Road Bike Racing - Positively False- New Landis Book

Just finished it last night. Good read. The last few chapters and the appendix pretty much reinforced the cumulative opinion I've had about his case and WADA:

1) Did or didn't: With the well documented lab failures to abide by minimal chain of custody practices, that shouldn't have even been the question before the arbitrator. I've got a bunch of different sample numbers here, I've got whiteout on some of them, and a lab tech who knew whose samples these were supposedly were. That's enough to say "We're done here".

2) WADA, under the leadership of Dick Pound, is heavily weighted against the athlete. They pick the list of arbitrators for any hearing, can withhold all kinds of evidence, contractually bind their employees so they can't testify against a fellow WADA employee, and fail to uphold their own protocols about public disclosure. All on our tax dollars. If you believe that any athlete will get a fair hearing consider a 164 to 0 track record thus far.

3) It will never happen, but the riders really need a union, if for nothing else to get a fair share of the economic pie. But also to push the governing agencies to enforce their own protocols and rules. There's a questionable fairness in taking away a rider's livelihood if they take a deliberate or accidental action that violates a rule, while continuing to give a large amount of business/money to laboratories and organizations that continually violate rules without any sanction.

That's my morning musings. Time to go ride.

I agree with your assessments. I feel that the riders should have 3 "A" samples and 3 "B" samples taken at every test. Each sample is sent to a different lab, then if a rider is found to be 'non-negative' then the other labs will test the samples. If any of the other two come back with a different reading then the rider is found to be innocent. There needs to be more redundancy and transparency in the system for we the fans and of course the riders to feel that they are getting a fair shake.

BTW is Flase French? Should it be pronounced Fla-zay?

I'd like to see a little less "fairness" in baseball and football, two other sports where tests don't catch the cheats. In the end, it hurts athletes when it's easier to dope. VDB. Pantani. I guess Lance is doing OK, so he's the exception. You know, if you believe that sort of thing.

Just finished it last night. Good read. The last few chapters and the appendix pretty much reinforced the cumulative opinion I've had about his case and WADA:

1) Did or didn't: With the well documented lab failures to abide by minimal chain of custody practices, that shouldn't have even been the question before the arbitrator. I've got a bunch of different sample numbers here, I've got whiteout on some of them, and a lab tech who knew whose samples these were supposedly were. That's enough to say "We're done here".

2) WADA, under the leadership of Dick Pound, is heavily weighted against the athlete. They pick the list of arbitrators for any hearing, can withhold all kinds of evidence, contractually bind their employees so they can't testify against a fellow WADA employee, and fail to uphold their own protocols about public disclosure. All on our tax dollars. If you believe that any athlete will get a fair hearing consider a 164 to 0 track record thus far.

3) It will never happen, but the riders really need a union, if for nothing else to get a fair share of the economic pie. But also to push the governing agencies to enforce their own protocols and rules. There's a questionable fairness in taking away a rider's livelihood if they take a deliberate or accidental action that violates a rule, while continuing to give a large amount of business/money to laboratories and organizations that continually violate rules without any sanction.

That's my morning musings. Time to go ride.Without going into the reasons why cyclists seems unable to organize, this is the root of the problem from the rider point of view. I am uncertain this problem can be addressed in the current framework of sponsorship financing of the sport.

Without going into the reasons why cyclists seems unable to organize, this is the root of the problem from the rider point of view. I am uncertain this problem can be addressed in the current framework of sponsorship financing of the sport.

The ownership / governing structure of cycling is so different that it's not even clear who the cyclists would bargain with. Is it the UCI? National federations? One of the team organizations? It's not like MLB, the NBA or NFL where the owners also negotiate collectively.

Cyclists can't even agree on group ride ettiquette.

I'd say unionization is rather unlikely.

That is all.

but the riders really need a union

Yeah that would be great...They could call for a repaving a Paris-Roubaix to prevent rider injuries, We could also experience the Giro sit in or the TDF lockout.:rolleyes:

1) Did or didn't: With the well documented lab failures to abide by minimal chain of custody practices, that shouldn't have even been the question before the arbitrator. I've got a bunch of different sample numbers here, I've got whiteout on some of them, and a lab tech who knew whose samples these were supposedly were. That's enough to say "We're done here".

Sure, according to Landis, but you can read an objective opinion here from a handwriting expert:

http://cg.scs.carleton.ca/~luc/landis/

Truth: Landis lawyers agreed to the identity of the Landis samples, they were re-tested under observation, and the exact same result was obtained. No error was ever made.


2) WADA, under the leadership of Dick Pound, is heavily weighted against the athlete. They pick the list of arbitrators for any hearing, can withhold all kinds of evidence, contractually bind their employees so they can't testify against a fellow WADA employee, and fail to uphold their own protocols about public disclosure. All on our tax dollars. If you believe that any athlete will get a fair hearing consider a 164 to 0 track record thus far.

Again, according to Landis, an admitted liar, manipulator, and blackmailer. WADA is not all on your tax dollars, US contributes ~10% to the total WADA budget.

To understand this case, you need to read unbiased reports, not the writings of the accused. 100% of accused are innocent if you ask them, but Landis actions post-July 06 are not that of a innocent man. No one accused of a career-ending event is going to write an honest book, he will write whatever it takes to get off. Keep in mind that while Landis is spewing his writings out to the world (400 pages +++ to date), the USADA is keeping to their rules and not discussing the case outside of the courtroom. We are only being shown 1/2 the story to date.

There are two lies by Landis and one blackmail attempt by his crew that are not in question. This is why Landis will doubtfully ever race in Europe again.

Landis has been a huge disappointment. It's really difficult to find anything he says credible. To bad for his family. If he hadn't cheated, he would still be a high paid respected athlete with or without the Yellow Jersey. To bad he couldn't see that.

Truth: Landis lawyers agreed to the identity of the Landis samples, they were re-tested under observation, and the exact same result was obtained. No error was ever made.

Having read the testimony in the actual case, that the samples carried a variety of numbers is not in dispute. An error, several of them in fact, were made.

Once the chain of custody protocol is violated, it's over. Having worked in a company that had to provide samples and test results to federal and state agencies, I can tell you that is the way things work, for good reason.

Retesting is a moot point. Whether or not Landis is a liar, doper, or whatever, that error should shut down the process.

A credible, fair, transparent, and strictly adhered to protocol for testing and collection is, in the end, far more important than catching one cheat. Especially if it's being run on public funds. Sorry, I don't believe in the Gitmo-ization of doping controls, nor do I believe that it's in anyone's best interest to have the head of WADA making stuff up and stating it as fact.

And while the rider's union odds on won't happen, if it did they would simply negotiate with whatever organizations morph out of the current team/UCI structure. Right now they individually negotiate contracts with the teams, while this would continue as to salary, working conditions (testing, medical, Etc) could be negotiated collectively. It's exactly the way the current NFL/NBA structure works. While there aren't paying customers, there is a revenue stream (think Sponsors, TV and merchandising splits).

Having read the testimony in the actual case, that the samples carried a variety of numbers is not in dispute. An error, several of them in fact, were made.

Once the chain of custody protocol is violated, it's over. Having worked in a company that had to provide samples and test results to federal and state agencies, I can tell you that is the way things work, for good reason.

Retesting is a moot point. Whether or not Landis is a liar, doper, or whatever, that error should shut down the process.

A credible, fair, transparent, and strictly adhered to protocol for testing and collection is, in the end, far more important than catching one cheat. Especially if it's being run on public funds. Sorry, I don't believe in the Gitmo-ization of doping controls, nor do I believe that it's in anyone's best interest to have the head of WADA making stuff up and stating it as fact.

And while the rider's union odds on won't happen, if it did they would simply negotiate with whatever organizations morph out of the current team/UCI structure. Right now they individually negotiate contracts with the teams, while this would continue as to salary, working conditions (testing, medical, Etc) could be negotiated collectively. It's exactly the way the current NFL/NBA structure works. While there aren't paying customers, there is a revenue stream (think Sponsors, TV and merchandising splits).

Well said.

FWIW I don't believe that Landis intentionally took testosterone before the stage in question. I believe he blood doped with some blood that had testosterone in it but he's not so stupid as to dose himself with that much T and think he wouldn't get caught.

Retesting is a moot point. Whether or not Landis is a liar, doper, or whatever, that error should shut down the process.


So, it doesn't matter if he actually doped? Just how 'good' his lawyers are?

Dangerous thinking, this is how criminals get off. It basically would set a precedent that to be a TDF champion, you need a team of good doping doctors and a team of effective lawyers.

oh wait...that's been the case since 1999. You're right.

So, it doesn't matter if he actually doped? Just how 'good' his lawyers are?

Dangerous thinking, this is how criminals get off. It basically would set a precedent that to be a TDF champion, you need a team of good doping doctors and a team of effective lawyers.

oh wait...that's been the case since 1999. You're right.

sounds like you are in that camp of letting innocent men die to make sure guilty dont go free.

It basically would set a precedent that to be a TDF champion, you need a team of good doping doctors and a team of effective lawyers.

oh wait...that's been the case since 1999. You're right.

Obviously there is not a tour champion that merits winning. Who in your opinion is a drug free contendor? One without the Doctors, Lawyers...etc.

I know that nobody doped before 1999; but still, your policing organization must be held to an absolute standard.

Vino, I too have read Landi's book and agree with your findings. Out of curiosity did you pre-order your copy? The publish date was 6-26 but I got mine two weeks before that.

Here is what I wrote on it a week ago:
6-19-07
Ordered from Overstock.com, took 1 day to read:

I don't care if you are a Floyd hater or lover it is probably a good idea to read this book.

I was a little disappointed in the lack of depth that Floyd talks about his childhood etc. But, he does give a better idea from where his morals and character are based on. I personally like Lance's War much better, but oh well. He does share some pretty crazy stories from when he raced Road races for training during his MTB career.

Why you should read it? Floyd goes into great deal on not just his case (the title of the book) but also the problem with the UCI and USADA. I was surprised to read how the UCI & USADA hearings and "court cases" are handled. The athlete has very little rights, and is denied any additional information from the testing lab, WADA witnesses etc. besides the initial 300+ page document stating the positive test result.

Do I recommend it? Although it may not be as interesting as Lance War, it does (has for me anyways) opened my eyes to some of the injustices that these pro athletes face with the UCI, WADA, and USADA.

My Review Link (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=311545&highlight=floyd+landis)
--------------------------------------------
BTW, Landis will be in Lancaster, PA on Fri. for a book signing and on Sun. you can go on a "group" ride (prolly 300+ people) for $20.00

So, it doesn't matter if he actually doped? Just how 'good' his lawyers are?

Dangerous thinking, this is how criminals get off. It basically would set a precedent that to be a TDF champion, you need a team of good doping doctors and a team of effective lawyers.

oh wait...that's been the case since 1999. You're right.

You might notice that my post doesn't mention lawyers, I would think even the most obtuse person would be able to notice 3 different numbers on what was supposed to be the same sample . Read it again. It has to do with reliable laboratory practices. That's the foundation of any effective anti-doping program.

I wouldn't think it would be too much to ask, considering the stakes involved, that there's a reliable chain of custody, and a properly calibrated testing device operated by a properly trained individual who has the appropriate reference manual.

BTW, I have a sampling and laboratory background and have seen enough SNAFU's to know how important all of the above are for accurate results.

What's dangerous is a willingness to toss any system of checks, balances, and verifications into the trash in order to "get the bad guy". Sounds great until you're one of the innocent people who get caught up in overzelous or sloppy enforcement.

Vino, I too have read Landi's book and agree with your findings. Out of curiosity did you pre-order your copy?

I bought mine at Barney Nobles.

You might notice that my post doesn't mention lawyers, I would think even the most obtuse person would be able to notice 3 different numbers on what was supposed to be the same sample . Read it again. It has to do with reliable laboratory practices. That's the foundation of any effective anti-doping program.

I wouldn't think it would be too much to ask, considering the stakes involved, that there's a reliable chain of custody, and a properly calibrated testing device operated by a properly trained individual who has the appropriate reference manual.

BTW, I have a sampling and laboratory background and have seen enough SNAFU's to know how important all of the above are for accurate results.

What's dangerous is a willingness to toss any system of checks, balances, and verifications into the trash in order to "get the bad guy". Sounds great until you're one of the innocent people who get caught up in overzelous or sloppy enforcement.

+1 This is what disturbs me most about Dick Pound, and even the code of conduct riders are being asked to sign. Pound seems more interested in politicking than insuring the best possible standards of testing and behavior. If I were asked to sign a document that could potentially cost me 1 year's salary, I would want to know that the testing procedures were basically beyond reproach.

Landis has been a huge disappointment. It's really difficult to find anything he says credible. To bad for his family. If he hadn't cheated, he would still be a high paid respected athlete with or without the Yellow Jersey. To bad he couldn't see that.
If he hadn't cheated, he wouldn't have placed in the top ten.

It's easy to convince people who want to believe something. The points that seem obvious to them are contestable to others. I haven't found anything about this case that says Landis was railroaded. If the evidence is so clear cut, why is he wearing a honking clown's nose and doing backflips for the audience while the arbitors consider it?

And there are many, many, riders who have benefited from a fair drug enforcement program. Ask Mayo, Vasseur, Cunego, and the Belgian rider whose name escapes me now who tested positive for barbiturates in the TDF a few years back and it was found the pharmacist erred. These riders protested their innocence, sure, in the proper venue. And justice was served. Not sure where you're getting your 164-0 numbers. From Landis' book maybe?

To depict the drug testing program as a draconian inquisition targeting certain riders, fairness be damned, is just tunnel vision. That view is an expedient for those who want to believe Floyd to reinforce their own bias', whether nationalistic or personal. The drug testing system must be aggressive and they must be assertive. Otherwise they will be ineffective. Sure there needs to be transparency, but that is found in the legal courts, not in the court of public opinion, where Landis is trying his case.

Ready for the name calling and insults.:rolleyes:

I believe 164-0 is the number of WADA (?) vs. American athletes .

If he hadn't cheated, he wouldn't have placed in the top ten.True, but he'd still have a job, and he wouldn't have to crawl to his wife and say, honey, uh, I'm sorry, but this house and our life, well, there will have to be a few changes.

And the impact on those around him? I guess it's best just to leave that topic RIP.

It's easy to convince people who want to believe something. The points that seem obvious to them are contestable to others....

Ready for the name calling and insults.:rolleyes:


No name calling, but your quote can just as easily be applied to those who do not want to believe.

The bottom line is this: nothing, absolutely nothing, is going to change about the whole mess in terms of public perception after the verdict and appeals. If someone was pro-Floyd before the hearing and he isn't proven not guilty, then they will say he was railroaded. If someone was anti-Floyd and he is cleared, they will say he was let off the hook. Whatever someone's stance was from the beginning is what it will be in the end.

I haven't found anything about this case that says Landis was railroaded.
And there are many, many, riders who have benefited from a fair drug enforcement program. Ask Mayo, Vasseur, Cunego...

To depict the drug testing program as a draconian inquisition targeting certain riders, fairness be damned, is just tunnel vision. That view is an expedient for those who want to believe Floyd to reinforce their own bias', whether nationalistic or personal...

I've got no bias in this (I'm not saying others don't), I'm looking at it objectively from a procedural standpoint. Sloppy lab work. It's also tunnel vision to deny that in addition to sloppy lab work, there have been numerous breaches of their own code of ethics at both the French lab and at WADA. It's hard to make the leap that, while they might leak results, keep and test old samples that were supposed to be destroyed, and leak documentation, everything else is on the up and up.

And certainly Dick Pound is the first person to use the court of public opinion even if he has no facts to back up his statements. As the leader, he sets the tone for the organization, his statements actually give the public appearance of a draconian inquisition. In fact there would be far less support for some of the dopers if he would shut up and the public face of WADA was a guy in a lab coat quoting boring facts.

The testers need to be above reproach in ethics and science. Yes, it's a far higher bar but it's what we expect from those who act under the color of authority.

As far as Cunego goes I'm of the personal opinion that when somebody who can't time trial their way out of a paper bag suddenly beats David Millar in a TT when there's a jersey at stake, something might be fishy. That was shades of Pantani.

I agree that if there was sloppy lab work, and this is Floyd's contention, I'm not saying there was, sloppy lab work needs to be corrected. But the question must be, "Did the sloppy lab work affect the outcome?". If evidence is contaminated at a crime scene by human error, is it appropriate to overlook greater human error, the crime, to punish or "learn" the investigators? This is called throwing out the baby with the bath water. AKA overreacting.

Re: Dick Pound. He is an easy target, but part of the problem here is the tendency for people to focus on personality. He may be well suited to the administration tasks his job requires, but less well equiped to interface with the public regarding these matters. Is anyone a complete human?

Sure, the testers need to be above reproach, but they by necessity must also be human. That is a Catch-22. Is any human truly above reproach? Show me that person.

Cunego has benefited from a fair drug testing program by receiving an exception for a normal high hematocrit level, as is the case with Mayo. Of course, I could also point to the performance of DiLuca's ride at the Giro this year as "fishy", but it is what it is until abnormalities are found by the testing system, oh wait, they already have found abnormalities with DiLuca, haven't they?:p

So, it doesn't matter if he actually doped? Just how 'good' his lawyers are?

Dangerous thinking, this is how criminals get off. It basically would set a precedent that to be a TDF champion, you need a team of good doping doctors and a team of effective lawyers.

oh wait...that's been the case since 1999. You're right.So it's dangerous to adhere to testing and evidentiary protocols, but it's not dangerous to ignore them? It's strange that you are willing to tolerate the proceedings at all, as they do create a risk, however slight, of acquittal. Just issue a fatwa and be done with it.

The testers need to be above reproach in ethics and science. Yes, it's a far higher bar but it's what we expect from those who act under the color of authority.



Mistakes and malfunctions happen in the real world, even by intelligent and qualified personal. Like a professional writer typing flase instead of false… ;) Understandable and easily corrected, but instead of fixing it please discard and rewrite the whole thing all while we disparage you. Pretty lame eh?

In most cases mistakes can be explained and all that would be required is a non-conformance log followed by an audit from the quality control officer. Upon review the results could be accepted for reporting.

So many here seem to think that getting off on a technicality somehow improves justice when in fact it is the other way around. I am certain they would not feel the same way if they were the victim and had to watch evidence get thrown out of court in a criminal case. Trust me, quality control measures can quickly get out of hand until you reach a point where so many conditions are imposed that it is nearly impossible to obtain "valid’ data. We work really hard at shooting ourselves in the foot…

I fill out 3 forms, take 4 pictures and lock 2 doors just to take a piss.. ok not yet, that is being implemented next year in order to meet the conditions of ISO 17027 subsection 10.4.12

Did they screw up bad, yeah. Can you expect lab staff and finicky machines to behave perfectly every time, no. That’s why we have systems in place to deal with mistakes.

I agree that if there was sloppy lab work, and this is Floyd's contention, I'm not saying there was, sloppy lab work needs to be corrected. But the question must be, "Did the sloppy lab work affect the outcome?". If evidence is contaminated at a crime scene by human error, is it appropriate to overlook greater human error, the crime, to punish or "learn" the investigators? This is called throwing out the baby with the bath water. AKA overreacting.

Using the contaminated evidence scenario, that evidence would no longer be admissible. It wouldn't mean that there would be no case, because there may be other evidence or witnesses. But if that contaminated material is the sole evidence, then yes, you kick them loose. The greater good is served by having a trustworthy system, not by punishing an individual act.

At the bottom of this is ethics and the adherence to rules. It's simply not logical to say it's OK to break the rules and throw ethics out the window to catch people who are breaking the rules and throwing ethics out the window.

In Landis's case, the sample numbers did not match and the chain of custody was altered outside of lab protocol. In lab work, and again, having come from that background, protocol is protocol and is there for a reason. For any regulatory body I've ever worked with, those samples are no longer valid.

What's interesting in all of this is how the anti-doping movement has swung from concern over the rider's health (the spawn was Tom Simpson's death on Ventoux) into a morality play where rider's can't take a long list of medications that might be the best for addressing illness and injury. Or in some cases are having hearings because they might have taken too much of an allowed medication.

Mistakes and malfunctions happen in the real world, even by intelligent and qualified personal. Like a professional writer typing flase instead of false… ;)

When? Where? Couldn't happen.

Splle check dammit :D .

Hey 30 posts on doping and no name calling yet. Not bad.

So it's dangerous to adhere to testing and evidentiary protocols, but it's not dangerous to ignore them? It's strange that you are willing to tolerate the proceedings at all, as they do create a risk, however slight, of acquittal. Just issue a fatwa and be done with it.

Again, the claims of Landis have not been ruled on, but it is the job of any mouthpiece to discredit the evidence, independent of any moral stance or ethics.

This is why the murderer OJ Simpson is free today, a legal technicality. It may surprise you, but the US is one of the few countries where a legal technicality is enough to get one off.

The central point is that Landis' sample had exogenous testosterone in it. This was backed up. The final result is a positive.

The fact that a paid expert has interpreted lab book handwriting in another way doesn't affect this fact. This is all just to deflect from the facts. It looks like the system needs revision as it stands, but now people are arguing about the system away from the fact that he doped.

sounds like you are in that camp of letting innocent men die to make sure guilty dont go free.
ooh

Again, the claims of Landis have not been ruled on, but it is the job of any mouthpiece to discredit the evidence, independent of any moral stance or ethics.

This is why the murderer OJ Simpson is free today, a legal technicality. It may surprise you, but the US is one of the few countries where a legal technicality is enough to get one off.

The central point is that Landis' sample had exogenous testosterone in it. This was backed up. The final result is a positive.

The fact that a paid expert has interpreted lab book handwriting in another way doesn't affect this fact. This is all just to deflect from the facts. It looks like the system needs revision as it stands, but now people are arguing about the system away from the fact that he doped.

In the interest of accuracy, it was not a legal technicality that got Simpson off, it was a jury that acquitted him. You may disagree with the reasons for the acquittal, but the case was not dismissed, nor was potentially damning evidence disallowed. The jury ruled that the prosecution had not proven its case.

And as to the question of legal technicalities getting one off, it depends on how you define legal technicality. Certainly, the US has different interpretations than many countries, but there are standards in most countries that must be followed for prosecution to occur. Hence why puerto prosecutions were dropped -- the crime of which riders were accused was not "technically" a crime when they were supposed to have committed it. Why perpetrators of Rwandan genocide were let loose -- the prosecutions were not speedy enough. Why Pinochet was not prosecuted in Spain -- he was in failing health and the not all his crimes were covered by the British / Spanish extradition treaty, and so on.

This is why the murderer OJ Simpson is free today, a legal technicality. It may surprise you, but the US is one of the few countries where a legal technicality is enough to get one off.

We should all live in France where you can be jailed INDEFINITELY without being charged as long as prosecutors actually intend to charge you with something.

We should all live in France where you can be jailed INDEFINITELY without being charged as long as prosecutors actually intend to charge you with something.

or we could just go to gitmo

Again, the claims of Landis have not been ruled on, but it is the job of any mouthpiece to discredit the evidence, independent of any moral stance or ethics.

This is why the murderer OJ Simpson is free today, a legal technicality. It may surprise you, but the US is one of the few countries where a legal technicality is enough to get one off.

The central point is that Landis' sample had exogenous testosterone in it. This was backed up. The final result is a positive.

The fact that a paid expert has interpreted lab book handwriting in another way doesn't affect this fact. This is all just to deflect from the facts. It looks like the system needs revision as it stands, but now people are arguing about the system away from the fact that he doped.

How do we know that Landis tested positive for testosterone? The lab told us he did. We know the lab made mistakes with numbering and didn't follow it's own protocols in handling his samples. So how can we trust the result? Well we can't and that's the problem, you just want to take the Labs word for it and I'm sorry but that isn't enough. Vinokurtov is only saying that if the Lab cannot be trusted to follow it's own rules then we can't trust the result, even if Landis did dope we can't know for certain and that should be the standard before you take away a persons career.


As for OJ I know people love to use this as some massive miscarriage of justice but I covered that trial from day one. I had to watch it day in and day out from start to finish. The thing that most people don't realize is that the jury didn't see or hear nearly the amount of evidence that the general public did. The judge kept a great deal of the very damming evidence from ever being presented to the jury. We all know he did it but with what the jury actually saw and heard I can understand their verdict. The actual trial was wide open for reasonable doubt.

Hence why puerto prosecutions were dropped -- the crime of which riders were accused was not "technically" a crime when they were supposed to have committed it. .

Yes, HABEUS CORPUS is just another loophole

How do we know that Landis tested positive for testosterone? The lab told us he did. We know the lab made mistakes with numbering and didn't follow it's own protocols in handling his samples. So how can we trust the result? Well we can't and that's the problem, you just want to take the Labs word for it and I'm sorry but that isn't enough. Vinokurtov is only saying that if the Lab cannot be trusted to follow it's own rules then we can't trust the result, even if Landis did dope we can't know for certain and that should be the standard before you take away a persons career.


As for OJ I know people love to use this as some massive miscarriage of justice but I covered that trial from day one. I had to watch it day in and day out from start to finish. The thing that most people don't realize is that the jury didn't see or hear nearly the amount of evidence that the general public did. The judge kept a great deal of the very damming evidence from ever being presented to the jury. We all know he did it but with what the jury actually saw and heard I can understand their verdict. The actual trial was wide open for reasonable doubt.

I stand corrected on my above post. My understanding was that they saw most of the DNA evidence, as well as the crime scene evidence. I recall reading that the LA lab had significant procedural problems of its own that came underscrutiny after this case, sort of like the Houston crime lab a few years ago.

In the interest of accuracy, it was not a legal technicality that got Simpson off, it was a jury that acquitted him. You may disagree with the reasons for the acquittal, but the case was not dismissed, nor was potentially damning evidence disallowed. The jury ruled that the prosecution had not proven its case.


..because they claimed lab incompetence, mislabeling, tainted DNA evidence, etc. Sounds familiar. It's like **** cases, where the victims are typically put on trial.

..because they claimed lab incompetence, mislabeling, tainted DNA evidence, etc. Sounds familiar. It's like **** cases, where the victims are typically put on trial.

Still not getting off on a technicality. They put the evidence on trial. The jury was left to determine which presentation was more accurate. What was his defense team supposed to do? This also undercuts your other argument about few legal systems letting people off on technicalities. Going after the evidence is pretty much universal. The form of adjudication differs from country to country, but it usually comes down to who can make their case.

Yes, HABEUS CORPUS is just another loophole

I fail to see what habeus corpus has to do with anything about this.

I'm pretty sure I haven't agreed with much of anything DocRay has written, ever.

I guess that's why they say opinions are like.... well, never mind.

How do we know that Landis tested positive for testosterone? The lab told us he did. We know the lab made mistakes with numbering and didn't follow it's own protocols in handling his samples. So how can we trust the result? Well we can't and that's the problem, you just want to take the Labs word for it and I'm sorry but that isn't enough.

About two month's ago, The "B" sample was verified for identity by Landis' legal team, the sample was re-tested, under observation of Landis' legal team and a hired expert. The result was the same as the original A, b tests and the mass isotope test (done at another lab): 11:1. Identical. Landis was hoping they mixed up the samples, he claimed his sample was clean -it wasn't.

That part never made it into Floyd's book or his blog.

Keep in mind, three explanations have been made for Landis' test results:

1. He has naturally high testosterone levels (yet never tested +ve before)
2. The testosterone was from yeast from four beers he drank the night before (this is possible, but he later admitted he lied, on advice from his lawyer).
3. It wasn't his sample that was tested, there was a mix up (there was not, see link I provided earlier, and the supervised re-test).

How do we know that Landis tested positive for testosterone? The lab told us he did. We know the lab made mistakes with numbering and didn't follow it's own protocols in handling his samples. So how can we trust the result? Well we can't and that's the problem, you just want to take the Labs word for it and I'm sorry but that isn't enough. Vinokurtov is only saying that if the Lab cannot be trusted to follow it's own rules then we can't trust the result, even if Landis did dope we can't know for certain and that should be the standard before you take away a persons career.

"For certain"? What kind of standard is that? We have to know absolutely? No rational person thinks they know much of anything absolutely.

I fail to see what habeus corpus has to do with anything about this.

It had to do with ericcox's statement that the Puerto riders' cases were dropped because what they did was not a crime. That's why I included the quote.

It had to do with ericcox's statement that the Puerto riders' cases were dropped because what they did was not a crime. That's why I included the quote.

I fail to understand what the concept of habeus corpus has to do with this. IANAL so please explain how it applies.

Still not getting off on a technicality. They put the evidence on trial. The jury was left to determine which presentation was more accurate. What was his defense team supposed to do? This also undercuts your other argument about few legal systems letting people off on technicalities. Going after the evidence is pretty much universal. The form of adjudication differs from country to country, but it usually comes down to who can make their case.

Make there case about molecular biology, lab tests and DNA to who? The jury barely had high-school education and the PCR assay was only a few years old at that time.
Defend the system all you want, a rich murderer got free. And poor innocent people are getting murdered by the same system every year.

"For certain"? What kind of standard is that? We have to know absolutely? No rational person thinks they know much of anything absolutely.

Agreed. But we still need more than "Because we say so". The only reason we know Landis doped is because the Lab says he did. If (and we know this to be true) the Lab didn't follow proper procedures then just taking their word for it isn't enough.

It had to do with ericcox's statement that the Puerto riders' cases were dropped because what they did was not a crime. That's why I included the quote.

That's not habeas corpus. Regardless, the rights of habeas corpus were suspended by the Republicans in 2000. All someone has to do is infer that you are a terrorist.

Agreed. But we still need more than "Because we say so". The only reason we know Landis doped is because the Lab says he did. If (and we know this to be true) the Lab didn't follow proper procedures then just taking their word for it isn't enough.

For your perhaps. I think the results combined with explanations of any procedural errors and why they don't invalidate the results is enough.