WADA Defends Testing of Jones, Landis

WADA Defends Testing of Jones, Landis

There are 108 comments on the The Associated Press story from Sep 14, 2006, titled WADA Defends Testing of Jones, Landis . In it, The Associated Press reports that:

The head of the World Anti-Doping Agency defended the doping tests that embroiled Marion Jones and Floyd Landis in high-profile cases, saying 'in the long run, the system works.' WADA chairman Dick Pound ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Associated Press.

trust_but_verify

Santa Rosa, CA

#41 Sep 18, 2006
Mike wrote:
Just tired of everyone breaking the rules except Floyd, yet he gets the shaft. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty".
That's not the way doping regulations work. It's annoying, but it's rules of the game, like the infield fly rule.

TBV
Will

Woodstock, MD

#42 Sep 18, 2006
Mike wrote:
Just tired of everyone breaking the rules except Floyd, yet he gets the shaft. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty".
Don't you read the threads? "Innocent until proven guilty only applies in certain CRIMINAL courts; do you actually believe that Landis is now standing trial in some criminal court, Mike? And can you be more specific -- who's the "everyone" that you refer to who's "breaking the rules"?
Raymond

Saint-thibéry, France

#43 Sep 19, 2006
Will wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you read the threads? "Innocent until proven guilty only applies in certain CRIMINAL courts; do you actually believe that Landis is now standing trial in some criminal court, Mike? And can you be more specific -- who's the "everyone" that you refer to who's "breaking the rules"?
See another thread of mine. In this situation it is up to the accused to prove innocence. You are right this is not a criminal law situation. "A failed A plus a failed B" normally says guilty . Prove that it is wrong. Or shut up. I rest
Mike

Danville, PA

#44 Sep 22, 2006
first you actually have to prove that the sample is his. seems that once again the rules don't apply. who cares if the sample numbers don't even match! we can overlook that right. trust us, we know what is best for you... We are WADA! We know all and see all... The rules don't apply to us, only the accused! And by innocent until proven guilty, I am referring to the court of public opinion, you know, the court you subscribe to. He has been accused, tried, and convicted... All before a single fact was actually published! As for Raymond's comment, prove the sample is even his before you accuse him, let alone convict and hang him. Would you trust a lab report that cannot even get the sample numbers correct? I know I wouldn't. But then again, I live by facts, not fiction...
Raymond

Nîmes, France

#45 Sep 24, 2006
Mike wrote:
first you actually have to prove that the sample is his. seems that once again the rules don't apply. who cares if the sample numbers don't even match! we can overlook that right. trust us, we know what is best for you... We are WADA! We know all and see all... The rules don't apply to us, only the accused! And by innocent until proven guilty, I am referring to the court of public opinion, you know, the court you subscribe to. He has been accused, tried, and convicted... All before a single fact was actually published! As for Raymond's comment, prove the sample is even his before you accuse him, let alone convict and hang him. Would you trust a lab report that cannot even get the sample numbers correct? I know I wouldn't. But then again, I live by facts, not fiction...
You are right for us it is opinion! This assignment of numbers is a new one. It follows and I quote:-

Its not my fault,there is an agenda, its the labs fault, its anti-American, it could have been the booze, oops, somebody else told me to say that. Please. This sort of response does not inspire confidence. Finally, I do not think that Landis is an idiot. Calculating, perhaps, but not an idiot.
Will

Woodstock, MD

#46 Sep 24, 2006
Mike wrote:
first you actually have to prove that the sample is his. seems that once again the rules don't apply. who cares if the sample numbers don't even match! we can overlook that right. trust us, we know what is best for you... We are WADA! We know all and see all... The rules don't apply to us, only the accused! And by innocent until proven guilty, I am referring to the court of public opinion, you know, the court you subscribe to. He has been accused, tried, and convicted... All before a single fact was actually published! As for Raymond's comment, prove the sample is even his before you accuse him, let alone convict and hang him. Would you trust a lab report that cannot even get the sample numbers correct? I know I wouldn't. But then again, I live by facts, not fiction...
There are very elaborate "chain of custody" procedures in place to assure that the results are attributed to the proper person. This issue of "mismatched sample numbers" was raised in Landis' "dismissal motion" before the Review Board. Even though the public is not privy to everything the Board considered, we do know that the Board nevertheless found that the doping evidence it considered was sufficient to allow the adjudication to proceed.

IF THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE OF SAMPLE MIS-IDENTIFICATION SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE THE AAFs, THEN THE BOARD'S JOB WAS TO RECOMMEND THAT ADJUDICATION NOT PROCEED, WHICH THE BOARD DID NOT DO -- therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the Board was NOT presented with significant evidence of mis-identification SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE THE AAFs. This is so because of the applicable rule in this type of disciplinary proceeding that ONLY IRREGULARITIES AND DEVIATIONS FROM LAB PROCEDURES WHICH ARE "SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE THE AAFs" ARE RELEVANT.
Will

Woodstock, MD

#47 Sep 24, 2006
Mike, let's just say for argument's sake, that Landis' sample was assigned # 4038 but that, on 1 or 2 occasions a dyslexic lab technician inadvertently transposed the last 2 digits and thus recorded on the testing logs that Landis' sample was # 4083. All other things being consistent with a proper identification to Landis, would the transposed digits be significant evidence of mis-identification "sufficient to invalidate the AAFs"?
Will

Glen Burnie, MD

#48 Sep 24, 2006
Will wrote:
<quoted text>
There are very elaborate "chain of custody" procedures in place to assure that the results are attributed to the proper person. This issue of "mismatched sample numbers" was raised in Landis' "dismissal motion" before the Review Board. Even though the public is not privy to everything the Board considered, we do know that the Board nevertheless found that the doping evidence it considered was sufficient to allow the adjudication to proceed.
IF THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE OF SAMPLE MIS-IDENTIFICATION SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE THE AAFs, THEN THE BOARD'S JOB WAS TO RECOMMEND THAT ADJUDICATION NOT PROCEED, WHICH THE BOARD DID NOT DO -- therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the Board was NOT presented with significant evidence of mis-identification SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE THE AAFs. This is so because of the applicable rule in this type of disciplinary proceeding that ONLY IRREGULARITIES AND DEVIATIONS FROM LAB PROCEDURES WHICH ARE "SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE THE AAFs" ARE RELEVANT.
CORRECTION: Strike "significant evidence" and replace with "indisputable evidence".
Wayne

United States

#49 Sep 24, 2006
Will wrote:
Mike, let's just say for argument's sake, that Landis' sample was assigned # 4038 but that, on 1 or 2 occasions a dyslexic lab technician inadvertently transposed the last 2 digits and thus recorded on the testing logs that Landis' sample was # 4083. All other things being consistent with a proper identification to Landis, would the transposed digits be significant evidence of mis-identification "sufficient to invalidate the AAFs"?
I think in your example we could give the lab a pass....close enough for Government Work....and, presumably the bottle is still available so the correct number could be established.

...BUT...let's just say for argument's sake that the recorded bottle code number was one assigned to another rider. Wouldn't look good for the lab, would it???

---Salem, Oregon---
Will

Glen Burnie, MD

#50 Sep 24, 2006
Wayne wrote:
<quoted text>
I think in your example we could give the lab a pass....close enough for Government Work....and, presumably the bottle is still available so the correct number could be established.
...BUT...let's just say for argument's sake that the recorded bottle code number was one assigned to another rider. Wouldn't look good for the lab, would it???
---Salem, Oregon---
I would agree that's a tougher case for the lab, so then its burden would be greater to prove that the resulting positive did IN FACT belong to Landis.
Will

Woodstock, MD

#51 Sep 24, 2006
Will wrote:
<quoted text>
I would agree that's a tougher case for the lab, so then its burden would be greater to prove that the resulting positive did IN FACT belong to Landis.
...If, the bottle is still available, and enough sample remains, it could be retested to re-confirm the initial positive result; who knows, this might have been done already.
slovenian princess

Carbondale, CO

#52 Sep 24, 2006
Will wrote:
<quoted text>
I would agree that's a tougher case for the lab, so then its burden would be greater to prove that the resulting positive did IN FACT belong to Landis.
would not DNA (sorry about the caps) prove tha one way or the othert? and i would go one step further to say why is landis not offering up his DNA to prove that the sample is not his, if it isn't...and maybe they are already down that road.
Will

Woodstock, MD

#53 Sep 24, 2006
slovenian princess wrote:
<quoted text>
would not DNA (sorry about the caps) prove tha one way or the othert? and i would go one step further to say why is landis not offering up his DNA to prove that the sample is not his, if it isn't...and maybe they are already down that road.
...there you go...but of course, DNA testing would deprive Landis of the issue so you'd expect that Landis would not want to go there!

Interestingly enough though, in the Tyler Hamilton/Vuelta arbitration case, I note that UCI/USADA performed a DNA test on a blood sample they had of the cyclist during the arbitration hearing, even though Hamilton refused to cooperate. The issue in that case was different -- homologous blood doping -- and the DNA was used to rule out Hamilton's "chimera" defense (ask TBV what that is, if you don't know, or else Google it), still it shows that DNA testing has been known to take place EVEN WITHOUT THE CYCLIST'S COOPERATION and as late in the game as during the final arbitration hearing.
Wayne

United States

#54 Sep 24, 2006
slovenian princess wrote:
<quoted text>
would not DNA (sorry about the caps) prove tha one way or the othert? and i would go one step further to say why is landis not offering up his DNA to prove that the sample is not his, if it isn't...and maybe they are already down that road.
From what little I know, I should think it would be possible to do a DNA test on the sample(s)....and see if they match Floyd's DNA.

...However....the current system does not do DNA testing, and furthermore, there is a lot of controversy about whether athletes should have to submit their DNA. I think that in the Operacion Puerto affair, both Basso and Ullrich refused to supply their DNA.
( Jan reportedly claimed " I am not a murderer !! " )

---Salem, Oregon---
Will

Woodstock, MD

#55 Sep 24, 2006
Wayne wrote:
<quoted text>
From what little I know, I should think it would be possible to do a DNA test on the sample(s)....and see if they match Floyd's DNA.
...However....the current system does not do DNA testing, and furthermore, there is a lot of controversy about whether athletes should have to submit their DNA. I think that in the Operacion Puerto affair, both Basso and Ullrich refused to supply their DNA.
( Jan reportedly claimed " I am not a murderer !! " )
---Salem, Oregon---
While I'm not insensitive to the privacy issues involved in mass DNA testing, I see no big problem with DNA testing in particular cases, such as in a particular paternity case, or in certain group testing situations with the appropriate consent and safeguards. In THIS particular case, Landis has put his medical condition at issue in several different ways; now that his medical condition IS in play, Landis should not be heard to refuse to cooperate or object if UCI/USADA perform DNA testing to dispute Landis' claim that the positive urine samples may not be his.
slovenian princess

Fruita, CO

#56 Sep 24, 2006
Wayne wrote:
<quoted text>
From what little I know, I should think it would be possible to do a DNA test on the sample(s)....and see if they match Floyd's DNA.
...However....the current system does not do DNA testing, and furthermore, there is a lot of controversy about whether athletes should have to submit their DNA. I think that in the Operacion Puerto affair, both Basso and Ullrich refused to supply their DNA.
( Jan reportedly claimed " I am not a murderer !! " )
---Salem, Oregon---
i guess i come from the perspective if i knew that i could clear my name in this case (example, child custody and the use of DNA to prove if it is your child)i would do it as the most simple direct way to close it down, coming close to the 99% i talked about earlier. least amount of energy expended (i can be lazy at times). but then, i thought i read somewhere that they do not have any of the sample left after testing, they discard the remains...and the croation princess is not my twin no matter what you have heard on these posts.
Wayne

United States

#57 Sep 24, 2006
slovenian princess wrote:
.......... i thought i read somewhere that they do not have any of the sample left after testing, they discard the remains...and the croation princess is not my twin no matter what you have heard on these posts.
If true, that ends that question.

For the record, I just did a google search........DNA testing can be done on any sample containing nucleated cells, including hair, blood, semen and URINE..

---Salem, Oregon---
Raymond

Poussan, France

#58 Sep 25, 2006
DNA, perhaps is a way forward for the future. I still find this sad. What has happened to:- its the taking part what counts, not winning? I really must be an ameteur.

Anyway, on a happier note did 60k today through the superb French countryside. Regards Raymond
ricky rider

AOL

#59 Sep 25, 2006
Raymond wrote:
DNA, perhaps is a way forward for the future. I still find this sad. What has happened to:- its the taking part what counts, not winning? I really must be an ameteur.
Anyway, on a happier note did 60k today through the superb French countryside. Regards Raymond
Raymond, perhaps we should start another thread: "How was your ride?"

For me, the weather here in SoCal was perfect for riding. Rode Saturday & Sunday along the coast...Beautiful!
slovenian princess

Carbondale, CO

#60 Sep 25, 2006
ricky rider wrote:
<quoted text>
Raymond, perhaps we should start another thread: "How was your ride?"
For me, the weather here in SoCal was perfect for riding. Rode Saturday & Sunday along the coast...Beautiful!
okay, so it goes...crisp clear colorado blue skies, 60 degrees and snow down to about 7,000 feet. did a 2 hour sunset ride, watching the snowfields change colors. no traffic, no complaints.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Floyd Landis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Not Even Lance Deserves This (Dec '13) Jan '17 Phoenix 43
News Greg Lemond demands 'corrupt' cycling czars resign (Oct '12) Aug '16 Bikers 7
News Lance Armstrong's doping drugs (Jan '13) Jan '16 Fart news 189
News Can Armstrong ever be forgiven? (Sep '14) Oct '14 stefanbed53 5
News Opinion: Should we just stop asking about doping? (Jul '13) Apr '14 Carly Jane 2 31
News Lance Armstrong doping documentary contrasts be... (Oct '13) Apr '14 Carly Jane 2 4
Trick or Treat! (Oct '13) Nov '13 My Opinion_El Pas... 5
More from around the web