Re: This is why no one questions the isotope test...

I think you have overstated the matter to an extent -- the article is
really addressing shifting and differing burdens and standards of
proof. Further, there is a concept in the law of something called
"judicial notice" when a matter is so well established that a court
will give it presumptive recognition of validity -- similar to res ipsa
loquitur (which means the "thing speeaks for itself" for instance if an
elevator falls it is deemed negligence because the state of elevator
tech is so good that they don't fall unless someone was negligent). The
article you cited talks around these concepts in layman's terms but
does not seem to state that contesting the test is precluded -- just
that certain presumptions apply and therefore shift and make more
difficult the standards of proof necessary to rebut those presumptions.
Best,
Bill Black

Thomas A. Fine wrote:
I originally posed the question here: "Why doesn't anyone
question the isotope test???". Well, I think Bob Mionske's
VeloNews column from yesterday does a fine job of answering
that question:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10721.0.html

Basically, there is one kind of test where you legally assume that
the test shows evidence of doping, but the athlete can challenge
this assumption by offering evidence that his body naturally can
produce whatever effect would be needed for a positive result.
The T/E test is this type of test.

And there is another kind of test that is considered to be reliable.
The results of this test can not be challenged during an anti-doping
proceeding. And this is what the isotope test is.

So from a procedural standpoint, Floyd Landis could walk in with
iron-clad evidence that his body produced the 3.99 per mil isotope
differential between his testosterone and his comparison compound,
and it would be ignored. If every scientist in the world were to
agree that this result was a natural result of Floyd's biology,
it still wouldn't matter. There's no room in the procedures that
have been created for such evidence to be used at all.

So, Floyd's lawyers, being familiar with these legal proceedings
have determined that it would be a complete waste of time to
look into problems with the test at this point. No matter how
convincing an argument they could build, it could not be used.

By the procedures that the UCI and WADA have laid out, the ONLY way he
can win this case is by what some have been calling a "technicality" -
by showing some kind of procedural problem in obtaining the result.
It's the ONLY legal option available to him now.

Unfortunately, this lack of attention from Floyd and his lawyers, while
being the only legally responsible choice, happens to be a public-
relations disaster. The incorrect claims that this is a "foolproof"
test have gone unanswered in public, and this has cost Floyd heavily in
the court of public opinion. Many are wondering why he hasn't been
questioning the test, and take it as evidence that he "knows it's
correct". Most Americans are now fully convinced that Floyd is a
doper, and aren't likely to be shaken from that position.

Mionske's column hints that maybe the rules aren't the same for a
CAS appeal. Maybe there he can question the test. But by then,
one to two years from now, no one will care anymore, and it's
unlikely they'd be moved by the highly technical evidence, even if
he were to win the appeal.

I can understand now the attraction of the conspiracy theory - a big
scandal with falsified tests and such, if such a thing were uncovered,
would lead to big news, and Floyd's reputation being cleared. And
that's about the only scenario that I can imagine that would clear his
reputation.

Unfortunately I'm an eternal optimist. If I wasn't, I'd tell Floyd not
to waste the next two years fighting a losing battle - just quit
cycling and get on with your life.

tom

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What before big bang?
    ... " Please present that evidence. ... " What properties of matter does light have? ... The energy of a photon is its mass times C. ... >> The propagation medium is what is called free space. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What before big bang?
    ... " Please present that evidence. ... " What properties of matter does light have? ... The energy of a photon is its mass times C. ... >> The propagation medium is what is called free space. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is denying the facts of 911/2001 as bad asdenyingtheHolocaust?
    ... Logical constructs only matter ... I'm merely reporting their evidence. ... certain difficulties as to the necessary scale of the conspiracy. ... Several of the Arab ...
    (rec.org.mensa)
  • Re: mechanism for planetary growth
    ... This claim is incorrect and not supported by the evidence simply ... there is no evidence that HH-30 is creating matter. ... object from its previous created accretion disk. ... If I point out that a closed e loop ought to display the features ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Qualia Question
    ... > One common function in simple machines is just size and shape. ... > What we know about building signal processing devices is that the hardware ... > All this adds up to a huge body of evidence telling us that the solution to ... > AI is simply a matter of building a single processing device with the right ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)