Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Added posts to Running Barefoot blog: "As a matter of fact, she's very fond of cricket" and "Teenage 'Tude". Chris L gave me a nice complement on the first one last night. He said it was written well and he enjoyed the connections and the links. I said I wasn't sure if I could write without hyperlinking anymore.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
I was a participant in this LA Times.com chat with Michael Hiltzik.
[thinnmann]: Michael, please tell ChrisT that this is
way beyond "technicalities", and I was wondering if you
were a cyclist yourself.
Michael Hiltzik: Chris, I'm glad you brought up the
"technicality" issue, because I know it's been depated
quite intensely--indeed, I believe Dick Pound, the
WADA chief, claims that Landaluze got off on a
technicality. But you have to keep in mind that these
are "technical" cases. They're dependent on lab
technique, and testing technology, and scientific
protocol, all of which are designed to ensure that the
ultimate results are viewed as valid. If the chain breaks
at any point, that undermines confidence in the whole
process. I'd add, incidentally, that plenty of athletes
have been sanctioned on the basis of
"technicalities"--concentrations of nandolone, for
example, that are a few partsw per billion over the
allowable threshh0old when those concentrations are
known not to affect performance and when deliberate
doping would yield concentrations tens of thousands of
parts per billion over the threshhold.
Michael Hiltzik: As for whether I am a cyclist myself, I
was, many many years ago, but never competitively.
[thinnmann]: "[On] public grousing about defendants
getting off on a technicality."Many times, this
'technicality' is the U.S. Constitution. Prosecutors
charge people on technicalities all the time, but this
word would never be used to describe their tactics." -
[thinnmann]: Is the inconsistent application of limits
across different labs a signifigant factor in the defense?
The slideshows are fairly clear that Floyd would have
not have tested positive at other labs.
[thinnmann]: Michael, do you think USADA, WADA,
LNDD or anybody has anything in their pockets to
overcome the preponderance of evidence Floyd's team
[thinnmann]: Mod: good job. thanks!
[thinnmann]: Mod: My last question that you just
allowed was answered already - my later one is more
important, about the preponderance of evidence...
Michael Hiltzik: Thinn, Landis has gone further--or
Arnie Baker has--in suggesting that Paris's standards are
so loose that they would have declared positive the
panel of control negative subjects assembled by Don
Catlin at UCLA for his own testing.
Posted by Thinnmann at 3/06/2007 02:37:00 PM