Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Anonymous]

Okay, you are right.

Guess I will learn all of that next year in my first year of law school...its admissible hearsay which I thought made it not legally hearsay...I was wrong.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law
"However, most evidentiary codes defining hearsay adopt verbatim the rule as laid out in the Federal Rules of Evidence, which generally defines hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."

My reading is that IF the defendant is not available for testimony, then the statement is HEARSAY. If they are available for testimony, then the statement is NOT HEARSAY. If you can provide legal precedent that says otherwise, please cite the case.

One major misconception about the hearsay rule is that hearsay is never admissible in court. While the general rule is that such evidence is inadmissible, there are many exceptions.

"There are two other common misconceptions concerning the hearsay rule."

"The first is that hearsay applies only to oral statements. The hearsay rule applies to all out-of-court statements whether oral, written or otherwise. The Federal Rules of Evidence defines a statement as an oral or written assertion or nonverbal conduct of a person, if the conduct is intended by the person as an assertion. Even written documents made under oath, such as affidavits or notarized statements, are subject to the 'hearsay rule'."

"The second common misconception is that all out-of-court statements are hearsay. This is not the case. An out of court statement may or may not be hearsay depending on the purpose for which it is offered. If the statement is being offered to prove the truth of what it asserts, then it becomes hearsay...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law#Common_misconceptions

You should be able to find this link - Betsy testified that LA made a statement to her. She claimed it was made in a hospital (not a courtroom). I believe you think this statement was true. This statement is therefore hearsay, admissible, but still hearsay.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

.....
Of course you can continue since I am not working or riding today - I still find you fairly entertaining

Okay, you are right.

Guess I will learn all of that next year in my first year of law school...its admissible hearsay which I thought made it not legally hearsay...I was wrong.

Thanks guys - my head hurts, I am going for a ride.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Okay, you are right.

Guess I will learn all of that next year in my first year of law school...its admissible hearsay which I thought made it not legally hearsay...I was wrong.

It's a step - enjoy law school and do not buy the green books they are a waste of money (professional outlines on the other hand...)

 

[Anonymous]

It's a step - enjoy law school and do not buy the green books they are a waste of money (professional outlines on the other hand...)

Thanks for the tip. I hope learning from my mistakes will also be helpful...

 

[53 x 11]

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Thanks guys - my head hurts, I am going for a ride.

I wish - I have one child recovering from the flu (and another ~teenager ~ who has terminal boredom) so no riding today. Hopefully I can get out there tomorrow morning.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh, thanks for piling on...I could go back and delete some of my posts, but I will leave them as a grim reminder as to what happens when I let emotion override reasoned thought and discourse.

 

[Anonymous]

I wish - I have one child recovering from the flu (and another ~teenager ~ who has terminal boredom) so no riding today. Hopefully I can get out there tomorrow morning.

Hope your child feels better and you get to ride.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I think this is a source of confusion. According to Ashenden, you start with 20 ml of urine and filter to create the retentate. Then you take 20ul of rentate to perform the test.... I would expect the retentate to be 3 times the required test sample size, and would like something closer to 5......As an aside, he doesn't mention how he would adjust the sample.

Yes but that would only mean that 3 to 5 times the volume would need to be added (to the retentate), and I suspect the volume would need to be 1000 times bigger to make the spiking straightforward. That's because Ashenden says "So if you wanted to add 0.0037674 UI you would add 0.000000113 ml (i.e., 0.6ml divided by 20,000/0.0037674 = 0.000000113 ml) of the synthetic EPO solution. This is 0.113 microlitres." But 0.000000113mL is 0.113 nano-litres (for the non-geeks that's 1000 times smaller, which really is tiny and it could well be difficult to spike accurately even with dilution techniques.) So maybe he is right in essence, and the source of the confusion is that he has just befuddled his units.

I also wondered about why he focused only on spiking the retentate. Surely one would need to spike the whole pot of p1ss, that the 20ml for filtering was taken from in the first place?....unless the whole pot is filtered, which would seem odd to me (especially as they asked for permission to split it and re-test after the results were out, so there must have been some p1ss left). If the idea is to run the test once and calculate the volume of rEPO required to spike the whole pot, the spiking volume should be big enough to be practical. But that calculation would depend on knowing what fraction of total isoforms survives the filtration process - do you have a view on whether this information might have been available? Regardless of whether it's doable or not, running tests on samples to calculate the volume needed to spike, in a way that would show expected trends in EPO doping, requires elaborate and deliberate sabotage.

Finally, just because Ashenden's ideas about spiking samples seems a bit flaky, I do not believe it detracts from his other opinions. That's because he is absolutely clear that he is unsure of what he is talking about. He starts the discussion with "I honestly don't know how you could even attempt such a process... and ends it with "...I am not confident I am correct!...." When he is not sure or the topic is outside his expertise he says so. IMO this adds credibility to points that he says he is certain about, rather than detracts from them.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Yes but that would only mean that 3 to 5 times the volume would need to be added (to the retentate), and I suspect the volume would need to be 1000 times bigger to make the spiking straightforward. That's because Ashenden says "So if you wanted to add 0.0037674 UI you would add 0.000000113 ml (i.e., 0.6ml divided by 20,000/0.0037674 = 0.000000113 ml) of the synthetic EPO solution. This is 0.113 microlitres." But 0.000000113mL is 0.113 nano-litres (for the non-geeks that's 1000 times smaller, which really is tiny and it could well be difficult to spike accurately even with dilution techniques.) So maybe he is right in essence, and the source of the confusion is that he has just befuddled his units.

I also wondered about why he focused only on spiking the retentate. Surely one would need to spike the whole pot of p1ss, that the 20ml for filtering was taken from in the first place?....unless the whole pot is filtered, which would seem odd to me (especially as they asked for permission to split it and re-test after the results were out, so there must have been some p1ss left). If the idea is to run the test once and calculate the volume of rEPO required to spike the whole pot, the spiking volume should be big enough to be practical. But that calculation would depend on knowing what fraction of total isoforms survives the filtration process - do you have a view on whether this information might have been available? Regardless of whether it's doable or not, running tests on samples to calculate the volume needed to spike, in a way that would show expected trends in EPO doping, requires elaborate and deliberate sabotage.

Finally, just because Ashenden's ideas about spiking samples seems a bit flaky, I do not believe it detracts from his other opinions. That's because he is absolutely clear that he is unsure of what he is talking about. He starts the discussion with "I honestly don't know how you could even attempt such a process... and ends it with "...I am not confident I am correct!...." When he is not sure or the topic is outside his expertise he says so. IMO this adds credibility to points that he says he is certain about, rather than detracts from them.

I'll respond later. Here's the reference to the Test Procedure - http://www.antidopingresearch.org/EPOtestJuly08.pdf

 

[Anonymous]

Oh, thanks for piling on...I could go back and delete some of my posts, but I will leave them as a grim reminder as to what happens when I let emotion override reasoned thought and discourse.

Dude, you are going to be dynamite D) in the court room. If I ever have legal problems in the future (provided you pass the bar) I am so calling you.

Passion is a good thing. Too little of it if you asked me.
Although you may want to refrain from bitching out the jury...

As some say: ROCK ON!

 

[progressor]

This whole argument seems to be for one group about slapping lance fans who think he didn't dope into line with the absolute fact he did. For the other party it's about challenging the concept it's in absolute fact, regardless of their own opinion. ie we don't know, however strongly we hold our opinions.

As for this 'occams razor' argument, the concept that the most simple answer is the most likely.
A) It is a challengeable enough philosophy

B) Even if you adhere to it strongly it does not give you 'fact' it simply doesn't equate to always true.
Example: Road works where I live - they repair the same well repaired streets over and over, and scarcely touch much worse streets. Simplest answer is stupidity. The reality is it's intentional and well thought out. They get paid per sq foot or metre, roads in good repair are much cheaper to repair so profit is much improved if they avoid fixing to many bad roads. They aren't 'policed' strongly - or at all on what they do. More complex answer, but also the more accurate.

 

[Ferminal]

This whole argument seems to be for one group about slapping lance fans who think he didn't dope into line with the absolute fact he did. For the other party it's about challenging the concept it's in absolute fact, regardless of their own opinion. ie we don't know, however strongly we hold our opinions.

As for this 'occams razor' argument, the concept that the most simple answer is the most likely.
A) It is a challengeable enough philosophy

B) Even if you adhere to it strongly it does not give you 'fact' it simply doesn't equate to always true.
Example: Road works where I live - they repair the same well repaired streets over and over, and scarcely touch much worse streets. Simplest answer is stupidity. The reality is it's intentional and well thought out. They get paid per sq foot or metre, roads in good repair are much cheaper to repair so profit is much improved if they avoid fixing to many bad roads. They aren't 'policed' strongly - or at all on what they do. More complex answer, but also the more accurate.

Lance tested positive for Cortisone in 1999, 6 of his urine samples in 1999 returned positive for EPO.

That IS an absolute fact.

Lance has never been officially sanctioned for doping offenses.

That IS an absolute fact.

 

[Race Radio]

This whole argument seems to be for one group about slapping lance fans who think he didn't dope into line with the absolute fact he did. For the other party it's about challenging the concept it's in absolute fact, regardless of their own opinion. ie we don't know, however strongly we hold our opinions.

As for this 'occams razor' argument, the concept that the most simple answer is the most likely.
A) It is a challengeable enough philosophy

B) Even if you adhere to it strongly it does not give you 'fact' it simply doesn't equate to always true.
Example: Road works where I live - they repair the same well repaired streets over and over, and scarcely touch much worse streets. Simplest answer is stupidity. The reality is it's intentional and well thought out. They get paid per sq foot or metre, roads in good repair are much cheaper to repair so profit is much improved if they avoid fixing to many bad roads. They aren't 'policed' strongly - or at all on what they do. More complex answer, but also the more accurate.

Ding, Ding, we have a winner.

For the first time "local road repair" is used as an explanation for Armstrong's doping

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

CentralCalBike: thanks for succinct definitions - I didn't know them and didn't feel patronized.

TFF: great to have you back. If it makes you feel better I'm expecting to make an idiot of myself trying to debate the details of the tests with RTM...internet anonymity is a beautiful thing.

Well, now you have your answer. It's 1 in 480 as calcualted by Digger and confirmed by MeloVelo.

...and even they think Ashenden's 1/300 overestimates the probability. (Guys, your probility calc. would be right if the phantom spiker knew what days LA was tested on)

RTMCF - please be gentle - I tried to understand the wada link inside the link you posted, but can't find the bit that would mean it was practical to spike samples in a varying pattern that would match the fluctuations seen by EPO dosing approx every 4 days. Feel free to explain it slowly.

 

[Joey_J]

Lance tested positive for Cortisone in 1999

That IS an absolute fact.

Lance Armstrong, the yellow jersey holder in the 86th Tour de France was tested on July 4 at 17.00 after the first stage of the Tour between Montaigu and Challans. The test was done by the Laboratoire national de lutte contre le dopage (LNLD) at Châtenay-Malabry (Hauts-de-Seine), and they detected traces of triamcinolone acétonide, a synthetic corticoid in the urine. However, the analysis was not declared positive, the testosterone ratio for epitestosterone being too low to warrant a positive finding. It was 0.2, when the limit after which a positive test is returned is fixed at 6.

Not declared positive = not positive.

 

[Race Radio]

Lance tested positive for Cortisone in 1999

That IS an absolute fact.

Lance Armstrong, the yellow jersey holder in the 86th Tour de France was tested on July 4 at 17.00 after the first stage of the Tour between Montaigu and Challans. The test was done by the Laboratoire national de lutte contre le dopage (LNLD) at Châtenay-Malabry (Hauts-de-Seine), and they detected traces of triamcinolone acétonide, a synthetic corticoid in the urine. However, the analysis was not declared positive, the testosterone ratio for epitestosterone being too low to warrant a positive finding. It was 0.2, when the limit after which a positive test is returned is fixed at 6.

Not declared positive = not positive.

What does a TE ratio have to do with Cortisone?

 

[Digger]

This whole argument seems to be for one group about slapping lance fans who think he didn't dope into line with the absolute fact he did. For the other party it's about challenging the concept it's in absolute fact, regardless of their own opinion. ie we don't know, however strongly we hold our opinions.

As for this 'occams razor' argument, the concept that the most simple answer is the most likely.
A) It is a challengeable enough philosophy

B) Even if you adhere to it strongly it does not give you 'fact' it simply doesn't equate to always true.
Example: Road works where I live - they repair the same well repaired streets over and over, and scarcely touch much worse streets. Simplest answer is stupidity. The reality is it's intentional and well thought out. They get paid per sq foot or metre, roads in good repair are much cheaper to repair so profit is much improved if they avoid fixing to many bad roads. They aren't 'policed' strongly - or at all on what they do. More complex answer, but also the more accurate.

Are you trying to win a competition of posting as many times as possible, without addding anything other than generic drivel?
Different words, same message. Side A, Side B and what equates to be true in your mind. It's strange that you are commenting so much on what is and isn't true, yet you very clearly know very little of the facts of the issue, and are forced into this meandering nonsense above.

 

[poupou]

Lance tested positive for Cortisone in 1999

That IS an absolute fact.

Lance Armstrong, the yellow jersey holder in the 86th Tour de France was tested on July 4 at 17.00 after the first stage of the Tour between Montaigu and Challans. The test was done by the Laboratoire national de lutte contre le dopage (LNLD) at Châtenay-Malabry (Hauts-de-Seine), and they detected traces of triamcinolone acétonide, a synthetic corticoid in the urine. However, the analysis was not declared positive, the testosterone ratio for epitestosterone being too low to warrant a positive finding. It was 0.2, when the limit after which a positive test is returned is fixed at 6.

Not declared positive = not positive.

2 falses don't make a right.

Probably testosterone was found, it's common use on TDF to increase recovering.

But what about the cortisone level and why did they use a backdated to clear a negative test? It would have been stupid for Lance Armstrong to pay a such bribe to UCI for a negative test.

And what about that very unexpected cream for a saddle sore as explanation? Don't you think that Armstrong was still proud of his first nickname " Cortisone Neck"?

 

[Ferminal]

Lance Armstrong, the yellow jersey holder in the 86th Tour de France was tested on July 4 at 17.00 after the first stage of the Tour between Montaigu and Challans. The test was done by the Laboratoire national de lutte contre le dopage (LNLD) at Châtenay-Malabry (Hauts-de-Seine), and they detected traces of triamcinolone acétonide, a synthetic corticoid in the urine. However, the analysis was not declared positive, the testosterone ratio for epitestosterone being too low to warrant a positive finding. It was 0.2, when the limit after which a positive test is returned is fixed at 6.

Not declared positive = not positive.

The sample was positive, whether or not the UCI comes out with a press release is irrelevant (see doping sanction).

 

[Ferminal]

Lance tested positive for Cortisone in 1999

That IS an absolute fact.

Lance Armstrong, the yellow jersey holder in the 86th Tour de France was tested on July 4 at 17.00 after the first stage of the Tour between Montaigu and Challans. The test was done by the Laboratoire national de lutte contre le dopage (LNLD) at Châtenay-Malabry (Hauts-de-Seine), and they detected traces of triamcinolone acétonide, a synthetic corticoid in the urine. However, the analysis was not declared positive, the testosterone ratio for epitestosterone being too low to warrant a positive finding. It was 0.2, when the limit after which a positive test is returned is fixed at 6.

Not declared positive = not positive.

What does a TE ratio have to do with Cortisone?

That's interesting...

 

[Anonymous]

Dude, you are going to be dynamite D) in the court room. If I ever have legal problems in the future (provided you pass the bar) I am so calling you.

Passion is a good thing. Too little of it if you asked me.
Although you may want to refrain from bitching out the jury...

As some say: ROCK ON!

Thanks. I am not certain what area I would want to practice in, but honestly, something like the FBI/Dept of Justice is very interesting to me. I would love to prosecute business fraud or something along those lines. We'll see. Litigation is also very interesting to me, though most of the time, pleas and settling out of court are the outcomes. I just love the law, always have. I just have not been in a position to go to law school until now.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Thanks. I am not certain what area I would want to practice in, but honestly, something like the FBI/Dept of Justice is very interesting to me. I would love to prosecute business fraud or something along those lines. We'll see. Litigation is also very interesting to me, though most of the time, pleas and settling out of court are the outcomes. I just love the law, always have. I just have not been in a position to go to law school until now.

If you do go into litigation I predict a winning record littered with contempt of court citations.

 

[Digger]

If you do go into litigation I predict a winning record littered with contempt of court citations.

And one liner put downs!!!!