Landis Appeals to CAS [Archive]

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:46 PM

datakoll wrote:

> NYT>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/sports/othersports/11landis.html?ex=1349755200&en=99e70558950dca14&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
>

How does Landis expect to convince the CAS that all 7 IRMS tests were wrong?

That's an AWFUL lot of ****ing tests to get wrong on ONE ATHLETE given
that there's only a few charged with T:E violations and many caught
later concede the test was accurate (i.e. Joe Papp Smear, Pattycake
Sinka*****).

If Landis' defense were in fact true that would mean that literally
hundreds of athletes every year are in fact false positive for not only
T:E, but for other tests as well.

Is that really a credible defense?

Magilla

Carl Sundquist

01-03-1970, 04:47 PM

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:fekgs3$alq$1@aioe.org...
> datakoll wrote:
>
>> NYT>
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/sports/othersports/11landis.html?ex=1349755200&en=99e70558950dca14&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
>>
>
>
> How does Landis expect to convince the CAS that all 7 IRMS tests were
> wrong?
>
> That's an AWFUL lot of ****ing tests to get wrong on ONE ATHLETE given
> that there's only a few charged with T:E violations and many caught later
> concede the test was accurate (i.e. Joe Papp Smear, Pattycake Sinka*****).
>

I'd guess Papp & Sinkowitz conceded the test was /correct/, not that they
said it was accurate.

cyclintom@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 04:47 PM

On Oct 10, 11:46 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> That's an AWFUL lot of ****ing tests to get wrong on ONE ATHLETE given
> that there's only a few charged with T:E violations and many caught
> later concede the test was accurate (i.e. Joe Papp Smear, Pattycake
> Sinka*****).

You're so cute when you're stupid. Tell me, exactly WHAT do you know
about the carbon ratio tests.

billb

01-03-1970, 04:47 PM

On Oct 11, 2:46 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> datakoll wrote:
> > NYT>
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/sports/othersports/11landis.html?ex...
>
> How does Landis expect to convince the CAS that all 7 IRMS tests were wrong?
>
> That's an AWFUL lot of ****ing tests to get wrong on ONE ATHLETE given
> that there's only a few charged with T:E violations and many caught
> later concede the test was accurate (i.e. Joe Papp Smear, Pattycake
> Sinka*****).
>
> If Landis' defense were in fact true that would mean that literally
> hundreds of athletes every year are in fact false positive for not only
> T:E, but for other tests as well.
>
> Is that really a credible defense?
>
> Magilla

Landis is banking on a procedural argument rather than a substantive
one -- in other words, the Lab did not follow correct procedures with
the initial testing so subsequent testing results should not even be
considered/reviewed. It is the civil equivalent of the "fruit of the
poison tree" argument used in criminal cases (USA) to exclude
evidence.
Best,
Bill Black

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:48 PM

cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 10, 11:46 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>That's an AWFUL lot of ****ing tests to get wrong on ONE ATHLETE given
>>that there's only a few charged with T:E violations and many caught
>>later concede the test was accurate (i.e. Joe Papp Smear, Pattycake
>>Sinka*****).
>
>
> You're so cute when you're stupid. Tell me, exactly WHAT do you know
> about the carbon ratio tests.
>

Answer the question I posed and stop trying to distract people from the
issue.

The issue is: Landis had 7 positive CIR tests. If they're all false,
then this means false positives would be relatively commonplace. But we
know they're not.

7 false positives mean that you would literally have hundreds of
cyclists testing positive a year and the vast majority of them would be
false positives. But we know that's just not true.

Explain why only Floyd would get 7 separate false positives and not
anyone else?

Thanks,

Magilla

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:49 PM

billb wrote:

> On Oct 11, 2:46 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>datakoll wrote:
>>
>>>NYT>
>>
>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/sports/othersports/11landis.html?ex...
>>
>>How does Landis expect to convince the CAS that all 7 IRMS tests were wrong?
>>
>>That's an AWFUL lot of ****ing tests to get wrong on ONE ATHLETE given
>>that there's only a few charged with T:E violations and many caught
>>later concede the test was accurate (i.e. Joe Papp Smear, Pattycake
>>Sinka*****).
>>
>>If Landis' defense were in fact true that would mean that literally
>>hundreds of athletes every year are in fact false positive for not only
>>T:E, but for other tests as well.
>>
>>Is that really a credible defense?
>>
>>Magilla
>
>
> Landis is banking on a procedural argument rather than a substantive
> one -- in other words, the Lab did not follow correct procedures with
> the initial testing so subsequent testing results should not even be
> considered/reviewed. It is the civil equivalent of the "fruit of the
> poison tree" argument used in criminal cases (USA) to exclude
> evidence.
> Best,
> Bill Black
>

No, he's not banking on that defense. If you read the CAS opinion and
followed the case, Landis had the burden to disprove each and every
test. They are considered completely separate tests and disqualifying
one would not necessarily disqualify another.

And once you show a lab error, the burden to prove thhe error was
insignificant then falls to USADA, which was able to prove that the IRMS
test was not done improperly.

That's why Landis team didn't want his other previously declared
negative Tour samples re-tested...and when they did that and like 5 or 6
(I forget) came back positive under the IRMS test, it gutted his defense
strategy from a credibility standpoint. Because now Landis would have
everyone believe the actual test itself is capable of generating false
positives at an astronomically high rate that should - accordiing to
Landis's defense - be generating false positives at the rate of like
50-60/month.

But we don't see that in the statistics of WADA or in cycling.

So the question stands: why would Landis be the only victim of this
false positive syndrome? And two, if the test is so broken that it is
capable of getting 7 tests incorrect from one cyclist, how come Landis
(and Lance and many other U.S. pros) had literally hundreds of urine
samples pass with flying colors for all these years if the false
positive rate was so high (according to Landis' defense in this case,
that is).

Those additional tests were performed at a different date and all came
back positive.

Answer my questions and stop talking like a ****ing politician.

Positively Magilla

cyclintom@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 04:49 PM

On Oct 11, 7:33 am, billb <wrbma...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> Landis is banking on a procedural argument rather than a substantive
> one -- in other words, the Lab did not follow correct procedures with
> the initial testing so subsequent testing results should not even be
> considered/reviewed. It is the civil equivalent of the "fruit of the
> poison tree" argument used in criminal cases (USA) to exclude
> evidence.

Actually Landis is banking on the fact that the carbon ratios used by
the French lab isn't the same standard used by most of the rest of the
world and that using the standard from the USA, Switzerland and the
like would have returned a negative since even the French test was
borderline.

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com

01-03-1970, 04:49 PM

On Oct 11, 9:14 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 11:46 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>That's an AWFUL lot of ****ing tests to get wrong on ONE ATHLETE given
> >>that there's only a few charged with T:E violations and many caught
> >>later concede the test was accurate (i.e. Joe Papp Smear, Pattycake
> >>Sinka*****).
>
> > You're so cute when you're stupid. Tell me, exactly WHAT do you know
> > about the carbon ratio tests.
>
> Answer the question I posed and stop trying to distract people from the
> issue.
>
> The issue is: Landis had 7 positive CIR tests. If they're all false,
> then this means false positives would be relatively commonplace. But we
> know they're not.
>
> 7 false positives mean that you would literally have hundreds of
> cyclists testing positive a year and the vast majority of them would be
> false positives. But we know that's just not true.
>
> Explain why only Floyd would get 7 separate false positives and not
> anyone else?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Magilla

cuz they aren't 'false'??

cyclintom@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 04:49 PM

On Oct 11, 8:14 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 11:46 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>That's an AWFUL lot of ****ing tests to get wrong on ONE ATHLETE given
> >>that there's only a few charged with T:E violations and many caught
> >>later concede the test was accurate (i.e. Joe Papp Smear, Pattycake
> >>Sinka*****).
>
> > You're so cute when you're stupid. Tell me, exactly WHAT do you know
> > about the carbon ratio tests.
>
> Answer the question I posed and stop trying to distract people from the
> issue.
>
> The issue is: Landis had 7 positive CIR tests. If they're all false,
> then this means false positives would be relatively commonplace. But we
> know they're not.
>
> 7 false positives mean that you would literally have hundreds of
> cyclists testing positive a year and the vast majority of them would be
> false positives. But we know that's just not true.

Actually you're completely full of crap and you don't even know why.

> Explain why only Floyd would get 7 separate false positives and not
> anyone else?

Hint: Americans supposedly have a different carbon ratio than
Europeans and hence they use different numbers for testing Americans.

Geraard Spergen

01-03-1970, 04:49 PM

MagillaGorilla wrote:

> The issue is: Landis had 7 positive CIR tests. If they're all false,
> then this means false positives would be relatively commonplace. But we
> know they're not.
>
> 7 false positives mean that you would literally have hundreds of
> cyclists testing positive a year and the vast majority of them would be
> false positives. But we know that's just not true.
>
> Explain why only Floyd would get 7 separate false positives and not
> anyone else?

The CIR is generally only done once the T-E ratio comes up abnormal; I
don't think that amounts to hundreds of cyclists per year.

Kyle Legate

01-03-1970, 04:49 PM

MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> So the question stands: why would Landis be the only victim of this
> false positive syndrome? And two, if the test is so broken that it is
> capable of getting 7 tests incorrect from one cyclist, how come Landis
> (and Lance and many other U.S. pros) had literally hundreds of urine
> samples pass with flying colors for all these years if the false
> positive rate was so high (according to Landis' defense in this case,
> that is).
>
You're trolling so fast and furious that you're forgetting to do your
research. This test is not performed that often, only after an elevated
T:E ratio suggests a closer look. Most of the time I would bet that the
test comes back positive because the athlete slept with the ball patch
on. Theoretically it's possible to give a false positive on this test,
but incredibly unlikely to do so on 7 independent samples. Given that
such a mass spec trace would have other peaks that come from expected
urinary compounds which can serve as internal standards for calibration,
even after the data has been collected, I would guess the true false
positive rate is very low, and vanishingly small when repeated on
several other samples. I guess it's too late now for Floyd to man up and
admit he ****ed up.

If you do this same test on all pro cyclists, many samples would likely
show up "false positive" despite a normal T:E ratio, nowhaddamean?

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:49 PM

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:

> On Oct 11, 9:14 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 10, 11:46 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>That's an AWFUL lot of ****ing tests to get wrong on ONE ATHLETE given
>>>>that there's only a few charged with T:E violations and many caught
>>>>later concede the test was accurate (i.e. Joe Papp Smear, Pattycake
>>>>Sinka*****).
>>
>>>You're so cute when you're stupid. Tell me, exactly WHAT do you know
>>>about the carbon ratio tests.
>>
>>Answer the question I posed and stop trying to distract people from the
>>issue.
>>
>>The issue is: Landis had 7 positive CIR tests. If they're all false,
>>then this means false positives would be relatively commonplace. But we
>>know they're not.
>>
>>7 false positives mean that you would literally have hundreds of
>>cyclists testing positive a year and the vast majority of them would be
>>false positives. But we know that's just not true.
>>
>>Explain why only Floyd would get 7 separate false positives and not
>>anyone else?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Magilla
>
>
> cuz they aren't 'false'??

Could be, rabbit.

Magilla Gorilla, FOR SALE

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:49 PM

cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

> On Oct 11, 7:33 am, billb <wrbma...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>Landis is banking on a procedural argument rather than a substantive
>>one -- in other words, the Lab did not follow correct procedures with
>>the initial testing so subsequent testing results should not even be
>>considered/reviewed. It is the civil equivalent of the "fruit of the
>>poison tree" argument used in criminal cases (USA) to exclude
>>evidence.
>
>
> Actually Landis is banking on the fact that the carbon ratios used by
> the French lab isn't the same standard used by most of the rest of the
> world and that using the standard from the USA, Switzerland and the
> like would have returned a negative since even the French test was
> borderline.
>

Tammy Tommy,

The LNDD lab's use of 1 metabolite to declare a positive IRMS test was
in accordance with WADA Protocol. I suggest you read the CAS opinion if
you don't believe me.

The logic used by Campbell in his dissent and Landis's attorneys are
wrong in this respect: labs are free to increase the standard above the
WADA Protocol (just not reduce it), as the WADA Protocol only
establishes a minimum threshold, which is 1 metabolite. Other labs are
free to make the standard harder. However, this harder standard
employed by the labs does NOT raise the minimum bar established by WADA
Protocol.

The fact that other labs have chosen to use a higher standard does not
mean the LNDD did anything wrong. And Landis will never win on that
argument. In fact, arguments like that are stupid to even make because
as a matter of precedent, the LNDD is allowed to use the standard of 1
metabolite. To wit, not a single case of T:E that has come before the
CAS has ever - including those done by LNDD - ever resulted in an
opinion different than the one I am espousing here on the issue of # of
metabolites.

So for you to come in here and talk condescendingly about this in light
of irrefutable factual evidence that clearly shows your opinion is wrong
as a matter of law calls into question your intelligence.

Stop committing perjury, Tammy.

Magilla

P.S. Don Catlin, Director of USADA lab - a lab whom you claim would have
called Landis' results negative, testified for USADA that Landis' case
was a "clear case of intentional testosterone doping." I suggest you
re-read the CAS opinion, which mentioned this fact.

So just because the USADA lab uses 2 metabolites to establish a
synthetic testosterone positive doesn't mean what you are trying to
imply it means. All it means is USADA would have had to call Landis
test a "technical negative." That's not the same as a negative. The
LNDD complied with WADA Protocol on using 1 metabolite and that's the
end of the argument on this issue.

RicodJour

01-03-1970, 04:49 PM

On Oct 11, 12:30 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 11, 8:14 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Explain why only Floyd would get 7 separate false positives and not
> > anyone else?
>
> Hint: Americans supposedly have a different carbon ratio than
> Europeans and hence they use different numbers for testing Americans.

I knew that the US had the largest carbon footprint, but I didn't
realize that it trickled down to the level of the individual.

R

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:49 PM

cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

> On Oct 11, 8:14 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 10, 11:46 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>That's an AWFUL lot of ****ing tests to get wrong on ONE ATHLETE given
>>>>that there's only a few charged with T:E violations and many caught
>>>>later concede the test was accurate (i.e. Joe Papp Smear, Pattycake
>>>>Sinka*****).
>>
>>>You're so cute when you're stupid. Tell me, exactly WHAT do you know
>>>about the carbon ratio tests.
>>
>>Answer the question I posed and stop trying to distract people from the
>>issue.
>>
>>The issue is: Landis had 7 positive CIR tests. If they're all false,
>>then this means false positives would be relatively commonplace. But we
>>know they're not.
>>
>>7 false positives mean that you would literally have hundreds of
>>cyclists testing positive a year and the vast majority of them would be
>>false positives. But we know that's just not true.
>
>
> Actually you're completely full of crap and you don't even know why.
>
>
>>Explain why only Floyd would get 7 separate false positives and not
>>anyone else?
>
>
> Hint: Americans supposedly have a different carbon ratio than
> Europeans and hence they use different numbers for testing Americans.
>

Dear Tammy Tommy,

"Supposedly"....nice. Riddle me this jackass - if the labs don't know
the identity of the person whose sample they are testing how is it that
they know what country they're from when all they have is a 7-digit labe
number?

Wrong answer, Tammy.

Magilla

Tom Kunich

01-03-1970, 04:49 PM

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:feljsj$357$1@aioe.org...
> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>
> "Supposedly"....nice. Riddle me this jackass - if the labs don't know the
> identity of the person whose sample they are testing how is it that they
> know what country they're from when all they have is a 7-digit labe
> number?

Here's a clue asshat - they have to know who they're testing.

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:50 PM

Kyle Legate wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>
>> So the question stands: why would Landis be the only victim of this
>> false positive syndrome? And two, if the test is so broken that it is
>> capable of getting 7 tests incorrect from one cyclist, how come Landis
>> (and Lance and many other U.S. pros) had literally hundreds of urine
>> samples pass with flying colors for all these years if the false
>> positive rate was so high (according to Landis' defense in this case,
>> that is).
>>
> You're trolling so fast and furious that you're forgetting to do your
> research. This test is not performed that often, only after an elevated
> T:E ratio suggests a closer look. Most of the time I would bet that the
> test comes back positive because the athlete slept with the ball patch
> on. Theoretically it's possible to give a false positive on this test,
> but incredibly unlikely to do so on 7 independent samples. Given that
> such a mass spec trace would have other peaks that come from expected
> urinary compounds which can serve as internal standards for calibration,
> even after the data has been collected, I would guess the true false
> positive rate is very low, and vanishingly small when repeated on
> several other samples. I guess it's too late now for Floyd to man up and
> admit he ****ed up.
>
> If you do this same test on all pro cyclists, many samples would likely
> show up "false positive" despite a normal T:E ratio, nowhaddamean?

The T:E test can be fooled. The mass spec test cannot. The only reason
they don't do the IRMS test first is because of cost.

Magilla

bdbafh

01-03-1970, 04:50 PM

On Oct 11, 5:18 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> Kyle Legate wrote:
> > MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> >> So the question stands: why would Landis be the only victim of this
> >> false positive syndrome? And two, if the test is so broken that it is
> >> capable of getting 7 tests incorrect from one cyclist, how come Landis
> >> (and Lance and many other U.S. pros) had literally hundreds of urine
> >> samples pass with flying colors for all these years if the false
> >> positive rate was so high (according to Landis' defense in this case,
> >> that is).
>
> > You're trolling so fast and furious that you're forgetting to do your
> > research. This test is not performed that often, only after an elevated
> > T:E ratio suggests a closer look. Most of the time I would bet that the
> > test comes back positive because the athlete slept with the ball patch
> > on. Theoretically it's possible to give a false positive on this test,
> > but incredibly unlikely to do so on 7 independent samples. Given that
> > such a mass spec trace would have other peaks that come from expected
> > urinary compounds which can serve as internal standards for calibration,
> > even after the data has been collected, I would guess the true false
> > positive rate is very low, and vanishingly small when repeated on
> > several other samples. I guess it's too late now for Floyd to man up and
> > admit he ****ed up.
>
> > If you do this same test on all pro cyclists, many samples would likely
> > show up "false positive" despite a normal T:E ratio, nowhaddamean?
>
> The T:E test can be fooled. The mass spec test cannot. The only reason
> they don't do the IRMS test first is because of cost.
>
> Magilla

"the mass spec test cannot"

The mass spec test is still dependent upon interpretation of a (mostly
hairless) ape. Far from foolproof.

-bdbafh

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:51 PM

Geraard Spergen wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> The issue is: Landis had 7 positive CIR tests. If they're all false,
>> then this means false positives would be relatively commonplace. But
>> we know they're not.
>>
>> 7 false positives mean that you would literally have hundreds of
>> cyclists testing positive a year and the vast majority of them would
>> be false positives. But we know that's just not true.
>>
>> Explain why only Floyd would get 7 separate false positives and not
>> anyone else?
>
>
> The CIR is generally only done once the T-E ratio comes up abnormal; I
> don't think that amounts to hundreds of cyclists per year.

Hundreds of athletes every year exceed the T:E ratio, but only a handful
fail the CIR test.

Also, they did studies on the CIR test and it didn't generate false
positives. Don't you think Landis' legal team would have brought up
those studies and asserted that claim if what you are implying were in
fact true?

Magilla

cyclintom@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 04:51 PM

On Oct 11, 2:47 pm, bdbafh <bdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 5:18 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kyle Legate wrote:
> > > MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> > >> So the question stands: why would Landis be the only victim of this
> > >> false positive syndrome? And two, if the test is so broken that it is
> > >> capable of getting 7 tests incorrect from one cyclist, how come Landis
> > >> (and Lance and many other U.S. pros) had literally hundreds of urine
> > >> samples pass with flying colors for all these years if the false
> > >> positive rate was so high (according to Landis' defense in this case,
> > >> that is).
>
> > > You're trolling so fast and furious that you're forgetting to do your
> > > research. This test is not performed that often, only after an elevated
> > > T:E ratio suggests a closer look. Most of the time I would bet that the
> > > test comes back positive because the athlete slept with the ball patch
> > > on. Theoretically it's possible to give a false positive on this test,
> > > but incredibly unlikely to do so on 7 independent samples. Given that
> > > such a mass spec trace would have other peaks that come from expected
> > > urinary compounds which can serve as internal standards for calibration,
> > > even after the data has been collected, I would guess the true false
> > > positive rate is very low, and vanishingly small when repeated on
> > > several other samples. I guess it's too late now for Floyd to man up and
> > > admit he ****ed up.
>
> > > If you do this same test on all pro cyclists, many samples would likely
> > > show up "false positive" despite a normal T:E ratio, nowhaddamean?
>
> > The T:E test can be fooled. The mass spec test cannot. The only reason
> > they don't do the IRMS test first is because of cost.
>
> > Magilla
>
> "the mass spec test cannot"
>
> The mass spec test is still dependent upon interpretation of a (mostly
> hairless) ape. Far from foolproof.

And what's more, it was "interpretted" by eye.

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:51 PM

bdbafh wrote:

> On Oct 11, 5:18 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Kyle Legate wrote:
>>
>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>>>So the question stands: why would Landis be the only victim of this
>>>>false positive syndrome? And two, if the test is so broken that it is
>>>>capable of getting 7 tests incorrect from one cyclist, how come Landis
>>>>(and Lance and many other U.S. pros) had literally hundreds of urine
>>>>samples pass with flying colors for all these years if the false
>>>>positive rate was so high (according to Landis' defense in this case,
>>>>that is).
>>
>>>You're trolling so fast and furious that you're forgetting to do your
>>>research. This test is not performed that often, only after an elevated
>>>T:E ratio suggests a closer look. Most of the time I would bet that the
>>>test comes back positive because the athlete slept with the ball patch
>>>on. Theoretically it's possible to give a false positive on this test,
>>>but incredibly unlikely to do so on 7 independent samples. Given that
>>>such a mass spec trace would have other peaks that come from expected
>>>urinary compounds which can serve as internal standards for calibration,
>>>even after the data has been collected, I would guess the true false
>>>positive rate is very low, and vanishingly small when repeated on
>>>several other samples. I guess it's too late now for Floyd to man up and
>>>admit he ****ed up.
>>
>>>If you do this same test on all pro cyclists, many samples would likely
>>>show up "false positive" despite a normal T:E ratio, nowhaddamean?
>>
>>The T:E test can be fooled. The mass spec test cannot. The only reason
>>they don't do the IRMS test first is because of cost.
>>
>>Magilla
>
>
> "the mass spec test cannot"
>
> The mass spec test is still dependent upon interpretation of a (mostly
> hairless) ape. Far from foolproof.
>
> -bdbafh
>

The machine spews out numbers and that's all she wrote, dumbass.
There's no interpetation.

That's why Landis's entire defense had to rely on this Area 51
conspiracy theory stuff.

And then when the other 5 came back positive, he had to argue they made
mistakes on those tests too...plus both the A&B sample T:E tests were
also in error. That's an awful lot to ask a CAS Panel to believe.

The problem is Landis's expert had a chance to witness the testing of
the B-sample and he didn't find anything wrong with it.

Magilla

Kyle Legate

01-03-1970, 04:51 PM

bdbafh wrote:
>
> "the mass spec test cannot"
>
> The mass spec test is still dependent upon interpretation of a (mostly
> hairless) ape. Far from foolproof.
>
Given that the person doing the interpretation is not completely naive
to the technology, he/she would have to be really stupid to screw up the
interpretation of a mass spec trace:

http://www.physics.umanitoba.ca/research/pictures/mass_spec.png

See those peaks? They are all assigned a number corresponding to the
precise position on the X axis. This number can be printed right on the
chromatogram, or listed in a spreadsheet. Based on the error spread of
the measurement and the height of the peak, the machine can fail to
assign a peak if it can't be ambiguously quantified. Therefore, for all
peaks which are identifiable, there's no room for ****ing up. You read
the peak values, you look up the identification in a table (the
identification of the peaks is likely already tabulated in the
spreadsheet, but a human must confirm whether it is correct) and,
presto, exogenous testosterone.

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:51 PM

cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

> On Oct 11, 2:47 pm, bdbafh <bdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 11, 5:18 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Kyle Legate wrote:
>>>
>>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>>>>So the question stands: why would Landis be the only victim of this
>>>>>false positive syndrome? And two, if the test is so broken that it is
>>>>>capable of getting 7 tests incorrect from one cyclist, how come Landis
>>>>>(and Lance and many other U.S. pros) had literally hundreds of urine
>>>>>samples pass with flying colors for all these years if the false
>>>>>positive rate was so high (according to Landis' defense in this case,
>>>>>that is).
>>
>>>>You're trolling so fast and furious that you're forgetting to do your
>>>>research. This test is not performed that often, only after an elevated
>>>>T:E ratio suggests a closer look. Most of the time I would bet that the
>>>>test comes back positive because the athlete slept with the ball patch
>>>>on. Theoretically it's possible to give a false positive on this test,
>>>>but incredibly unlikely to do so on 7 independent samples. Given that
>>>>such a mass spec trace would have other peaks that come from expected
>>>>urinary compounds which can serve as internal standards for calibration,
>>>>even after the data has been collected, I would guess the true false
>>>>positive rate is very low, and vanishingly small when repeated on
>>>>several other samples. I guess it's too late now for Floyd to man up and
>>>>admit he ****ed up.
>>
>>>>If you do this same test on all pro cyclists, many samples would likely
>>>>show up "false positive" despite a normal T:E ratio, nowhaddamean?
>>
>>>The T:E test can be fooled. The mass spec test cannot. The only reason
>>>they don't do the IRMS test first is because of cost.
>>
>>>Magilla
>>
>>"the mass spec test cannot"
>>
>>The mass spec test is still dependent upon interpretation of a (mostly
>>hairless) ape. Far from foolproof.
>
>
> And what's more, it was "interpretted" by eye.
>

The IRMS test were numbers with decimal points. Where the hell are you
getting your information from?

Magilla

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:52 PM

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:feljsj$357$1@aioe.org...
>
>> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> "Supposedly"....nice. Riddle me this jackass - if the labs don't know
>> the identity of the person whose sample they are testing how is it
>> that they know what country they're from when all they have is a
>> 7-digit labe number?
>
>
> Here's a clue asshat - they have to know who they're testing.
>

Read the CAS testimony, ****face - they had no idea who Floyd Landis was
when they were running the tests. The lab workers who ran the A-test
and B-tests doen't even give a **** about cycling. I beleive them.

Even if the lab did know it was Floyd, why would that matter? When your
doctor takes your blood and sends it to a lab, do you accuse him and the
lab of a conspiracy if it comes back positive for hepatitis simply
because they knew your identity?

You people are lunatics with your French conspiracy theories.

Magilla

Tom Kunich

01-03-1970, 04:52 PM

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:femivk$saq$1@aioe.org...
> bdbafh wrote:
>
>> On Oct 11, 5:18 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Kyle Legate wrote:
>>>
>>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>>>So the question stands: why would Landis be the only victim of this
>>>>>false positive syndrome? And two, if the test is so broken that it is
>>>>>capable of getting 7 tests incorrect from one cyclist, how come Landis
>>>>>(and Lance and many other U.S. pros) had literally hundreds of urine
>>>>>samples pass with flying colors for all these years if the false
>>>>>positive rate was so high (according to Landis' defense in this case,
>>>>>that is).
>>>
>>>>You're trolling so fast and furious that you're forgetting to do your
>>>>research. This test is not performed that often, only after an elevated
>>>>T:E ratio suggests a closer look. Most of the time I would bet that the
>>>>test comes back positive because the athlete slept with the ball patch
>>>>on. Theoretically it's possible to give a false positive on this test,
>>>>but incredibly unlikely to do so on 7 independent samples. Given that
>>>>such a mass spec trace would have other peaks that come from expected
>>>>urinary compounds which can serve as internal standards for calibration,
>>>>even after the data has been collected, I would guess the true false
>>>>positive rate is very low, and vanishingly small when repeated on
>>>>several other samples. I guess it's too late now for Floyd to man up and
>>>>admit he ****ed up.
>>>
>>>>If you do this same test on all pro cyclists, many samples would likely
>>>>show up "false positive" despite a normal T:E ratio, nowhaddamean?
>>>
>>>The T:E test can be fooled. The mass spec test cannot. The only reason
>>>they don't do the IRMS test first is because of cost.
>>>
>>>Magilla
>>
>>
>> "the mass spec test cannot"
>>
>> The mass spec test is still dependent upon interpretation of a (mostly
>> hairless) ape. Far from foolproof.
>>
>> -bdbafh
>>
>
>
> The machine spews out numbers and that's all she wrote, dumbass. There's
> no interpetation.
>
> That's why Landis's entire defense had to rely on this Area 51 conspiracy
> theory stuff.
>
> And then when the other 5 came back positive, he had to argue they made
> mistakes on those tests too...plus both the A&B sample T:E tests were also
> in error. That's an awful lot to ask a CAS Panel to believe.

You're getting funnier by the minute - if Floyd's carbon ratio is on their
margins because of his diet, it's on the margin for along time. But don't
let a few facts deprive you of all the fun your having making an absolute
ass out of yourself.

> The problem is Landis's expert had a chance to witness the testing of the
> B-sample and he didn't find anything wrong with it.

Psst - they didn't let Landis' "expert" in to witness the testing.

Kyle Legate

01-03-1970, 04:52 PM

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> And what's more, it was "interpretted" by eye.
>>
>
>
> The IRMS test were numbers with decimal points. Where the hell are you
> getting your information from?
>
But you have to read them with your eye. Oh, the error inherent in that!

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:52 PM

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:femivk$saq$1@aioe.org...
>
>> bdbafh wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 11, 5:18 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kyle Legate wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> So the question stands: why would Landis be the only victim of this
>>>>>> false positive syndrome? And two, if the test is so broken that
>>>>>> it is
>>>>>> capable of getting 7 tests incorrect from one cyclist, how come
>>>>>> Landis
>>>>>> (and Lance and many other U.S. pros) had literally hundreds of urine
>>>>>> samples pass with flying colors for all these years if the false
>>>>>> positive rate was so high (according to Landis' defense in this case,
>>>>>> that is).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You're trolling so fast and furious that you're forgetting to do your
>>>>> research. This test is not performed that often, only after an
>>>>> elevated
>>>>> T:E ratio suggests a closer look. Most of the time I would bet that
>>>>> the
>>>>> test comes back positive because the athlete slept with the ball patch
>>>>> on. Theoretically it's possible to give a false positive on this test,
>>>>> but incredibly unlikely to do so on 7 independent samples. Given that
>>>>> such a mass spec trace would have other peaks that come from expected
>>>>> urinary compounds which can serve as internal standards for
>>>>> calibration,
>>>>> even after the data has been collected, I would guess the true false
>>>>> positive rate is very low, and vanishingly small when repeated on
>>>>> several other samples. I guess it's too late now for Floyd to man
>>>>> up and
>>>>> admit he ****ed up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you do this same test on all pro cyclists, many samples would
>>>>> likely
>>>>> show up "false positive" despite a normal T:E ratio, nowhaddamean?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The T:E test can be fooled. The mass spec test cannot. The only
>>>> reason
>>>> they don't do the IRMS test first is because of cost.
>>>>
>>>> Magilla
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "the mass spec test cannot"
>>>
>>> The mass spec test is still dependent upon interpretation of a (mostly
>>> hairless) ape. Far from foolproof.
>>>
>>> -bdbafh
>>>
>>
>>
>> The machine spews out numbers and that's all she wrote, dumbass.
>> There's no interpetation.
>>
>> That's why Landis's entire defense had to rely on this Area 51
>> conspiracy theory stuff.
>>
>> And then when the other 5 came back positive, he had to argue they
>> made mistakes on those tests too...plus both the A&B sample T:E tests
>> were also in error. That's an awful lot to ask a CAS Panel to believe.
>
>
> You're getting funnier by the minute - if Floyd's carbon ratio is on
> their margins because of his diet, it's on the margin for along time.
> But don't let a few facts deprive you of all the fun your having making
> an absolute ass out of yourself.
>
>> The problem is Landis's expert had a chance to witness the testing of
>> the B-sample and he didn't find anything wrong with it.
>
>
> Psst - they didn't let Landis' "expert" in to witness the testing.

Not true...you're thinking of the testing of the additional IRMS tests.
Landis' expert was not entitled to view that testing under WADA rules
and the CAS Panel agreed with that decision.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3

However, Landis' expert viewed the testing of the B-sample from his
positive T:E: B-sample. His name was Douwe DeBoer.

Magilla

Tom Kunich

01-03-1970, 04:52 PM

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:femmdk$5ek$1@aioe.org...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:feljsj$357$1@aioe.org...
>>
>>> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> "Supposedly"....nice. Riddle me this jackass - if the labs don't know
>>> the identity of the person whose sample they are testing how is it that
>>> they know what country they're from when all they have is a 7-digit labe
>>> number?
>>
>>
>> Here's a clue asshat - they have to know who they're testing.
>
> Read the CAS testimony, ****face - they had no idea who Floyd Landis was

If you believe that you're so far in outer space that there's no use in even
talking about it.

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:53 PM

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:femmdk$5ek$1@aioe.org...
>
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>>> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:feljsj$357$1@aioe.org...
>>>
>>>> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Supposedly"....nice. Riddle me this jackass - if the labs don't
>>>> know the identity of the person whose sample they are testing how is
>>>> it that they know what country they're from when all they have is a
>>>> 7-digit labe number?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's a clue asshat - they have to know who they're testing.
>>
>>
>> Read the CAS testimony, ****face - they had no idea who Floyd Landis was
>
>
> If you believe that you're so far in outer space that there's no use in
> even talking about it.
>

Tammy Tommy,

If you have evidence the LNDD framed Landis, you should give all that
evidence to the LA Times (and Landis' attorneys).

Of course, that's only if you have evidence, and not just insinuation.

By the way, why would knowing who Landis is mean that they were trying
to frame him?

When your doctor takes blood and sends it to lab, do you tell him to
make sure it's anonymus because otherwise it will mean the lab tech is
trying to frame you for prostate cancer?

I got news for you - the French female lab tech doesn't give a ****
about Floyd. At all.

The idea that she sits in the lab and wants to frame him is ****ing
delusional.

Like most women, she doesn't even follow cycling.

Magilla

Tom Kunich

01-03-1970, 04:53 PM

"Kyle Legate" <legatek@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5n8h2eFgrs97U2@mid.individual.net...
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>>> And what's more, it was "interpretted" by eye.
>>
>> The IRMS test were numbers with decimal points. Where the hell are you
>> getting your information from?
>>
> But you have to read them with your eye. Oh, the error inherent in that!

By all means explain what the hell you're talking about. The lab already
said that they interpret the graph visually without a reference peak.

dustoyevsky@mac.com

01-03-1970, 04:53 PM

On Oct 12, 2:24 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> Of course, that's only if you have evidence, and not just insinuation.

The evidence was destroyed from what I read. Someone even "complained"
about it. That made everything OK (not).

> By the way, why would knowing who Landis is mean that they were trying
> to frame him?

Knowing which samples belonged to Landis _made it possible_ to do a
good frame. Your usual good thinking stumbled a little there.

> When your doctor takes blood and sends it to lab, do you tell him to
> make sure it's anonymus because otherwise it will mean the lab tech is
> trying to frame you for prostate cancer?

Apples/oranges. The lab had a big big black eye swelling up in public
over the whiteout, having the same tech do A/B samples, and the huge
difference in A/B results, which some say show the B sample was
contaminated. Or sabotaged or whatever.

> I got news for you - the French female lab tech doesn't give a ****
> about Floyd. At all.
>
> The idea that she sits in the lab and wants to frame him is ****ing
> delusional.
>
> Like most women, she doesn't even follow cycling.

All that goes right out the window upon reading about affairs at the
City of Houston crime lab. I forget: 23 convictions overturned, was
it? So far? "We knew they were guilty of something". "They're all
criminals (or dopers)".

Your lab tech probably cares about her job.

Given the political climate IRT "doping" sensationalized (effective)
lifetime bans, the intentional "leaks" ", lack of anonymity of
samples, etc. etc., what's so hard to imagine about a little nudge
nudge wink wink ("drip drip into a sample") at a French drug lab that
really really needed to cover its derriere? Not to mention *another*
loud-mouthed fat-gut bermuda-short-wearing American tourist winning
the national summertime sports event?

I wonder if the first tech (or two), who didn't have enough "name" to
use in the WADA-Pound media publicity drive to the "conviction" of
Tyler Hamilton, still works in that "Get me a positive reader in
here!!!" lab doing something besides sweeping the floors and cleaning
toilets-- and serving as An Example? --D-y

Tom Kunich

01-03-1970, 04:53 PM

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:fen7fk$h45$1@aioe.org...
>
> If you have evidence the LNDD framed Landis, you should give all that
> evidence to the LA Times (and Landis' attorneys).

I suggest you go back to your sock. The samples are marked so that Americans
are descerned from Europeans. It would never occur to you that the results
are plain to those doing the tests. Americans have different carbon ratios
because they have a different diet.

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:54 PM

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:54 PM

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:54 PM

dustoyevsky@mac.com wrote:

> On Oct 12, 2:24 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Of course, that's only if you have evidence, and not just insinuation.
>
>
> The evidence was destroyed from what I read. Someone even "complained"
> about it. That made everything OK (not).
>
>
>>By the way, why would knowing who Landis is mean that they were trying
>>to frame him?
>
>
> Knowing which samples belonged to Landis _made it possible_ to do a
> good frame. Your usual good thinking stumbled a little there.
>
>
>>When your doctor takes blood and sends it to lab, do you tell him to
>>make sure it's anonymus because otherwise it will mean the lab tech is
>>trying to frame you for prostate cancer?
>
>
> Apples/oranges. The lab had a big big black eye swelling up in public
> over the whiteout, having the same tech do A/B samples, and the huge
> difference in A/B results, which some say show the B sample was
> contaminated. Or sabotaged or whatever.
>
>
>>I got news for you - the French female lab tech doesn't give a ****
>>about Floyd. At all.
>>
>>The idea that she sits in the lab and wants to frame him is ****ing
>>delusional.
>>
>>Like most women, she doesn't even follow cycling.
>
>
> All that goes right out the window upon reading about affairs at the
> City of Houston crime lab. I forget: 23 convictions overturned, was
> it? So far? "We knew they were guilty of something". "They're all
> criminals (or dopers)".
>
> Your lab tech probably cares about her job.
>
> Given the political climate IRT "doping" sensationalized (effective)
> lifetime bans, the intentional "leaks" ", lack of anonymity of
> samples, etc. etc., what's so hard to imagine about a little nudge
> nudge wink wink ("drip drip into a sample") at a French drug lab that
> really really needed to cover its derriere? Not to mention *another*
> loud-mouthed fat-gut bermuda-short-wearing American tourist winning
> the national summertime sports event?
>
> I wonder if the first tech (or two), who didn't have enough "name" to
> use in the WADA-Pound media publicity drive to the "conviction" of
> Tyler Hamilton, still works in that "Get me a positive reader in
> here!!!" lab doing something besides sweeping the floors and cleaning
> toilets-- and serving as An Example? --D-y
>

I hate to tell you assface, but Hamilton is guilty as hell and everyone
knows it. The lab tech in Greece had no idea who Hamilton was when he
tested his sample. Later, a completely different lab nailed him.

And then we learned he was a major player who paid tons of cash in
Operacion Puerto.

There's so much evidence against Hamilton, it's pathetic that he
continues to deny.

Also, Hamilton's expert had a chance to view the testing of the B-sample
and he didn't allege a fasification of data, so I have no idea what
you're talking about with this "positive reader" stuff.

Magilla

Donald Munro

01-03-1970, 04:54 PM

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Americans have different carbon ratios because they have a different diet.

Big macs, pizza and doughnuts have a larger carbon footprint ?

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:54 PM

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fen7fk$h45$1@aioe.org...
>
>>
>> If you have evidence the LNDD framed Landis, you should give all that
>> evidence to the LA Times (and Landis' attorneys).
>
>
> I suggest you go back to your sock. The samples are marked so that
> Americans are descerned from Europeans. It would never occur to you that
> the results are plain to those doing the tests. Americans have different
> carbon ratios because they have a different diet.
>
>

How come Landis's expert or his attorneys didn't allege this in the CAS
hearing? Do you know something they don't? You should call them up and
tell this to them, since you obviously know something the $2 million
team doesn't.

You people are delusional.

By the way, Tammy Tommy, Americans who live in Europe eat European food.
It's your diet that has the largest influence on your carbon isotope
ratio, not your passport.

Thanks,

Magilla

SLAVE of THE STATE

01-03-1970, 04:54 PM

On Oct 12, 7:23 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Americans have different carbon ratios because they have a different diet.
>
> Big macs, pizza and doughnuts have a larger carbon footprint ?

High carb diets causally linked to more farting, thus releasing more
greenhouse gases than otherwise.

To the extent Big Macs are high in fat and protein, and low in carbs,
there will be less farting in the global aggregate.

Tom Kunich

01-03-1970, 04:54 PM

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:feoao0$nqo$1@aioe.org...
> The lab won their case before CAS - it evidently wasn't as big a black eye
> as you claim.

And since you obviously are not privy to the questions you don't have any
problem accepting the answers.

> And the same tech did NOT test both the A and B sample. That defense
> wasn't even asserted by Landis.

Sorry, the same technician tested both A and B samples of Landis and knew
who he was.

Donald Munro

01-03-1970, 04:55 PM

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> High carb diets causally linked to more farting, thus releasing more
> greenhouse gases than otherwise.
>
> To the extent Big Macs are high in fat and protein, and low in carbs,
> there will be less farting in the global aggregate.

Yes but protein powered farts normally smell worse which would imply
that they have a heavier more lingering influence on the greenhouse
gas layer.

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:58 PM

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:feoao0$nqo$1@aioe.org...
>
>> The lab won their case before CAS - it evidently wasn't as big a black
>> eye as you claim.
>
>
> And since you obviously are not privy to the questions you don't have
> any problem accepting the answers.
>
>> And the same tech did NOT test both the A and B sample. That defense
>> wasn't even asserted by Landis.
>
>
> Sorry, the same technician tested both A and B samples of Landis and
> knew who he was.
>

Okay, so Landis should be able to easily win his case based upon the
Landaluze precedent.

Thanks for clearing that up, Tammy Tommy. Make sure you tell Landis' $2
million legal team to make that argument on appeal too, because they
forgot to make that argument in Malibu back in May.

Magilla