| |
Main
Date: 20 Aug 2007 08:49:50
From: Cal Thomas
Subject: Interesting article on Landis currently
|
Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
sides of Floyd.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd.html
Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
interesting reading and learning.
NW Age group, middle of the packer
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 05:35:34
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Interesting article on Landis currently
|
On Aug 23, 12:52 am, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Aug 22, 11:57 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 20, 8:49 am, Cal Thomas <jcarp1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
> > > currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
> > > their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
> > > sides of Floyd.
>
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd....
>
> > > Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
> > > interesting reading and learning.
>
> > The most important fact and one generally left out is that Landis'
> > testosterone levels weren't high. His epitestosterone levels were
> > low.
>
> dumbass,
>
> holy shit! it's so simple and landis is wasting all his money on a
> legal team when all he had to do was read rbr.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
yeah. ask the guy what else could Landis do with his money? hide it in
Switzerland?
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 04:52:08
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Interesting article on Landis currently
|
On Aug 22, 11:57 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 20, 8:49 am, Cal Thomas <jcarp1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
> > currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
> > their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
> > sides of Floyd.
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd....
>
> > Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
> > interesting reading and learning.
>
> The most important fact and one generally left out is that Landis'
> testosterone levels weren't high. His epitestosterone levels were
> low.
>
dumbass,
holy shit! it's so simple and landis is wasting all his money on a
legal team when all he had to do was read rbr.
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 08:57:16
From:
Subject: Re: Interesting article on Landis currently
|
On Aug 20, 8:49 am, Cal Thomas <jcarp1...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
> currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
> their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
> sides of Floyd.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd....
>
> Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
> interesting reading and learning.
The most important fact and one generally left out is that Landis'
testosterone levels weren't high. His epitestosterone levels were
low.
What's more, the FIRST test showed 4.5:1 and the second test of the
same sample showed 11:1 demonstrating either that there was a
contaminant, probably an epitestosterone eating bacteria, an
incompetent lab or outright crookedness.
You take your pick but I'm guessing "All of the above" since IF the
levels change that radically for the first and second tests they're
supposed to throw the sample out as contaminated. So.... why didn't
they? And then why didn't the UCI call them on it? And why hasn't WADA
said anything? This entire business smacks of corruption on a high
level.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 11:23:50
From: Cal Thomas
Subject: Re: Interesting article on Landis currently
|
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 20, 8:49 am, Cal Thomas <jcarp1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
>> currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
>> their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
>> sides of Floyd.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd....
>>
>> Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
>> interesting reading and learning.
>
> The most important fact and one generally left out is that Landis'
> testosterone levels weren't high. His epitestosterone levels were
> low.
>
> What's more, the FIRST test showed 4.5:1 and the second test of the
> same sample showed 11:1 demonstrating either that there was a
> contaminant, probably an epitestosterone eating bacteria, an
> incompetent lab or outright crookedness.
>
> You take your pick but I'm guessing "All of the above" since IF the
> levels change that radically for the first and second tests they're
> supposed to throw the sample out as contaminated. So.... why didn't
> they? And then why didn't the UCI call them on it? And why hasn't WADA
> said anything? This entire business smacks of corruption on a high
> level.
>
All my riding buddies are convinced.
"Conspiracy Theory?
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 06:59:48
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Interesting article on Landis currently
|
Cal Thomas wrote:
> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 8:49 am, Cal Thomas <jcarp1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
>>> currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
>>> their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
>>> sides of Floyd.
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd....
>>>
>>> Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
>>> interesting reading and learning.
>>
>> The most important fact and one generally left out is that Landis'
>> testosterone levels weren't high. His epitestosterone levels were
>> low.
>>
>> What's more, the FIRST test showed 4.5:1 and the second test of the
>> same sample showed 11:1 demonstrating either that there was a
>> contaminant, probably an epitestosterone eating bacteria, an
>> incompetent lab or outright crookedness.
>>
>> You take your pick but I'm guessing "All of the above" since IF the
>> levels change that radically for the first and second tests they're
>> supposed to throw the sample out as contaminated. So.... why didn't
>> they? And then why didn't the UCI call them on it? And why hasn't WADA
>> said anything? This entire business smacks of corruption on a high
>> level.
>>
>
> All my riding buddies are convinced.
>
> "Conspiracy Theory?
"Epitestosterone eating bacteria?
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 23:00:57
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Interesting article on Landis currently
|
In article <5j76u7F3rt6rlU1@mid.individual.net >, Kyle Legate <legatek@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Cal Thomas wrote:
> > cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Aug 20, 8:49 am, Cal Thomas <jcarp1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
> >>> currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
> >>> their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
> >>> sides of Floyd.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd....
> >>>
> >>> Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
> >>> interesting reading and learning.
> >>
> >> The most important fact and one generally left out is that Landis'
> >> testosterone levels weren't high. His epitestosterone levels were
> >> low.
> >>
> >> What's more, the FIRST test showed 4.5:1 and the second test of the
> >> same sample showed 11:1 demonstrating either that there was a
> >> contaminant, probably an epitestosterone eating bacteria, an
> >> incompetent lab or outright crookedness.
> >>
> >> You take your pick but I'm guessing "All of the above" since IF the
> >> levels change that radically for the first and second tests they're
> >> supposed to throw the sample out as contaminated. So.... why didn't
> >> they? And then why didn't the UCI call them on it? And why hasn't WADA
> >> said anything? This entire business smacks of corruption on a high
> >> level.
> >>
> >
> > All my riding buddies are convinced.
> >
> > "Conspiracy Theory?
>
> "Epitestosterone eating bacteria?
Doesn't rbr count as a Peer Reviewed publication?
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 08:25:01
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Interesting article on Landis currently
|
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:00:57 -0700, Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com >
wrote:
>In article <5j76u7F3rt6rlU1@mid.individual.net>, Kyle Legate <legatek@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Cal Thomas wrote:
>> > cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Aug 20, 8:49 am, Cal Thomas <jcarp1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>> Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
>> >>> currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
>> >>> their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
>> >>> sides of Floyd.
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd....
>> >>>
>> >>> Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
>> >>> interesting reading and learning.
>> >>
>> >> The most important fact and one generally left out is that Landis'
>> >> testosterone levels weren't high. His epitestosterone levels were
>> >> low.
>> >>
>> >> What's more, the FIRST test showed 4.5:1 and the second test of the
>> >> same sample showed 11:1 demonstrating either that there was a
>> >> contaminant, probably an epitestosterone eating bacteria, an
>> >> incompetent lab or outright crookedness.
>> >>
>> >> You take your pick but I'm guessing "All of the above" since IF the
>> >> levels change that radically for the first and second tests they're
>> >> supposed to throw the sample out as contaminated. So.... why didn't
>> >> they? And then why didn't the UCI call them on it? And why hasn't WADA
>> >> said anything? This entire business smacks of corruption on a high
>> >> level.
>> >>
>> >
>> > All my riding buddies are convinced.
>> >
>> > "Conspiracy Theory?
>>
>> "Epitestosterone eating bacteria?
>
> Doesn't rbr count as a Peer Reviewed publication?
Only if the turd flinging on monkey island is recognized as scholarly debate.
Ron
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 16:56:21
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Interesting article on Landis currently
|
In article <ofjtc31f3fsj4lbo6t08vgup9925b0muc9@4ax.com >,
RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:00:57 -0700, Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com>
> wrote:
> > Doesn't rbr count as a Peer Reviewed publication?
>
> Only if the turd flinging on monkey island is recognized as scholarly debate.
Well, there is someone around these parts who likes to think his chest beating
will convince everyone that he's the group's mighty silverback, when it really comes
across more like the turd flinging resident of monkey island.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 20:58:29
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Interesting article on Landis currently
|
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:56:21 -0700, Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com >
wrote:
>In article <ofjtc31f3fsj4lbo6t08vgup9925b0muc9@4ax.com>,
> RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:00:57 -0700, Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> > Doesn't rbr count as a Peer Reviewed publication?
>>
>> Only if the turd flinging on monkey island is recognized as scholarly debate.
>
> Well, there is someone around these parts who likes to think his chest beating
>will convince everyone that he's the group's mighty silverback, when it really comes
>across more like the turd flinging resident of monkey island.
Sometimes one becomes disappointed in the forces of evolution, all these years
for what?
Ron
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 16:23:47
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Interesting article on Landis currently
|
RonSonic wrote:
> Only if the turd flinging on monkey island is recognized as scholarly debate.
Sounds quite mild compared to some academic debates.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 09:35:01
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Interesting article on Landis currently
|
Howard Kveck wrote:
> Doesn't rbr count as a Peer Reviewed publication?
With peers like that who needs enemies.
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 12:29:40
From: Frank Drackman
Subject: Re: Interesting article on Landis currently
|
"Cal Thomas" <jcarp1939@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:D9GdnXFxFvuHJVTbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
> currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in their
> sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human sides of
> Floyd.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd.html
>
> Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
> interesting reading and learning.
>
> NW Age group, middle of the packer
Great article. Thanks for the pointer.
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 22:56:18
From: Mark VandenBerghe
Subject: Re: Interesting article on Landis currently
|
Guy sure drinks a lot...
"Cal Thomas" <jcarp1939@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:D9GdnXFxFvuHJVTbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
> currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in their
> sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human sides of
> Floyd.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd.html
>
> Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
> interesting reading and learning.
>
> NW Age group, middle of the packer
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 14:14:00
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Interesting article on Landis currently
|
On Aug 20, 3:28 pm, Kyle Legate <lega...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Cal Thomas wrote:
> > Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
> > currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
> > their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
> > sides of Floyd.
>
> He could always raze barns.
Raise or raze? Two very different things.
R
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 21:28:13
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Interesting article on Landis currently
|
Cal Thomas wrote:
> Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
> currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
> their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
> sides of Floyd.
>
He could always raze barns.
|
|
