I'm not saying he's innocent, but...

Then again I am saying something like 'we can't be so certain about these things'. Read it and weep: In the case of Landis, who had no previous record of doping violations, the chances that the positive result could result from anything except cheating - a lab error, an abnormally high natural occurrence of testosterone - were dismissed as not credible. The problem, Mr Berry said, is that for the actual process used by doping labs there is no body of scientific data to show just how rare "false positives" or "false negatives" really are, and that such data is essential for interpreting lab results.

Introducing probabilities into drug testing is interesting and debatable, but I accept the basic premise - that a false positive (or negative) is always possible. Look at Ricco's statement that he took CERA and should have been caught multiple times, but wasn't. Hence we run multiple tests and develop (now, at least) a longitudinal profile of an athlete. So any 'aberrant' values will appear over time and can be tracked without jumping to conclusions over one single test on one sole sample. Even better (or complementary) is the idea for certain pre-identified markers to be identified or inserted into drugs as "tags" that can be easily identified.

So will Landis take this as more evidence for his side of the case, or has he simply agreed to disagree and move on? If he is innocent, what of the human cost here? Are we doing the right thing with these so-called drug "cheats" or are we making what could be unemotional technical points highly emotive and "charged" with guilt, suspicion and pain - and thus feeding the media monster instead of protecting the athletes?