Tour chiefs upset at Landis test

Thanks for the enlightening analysis. It provides balance to the shouting commentary of others.

LNDD wrote:

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

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...thanks for the laughs, but I think you failed to detonate -- more like self-exploded; so, where is your stand-up act next appearing?

LNDD wrote:

<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

You know what they say about assuming! You don't know WHAT longitudinal studies, additional datapoints, etc. have been given to the Review Board for consideration. In addition, the Board can on its own initiative request additional information from the parties, NONE OF WHICH YOU KNOW ABOUT, do you? Another kicker is that Landis is SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL UNANNOUNCED TESTING EVEN NOW -- you should know this because it's spelled out right there in TD2004EAAS, p.4. Res Ipsa THAT! LOL

...yawn.

Not once do I make an assumption, in fact I state "..nor can we assume..".

I truly think you have a reading disability or comprehension issue.

Refer to USADA Protocol, 9.c.ii, p. 8:

"The Review Board shall be provided the laboratory documentation and any additional information which USADA deems appropriate. Copies of this information shall be provided simultaneously to the athlete or other person and the athlete or other person shall be entitled to file a response with the Review Board. The athlete's or other person's name will not be provided to the Review Board by USADA and will be redacted from any documents submitted to the Review Board by USADA."

This reads to me like they can ask for more info (perhaps a longitudinal profile?) but must provide it simultaneously to the athlete.

From FL.com : "Made without access to complete documentation and other test results...”

This, to ME, indicates that were the lab documents to include those other tests results, IT would be for the purpose of a longitudinal profile.

The FL.com statement clearly indicates that no such documentation has been provided. I can only infer from it, that this requisite info needed to build a longitudinal profile has not part of the lab documents.

WHICH BEGS THE BIGGER QUESTION: IF the Lab, who conducted ALL the other tests from the TdF, felt that the WADA specified LONGITUDINAL STUDY were supporting PRIMA FACIE evidence, why did they not include it? Maybe because it does not help and may possibly hurt the PRIMA FACIE evidence?

Now, can this info be requested by the ADRB? Yes.

Can WILL get help with his reading disability and comprehension issues? We all can wish but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

For those unfamiliar with Laboratory Document Packages, check out WADA Technical Document - TD2003LDOC, page 1, paragraph 2, which states:

"The items listed below shall be the ONLY (emphasis added) information the Laboratory is required to include in the Documentation Package. Therefore, the Laboratory is NOT (emphasis added) required to support an Adverse Analytical Finding by producing standard operating procedures,... OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BELOW...."

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

Since presentation of a prima facie case before the Review Board is a PRELIMINARY to presenting a case for arbitration, it is not is USADA's strategic interest or in the interest of the Laboratory acting as USADA's agent to make available to Landis any more information or documentation than is strictly necessary.

LNDD wrote:

...yawn.
Not once do I make an assumption, in fact I state "..nor can we assume..".
I truly think you have a reading disability or comprehension issue.
Refer to USADA Protocol, 9.c.ii, p. 8:
"The Review Board shall be provided the laboratory documentation and any additional information which USADA deems appropriate. Copies of this information shall be provided simultaneously to the athlete or other person and the athlete or other person shall be entitled to file a response with the Review Board. The athlete's or other person's name will not be provided to the Review Board by USADA and will be redacted from any documents submitted to the Review Board by USADA."
This reads to me like they can ask for more info (perhaps a longitudinal profile?) but must provide it simultaneously to the athlete.
From FL.com : "Made without access to complete documentation and other test results...”
This, to ME, indicates that were the lab documents to include those other tests results, IT would be for the purpose of a longitudinal profile.
The FL.com statement clearly indicates that no such documentation has been provided. I can only infer from it, that this requisite info needed to build a longitudinal profile has not part of the lab documents.
WHICH BEGS THE BIGGER QUESTION: IF the Lab, who conducted ALL the other tests from the TdF, felt that the WADA specified LONGITUDINAL STUDY were supporting PRIMA FACIE evidence, why did they not include it? Maybe because it does not help and may possibly hurt the PRIMA FACIE evidence?
Now, can this info be requested by the ADRB? Yes.
Can WILL get help with his reading disability and comprehension issues? We all can wish but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

LNDD, Very interesting posts. Couple of questions: I am wondering how you know that neither the Landis camp or the ADRB have not received data for a
longitudinal study. Also given this lab's record, nothing that it submits to anyone anywhere should be considered prima facie evidence of anything. It's not just the science that concerns me. It is also its flagrant disregard for the protocols vis a vis privacy and confidentiality. Regardless of the outcome of the Landis case, another lab that does not hae direct ties to L'equipe and the Tour should be commissioned to do the testing of TDF athletes. I also think the protocols regarding whether a single lab should test both A & B samples ought to be revisited.

Oh, and about Willie, it's obvious that he is an angry little man and a true believer in Landis' guilt, regardless of the facts. I don't know about his reading comprehension but, while he is a fairly adept propagandist, he is a little short on critical thinking skills.

...more whistling past the graveyard....

Will wrote:

Since presentation of a prima facie case before the Review Board is a PRELIMINARY to presenting a case for arbitration, it is not is USADA's strategic interest or in the interest of the Laboratory acting as USADA's agent to make available to Landis any more information or documentation than is strictly necessary.

WRONG AGAIN CAP MAN.

The review board is not a “preliminary” anything. It is a review to determine sufficiency of evidence. Should they deem the evidence supports case that a doping violation has occurred, they then recommend sanction to NGB (National Governing Body).

Your statement "presenting a case for arbitration" is inaccurate, AGAIN. In fact, the next step is to contest the recommendation to Sanction.

To your point about "it is not is USADA's strategic interest or in the interest of the Laboratory acting as USADA's agent to make available to Landis any more information or documentation than is strictly necessary" you further increase your WRONG TALLY.

According to WADA Results Management Guide, Section 7.4, p.16: "The athlete is entitled to any documentation relevant to the assertion that there has been an AntiDoping Rule Violation..."

THEY MUST MAKE AVAILABLE ANY DOCUMENTATION RELEVANT TO THEIR ASSERTION.

THE ONLY STRATEGIC INTEREST OF THESE ORGs is to FOLLOW their rules. STRATEGIC INTEREST is your own fictional creation.

Ricky, I am basing my observations that they do not have the other test results, and thus a longitudinal study, solely based on the FL.com website. The only way to build a longitudinal is with the peripheral test results. It is well publicized that Floyd’s July 20 sample was the only returned AAF without TUE. We can infer from FL.com and corresponding media reports that previous and subsequent test were neg. This means to me, based on the WADA info, only FL’s A’s from the other stags were tested. It is not a requirement for WADA or IF to alert an athlete of a neg. analytical finding.

NOW THAT YOU FOLKS HAVE READ LNDD's INCORRECT VERSION OF WHAT RULES APPLY WITH RESPECT TO RESULTS MANAGEMENT AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION IN THE LANDIS CASE, HERE'S THE CORRECT VERSION:
As you know, UCI is the International Federation (IF) for cycling and Landis is, of course, an American. Consequently, USADA has been given results management responsibility for adjudicating disciplinary actions by UCI, according to provision 3.e. of the USADA Protocol:
"3 e. USADA shall be responsible for results management of the following:
...2) all other tests for which the applicable IF rules require the initial adjudication to be done by a domestic body,...."
Under USADA Protocol's provisions 8.b & 8.c., USADA only has to provide Landis with the documents listed in the A Sample Documentation Package (Annex C) and the B Sample Documentation Package (Annex D); the lab is not required to produce any additional documentation UNLESS ORDERED TO DO SO BY ARBITRATOR(S) DURING ADJUDICATION; additional documentation on longitudinal studies, non-stage 17 tests, etc. are NOT included in Annex C or Annex D:
"8.b. Upon receipt of a positive laboratory A report or a report indicating an
elevated testosterone to epitestosterone ratio or epitestosterone concentration, USADA will promptly notify the USOC, the applicable NGB, and the athlete at the address on the Athlete Location Form on
file, or if no form is on file to the address on the Doping Control Notification/Signature Form and shall advise the athlete of the date on which the laboratory will conduct the B sample analysis. The
athlete may attend the B sample analysis accompanied by a representative, or may have a representative appear on his or her behalf, at the expense of the athlete. Prior to the B sample opening, USADA shall provide to the athlete the A sample laboratory
documentation as set forth on Annex C, a copy of the Protocol and a copy of the World Code. A sample shall not be considered positive until after the B sample analysis confirms the A sample analysis or the athlete has expressly waived the B sample analysis. In any correspondence offering the athlete the opportunity to waive testing the B Sample, USADA shall include the language set forth in
Annex G."
"8 c. Upon receipt of the laboratory's B sample report, USADA shall promptly notify the athlete, the USOC, and the applicable NGB. USADA shall then provide to the athlete the B sample documentation
package set forth on Annex D. The laboratory shall not be required to produce any documentation in addition to Annexes C and D unless ordered to do so by an arbitrator(s) during adjudication, in which
case it shall be produced at the athlete's expense unless ordered otherwise by an arbitrator(s)."

USADA PROTOCOL, ANNEX C & ANNEX D

ANNEX C
The following documentation will be supplied as the standard documentation package:
Table of contents
List of laboratory staff involved in the test, including signatures and/or initials and
position title(s)
Sample identification information
Organization requesting the test
Date of sample collection and site identification
USADA sample identification number
Laboratory sample identification number
Urine integrity test results (if completed)
Chain of custody documentation for sample container
Doping Control Notification form (Laboratory copy)
Transportation chain of custody (e.g., courier documentation, laboratory
receipt of container)
"A" sample container chain(s) of custody
Documentation of any deviations from the written screening procedures, if any
"A" Sample Screening Results
Relevant aliquot chain(s) of custody
Screening procedure data, including chromatograms (or other relevant data), for Negative control urine
Positive control urine (with concentration indicated, if relevant)
Sample urine aliquot(s)
Analytical run instrument validation data (e.g.; tune data)
Documentation of any deviations from the written screening procedures, if any
"A" Sample Confirmation Results
Summary of the analytical principles of the confirmation method
Aliquot chain of custody
Sequence verification data
Confirmation procedure data, including chromatograms (or other relevant data), for Negative control urine
Positive control urine (with concentration indicated, if relevant)
Standard(s)/calibrator(s)(if relevant)
Sample urine aliquot(s)
Analytical run instrument validation data (e.g.; tune data)
"A" sample report (including numerical data for threshold substances*)
pH, Specific Gravity, and other urine integrity test results (if applicable, including abnormal appearance of sample) performed in laboratory.
ANNEX D
Documentation of any deviations from the written screening procedures, if any
"B" Sample Confirmation Results
"B" sample container chain(s) of custody
Summary of the analytical principles of the confirmation method (if different than "A")
Aliquot chain of custody
Sequence verification data
Confirmation procedure data, including chromatograms (or other relevant data), for
Negative control urine
Positive control urine (with concentration indicated, if relevant)
Standard(s)/calibrator(s)(if relevant)
Sample urine aliquot(s)
Analytical run instrument validation data (e.g., tune data)
"B" sample report (including numerical data for threshold substances*)
Documentation of any deviations from the written screening procedures, if any
Reports and Correspondence
All facsimiles or letters related to analysis and reporting of sample results
*For threshold substances, an estimate of the ratio or concentration or an estimate of
the concentration relative to the threshold ( i.e. 20 times the threshold concentration) is
deemed acceptable.

Will, if you are employed, how do you keep your job?

You completely skip over the parts where you mis-speak and mis-represent what is happening. Your errors are everywhere yet you do not address them?

I concede USADA Protocol guide section 8.c and the statements therein as accurate and reflective of what must be provided the athlete during NOTIFICATION, not ignoring the “Shall no be required” and “unless ordered to do so by arbitrator(s)”.

I never said they HAD to provide it. I said the ADRB may request it. BIG DIFFERENCE.

However, you are still stuck in NOTIFICATION….do you understand that? NOTIFICATION.

Bck to my point: From FL.com : "Made without access to complete documentation and other test results...”

Could the Lab have left something off their little list you linked and graciously cut/pasted? The mention of “without access to complete documentation” suggests such. They were in a rush to go on vacation…and it did take them a LONG tie to pull it together…

Now, MOVE FORWARD.

Section 8: Results Management.
The results are in. The Package was delivered. The evidence compiled. The Submittal was sent.

Jumping forward in time, now with the review board, back to Section 9.c.ii, P.8:“The Review Board shall be given the laboratory documentation and any additional documentation USADA deems appropriate.”

Work with me here…should USADA deem it appropriate to seek to provide the RB with additional documentation, say the longitudinal that may/may not have been built using other results originating from within the LAB, or other information not contained or provided as required in Section 8.c, and the Lab is not compelled to answer for the request (they “shall not be REQUIRED”), how do you think this plays into SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE and the rebuttal of said evidence?

See section 9.c.iv, P.9: The review board shall be entitled to request additional information from USADA the athlete or other person.

Here we see the entitlement provided to the RB where they may make a request. Should such a request to USADA be for the longitudinal profile deemed material to the rebuttal of evidence do you content that the Lab would not provide it to USADA? They certainly shall not be REQUIRED to provide it but in defense of the evidence being rebutted would they? Given the magnitude and seriousness of this case, I submit that they would be compelled, but not required, to provide whatever is asked.

So far, LNDD and am sing are neck and neck for the dubious distinction of Global Village Idiot.

You`re all crazy!

Zabica wrote:

You`re all crazy!

Is that your final answer?

LNDD wrote:

Will, if you are employed, how do you keep your job?

Maybe this IS his job.

---Salem, Oregon---

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe this IS his job.
---Salem, Oregon---

Hehehe, I'm on the job addressing the ISSUES involving Floyd Landis...what's the matter, Wayne -- can't bring yourself to address the issues involving Floyd Landis?

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
Hehehe, I'm on the job addressing the ISSUES involving Floyd Landis...what's the matter, Wayne -- can't bring yourself to address the issues involving Floyd Landis?

Sure, Dick.....oops, I mean " Will " ( wink, wink )

You certainly are on the job....like 24/7.

---Salem, Oregon---

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure, Dick.....oops, I mean " Will " ( wink, wink )
You certainly are on the job....like 24/7.
---Salem, Oregon---

That's ridiculous, but even IF what you suggest is true, you don't address the ISSUES involving Landis by trying to make ME the issue, do you?

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
That's ridiculous, but even IF what you suggest is true, you don't address the ISSUES involving Landis by trying to make ME the issue, do you?

Willieboy, I wouldn't describe you as an issue, "Fool" is more accurate. Just out of curiosity, do you ride a bicycle, or are you just a blowhard?

Hehehe, how about addressing the ISSUES involving FLOYD LANDIS...you know, such as...

"PERSISTENCE OF MEMORY":

In the thread entitled "Cycling Teams Urge Phonak Suspension, ricky rider on Aug. 24, 2006 stated the following:

ricky rider
AOL Reply »|Flag for Review Thursday Aug 24

"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....."