Tour chiefs upset at Landis test

B) The Abnormal T/E Ratio:

Landis tries to argue that there is only a "single [positive] T/E [Testosterone/Epitestosterone] analysis in this case [which] is replete with fundamental, gross errors" -- he does this by implying that the confirming B sample (and to some extent, the A sample as well) suffers from identification number mismatches that somehow render the confirming B sample's identification to Landis UNRELIABLE.

The long answer is: well, what was your representative at the B sample unsealing and testing doing? Was he acting as a POTTED PLANT when the B sample was unsealed? Why didn't he jump up and down and holler "Whoa --STOP! ARRETEZ!! You can't proceed with testing, because I just checked the sample ID numbers here AND THEY DON'T MATCH!!! WHAT IS THIS? I DEMAND AN EXPLANATION!!! GET THE LAB MANAGER OVER HERE, RIGHT NOW!! MAINTENANT!! ALLEZ!!....(pardon my French!)

The short answer is this: UCI's Anti Doping Rule (ADR) Article 17 states that "facts related to anti-doping violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions." -- which means that anything from DNA TESTING down to having a credible technician with personal knowledge of the specific handling of these samples may constitute reliable means of establishing sample identification, depending on the facts and circumstances. Landis' ASSERTIONS may affect the presumption that WADA-approved labs act correctly in their analysis and custodial procedures, which may in turn shift the burden onto the lab to prove that any procedural departures did not CAUSE the AAF, but this falls short of INVALIDATING the AAF for abnormal T/E ratio AT THIS PRELIMINARY STAGE, so the "sufficiency of the evidence of doping" THRESHHOLD" will likely have been overcome with respect to a T/E ratio in excess of the 4:1 THRESHHOLD.

I could go on, but let's save something for later.(;->)

......pardon the redundant posts -- I think TBV is right, the Topix.net servers seem to be LOOSELY synchronized, so that I wound up re-posting portions of my longer-than-usual commentary. You Landis-supporters probably already skip all my posts -- for the rest of you, just skip posts 101 & 102!

Will,

I found your analysis very interesting, and useful. I'm going to try to figure out how to extract them with proper credit.

As you'd have seen if you looked, I'm fairly annoyed at the lack of specificity in the summary and the lack of supporting material. I'd like to think your criticisms would have been answered there, but for now you have the last word

TBV http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Lansis news, research and comment

TrustButVerify wrote:

Will,... I'd like to think your criticisms would have been answered there, but for now you have the last word....

Wait... NOW I have the last word! hehehe....

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
Wait... NOW I have the last word! hehehe....

SickWillie, what your posts illustrate is that you have this sick, weird desire for poor old Floyd to be found guilty regardless of the facts. Your problem is that you don't have the facts. But you've pseudo-analyzed what Jacobs stated publicly and tried to spin it in a way that points to Landis' guilt. I have a feeling that if he is found not to have doped you'll go to your grave swearing he did. Luckily for the free world, your baloney doesn't count for anything.
You ought to try an unbiased point of view for a change. Relax, let the facts come out, then make an INFORMED judgment.

ricky rider wrote:

<quoted text>
SickWillie, what your posts illustrate is that you have this sick, weird desire for poor old Floyd to be found guilty regardless of the facts. Your problem is that you don't have the facts. But you've pseudo-analyzed what Jacobs stated publicly and tried to spin it in a way that points to Landis' guilt. I have a feeling that if he is found not to have doped you'll go to your grave swearing he did. Luckily for the free world, your baloney doesn't count for anything.
You ought to try an unbiased point of view for a change. Relax, let the facts come out, then make an INFORMED judgment.

I agree, will seems hell bent on being right.. lets get it out in the open. Will seems afrid that if the public pressure gets high enuff that they will ignore facts and not convict floyd. If they do then shame on them, if they don't carfully review the evedince.then also, shame on them.

boy WILL YOU HAVE ALOT OF STEAM WITH VERY FEW FACTS> WHAT ARE THE METABOLITE MEASURES? DO YOU UNDERSTAND WADA TECHNICAL DOCUMENT TD2004EAAS? HOW ABOUT THIS PART:

The results will be reported as consistent with the administration of a steroid when the ©ö©øC/©ö©÷C value measured for the metabolite(s) differs significantly i.e. by 3 delta units or more from that of the urinary reference steroid chosen. In some Samples, the measure of the ©ö©øC/©ö©÷C value of the urinary reference steroid(s) may not be possible due to their low concentration. The results of such analysis will be reported as ¡°inconclusive¡± unless the ratio measured for the metabolite(s) is below -28¢¶ based on non-derivatized steroid.

THIS SEEMS to be one of the issues. as stated in his release, given the margin of error, 3 of the four metabolites they mention being measured are negative, when considering the margin of error.

So, is one of the four enough? The statement is vague to me. In law, ambiguities are held against the drafter of the document. If it took only one, why does it not say so? Why does it not say all? The parenth on the (s) leads me to believe it could be open to interpretation...

DUNCE, they do not test for presence of metabolites, they measure them. They (etiocholanolone, androsterone and the androstanediols (5¥á-Androstanediol and 5¥â-Androstanediol) are all there, wastes from metabolic activity, in all of us. We all have a measure, both a C13 and C12...just in what ratio, as delta¡¯d with the reference steroid (pregnanediol (specifically, 5¥â-pregnanediol ) and 11-ketoetiocholanolone (cortisone/cortisol)..aka, those not affected by exogenous testosterone administration. Do you understand how they delta these metabolites? How do they arrive at these numbers. Better hit the books before you SPOUT. In the studies, especially the one by CATLIN (Screening urine for exogenous testosterone by isotope ratio mass spectrometric analysis of one pregnanediol and two androstanediols) show the tandem nature of these deltas¡¦as in, can¡¯t have ONE without the other¡¦other studies show you don¡¯t find ONE without the other 3. Do some research.

A summary of informed reactions to the filing summary is now posted at TBV; as promised, Will gets the last word for now.

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

Next, the statement about the only metabolite that can be argued as positive is a result of lab error...hmm, that is interesting. Could this be a results reading error, a problem with the control sample, or maybe something the observer(s) noticed? Hard to tell, but it seems unlikely they would risk putting this statement out there if there was not something to it. The IRMS test is known to be tricky and subject to LOTS of steps both in calibration and in the test itself,(any of the reference studies discuss the steps). The more steps and procedures, the more spots where an error can occur. Remember, this is not a DIRECT test, as it is an interpretive measurement…aka INDIRCT TEST.

Per FL.com ,“The one metabolite that has been identified by WADA-accredited laboratories as the best, and longest-term indicator, of exogenous testosterone usage was reported as negative in Landis’ urine samples.” This is just plain old science at this point. I think they are talking about the delta between the 5â-androstanediol to 5â-pregnanediol delta measure. The issue with this ONE metabolite is that for it to be NEGATIVE AS THEY REPORT, IT DEBUNKS THE CASE.(If you had A BRAIN you’d spend the Take a looksie DUNCE…Urinary Analysis of Four Testosterone Metabolites and Pregandiol by Gas Chromotography-Combustion-Isot ope Ratio Mass Spectrometry After Oral Administration of Testosterone: http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php... )…to the extent that Mr. Floyd came up negative in subsequent tests, further solidify this statement and line of defense as well as the prevalent belief that YOU SIR ARE A BLOW HARD AZZHAT. STUDY/READ/RESEARCH BEFORE YOU SPOUT.

Finally, the sample misidentification issue could be almost anything. An observer who is tracking a test may observe the sample number and bottle but may have an issue with the aliquots, cross sample misidentification or such. Have you considered that? If it is a chain of custody issue, they possibly only have discovered that post facto. If these are gross errors, as they purport, that could undo this case.

You speak of reliable means: if the lab cannot follow the WADA ISL, presents lab documents with gross fundamental errors as evidence, I take your statement to mean you think there is “ANY” other "RELIABLE" information that could/should be used against him. Well, what is it? an admission? Doubtful. Certainly not the test results, should they prove to contain these fundamental, gross errors.

Ask yourselves this, in light of the Jones issue, will USADA want to press forward if the Floyd and his minions show cards as powerful as these in public?

Will they risk possible public defeat and further credibility damage?

Since the LNDD submitted the findings, will USADA proceed and stand behind evidence they had no control over, a process they did not execute?

I DOUBT IT. THE REASON IS BECAUSE MR LANDISIS INNOCENT and showed us a glimmer as to the how/why in his statement.

Well, I was going to give Will the last word for the evening, but it goes to LNDD in http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/09/puzzled-...

TBV

LNDD wrote:

WILL IS WRONG...HE HAS NOT DONE THE RESEARCH TO UNDERSTAND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE INFO RELEASED. HE WOULD DO WELL TO APLLY AT WADA...

Well it seems that you weren't snoozing in your biochem classes -- but how about your LAW courses?

The Review Panel is charged with determining the SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO PROCEED WITH ADJUDICATION. "Sufficiency of the evidence" in this case is a LEGAL standard; research THAT topic, re-read my post, then get back to me, okay?

not to brag but 4.0, pre-law...drop out..I like bikes too much to study that hard...

without evidence sufficient to meet or exceed the positivity criteria there is no case to be made or answered for. without a case there is nothing to adjudicate but dismissal, thus closing the case.

it should be noted that meeting or exceeding the poisitivty criteria, is set forth in the WADA TECH DOC 2004EAAS as:

The results will be reported as consistent with the administration of a steroid when the ¹³C/¹²C value measured for the metabolite(s) differs significantly i.e. by 3 delta units or more from that of the urinary reference steroid chosen. In some Samples, the measure of the ¹³C/¹²C value of the urinary reference steroid(s) may not be possible due to their low concentration. The results of such analysis will be reported as “inconclusive” unless the ratio measured for the metabolite(s) is below -28‰ based on non-derivatized steroid.

/focus on this paragraph. it is the keystone of the argument against/

In the prceding statement, the jury must take precise note and recognize the absence of the follwoing terms:

ALL
ONE
SOME

interpret that for us please, MR. Witness...

/predictable sputter/

do the terms "Settled Law" and/or "Predictabiity" mean anything to you, WILL?

must be time for more research...

LNDD wrote:

..........THIS SEEMS to be one of the issues. as stated in his release, given the margin of error, 3 of the four metabolites they mention being measured are negative, when considering the margin of error.

.....

This is certainly more information than we got from the selective leaks from UCI....however.....even the statement by Floyd's attorney does not say what these 4 metabolites were. In particular, what was the fourth that may have been positive???

...

___---Salem, Oregon---

LNDD wrote:

not to brag but 4.0, pre-law...drop out...blah, blah, blah....

Obviously I'm familiar with the Technical Document and look forward to perhaps engaging you in a lively debate about it and the abstract that you linked to, but there will be plenty of time to do that in the future as we proceed to the arbitration hearing, as I think we will.

As I see it, you and I have a fundamental disagreement as to 1) what constitutes a prima facie case -- I think USADA has made a prima facie case for doping violations based on the AAFs, while you question that; and 2)what effect, if any, Landis' "dismissal motion" has on the sufficiency of the facts supporting the AAFs -- you think that Landis' "dismissal motion" ELIMINATES some essential facts, leaving the AAFs with insufficient evidence for adjudication to proceed to the arbitration stage, while I think that Landis' "dismissal motion" assertions may tend to REBUT, but not eliminate, those essential facts.

We will soon enough know if the case will proceed to arbitration, who's a blow hard azzhat, and who shouldn't have dropped out of pre-law...fo shizzle.

Will wrote:

......pardon the redundant posts -- I think TBV is right, the Topix.net servers seem to be LOOSELY synchronized, so that I wound up re-posting portions of my longer-than-usual commentary.

Sure, Will..........Isn't this just further evidence they are paying you by the WORD ??????

---Salem, Oregon---

Hmm, In my long observation of human nature and the will to win. It is not possible to come to the conclusion that a person is not capable of "bending the rules" in thier serch for glory. The back ground, of Landis's upbringing, is incidental. In this case as any other, the facts, as known, are what matter, they have been well aired on these forums. The appropriate authoritys will soon make thier decision. I will accept this. I hope every other contributer will do the same. RIP

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
Obviously I'm familiar with the Technical Document and look forward to perhaps engaging you in a lively debate about it and the abstract that you linked to, but there will be plenty of time to do that in the future as we proceed to the arbitration hearing, as I think we will.
As I see it, you and I have a fundamental disagreement as to 1) what constitutes a prima facie case -- I think USADA has made a prima facie case for doping violations based on the AAFs, while you question that; and 2)what effect, if any, Landis' "dismissal motion" has on the sufficiency of the facts supporting the AAFs -- you think that Landis' "dismissal motion" ELIMINATES some essential facts, leaving the AAFs with insufficient evidence for adjudication to proceed to the arbitration stage, while I think that Landis' "dismissal motion" assertions may tend to REBUT, but not eliminate, those essential facts.
We will soon enough know if the case will proceed to arbitration, who's a blow hard azzhat, and who shouldn't have dropped out of pre-law...fo shizzle.

OK, let's see what pathetic part of this post I will detonate first...

Ah yes, a prima facie case...

To the extent that you assert USADA is making a case, you are WRONG AGAIN.
The case, as brought against FLOYD, is being presented by the UCI based on prima facie evidence supplied by the LNDD.

Making a case is neither the purpose of the ADRB nor is it part of the guideline for which the USADA operates the REVIEW portion of the results management process. The review board must decide from the evidence, if that evidence is sufficient to prove a doping violation. The twist with the ADRB is that this evidence may be rebutted.

SINCE there is accommodation during the ADRB for a SUBMITTAL to REBUT the evidence, you must be confusing PRIMA FACIE with RES IPSA LOQUITUR.

YOUR attitude indicates that the basic evidence “SPEAKS FOR ITSELF” and that the LNDD has “EXCLUSIVE CONTROL” over the process/protocol/evidence, in that no supporting facts. IF THIS were the case, there would be no REBUTTAL submission needed. YOU submit the BELIEF THAT the FACTS, as gathered, determined and presented “SPEAK FOR ITSELF”, contrary to PRIMA FACIE which is BOUND by the sufficiency of evidence after considering the rebuttal and contradictory evidence.

WHAT YOU CALL PRIMA FACIE, is being digested and excreted as RES IPSA LOQUITUR when it comes out your other end.

DO SOME HOMEWORK. I’m going for a ride…

Also, there is only ONE AAF FLOYD if dealing with, from the ONE DOPING CONRTOL. The actual PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE suggests an A sample returned an AAF, and was confirmed by the B. So where does the PLURALITY of your presentation of AAF originate...perhaps your own prejudical issues with FLOYD?

Aw, new fresh blood coming into this thread with new perspectives.

"Well it seems that you weren't snoozing in your biochem classes -- but how about your LAW courses?

Will, you came vary close to side stepping LNDD and switched to the legal platform after he or she saddled you with their Bio Chem perspective. But, you failed and were caught out here.

Obviously I'm familiar with the Technical Document and look forward to perhaps engaging you in a lively debate about it and the abstract that you linked to, but there will be plenty of time to do that in the future as we proceed to the arbitration hearing, as I think we will.

Side stepping here again Will? You would do better at playing horse shoes, but I doublt that you would score any points as your side stepping don't even come close for scoring any points!

Ricky Rider and LNDD, thanks for the shared information and perspectives.

<EDIT>

insert
/in that no supporting facts beyond that of the test in question are needed. This violates the WADA TECH DOC 2004EAAS again.

"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)."

It has been noted in the press that FL has not been provided any longitudinal, nor, can we assume it was provided as part of the PRIMA FACIE evidence as provided to USADA for ADRB consideration. WHY?/
/end