Could Bert be guilty of aggravating circumstances?

[Merckx index]

If UCI and/or WADA appeal, and Bert ultimately loses his case, is it possible he could be given a longer than normal suspension because of aggravating circumstances?

The rationale is simple. If he didn’t get the CB from contaminated meat, he must have gotten it from transfusion. So he doped twice: first taking the CB, then second, transfusing blood. As I read the WADA rules, two doping violations during the timeframe covered by a single case can be considered a single violation with aggravating circumstances. Here are the relevant sections of the WADA code:

10.6 Aggravating Circumstances Which May Increase the Period of Ineligibility. If the Anti-Doping Organization establishes in an individual case involving an anti-doping rule violation other than violations under Articles 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking) and 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration) that aggravating circumstances are present which justify the imposition of a period of Ineligibility greater than the standard sanction, then the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable shall be increased up to a maximum of four (4) years unless the Athlete or other Person can prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that he or she did not knowingly commit the anti-doping rule violation. An Athlete or other Person can avoid the application of this Article by admitting the anti-doping rule violation as asserted promptly after being confronted with the antidoping rule violation by an Anti-Doping Organization.

10.7.4 Additional Rules for Certain Potential Multiple Violations
• For purposes of imposing sanctions under Article 10.7, an anti-doping rule violation will only be considered a second violation if the Anti-Doping Organization can establish that the Athlete or other Person committed the second antidoping rule violation after the Athlete or other Person received notice pursuant to Article 7 (Results Management), or after the Anti-Doping Organization made reasonable efforts to give notice, of the first anti-doping rule violation; if the Anti-Doping Organization cannot establish this, the violations shall be considered together as one single first violation, and the sanction imposed shall be based on the violation that carries the more severe sanction; however, the occurrence of multiple violations may be considered as a factor in determining aggravating circumstances (Article 10.6).
• If, after the resolution of a first anti-doping rule violation, an Anti-Doping Organization discovers facts involving an anti-doping rule violation by the Athlete or other Person which occurred prior to notification regarding the first violation, then the Anti-Doping Organization shall impose an additional sanction based on the sanction that could have been imposed if the two violations would have been adjudicated at the same time. Results in all Competitions dating back to the earlier anti-doping rule violation will be Disqualified as provided in Article 10.8. To avoid the possibility of a finding of aggravating circumstances (Article 10.6) on account of the earlier-in-time but later-discovered violation, the Athlete or other Person must voluntarily admit the earlier anti-doping rule violation on a timely basis after notice of the violation for which he or she is first charged. The same rule shall also apply when the Anti-Doping Organization discovers facts involving another prior violation after the resolution of a second anti-doping rule violation.

[Comment to Article 10.7.4: In a hypothetical situation, an Athlete commits an anti-doping rule violation on June 2010, which the Anti-Doping Organization does not discover until 2011. In the meantime, the Athlete commits another anti-doping rule violation on July 22 2010, and the Athlete is notified of this violation by the Anti-Doping Organization on August 2010, and a hearing panel rules on 2011 that the Athlete committed the July 22 2010 anti-doping rule violation. The later-discovered violation which occurred on June 2010 will provide the basis for aggravating circumstances because the Athlete did not voluntarily admit the violation in a timely basis after the Athlete received notification of the later violation on March 30, 2008.]

In the most recent passage I have quoted, I have changed the dates to correspond to events during Bert’s case. In the original passage, the dates were arbitrary, though in a particular chronological order, and I have preserved that order here. IOW, in this scenario, Bert withdraws blood in June, tests positive for CB in July, is notified in August, and hypothetically, is sanctioned sometime later this year. Since he does not admit the blood withdrawal that occurred prior to the CB positive, he is potentially guilty of aggravating circumstances. One could also argue that his first violation was use of CB, followed later by blood transfusion, but in this case it is the later violation that is not discovered until much later. Though this is not covered in the code, it seems to me that it fulfills the spirit of aggravating circumstances.

Normally, this situation would not arise, because the rider is simply asked to disprove the doping allegation. But in this particular case, WADA has limited the situation by stipulating at the outset that there were only four possible ways in which CB could have gotten into Bert’s system. Under these circumstances, a decision that goes against Bert will invariably be associated with a particular means of doping, and clearly transfusion is the only viable option here. So any decision that goes against Bert will virtually have to judge him guilty not only of taking CB, but also of blood doping. If he will not admit the latter, it seems to me that he is running the risk of running afoul of the aggravating circumstances clause.

We don't know that if there is an appeal, whether the DEHP evidence will be allowed. If it is, and figures significantly in the final decision, then the verdict of blood transfusing will be even more obvious. At that point, there will be no way to deny that Bert engaged in two separate doping practices.

Legal minds please feel free to jump in here. I can imagine some people will argue that it was basically one doping violation. But any decision to sanction will have to conclude that he took CB at a time prior to when he transfused, and that either event could have occurred independently of the other.

 

[GJB123]

Interesting, but firstly we still are not sure that there is such a thing as a DEHP-test for AC. So let's leave that outside the discussions because it will muddy the discussion in no small way.

From the links you posted, you might have a case. However, it is Wada that has limited the ways in which CB got in his sytem and my guess is that they won't get away with likelihoods for the possible second offence.

Regards
GJ

 

[python]

Interesting,
GJ

not to me...someone is bearing a scientific fiction scenario that lacks a legal plot. that's the only way i can interpret this thread.

 

[hrotha]

not to me...someone is bearing a scientific fiction scenario that lacks a legal plot. that's the only way i can interpret this thread.

Uh? How is it science fiction? As I recall, you personally think the most likely explanation is that Contador got the clen through a blood transfusion. The premise of the thread is simply that CAS (if appealed to) will agree with you. In that case, it should be considered proved that Contador did dope twice. It's a fair question.

 

[theswordsman]

I'm not sure someone can be convicted from pieced together gossip and rumors, except in cycling forums. I can't believe people are still citing the Humo article. The UCI could win a fine of over 3 million Euros if that was true. Don't you think they'd have exerted a bit of pressure on Astana to have that person come forward in a case that's keep the sport in the press for all the wrong reasons? The last I read on the plasticizer test is that it will be ready in Summer 2012. Contador wants his samples tested when it's official, to put conversations like this one to rest. And if you look at the original New York Times article, buried inside is a sentence saying that the alleged plasticizers were in the samples prior to the day the Clenbuterol showed up.

In real life, if the UCI doesn't appeal, WADA has pieces of paper with an old Strict Liability rule and no minimum threshold for Clenbuterol. Every week the lack of a threshold becomes less defensible, with more individuals and organizations calling it unfair.

This whole case is about 50 picograms of Clenbuterol. Period, no threshold and Strict Liability. Anything else is fantasy that exists only outside the official documents. The CAS doesn't deal with rumors.

 

[hrotha]

Frankly, theswordsman, sometimes I get the feeling you don't read what other people say in response to you.

The UCI could win a fine of over 3 million Euros if that was true. Don't you think they'd have exerted a bit of pressure on Astana to have that person come forward in a case that's keep the sport in the press for all the wrong reasons?

No. The UCI does all it can to manage the issue of doping in private. Why would they want to reveal that one of the top teams and the best rider are guilty of organized doping? The blow to the sport (and hence to them) would be huge. They have to manage the image of the sport, and that's what they do.

The last I read on the plasticizer test is that it will be ready in Summer 2012.

The test itself is ready and scientifically sound. If the reported plasticizer levels are true, you can bet they were right. What's left to be done is to analyze other cases, aside from a transfusion, and see how they alter an athlete's plasticizer levels. At any rate, the reported plasticizer levels would most definitely be enough to rule out other explanations.

And if you look at the original New York Times article, buried inside is a sentence saying that the alleged plasticizers were in the samples prior to the day the Clenbuterol showed up.

Which makes perfect sense, as the plasticizers are found in blood samples while clen is found in urine samples.

This whole case is about 50 picograms of Clenbuterol.

UCI and RFEC disagree. See their famous four theories for explaining the positive.

Anything else is fantasy that exists only outside the official documents. The CAS doesn't deal with rumors.

Contador's defense wasn't "The plasticizer test isn't official, *****es", in fact the plasticizers weren't mentioned at all, but blood transfusions were considered and ruled out. The CAS could disagree with the scientific basis to do so.

 

[python]

Uh? How is it science fiction? As I recall, you personally think the most likely explanation is that Contador got the clen through a blood transfusion. The premise of the thread is simply that CAS (if appealed to) will agree with you. In that case, it should be considered proved that Contador did dope twice. It's a fair question.

you can continue to chew on if you enjoy this meal. i don't. we have a set of facts well established and we have a set of unknowns well established. nothing new in months except an already digested and freshly regurgitated meal served under a new source. a simple review of the facts clearly states what the charge is and what's not in the charge. we already discussed to death every aspect.

my interest is in how cas will look at the existing facts or those that were never disclosed. not in how clen pharmacokinetics in cattle can be extended to humans or how something rumoured but never confirmed can be twisted into a tangible. go on..

 

[sniper]

I'm not sure someone can be convicted from pieced together gossip and rumors, except in cycling forums. I can't believe people are still citing the Humo article. The UCI could win a fine of over 3 million Euros if that was true. Don't you think they'd have exerted a bit of pressure on Astana to have that person come forward in a case that's keep the sport in the press for all the wrong reasons? The last I read on the plasticizer test is that it will be ready in Summer 2012. Contador wants his samples tested when it's official, to put conversations like this one to rest. And if you look at the original New York Times article, buried inside is a sentence saying that the alleged plasticizers were in the samples prior to the day the Clenbuterol showed up.

In real life, if the UCI doesn't appeal, WADA has pieces of paper with an old Strict Liability rule and no minimum threshold for Clenbuterol. Every week the lack of a threshold becomes less defensible, with more individuals and organizations calling it unfair.

This whole case is about 50 picograms of Clenbuterol. Period, no threshold and Strict Liability. Anything else is fantasy that exists only outside the official documents. The CAS doesn't deal with rumors.

you really believe that?
The thing is, I don't.
He said that after Puerto, and nothing happened.
AC isn't much different from Armstrong: he got away with cheating before, is now getting away with it again, and in passing is screaming things that he will come to regret, such as "you may retrotest my samples".
I personlly believe the HUMO story more than I do Bert's shallow claims.

Frankly, theswordsman, sometimes I get the feeling you don't read what other people say in response to you.

No. The UCI does all it can to manage the issue of doping in private. Why would they want to reveal that one of the top teams and the best rider are guilty of organized doping? The blow to the sport (and hence to them) would be huge. They have to manage the image of the sport, and that's what they do.

The test itself is ready and scientifically sound. If the reported plasticizer levels are true, you can bet they were right. What's left to be done is to analyze other cases, aside from a transfusion, and see how they alter an athlete's plasticizer levels. At any rate, the reported plasticizer levels would most definitely be enough to rule out other explanations.

Which makes perfect sense, as the plasticizers are found in blood samples while clen is found in urine samples.

UCI and RFEC disagree. See their famous four theories for explaining the positive.

Contador's defense wasn't "The plasticizer test isn't official, *****es", in fact the plasticizers weren't mentioned at all, but blood transfusions were considered and ruled out. The CAS could disagree with the scientific basis to do so.

+1

 

[hrotha]

you can continue to chew on if you enjoy this meal. i don't.

Then stay away from these threads?

 

[Merckx index]

I'm not sure someone can be convicted from pieced together gossip and rumors, except in cycling forums.

Where exactly are the gossip and rumors in my post? You want gossip and rumors? How about the notion that RFEC had real evidence of contamination, but chose not to mention or discuss it in their public report?

I can't believe people are still citing the Humo article.

Fortunately, you don’t have to, because I didn’t.

The UCI could win a fine of over 3 million Euros if that was true. Don't you think they'd have exerted a bit of pressure on Astana to have that person come forward in a case that's keep the sport in the press for all the wrong reasons?

Are you really incapable of seeing that whether or not the Humo article was true is entirely independent of the scientific evidence that favors transfusion over contamination? Do you think that if, shortly after the 2006 TDF, an anonymous source had claimed to see Floyd apply a testosterone patch, and that source could not be confirmed, Floyd would have gotten off?

And if you look at the original New York Times article, buried inside is a sentence saying that the alleged plasticizers were in the samples prior to the day the Clenbuterol showed up.

And if you look at the CN forums, plastered all over them is the point that different pharmacokinetics can account for differences in time of excretion.

In real life, if the UCI doesn't appeal, WADA has pieces of paper with an old Strict Liability rule and no minimum threshold for Clenbuterol. Every week the lack of a threshold becomes less defensible, with more individuals and organizations calling it unfair.

I haven’t noticed a lot of pharmacologists and anti-doping officials calling it unfair. And I haven’t noticed anyone claiming that it would be impossible or even unlikely for someone who doped with CB to turn up levels even lower than Bert’s. You want unfair? How about the not-so-subtle implication in Bert’s defense that the Spanish meat testing system is a fraud?

This whole case is about 50 picograms of Clenbuterol. Period, no threshold and Strict Liability. Anything else is fantasy that exists only outside the official documents. The CAS doesn't deal with rumors.

If transfusion is a rumor, the official RFEC documents are certainly guilty of discussing rumors. But then, most people don’t call a scenario a rumor when WADA directs a local ADA to consider it.

 

[python]

Then stay away from these threads?

i already mention which thread i will stay away from. did you read it or you need me to repeat ?

 

[sniper]

Where exactly are the gossip and rumors in my post? You want gossip and rumors? How about the notion that RFEC had real evidence of contamination, but chose not to mention or discuss it in their public report?



Fortunately, you don’t have to, because I didn’t.



Are you really incapable of seeing that whether or not the Humo article was true is entirely independent of the scientific evidence that favors transfusion over contamination? Do you think that if, shortly after the 2006 TDF, an anonymous source had claimed to see Floyd apply a testosterone patch, and that source could not be confirmed, Floyd would have gotten off?



And if you look at the CN forums, plastered all over them is the point that different pharmacokinetics can account for differences in time of excretion.



I haven’t noticed a lot of pharmacologists and anti-doping officials calling it unfair. And I haven’t noticed anyone claiming that it would be impossible or even unlikely for someone who doped with CB to turn up levels even lower than Bert’s. You want unfair? How about the not-so-subtle implication in Bert’s defense that the Spanish meat testing system is a fraud?



If transfusion is a rumor, the official RFEC documents are certainly guilty of discussing rumors. But then, most people don’t call a scenario a rumor when WADA directs a local ADA to consider it.

well said.

note also that bertie is spending his monthly salary on top-notch lawyers, not because he has nothing to hide, I assume.

 

[GJB123]

you really believe that?
The thing is, I don't.
He said that after Puerto, and nothing happened.
AC isn't much different from Armstrong: he got away with cheating before, is now getting away with it again, and in passing is screaming things that he will come to regret, such as "you may retrotest my samples".
I personlly believe the HUMO story more than I do Bert's shallow claims.

First you said he "he doesn't live up to" or words of that effect. Naturally all he can do is say that they can retest to their hearts content, since he has no influence on whether they do. Same old with the Puerto-story. Did anyone actually try to take him up on his promise to give DNA for comparative sampling? If not, there isn't much more than he can do, is there?

And then your edited text. Would he really be that thick to offer up his past samples for retesting if he would, as you put it, come to regret it?

This thread is quickly derailing again due to the usual suspects proffering up the same rehashed, unproven story of the plasticizer as being proof. The plasticizer-test (if any) isn't in the files and until it is, it doesn't (legally) exist. Period. Give it a rest already.

As for the aggravating part, I think they can only take matters into account that have been proven by the party that has the burden of proof. In this case that burden proof would lie squarely with the UCI/WADA and with no plasticizer test or other proof of blood doping (bio passport), there a re no aggravating circumstances.

People are mixing up what AC's team have to establish with what the consequences of that would be, showing a remarkable lack of understanding legal principles yet gain, I am sorry to say.

Regards
GJ

 

[GJB123]

If transfusion is a rumor, the official RFEC documents are certainly guilty of discussing rumors. But then, most people don’t call a scenario a rumor when WADA directs a local ADA to consider it.

That was used to be able to establish "no fault or negligence" on AC's part and for that alone. It cannot and will not be used as proof of a second or further offence.

Regards
GJ

 

[GJB123]

note also that bertie is spending his monthly salary on top-notch lawyers, not because he has nothing to hide, I assume.

What a load of complete and utter BS!!. So any innocent man should just throw himself at the mercy of judges without hiring any legal assistance or advice? Or should he just get really ****ty and cheap advice to proof his innocence?

Maybe, just maybe, he is getting sound legal advice because he is bloody well entitled to it and can afford it.

Regards
GJ

 

[hrotha]

That was used to be able to establish "no fault or negligence" on AC's part and for that alone. It cannot and will not be used as proof of a second or further offence.

Regards
GJ

What? No. It was used as a separate theory to explain the clen positive, and the plasticizers didn't come into it. The "no fault or negligence of his own" bit was established because:
a) Clen is illegal, and according to the controls the chances of eating contaminated meat in the EU are infinitesimal.
b) Doping explanations for the positive were allegedly ruled out.

If CAS considers b) doesn't stand on sound scientific data, they're left with just a), which by itself is pretty damning.

Also, if the case gets to CAS it starts anew, new evidence and theories can be considered.

 

[Merckx index]

you can continue to chew on if you enjoy this meal. i don't. we have a set of facts well established and we have a set of unknowns well established. nothing new in months except an already digested and freshly regurgitated meal served under a new source.

You haven’t been paying attention.

a simple review of the facts clearly states what the charge is and what's not in the charge. we already discussed to death every aspect.

While a more complex review of the facts raises the possibility of two charges. Personally, I think GJB is right that this possibility will not get off the ground, but I think that says more about how critical Bert is to cycling than the legalities of the argument. Cycling officials are already upset enough about the possibility of suspending him on a single charge. But apart from what UCI wants to do, there is the question of whether according to the rules this would qualify as two doping offenses, and if not, why not.

my interest is in how cas will look at the existing facts or those that were never disclosed. not in how clen pharmacokinetics in cattle can be extended to humans

You haven’t been paying attention.

or how something rumoured but never confirmed can be twisted into a tangible. go on..

This thread is quickly derailing again due to the usual suspects proffering up the same rehashed, unproven story of the plasticizer as being proof. The plasticizer-test (if any) isn't in the files and until it is, it doesn't (legally) exist. Period. Give it a rest already.

It’s hardly a twist to mention at the end of sustained argument that if the DEHP test can be used it would add something to that argument. Obviously, it was not a major nor even essential part of the point I was making. I have no problem giving it a rest.

As for the aggravating part, I think they can only take matters into account that have been proven by the party that has the burden of proof. In this case that burden proof would lie squarely with the UCI/WADA and with no plasticizer test or other proof of blood doping (bio passport), there a re no aggravating circumstances.

People are mixing up what AC's team have to establish with what the consequences of that would be, showing a remarkable lack of understanding legal principles yet gain, I am sorry to say.

This has already been covered. A negative blood passport is virtually no proof at all. You really do have to face that.

 

[GJB123]

This is "Contador acquitted" all over again with the same people putting in the same non-valid arguments for this particular thread. In case anyone needs reminding, the question is whether accepting that it is not food contamination, thus leaving only blood transfusion, would be an aggrevating circumstance meriting a higher than usual punishment. My answer is no, because the aggravating circumstance has to be proven and for that one cannot rely on likelihoods.

So in short. By proving the other 3 possibilities are not likely AC can make use of the no fault or negligence article. On the other hand WADA/UCI cannot use the same logic as proof for an aggravating circumstance. I would love for someone to explain to me in simple legal terms why this conclusion is not correct. Good luck!

Regards
GJ

 

[sniper]

This is "Contador acquitted" all over again with the same people putting in the same non-valid arguments for this particular thread. In case anyone needs reminding, the question is whether accepting that it is not food contamination, thus leaving only blood transfusion, would be an aggrevating circumstance meriting a higher than usual punishment. My answer is no, because the aggravating circumstance has to be proven and for that one cannot rely on likelihoods.

So in short. By proving the other 3 possibilities are not likely AC can make use of the no fault or negligence article. On the other hand WADA/UCI cannot use the same logic as proof for an aggravating circumstance. I would love for someone to explain to me in simple legal terms why this conclusion is not correct. Good luck!

Regards
GJ

Ok, but I can we take you to be the type of person that'll come back and admit frankly that he was wrong (provided the CAS will indeed prove you wrong of course)?

 

[GJB123]

Ok, but I can we take you to be the type of person that'll come back and admit frankly that he was wrong (provided the CAS will indeed prove you wrong of course)?

Naturally! I will throw myself at the mercy of the clinic in that case.

Or, just like yourself or MI, I could simply say that CAS got it all wrong and that I will accept nothing less than a complete vindication of my theory.

Regards
GJ

 

[Merckx index]

In case anyone needs reminding, the question is whether accepting that it is not food contamination, thus leaving only blood transfusion, would be an aggrevating circumstance meriting a higher than usual punishment. My answer is no, because the aggravating circumstance has to be proven and for that one cannot rely on likelihoods.

So in short. By proving the other 3 possibilities are not likely AC can make use of the no fault or negligence article. On the other hand WADA/UCI cannot use the same logic as proof for an aggravating circumstance. I would love for someone to explain to me in simple legal terms why this conclusion is not correct. Good luck!

Regards
GJ

Ok, that's a decent answer to my original question. Of course, everything is a matter of probability or likelihood, but I agree with you that it might be possible for Bert to be found guilty by a standard that would not rise to the level needed for an aggravating possibility. They might conclude, for example, that the evidence against meat contamination was so strong that nothing need be concluded as strongly about the other three alternatives.

I think you are going further and saying that since there apparently will never be direct evidence of transfusion (barring DEHP) no negative verdict can use transfusion as an aggravating factor, no matter how strong the indirect evidence for DEHP is. (Whoops! Meant to say, "indirect evidence for transfusion is".) You may or may not be right about this. I didn't see anything in the code that speaks to either the nature or the strength of evidence required for aggravating factors.

 

[Publicus]

Ok, that's a decent answer to my original question. Of course, everything is a matter of probability or likelihood, but I agree with you that it might be possible for Bert to be found guilty by a standard that would not rise to the level needed for an aggravating possibility. They might conclude, for example, that the evidence against meat contamination was so strong that nothing need be concluded as strongly about the other three alternatives.

I think you are going further and saying that since there apparently will never be direct evidence of transfusion (barring DEHP) no negative verdict can use transfusion as an aggravating factor, no matter how strong the indirect evidence for DEHP is. You may or may not be right about this. I didn't see anything in the code that speaks to either the nature or the strength of evidence required for aggravating factors.

GB is correct here. Without the DEHP validation and re-testing, I don't think WADA or UCI have much of a basis to appeal, let alone over turn the RFEC decision.

 

[sniper]

First you said he "he doesn't live up to" or words of that effect. Naturally all he can do is say that they can retest to their hearts content, since he has no influence on whether they do. Same old with the Puerto-story. Did anyone actually try to take him up on his promise to give DNA for comparative sampling? If not, there isn't much more than he can do, is there?

And then your edited text. Would he really be that thick to offer up his past samples for retesting if he would, as you put it, come to regret it?

This thread is quickly derailing again due to the usual suspects proffering up the same rehashed, unproven story of the plasticizer as being proof. The plasticizer-test (if any) isn't in the files and until it is, it doesn't (legally) exist. Period. Give it a rest already.

As for the aggravating part, I think they can only take matters into account that have been proven by the party that has the burden of proof. In this case that burden proof would lie squarely with the UCI/WADA and with no plasticizer test or other proof of blood doping (bio passport), there a re no aggravating circumstances.

People are mixing up what AC's team have to establish with what the consequences of that would be, showing a remarkable lack of understanding legal principles yet gain, I am sorry to say.

Regards
GJ

yes he would. That's why I draw the parallel with Armstrong. Armstrong was also getting used to the habit of getting away with cheating and screamed lots of things that he by now has clearly come to regret (such as "I welcome any investigation into Landis' claims").

 

[roundabout]

A man who has the governing body wrapped around his finger (pistol?) has little reason to fear retesting.

And for a man who is no doubt versed in legalese like gjb, it's extremely disingenuous to trump up Contador's DNA offer made with full knowledge that it was 99% unlikely to be followed up on.

Heck, when has retesting ever caught someone meaningful apart for Kohl and Rebellin who weren't only CERA users at the time.

 

[GJB123]

A man who has the governing body wrapped around his finger (pistol?) has little reason to fear retesting.

And for a man who is no doubt versed in legalese like gjb, it's extremely disingenuous to trump up Contador's DNA offer made with full knowledge that it was 99% unlikely to be followed up on.

Heck, when has retesting ever caught someone meaningful apart for Kohl and Rebellin who weren't only CERA users at the time.

That's not his fault, now is it?

And ask Thomas Dekker about retesting. And I am sure there have been more that I cannot remember right now.

Regards
GJ