| |
Main
Date: 20 Sep 2007 14:57:03
From: Kenny
Subject: Landis found guilty of doping
|
http://tinyurl.com/2syaj2
|
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 21:37:35
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Landis found guilty of doping
|
On Sep 23, 10:49 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:55:40 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
>
> <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > It's a very similar situation with the Landis tests.
>
> >The Landis case doesn't involve a trial. It involves rules surrounding being
> >involved in sporting competition at the professional level. You can't apply
> >rules of American criminal procedure to this situation, which is neither
> >fully American nor criminal.
>
> Good thing too otherwise he'd be open to prosecution for perjury.
> --
> zk
Who, Landis or the lab tech?
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|
| | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 11:10:29
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Landis found guilty of doping
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:37:35 -0700, Bob <hunrobe@aol.com > wrote:
>On Sep 23, 10:49 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:55:40 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
>>
>> <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> > It's a very similar situation with the Landis tests.
>>
>> >The Landis case doesn't involve a trial. It involves rules surrounding being
>> >involved in sporting competition at the professional level. You can't apply
>> >rules of American criminal procedure to this situation, which is neither
>> >fully American nor criminal.
>>
>> Good thing too otherwise he'd be open to prosecution for perjury.
>> --
>> zk
>
>Who, Landis or the lab tech?
>
>Regards,
>Bob Hunt
Pay attention, Bob.
--
zk
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 22:34:58
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Landis found guilty of doping
|
Bob Hunt (for President) wrote:
> On Sep 23, 10:49 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:55:40 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
>>
>> <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>> It's a very similar situation with the Landis tests.
>>
>>> The Landis case doesn't involve a trial. It involves rules
>>> surrounding being involved in sporting competition at the
>>> professional level. You can't apply rules of American criminal
>>> procedure to this situation, which is neither fully American nor
>>> criminal.
>>
>> Good thing too otherwise he'd be open to prosecution for perjury.
>> --
>> zk
>
> Who, Landis or the lab tech?
LOL
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 11:57:44
From: Brian Huntley
Subject: Re: Landis found guilty of doping
|
On Sep 21, 9:29 pm, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au > wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:21:44 -0700, Brian wrote:
> > The original screening test was found to be "improper" and its result was
> > thrown out...but the 2nd "confirmation" test result was upheld despite the
> > fact that it would never have been done in the first place if the first
> > *had* been done properly and had come up negative?
>
> The reason for a test being performed has no bearing on the credibility of
> its result.
I think that if in the USA the police serve a search warrant on your
house by accident (for example, they meant to go to the house next
door), whatever they find there is not admissible evidence, not even
for getting another warrant.
It's a very similar situation with the Landis tests.
I, for one, am very saddened, however, about the final test results.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 02:55:40
From: Mike Kruger
Subject: Re: Landis found guilty of doping
|
Brian Huntley wrote:
> On Sep 21, 9:29 pm, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:21:44 -0700, Brian wrote:
>>> The original screening test was found to be "improper" and its
>>> result was thrown out...but the 2nd "confirmation" test result was
>>> upheld despite the fact that it would never have been done in the
>>> first place if the first *had* been done properly and had come up
>>> negative?
>>
>> The reason for a test being performed has no bearing on the
>> credibility of its result.
>
> I think that if in the USA the police serve a search warrant on your
> house by accident (for example, they meant to go to the house next
> door), whatever they find there is not admissible evidence, not even
> for getting another warrant.
>
> It's a very similar situation with the Landis tests.
The Landis case doesn't involve a trial. It involves rules surrounding being
involved in sporting competition at the professional level. You can't apply
rules of American criminal procedure to this situation, which is neither
fully American nor criminal.
> I, for one, am very saddened, however, about the final test results.
Me, too.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 20:49:33
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Landis found guilty of doping
|
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:55:40 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
<MikeKr@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
> It's a very similar situation with the Landis tests.
>
>The Landis case doesn't involve a trial. It involves rules surrounding being
>involved in sporting competition at the professional level. You can't apply
>rules of American criminal procedure to this situation, which is neither
>fully American nor criminal.
Good thing too otherwise he'd be open to prosecution for perjury.
--
zk
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 09:29:16
From: nmp
Subject: Re: Landis found guilty of doping
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brian wrote:
>> Lemme see if I got this straight...
>>
>> The original screening test was found to be "improper" and its result
>> was thrown out...but the 2nd "confirmation" test result was upheld
>> despite the fact that it would never have been done in the first place
>> if the first *had* been done properly and had come up negative?
>>
>> ...this is "justice"???
>
> /French/ justice.
The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency is French?
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 08:16:30
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Landis found guilty of doping
|
nmp wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> Brian wrote:
>>> Lemme see if I got this straight...
>>>
>>> The original screening test was found to be "improper" and its
>>> result was thrown out...but the 2nd "confirmation" test result was
>>> upheld despite the fact that it would never have been done in the
>>> first place if the first *had* been done properly and had come up
>>> negative?
>>>
>>> ...this is "justice"???
>>
>> /French/ justice.
>
> The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency is French?
No, the people who /sabotaged/ the tests were.
Bill "hell, even the WORD is French!" S.
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 17:21:44
From: Brian
Subject: Re: Landis found guilty of doping
|
Lemme see if I got this straight...
The original screening test was found to be "improper" and its result was
thrown out...but the 2nd "confirmation" test result was upheld despite the
fact that it would never have been done in the first place if the first
*had* been done properly and had come up negative?
...this is "justice"???
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 10:59:01
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Landis found guilty of doping
|
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:21:44 -0700, Brian wrote:
> The original screening test was found to be "improper" and its result was
> thrown out...but the 2nd "confirmation" test result was upheld despite the
> fact that it would never have been done in the first place if the first
> *had* been done properly and had come up negative?
The reason for a test being performed has no bearing on the credibility of
its result.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 20:09:22
From: Brian
Subject: Re: Landis found guilty of doping
|
"Michael Warner" <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote in message
news:p8d6n3jv8opb$.iygbl33c05dm.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:21:44 -0700, Brian wrote:
>
>> The original screening test was found to be "improper" and its result was
>> thrown out...but the 2nd "confirmation" test result was upheld despite
>> the
>> fact that it would never have been done in the first place if the first
>> *had* been done properly and had come up negative?
>
> The reason for a test being performed has no bearing on the credibility of
> its result.
I disagree, especially as the *same* laboratory that produced the "improper"
initial result also did the follow up...
B.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 18:36:08
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Landis found guilty of doping
|
Brian wrote:
> Lemme see if I got this straight...
>
> The original screening test was found to be "improper" and its result
> was thrown out...but the 2nd "confirmation" test result was upheld
> despite the fact that it would never have been done in the first
> place if the first *had* been done properly and had come up negative?
>
> ...this is "justice"???
/French/ justice.
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 07:35:21
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Landis found guilty of doping
|
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:57:03 -0700, Kenny wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/2syaj2
Great. Only six appeals and three years to go...
|
|
