| |
Main
Date: 15 Apr 2007 16:25:16
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Meeting Floyd
|
Last night was a blast.
Floyd Landis is in the process of touring the country raising money
and support in his effort to fight the doping charges that have
(termporarily...) stripped him of his '06 Tour de France yellow
jersey. Last night, he came to the Phoenix east valley, and I
attended the presentation.
The venue was a fairly small one - only 60-70 people attending, which
I can only attribute to lack of publicity. I spent a several hours
last night sitting about 10 feet (3m) from Floyd and his doctor
(Arnie Baker) and his PR guy Michael Henson.
The presentation has changed a bit from what is on Floyd's "Fairness
Fund" website, and according to Dr. Baker (a very confidence-inspiring
speaker, BTW), they're only presenting "about 10%" of the problems
with the testing that was done, since they've already seen the French
lab trying to cover their tracks by releasing updated "original"
documents that "fix" some of the glaring errors in the "original
originals".
Without going into a litany of details, there are SO many questions
raised by Dr. Baker's examination of the evidence that I have no doubt
at all that Floyd will prevail when the hearing occurs in mid-May.
Essentially, there are clearly-documented problems with chain of
custody, testing blindness, protocol, equipment malfunction, sample
contamination beyond testable standards, standards definition, not to
mention the common sense aspect of the fact that Floyd tested negative
two days prior and two days after (and tested WELL under the limits
for testosterone even after stage 17). Dr. Baker explained the
science of testosterone, and how clinical studies have shown that
there is no measureable performance gain even with 10x the allowed
testosterone level present on that day's effort (that is, it's not a
"one day drug"). There's simply no reason anyone would WANT to play
around with epitestosterone on a given stage... nothing to be gained.
Floyd's presentation was alternatively informative, spontaneous, and
humourous. He spent a good bit of the evening "talking racing" and
the personal glimpse into the politics of the peleton was fascinating.
He (and Dr. Baker) pointed out that although Floyd's stage 17
performance was a very, very good one, the real reason he gained so
much time was the infighting among teams in the peleton (each waiting
for the other teams to do the heavy lifting). As amazing as it was,
he really wasn't doing anything superhuman, but clearly something
unexpectedly audacious. His superior descending skills didn't hurt
either.
For those of you in Dallas, Austin or Atlanta - he's coming your way
soon - I suggest you do NOT miss the event. It's the best $35 I've
spent in a long, long time (though I also broke down and bought a $25
Floyd Fairness Fund T-shirt, which he autographed for me). There were
other fund-raising efforts, including auctioning off a replica yellow
jersey autographed by Floyd (which went for $3,300, so don't figure
it's a cheap way to cover a stain on your wall). ;-) Floyd spent
about half an hour signing autographs and was happy to pose for photos
with anyone who wanted one (making forgetting my camera a very dumb
thing to do).
I'd recommend that anyone who's genuinely concerned with the fairness
of the current drug testing processes should read the powerpoint
presentation that Dr. Baker put together - it's a fairly big download,
but fascinating reading (even without the good doctor's running
commentary on the details). It can be found at:
http://www.floydfairnessfund.org/resources/Wiki%20Denfense%20Slide.pdf
There's also a webcast on Floyd's site that I haven't previewed, but
suspect it contains the same information I saw last night.
My prediction is that the WADA (World Anti Doping Agency) and the
French lab that was involved will have to admit that there are FAR too
many problems with the handling of the samples, the testing of the
samples, and the results of the testing for the results to stand. I
appreciate the work Floyd is doing to take on these powerful
organizations (that are, BTW, doing everything in their power to keep
the details from leaking out - funny since they seem to relish the
opporutnity to leak details about certain riders' test results, even
before the UCI officials hear about it). Dr. Baker has also compiled
a number of documents that show the same lab was making errors on
other (non-cycling) athletes at the same time that Floyd's sample was
being tested (where the lab admits getting samples crossed or causing
contamination that resulted in a false positives).
Please support this effort - I think after you read the presentation
you'll begin to understand what a travesty this whole thing has been.
I look forward to the day when Floyd's name appears without an asterix
in the record books.
Go get 'em Floyd!
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 05:24:15
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
On Apr 17, 6:50 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 5:12 pm, "Pat" <P...@overtheprairie.com> wrote:
> >>> BUT, if the B sample is positive, then the stuff is in the sample,
> >>> good idea or not. Claiming that there is no good reason to take
> >>> testosterone isn't a defense. It's on the 'list', therefore
> >>> illegal. I personally think he's screwed. Like Tyler, he didn't
> >>> dispute the fact that there was evidence but that the evidence was
> >>> trumped up or in error. Unless Floyd can produce a clean sample,
> >>> impossible, he is screwed.
>
> >> What you might be missing is the next day's sample. If it and
> >> subsequent days are free of the substance, Floyd could medically
> >> prove that the substance wouldn't clear out of the body so rapidly.
> >> I am sure his lawyer has thought of that angle. After all, doctors
> >> have said that it would be in his body for days thereafter...
>
> >> Pat in TX
>
> > Maybe but even so, if it is in his sample, he is guilty, even if it
> > wasn't the next day and it 'couldn't' leave his sytem that fast...
>
> ...in France.
No argument there. I think everybody needs to remember it is a bunch
of US lawyers and Docs taking on the huge, state sponsored, TdF
endorsed, testing lab in France. We all here in the US 'assume'
legality, fair sportsmanship, no outright debauchery, but in France,
fergetabouit.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 23:43:40
From: Tom Grosman
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com > a écrit dans le message de
news: 1176899055.538419.229530@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 18:26:02
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"Tom Grosman" <grosman@aonix.fr > wrote:
>"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com> a écrit dans le message de
>news: 1176899055.538419.229530@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 18:15:59
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
>
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 17:29:57
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
On Apr 17, 5:12 pm, "Pat" <P...@overtheprairie.com > wrote:
> > BUT, if the B sample is positive, then the stuff is in the sample,
> > good idea or not. Claiming that there is no good reason to take
> > testosterone isn't a defense. It's on the 'list', therefore illegal. I
> > personally think he's screwed. Like Tyler, he didn't dispute the fact
> > that there was evidence but that the evidence was trumped up or in
> > error. Unless Floyd can produce a clean sample, impossible, he is
> > screwed.
>
> What you might be missing is the next day's sample. If it and subsequent
> days are free of the substance, Floyd could medically prove that the
> substance wouldn't clear out of the body so rapidly. I am sure his lawyer
> has thought of that angle. After all, doctors have said that it would be in
> his body for days thereafter...
>
> Pat in TX
Maybe but even so, if it is in his sample, he is guilty, even if it
wasn't the next day and it 'couldn't' leave his sytem that fast...
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 21:14:46
From: Patrick Lamb
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
On 17 Apr 2007 17:29:57 -0700, Qui si parla Campagnolo
<peter@vecchios.com > wrote:
>
>Maybe but even so, if it is in his sample, he is guilty, even if it
>wasn't the next day and it 'couldn't' leave his sytem that fast...
Only if you consider it a technicality that there is no evidence to
show artificial testosterone was ever in his system.
Put it another way: Dick Pound, WADA, and the French lab leaker
(whoever that is) have yelled, "Cheat!" Now we're finding out there
is nothing to substantiate that accusation. The evidence has fallen
apart. To claim Floyd is guilty at this juncture is akin to asking,
"Can you prove you've stopped beating your wife?"
Pat
Email address works as is.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 00:16:42
From: Dennis P. Harris
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
On 17 Apr 2007 17:29:57 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, Qui si parla
Campagnolo <peter@vecchios.com > wrote:
> Maybe but even so, if it is in his sample, he is guilty, even if it
> wasn't the next day and it 'couldn't' leave his sytem that fast...
>
you don't get it, do you? PLONK.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 17:50:45
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> On Apr 17, 5:12 pm, "Pat" <P...@overtheprairie.com> wrote:
>>> BUT, if the B sample is positive, then the stuff is in the sample,
>>> good idea or not. Claiming that there is no good reason to take
>>> testosterone isn't a defense. It's on the 'list', therefore
>>> illegal. I personally think he's screwed. Like Tyler, he didn't
>>> dispute the fact that there was evidence but that the evidence was
>>> trumped up or in error. Unless Floyd can produce a clean sample,
>>> impossible, he is screwed.
>>
>> What you might be missing is the next day's sample. If it and
>> subsequent days are free of the substance, Floyd could medically
>> prove that the substance wouldn't clear out of the body so rapidly.
>> I am sure his lawyer has thought of that angle. After all, doctors
>> have said that it would be in his body for days thereafter...
>
>
>>
>> Pat in TX
>
> Maybe but even so, if it is in his sample, he is guilty, even if it
> wasn't the next day and it 'couldn't' leave his sytem that fast...
...in France.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 18:45:23
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
>Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> On Apr 17, 5:12 pm, "Pat" <P...@overtheprairie.com> wrote:
>>>> BUT, if the B sample is positive, then the stuff is in the sample,
>>>> good idea or not. Claiming that there is no good reason to take
>>>> testosterone isn't a defense. It's on the 'list', therefore
>>>> illegal. I personally think he's screwed. Like Tyler, he didn't
>>>> dispute the fact that there was evidence but that the evidence was
>>>> trumped up or in error. Unless Floyd can produce a clean sample,
>>>> impossible, he is screwed.
>>>
>>> What you might be missing is the next day's sample. If it and
>>> subsequent days are free of the substance, Floyd could medically
>>> prove that the substance wouldn't clear out of the body so rapidly.
>>> I am sure his lawyer has thought of that angle. After all, doctors
>>> have said that it would be in his body for days thereafter...
>>>
>>> Pat in TX
>>
>> Maybe but even so, if it is in his sample, he is guilty, even if it
>> wasn't the next day and it 'couldn't' leave his sytem that fast...
>
>...in France.
Precisely. And let's keep in mind that the testing that the lab did
on the A sample had wildly different results - turns out my memory was
conservative (pun intended)... the error on testosterone measurement
was 181%, and on epitestosterone was 238%. Not exactly
confidence-inducing, is it? What will it be NEXT time (keep in mind
that the lab is going to look really, really bad if the B sample
happens to test negative, and draw your own conclusions). The very
fact that the USADA and WADA refuse to use another lab to test the B
samples should tell you everything you really need to know about how
interested the lab, USADA and WADA are in getting to the truth, and
how interested they are in continuing to cover up either very sloppy
work or outright tampering.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 08:25:10
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
On Apr 17, 7:03 am, Mark Hickey <m...@habcycles.com > wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo <p...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> >I agree with lots of what you say Mark, but in the end, he may be
> >exonerated because of flaws in the testing process, flaws in the chain
> >of custody, rather than finding/having samples that were found to be
> >clean.
>
> >I guess I gotta ask, were the samples tested tampered with? Was
> >artificial testosterone placed in his samples?
> >Were his samples clean and they just mucked up the test, false
> >positive? Is this a conspiracy or just sloppy work?
>
> Good questions all... Floyd (and his doctor) stopped short of claiming
> outright "framing", but from the evidence that was presented it's hard
> to tell whether the biggest problem is sloppy work or intentional
> effort to produce a positive test. The fact that the same test in the
> same lab produced results that varied by (IIRC) 161%, it's hard to
> say.
>
> I think from a common sense perspective, there's no real reason to
> suspect that Floyd's sample WAS positive, if for no other reason than
> there's no reason for him to have even taken what they've claimed he
> took.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycleshttp://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame
BUT, if the B sample is positive, then the stuff is in the sample,
good idea or not. Claiming that there is no good reason to take
testosterone isn't a defense. It's on the 'list', therefore illegal. I
personally think he's screwed. Like Tyler, he didn't dispute the fact
that there was evidence but that the evidence was trumped up or in
error. Unless Floyd can produce a clean sample, impossible, he is
screwed.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 18:12:37
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
>
> BUT, if the B sample is positive, then the stuff is in the sample,
> good idea or not. Claiming that there is no good reason to take
> testosterone isn't a defense. It's on the 'list', therefore illegal. I
> personally think he's screwed. Like Tyler, he didn't dispute the fact
> that there was evidence but that the evidence was trumped up or in
> error. Unless Floyd can produce a clean sample, impossible, he is
> screwed.
What you might be missing is the next day's sample. If it and subsequent
days are free of the substance, Floyd could medically prove that the
substance wouldn't clear out of the body so rapidly. I am sure his lawyer
has thought of that angle. After all, doctors have said that it would be in
his body for days thereafter...
Pat in TX
>
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 04:21:01
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
On Apr 16, 9:54 pm, Mark Hickey <m...@habcycles.com > wrote:
> "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
> >> Last night was a blast.
>
> >> Floyd Landis is in the process of touring the country
>
> >I attended one of these in February, although this was more silent auction
> >and fund raising than the detailed discussion of the facts you encountered.
> >I found it quite interesting, even though I don't race.
>
> >At this point, the argument involves technical details of test accuracy,
> >chain of custody, possibility of tampering, etc. The issue of whether Floyd
> >is "guilty" doesn't come up.
>
> It certainly came up on Saturday. In many ways, forms, and manners.
> He categorically denied taking anything, and gave plenty of well
> thought out reasons why what he's accused of taking wouldn't have
> helped his performance anyway (including the results of that clinical
> study showing a 10x boost in testosterone made no discernable
> difference to test subjects).
>
> >It's important to consider that this is the
> >nature of an appeals process. If you are in prison you can't contend you
> >should be let out because you are innocent -- you have to contend your trial
> >was somehow flawed.
>
> No one would be locked up if the case against them had the problems
> the case against Floyd does. A lot of discussion revolved around the
> principle of "guilty until proven innocent, and we'll do everything in
> our power to keep you from being able to prove your innocence"
> approach of WADA and the French lab.
>
> >Doping seems pretty common in professional sports, and I think it's a naive
> >to think that Americans are immune to temptation. But the drug testing
> >itself seems oddly uncontrolled. I'll pick the most obvious example: they
> >send the A and B samples to the same lab. This makes absolutely no sense,
> >since there can be various problems occurring in any lab.
>
> Worse yet, the SAME TECH tested both of Floyd's samples! Although
> this is strictly against the rules, the lab management claims "hey, we
> were busy and understaffed". Probably explains a lot of the other
> mix-ups and false positives they produced during the same period in
> other testing. Uh oh....
>
> >Send the A samples
> >to one lab, and the B samples to another lab. It's not a matter of cost,
> >because the B sample testing is done later and so the shipments can be
> >bunched. It's just a matter of sloppiness. Although I don't know much of
> >anything about drug testing, I do know a lot about basic research hygiene,
> >and this just doesn't cut it at a basic level.
>
> There were many other handling and custody issues. I'd suggest
> reading the slideshow at the link I provided in the previous post.
> Amazing stuff.
>
> >In this case, some of the same people were involved in both the A sample and
> >the B sample testing, which is wrong because it creates the temptation to
> >force a result.
>
> And let's not forget that the same staff put the "results" out to the
> press before even the UCI knew about it. Objectivity? Doesn't sound
> like it.
>
> >It's almost as if they aren't serious about the testing, just serious about
> >seeming to be serious. Sort of like drug testing in American football,
> >which looks fearsome until you realize how much bigger all the linesmen are
> >now than they were 20 years ago. I guess they are just training harder ;)
>
> Heh. The really sad thing is that with all the problem and sloppiness
> that was documented in Floyd's case, it's clear that they're not going
> to be able to do a credible job finding those who ARE abusing drugs.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycleshttp://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame
I agree with lots of what you say Mark, but in the end, he may be
exonerated because of flaws in the testing process, flaws in the chain
of custody, rather than finding/having samples that were found to be
clean.
I guess I gotta ask, were the samples tested tampered with? Was
artificial testosterone placed in his samples?
Were his samples clean and they just mucked up the test, false
positive? Is this a conspiracy or just sloppy work?
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 06:03:36
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo <peter@vecchios.com > wrote:
>I agree with lots of what you say Mark, but in the end, he may be
>exonerated because of flaws in the testing process, flaws in the chain
>of custody, rather than finding/having samples that were found to be
>clean.
>
>I guess I gotta ask, were the samples tested tampered with? Was
>artificial testosterone placed in his samples?
>Were his samples clean and they just mucked up the test, false
>positive? Is this a conspiracy or just sloppy work?
Good questions all... Floyd (and his doctor) stopped short of claiming
outright "framing", but from the evidence that was presented it's hard
to tell whether the biggest problem is sloppy work or intentional
effort to produce a positive test. The fact that the same test in the
same lab produced results that varied by (IIRC) 161%, it's hard to
say.
I think from a common sense perspective, there's no real reason to
suspect that Floyd's sample WAS positive, if for no other reason than
there's no reason for him to have even taken what they've claimed he
took.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 03:12:58
From: Mike Kruger
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
Mark Hickey wrote:
> Last night was a blast.
>
> Floyd Landis is in the process of touring the country
I attended one of these in February, although this was more silent auction
and fund raising than the detailed discussion of the facts you encountered.
I found it quite interesting, even though I don't race.
At this point, the argument involves technical details of test accuracy,
chain of custody, possibility of tampering, etc. The issue of whether Floyd
is "guilty" doesn't come up. It's important to consider that this is the
nature of an appeals process. If you are in prison you can't contend you
should be let out because you are innocent -- you have to contend your trial
was somehow flawed.
Doping seems pretty common in professional sports, and I think it's a naive
to think that Americans are immune to temptation. But the drug testing
itself seems oddly uncontrolled. I'll pick the most obvious example: they
send the A and B samples to the same lab. This makes absolutely no sense,
since there can be various problems occurring in any lab. Send the A samples
to one lab, and the B samples to another lab. It's not a matter of cost,
because the B sample testing is done later and so the shipments can be
bunched. It's just a matter of sloppiness. Although I don't know much of
anything about drug testing, I do know a lot about basic research hygiene,
and this just doesn't cut it at a basic level.
In this case, some of the same people were involved in both the A sample and
the B sample testing, which is wrong because it creates the temptation to
force a result.
It's almost as if they aren't serious about the testing, just serious about
seeming to be serious. Sort of like drug testing in American football,
which looks fearsome until you realize how much bigger all the linesmen are
now than they were 20 years ago. I guess they are just training harder ;)
|
| | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 20:54:55
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Last night was a blast.
>>
>> Floyd Landis is in the process of touring the country
>
>I attended one of these in February, although this was more silent auction
>and fund raising than the detailed discussion of the facts you encountered.
>I found it quite interesting, even though I don't race.
>
>At this point, the argument involves technical details of test accuracy,
>chain of custody, possibility of tampering, etc. The issue of whether Floyd
>is "guilty" doesn't come up.
It certainly came up on Saturday. In many ways, forms, and manners.
He categorically denied taking anything, and gave plenty of well
thought out reasons why what he's accused of taking wouldn't have
helped his performance anyway (including the results of that clinical
study showing a 10x boost in testosterone made no discernable
difference to test subjects).
>It's important to consider that this is the
>nature of an appeals process. If you are in prison you can't contend you
>should be let out because you are innocent -- you have to contend your trial
>was somehow flawed.
No one would be locked up if the case against them had the problems
the case against Floyd does. A lot of discussion revolved around the
principle of "guilty until proven innocent, and we'll do everything in
our power to keep you from being able to prove your innocence"
approach of WADA and the French lab.
>Doping seems pretty common in professional sports, and I think it's a naive
>to think that Americans are immune to temptation. But the drug testing
>itself seems oddly uncontrolled. I'll pick the most obvious example: they
>send the A and B samples to the same lab. This makes absolutely no sense,
>since there can be various problems occurring in any lab.
Worse yet, the SAME TECH tested both of Floyd's samples! Although
this is strictly against the rules, the lab management claims "hey, we
were busy and understaffed". Probably explains a lot of the other
mix-ups and false positives they produced during the same period in
other testing. Uh oh....
>Send the A samples
>to one lab, and the B samples to another lab. It's not a matter of cost,
>because the B sample testing is done later and so the shipments can be
>bunched. It's just a matter of sloppiness. Although I don't know much of
>anything about drug testing, I do know a lot about basic research hygiene,
>and this just doesn't cut it at a basic level.
There were many other handling and custody issues. I'd suggest
reading the slideshow at the link I provided in the previous post.
Amazing stuff.
>In this case, some of the same people were involved in both the A sample and
>the B sample testing, which is wrong because it creates the temptation to
>force a result.
And let's not forget that the same staff put the "results" out to the
press before even the UCI knew about it. Objectivity? Doesn't sound
like it.
>It's almost as if they aren't serious about the testing, just serious about
>seeming to be serious. Sort of like drug testing in American football,
>which looks fearsome until you realize how much bigger all the linesmen are
>now than they were 20 years ago. I guess they are just training harder ;)
Heh. The really sad thing is that with all the problem and sloppiness
that was documented in Floyd's case, it's clear that they're not going
to be able to do a credible job finding those who ARE abusing drugs.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 18:14:45
From: Ted
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
Too bad he isn't coming this far north.
Go Floyd!
Ted.
|
|
