B SAMPLE TEST, and on that basis they DISPUTE Landis' claim to have fairly won the contest.

So when I state that I have come to a rationally informed opinion that Landis had FAILED HIS A SAMPLE TEST AND HIS B SAMPLE TEST, AS WELL AS HIS CIR TEST FOR SYNTHETIC TESTOSTERONE, my opinion is no less rational and no less informed than the opinions of Landis' former team Phonak and the TdF.