| |
Main
Date: 26 May 2007 04:53:29
From: Kyle Schwitters
Subject: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
With BJARNE RIIS's admission that he used dope to win the1996 Tour de
France, isn't it WAY past time that Armstrong admitted:
1) Yes, he, too, used performance-enhancing drugs to win those 7
TDFs.
2) The made-up bogus story about overcoming, near-death, grave multi-
CANCERS, of which no one else has come forth to claim survival.
FACE IT deluded sports fans, America's obsession with celebrity and
"heros" is and has always been behind this "legend."
-----------------
"'96 Tour de France Winner Riis Admits Using EPO, Other Drugs"
The Washington Post
Sports
Saturday, May 26, 2007; E02
Bjarne Riis became the first Tour de France winner to admit using
performance-enhancing drugs to win the sport's premier race, further
eroding cycling's credibility after a series of doping confessions.
His admission yesterday means the top three finishers in the 1996 Tour
all have been linked to doping -- and two have admitted cheating.
The retired Dane said he used the blood-booster EPO from 1993 to 1998,
including during his 1996 Tour victory, confirming years of
speculation that he benefited from banned substances. He also admitted
taking cortisone and human growth hormone, but didn't say when.
"I have taken doping. I have taken EPO," Riis said at a televised news
conference. "I have made errors and I would like to apologize."
EPO -- or erythropoietin -- is a synthetic hormone that stimulates the
production of oxygen-carrying red blood cells.
Riis said he no longer considered himself a worthy winner of the Tour,
and indicated he would be willing to give back the title.
"My jersey is at home in a cardboard box," said Riis, now manager of
the Danish team CSC. "They are welcome to come and get it. I have my
memories for myself."
Cycling's governing body said even though time limits for sanctioning
Riis have expired, it "urges the former rider to return his yellow
jersey, the symbol of his victory."
Tour director Christian Prudhomme used even stronger words: "Bjarne
Riis said himself that he did not deserve to have won the Tour in 1996
because he cheated. I think the same thing, because he has soiled the
yellow jersey," Prudhomme told the Associated Press when reached by
telephone. "Seeing as he did not deserve to win, does he deserve to
lead a major cycling team?"
-- From News Services
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052500647.html
|
|
| |
Date: 29 May 2007 09:44:59
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On May 27, 5:12 am, Simon "Doc" Brooke <s...@jasmine.org.uk > wrote:
> ... people who lose testicles
> normally have lower than normal testosterone.
Okay Doc.
-----------------------------------
http://www.tc-cancer.com/tcsex.html
Having one testicle removed
If you have had one testicle removed there is often no reason why your
ability to father children, sexual performance or sexual appetite
should be affected. The remaining testicle will usually make more
testosterone (the male sex hormone) and sperm to make up for the one
that has been removed.
---------------------------
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=3396
Orchidectomy
If you have one testicle removed, there are no lasting side effects.
The other testicle makes up for the missing one by making more
testosterone and sperm.
|
| |
Date: 29 May 2007 07:04:29
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On May 29, 3:02 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Working from memory, and one eye, I recall that the results of the extra
> Armstrong tests were presented to WADA quite a while before they became
> public. It would likely be in that transmission chain, or after its end,
> that the results were disclosed.
The results were never publicly disclosed.
> Something I have learned is that almost no commercial entity is concerned
> with "ethics" if it does not also involve a legal violation.
I don't know about France but in California the release of a table
such as the one published in L'Equipe would be both an ethical and a
legal violation, even if those data are collected by a commercial
entity.
> I do think that you and I agree that the "new test" has never been set forth
> in detail, nor has the test become part of procedural norms. Tell me if I
> err.
AFAIK, the new test has never been set forth in detail. However, WADA
doesn't have to announce when a test becomes part of a procedural
norm: they can phase in a test whenever they want. As we saw with the
homologous blood doping test, they don't need to estimate the false
positive rate or release any other validation data. And, as we saw in
the Landis case, individual labs can evidently set their own
positivity standards: Landis' tests would not have been considered
positive at the UCLA lab.
|
| | |
Date: 29 May 2007 23:20:13
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
In article <1180447469.850909.115090@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com >,
Robert Chung <rechung@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 29, 3:02 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
> > I do think that you and I agree that the "new test" has never been set forth
> > in detail, nor has the test become part of procedural norms. Tell me if I
> > err.
>
> AFAIK, the new test has never been set forth in detail. However, WADA
> doesn't have to announce when a test becomes part of a procedural
> norm: they can phase in a test whenever they want. As we saw with the
> homologous blood doping test, they don't need to estimate the false
> positive rate or release any other validation data. And, as we saw in
> the Landis case, individual labs can evidently set their own
> positivity standards: Landis' tests would not have been considered
> positive at the UCLA lab.
This last aspect is really troublesome to me. I guess that's where Pound can get
the idea that he needs a "positive reader." I think the standards should be, well,
standard.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 28 May 2007 23:49:41
From:
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On May 28, 9:29 am, "Sandy" wrote:
> I have less memory of how the results ended up outside the lab.
> I would appreciate knowing, as that could change my estimation.
> [...] Not nice, but not necessarily unethical. [...]
> The reporter seems to have done an excellent job of it
I think that a reasonable but not airtight case can be made that: 1)
the lab was both not nice and not ethical; and 2) either Ressiot did a
lousy job or else he, too, was unethical (or both).
|
| | |
Date: 29 May 2007 15:02:42
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
Dans le message de
news:1180421381.768305.292680@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com <rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com > a réfléchi, et
puis a déclaré :
> On May 28, 9:29 am, "Sandy" wrote:
>> I have less memory of how the results ended up outside the lab.
>> I would appreciate knowing, as that could change my estimation.
>> [...] Not nice, but not necessarily unethical. [...]
>> The reporter seems to have done an excellent job of it
>
> I think that a reasonable but not airtight case can be made that: 1)
> the lab was both not nice and not ethical; and 2) either Ressiot did a
> lousy job or else he, too, was unethical (or both).
Working from memory, and one eye, I recall that the results of the extra
Armstrong tests were presented to WADA quite a while before they became
public. It would likely be in that transmission chain, or after its end,
that the results were disclosed.
Something I have learned is that almost no commercial entity is concerned
with "ethics" if it does not also involve a legal violation. That is the
kind of distinction I have often been presented with in counselling clients.
It's not my job to be the moral guidepost, and it would likely be a
pointless effort.
Again, you may have better knowledge of the point of disclosure of the lab
results.
I do think that you and I agree that the "new test" has never been set forth
in detail, nor has the test become part of procedural norms. Tell me if I
err.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
|
| |
Date: 28 May 2007 12:42:42
From:
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On May 28, 8:49 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> Do I recall correctly one more event? That Lance
> Armstrong was asked for and provided codes that were
> later used as evidence that certain coded samples
> tested were his?
Close. Ressiot told Armstrong that he was investigating the rumor that
LANCE had a TUE for EPO as a result of his cancer. Armstrong said he
had no such TUE and to prove it, gave permission for the UCI to
release the sample forms to Ressiot. The forms showed no TUE's but
they did show the sample codes.
But that's a red herring. The real question is why the forms that
Ressiot had gotten from the LNDD had the codes on them at all.
|
| | |
Date: 28 May 2007 21:34:00
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On 28 May 2007 12:42:42 -0700, rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
>On May 28, 8:49 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Do I recall correctly one more event? That Lance
>> Armstrong was asked for and provided codes that were
>> later used as evidence that certain coded samples
>> tested were his?
>
>Close. Ressiot told Armstrong that he was investigating the rumor that
>LANCE had a TUE for EPO as a result of his cancer. Armstrong said he
>had no such TUE and to prove it, gave permission for the UCI to
>release the sample forms to Ressiot. The forms showed no TUE's but
>they did show the sample codes.
>
>But that's a red herring. The real question is why the forms that
>Ressiot had gotten from the LNDD had the codes on them at all.
Because that's the deal they made?
Ron
|
| |
Date: 28 May 2007 07:42:50
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On May 27, 1:01 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> I really don't want to say it this way, but it's quicker.
> All your views are supported by no more than unsubstantiated complaints from
> interested parties.
> None of the complaints have been verified by independent authorities, which
> have, in fact, substantiated the exact opposite. (Incidentally, relying on
> the guys who criticized LNDD requires you to suspend disbelief that their
> financial interests in promoting their own equipment and software colors
> their views.)
You might give me just a little credit for understanding there are
"interests" on both sides, OK?
I don't know about "independent authorities" except what has been seen
here and elsewhere IRT white-out, mis-labled specimens, hearing
testimony about "shooting fish in a barrel".
And the apparent shelf life difference between Marion Jones' B sample
EPO content and that of the alleged Armstrong "positive" from 1999.
Many, many weeks, and voila, it is still there?!?!?
> You want to believe. No prob. That's a splendid opinion that you're
> entitled to. Frankly, I would like to believe that no one ever tested
> positive really broke the rules. I would.
"Give us a positive test" does not mean "I want to believe". Not at
all.
I "believe" we live in an adversarial world of men, which includes the
"justice system".
Using leaks, innuendo, police agencies incl. border guards, yellow
journalism, "get me a positive reader in here!" BS "testing", and all
the rest of it stinks. Well, that's what happens when people make
stupid rules! (repeating repeating repeating): If "everyone" is doping
and not getting caught by the testing undertaken by various agencies,
there is something wrong with the rules and the testing.
Making rules that can be fairly and evenly enforced would be better.
Omerta was better, except for the alleged EPO deaths-- and is there a
real list anywhere, a body count with names? The point remains: had
EPO use been openly controlled, the danger would have been greatly
reduced. IOW, being able to go to someone other than a gofer/mechanic/
masseur-type team employee to get your meds, such as a real medical
doctor with experience in the field.
At least the movement (Pound poop) against altitude tents seems to
have gone thud. Better than piercing the skin, after all... --D-y
|
| |
Date: 28 May 2007 06:52:05
From: Perry
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On May 27, 3:11 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On May 27, 2:37 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dans le message denews:1180289578.089334.220410@q75g2000hsh.googlegroup=
s=2Ecom,
> > Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=E9clar=E9 :
>
> > > On May 27, 11:57 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
> > >> Dans le message denews:oa6j53pfo2hr9fnn152gtf0kpacie0npcu@4ax.com,
> > >> RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=E9cl=
ar=E9 :
>
> > >>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 07:24:11 +0200, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>
> > >>>> Dans le message denews:6cnh53tl6pod1rcv1vbcaeemiatip4amra@4ax.com,
> > >>>> RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=E9=
clar=E9 :
> > >>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:46:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
> > >>>>> <blaffer...@verizon.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> As the director of the WADA accredited lab in Montreal pointed
> > >>>>>> out, if there were no EPO in the urine, the test would not have
> > >>>>>> found any. The fact that Armstrong never replied to the offer
> > >>>>>> of the French minister for sport to have the B samples analyzed
> > >>>>>> again in his presence, is telling. EPO WAS found in Armstrong's
> > >>>>>> urine from 1999. Big surprise.
>
> > >>>>> It wasn't a properly organized test.
>
> > >>>> To believe you here, I need to know why it was not properly
> > >>>> organized and how much you know about that, including your personal
> > >>>> observations of its deficits.
>
> > >>>>> Besides, that was the B sample.
>
> > >>>> The B sample is the other half of the total sample given. Part A
> > >>>> is used and consumed in the first series of tests, and the B
> > >>>> sample is a reserve from the identical event. It's fairer to call
> > >>>> it the second half of the same sample.
>
> > >>>>> It'd be stupid to be surpized by EPO use in the peloton, I'll give
> > >>>>> you that. But if you really want a charge to stick you gotta do
> > >>>>> better than pulling a bottle from somewhere claiming it belonged
> > >>>>> to a guy and then having a known bent lab leak results.
>
> > >>>> Then it should be easy to demonstrate that it was not the identical
> > >>>> sample, no ?
>
> > >>> I'd say it was impossible to demonstrate that it was his sample. In
> > >>> fact, the whole process was so far removed from a proper doping test
> > >>> that we can't say anything about it beyond its ability to sell some
> > >>> yellow newspapers.
>
> > >> The fact is that you don't know what happened in this testing. You
> > >> are repeating nothing more than the propaganda of the Armstrong
> > >> camp. Just to prove me wrong, let us all know exactly which tests
> > >> were performed, how the results were arrived at, and how you _know_
> > >> that the samples didn't belong to Armstrong.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Sandy how can you continue to have complete and total blind support
> > > for LNDD in spite of all the testimony stating that they aren't
> > > perfect? You seem to have been giving them a complete and total pass
> > > no matter what anyone has testified to.
> > > Bill C
>
> > You misunderstood me. I did not vouch for LNDD. I watched every wretc=
hed
> > minute of the hearing. I applied reasonable skepticism to all witnesse=
s=2E
> > The claims Ron made are not substantiated by what was presented ; in fa=
ct
> > some claims made were _not_ presented. I also challenge the statements=
on
> > the basis of lack of personal knowledge, not on the basis of an opinion
> > held. It's a hot matter, and it won't go away, but I do call someone o=
ut
> > when opinion is stated as fact.
>
> > Hope that clears it up.
> > --
> > Bonne route !
>
> > Sandy
> > Verneuil-sur-Seine FR- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I konw that I have, and I think many others here, been under the
> impression for a long time that you unquestioningly support LNDD.
> There have been questions raised for years, including from other
> scientists and universities and I cant remember you ever admitting
> that there might have been a slight chance of them having made any
> error. I don't think they are "framing" anyone, but I do think that
> they are intense presure from Wada to produce the results that Pound
> says are out there. They are not allowed to speak out against, or
> question anything Wada does or says. They are accredited by Wada. In
> those circumstances I think anything that can evenly vaguely be
> interpreted as a positive result is, andf I do think they might
> recalibrate to get more of those because Pound says all these are
> positivie so if they aren't showing up that way then it must be that
> they need more adjustment or testing. Everyone wants to please their
> boss and keep the paycheck coming, and in this case they have an
> abusive boss to begin with, so I have very little trouble believing
> that they would grasp at straws to give Wada the positives they want,
> and fight to the death any questions.
> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
---------------------
Best evidence reflects that Lance broke it off with Crow because her
doping past, if in fact she's now "clean," was threatening to destroy
Armstrong's carefully crafted and protected "life-story." Crow's own
cancer trip was an added bummer. And once the doping accounts became
part of Lance's lore, he and his gang knew the doubtful CANCER
accounts would surely follow and crumble his lucrative, fabled,
empire.
----------------------
|
| |
Date: 28 May 2007 01:37:54
From:
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On May 28, 9:29 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Not researching, but going from my memory ...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/aa86109310340d68
> The reporter seems to have done an excellent job of it
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/39c694be816bfe14
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/772615130fec5571
|
| | |
Date: 28 May 2007 11:40:29
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
Dans le message de
news:1180341474.770461.164800@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com <rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com > a réfléchi, et
puis a déclaré :
> On May 28, 9:29 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>> Not researching, but going from my memory ...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/aa86109310340d68
>
>> The reporter seems to have done an excellent job of it
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/39c694be816bfe14
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/772615130fec5571
I give my memory two stars, the reporter a delayed star, and your research
three.
Now go get wet before the traffic builds.
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2007 16:11:22
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On May 27, 4:00 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message denews:1180293109.153337.33800@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.co=
m,
> Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=E9clar=E9 :
>
>
>
> > I konw that I have, and I think many others here, been under the
> > impression for a long time that you unquestioningly support LNDD.
>
> Unquestioningly ? Never. Supported ? No.
> And please don't even suggest its location plays a role.
> However, regular inspections and evaluations from independent authorities
> have confirmed its competence. Learned individual scientists have
> identified less than perfect, occasionally mediocre performance. The lin=
ks
> to the arb hearing remain available, should you want to endure all the
> presentation of many points of view. Then you could let us know your
> resulting opinion.
>
>
>
>
>
> > There have been questions raised for years, including from other
> > scientists and universities and I cant remember you ever admitting
> > that there might have been a slight chance of them having made any
> > error. I don't think they are "framing" anyone, but I do think that
> > they are intense presure from Wada to produce the results that Pound
> > says are out there. They are not allowed to speak out against, or
> > question anything Wada does or says. They are accredited by Wada. In
> > those circumstances I think anything that can evenly vaguely be
> > interpreted as a positive result is, andf I do think they might
> > recalibrate to get more of those because Pound says all these are
> > positivie so if they aren't showing up that way then it must be that
> > they need more adjustment or testing. Everyone wants to please their
> > boss and keep the paycheck coming, and in this case they have an
> > abusive boss to begin with, so I have very little trouble believing
> > that they would grasp at straws to give Wada the positives they want,
> > and fight to the death any questions.
>
> I will make a broader charge. I believe (and wrote this several times
> already) that the lust for power and money is driving this matter as well=
as
> the entire cycling INDUSTRY. Look hard at the caps. It is just that. W=
hen
> asked today (TF2 - Stade2) whether money is causing the evil that befalls
> cycling, Christian Prudhomme said, in short, NO. Well, I think he is pla=
in
> wrong. As wrong as one can be. As close to a prevaricator as that sweet
> euphemism allows.
>
> The drug companies earn (600MM euros in quesitonable prescriptions in Ita=
ly
> alone, last year) - the labs earn (more tests, more expensive tests, more
> litigation expertises) - the sponsors earn (presuming their exposure
> provides positive images) - the parasites of cycling earn (PR people,
> lawyers, accountants, podium girls [nothing I want to lose!] -
>
> AND
>
> the players, the racers, EARN. Especially if they are willing to do what=
it
> takes to put on a show, keep the jersey clean and visible, and do it in
> silence.
>
> AND
>
> POUND earns - money, perks, power, prestige.
>
> Everyone gets what they want, under the old systems, even the fans.
> Especially European fans, who are more sanguine about doping that you are=
in
> the USA.
>
> With a few bad eggs sacrificed to show cycling has turned over yet another
> new leaf, it could all go on again. And it will. July is nigh. Tell me
> whether you expect a blank screen or not.
>
> My other strong concern is that riders are sacrificing their health
> seriously, whether or not they dope. And if they are in fragile health, =
is
> there any reason to deprive them of proper treatment ?
>
> The system of having only team doctors take care of a cyclist is a laugh.
> Normal people have regular personal physicians who know them over years. =
In
> a team doctor environment, they are forced to forego that, to change habi=
ts
> [sic, myself] as they change teams or as the team changes doctors, never
> really being able to assure themselves of an enduring presence of a person
> who actually wants them to be well.
>
> End of diatribe. But don't accuse me of giving away points to LNDD by
> default. If it weren't Landis, or Armstrong, but some dumb schmuck of
> medium talent, and from another country, this forum would never be as
> populated or overwhelmed by messages. Well, of course the exception being
> Virenque, but French-haters would always find a way.
>
> Have I been clear about my position ?
> --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where you object to the riders being subjected to team doctors, and I
agree with you, I object to the lab being confirmed and certified by
Wada and the IOC both of which have a horrible track record in being
honest and fair. It's like our Pentagon investigating itself.
I agree with you on just about everything but the lab itself and it's
credibility.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2007 12:11:49
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On May 27, 2:37 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message denews:1180289578.089334.220410@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.=
com,
> Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=E9clar=E9 :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 11:57 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
> >> Dans le message denews:oa6j53pfo2hr9fnn152gtf0kpacie0npcu@4ax.com,
> >> RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=E9clar=
=E9 :
>
> >>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 07:24:11 +0200, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>
> >>>> Dans le message denews:6cnh53tl6pod1rcv1vbcaeemiatip4amra@4ax.com,
> >>>> RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=E9cl=
ar=E9 :
> >>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:46:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
> >>>>> <blaffer...@verizon.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> As the director of the WADA accredited lab in Montreal pointed
> >>>>>> out, if there were no EPO in the urine, the test would not have
> >>>>>> found any. The fact that Armstrong never replied to the offer
> >>>>>> of the French minister for sport to have the B samples analyzed
> >>>>>> again in his presence, is telling. EPO WAS found in Armstrong's
> >>>>>> urine from 1999. Big surprise.
>
> >>>>> It wasn't a properly organized test.
>
> >>>> To believe you here, I need to know why it was not properly
> >>>> organized and how much you know about that, including your personal
> >>>> observations of its deficits.
>
> >>>>> Besides, that was the B sample.
>
> >>>> The B sample is the other half of the total sample given. Part A
> >>>> is used and consumed in the first series of tests, and the B
> >>>> sample is a reserve from the identical event. It's fairer to call
> >>>> it the second half of the same sample.
>
> >>>>> It'd be stupid to be surpized by EPO use in the peloton, I'll give
> >>>>> you that. But if you really want a charge to stick you gotta do
> >>>>> better than pulling a bottle from somewhere claiming it belonged
> >>>>> to a guy and then having a known bent lab leak results.
>
> >>>> Then it should be easy to demonstrate that it was not the identical
> >>>> sample, no ?
>
> >>> I'd say it was impossible to demonstrate that it was his sample. In
> >>> fact, the whole process was so far removed from a proper doping test
> >>> that we can't say anything about it beyond its ability to sell some
> >>> yellow newspapers.
>
> >> The fact is that you don't know what happened in this testing. You
> >> are repeating nothing more than the propaganda of the Armstrong
> >> camp. Just to prove me wrong, let us all know exactly which tests
> >> were performed, how the results were arrived at, and how you _know_
> >> that the samples didn't belong to Armstrong.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Sandy how can you continue to have complete and total blind support
> > for LNDD in spite of all the testimony stating that they aren't
> > perfect? You seem to have been giving them a complete and total pass
> > no matter what anyone has testified to.
> > Bill C
>
> You misunderstood me. I did not vouch for LNDD. I watched every wretched
> minute of the hearing. I applied reasonable skepticism to all witnesses.
> The claims Ron made are not substantiated by what was presented ; in fact
> some claims made were _not_ presented. I also challenge the statements on
> the basis of lack of personal knowledge, not on the basis of an opinion
> held. It's a hot matter, and it won't go away, but I do call someone out
> when opinion is stated as fact.
>
> Hope that clears it up.
> --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I konw that I have, and I think many others here, been under the
impression for a long time that you unquestioningly support LNDD.
There have been questions raised for years, including from other
scientists and universities and I cant remember you ever admitting
that there might have been a slight chance of them having made any
error. I don't think they are "framing" anyone, but I do think that
they are intense presure from Wada to produce the results that Pound
says are out there. They are not allowed to speak out against, or
question anything Wada does or says. They are accredited by Wada. In
those circumstances I think anything that can evenly vaguely be
interpreted as a positive result is, andf I do think they might
recalibrate to get more of those because Pound says all these are
positivie so if they aren't showing up that way then it must be that
they need more adjustment or testing. Everyone wants to please their
boss and keep the paycheck coming, and in this case they have an
abusive boss to begin with, so I have very little trouble believing
that they would grasp at straws to give Wada the positives they want,
and fight to the death any questions.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 27 May 2007 22:00:15
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
Dans le message de news:1180293109.153337.33800@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> I konw that I have, and I think many others here, been under the
> impression for a long time that you unquestioningly support LNDD.
Unquestioningly ? Never. Supported ? No.
And please don't even suggest its location plays a role.
However, regular inspections and evaluations from independent authorities
have confirmed its competence. Learned individual scientists have
identified less than perfect, occasionally mediocre performance. The links
to the arb hearing remain available, should you want to endure all the
presentation of many points of view. Then you could let us know your
resulting opinion.
> There have been questions raised for years, including from other
> scientists and universities and I cant remember you ever admitting
> that there might have been a slight chance of them having made any
> error. I don't think they are "framing" anyone, but I do think that
> they are intense presure from Wada to produce the results that Pound
> says are out there. They are not allowed to speak out against, or
> question anything Wada does or says. They are accredited by Wada. In
> those circumstances I think anything that can evenly vaguely be
> interpreted as a positive result is, andf I do think they might
> recalibrate to get more of those because Pound says all these are
> positivie so if they aren't showing up that way then it must be that
> they need more adjustment or testing. Everyone wants to please their
> boss and keep the paycheck coming, and in this case they have an
> abusive boss to begin with, so I have very little trouble believing
> that they would grasp at straws to give Wada the positives they want,
> and fight to the death any questions.
I will make a broader charge. I believe (and wrote this several times
already) that the lust for power and money is driving this matter as well as
the entire cycling INDUSTRY. Look hard at the caps. It is just that. When
asked today (TF2 - Stade2) whether money is causing the evil that befalls
cycling, Christian Prudhomme said, in short, NO. Well, I think he is plain
wrong. As wrong as one can be. As close to a prevaricator as that sweet
euphemism allows.
The drug companies earn (600MM euros in quesitonable prescriptions in Italy
alone, last year) - the labs earn (more tests, more expensive tests, more
litigation expertises) - the sponsors earn (presuming their exposure
provides positive images) - the parasites of cycling earn (PR people,
lawyers, accountants, podium girls [nothing I want to lose!] -
AND
the players, the racers, EARN. Especially if they are willing to do what it
takes to put on a show, keep the jersey clean and visible, and do it in
silence.
AND
POUND earns - money, perks, power, prestige.
Everyone gets what they want, under the old systems, even the fans.
Especially European fans, who are more sanguine about doping that you are in
the USA.
With a few bad eggs sacrificed to show cycling has turned over yet another
new leaf, it could all go on again. And it will. July is nigh. Tell me
whether you expect a blank screen or not.
My other strong concern is that riders are sacrificing their health
seriously, whether or not they dope. And if they are in fragile health, is
there any reason to deprive them of proper treatment ?
The system of having only team doctors take care of a cyclist is a laugh.
Normal people have regular personal physicians who know them over years. In
a team doctor environment, they are forced to forego that, to change habits
[sic, myself] as they change teams or as the team changes doctors, never
really being able to assure themselves of an enduring presence of a person
who actually wants them to be well.
End of diatribe. But don't accuse me of giving away points to LNDD by
default. If it weren't Landis, or Armstrong, but some dumb schmuck of
medium talent, and from another country, this forum would never be as
populated or overwhelmed by messages. Well, of course the exception being
Virenque, but French-haters would always find a way.
Have I been clear about my position ?
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
|
| | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 19:37:07
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On Sun, 27 May 2007 22:00:15 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:
>Dans le message de news:1180293109.153337.33800@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
>Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>
>> I konw that I have, and I think many others here, been under the
>> impression for a long time that you unquestioningly support LNDD.
>
>Unquestioningly ? Never. Supported ? No.
>And please don't even suggest its location plays a role.
>However, regular inspections and evaluations from independent authorities
>have confirmed its competence. Learned individual scientists have
>identified less than perfect, occasionally mediocre performance. The links
>to the arb hearing remain available, should you want to endure all the
>presentation of many points of view. Then you could let us know your
>resulting opinion.
>
>> There have been questions raised for years, including from other
>> scientists and universities and I cant remember you ever admitting
>> that there might have been a slight chance of them having made any
>> error. I don't think they are "framing" anyone, but I do think that
>> they are intense presure from Wada to produce the results that Pound
>> says are out there. They are not allowed to speak out against, or
>> question anything Wada does or says. They are accredited by Wada. In
>> those circumstances I think anything that can evenly vaguely be
>> interpreted as a positive result is, andf I do think they might
>> recalibrate to get more of those because Pound says all these are
>> positivie so if they aren't showing up that way then it must be that
>> they need more adjustment or testing. Everyone wants to please their
>> boss and keep the paycheck coming, and in this case they have an
>> abusive boss to begin with, so I have very little trouble believing
>> that they would grasp at straws to give Wada the positives they want,
>> and fight to the death any questions.
>
>I will make a broader charge. I believe (and wrote this several times
>already) that the lust for power and money is driving this matter as well as
>the entire cycling INDUSTRY. Look hard at the caps. It is just that. When
>asked today (TF2 - Stade2) whether money is causing the evil that befalls
>cycling, Christian Prudhomme said, in short, NO. Well, I think he is plain
>wrong. As wrong as one can be. As close to a prevaricator as that sweet
>euphemism allows.
Indeed. That's possibly the most dishonest thing we've heard lately.
>The drug companies earn (600MM euros in quesitonable prescriptions in Italy
>alone, last year) - the labs earn (more tests, more expensive tests, more
>litigation expertises) - the sponsors earn (presuming their exposure
>provides positive images) - the parasites of cycling earn (PR people,
>lawyers, accountants, podium girls [nothing I want to lose!] -
>
>AND
>
>the players, the racers, EARN. Especially if they are willing to do what it
>takes to put on a show, keep the jersey clean and visible, and do it in
>silence.
>
>AND
>
>POUND earns - money, perks, power, prestige.
>
>Everyone gets what they want, under the old systems, even the fans.
>Especially European fans, who are more sanguine about doping that you are in
>the USA.
>
>With a few bad eggs sacrificed to show cycling has turned over yet another
>new leaf, it could all go on again. And it will. July is nigh. Tell me
>whether you expect a blank screen or not.
That's the part I find offensive. If I had any confidence that the busts
represented the worst instead of the least lucky I'd feel a lot better. The
occasional random draconian penalty just creates one more spin of the wheel for
guys who are long accustomed to quirks of fate making the difference between
millionaire heros of the road and washing the tires of the bikes after they come
back from test spin.
>My other strong concern is that riders are sacrificing their health
>seriously, whether or not they dope. And if they are in fragile health, is
>there any reason to deprive them of proper treatment ?
Pretty much every professional athlete lays his health on the line.
>The system of having only team doctors take care of a cyclist is a laugh.
>Normal people have regular personal physicians who know them over years. In
>a team doctor environment, they are forced to forego that, to change habits
>[sic, myself] as they change teams or as the team changes doctors, never
>really being able to assure themselves of an enduring presence of a person
>who actually wants them to be well.
DId I miss something? Since when are there only team doctors?
>End of diatribe. But don't accuse me of giving away points to LNDD by
>default. If it weren't Landis, or Armstrong, but some dumb schmuck of
>medium talent, and from another country, this forum would never be as
>populated or overwhelmed by messages. Well, of course the exception being
>Virenque, but French-haters would always find a way.
It's always different if it's just a dumb schmuck of middling talent.
They just better never say nuthin' about Bettini.
>Have I been clear about my position ?
You're clear. You haven't been bashful in some of your criticism. You seem more
tolerant of the LNDD slop than some of us. It is an imperfect world and even lab
testing has its flaws. That is why the director of a lab must know that error is
possible so that measures can be taken to minimize the potential errors that are
within control. One can write a number neatly and accurately and make
corrections according to long established procedure. When one sees that
incredibly simple and obvious procedure violated it must raise a suspicion that
other "corrections" are being made in ways that violate procedure. And we know
that the IRMS testing as done does require corrections and that they are
performed without an audit trail or revision history. As if no error were
possible.
I think you see the lab as having problems, but basically sound. I just can't
see that a lab with those problems could possibly be sound.
Ron
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2007 11:57:11
From:
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On May 27, 2:12 pm, Simon Brooke <s...@jasmine.org.uk > wrote:
> In particular, Armstrong lost a testicle, and people who lose testicles
> normally have lower than normal testosterone. But looking at Lance's
> behaviour and demeanour, particularly in his last two tours, you see
> someone who acts and moves as though they have an almost pathological
> excess of testosterone.
I do not think you know as much as you think you know about the link
between testosterone and behavior.
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2007 11:17:41
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On May 27, 2:01 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message denews:1180284954.574452.272330@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.=
com,
> dustoyev...@mac.com <dustoyev...@mac.com> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=E9c=
lar=E9 :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 11:05 am, "B. Lafferty" <blaffer...@verizon.nospam.net>
> > wrote:
> >> It is the Armstrong smoke and mirrors that has created his myth for
> >> the gullible .
>
> > There might be some "gullible" people out there.
>
> > There might be some other people of various opinion (or belief if you
> > want) IRT the many details involved.
>
> >> The lab has asserted that the chain of custody is still complete
> >> as to the B samples ( and Armstrong can check that if he likes) and
> >> has offered to let Armstrong or his representative be present for
> >> retesting of the remaining b samples--they were not exhausted.
> >> There can be no UCI sanction, but it does show the reality that Sir
> >> Lance was not honest in 1999.
>
> > Of course the lab asserts in its favor.
>
> > What happened with the Landis representatives again, Brian? What's
> > that old saying about "f-bomb me once, shame on me, f-bomb me twice"?
> > Floyd and reps being #1, of course.
>
> > "They didn't follow the rules" when they didn't let Floyd's people in,
> > whatever the BS rationale was. Lance didn't fall off the turnip truck
> > on the way to town, if you haven't noticed yet.
>
> > Goes back to the same old thing-- "Let's have that positive test". A
> > real one. At another f-bombing lab, for Christ's sake. And and
> > explanation of why Marion Jones' EPO B test was negative after only a
> > few weeks of shelf rest, while LA's EPO endured for what, seven years?
> > Now there's a chain of custody for you!
>
> > Bad rules, bad enforcement, no accountability for the Power who have
> > set up the riders as scapegoats. And objects of personal vendettas,
> > like your own.
>
> > We were so much better off with Omerta.
>
> > The people, like Riis, who can afford to say they doped, and those who
> > are caught in the grindstones will "confess". And the show will go on,
> > with stupid rules that can't be enforced by simple, across-the-board,
> > race day enforcement. So how is that better, pray tell? --D-y
>
> I really don't want to say it this way, but it's quicker.
> All your views are supported by no more than unsubstantiated complaints f=
rom
> interested parties.
> None of the complaints have been verified by independent authorities, whi=
ch
> have, in fact, substantiated the exact opposite. (Incidentally, relying =
on
> the guys who criticized LNDD requires you to suspend disbelief that their
> financial interests in promoting their own equipment and software colors
> their views.)
> You want to believe. No prob. That's a splendid opinion that you're
> entitled to. Frankly, I would like to believe that no one ever tested
> positive really broke the rules. I would.
> --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well I guess that all the tests are perfect, no need for B samples,
mistakes have never been made, nothing has ever been leaked, all the
documentation was kept perfectly, there was no testimony that everyone
involved must fall in line with the Wada position or else, and all the
scientists and lawyers who have questioned any of that are lying
scumbags.
Glad that's cleared up now.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 27 May 2007 20:47:06
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
Dans le message de
news:1180289861.163053.170000@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On May 27, 2:01 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>> Dans le message
>> denews:1180284954.574452.272330@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com,
>> dustoyev...@mac.com <dustoyev...@mac.com> a réfléchi, et puis a
>> déclaré :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 27, 11:05 am, "B. Lafferty" <blaffer...@verizon.nospam.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> It is the Armstrong smoke and mirrors that has created his myth for
>>>> the gullible .
>>
>>> There might be some "gullible" people out there.
>>
>>> There might be some other people of various opinion (or belief if
>>> you want) IRT the many details involved.
>>
>>>> The lab has asserted that the chain of custody is still complete
>>>> as to the B samples ( and Armstrong can check that if he likes) and
>>>> has offered to let Armstrong or his representative be present for
>>>> retesting of the remaining b samples--they were not exhausted.
>>>> There can be no UCI sanction, but it does show the reality that Sir
>>>> Lance was not honest in 1999.
>>
>>> Of course the lab asserts in its favor.
>>
>>> What happened with the Landis representatives again, Brian? What's
>>> that old saying about "f-bomb me once, shame on me, f-bomb me
>>> twice"? Floyd and reps being #1, of course.
>>
>>> "They didn't follow the rules" when they didn't let Floyd's people
>>> in, whatever the BS rationale was. Lance didn't fall off the turnip
>>> truck on the way to town, if you haven't noticed yet.
>>
>>> Goes back to the same old thing-- "Let's have that positive test". A
>>> real one. At another f-bombing lab, for Christ's sake. And and
>>> explanation of why Marion Jones' EPO B test was negative after only
>>> a few weeks of shelf rest, while LA's EPO endured for what, seven
>>> years? Now there's a chain of custody for you!
>>
>>> Bad rules, bad enforcement, no accountability for the Power who have
>>> set up the riders as scapegoats. And objects of personal vendettas,
>>> like your own.
>>
>>> We were so much better off with Omerta.
>>
>>> The people, like Riis, who can afford to say they doped, and those
>>> who are caught in the grindstones will "confess". And the show will
>>> go on, with stupid rules that can't be enforced by simple,
>>> across-the-board, race day enforcement. So how is that better, pray
>>> tell? --D-y
>>
>> I really don't want to say it this way, but it's quicker.
>> All your views are supported by no more than unsubstantiated
>> complaints from interested parties.
>> None of the complaints have been verified by independent
>> authorities, which have, in fact, substantiated the exact opposite.
>> (Incidentally, relying on the guys who criticized LNDD requires you
>> to suspend disbelief that their financial interests in promoting
>> their own equipment and software colors their views.)
>> You want to believe. No prob. That's a splendid opinion that you're
>> entitled to. Frankly, I would like to believe that no one ever
>> tested positive really broke the rules. I would.
>> --
>> Bonne route !
>>
>> Sandy
>> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Well I guess that all the tests are perfect, no need for B samples,
> mistakes have never been made, nothing has ever been leaked, all the
> documentation was kept perfectly, there was no testimony that everyone
> involved must fall in line with the Wada position or else, and all the
> scientists and lawyers who have questioned any of that are lying
> scumbags.
> Glad that's cleared up now.
> Bill C
Again, you misunderstand. But by morself :
I do not claim anything anytime can ever be perfect. There is no need for B
samples (IMO) because the first test A on sample A uses a test which is
unable to satisfactorily conclude correctly. So, the matter ought to have
ended with the wide ranging testimony (including a press report of LNDD's
directors words) that this is not a valid screening test. No test B nor
sample B should have been used.
Materials may have been leaked, but the primary claim about (Armstrong's)
results comes from material he authorized the disclosure of. Perhaps
prudence was not a component of his hubris.
Documentation was adequate. I suspect a video would not have satisfied
critics.
Even with the rule not to tell on your brother, WADA lab officials did not
give a complete bill of good health to the LNDD materials. They were less
critical of certain LNDD practices, but they did not avoid testifying to
their opinions. And, their obligation not to testify against a brother lab
was not breached - they simply answered questions from their own points of
view.
Lawyers are not all lying, cheating scumbags. However, no one seems to have
noticed that personal identifying health information was stolen from two
labs (Montréal and Köln) which is a clear violation of a person's rights to
the inviolability of personal medical history (under European law, at
least - don't know about Québec).
I think I answered your points.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2007 11:12:58
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On May 27, 11:57 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message denews:oa6j53pfo2hr9fnn152gtf0kpacie0npcu@4ax.com,
> RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=E9clar=E9=
:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 27 May 2007 07:24:11 +0200, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>
> >> Dans le message denews:6cnh53tl6pod1rcv1vbcaeemiatip4amra@4ax.com,
> >> RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=E9clar=
=E9 :
> >>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:46:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
> >>> <blaffer...@verizon.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> As the director of the WADA accredited lab in Montreal pointed out,
> >>>> if there were no EPO in the urine, the test would not have found
> >>>> any. The fact that Armstrong never replied to the offer of the
> >>>> French minister for sport to have the B samples analyzed again in
> >>>> his presence, is telling. EPO WAS found in Armstrong's urine from
> >>>> 1999. Big surprise.
>
> >>> It wasn't a properly organized test.
>
> >> To believe you here, I need to know why it was not properly
> >> organized and how much you know about that, including your personal
> >> observations of its deficits.
>
> >>> Besides, that was the B sample.
>
> >> The B sample is the other half of the total sample given. Part A is
> >> used and consumed in the first series of tests, and the B sample is
> >> a reserve from the identical event. It's fairer to call it the
> >> second half of the same sample.
>
> >>> It'd be stupid to be surpized by EPO use in the peloton, I'll give
> >>> you that. But if you really want a charge to stick you gotta do
> >>> better than pulling a bottle from somewhere claiming it belonged to
> >>> a guy and then having a known bent lab leak results.
>
> >> Then it should be easy to demonstrate that it was not the identical
> >> sample, no ?
>
> > I'd say it was impossible to demonstrate that it was his sample. In
> > fact, the whole process was so far removed from a proper doping test
> > that we can't say anything about it beyond its ability to sell some
> > yellow newspapers.
>
> The fact is that you don't know what happened in this testing. You are
> repeating nothing more than the propaganda of the Armstrong camp. Just to
> prove me wrong, let us all know exactly which tests were performed, how t=
he
> results were arrived at, and how you _know_ that the samples didn't belong
> to Armstrong.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sandy how can you continue to have complete and total blind support
for LNDD in spite of all the testimony stating that they aren't
perfect? You seem to have been giving them a complete and total pass
no matter what anyone has testified to.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 27 May 2007 20:37:50
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
Dans le message de
news:1180289578.089334.220410@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On May 27, 11:57 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>> Dans le message denews:oa6j53pfo2hr9fnn152gtf0kpacie0npcu@4ax.com,
>> RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 07:24:11 +0200, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>>
>>>> Dans le message denews:6cnh53tl6pod1rcv1vbcaeemiatip4amra@4ax.com,
>>>> RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:46:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
>>>>> <blaffer...@verizon.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> As the director of the WADA accredited lab in Montreal pointed
>>>>>> out, if there were no EPO in the urine, the test would not have
>>>>>> found any. The fact that Armstrong never replied to the offer
>>>>>> of the French minister for sport to have the B samples analyzed
>>>>>> again in his presence, is telling. EPO WAS found in Armstrong's
>>>>>> urine from 1999. Big surprise.
>>
>>>>> It wasn't a properly organized test.
>>
>>>> To believe you here, I need to know why it was not properly
>>>> organized and how much you know about that, including your personal
>>>> observations of its deficits.
>>
>>>>> Besides, that was the B sample.
>>
>>>> The B sample is the other half of the total sample given. Part A
>>>> is used and consumed in the first series of tests, and the B
>>>> sample is a reserve from the identical event. It's fairer to call
>>>> it the second half of the same sample.
>>
>>>>> It'd be stupid to be surpized by EPO use in the peloton, I'll give
>>>>> you that. But if you really want a charge to stick you gotta do
>>>>> better than pulling a bottle from somewhere claiming it belonged
>>>>> to a guy and then having a known bent lab leak results.
>>
>>>> Then it should be easy to demonstrate that it was not the identical
>>>> sample, no ?
>>
>>> I'd say it was impossible to demonstrate that it was his sample. In
>>> fact, the whole process was so far removed from a proper doping test
>>> that we can't say anything about it beyond its ability to sell some
>>> yellow newspapers.
>>
>> The fact is that you don't know what happened in this testing. You
>> are repeating nothing more than the propaganda of the Armstrong
>> camp. Just to prove me wrong, let us all know exactly which tests
>> were performed, how the results were arrived at, and how you _know_
>> that the samples didn't belong to Armstrong.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Sandy how can you continue to have complete and total blind support
> for LNDD in spite of all the testimony stating that they aren't
> perfect? You seem to have been giving them a complete and total pass
> no matter what anyone has testified to.
> Bill C
You misunderstood me. I did not vouch for LNDD. I watched every wretched
minute of the hearing. I applied reasonable skepticism to all witnesses.
The claims Ron made are not substantiated by what was presented ; in fact
some claims made were _not_ presented. I also challenge the statements on
the basis of lack of personal knowledge, not on the basis of an opinion
held. It's a hot matter, and it won't go away, but I do call someone out
when opinion is stated as fact.
Hope that clears it up.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2007 09:55:54
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On May 27, 11:05 am, "B. Lafferty" <blaffer...@verizon.nospam.net >
wrote:
> It is the Armstrong smoke and mirrors that has created his myth for the
> gullible .
There might be some "gullible" people out there.
There might be some other people of various opinion (or belief if you
want) IRT the many details involved.
> The lab has asserted that the chain of custody is still complete
> as to the B samples ( and Armstrong can check that if he likes) and has
> offered to let Armstrong or his representative be present for retesting of
> the remaining b samples--they were not exhausted. There can be no UCI
> sanction, but it does show the reality that Sir Lance was not honest in
> 1999.
Of course the lab asserts in its favor.
What happened with the Landis representatives again, Brian? What's
that old saying about "f-bomb me once, shame on me, f-bomb me twice"?
Floyd and reps being #1, of course.
"They didn't follow the rules" when they didn't let Floyd's people in,
whatever the BS rationale was. Lance didn't fall off the turnip truck
on the way to town, if you haven't noticed yet.
Goes back to the same old thing-- "Let's have that positive test". A
real one. At another f-bombing lab, for Christ's sake. And and
explanation of why Marion Jones' EPO B test was negative after only a
few weeks of shelf rest, while LA's EPO endured for what, seven years?
Now there's a chain of custody for you!
Bad rules, bad enforcement, no accountability for the Power who have
set up the riders as scapegoats. And objects of personal vendettas,
like your own.
We were so much better off with Omerta.
The people, like Riis, who can afford to say they doped, and those who
are caught in the grindstones will "confess". And the show will go on,
with stupid rules that can't be enforced by simple, across-the-board,
race day enforcement. So how is that better, pray tell? --D-y
|
| | |
Date: 27 May 2007 15:16:09
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
In article
<1180284954.574452.272330@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com >
,
"dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com > wrote:
> On May 27, 11:05 am, "B. Lafferty" <blaffer...@verizon.nospam.net>
> wrote:
> > It is the Armstrong smoke and mirrors that has created his myth for the
> > gullible .
>
> There might be some "gullible" people out there.
>
> There might be some other people of various opinion (or belief if you
> want) IRT the many details involved.
>
> > The lab has asserted that the chain of custody is still complete
> > as to the B samples ( and Armstrong can check that if he likes) and has
> > offered to let Armstrong or his representative be present for retesting of
> > the remaining b samples--they were not exhausted. There can be no UCI
> > sanction, but it does show the reality that Sir Lance was not honest in
> > 1999.
>
> Of course the lab asserts in its favor.
>
> What happened with the Landis representatives again, Brian? What's
> that old saying about "f-bomb me once, shame on me, f-bomb me twice"?
> Floyd and reps being #1, of course.
>
> "They didn't follow the rules" when they didn't let Floyd's people in,
> whatever the BS rationale was. Lance didn't fall off the turnip truck
> on the way to town, if you haven't noticed yet.
>
> Goes back to the same old thing-- "Let's have that positive test". A
> real one. At another f-bombing lab, for Christ's sake. And and
> explanation of why Marion Jones' EPO B test was negative after only a
> few weeks of shelf rest, while LA's EPO endured for what, seven years?
> Now there's a chain of custody for you!
>
> Bad rules, bad enforcement, no accountability for the Power who have
> set up the riders as scapegoats. And objects of personal vendettas,
> like your own.
>
> We were so much better off with Omerta.
>
> The people, like Riis, who can afford to say they doped, and those who
> are caught in the grindstones will "confess". And the show will go on,
> with stupid rules that can't be enforced by simple, across-the-board,
> race day enforcement. So how is that better, pray tell? --D-y
The only reasonable strategy is to deny everything,
do not explain, do not complain.
--
Michael Press
|
| | |
Date: 27 May 2007 20:01:40
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
Dans le message de
news:1180284954.574452.272330@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com,
dustoyevsky@mac.com <dustoyevsky@mac.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On May 27, 11:05 am, "B. Lafferty" <blaffer...@verizon.nospam.net>
> wrote:
>> It is the Armstrong smoke and mirrors that has created his myth for
>> the gullible .
>
> There might be some "gullible" people out there.
>
> There might be some other people of various opinion (or belief if you
> want) IRT the many details involved.
>
>> The lab has asserted that the chain of custody is still complete
>> as to the B samples ( and Armstrong can check that if he likes) and
>> has offered to let Armstrong or his representative be present for
>> retesting of the remaining b samples--they were not exhausted.
>> There can be no UCI sanction, but it does show the reality that Sir
>> Lance was not honest in 1999.
>
> Of course the lab asserts in its favor.
>
> What happened with the Landis representatives again, Brian? What's
> that old saying about "f-bomb me once, shame on me, f-bomb me twice"?
> Floyd and reps being #1, of course.
>
> "They didn't follow the rules" when they didn't let Floyd's people in,
> whatever the BS rationale was. Lance didn't fall off the turnip truck
> on the way to town, if you haven't noticed yet.
>
> Goes back to the same old thing-- "Let's have that positive test". A
> real one. At another f-bombing lab, for Christ's sake. And and
> explanation of why Marion Jones' EPO B test was negative after only a
> few weeks of shelf rest, while LA's EPO endured for what, seven years?
> Now there's a chain of custody for you!
>
> Bad rules, bad enforcement, no accountability for the Power who have
> set up the riders as scapegoats. And objects of personal vendettas,
> like your own.
>
> We were so much better off with Omerta.
>
> The people, like Riis, who can afford to say they doped, and those who
> are caught in the grindstones will "confess". And the show will go on,
> with stupid rules that can't be enforced by simple, across-the-board,
> race day enforcement. So how is that better, pray tell? --D-y
I really don't want to say it this way, but it's quicker.
All your views are supported by no more than unsubstantiated complaints from
interested parties.
None of the complaints have been verified by independent authorities, which
have, in fact, substantiated the exact opposite. (Incidentally, relying on
the guys who criticized LNDD requires you to suspend disbelief that their
financial interests in promoting their own equipment and software colors
their views.)
You want to believe. No prob. That's a splendid opinion that you're
entitled to. Frankly, I would like to believe that no one ever tested
positive really broke the rules. I would.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
|
| | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 23:28:10
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
In article <4659c784$0$22502$426a74cc@news.free.fr >, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr>
wrote:
> I really don't want to say it this way, but it's quicker.
> All your views are supported by no more than unsubstantiated complaints from
> interested parties.
> None of the complaints have been verified by independent authorities, which
> have, in fact, substantiated the exact opposite. (Incidentally, relying on
> the guys who criticized LNDD requires you to suspend disbelief that their
> financial interests in promoting their own equipment and software colors
> their views.)
> You want to believe. No prob. That's a splendid opinion that you're
> entitled to. Frankly, I would like to believe that no one ever tested
> positive really broke the rules. I would.
Well, I'll give a rundown on the things about the "LANCE tested positive for EPO
in '99" situation that I found not very up and up. I should state from the outset,
Sandy, that I am not of the opinion that "that dirty French lab was out to get LANCE"
or any of that kind of conspiratorial crap. Nor am I a "true believer" - I'm simply
not sure and would like to know. Onward.
As we know, someone at the lab took a bunch of frozen 'B' samples and decided to
run the newer EPO test on them. First issue: why? Second issue: what if theose 'B'
samples had ended up being needed for some other thing (say, there was a court
case...)? Having been opened under circumstances outside of the norm (I thought that
the athlete was entitled to have a rep there when the 'B' sample is opened and
tested), they were no longer useable to prove anything one way or the other. I know
that Brian likes to say that they can use the leftovers, but that isn't the way it's
done (and for a damn good reason).
The next thing that was odd to me was that there had never been any tests runs on
that procedure to see if it actually worked the same on old samples. By that I mean
the standard double-blind kinds of tests that are used to double check the validity
of a test: where a group of samples are created, some with EPO and some without,
tested and then compared to the register that shows which were which. By using the
'B' samples of unknown content, it really looks like the lab was sort of on a fishing
expedition. Not that i mean they were looking for *someone's* sample to turn up
positive, but looking to see what turns up, period. Kyle Legate has stated that if it
turned up showing EPO metabolites, then it's pretty much accurate and he works with
blood all day (from what I recall). But the lack of real double-blind testing of the
procedure on old samples leaves me with doubts.
The last thing that seemed less than optimal was the leak of the info. Since there
was no longer a counter sample to test, what could the athlete do? The leaker at the
lab surely knows that only a certain number of riders get tested, so it does narrow
the possible list of people down to a very small group. And the reporter was fairly
easily able to string things together so he coulld write a story that named the
biggest name. That seemed a little unethical to me, particularly in light of the
other issues I had with it.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 May 2007 11:49:54
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
In article
<YOURhoward-7531EA.23281027052007@comcast.dca.giganews.
com >,
Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <4659c784$0$22502$426a74cc@news.free.fr>, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr>
> wrote:
>
> > I really don't want to say it this way, but it's quicker.
> > All your views are supported by no more than unsubstantiated complaints from
> > interested parties.
> > None of the complaints have been verified by independent authorities, which
> > have, in fact, substantiated the exact opposite. (Incidentally, relying on
> > the guys who criticized LNDD requires you to suspend disbelief that their
> > financial interests in promoting their own equipment and software colors
> > their views.)
> > You want to believe. No prob. That's a splendid opinion that you're
> > entitled to. Frankly, I would like to believe that no one ever tested
> > positive really broke the rules. I would.
>
> Well, I'll give a rundown on the things about the "LANCE tested positive for EPO
> in '99" situation that I found not very up and up. I should state from the outset,
> Sandy, that I am not of the opinion that "that dirty French lab was out to get LANCE"
> or any of that kind of conspiratorial crap. Nor am I a "true believer" - I'm simply
> not sure and would like to know. Onward.
>
> As we know, someone at the lab took a bunch of frozen 'B' samples and decided to
> run the newer EPO test on them. First issue: why? Second issue: what if theose 'B'
> samples had ended up being needed for some other thing (say, there was a court
> case...)? Having been opened under circumstances outside of the norm (I thought that
> the athlete was entitled to have a rep there when the 'B' sample is opened and
> tested), they were no longer useable to prove anything one way or the other. I know
> that Brian likes to say that they can use the leftovers, but that isn't the way it's
> done (and for a damn good reason).
>
> The next thing that was odd to me was that there had never been any tests runs on
> that procedure to see if it actually worked the same on old samples. By that I mean
> the standard double-blind kinds of tests that are used to double check the validity
> of a test: where a group of samples are created, some with EPO and some without,
> tested and then compared to the register that shows which were which. By using the
> 'B' samples of unknown content, it really looks like the lab was sort of on a fishing
> expedition. Not that i mean they were looking for *someone's* sample to turn up
> positive, but looking to see what turns up, period. Kyle Legate has stated that if it
> turned up showing EPO metabolites, then it's pretty much accurate and he works with
> blood all day (from what I recall). But the lack of real double-blind testing of the
> procedure on old samples leaves me with doubts.
>
> The last thing that seemed less than optimal was the leak of the info. Since there
> was no longer a counter sample to test, what could the athlete do? The leaker at the
> lab surely knows that only a certain number of riders get tested, so it does narrow
> the possible list of people down to a very small group. And the reporter was fairly
> easily able to string things together so he coulld write a story that named the
> biggest name. That seemed a little unethical to me, particularly in light of the
> other issues I had with it.
Do I recall correctly one more event? That Lance
Armstrong was asked for and provided codes that were
later used as evidence that certain coded samples
tested were his?
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 May 2007 09:29:56
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
Dans le message de
news:YOURhoward-7531EA.23281027052007@comcast.dca.giganews.com,
Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> Well, I'll give a rundown on the things about the "LANCE tested
> positive for EPO in '99" situation that I found not very up and up. I
> should state from the outset, Sandy, that I am not of the opinion
> that "that dirty French lab was out to get LANCE" or any of that kind
> of conspiratorial crap. Nor am I a "true believer" - I'm simply not
> sure and would like to know. Onward.
Not researching, but going from my memory ...
> As we know, someone at the lab took a bunch of frozen 'B' samples
> and decided to run the newer EPO test on them. First issue: why?
As I recall, the lab indicated to WADA that they had a "new" test which
would discover otherwise undiscovered EPO. What that test is has not been
disclosed, so far as I know. The purpose, partially, seems to have been to
set out a new procedure for validation and acceptance at a later date. WADA
wants more positives, so it goes without saying they were interested in
supporting the new test.
> Second issue: what if theose 'B' samples had ended up being needed
> for some other thing (say, there was a court case...)? Having been
> opened under circumstances outside of the norm (I thought that the
> athlete was entitled to have a rep there when the 'B' sample is
> opened and tested), they were no longer useable to prove anything one
> way or the other.
As in the Landis case, the findings would have been valid evidence, but not
of irrefutable weight. No evidence really is. Lawyers deal with
inconclusive evidence all the time ; otherwise there would be no trial
events.
> The next thing that was odd to me was that there had never been any
> tests runs on that procedure to see if it actually worked the same on
> old samples. By that I mean the standard double-blind kinds of tests
> that are used to double check the validity of a test: where a group
> of samples are created, some with EPO and some without, tested and
> then compared to the register that shows which were which. By using
> the 'B' samples of unknown content, it really looks like the lab was
> sort of on a fishing expedition. Not that i mean they were looking
> for *someone's* sample to turn up positive, but looking to see what
> turns up, period. Kyle Legate has stated that if it turned up showing
> EPO metabolites, then it's pretty much accurate and he works with
> blood all day (from what I recall). But the lack of real double-blind
> testing of the procedure on old samples leaves me with doubts.
I agree. But, again, it was an experimental test, subject to validation and
acceptance later. Like cooking, you can play with spices until you have
something repeatable and delicious.
> The last thing that seemed less than optimal was the leak of the
> info. Since there was no longer a counter sample to test, what could
> the athlete do? The leaker at the lab surely knows that only a
> certain number of riders get tested, so it does narrow the possible
> list of people down to a very small group. And the reporter was
> fairly easily able to string things together so he coulld write a
> story that named the biggest name. That seemed a little unethical to
> me, particularly in light of the other issues I had with it.
I have less memory of how the results ended up outside the lab. I would
appreciate knowing, as that could change my estimation. If you can imagine
that the lab indicated that it had a new test, wanted to publicize it,
wanted to get a step on its competitors (or gain academic and commercial
glory), then it was motivated to disclose the findings. Not nice, but not
necessarily unethical. The samples belonged to UCI, and were available for
this purpose. Research in many fields is done on likely targets rather than
on uncertain samples, just for the reason that your abbreviate the testing
if it is unsuccessful, and then move on to academic evaluations. Again,
like cooking, you learn if you like a light dusting of pepper on chocolate
by trying it. Then you go for general adoption in a broad application.
The reporter seems to have done an excellent job of it, if he properly tied
the results to the origin of the positive samples. I can't see where ethics
were badly served ; indeed, I see the opposite. I don't know of any
follow-up which would have either discredited the (unknown) testing
procedure, nor the results, nor the links to a specific athlete. It's just
a case of dirty linen being exposed in public. Tawdry desires for scandal,
a general trend in our world, encourage this. Disclosing secrets sells
papers, true, but because people want to read this stuff, and unless the
materials published were truly false, there is no offense to morality - just
a great inconvenience occasioned to a public figure.
What gets me angry is that all this use of diagnostic equipment, money,
political clout, etc., is going to embellish a game. Kids' stuff. Not
serious, not uplifting, not fundamentally useful to humanity. Just for a
second, imagine all the money that has been spent since WADA came on the
scene could be diverted to assuaging the misery of daily life. Wow ! But
like tons of things (Ferraris, perfumes, foie gras, Rolex watches), luxury
is a special market that demands its own existence be prolonged and
enhanced. Cycling is a sport when it's fun. When it's a business, it
sucks.
Sorry for being long-winded.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 May 2007 22:34:56
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
In article <465a84f4$0$30211$426a74cc@news.free.fr >, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr>
wrote:
> Dans le message de
> news:YOURhoward-7531EA.23281027052007@comcast.dca.giganews.com,
> Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> >
> > Well, I'll give a rundown on the things about the "LANCE tested
> > positive for EPO in '99" situation that I found not very up and up. I
> > should state from the outset, Sandy, that I am not of the opinion
> > that "that dirty French lab was out to get LANCE" or any of that kind
> > of conspiratorial crap. Nor am I a "true believer" - I'm simply not
> > sure and would like to know. Onward.
>
> Not researching, but going from my memory ...
>
> > As we know, someone at the lab took a bunch of frozen 'B' samples
> > and decided to run the newer EPO test on them. First issue: why?
>
> As I recall, the lab indicated to WADA that they had a "new" test which
> would discover otherwise undiscovered EPO. What that test is has not been
> disclosed, so far as I know. The purpose, partially, seems to have been to
> set out a new procedure for validation and acceptance at a later date. WADA
> wants more positives, so it goes without saying they were interested in
> supporting the new test.
I had some recollection of them working on a new test but using the old one in
this instance - Robert has pointed that out too. I completely agree with you on the
issue of WADA and their desire for more positive tests (and as I've said, I wish they
had a keen desire for *good* tests - be they positive or negative).
> > Second issue: what if theose 'B' samples had ended up being needed
> > for some other thing (say, there was a court case...)? Having been
> > opened under circumstances outside of the norm (I thought that the
> > athlete was entitled to have a rep there when the 'B' sample is
> > opened and tested), they were no longer useable to prove anything one
> > way or the other.
>
> As in the Landis case, the findings would have been valid evidence, but not
> of irrefutable weight. No evidence really is. Lawyers deal with
> inconclusive evidence all the time ; otherwise there would be no trial
> events.
That is true but there is the "court of public opinion" that needs to be worried
about too.
> > The next thing that was odd to me was that there had never been any
> > tests runs on that procedure to see if it actually worked the same on
> > old samples. By that I mean the standard double-blind kinds of tests
> > that are used to double check the validity of a test: where a group
> > of samples are created, some with EPO and some without, tested and
> > then compared to the register that shows which were which. By using
> > the 'B' samples of unknown content, it really looks like the lab was
> > sort of on a fishing expedition. Not that i mean they were looking
> > for *someone's* sample to turn up positive, but looking to see what
> > turns up, period. Kyle Legate has stated that if it turned up showing
> > EPO metabolites, then it's pretty much accurate and he works with
> > blood all day (from what I recall). But the lack of real double-blind
> > testing of the procedure on old samples leaves me with doubts.
>
> I agree. But, again, it was an experimental test, subject to validation and
> acceptance later. Like cooking, you can play with spices until you have
> something repeatable and delicious.
Heh, I suppose I'm not a very good example on the "repeatable" part of that
equation, as I do all my herbing and spicing by eye and taste. There's always a bit
of variation in the end result... Not what one wants in science.
> > The last thing that seemed less than optimal was the leak of the
> > info. Since there was no longer a counter sample to test, what could
> > the athlete do? The leaker at the lab surely knows that only a
> > certain number of riders get tested, so it does narrow the possible
> > list of people down to a very small group. And the reporter was
> > fairly easily able to string things together so he coulld write a
> > story that named the biggest name. That seemed a little unethical to
> > me, particularly in light of the other issues I had with it.
>
> I have less memory of how the results ended up outside the lab. I would
> appreciate knowing, as that could change my estimation.
I'd say Robert (again) has that one further downstream in this thread.
> If you can imagine
> that the lab indicated that it had a new test, wanted to publicize it,
> wanted to get a step on its competitors (or gain academic and commercial
> glory), then it was motivated to disclose the findings. Not nice, but not
> necessarily unethical. The samples belonged to UCI, and were available for
> this purpose. Research in many fields is done on likely targets rather than
> on uncertain samples, just for the reason that your abbreviate the testing
> if it is unsuccessful, and then move on to academic evaluations. Again,
> like cooking, you learn if you like a light dusting of pepper on chocolate
> by trying it. Then you go for general adoption in a broad application.
>
> The reporter seems to have done an excellent job of it, if he properly tied
> the results to the origin of the positive samples. I can't see where ethics
> were badly served ; indeed, I see the opposite. I don't know of any
> follow-up which would have either discredited the (unknown) testing
> procedure, nor the results, nor the links to a specific athlete. It's just
> a case of dirty linen being exposed in public. Tawdry desires for scandal,
> a general trend in our world, encourage this. Disclosing secrets sells
> papers, true, but because people want to read this stuff, and unless the
> materials published were truly false, there is no offense to morality - just
> a great inconvenience occasioned to a public figure.
What seemed less than ethical to me was setting it up so that a reporter could
publish the findings that came from a test and experiment that had seemed to have a
few dubious aspects. If the results came via a test that had been completely trialed
(as I described above), then I would be far less inclined to find it suspect.
> What gets me angry is that all this use of diagnostic equipment, money,
> political clout, etc., is going to embellish a game. Kids' stuff. Not
> serious, not uplifting, not fundamentally useful to humanity. Just for a
> second, imagine all the money that has been spent since WADA came on the
> scene could be diverted to assuaging the misery of daily life. Wow ! But
> like tons of things (Ferraris, perfumes, foie gras, Rolex watches), luxury
> is a special market that demands its own existence be prolonged and
> enhanced. Cycling is a sport when it's fun. When it's a business, it
> sucks.
Well, except for the foie gras part, I have absolutely no disagreements with any
of that. Oh, and as for Prudhomme's comment about money not being the evil that
befalls cycling - holy crap. That's either the most dishonest p.o.v. ever or the most
ludicrously misinformed.
> Sorry for being long-winded.
Oh, please. Hardly. Your posts don't begin to enter into the definition of
logorrheic - that's over in rmr.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 May 2007 09:17:10
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
In article <465a84f4$0$30211$426a74cc@news.free.fr >,
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:
> What gets me angry is that all this use of diagnostic equipment, money,
> political clout, etc., is going to embellish a game. Kids' stuff. Not
> serious, not uplifting, not fundamentally useful to humanity. Just for a
> second, imagine all the money that has been spent since WADA came on the
> scene could be diverted to assuaging the misery of daily life. Wow ! But
> like tons of things (Ferraris, perfumes, foie gras, Rolex watches), luxury
> is a special market that demands its own existence be prolonged and
> enhanced. Cycling is a sport when it's fun. When it's a business, it
> sucks.
Dumbass, we're using the Internet for the lowest possible purpose:
posting in rbr. I'm pretty sure WADA has higher moral ground than us,
when it comes to wasteful expenditures of time and money.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 28 May 2007 11:27:34
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> Dumbass, we're using the Internet for the lowest possible purpose:
> posting in rbr.
Goody, we made it into the axis of evil. We're even eviler than the porn
sites even if they do outnumber us.
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2007 13:39:01
From: Ro
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
>2) The made-up bogus story about overcoming, near-death, grave multi-
>CANCERS, of which no one else has come forth to claim survival.
Absolute bullshit.
I have had, and survived the exact same cancer as Lance Armstrong.
My cancer had advanced to just a little less than his before his was discovoured.I however did not have the VERY invasive chemo that Lance did.
I have ridden ever since and I also lost a lot of power and as yet cannot spin like he can. I never could. I am also over 60 years of age and find those that rubbish Lance's cancer and his recovery to be totally obnoxious, ill informed twerps who have no idea at all about the cancers thay post about.
I do not know if he doped or not, but consider this:
Even if he did dope, he STILL overcame a near death illness, recovered and went on to beat ALL the over performing dopers who had never been ill!!
It STILL Leaves Lance as one of the greatest cyclists the world has seen for decades.
And finally, No I do notlike Lance, his lifestyle, or his riding style.
Ro
|
| | |
Date: 27 May 2007 13:12:55
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
in message <4658e135$1@clear.net.nz >, Ro ('ro@net.nz') wrote:
>
>>2) The made-up bogus story about overcoming, near-death, grave multi-
>>CANCERS, of which no one else has come forth to claim survival.
>
> Absolute bullshit.
> I have had, and survived the exact same cancer as Lance Armstrong.
> My cancer had advanced to just a little less than his before his was
> discovoured.I however did not have the VERY invasive chemo that Lance
> did. I have ridden ever since and I also lost a lot of power and as yet
> cannot spin like he can. I never could. I am also over 60 years of age
> and find those that rubbish Lance's cancer and his recovery to be totally
> obnoxious, ill informed twerps who have no idea at all about the cancers
> thay post about. I do not know if he doped or not, but consider this:
> Even if he did dope, he STILL overcame a near death illness, recovered
> and went on to beat ALL the over performing dopers who had never been
> ill!! It STILL Leaves Lance as one of the greatest cyclists the world has
> seen for decades. And finally, No I do notlike Lance, his lifestyle, or
> his riding style.
Lance Armstrong had cancer. What we don't know is whether that cancer was
caused or at least worsened by the taking of performance enhancing drugs;
and to what extent his subsequent performance was enhanced by drugs. But
what is undoubted is that drugs which Armstrong as a cancer sufferer might
legally and justifiably be prescribed to aid his recovery do enhance
performance (he might perfectly justifiably have been prescribed EPO, for
example).
In particular, Armstrong lost a testicle, and people who lose testicles
normally have lower than normal testosterone. But looking at Lance's
behaviour and demeanour, particularly in his last two tours, you see
someone who acts and moves as though they have an almost pathological
excess of testosterone.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If Python is executable pseudocode,
;; then Perl is executable line noise
-- seen on Slashdot.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 18:35:42
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
In article <779oi4-3hg.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk >,
Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk > wrote:
> in message <4658e135$1@clear.net.nz>, Ro ('ro@net.nz') wrote:
>
> >
> >>2) The made-up bogus story about overcoming, near-death, grave multi-
> >>CANCERS, of which no one else has come forth to claim survival.
> >
> > Absolute bullshit.
> > I have had, and survived the exact same cancer as Lance Armstrong.
> > My cancer had advanced to just a little less than his before his was
> > discovoured.I however did not have the VERY invasive chemo that Lance
> > did. I have ridden ever since and I also lost a lot of power and as yet
> > cannot spin like he can. I never could. I am also over 60 years of age
> > and find those that rubbish Lance's cancer and his recovery to be totally
> > obnoxious, ill informed twerps who have no idea at all about the cancers
> > thay post about. I do not know if he doped or not, but consider this:
> > Even if he did dope, he STILL overcame a near death illness, recovered
> > and went on to beat ALL the over performing dopers who had never been
> > ill!! It STILL Leaves Lance as one of the greatest cyclists the world has
> > seen for decades. And finally, No I do notlike Lance, his lifestyle, or
> > his riding style.
>
> Lance Armstrong had cancer. What we don't know is whether that cancer was
> caused or at least worsened by the taking of performance enhancing drugs;
> and to what extent his subsequent performance was enhanced by drugs. But
> what is undoubted is that drugs which Armstrong as a cancer sufferer might
> legally and justifiably be prescribed to aid his recovery do enhance
> performance (he might perfectly justifiably have been prescribed EPO, for
> example).
>
> In particular, Armstrong lost a testicle, and people who lose testicles
> normally have lower than normal testosterone. But looking at Lance's
> behaviour and demeanour, particularly in his last two tours, you see
> someone who acts and moves as though they have an almost pathological
> excess of testosterone.
Mm. Because you've never met an angry girl.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 12:16:20
From: ST
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On 5/27/07 11:35 AM, in article
rcousine-F6F889.11353827052007@news.telus.net, "Ryan Cousineau"
<rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <779oi4-3hg.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>,
> Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> in message <4658e135$1@clear.net.nz>, Ro ('ro@net.nz') wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> 2) The made-up bogus story about overcoming, near-death, grave multi-
>>>> CANCERS, of which no one else has come forth to claim survival.
>>>
>>> Absolute bullshit.
>>> I have had, and survived the exact same cancer as Lance Armstrong.
>>> My cancer had advanced to just a little less than his before his was
>>> discovoured.I however did not have the VERY invasive chemo that Lance
>>> did. I have ridden ever since and I also lost a lot of power and as yet
>>> cannot spin like he can. I never could. I am also over 60 years of age
>>> and find those that rubbish Lance's cancer and his recovery to be totally
>>> obnoxious, ill informed twerps who have no idea at all about the cancers
>>> thay post about. I do not know if he doped or not, but consider this:
>>> Even if he did dope, he STILL overcame a near death illness, recovered
>>> and went on to beat ALL the over performing dopers who had never been
>>> ill!! It STILL Leaves Lance as one of the greatest cyclists the world has
>>> seen for decades. And finally, No I do notlike Lance, his lifestyle, or
>>> his riding style.
>>
>> Lance Armstrong had cancer. What we don't know is whether that cancer was
>> caused or at least worsened by the taking of performance enhancing drugs;
>> and to what extent his subsequent performance was enhanced by drugs. But
>> what is undoubted is that drugs which Armstrong as a cancer sufferer might
>> legally and justifiably be prescribed to aid his recovery do enhance
>> performance (he might perfectly justifiably have been prescribed EPO, for
>> example).
>>
>> In particular, Armstrong lost a testicle, and people who lose testicles
>> normally have lower than normal testosterone. But looking at Lance's
>> behaviour and demeanour, particularly in his last two tours, you see
>> someone who acts and moves as though they have an almost pathological
>> excess of testosterone.
>
> Mm. Because you've never met an angry girl.
He probably has.....
It just means she has bigger balls than Simon
|
| |
Date: 26 May 2007 23:54:17
From: John of Aix
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
Kyle Schwitters wrote:
> With BJARNE RIIS's admission that he used dope to win the1996 Tour de
> France, isn't it WAY past time that Armstrong admitted:
He doesn't have to admit it, he chated, full stop. The urine test is
there to prove it.
|
| | |
Date: 26 May 2007 18:36:03
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On Sat, 26 May 2007 23:54:17 +0200, "John of Aix" <j.murphy@libertysurf.fr >
wrote:
>Kyle Schwitters wrote:
>> With BJARNE RIIS's admission that he used dope to win the1996 Tour de
>> France, isn't it WAY past time that Armstrong admitted:
>
>He doesn't have to admit it, he chated, full stop. The urine test is
>there to prove it.
The research experiment that was performed to see what can be measured in last
century's stale, frozen piss? The one that was never supposed to have anything
to do with any rider by name, and in which only one name was matched to anything
and then the result leaked contrary to the rules that were already being broken
by a lab of known sloppy procedure that finds far more positive results than
other labs of known sound procedure? That urine test?
Gotta do better than that.
See, maybe the guy was doped to the gills, but your blatantly dishonest test
from a discredited lab isn't gonna prove it.
Ron
|
| | | |
Date: 26 May 2007 22:46:45
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message
news:t8dh531n1seru2k4kq1imdlb18nb0lmv9h@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 23:54:17 +0200, "John of Aix"
> <j.murphy@libertysurf.fr>
> wrote:
>
>>Kyle Schwitters wrote:
>>> With BJARNE RIIS's admission that he used dope to win the1996 Tour de
>>> France, isn't it WAY past time that Armstrong admitted:
>>
>>He doesn't have to admit it, he chated, full stop. The urine test is
>>there to prove it.
>
> The research experiment that was performed to see what can be measured in
> last
> century's stale, frozen piss? The one that was never supposed to have
> anything
> to do with any rider by name, and in which only one name was matched to
> anything
> and then the result leaked contrary to the rules that were already being
> broken
> by a lab of known sloppy procedure that finds far more positive results
> than
> other labs of known sound procedure? That urine test?
>
> Gotta do better than that.
>
> See, maybe the guy was doped to the gills, but your blatantly dishonest
> test
> from a discredited lab isn't gonna prove it.
>
> Ron
As the director of the WADA accredited lab in Montreal pointed out, if there
were no EPO in the urine, the test would not have found any. The fact that
Armstrong never replied to the offer of the French minister for sport to
have the B samples analyzed again in his presence, is telling. EPO WAS
found in Armstrong's urine from 1999. Big surprise.
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 04:10:36
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
In article <pN26i.1999$eO5.1035@trndny08 >,
"B. Lafferty" <blafferty1@verizon.nospam.net > wrote:
> "RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:t8dh531n1seru2k4kq1imdlb18nb0lmv9h@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 26 May 2007 23:54:17 +0200, "John of Aix"
> > <j.murphy@libertysurf.fr>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Kyle Schwitters wrote:
> >>> With BJARNE RIIS's admission that he used dope to win the1996 Tour de
> >>> France, isn't it WAY past time that Armstrong admitted:
> >>
> >>He doesn't have to admit it, he chated, full stop. The urine test is
> >>there to prove it.
> >
> > The research experiment that was performed to see what can be measured in
> > last
> > century's stale, frozen piss? The one that was never supposed to have
> > anything
> > to do with any rider by name, and in which only one name was matched to
> > anything
> > and then the result leaked contrary to the rules that were already being
> > broken
> > by a lab of known sloppy procedure that finds far more positive results
> > than
> > other labs of known sound procedure? That urine test?
> >
> > Gotta do better than that.
> >
> > See, maybe the guy was doped to the gills, but your blatantly dishonest
> > test
> > from a discredited lab isn't gonna prove it.
> >
> > Ron
>
> As the director of the WADA accredited lab in Montreal pointed out, if there
> were no EPO in the urine, the test would not have found any. The fact that
> Armstrong never replied to the offer of the French minister for sport to
> have the B samples analyzed again in his presence, is telling. EPO WAS
> found in Armstrong's urine from 1999. Big surprise.
Here's the deal, Brian: if I was accused of doing something horrible,
told that there was evidence which, while pointing to my guilt, could
not be used to bring any sanction against me, and invited to watch while
a confirmatory test was done, what would you, as my legal counsel,
advise me to do?
Innocent or guilty, you know the answer is to refuse. If you want a
graceful answer, you have your PR person say "Mr. Cousineau will not
dignify these proceedings with a response."
And just so.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 08:09:27
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> Here's the deal, Brian: if I was accused of doing something horrible,
> told that there was evidence which, while pointing to my guilt, could
> not be used to bring any sanction against me, and invited to watch while
> a confirmatory test was done, what would you, as my legal counsel,
> advise me to do?
Depends on whether you have the legal firm Lafferty & Taylor advising you.
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 May 2007 21:26:05
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:46:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <blafferty1@verizon.nospam.net >
wrote:
>
>"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:t8dh531n1seru2k4kq1imdlb18nb0lmv9h@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 23:54:17 +0200, "John of Aix"
>> <j.murphy@libertysurf.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Kyle Schwitters wrote:
>>>> With BJARNE RIIS's admission that he used dope to win the1996 Tour de
>>>> France, isn't it WAY past time that Armstrong admitted:
>>>
>>>He doesn't have to admit it, he chated, full stop. The urine test is
>>>there to prove it.
>>
>> The research experiment that was performed to see what can be measured in
>> last
>> century's stale, frozen piss? The one that was never supposed to have
>> anything
>> to do with any rider by name, and in which only one name was matched to
>> anything
>> and then the result leaked contrary to the rules that were already being
>> broken
>> by a lab of known sloppy procedure that finds far more positive results
>> than
>> other labs of known sound procedure? That urine test?
>>
>> Gotta do better than that.
>>
>> See, maybe the guy was doped to the gills, but your blatantly dishonest
>> test
>> from a discredited lab isn't gonna prove it.
>>
>> Ron
>
>As the director of the WADA accredited lab in Montreal pointed out, if there
>were no EPO in the urine, the test would not have found any. The fact that
>Armstrong never replied to the offer of the French minister for sport to
>have the B samples analyzed again in his presence, is telling. EPO WAS
>found in Armstrong's urine from 1999. Big surprise.
>
It wasn't a properly organized test. Besides, that was the B sample.
It'd be stupid to be surpized by EPO use in the peloton, I'll give you that. But
if you really want a charge to stick you gotta do better than pulling a bottle
from somewhere claiming it belonged to a guy and then having a known bent lab
leak results.
It's no more valid than if they declared me positive.
Ron
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 07:24:11
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
Dans le message de news:6cnh53tl6pod1rcv1vbcaeemiatip4amra@4ax.com,
RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:46:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
> <blafferty1@verizon.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> As the director of the WADA accredited lab in Montreal pointed out,
>> if there were no EPO in the urine, the test would not have found
>> any. The fact that Armstrong never replied to the offer of the
>> French minister for sport to have the B samples analyzed again in
>> his presence, is telling. EPO WAS found in Armstrong's urine from
>> 1999. Big surprise.
>>
> It wasn't a properly organized test.
To believe you here, I need to know why it was not properly organized and
how much you know about that, including your personal observations of its
deficits.
> Besides, that was the B sample.
The B sample is the other half of the total sample given. Part A is used
and consumed in the first series of tests, and the B sample is a reserve
from the identical event. It's fairer to call it the second half of the
same sample.
> It'd be stupid to be surpized by EPO use in the peloton, I'll give
> you that. But if you really want a charge to stick you gotta do
> better than pulling a bottle from somewhere claiming it belonged to a
> guy and then having a known bent lab leak results.
Then it should be easy to demonstrate that it was not the identical sample,
no ?
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 10:46:05
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On Sun, 27 May 2007 07:24:11 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:
>Dans le message de news:6cnh53tl6pod1rcv1vbcaeemiatip4amra@4ax.com,
>RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:46:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
>> <blafferty1@verizon.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> As the director of the WADA accredited lab in Montreal pointed out,
>>> if there were no EPO in the urine, the test would not have found
>>> any. The fact that Armstrong never replied to the offer of the
>>> French minister for sport to have the B samples analyzed again in
>>> his presence, is telling. EPO WAS found in Armstrong's urine from
>>> 1999. Big surprise.
>>>
>> It wasn't a properly organized test.
>
>To believe you here, I need to know why it was not properly organized and
>how much you know about that, including your personal observations of its
>deficits.
>
>> Besides, that was the B sample.
>
>The B sample is the other half of the total sample given. Part A is used
>and consumed in the first series of tests, and the B sample is a reserve
>from the identical event. It's fairer to call it the second half of the
>same sample.
>
>> It'd be stupid to be surpized by EPO use in the peloton, I'll give
>> you that. But if you really want a charge to stick you gotta do
>> better than pulling a bottle from somewhere claiming it belonged to a
>> guy and then having a known bent lab leak results.
>
>Then it should be easy to demonstrate that it was not the identical sample,
>no ?
I'd say it was impossible to demonstrate that it was his sample. In fact, the
whole process was so far removed from a proper doping test that we can't say
anything about it beyond its ability to sell some yellow newspapers.
Ron
Ron
Effect pedal demo's up at http://www.soundclick.com/ronsonicpedalry
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 17:57:01
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
Dans le message de news:oa6j53pfo2hr9fnn152gtf0kpacie0npcu@4ax.com,
RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 07:24:11 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
>
>> Dans le message de news:6cnh53tl6pod1rcv1vbcaeemiatip4amra@4ax.com,
>> RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:46:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
>>> <blafferty1@verizon.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As the director of the WADA accredited lab in Montreal pointed out,
>>>> if there were no EPO in the urine, the test would not have found
>>>> any. The fact that Armstrong never replied to the offer of the
>>>> French minister for sport to have the B samples analyzed again in
>>>> his presence, is telling. EPO WAS found in Armstrong's urine from
>>>> 1999. Big surprise.
>>>>
>>> It wasn't a properly organized test.
>>
>> To believe you here, I need to know why it was not properly
>> organized and how much you know about that, including your personal
>> observations of its deficits.
>>
>>> Besides, that was the B sample.
>>
>> The B sample is the other half of the total sample given. Part A is
>> used and consumed in the first series of tests, and the B sample is
>> a reserve from the identical event. It's fairer to call it the
>> second half of the same sample.
>>
>>> It'd be stupid to be surpized by EPO use in the peloton, I'll give
>>> you that. But if you really want a charge to stick you gotta do
>>> better than pulling a bottle from somewhere claiming it belonged to
>>> a guy and then having a known bent lab leak results.
>>
>> Then it should be easy to demonstrate that it was not the identical
>> sample, no ?
>
> I'd say it was impossible to demonstrate that it was his sample. In
> fact, the whole process was so far removed from a proper doping test
> that we can't say anything about it beyond its ability to sell some
> yellow newspapers.
>
The fact is that you don't know what happened in this testing. You are
repeating nothing more than the propaganda of the Armstrong camp. Just to
prove me wrong, let us all know exactly which tests were performed, how the
results were arrived at, and how you _know_ that the samples didn't belong
to Armstrong.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 19:03:19
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On Sun, 27 May 2007 17:57:01 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:
>Dans le message de news:oa6j53pfo2hr9fnn152gtf0kpacie0npcu@4ax.com,
>RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 07:24:11 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> Dans le message de news:6cnh53tl6pod1rcv1vbcaeemiatip4amra@4ax.com,
>>> RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:46:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
>>>> <blafferty1@verizon.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As the director of the WADA accredited lab in Montreal pointed out,
>>>>> if there were no EPO in the urine, the test would not have found
>>>>> any. The fact that Armstrong never replied to the offer of the
>>>>> French minister for sport to have the B samples analyzed again in
>>>>> his presence, is telling. EPO WAS found in Armstrong's urine from
>>>>> 1999. Big surprise.
>>>>>
>>>> It wasn't a properly organized test.
>>>
>>> To believe you here, I need to know why it was not properly
>>> organized and how much you know about that, including your personal
>>> observations of its deficits.
>>>
>>>> Besides, that was the B sample.
>>>
>>> The B sample is the other half of the total sample given. Part A is
>>> used and consumed in the first series of tests, and the B sample is
>>> a reserve from the identical event. It's fairer to call it the
>>> second half of the same sample.
>>>
>>>> It'd be stupid to be surpized by EPO use in the peloton, I'll give
>>>> you that. But if you really want a charge to stick you gotta do
>>>> better than pulling a bottle from somewhere claiming it belonged to
>>>> a guy and then having a known bent lab leak results.
>>>
>>> Then it should be easy to demonstrate that it was not the identical
>>> sample, no ?
>>
>> I'd say it was impossible to demonstrate that it was his sample. In
>> fact, the whole process was so far removed from a proper doping test
>> that we can't say anything about it beyond its ability to sell some
>> yellow newspapers.
>>
>The fact is that you don't know what happened in this testing. You are
>repeating nothing more than the propaganda of the Armstrong camp. Just to
>prove me wrong, let us all know exactly which tests were performed, how the
>results were arrived at, and how you _know_ that the samples didn't belong
>to Armstrong.
That's the point, I don't know squat. You don't either. There is only a
newspaper report of information that if legitimate should not actually have been
assembled and certainly not released to a newspaper.
All we know is that samples were tested and one that is said to have belonged to
lance was said to have tested positive. This was said by people who are not
supposed to have known anything about that test.
Doesn't mean there aren't any number of reasons to think he doped. But if you
want to say that it's proven that he doped, this isn't it.
Ron
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 16:05:12
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote in message
news:4659aa4d$0$29396$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
> Dans le message de news:oa6j53pfo2hr9fnn152gtf0kpacie0npcu@4ax.com,
> RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 07:24:11 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> Dans le message de news:6cnh53tl6pod1rcv1vbcaeemiatip4amra@4ax.com,
>>> RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:46:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
>>>> <blafferty1@verizon.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As the director of the WADA accredited lab in Montreal pointed out,
>>>>> if there were no EPO in the urine, the test would not have found
>>>>> any. The fact that Armstrong never replied to the offer of the
>>>>> French minister for sport to have the B samples analyzed again in
>>>>> his presence, is telling. EPO WAS found in Armstrong's urine from
>>>>> 1999. Big surprise.
>>>>>
>>>> It wasn't a properly organized test.
>>>
>>> To believe you here, I need to know why it was not properly
>>> organized and how much you know about that, including your personal
>>> observations of its deficits.
>>>
>>>> Besides, that was the B sample.
>>>
>>> The B sample is the other half of the total sample given. Part A is
>>> used and consumed in the first series of tests, and the B sample is
>>> a reserve from the identical event. It's fairer to call it the
>>> second half of the same sample.
>>>
>>>> It'd be stupid to be surpized by EPO use in the peloton, I'll give
>>>> you that. But if you really want a charge to stick you gotta do
>>>> better than pulling a bottle from somewhere claiming it belonged to
>>>> a guy and then having a known bent lab leak results.
>>>
>>> Then it should be easy to demonstrate that it was not the identical
>>> sample, no ?
>>
>> I'd say it was impossible to demonstrate that it was his sample. In
>> fact, the whole process was so far removed from a proper doping test
>> that we can't say anything about it beyond its ability to sell some
>> yellow newspapers.
>>
> The fact is that you don't know what happened in this testing. You are
> repeating nothing more than the propaganda of the Armstrong camp. Just to
> prove me wrong, let us all know exactly which tests were performed, how
> the results were arrived at, and how you _know_ that the samples didn't
> belong to Armstrong.
It is the Armstrong smoke and mirrors that has created his myth for the
gullible . The lab has asserted that the chain of custody is still complete
as to the B samples ( and Armstrong can check that if he likes) and has
offered to let Armstrong or his representative be present for retesting of
the remaining b samples--they were not exhausted. There can be no UCI
sanction, but it does show the reality that Sir Lance was not honest in
1999.
|
| |
Date: 26 May 2007 09:33:44
From: mange@merde.com
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On May 26, 4:53 am, Kyle Schwitters <slipuva...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> France, isn't it WAY past time that Armstrong admitted:
Americans don't cheat!!!!
We win!!!!!!!!
USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!
mange
|
| |
Date: 26 May 2007 06:13:31
From: alf
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On 26 May, 14:30, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com > wrote:
> On May 26, 7:53 am, Kyle Schwitters <slipuva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > With BJARNE RIIS's admission that he used dope to win the1996 Tour de
> > France, isn't it WAY past time that Armstrong admitted:
>
> > 1) Yes, he, too, used performance-enhancing drugs to win those 7
> > TDFs.
>
> > 2) The made-up bogus story about overcoming, near-death, grave multi-
> > CANCERS, of which no one else has come forth to claim survival.
>
> > FACE IT deluded sports fans, America's obsession with celebrity and
> > "heros" is and has always been behind this "legend."
>
> Riiiiight. Elective brain surgery and orchidectomy. Of course, it's
> obvious, now that you've said it. Testicular cancer as a cry for
> help.
>
> Will the POTM moderator accept the OP's post as the inaugural entry in
> a new POTM classification?
> I'm thinking a classification something like: POTM - From Inside Your
> Own Asshole.
> POTM-FIYOA
>
> R
but they all use drugs, so its a fair race.
|
| |
Date: 26 May 2007 05:30:50
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?
|
On May 26, 7:53 am, Kyle Schwitters <slipuva...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> With BJARNE RIIS's admission that he used dope to win the1996 Tour de
> France, isn't it WAY past time that Armstrong admitted:
>
> 1) Yes, he, too, used performance-enhancing drugs to win those 7
> TDFs.
>
> 2) The made-up bogus story about overcoming, near-death, grave multi-
> CANCERS, of which no one else has come forth to claim survival.
>
> FACE IT deluded sports fans, America's obsession with celebrity and
> "heros" is and has always been behind this "legend."
Riiiiight. Elective brain surgery and orchidectomy. Of course, it's
obvious, now that you've said it. Testicular cancer as a cry for
help.
Will the POTM moderator accept the OP's post as the inaugural entry in
a new POTM classification?
I'm thinking a classification something like: POTM - From Inside Your
Own Asshole.
POTM-FIYOA
R
|
|
