| |
Main
Date: 21 Sep 2007 12:41:13
From: RonSonic
Subject: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
I read all 84 pages. That is "read" not "analyzed in depth" or "researched." It
appears to be well reasoned, moderate, careful and prudent (TK will now call me
a retard or homo). There appears to be one very major different presumption that
made the difference between the majority and minority findings.
The majority ruling appears to say that judging this case by the very specific
rules given and presuming that all technical personnel testifying or performing
tests in this matter acted in good faith, they had no choice but to find that
the AAF alleged was valid, barely, under the broad and sloppy standards set by
WADA and despite the obvious problems and marginal competencies shown by LNDD.
The dissenting opinion (which I only scanned) seems based on a refusal to accept
the presumption that the lab was acting in good faith and finds against USADA
that the obvious sloppiness could cover up misconduct or permitted manipulation
of the results, which to his eyes appears to be the case.
Both positions are well supported.
Hopefully, LNDD, WADA and UCI will read the majority decision as something other
than vindication. I see it as a screaming, in their face wake up call to
promulgate stringent technical, administrative and ethical standards and meet
them. I would expect that another such trainwreck would completely destroy the
presumptions of competence and good faith that very narrowly decided this case.
Ron
|
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 14:27:48
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
contagious
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20070926/cx_tm_uc/tm20070926
the man has a bottomless supply of rich material
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 21:19:28
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
On Sep 24, 2:05 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Landis needed a witness to the alleged lab malpractice, a prior
> wrongful act by the lab techs or possibly any lab tech in the employ
> of the corp lab structure if the corp lab structure knew of the
> wrongful act.
> Landis' attorneys appear to have approached this threshold with
> general evidence yet failed to provide solid examples or witnessed
> examples that is most of what Landis' defense offered as evidence was
> conjecture and inference not evidence.
>
> In dealing against the glory of France and the war against drugs, you
> tilt at windmills for the opposition is always right a priori no
> matter how visibly wrong or guilty they are.
>
> If the lab tech or lab was guilty of wrongful acts before Landis then
> due to the unassailable force of France or the war against drugs and
> their position in protecting the public, that would not be an
> organization's fault in supporting wrongful acts but only the
> wrongfully acting individuals involved.
>
> If General Cement knowingly hired people guilty of wrongful acts who
> then mixed salt into the cement which later fell on and crushed
> several helpless young children, then General Cement is guilty. That's
> normal law unless GC is mob owned or by the Gov's bro-in-law or their
> children.
>
> But the glory of France and the war on drugs?
>
> as my friend Wolfe wrote: "FORGETABOUTIT"
FURTHER,
IF France did screw Landis with lab work, France had the time and
expertise
given the presence of Intelligence and the french secret police
whatwith the
ongoing terrorism threat to inquire and overview future problems such
as a Landis hearing
Those guys aren't plumbers, itsa way of life in Yurp.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 18:05:03
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
Landis needed a witness to the alleged lab malpractice, a prior
wrongful act by the lab techs or possibly any lab tech in the employ
of the corp lab structure if the corp lab structure knew of the
wrongful act.
Landis' attorneys appear to have approached this threshold with
general evidence yet failed to provide solid examples or witnessed
examples that is most of what Landis' defense offered as evidence was
conjecture and inference not evidence.
In dealing against the glory of France and the war against drugs, you
tilt at windmills for the opposition is always right a priori no
matter how visibly wrong or guilty they are.
If the lab tech or lab was guilty of wrongful acts before Landis then
due to the unassailable force of France or the war against drugs and
their position in protecting the public, that would not be an
organization's fault in supporting wrongful acts but only the
wrongfully acting individuals involved.
If General Cement knowingly hired people guilty of wrongful acts who
then mixed salt into the cement which later fell on and crushed
several helpless young children, then General Cement is guilty. That's
normal law unless GC is mob owned or by the Gov's bro-in-law or their
children.
But the glory of France and the war on drugs?
as my friend Wolfe wrote: "FORGETABOUTIT"
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 21:02:36
From: Victor Kan
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
On Sep 22, 2:14 pm, "Frank Drackman" <frankdr...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
...
> Nor, I think, are they allowed to consider evidence
>
> > outside that presented.
>
> I don't believe that your statement is correct. It was published that the
> arbitrators had their own experts to help them understand all of the
> information presented.
I think that would be "expert", singular, and that person happens to
be the director of a WADA lab.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-landis15sep15,1,405856.story?coll=la-headlines-sports
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 18:52:59
From: Frank Drackman
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
"Victor Kan" <victor.kan@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190494956.770005.97360@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 22, 2:14 pm, "Frank Drackman" <frankdr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
> ...
>> Nor, I think, are they allowed to consider evidence
>>
>> > outside that presented.
>>
>> I don't believe that your statement is correct. It was published that
>> the
>> arbitrators had their own experts to help them understand all of the
>> information presented.
>
> I think that would be "expert", singular, and that person happens to
> be the director of a WADA lab.
>
> http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-landis15sep15,1,405856.story?coll=la-headlines-sports
>
>
That confirms my point that the panel can consult outside resources and get
information that was never presented during the hearing.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 03:34:00
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
In article <ibednQOp9sZ3W2jbnZ2dnUVZ_r-vnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"Frank Drackman" <frankdrack@yahoo.com > wrote:
> "Victor Kan" <victor.kan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1190494956.770005.97360@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 22, 2:14 pm, "Frank Drackman" <frankdr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Nor, I think, are they allowed to consider evidence
> >>
> >> > outside that presented.
> >>
> >> I don't believe that your statement is correct. It was published that
> >> the
> >> arbitrators had their own experts to help them understand all of the
> >> information presented.
> >
> > I think that would be "expert", singular, and that person happens to
> > be the director of a WADA lab.
> >
> > http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-landis15sep15,1,405856.story?coll=la-hea
> > dlines-sports
> >
> >
>
> That confirms my point that the panel can consult outside resources and get
> information that was never presented during the hearing.
I suspect that the outside resources are more like "Special Masters" in
law, where their purpose is to interpret the science in the evidence for
the arbitrators.
In other words, the outside experts don't really get info not presented
in the hearing, they get an expert explanation of what they heard.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 21:56:08
From: Stu Fleming
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> I suspect that the outside resources are more like "Special Masters" in
> law, where their purpose is to interpret the science in the evidence for
> the arbitrators.
IS "Special Masters" like "Special Olympics" for fat retarded guys?
Or is it for lawyers?
And is that the same thing?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 17:42:52
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
In article <46f78839$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz >,
Stu Fleming <stewart@wic.co.nz > wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> > I suspect that the outside resources are more like "Special Masters" in
> > law, where their purpose is to interpret the science in the evidence for
> > the arbitrators.
>
> IS "Special Masters" like "Special Olympics" for fat retarded guys?
> Or is it for lawyers?
> And is that the same thing?
I think it means, roughly, "this is so simple a five-year-old could
understand it. Quick, get me a five-year-old!"
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 22:47:33
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> I think it means, roughly, "this is so simple a five-year-old could
> understand it. Quick, get me a five-year-old!"
Make your own.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 10:44:47
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
"Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote in message
news:rcousine-D85096.20340022092007@news.telus.net...
> In article <ibednQOp9sZ3W2jbnZ2dnUVZ_r-vnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Frank Drackman" <frankdrack@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Victor Kan" <victor.kan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1190494956.770005.97360@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Sep 22, 2:14 pm, "Frank Drackman" <frankdr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Nor, I think, are they allowed to consider evidence
>> >>
>> >> > outside that presented.
>> >>
>> >> I don't believe that your statement is correct. It was published
>> >> that
>> >> the
>> >> arbitrators had their own experts to help them understand all of
>> >> the
>> >> information presented.
>> >
>> > I think that would be "expert", singular, and that person happens
>> > to
>> > be the director of a WADA lab.
>> >
>> > http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-landis15sep15,1,405856.story?coll=la-hea
>> > dlines-sports
>> >
>> >
>>
>> That confirms my point that the panel can consult outside resources
>> and get
>> information that was never presented during the hearing.
>
> I suspect that the outside resources are more like "Special Masters"
> in
> law, where their purpose is to interpret the science in the evidence
> for
> the arbitrators.
Having only 3 arbitrators makes for a total crap shoot. A 2 to 1
decision in either direction is a long way from being statistically
significant; in fact, none of the decision splits are statistically
significant. IOW, any decison is not indicative of the majority decison
of a larger population of informed and impartial jurors.
Phil H
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 07:42:39
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
On Sep 21, 12:35 pm, Dumbass <tadams...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 12:41 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Hopefully, LNDD, WADA and UCI will read the majority decision as something other
> > than vindication. I see it as a screaming, in their face wake up call to
> > promulgate stringent technical, administrative and ethical standards and meet
> > them. I would expect that another such trainwreck would completely destroy the
> > presumptions of competence and good faith that very narrowly decided this case.
>
> I just hope they reform the anti-doping system big-time.
>
Dumbasses,
Hope away. Way back when during the Clarence Thomas
confirmation hearings, when it wasn't clear what kind of
judge he'd turn out to be, I was listening to a call-in show on
WBAI New York radio (ultra-liberal) and a crotchety guy called
in and said, "Hope and a token will get you on the subway."
Arbitrators are not judges. They also do not run LNDD or WADA
or USADA. There is no institutional memory in arbitration
panels, and there is no principle of building up a history of
opinions and precedents, as there is in the judicial system.
The next time somebody gets busted, even if the athlete can
afford a phalanx of lawyers and take it to arbitration, if it's in the
US the athlete can pick Chris Campbell, but the other two
arbitrators can be people that have no memory of the previous
case. Nor, I think, are they allowed to consider evidence
outside that presented. It's not like a district court where
the judge can admonish the DA and say he better show up with
a less sloppy case next time.
The fact that they nailed the guy with sloppy procedures does
not mean they have an incentive to clean up and "play true."
If Travis Tygart issues a statement about how justice was
served, but they learned a lesson and promise not to fuck up next
time, I'll eat my La Vie Claire cap. And feed my Clenbuterol to
my dog. And I don't even _have_ a dog.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 11:11:24
From:
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 07:42:39 -0000, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:
>On Sep 21, 12:35 pm, Dumbass <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 12:41 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hopefully, LNDD, WADA and UCI will read the majority decision as something other
>> > than vindication. I see it as a screaming, in their face wake up call to
>> > promulgate stringent technical, administrative and ethical standards and meet
>> > them. I would expect that another such trainwreck would completely destroy the
>> > presumptions of competence and good faith that very narrowly decided this case.
>>
>> I just hope they reform the anti-doping system big-time.
>>
>
>Dumbasses,
>
>Hope away. Way back when during the Clarence Thomas
>confirmation hearings, when it wasn't clear what kind of
>judge he'd turn out to be, I was listening to a call-in show on
>WBAI New York radio (ultra-liberal) and a crotchety guy called
>in and said, "Hope and a token will get you on the subway."
>
>Arbitrators are not judges. They also do not run LNDD or WADA
>or USADA. There is no institutional memory in arbitration
>panels, and there is no principle of building up a history of
>opinions and precedents, as there is in the judicial system.
>The next time somebody gets busted, even if the athlete can
>afford a phalanx of lawyers and take it to arbitration, if it's in the
>US the athlete can pick Chris Campbell, but the other two
>arbitrators can be people that have no memory of the previous
>case. Nor, I think, are they allowed to consider evidence
>outside that presented. It's not like a district court where
>the judge can admonish the DA and say he better show up with
>a less sloppy case next time.
>
>The fact that they nailed the guy with sloppy procedures does
>not mean they have an incentive to clean up and "play true."
>If Travis Tygart issues a statement about how justice was
>served, but they learned a lesson and promise not to fuck up next
>time, I'll eat my La Vie Claire cap. And feed my Clenbuterol to
>my dog. And I don't even _have_ a dog.
Very sadly you may be right.
As for "Feeding my clenbuterol to the dog" is that some kind of euphemism?
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 16:29:45
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
In article <ae0df3tesdi5nqfj6227v6h4j032gph7cl@4ax.com >,
Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 07:42:39 -0000, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
> <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
> >The fact that they nailed the guy with sloppy procedures does
> >not mean they have an incentive to clean up and "play true."
> >If Travis Tygart issues a statement about how justice was
> >served, but they learned a lesson and promise not to fuck up next
> >time, I'll eat my La Vie Claire cap. And feed my Clenbuterol to
> >my dog. And I don't even _have_ a dog.
>
> Very sadly you may be right.
>
> As for "Feeding my clenbuterol to the dog" is that some kind of euphemism?
More of an allusion, really.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 11:14:05
From: Frank Drackman
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in message
news:1190446959.811343.124650@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Nor, I think, are they allowed to consider evidence
> outside that presented.
I don't believe that your statement is correct. It was published that the
arbitrators had their own experts to help them understand all of the
information presented.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 10:03:14
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> And feed my Clenbuterol to my dog. And I don't even _have_ a dog.
Dumbass,
Rather feed it to your peace doves. They may even become
racing pigeons, after all if you can make a race horse from
a donkey...
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 00:19:24
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
In article <kgq7f357bct7rqbo181bsvupkd1gtub3rr@4ax.com >,
RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> Hopefully, LNDD, WADA and UCI will read the majority decision as something
> other than vindication. I see it as a screaming, in their face wake up call
> to promulgate stringent technical, administrative and ethical standards and
> meet them. I would expect that another such trainwreck would completely destroy
> the presumptions of competence and good faith that very narrowly decided this
> case.
Well, I really have to believe that those organizations will see the decision as a
vindication. After all, at least one of them has already essentially stated that it's
infallible. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to spend much, if any, time
re-examining the way things happened and their part in the process. It reminds me of
those cases where a prosecutor has gotten a conviction and when evidence strongly
suggests that conviction is in error, refuses to reopen the case - he's happy with a
conviction and doesn't really care if it's a *just* conviction. Nifong bastards...
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 12:35:49
From: Dumbass
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
On Sep 21, 12:41 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> I read all 84 pages. That is "read" not "analyzed in depth" or "researched." It
> appears to be well reasoned, moderate, careful and prudent (TK will now call me
> a retard or homo). There appears to be one very major different presumption that
> made the difference between the majority and minority findings.
>
> The majority ruling appears to say that judging this case by the very specific
> rules given and presuming that all technical personnel testifying or performing
> tests in this matter acted in good faith, they had no choice but to find that
> the AAF alleged was valid, barely, under the broad and sloppy standards set by
> WADA and despite the obvious problems and marginal competencies shown by LNDD.
>
> The dissenting opinion (which I only scanned) seems based on a refusal to accept
> the presumption that the lab was acting in good faith and finds against USADA
> that the obvious sloppiness could cover up misconduct or permitted manipulation
> of the results, which to his eyes appears to be the case.
I just gave the dissenting report a quick read, but I thought there
was more there there. It said that LNDD violated WADA standards in a
manner that destroyed the evidence trail supporting the results. The
technicians piece together data from different runs in a manner that
destroyed some raw results in the critical isotope analysis.
Hence, standards were violated and the evidence was compromised.
But heck, I'm never going to look at it closely, and emotionally I am
on Landis side.
I just hope they reform the anti-doping system big-time.
>
> Both positions are well supported.
>
> Hopefully, LNDD, WADA and UCI will read the majority decision as something other
> than vindication. I see it as a screaming, in their face wake up call to
> promulgate stringent technical, administrative and ethical standards and meet
> them. I would expect that another such trainwreck would completely destroy the
> presumptions of competence and good faith that very narrowly decided this case.
>
> Ron
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 22:48:42
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
Dumbass wrote:
> I just hope they reform the anti-doping system big-time.
I just hope global warming doesn't cause the ice caps to melt.
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 16:06:12
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
Donald Munro wrote:
> Dumbass wrote:
>> I just hope they reform the anti-doping system big-time.
>
> I just hope global warming doesn't cause the ice caps to melt.
>
Allow me to be the first to call you a retarded homosexual for making
that statement.
There's got to be some sort of corollary to Godwin's Law that kicks in
now. Game, set and match goes to anyone accused of either being retarded
or a homosexual.
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 19:46:20
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
Dumbass wrote:
>>> I just hope they reform the anti-doping system big-time.
Donald Munro wrote:
>> I just hope global warming doesn't cause the ice caps to melt.
Fred Fredburger wrote:
> Allow me to be the first to call you a retarded homosexual for making
> that statement.
With the US patent office being the way it is, Kunich has probably
already patented the above terms. You can expect a call from the
Kunich Korporation intellectual property lawyers.
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 17:22:45
From: Frank Drackman
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
"Fred Fredburger" <Spam@spambot.com > wrote in message
news:mq-dnXlr4c7002nbnZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Donald Munro wrote:
>> Dumbass wrote:
>>> I just hope they reform the anti-doping system big-time.
>>
>> I just hope global warming doesn't cause the ice caps to melt.
>>
>
> Allow me to be the first to call you a retarded homosexual for making that
> statement.
>
> There's got to be some sort of corollary to Godwin's Law that kicks in
> now. Game, set and match goes to anyone accused of either being retarded
> or a homosexual.
What about Nazi?
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 12:34:21
From: Carmine Clamenza
Subject: Re: Tell me if I understand the decision correctly.
|
Tyler is still guilty by reason of stupidity. You were talking about Tyler
Hamilton weren't you?
"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message
news:kgq7f357bct7rqbo181bsvupkd1gtub3rr@4ax.com...
>
>
> I read all 84 pages. That is "read" not "analyzed in depth" or
> "researched." It
> appears to be well reasoned, moderate, careful and prudent (TK will now
> call me
> a retard or homo). There appears to be one very major different
> presumption that
> made the difference between the majority and minority findings.
>
> The majority ruling appears to say that judging this case by the very
> specific
> rules given and presuming that all technical personnel testifying or
> performing
> tests in this matter acted in good faith, they had no choice but to find
> that
> the AAF alleged was valid, barely, under the broad and sloppy standards
> set by
> WADA and despite the obvious problems and marginal competencies shown by
> LNDD.
>
> The dissenting opinion (which I only scanned) seems based on a refusal to
> accept
> the presumption that the lab was acting in good faith and finds against
> USADA
> that the obvious sloppiness could cover up misconduct or permitted
> manipulation
> of the results, which to his eyes appears to be the case.
>
> Both positions are well supported.
>
> Hopefully, LNDD, WADA and UCI will read the majority decision as something
> other
> than vindication. I see it as a screaming, in their face wake up call to
> promulgate stringent technical, administrative and ethical standards and
> meet
> them. I would expect that another such trainwreck would completely destroy
> the
> presumptions of competence and good faith that very narrowly decided this
> case.
>
> Ron
|
|
