FRENCH LAB MAKES ERROR ON LANDIS' "B" SAMPLE

You have to be a hell of a lot sloppier to get caught!

West Coast wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061115/ap_on_sp_ot/cyc_french_doping_lab_error

How sloppy can you get???

Zvue, or zissou or whatever his name is, can head butt an italian dude and still be a french icon....

and the american gets frammed by a french lab posing as the 'best' in the world even though it has demonstrated incompetence and security breaches.

Sometimes I just think people don't think rationally, namely the french. it disgusts me.

n its report, the lab wrote that the "B" sample tested was number 994,474, while the actual number was 995,474.

That's not sloppy, it's an typographical error. There is no relevancy here. It doesn't change the fact that the sample belongs to Landis.

UFC is dying from the lack of fans. Landis would be a great UFC fighter. We need more androids like Landis, Armstrong, Gatlin, Toth, Montgomery, Giambi, Clemens, Sosa, etc. to bolster attendance.

OF course, blame the French!

Red herring wrote:

n its report, the lab wrote that the "B" sample tested was number 994,474, while the actual number was 995,474.

That's not sloppy, it's an typographical error. There is no relevancy here. It doesn't change the fact that the sample belongs to Landis.

How do you know that? How do you know the lab tech didn't actually grab the sample 994.474 and test that? That is why you record the number of the sample you are testing, to make sure that it is the RIGHT sample. If your double check is wrong then it should be assumed you tested the wrong sample, basic GLP, open and shut.

Red herring wrote:

n its report, the lab wrote that the "B" sample tested was number 994,474, while the actual number was 995,474.

That's not sloppy, it's an typographical error. There is no relevancy here. It doesn't change the fact that the sample belongs to Landis.

I hope you:

Never go to the hospital and experience "a typographical error".

Take a breathalyzer test and experience "a typographical error".

Have a pharmacist who experiences "a typographical error".

Shall I continue about the relevancy of "a typographical error".?

basic rules of science. wrote:

How do you know that? How do you know the lab tech didn't actually grab the sample 994.474 and test that? That is why you record the number of the sample you are testing, to make sure that it is the RIGHT sample. If your double check is wrong then it should be assumed you tested the wrong sample, basic GLP, open and shut.

You're an idiot. For one, if this was the case Howard Jacobs would've been all over it.

The "B" sample cannot be tested without the athlete or the athlete's representive present. Secondly, if there is a doubt that could be easily verified. Since "B" tests are very rare, the 994.474 sample would still exist. Think before you post next time.

Red herring wrote:

basic rules of science. wrote:

How do you know that? How do you know the lab tech didn't actually grab the sample 994.474 and test that? That is why you record the number of the sample you are testing, to make sure that it is the RIGHT sample. If your double check is wrong then it should be assumed you tested the wrong sample, basic GLP, open and shut.

You're an idiot. For one, if this was the case Howard Jacobs would've been all over it.

The "B" sample cannot be tested without the athlete or the athlete's representive present. Secondly, if there is a doubt that could be easily verified. Since "B" tests are very rare, the 994.474 sample would still exist. Think before you post next time.

Jacobs IS all over it you stupid f%6k. Have you not read ANYTHING from the Landis camp they are screaming bloody murder about it.

And whether there is still sample left doesn't negate the error. The controls are there for a reason to double check. to make sure a mistake hasn't been made. Do you even know what GLP is?

Thank you for reminding me why I never post to letsrun. It is full of a bunch of arrogant highschool kids who are to stupid to know how ignorant they are. Don't worry you will grow up some day and realize that you don't know everything while you are cleaning my toilet for minimum wage.

basic rules of science. wrote:

Thank you for reminding me why I never post to letsrun. It is full of a bunch of arrogant highschool kids who are to stupid to know how ignorant they are.

It is full of a bunch of arrogant highschool kids who are TOO stupid to know how ignorant they are.

basic rules of grammar wrote:

basic rules of science. wrote:

Thank you for reminding me why I never post to letsrun. It is full of a bunch of arrogant highschool kids who are to stupid to know how ignorant they are.

It is full of a bunch of arrogant highschool kids who are TOO stupid to know how ignorant they are.

If you can't attack the content, attack the syntax, right?

You missed a spot...I want that bowl to gleam!

Dumb argument Red. Yes, Landis had representatives present at the "B" sample testing but it certainly is not their job to say, "Whoa! That's not the right...". On the contrary, they witness the lab's F-up so that they can testify in court that the lab did indeed screw up.

Think about it - if you are arrested in the presence of you lawyer and the cops start to take you to jail without reading your Miranda rights, do you want your lawyer to correct their mistake or use it against them later?

Think before you post next time.

basic rules of science. wrote:

Jacobs IS all over it you stupid f%6k. Have you not read ANYTHING from the Landis camp they are screaming bloody murder about it.

And whether there is still sample left doesn't negate the error. The controls are there for a reason to double check. to make sure a mistake hasn't been made. Do you even know what GLP is?

You're still ignorant AND a very angry stupid f***. Typographical errors are not breeches in testing protocol. They are easily identified. It's still Landis's sample. Chain of custody still hasn't been broken. During the "B" test Jacobs was either there are an expert witness was acting as proxy. Landis's representative had to sign off on the procedure. There is no "there" there. It's a red herring.

Jacobs screaming bloody murder is all for show. The typo is irrelevant.

PT Multi wrote:

Dumb argument Red. Yes, Landis had representatives present at the "B" sample testing but it certainly is not their job to say, "Whoa! That's not the right...". On the contrary, they witness the lab's F-up so that they can testify in court that the lab did indeed screw up.

You think it over before you post. Their representative have to sign off on the procedure - that, my friend, is the due process.

PT Multi wrote:

Dumb argument Red. Yes, Landis had representatives present at the "B" sample testing but it certainly is not their job to say, "Whoa! That's not the right...". On the contrary, they witness the lab's F-up so that they can testify in court that the lab did indeed screw up.

Think about it - if you are arrested in the presence of you lawyer and the cops start to take you to jail without reading your Miranda rights, do you want your lawyer to correct their mistake or use it against them later?

Think before you post next time.

Exactly.

Well put.

:)

Red herring wrote:

[quote]basic rules of science. wrote:

You're still ignorant AND a very angry stupid f***. Typographical errors are not breeches in testing protocol. They are easily identified. It's still Landis's sample. Chain of custody still hasn't been broken. During the "B" test Jacobs was either there are an expert witness was acting as proxy. Landis's representative had to sign off on the procedure. There is no "there" there. It's a red herring.

Jacobs screaming bloody murder is all for show. The typo is irrelevant.

Mislabeling a result sheet without correction invalidates the result. This happened on the result of his B sample IRMS test

Using whiteout to correct an error in labeling is a clear violation of GLP, all errors are to be corrected with a single line initialed and dated. The French lab used whiteout at least once to correct another labeling error.

both invalidate the results.

I am telling you you have got to put you elbow into it to really get it clean!

if this were actually important information, wouldn't jacobs be arguing that this was not landis' sample instead of trying to make the argument that this rather slight typographic error on his sample suggests that the whole process could be error-riddled? the former argument actually means something; the latter argument attempts to draw a rather sweeping picture of the lab based on the fact that one of their secretaries can't type properly. seems like the sort of storm in a teacup one expects from jacobs.

The Americans are so ridiculous when trying to defend their nice Landis... Listen to Greg Lemond and the interview he gave on competitorradio.com, he's the only American who speaks about doping the way it is.

Make the dopers pay for it! Where there's smoke, there's fire.

I am not sure it invalidates the results. Since so many are making a connection with police procedures, there are ample times when an "honest" error is made and yet evidence is allowed in.

I think Jarvis will make the argument that the lab was sloppy with its paperwork but that will not automatically invalidate the evidence in the end.