LeMond and Trek Settle

[Race Radio]

good points. in a criminal trial i could have my expert witnesses

Expert Witness?

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

 

[Polish]

Sure, Lance "failed" a drug test - but he has already "paid" his dues.

Michael Ashenden can have no doubt that there is a gap between 2005 and 2008 where Lance was not racing at the UCI ProTour.

Lance has served his time...

Time to move on...

Nothing to see here folks...

Forgive and forget....

Take a chill pill Greg....

 

[Digger]

Sure, Lance "failed" a drug test - but he has already "paid" his dues.

Michael Ashenden can have no doubt that there is a gap between 2005 and 2008 where Lance was not racing at the UCI ProTour.

Lance has served his time...

Time to move on...

Nothing to see here folks...

Forgive and forget....

Take a chill pill Greg....

His team wouldn't have got a tour de france invite last year with him in the team.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not quite sure how "Burden of Proof" got mentioned but....

WADA (and therefore the UCI) have their own guidelines on what constitutes "Burden of Proof"...

"...The standard of proof shall be whether the
Anti-Doping Organization has established an antidoping
rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of
the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of
the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in
all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability
but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where
the Code places the burden of proof upon the Athlete or
other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping
rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish
specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof
shall be by a balance of probability, except as provided
in Articles 10.4 and 10.6 where the Athlete must satisfy
a higher burden of proof"

WADA CODE, Article 3: Proof Of Doping, 3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof

 

[Race Radio]

Not quite sure how "Burden of Proof" got mentioned but....

WADA (and therefore the UCI) have their own guidelines on what constitutes "Burden of Proof"...

"...The standard of proof shall be whether the
Anti-Doping Organization has established an antidoping
rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of
the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of
the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in
all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability
but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where
the Code places the burden of proof upon the Athlete or
other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping
rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish
specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof
shall be by a balance of probability, except as provided
in Articles 10.4 and 10.6 where the Athlete must satisfy
a higher burden of proof"

WADA CODE, Article 3: Proof Of Doping, 3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof

Yes, but this is from 99, thus prior to WADA. The burden of proof is based on the size of the "Donation" to the UCI

 

[patricknd]

Expert Witness?

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

i don't think this expert would be testifying on the defendants behalf.

 

[ChrisE]

No I can't partially because the question isn't very specific, partially because I'm not a lawyer and partially because every European country is different. I can tell you what the difference isn't though. The difference isn't who has burden of proof, because all EU countries operates according to the principle of innocent until proven otherwise. In fact all civilized countries (and a couple of uncivilized to probably) operates under this principle.

ETA: Perhaps you didn't mean it like that, but I read you post to mean that EU countries don't use the presumption of innocence, which if that's what you meant is a rather uninformed thing to write.

OK. I was loose with using the term "burden of proof". Obviously the state in western society has the burden to prove somebody is guilty of a crime.

I meant in terms of how one defends oneself. Your posts have made me question my memory and understanding of the differences, in general, of how the accused can "defend" himself in court.

I understand that nobody is compelled to put up a defense in western society. They can be silent. But, I always thought (though I can't find anything on the web confirming this) accusations by the defendant must be substantiated in some other jurisdictions.

In this example, LA's team would obviously provide testimony that the samples could have been tampered with over 5 years due to unknown location, blah, blah, blah. He could do this in US court to sow "reasonable doubt" without providing anything other than these words. I thought in some European countries if he presented this as a defense, then he would be compelled to provide "proof" somebody actually tampered with them. This is what I meant.

I may be way off here. Frenchfry is lurking here so maybe he can advise on whether this is true or if my general recollection of a discussion we had on another forum a few years ago is accurate. We had some discussion on that forum about how maybe perceptions on how athletes should be caught/sanctioned differed between cultures and I thought this was one of the views. Maybe I am just getting old and my memory is shot.

Anyway, interesting topic. Thanks.

 

[RTMcFadden]

i don't think this expert would be testifying on the defendants behalf.

His testimony would also be confined to his area of expertise.

 

[flicker]

Go get em Greg

You took down the GIANTs TREK/ARMSTRONG Greg.

Now do some real good and take on FIFA and UIFA. While you are at it go get the Chimmora.

Quit the tempest in the tea-cup swirling, if you want to stop the European doping go after the big boys.

 

[Polish]

You took down the GIANTs TREK/ARMSTRONG Greg.

Now do some real good and take on FIFA and UIFA. While you are at it go get the Chimmora.

Quit the tempest in the tea-cup swirling, if you want to stop the European doping go after the big boys.

Yes, cycle doping is a small fish, a little guppie, in the sports doping pond.

But is going after the bigger sports doing "some real good"?
I mean it is not bad - but c'mon.

Sports doping is such a small (insignificant?) subset of Global Drug Abuse.
I would think using celebrity power to help the millions of addicts would be doing "real good".

What is the Chimmora btw?

 

[flicker]

What is the Chimmora btw?
I am not sure if I spelled right. I saw in film Gommora, an Italian flick about the mafia in Genoa or Naples.

My guess is that criminal enterprises are involved in the soccer and sports governing bodies. I joke about Greg because those sports and criminal enterprises you do not want to point a finger upon. You could wake up dead!
no matter who you are. The film Gommora opened my eyes into the infiltration of crime into our existence.

 

[Cerberus]

I understand that nobody is compelled to put up a defense in western society. They can be silent. But, I always thought (though I can't find anything on the web confirming this) accusations by the defendant must be substantiated in some other jurisdictions.

In this example, LA's team would obviously provide testimony that the samples could have been tampered with over 5 years due to unknown location, blah, blah, blah. He could do this in US court to sow "reasonable doubt" without providing anything other than these words. I thought in some European countries if he presented this as a defense, then he would be compelled to provide "proof" somebody actually tampered with them. This is what I meant.

OK as I said I'm not a lawyer, and obviously every country is different to some extent, but my belief would be that both in Europe and the US it comes down to the judgment of the jury and/or judge. He could point out that the samples could have been tampered with and he wouldn't need to prove it, but the mere claim might not convince the jury that this constituted reasonable doubt. Obviously the better he can justify his claim that the samples could have been tampered with the more likely he'd be to convince the jury. Can he for example prove that the technicians knew which samples were his? Establish a credible way for them to have know? Prove or provide evidence that there were people that had a degree of antipathy towards him? Document that Technicians were left alone with the samples? The prosecutor might conversely argue that the technicians didn't know, couldn't have know and/or lacked motive. Whoever manages to convince the jury that there is or is not reasonable doubt wins.

The way I see it anti doping operates with an objective standard of proof. You're guilty if your doping test falls within certain objective parameters. The courts on the other hand works according to a subjective standard. You're guilty if the prosecutor can convince the judge/jury that your guilt has been proven. There are exceptions of cause, but to a large extend I'd say that's how things are.

But would a court / police investigation require a B sample for example. Or in the case of EPO, would they use an 80% cut-off, or could they go lower when it can be proven by experts that the athlete is doping.

As I said, I believe in courts it comes down to what you can convince the jury of. Certain protocols do exist, but if you can convince a jury that 70% still constitutes proof beyond reasonable doubt them you can get a conviction.

 

[frenchfry]

OK as I said I'm not a lawyer, and obviously every country is different to some extent, but my belief would be that both in Europe and the US it comes down to the judgment of the jury and/or judge. He could point out that the samples could have been tampered with and he wouldn't need to prove it, but the mere claim might not convince the jury that this constituted reasonable doubt. Obviously the better he can justify his claim that the samples could have been tampered with the more likely he'd be to convince the jury. Can he for example prove that the technicians knew which samples were his? Establish a credible way for them to have know? Prove or provide evidence that there were people that had a degree of antipathy towards him? Document that Technicians were left alone with the samples? The prosecutor might conversely argue that the technicians didn't know, couldn't have know and/or lacked motive. Whoever manages to convince the jury that there is or is not reasonable doubt wins.

The way I see it anti doping operates with an objective standard of proof. You're guilty if your doping test falls within certain objective parameters. The courts on the other hand works according to a subjective standard. You're guilty if the prosecutor can convince the judge/jury that your guilt has been proven. There are exceptions of cause, but to a large extend I'd say that's how things are.


As I said, I believe in courts it comes down to what you can convince the jury of. Certain protocols do exist, but if you can convince a jury that 70% still constitutes proof beyond reasonable doubt them you can get a conviction.

Interesting analysis. I tend to agree on the objective/subjective interpretation.

You appear to agree that a court wouldn't necessarily be restricted to the anti-doping criteria (ie 70% could (hypothetically) be considered positive by a court wheras 80% is required by the anti-doping protocol.

 

[frenchfry]

OK. I was loose with using the term "burden of proof". Obviously the state in western society has the burden to prove somebody is guilty of a crime.

I meant in terms of how one defends oneself. Your posts have made me question my memory and understanding of the differences, in general, of how the accused can "defend" himself in court.

I understand that nobody is compelled to put up a defense in western society. They can be silent. But, I always thought (though I can't find anything on the web confirming this) accusations by the defendant must be substantiated in some other jurisdictions.

In this example, LA's team would obviously provide testimony that the samples could have been tampered with over 5 years due to unknown location, blah, blah, blah. He could do this in US court to sow "reasonable doubt" without providing anything other than these words. I thought in some European countries if he presented this as a defense, then he would be compelled to provide "proof" somebody actually tampered with them. This is what I meant.

I may be way off here. Frenchfry is lurking here so maybe he can advise on whether this is true or if my general recollection of a discussion we had on another forum a few years ago is accurate. We had some discussion on that forum about how maybe perceptions on how athletes should be caught/sanctioned differed between cultures and I thought this was one of the views. Maybe I am just getting old and my memory is shot.

Anyway, interesting topic. Thanks.

I am by no means a legal expert, but my understanding is that in France you are considered innocent until proven guilty.

Having said that, you can wind up in the slammer for years while waiting for your guilt to be proven. There is some debate on this recently, likely provoked by European human rights commissions.

I also confirm that you are getting old and your memory is shot - among other things. Too many piano bars will do that to you!

 

[ChrisE]

I am by no means a legal expert, but my understanding is that in France you are considered innocent until proven guilty.

Having said that, you can wind up in the slammer for years while waiting for your guilt to be proven. There is some debate on this recently, likely provoked by European human rights commissions.

I also confirm that you are getting old and your memory is shot - among other things. Too many piano bars will do that to you!

You don't recall this conversation? I know I can't be losing it....maybe somebody up on European criminal law can chime in.

Piano bars in my past are the least reason I am in the mental state I'm in. I'm just glad they don't have Grimbergen at the corner store here.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Interesting analysis. I tend to agree on the objective/subjective interpretation.

You appear to agree that a court wouldn't necessarily be restricted to the anti-doping criteria (ie 70% could (hypothetically) be considered positive by a court wheras 80% is required by the anti-doping protocol.

Now I understand what you're really asking and this is actually something I've always questioned. From a theorectical perspective, the mere existence of a distinct band should be enough to establish a positive. The rationale behind why an 80% cutoff is used has not been made public. It may have something to do with the limitation of the technology being used, or it may be that WADA is taking a very conservative stance, or it may be something else.

 

[python]

Now I understand what you're really asking and this is actually something I've always questioned. From a theorectical perspective, the mere existence of a distinct band should be enough to establish a positive. The rationale behind why an 80% cutoff is used has not been made public. It may have something to do with the limitation of the technology being used, or it may be that WADA is taking a very conservative stance, or it may be something else.

this is an incorrect statement.

the 80% rationale was not only made public but was publicly debated in the open scientific and legal documents including several cas panels rulings still available to everyone.

the 80% basic area percentage (bap) criteria was selected to minimize false positives. A pioneering lndd study put the false positive probability at 1/300 and later at 1/500,000. this was more or less confirmed by several cross studies. once several cas panels confirmed its validity in early 2000’s (3 or 4 cases), the 80% bap criteria became legally unchallengeable.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Interesting analysis. I tend to agree on the objective/subjective interpretation.

You appear to agree that a court wouldn't necessarily be restricted to the anti-doping criteria (ie 70% could (hypothetically) be considered positive by a court wheras 80% is required by the anti-doping protocol.

Here's interesting info on false positives. Still looking for the CAS info.

Excerpt (conclusion) taken from False-positive detection of recombinant human erythropoietin in urine following strenuous physical exercise (Blood, 15 June 2006, Vol. 107, No. 12, pp. 4711-471), Monique Beullens, Joris R Delanghe, and Mathieu Bollen

The athlete that we tested was only false-positive for epoetin-ß in two out of seven post-exercise urine samples (not illustrated). We also want to point out that the false-positive detection of epoetin-ß may be restricted to (very) few athletes, as it may be linked to the extent and type of proteinuria. The extent of proteinuria correlates more with the intensity than the duration of exercise and has a half-time decay of about 1h. The athlete that we tested showed a mixed glomerular-tubular proteinuria, which is characterized by a broad spectrum of urinary proteins. Some of these proteins show some structural homology with epoetin-ß, which possibly accounts for their cross-reactivity with the anti-Epo antibodies. In a WADA report, the possible existence of such analytical interferences was already predicted. The false-positive detection of epoetin-ß may be prevented by sampling before or at least one hour after exercise, which is particularly important for athletes that present with pronounced exercise-induced proteinuria. Additional tests can be performed to identify false-positive test results, such as two-dimensional electrophoresis, deglycosylation assays, as described in this study, or indirect assays.

 

[python]

Here's interesting info on false positives.

outdated and seriously offtopic information.

since you showed yourself poorly informed regarding the test 80% criteria ('it was never made public why' when in fact it is easily available), i would put as much stock in your above attempts to discredit the epo test as your previous statements regarding lndd tampering with armstrong's 1999 samples.

 

[RTMcFadden]

outdated and seriously offtopic information.

since you showed yourself poorly informed regarding the test 80% criteria ('it was never made public why' when in fact it is easily available), i would put as much stock in your above attempts to discredit the epo test as your previous statements regarding lndd tampering with armstrong's 1999 samples.

OK, now go away.

 

[python]

OK, now go away.

stop misleading people and everything will be fine. use research before making false statements.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Here's interesting info on false positives. Still looking for the CAS info.

Excerpt (conclusion) taken from False-positive detection of recombinant human erythropoietin in urine following strenuous physical exercise (Blood, 15 June 2006, Vol. 107, No. 12, pp. 4711-471), Monique Beullens, Joris R Delanghe, and Mathieu Bollen

The athlete that we tested was only false-positive for epoetin-ß in two out of seven post-exercise urine samples (not illustrated). We also want to point out that the false-positive detection of epoetin-ß may be restricted to (very) few athletes, as it may be linked to the extent and type of proteinuria. The extent of proteinuria correlates more with the intensity than the duration of exercise and has a half-time decay of about 1h. The athlete that we tested showed a mixed glomerular-tubular proteinuria, which is characterized by a broad spectrum of urinary proteins. Some of these proteins show some structural homology with epoetin-ß, which possibly accounts for their cross-reactivity with the anti-Epo antibodies. In a WADA report, the possible existence of such analytical interferences was already predicted. The false-positive detection of epoetin-ß may be prevented by sampling before or at least one hour after exercise, which is particularly important for athletes that present with pronounced exercise-induced proteinuria. Additional tests can be performed to identify false-positive test results, such as two-dimensional electrophoresis, deglycosylation assays, as described in this study, or indirect assays.

Didn't you try and argue this already on another thread? .... Here is an 'interesting' observation in to that study.

Beullens et al report the "false-positive detection of recombinant human erythropoietin in urine following strenuous physical exercise."1(p4711) This report, based on observations conducted on urine from 1 single subject, relies in fact on serious errors of interpretation of poor-quality images.

http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/108/5/1778-a

 

[BikeCentric]

I'm willing to bet Dollars to doughnuts that McFadden is one of those *** lawyers from Trust But Verify that gave Floyd terrible advice throughout his entire legal debacle that not only saw him lose his case but publicly humiliated him as well as the entire sport of cycling.

Cut your losses and move on McFadden; you've already had one of the most pathetic public ***-kickings in recent history. A smart person would re-evaluate the decisions they've made after such a drubbing but here you are, still trolling message boards grasping at straws trying to sow the seeds of doubt about Floyd's positive. You are a loser.

 

[patricknd]

I'm willing to bet Dollars to doughnuts that McFadden is one of those *** lawyers from Trust But Verify that gave Floyd terrible advice throughout his entire legal debacle that not only saw him lose his case but publicly humiliated him as well as the entire sport of cycling.

Cut your losses and move on McFadden; you've already had one of the most pathetic public ***-kickings in recent history. A smart person would re-evaluate the decisions they've made after such a drubbing but here you are, still trolling message boards grasping at straws trying to sow the seeds of doubt about Floyd's positive. You are a loser.

of course this raises the question, who told you what a smart person would do?

 

[RTMcFadden]

Didn't you try and argue this already on another thread? .... Here is an 'interesting' observation in to that study.

Beullens et al report the "false-positive detection of recombinant human erythropoietin in urine following strenuous physical exercise."1(p4711) This report, based on observations conducted on urine from 1 single subject, relies in fact on serious errors of interpretation of poor-quality images.

http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/108/5/1778-a

Is that honestly the best you can do. Epsecially in light of the withdrawl of the The Peltre-Thormann Report and the studies performed by Delanghe regarding Rutger. Of course, it was the Autrailian that found that Alfa1-ACT was homologous to exogenous EPO and reacted similarly in the urine EPO test. I believe that test was sponsored by WADA in response to Delanghe's work.