27
   

Armstrong to be Stripped of all 7 Titles

 
 
BillRM
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 11:09 am
@snood,
What an article the author of this hatch job even questioning Armstrong name.

He is still the best cyclist that ever mounted a bike and he passed ever test given to him during his career.

Envy and jealousy had fuel an ongoing campaign of more then a decade standing to get him and they finally put enough pressure of those who surrounded him to get the job done.



djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 11:30 am
Armstrong to be Stripped of all 7 Titles

i hear they're going to make him take back his testicle and brain tumor as well
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 11:46 am
@djjd62,
Quote:
hear they're going to make him take back his testicle and brain tumor as well


LOL
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  4  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2012 06:41 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:


...he passed ever test given to him during his career.




wow.
This sounds remarkable like an argument that was made by you before.

Which of course begs to be countered with the fact science/medicine is always improving/discovering techniques that can re-examine past samples that were once deemed negative, only to find out that they were, in reality, positive.

BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2012 07:01 am
@chai2,
Yes and having samples sitting for a decade or so without a proven chain of custody that would guard those samples from being tamper with are worthless no matter how must the technology had advance over the years!!!!!!

That is even more the case if the very people who had been moving heaven and earth to prove he had cheated are the same ones who had those samples for those years.
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2012 07:12 am
@chai2,
Well then, perhaps you might start sending the letter to the right address, and stop harping on the fact he "passed" tests whose negative results are proven incorrect.

Seems like your argument is more on the chain of custody, and you should concentrate on that.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2012 07:30 am
@chai2,
My argument is there is no proof that can be dependent on enough to overrule the simple fact that he passed all the tests given to him over the years that neither the testimony of people that had been pressure to come up with those statements or the retesting of samples that I had seen no proof had not been tamper with over the decade or so they been sitting around on some shelf.

The whole thing smell to high heaven.



ehBeth
 
  5  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2012 09:03 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
the simple fact that he passed all the tests given to him over the years


that is simply (to use your language) not true

1. not many tests
2. didn't pass them all
3. with modern analysis of results (don't we all love technology!) he has failed more


You can disagree all you want. That doesn't change the results.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2012 09:04 am
@BillRM,
Your understanding of modern science is making you sound like Gungasnake.
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2012 10:49 am
@ehBeth,
My understanding of science does not come into this until it can be shown that those samples dating back many many years was not tamper with to get the results the agency had been trying to prove for many years also.

It not science it human nature that is the issue here.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2012 11:03 am
@ehBeth,
This kind of a problem had happen at one of the most respect crime labs in the world and I would placed a sport doping agency lab way behind the FBI crime lab.

Doing low level trace testings on samples that had been store for many years under unknown conditions with people who are stakeholders in finding drugs whether there is or is not drugs.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-544209.html

Weeks after testifying at a court hearing in a Kentucky murder, FBI scientist Kathleen Lundy told her superiors a secret. She knowingly gave false testimony about her specialty of lead bullet analysis.

"I had to admit that it was worse than being evasive or not correcting the record. It was simply not telling the truth," Lundy wrote her superior in an e-mail likely to be used against her now that she has been charged by Kentucky authorities on a charge of misdemeanor false swearing.

Internal FBI documents obtained by The Associated Press show the FBI lab, which reformed itself after a mid-1990s scandal over bad science, is grappling with new problems that have opened its work on lead bullets and DNA analysis to challenges by defense lawyers.

In addition to Lundy's indictment:
A FBI lab technician has resigned while under investigation for alleged improper testing of more than 100 DNA samples, and the lab is now reviewing samples she placed into the FBI national database of DNA evidence;


The Houston police crime lab has been banned from placing new samples into the FBI's DNA registry because of allegations of shoddy science in local cases;


One of the lab's retired metallurgists is challenging the bureau's science on bullet analysis, prompting the FBI to ask the National Academy of Sciences to review its methodology.
FBI Lab Director Dwight Adams said detection of the problems illustrates that the reforms instituted in the mid-1990s are working.

"The difference is, these are being caught and dealt with swiftly. Our quality assurance program is in place to root out these problems, incompetence and inaccurate testimonies," Adams said in an interview. "These weren't fortuitous catches; they were on purpose."

Defense lawyers are already mounting challenges in high-profile cases handled by the two employees and are questioning the FBI's project to build a national DNA database that will help law enforcement identify suspects based on their genetic fingerprints.

"We all have assumed the scientists are telling the truth because they do it with authority and tests. And as a result FBI scientists have gotten away with voodoo science," said Lawrence Goldman, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Senate Finance Committee chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, whose investigation prompted the first FBI lab reforms in the 1990s, said Wednesday he has requested a briefing and believes Congress must investigate the latest problems. "The scientists of the FBI crime lab hold people's lives, and justice for crime victims, in their hands. The FBI crime lab must be beyond reproach and abide by the highest standards," he said.

The Justice Department's inspector general is investigating FBI lab technician Jacqueline Blake for allegedly failing to follow proper scientific procedure when analyzing DNA in at least 103 cases over the past few years, officials said.

The officials said they have found that the technician failed to compare the DNA evidence with control samples, a required step to ensure the accuracy of tests. Blake resigned from the FBI lab recently.

Blake's work has become an issue in a prominent case in New Jersey, where five police officers are challenging blood evidence she analyzed that was used to convict them of federal civil rights violations in the death of a prisoner.

In Blake's case, 29 DNA samples that she placed into the database were removed and are being reanalyzed. The review so far has not found any instances in which her DNA analysis was inaccurate, and those samples have now been re-entered, Adams said.

The FBI made widespread changes in the mid-1990s after its lab was rocked by a whistleblower's allegations and an investigation that found shoddy science by several lab examiners. AP reported last month that Justice officials have identified about 3,000 cases that might have been affected by those earlier problems and have let prosecutors decide whether to notify convicted defendants.

The new problems surfaced in the last year.

BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2012 11:19 am
@BillRM,
Here is more information on how the FBI had false lab results had send innocent men to prison for years.

The claims out of any lab should be look at not just accepted due to the claims it it science and therefore can not be wrong by either human error or by human design.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/12/12708918-fbi-to-review-thousands-of-old-cases-for-flawed-evidence?lite

By Isolde Raftery, msnbc.com

www.whistleblowersblog.org

Frederic Whitehurst in an undated photo.
Updated at 9:51 p.m. ET: Months after the Washington Post revealed that lab technicians at the FBI possibly exaggerated evidence, resulting in at least three wrongful convictions, the Department of Justice has announced it will review thousands of old cases.

The review, the largest in U.S. history, will focus on work by FBI Laboratory hair and fiber examiners since at least 1985, the Post reported.

the Post wrote about two men who were convicted largely because of contaminated FBI hair analysis. A review of the evidence has since resulted in the release of both men.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A reporter at the Post had been working on a story about Donald Gates, a D.C. man released after DNA evidence proved his innocence, when he learned about Frederic Whitehurst, an FBI lab chemist who blew the whistle on the FBI Laboratory in the mid-1990s. Whitehurst said he watched colleagues contaminate evidence and, in court, overstate the significance of their matches.


Follow @msnbc_us“There was a lackadaisical attitude,” Whitehurst said.

When Whitehurst, a chemist with a doctoral degree from Duke, arrived at the FBI crime lab in 1986, the first thing he noticed was that the place was, as he called it, a pigsty. The equipment was outdated and there was a film of black soot coating the counters – a dust from the vents that the agents called “black rain.”

It surprised him, too, he said, that outsiders were allowed to tour the lab, which he said should have been a controlled environment.

When he raised these issues, a coworker told him, “Before you embarrass the FBI in a court of law, you’ll perjure yourself. We all do it.”

After the first World Trade Center bombing, Whitehurst testified that supervisors pressured him to concoct misleading scientific reports. When he refused to testify that a urea nitrate bomb had been the source of the explosion, the FBI found another lab technician to testify.

Over the years, Whitehurst said, he brought in almost-new equipment that had been turned over by the National Institutes of Health. He implemented protocols, because there hadn’t been any when he arrived.

NBC San Diego video: Thousands of cases under review

But other problems arose, Whitehurst told msnbc.com. He learned that an agent had, for the previous nine years, rewritten his scientific reports to support the prosecution. When he complained, he said he was told the agent hadn’t done anything wrong.

“You get patted on the head if you’re the guy who saves the case,” Whitehurst said, explaining why agents would provide misleading information. “They get promoted; they’re the guys everyone crowds around. It’s a very tight family. A scientist who asks a question and doesn’t go along, he gets isolated.”

Corrupt lab technicians remained employed even after Whitehurst started speaking out about the lab, said David Colapinto, general counsel for the National Whistleblowers Center.

In 1995, Whitehurst told Larry King on CNN, “I dislike being called a whistleblower, I’m a law enforcement officer and if I see violations of the law abuses of authority corruption. I’m required to report those.”

As an agent, Whitehurst wrote 237 letters to the Inspector General, complaining about the lab. The longest was 640 pages.

“The pressure was so crazy that every so often, I’d just break down and cry,” he said.

Sarah Fox, Occupy Wall Street link could be due to lab error

The Justice Department ultimately did review thousands of cases in response to Whitehurst's reports, Colapinto said, but he said the task force assigned to investigate operated in secret and the findings were not published. Rather, Colapinto said, prosecutors who had originally tried those old cases decided whether the new evidence should be disclosed to the defense.

Dissatisfied with the Justice Department’s review, Whitehurst requested the task force's findings through the Freedom of Information Act. Over several years, he received tens of thousands of pages.

Some changes were made, however. The FBI moved its lab from the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover building in Washington, D.C. to a separate building in Quantico, Va.

Washington, D.C. to a separate building in Quantico, Va.

Advertise | AdChoicesThe National Academy of Sciences recently pushed for further independence, however. The organization, made up of elite scientists from around the U.S., recommended the creation of an independent federal agency to review evidence. That agency, ideally, should not be connected to the academic community, the scientists said.

Whitehurst, now a forensic consultant and a criminal defense lawyer in North Carolina, and the National Whistleblowers Center worked with the Post for a year on the expose that came out in April. That story apparently pushed the Justice Department to conduct another, more transparent review of old evidence.

The Justice Department says that this time, the review will include outsiders such as the Innocence Project, according to The Associated Press. The Innocence Project, which focuses on exonerating the wrongfully convicted, would watch over the government’s review


Advertise | AdChoicesThe National Academy


0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2012 11:51 am
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-keith-devlin/lance-armstrong-blood-tests_b_1829050.html

The Curious Use of Language in the Lance Armstrong Decision
Posted: 08/27/2012 3:37 pm React Amazing
stumble Did Lance Armstrong dope or use blood transfusions during his professional cycling career? I have no idea. Nor, it appears, does anyone else except for Lance and perhaps a few members of his team. But as a mathematician with expertise in the use of language in reasoning, I find the much-touted central pillar of the United States Anti-Doping Agency's case against him does not stand up to even a cursory examination.

Apart from hearsay evidence from two disgraced former cycling teammates of Armstrong, the USADA bases its case (at least according to what they have said) on the blood and urine samples taken from the cyclist in 2009 and 2010, when he made a brief comeback to the sport after four years in retirement. In a June letter to Armstrong, subsequently made public, the USADA said those samples were "fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions."

Though a recreational cyclist, my interest in this case is fairly minimal. It is that term "fully consistent with" that piqued my mathematician's interest. It is a very odd phrase to use in a situation like this, not least because it has absolutely no evidentiary force. It says nothing of any significance.

[Certainly, after two years deliberation, including testimony from former team-mates obtained under oath through a grand jury, the U.S. federal criminal investigation of the allegations made against him finally dropped the case early this year, saying there was no real evidence against him.]

Though the layperson typically thinks of mathematicians as being focused on numbers, that is actually not the case. That false view is a consequence of the mathematics taught in high school. Only at university are you likely to encounter the mathematics done by the professionals. High among our real areas of expertise are logical reasoning, rigorous proof, and the precise use of language.

Incidentally, I am not referring here to using language and reasoning precisely in esoteric discussions of arcane mathematical topics. Yes, we do that too. But we also apply our expertise in everyday, practical domains. (Homeland Security, to name one domain I myself have worked on.)

There are a number of terms we use to describe evidence. The strongest is "proof" (or "conclusive proof", but any mathematician will tell you the adjective is superfluous.) We might say that, "Evidence X proves that Y happened."

An alternative that might seem weaker, but in actuality is not, is that "Evidence X implies that Y happened."

Definitely weaker, is "Evidence X suggests (or indicates) that Y happened."

All of these have evidentiary power of differing degrees. And there are others.

At the other end of the spectrum, we can say, "Evidence X contradicts Y having happened." X proves Y did not occur.

Evidence collected to uncover wrong-doing, such as doping controls in sport, by virtue of their design, rarely (if at all) provide proof of innocence. At best, when a doping test does not come up positive, the most you can say is it did not yield proof. It does not rule out (i.e., does not contradict) doping, just as a negative result from a cancer screening does not mean you are cancer free, merely that the test did not detect any cancer.

So what does that USADA term "fully consistent with" mean? Well, first of all, let's drop the "fully"; it's superfluous. Consistency is a definitive term. Something is either consistent or not; no half measures. It's also a term mathematicians like myself are very familiar with -- again for real world uses as much if not more than within theoretical mathematics. It means "does not contradict". Nothing more, nothing less.

Given the availability of terms such as "proves," "indicates," "suggests," or more evocative terms such as "raises the distinct possibility that," why did the USADA decide to use the curious term "consistent with"? Since they surely spent a lot of time, and consulted with a number of lawyers, in drafting their letter, their choice of wording was clearly deliberate. Why choose a term that means "does not contradict"?

After all, I can say "Drinking milk as a child is (fully) consistent with using crack cocaine as an adult." Should we take that as evidence that milk producers are to blame for adult drug use? Of course not. But this example has exactly the same logical heart, and the same evidentiary force, as the USADA letter's "fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions."

Why not say "suggest" or "indicates"? They fall well short of "proof", but they do carry some weight.

"Does not contradict" is, then, it appears, a key part of their case against Armstrong. In which case, I find it troubling. The USA should have far higher standards of proof than that
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2012 12:34 pm
the sum total of this dudes life is one testicle, a scar on his head and he rode his bike up and down a bunch of hills

why does anyone other than armstrong really care about this
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2012 12:36 pm
@djjd62,
and he rolled over pretty quick, so i don't even think he cares that much
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2012 01:22 pm
@BillRM,
The thing about blood transfusions is that, currently, there is no direct test for it that would indicate an outright false or negative. The tests for blood transfusions is the analysis of blood hematocrit (HCT), or volume of red blood cells in the blood. Standards are established for HCT levels for average humans and variances for humans that perform at professional athlete levels.

According to Wikipedia
Quote:
Red blood cell population in the blood is usually reported as hematocrit (HCT) or as the concentration of hemoglobin (Hb). HCT is the fraction of blood by volume occupied by red blood cells. A normal HCT is 41-50% in adult men and 36-44% in adult women.[2] Hemoglobin (Hb) is the iron-containing protein that binds oxygen in red blood cells. Normal Hb levels are 14-17 g/dL of blood in men and 12-15 g/dL in women. For most healthy persons the two measurements are in close agreement.

There are two ways in which HCT and Hb measurements can suggest that the blood sample has been taken from a doping athlete. The first is simply an unusually high value for both. The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), for example, imposes a 15-day suspension from racing on any male athlete found to have an HCT above 50% and hemoglobin concentration above 17 grams per deciliter (g/dL). A few athletes naturally have high red blood cell concentrations (polycythemia), which they must demonstrate through a series of consistently high hematocrit and hemoglobin results over an extended period of time.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2012 01:29 pm
@djjd62,
Yeah, your question is meant to be rhetorical, but, taking the question at face value, people other than Armstrong care about this because it affects a sport that they enjoy watching and following. Not everyone does, obviously, but quite a few certainly do. Also, it affects the narrative that Armstrong developed around his brand name--a cancer survivor who not only beat the disease, but excelled at the highest level of sport--and the people, many of whom weren't particularly cycling fans, that were ultimately duped by it.
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2012 05:09 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

the sum total of this dudes life is one testicle, a scar on his head and he rode his bike up and down a bunch of hills

why does anyone other than armstrong really care about this


Bill does, since from all the interest he's shown I think he's sorta sweet on Lance.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 21 Oct, 2012 06:23 am
@djjd62,
Quote:
the sum total of this dudes life is one testicle, a scar on his head and he rode his bike up and down a bunch of hills

why does anyone other than armstrong really care about this


Hmm and the little matter of raising of half a billions dollars for cancer research.
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 21 Oct, 2012 06:25 am
@chai2,
Quote:
Bill does, since from all the interest he's shown I think he's sorta sweet on Lance.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.


Copying Firefly approach to winning arguments?

 

Related Topics

Can anyone school me on BMX bikes? - Question by boomerang
Le Tour de France 2010 - Discussion by dagmaraka
Mountain biking: crazy bike trail - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Floyd Landis in trouble. - Discussion by detano inipo
does it make any sense or how can I... - Question by sorin-ioan
Hmmm, hot baths can be good for you - Discussion by ossobucotemp
cycling - Question by jojom
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/02/2020 at 07:54:02