Re: Meeting Floyd

Tim McNamara <timmcn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <okvh23hhc19rtpbu4ph81hmuns89r1reb6@xxxxxxx>,
Mark Hickey <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Tim McNamara <timmcn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Is it my opinion that Floyd doped? Yes. Do I think my opinion can
be wrong? Yes. My opinion is not based on facts, because almost no
facts are available.

I disagree with that premise. I think that Floyd's doctor's
presentation has a LOT of factual information about problems with the
lab's protocol, chain of custody, testing, and interpretation.
Unless they're simply creating the documents out of thin air
(something I doubt very much), I'd say that they're presenting a LOT
of facts.

The "facts" are those put together by Floyd's lawyers and consultants,
whose job it is to cast doubt upon the evidence against him.

Funny thing about a "fact" though - it's just as true no matter WHO
brings it up.

Facts, that IMHO would cast doubt on any other "facts" the
lab or USADA/WADA could produce. In other words, it would be kind of
pointless for the lab to say "well, yeah - we broke twelve rules and
mishandled the samples five times, but here's some stuff we actually
did right. To me, unless the system is HUGELY unfair, any number of
the discrepancies listed in the presentation should result in
disqualifying the test results as "questionable" (at worst).

Again, neither of us have any way to judge the accuracy of Floyd's
team's spin. You believe his team; I don't. I don't rule out that my
opinion could be wrong, but then again I'd be the wrong guy to have on a
jury.

"Spin" is one thing - the hard documentary evidence that Dr. Baker's
put together isn't "spin"... but simply facts (as I said, unless
they're manufacturing the documents from scratch, which I think we
both know isn't very likely).

What I think is unfair is how slow the real process is, but how quick to
get into the media the allegations are. If Floyd is found not guilty of
doping, I think he has a whale of a lawsuit against WADA and the UCI for
their "trial by media" approach to doping. The lab should be sealed
against leaks and should immediately lose its WADA accreditation if
leaks are made. The procedure should be that if the A sample is found
positive, the UCI and the athlete are notified privately; the athlete
can choose whether or not to have the B sample tested and should be able
to be present or to have a representative present for the testing of the
B sample. If the B sample is positive, then the rider is sanctioned.
At that time- and only at that time- is a public announcement made.

Absolutely!

And there's the inescapable fact that what Floyd's accused of doing
wouldn't have helped him anyway, which should give everyone reason to
think this over (even the most cynical would have to wonder why Floyd
or his handlers would give him something that would result in a
positive drug test the next day when he won the stage - which he HAD
to, of course, if it wouldn't even help his performance).

Well, the expert opinion on this is not so black and white. There are a
number of credible sources who state that testosterone supplementation
can aid recovery, which is exactly what Floyd needed after Stage 16.

But his testosterone was NOT high - far, far from it (what - a third
of the allowable levels?). IT was his Testosterone to Epitestosterone
ratio that was slightly out of bounds (according to the tests, which
vaired all over the place of course).

Once facts become available, my opinion may change. The outcome of
the USADA hearings is what I am waiting for.

I guess the question is - do you think that - given all the
discrepancies pointed out by Dr. Baker's presentation - that there's
any reason that anyone SHOULD take the results of the test seriously?
I don't doubt that the lab will present evidence that some of the
protocols were followed to the "T", but how would you feel if you
were implicated in a serious crime by testing with all the same
issues?

It appears that you're judging the case solely from hearing the defense
arguments, and not having heard the prosecutor's arguments and evidence.
That's not considered acceptable jurisprudence in any other type of
proceeding, why would it be reasonable here?

I'm just not capable of believing that a test based on the type of
errrors this one was - based entirely on hard, cold documentary
evidence - has a chance of being accurate and/or fair. Even if the
lab does come back with "well, we did 60% of the process correctly", I
don't think that changes anything.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Meeting Floyd
    ... As long as the lab is run as poorly as it is, we'll never know, ... Almost every big name whose been caught doping has said they are not ... The facts ... Is it my opinion that Floyd doped? ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: Meeting Floyd
    ... Mark Hickey wrote: ... because almost no facts are available. ... job to test the validity of the evidence, ... of pointless for the lab to say "well, ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: OT - Tell Bush: "Dont blame Hurricane victims, help them!"
    ... That was my opinion based on experience. ... Do you have any evidence, ... Those are the facts. ... >> Because true conservatives don't have liberal friends. ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Meeting Floyd
    ... My opinion is not based on facts, ... "Spin" is one thing - the hard documentary evidence that Dr. Baker's ... lab that did the test, showing glaring errors in protocol and testing. ... are a number of credible sources who state that testosterone ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: The case for circumcision
    ... There is a difference between fact and opinion. ... correct assessment of the facts, ... That anti-circ activists can't do that shows that ... did you only look at evidence that favored your case?. ...
    (sci.math)
Loading