Good Reads

Well, it’s been a few days, so it must be time for a new post, eh? There are a few good articles I’ve read over the last few days, well worth the time and effort.

Larry’s Curb Your Anticipation

Over at TBV, regular reader and commenter Larry (a TBV regular, too) has a series called Larry’s Curb Your Anticipation (note: corrected per TBV’s comments, below) which delves into ISO 17025, the International Standards for (anti-doping) Labs and how the combined requirements of the documents impact anti-doping cases in general.

It’s a big work. Currently, there are 6 parts posted, with at least a few more to go before the series is done. (Actually, more than a few, and a second part to the story, as well.) Larry has put a lot of time and effort into understanding these topics and writing them in a clear manner. There are a large number of concepts, many that aren’t quite as simple as they sound, and Larry does a very good job of explaining each and how it relates to the overall topic.

If you’re looking for definite answers as to why things are the way they are, his articles give a very good overview of how some important parts of the anti-doping effort have gotten to this point. As Larry points out, there are many aspects of the ISL that are far from clear, and it takes a great deal of effort to discern the true meaning of various terms and various requirements. In order to do so, one needs to take a look at the entire rules, and not small portions.

Larry does so admirably. The effort he’s put into his series pays off well. There’s more to come, so check in at TBV every day to see the new sections of his article as they’re posted.

Idiots Return to Brenna and WM-A

TBV contributor Alasdair (formerly Ali) returns with an updated look at testimony by Drs. Brenna and Meier-Augenstein during the Landis hearings about the effects of overlapping peaks on CIR results, in an effort to determine whose testimony (Brenna’s vs. Meier-Augenstein’s) was correct. Ali reaches a very interesting conclusion — which I won’t spoil by telling you, you’re going to have to read it for yourself.

Even if you’re not mathematically inclined, this is a very good discussion presented in clear and easily understood terms. Read this article carefully, as there’s a lot of important information to be gleaned from Ali’s efforts. What’s presented offers an interesting perspective on an important part of the Landis case — whether or not LNDD’s reported results can be trusted.

WADAWatch’s Analysis of the AFLD Decision

Over at WADAWatch, ZENmud delves into the AFLD’s decision in their separate case against Floyd Landis. While the end result was sadly predictable, the reasoning behind the decision gives some interesting insights into the French case.

ZENmud traces through the entire six-page decision and examines it in great detail, including the AFLD’s authority to bring the case, the WADA code’s provisions regarding who can prosecute an anti-doping case, and additional requirements that call on signatories to the code to respect the decisions of the proper judicial authority for a case.

It’s a lengthy and interesting discussion of the WADA code, the decision by the AFLD and whether or not the decision is well reasoned. As ZENmud says in his article:

Suffice to say that
six pages doth not a great
legal decision make.

Very interesting perspective on the Landis decision from someone trained as a lawyer and who has experience drafting international treaties. If you haven’t read it yet, take the time to do so.