Conconi, Cecchini... Catlin?

[fishtacos]

This may belong in one of the ongoing SI article threads, but I think it warrants its own threadness...

The most eye-opening part of the SI article, for me, was that they have basically demolished Don Catlin's reputation. EVERY article I've ever read about Catlin has portrayed him as a white knight crusading against performance enhancing drugs. Now, it looks as though he may be right up there with Conconi, Cecchini and Ferrari - paid large sums of money to ferret out PED abuse, but using those funds to cover up positives and keep doped athletes on the playing field.

(note: I would have put Ferrari's name in the thread title, but it would have ruined the lovely alliteration.)

If even some of what the article states is true, Catlin might was well close up shop, buy a camper-van, and move to the Canaries right now.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Like the UCI, Only USOC

I think you are reading it without some of the nuance needed.

Caitlin was only the lab guy. He could be relied upon to perform the tests for the USOC and certainly seemed to have the gravitas to do the job without being challenged on every little thing. He complained about the "diddling around" USOC did. That suggests to me he was more scientist than politician.

Later, when Caitlin is only sort of hired, one test gets done during 'the comeback' because Lance's lawyers/reps burdened the deal until it drove Caitlin away.


The USOC looks awful. I read it as the USOC were the ones hiding the doping. I was hoping some legitimate press would tie Exum into the story. Well done!

 

[BroDeal]

I think you are reading it without some of the nuance needed.

Caitlin was only the lab guy. He could be relied upon to perform the tests for the USOC and certainly seemed to have the gravitas to do the job without being challenged on every little thing. He complained about the "diddling around" USOC did. That suggests to me he was more scientist than politician.

Later, when Caitlin is only sort of hired, one test gets done during 'the comeback' because Lance's lawyers/reps burdened the deal until it drove Caitlin away.

The USOC looks awful. I read it as the USOC were the ones hiding the doping. I was hoping some legitimate press would tie Exum into the story. Well done!

You are not taking into account Catlin suggestion of using a research study as a way to warn athletes without causing a sanction. And this is the same mofo who was supposedly keeping Slipstream clean.

 

[Berzin]

One thing that strikes me about this particular point is how complicit so many disparate agencies became in assisting Armstrong's cheating.

It's gotten to the point where even the cheaters couldn't count on a level playing field.

You are not taking into account Catlin suggestion of using a research study as a way to warn athletes without causing a sanction. And this is the same mofo who supposedly keeping Slipstream clean.

This is why I was never impressed by Vaughter's bluster about his dedication to having his cyclists ride "clean". Just look at the associations-Allen Lim and Don Catlin.

Judging by the levels of deceit and hypocrisy that seem to exist in pro cycling, there is no way Vaughters isn't just as full of shyte as the rest of them.

 

[python]

comparing catlin to ferrari and cechini is plain ignorant and stupid.

 

[fishtacos]

Quoting Page 2 of the story:

"Andreas Breidbach, who was head of the lab's EPO testing group from 2003 to '06, had a similar reaction. "Oh, great, Lance is being tested by his greatest admirer," Breidbach recalls thinking, "and to the outside world it looks convincing.""

Now, it's Breidbach's word against Catlin's at the moment, but between that and the other items on pages 2 and 3, Catlin comes off as either incompetent or involved in the cover-up.

The information about the USOC is hardly surprising; it's long been known that national committees love to cover up their own athlete's tracks (pun intended).

 

[theswordsman]

The grant from MLB with no successful test & the NFL ending their agreement looks ominous. What form do you think the older results were in - was it poor bookkeeping or do you think someone ditched evidence?

From 1990 to 2000, Armstrong was tested more than two dozen times by Catlin's UCLA lab, according to Catlin's estimate. In May 1999, USA Cycling sent a formal request to Catlin for past test results—specifically, testosterone-epitestosterone ratios—for a cyclist identified only by his drug-testing code numbers. A source with knowledge of the request says that the cyclist was Lance Armstrong. In a letter dated June 4, 1999, Catlin responded that the lab couldn't recover a total of five of the cyclist's test results from 1990, 1992 and 1993, adding, "The likelihood that we will be able to recover these old files is low."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1180944/2/index.htm

 

[python]

Quoting Page 2 of the story:

"Andreas Breidbach, who was head of the lab's EPO testing group from 2003 to '06, had a similar reaction. "Oh, great, Lance is being tested by his greatest admirer," Breidbach recalls thinking, "and to the outside world it looks convincing.""

Now, it's Breidbach's word against Catlin's at the moment, but between that and the other items on pages 2 and 3, Catlin comes off as either incompetent or involved in the cover-up.

The information about the USOC is hardly surprising; it's long been known that national committees love to cover up their own athlete's tracks (pun intended).

you can quote and cut and paste all you want, but it does not make your post any less ignorant or stupid.

 

[Oldman]

comparing catlin to ferrari and cechini is plain ignorant and stupid.

Yes, they were very effective marketing their services and not being indicted.

 

[python]

Yes, they were very effective marketing their services and not being indicted.

not sure what you're referring to ?

ferrari was indicted once, cechini is quiet by nature and went quieter when he smelled the air...catlin is just an old, occasionally confused lab dweller. many people of his profession cant see beyond the walls of the institutions they spend their life in.

 

[fishtacos]

you can quote and cut and paste all you want, but it does not make your post any less ignorant or stupid.

To quote, um, you:

can you address the facts that... again, instead on [sic] ad hominems on a messenger.

The original post was commenting on what the actual SI article appeared to say about Catlin. Maybe you should respond to that, and not engage in histrionic & repetitive ad hominem attacks.

Additionally, you will notice that I used the difficult words "if" and "may", and the post title itself has that complex punctuation mark "?". If I had known that the conditional and questioning nature of the post was going to confuse you, I would have used even smaller words and... typed... more... slowly.

 

[python]

To quote, um, you:




The original post was commenting on what the actual SI article appeared to say about Catlin. Maybe you should respond to that, and not engage in histrionic & repetitive ad hominem attacks.

Additionally, you will notice that I used the difficult words "if" and "may", and the post title itself has that complex punctuation mark "?". If I had known that the conditional and questioning nature of the post was going to confuse you, I would have used even smaller words and... typed... more... slowly.

i see you are big on quoting and small on original factual content.

you started a thread that compares ferrari to catlin. is it not self evident to you, the punctuation wizard, that the two fishes are completely different.

if it's not, than i stand by my characterization of your post - it's ignorant and stupid ?

you see, i also used a conditional '?"

 

[fishtacos]

All righty then, Mr. Python, 75% of your posts in this thread so far contain quotes. 50% of mine do (including this post!). You sure got me with that damning bit about quotations. Man, am I ashamed.


Since I'm apparently not allowed to quote an article that you haven't read yet, I'll try to explain. Note that the things attributed to Catlin are from the SI article:

Conconi: Paid by CONI and IOC to work on anti-doping research.
Catlin: Paid by USOC, MLB and NFL to work on anti-doping research.

Conconi: Came up with methodology to circumvent doping controls.
Catlin: Suggested covering up positive tests as research - a methodology to circumvent doping controls.

Is the article suggesting Catlin doped Lance and other athletes himself, as Conconi (and Cecchini and Ferrari) did? No. He was however (allegedly) in regular contact for years with Lance's agent, Bill Stapleton, and then one of his attorneys. If he was being paid to be the unimpeachable anti-doping doc, and was contributing to the covering up of positives and advising people about drug-testing methodology, then it sure looks like he has some valid comparison to our Italian friends.

That and the fact that his lab had significant positives that they could not replicate start to make him look, as I said previously, at the very least incompetent.

It is the fact that the article calls into serious question Catlin's behavior and professional detachment that surprised me. I was unaware of any real challenge to his credentials up until this article.

Finished reading the article, yet? Perhaps you have something of a contributory nature to add?

 

[hrotha]

Don't sweat it, Cecchini doesn't alliterate with Conconi and Catlin

 

[frenchfry]

comparing catlin to ferrari and cechini is plain ignorant and stupid.

Maybe they didn't have the same roles, but somehow an anti-doping expert covering up a huge fraud doesn't look very good. As least Ferrari didn't pass himself off as anti-doping (though as I recall Conconi did).

 

[dbrower]

In defense of Catlin, kind of

Just to show that I'm an equal-opportunity offender, let me try to carefully defend Catlin from two of the implications of the SI article and discussion.

(1) The UCLA lab was reportedly asked to produce T/E numbers for rider X from several years prior to the request. This was personalized to "Catlin", though it was almost certainly a request of the lab. Some of the more recent values were located, but the the article says Catlin didn't think they could find the earlier values.

This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable occurance, given that there is little apparent need in the anti-doping lab community to keep useful or accurate records of things, to be available on demand. We learned this through the Landis hearings, and how different this is from the approach of a criminal forensics laboratory, as evidenced by the testimony of Dr. Goldberg.

It's quite likely/possible that, having been deemed uninteresting, the records were wiped, or filed to backups, or left on machinery that became obsolete, making extraction difficult or unfeasable. I leave open the questions whether "deemed uninteresting" was a valid conclusion, or whether the record keeping would have been different for 'interesting" results.

(2) Catlin's current cagey comments (C^4) say he no longer has access to any of the records, and so can't properly discuss them. It's true he has no current access, and given the trickiness of the situation, it's probably wise -for him- to not talk about details. No good, for him, can come from that.

It hasn't in the past stopped him from making speculations not clearly supported by data, but that is when it is not his posterior on the line.

It's also true that I would not ever want to put Catlin on the stand for testimony, because I think he can out-think and out-parse any attorney asking questions. No one gets what they want from Catlin, and he's hard to corner.

I think he just wants to do his research, and has been trying to avoid things that get in the way. That may not have been successful, and he may have been compromised, but I don't think as simply and obviously as he's being painted.

-dB

 

[Escarabajo]

Based on what I read I would not compare the guy with Cecchini or Conconi. But sure was interesting to read fish tacos point of view.

It does not look good for Catlin. Something smell rotten here.