| |
Main
Date: 14 Sep 2007 14:31:46
From: DirtRoadie
Subject: Landis Hearing Closed
|
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/more/09/14/landis.ap/
DR
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 14:21:46
From:
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
On Sep 17, 10:41 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com > wrote:
> The "positive" test comes from the metabolites of synthetic testosterone
> of his positive sample as well as his negative samples, and not the T:E
> ratio test itself. Specifically, the C13:C12 ratio test. That is what
> this case is about, and not the T:E test.
Well, firstly you have to get TO the ratio test. And to get there they
proved that the sample was contaminated and therefore the C13:C12
ratio was unreliable at best. And then you have to understand that in
fact the C13:C12 ratios were tested several times and came out
different each time. Some of the time the ratios were proper and if he
had been using artificial testosterone that would never be the case.
> Even if you were to argue for the invalidation of the T:E result, it
> would not explain how come his samples also failed the synthetic C13:C12
> test. "Contamination" would not explain it because the use of that word
> means bacteria in Floyd's case and that would not cause a C13:C12
> positive test.
Contaminant might be bacteria but it could also be yeast which, in
case you missed your biology, is a plant.
>
> You play fast and loose with the facts, fuckhole.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 12:45:22
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
On Sep 15, 7:54 am, billb <wrbma...@msn.com > wrote:
> Every system, judicial or otherwise, must function well for the
> majority of its applications. Legislation/design by anecdote leads
> only to disorganization and chaos...
So law in the US does not function well. I knew it!!!! {laughs}
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 12:41:54
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
On Sep 16, 5:49 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Speaking of apathetic, is it just me or is it really hard to get into
> the Vuelta. I mean, I read the live reports, and find myself not really
> caring, one way or the other.
Watching bike racing is a recreation. Have you considered
recreational doping? It is performance enhancing, don't you know?
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 07:41:03
From:
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
On Sep 15, 2:28 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > If I understand your sidestepping properly you seem to be saying that it's
> > perfectly OK to falsely accuse Floyd of cheating and to keep him from making
> > a living for what would have been the most profitable years of his career.
>
> Gosh, Tom, what makes you think Floyd Landis was falsely accused?
>
> (trying again) (Gee Mr. Wizard approach this time) (why not) --D-y
>
> Come on Tom, I'll post my real name <g>
If I understand it properly WADA procedures say that if the A-test and
it's backup varied by more than 30% that the sample had to be thrown
out as contaminated. The initial test of Floyd's urinalysis was 4.5:1
for the T/E ratio. The backup on the same sample several hours later
showed 11:1 which signaled a contaminant present. The lab did not
follow procedure and toss the samples.
Since the proper procedures were not followed, any claim that Floyd
was using drugs is a complete fabrication without foundation. You do
know what being "falsely accused" means don't you?
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 13:41:24
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2:28 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 15, 2:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If I understand your sidestepping properly you seem to be saying that it's
>>>perfectly OK to falsely accuse Floyd of cheating and to keep him from making
>>>a living for what would have been the most profitable years of his career.
>>
>>Gosh, Tom, what makes you think Floyd Landis was falsely accused?
>>
>>(trying again) (Gee Mr. Wizard approach this time) (why not) --D-y
>>
>>Come on Tom, I'll post my real name <g>
>
>
> If I understand it properly WADA procedures say that if the A-test and
> it's backup varied by more than 30% that the sample had to be thrown
> out as contaminated. The initial test of Floyd's urinalysis was 4.5:1
> for the T/E ratio. The backup on the same sample several hours later
> showed 11:1 which signaled a contaminant present. The lab did not
> follow procedure and toss the samples.
>
> Since the proper procedures were not followed, any claim that Floyd
> was using drugs is a complete fabrication without foundation. You do
> know what being "falsely accused" means don't you?
>
The "positive" test comes from the metabolites of synthetic testosterone
of his positive sample as well as his negative samples, and not the T:E
ratio test itself. Specifically, the C13:C12 ratio test. That is what
this case is about, and not the T:E test.
Even if you were to argue for the invalidation of the T:E result, it
would not explain how come his samples also failed the synthetic C13:C12
test. "Contamination" would not explain it because the use of that word
means bacteria in Floyd's case and that would not cause a C13:C12
positive test.
You play fast and loose with the facts, fuckhole.
Thanks,
Magilla
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 17:05:02
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote in message
news:fcme84$dc0$1@aioe.org...
> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 2:28 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 15, 2:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If I understand your sidestepping properly you seem to be saying that
>>>>it's
>>>>perfectly OK to falsely accuse Floyd of cheating and to keep him from
>>>>making
>>>>a living for what would have been the most profitable years of his
>>>>career.
>>>
>>>Gosh, Tom, what makes you think Floyd Landis was falsely accused?
>>>
>>>(trying again) (Gee Mr. Wizard approach this time) (why not) --D-y
>>>
>>>Come on Tom, I'll post my real name <g>
>>
>> If I understand it properly WADA procedures say that if the A-test and
>> it's backup varied by more than 30% that the sample had to be thrown
>> out as contaminated. The initial test of Floyd's urinalysis was 4.5:1
>> for the T/E ratio. The backup on the same sample several hours later
>> showed 11:1 which signaled a contaminant present. The lab did not
>> follow procedure and toss the samples.
>>
>> Since the proper procedures were not followed, any claim that Floyd
>> was using drugs is a complete fabrication without foundation. You do
>> know what being "falsely accused" means don't you?
>
> The "positive" test comes from the metabolites of synthetic testosterone
> of his positive sample as well as his negative samples, and not the T:E
> ratio test itself. Specifically, the C13:C12 ratio test. That is what
> this case is about, and not the T:E test.
In case you missed it - the carbon ratio tests were performed multiple times
and came out differently despite the test being completely automated and not
open to interpretation.
> Even if you were to argue for the invalidation of the T:E result, it would
> not explain how come his samples also failed the synthetic C13:C12 test.
> "Contamination" would not explain it because the use of that word means
> bacteria in Floyd's case and that would not cause a C13:C12 positive test.
>
> You play fast and loose with the facts, fuckhole.
Even if you had half of a clue you'd know that contamination by bacteria OR
yeast or many other things can change the carbon ratio tests.
You demonstrate utter ignorance and think that you're smart.
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 08:09:55
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
On Sep 15, 10:52 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
>
> Not a lawyer, but I think Bill Black treads a really reasonable,
> rational line on when and how to take action. New England owes Bill a
> huge debt, and always will, for stepping up and fighting hard for
> making things better in cycling here. I'm not sure he gets a lot of
> credit, or recognition outside of the handful of people who do things
> like show up for the Nebra meetings or promote races.
> To make it short, Bill always gets the benefit of the doubt, and a
> rethink on my part, just to make sure I want to disagree with him.
> Even then I have a sneaking suspicion he's probably right anyway.
> He's pretty damned high on the list of people in the sport I respect.
> Bill C
BillB, BillC...I'm waiting for Bill v4 (aka BillD) to weigh in with an
opinion. I'm an early adopter.
R
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 00:00:13
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
RicodJour wrote:
> BillB, BillC...I'm waiting for Bill v4 (aka BillD) to weigh in with an
> opinion. I'm an early adopter.
Kill Bill could be a bit confusing around here.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 23:32:24
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
In article <46eda76f$0$24887$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > BillB, BillC...I'm waiting for Bill v4 (aka BillD) to weigh in with an
> > opinion. I'm an early adopter.
>
> Kill Bill could be a bit confusing around here.
Kill 'em all and let Tom sort 'em out.
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 19:49:45
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
RicodJour schreef:
> BillB, BillC...I'm waiting for Bill v4 (aka BillD) to weigh in with an
> opinion. I'm an early adopter.
Right, and don't forget BillA. (What does the A stand for again, Aloof?)
--
E. Dronkert
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 00:49:46
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
Ewoud Dronkert <firstname@lastname.net.invalid > wrote in
news:46ed6cc4$0$236$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl:
> RicodJour schreef:
>> BillB, BillC...I'm waiting for Bill v4 (aka BillD) to weigh in with
>> an opinion. I'm an early adopter.
>
> Right, and don't forget BillA. (What does the A stand for again,
> Aloof?)
>
>
Apathetic. Anyway, it's a nym. My real name is Ron Jeremy Critposer77
but I figured if I used it everyone would assume it was fake and I would
catch endless flack from Kunich about posting anonymously.
Speaking of apathetic, is it just me or is it really hard to get into
the Vuelta. I mean, I read the live reports, and find myself not really
caring, one way or the other. "Oh, Sanchez won. Neat." Is the racing
boring or has the Tour sucked the life out of cycling? Even the live
reports on cyclingnews have taken a cynical tone, with snarky comments
about how today we will see a break gain about 7 minutes, get swallowed
up at the end, and the stage end in a bunch finish. It's like bad
Kabuki, without the face paint.
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 10:22:44
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
William Asher wrote:
> Speaking of apathetic, is it just me or is it really hard to get into
> the Vuelta. I mean, I read the live reports, and find myself not really
> caring, one way or the other. "Oh, Sanchez won. Neat." Is the racing
> boring or has the Tour sucked the life out of cycling?
I feel compelled to care because of the Dutch Rabo connection. And I
must say, it's nice for Menchov to get his moment in the spotlight
after the Heras debacle.
Anything else is mostly an extended Worlds preview. On that note,
Sanchez's win was significant. He's strong again and could be a
deciding factor like he almost was last year (or he was, but not
getting his compatriot the win).
--
E. Dronkert
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 18:08:48
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> William Asher wrote:
>> Speaking of apathetic, is it just me or is it really hard to get into
>> the Vuelta. I mean, I read the live reports, and find myself not really
>> caring, one way or the other. "Oh, Sanchez won. Neat." Is the racing
>> boring or has the Tour sucked the life out of cycling?
>
> I feel compelled to care because of the Dutch Rabo connection. And I
> must say, it's nice for Menchov to get his moment in the spotlight
> after the Heras debacle.
>
> Anything else is mostly an extended Worlds preview. On that note,
> Sanchez's win was significant. He's strong again and could be a
> deciding factor like he almost was last year (or he was, but not
> getting his compatriot the win).
>
>
Yeah yeah, whatever. I guess I only care about Sanchez because last year I
had him on a fantasy Vuelta team along with Vinokourov and I did pretty
well. I would have done even better but I got a couple of Angel Gomez's
confused and picked the wrong one.
It all seems like the year that the ATP pros walked from Wimbledom and
Kodes won. Yeah, he won Wimbledom but ...
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 23:35:39
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
In article <Xns99ADB56B7CE4FFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 >, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Ewoud Dronkert <firstname@lastname.net.invalid> wrote in
> news:46ed6cc4$0$236$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl:
>
> > RicodJour schreef:
> >> BillB, BillC...I'm waiting for Bill v4 (aka BillD) to weigh in with
> >> an opinion. I'm an early adopter.
> >
> > Right, and don't forget BillA. (What does the A stand for again,
> > Aloof?)
> >
> >
>
> Apathetic. Anyway, it's a nym. My real name is Ron Jeremy Critposer77
> but I figured if I used it everyone would assume it was fake and I would
> catch endless flack from Kunich about posting anonymously.
>
> Speaking of apathetic, is it just me or is it really hard to get into
> the Vuelta.
It has been a little hard to get too worked up over it this year. Even when there
were big crashes, it wasn't particularly surprising. But I've been way more
interested in the Vuelta than the Tour of Mo.
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 10:12:38
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> or is it really hard to get into
>> the Vuelta.
>
> It has been a little hard to get too worked up over it this year. Even when there
> were big crashes, it wasn't particularly surprising. But I've been way more
> interested in the Vuelta than the Tour of Mo.
>
It's always this way for me. The season is just too long to be
interested the whole way through. My interest peaks for the cobbled
classics, the Giro satisfies my craving for multi-day tactics, I pay
attention to the pre-Tour races to see who can't time their peak
correctly, and I watch the Tour for the train wreck of doping scandals.
By then the season is pretty much over for me except for worlds, which
are an anomalous blip on my radar. I won't start getting interested in
cross until around Xmas time and by then it's the Sven Nys show, even
though people here would try to cause distraction by paying more
attention to some nobody named Jonathan Page.
I agree about the Tour of moe. When I surf to Cyclingnews and see the
"Live coverage now on" link I think, "Who bloody cares?"
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 09:42:02
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
Howard Kveck wrote:
> It has been a little hard to get too worked up over it this year. Even when there
> were big crashes, it wasn't particularly surprising. But I've been way more
> interested in the Vuelta than the Tour of Mo.
I bet the armadillos wish they went to the Vuelta instead.
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 03:57:01
From: bdbafh
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
yawn.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 11:24:27
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
bdbafh wrote:
> yawn.
>
"yawn" has been deprecated in favor of laughing your ass off.
Thanks you for your attention to this detail.
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 20:01:12
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
On Sep 15, 5:54 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> I'd love for things
> to break like they did in the IOC, Salt Lake scandal, or the skating
> judging where we got inside info and it was confirmed how dirty things
> are, and the indications were that was just the tip of the iceberg. I
> don't think cycling, especially with the turf wars is free from dirty
> tricks and people willing to do whatever it takes for power and wins.
> Then again I'm Pollyanna
No, but Dick Pound was the Good Fairy. Selling fairytales. (We're
going to clean up the sport"). --D-y
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 15:54:14
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
On Sep 15, 2:12 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 9:54 am, billb <wrbma...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Every system, judicial or otherwise, must function well for the
> > majority of its applications.
>
> I just want to be clear that I was only asking Kunich to state his
> case.
>
> I was nice and said please in hopes of seeing a calm, ordered
> presentation of information and opinion. He (Tom Kunich) is very
> capable, when he chooses, to perform in such a manner.
>
> There are people in every occupation at every level who are doing
> their best to make it hard to take pride in what one does every day.
> Maybe including people who work in French "drug labs", is my point
> here.
>
> OK, is it time to hop over and hope the fence holds, again? --D-y
I agree that Tom is perfectly capable of making very good arguments,
and frequently does until at the last second he gets sidetracked. I
think that just about everyone in this discussion, at this point, is
on the same track, to varying degrees. Tom has made up his mind that
Flandis is getting railroaded, I've had serious problems with the
system, as you have. Bill B, in my experience weighs everything
carefully and doesn't jump to conclusions. He's been willing to take
on the system, or the rest of us, as he saw the need to. Sandy is the
same way.
I don't think we'll ever know the whole truth about the inside
workings of the UCI, Wada, ASO, etc... We also really don't know what
the riders, and teams have done for sure either. I'd love for things
to break like they did in the IOC, Salt Lake scandal, or the skating
judging where we got inside info and it was confirmed how dirty things
are, and the indications were that was just the tip of the iceberg. I
don't think cycling, especially with the turf wars is free from dirty
tricks and people willing to do whatever it takes for power and wins.
Then again I'm Pollyanna
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 14:28:52
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
On Sep 15, 2:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> If I understand your sidestepping properly you seem to be saying that it's
> perfectly OK to falsely accuse Floyd of cheating and to keep him from making
> a living for what would have been the most profitable years of his career.
Gosh, Tom, what makes you think Floyd Landis was falsely accused?
(trying again) (Gee Mr. Wizard approach this time) (why not) --D-y
Come on Tom, I'll post my real name <g >
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 13:04:12
From: billb
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
On Sep 15, 3:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "billb" <wrbma...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1189868047.895951.103010@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Tell is something Bill, while you were proud being an attorney did some
> >> sorts group falsely accuse a leading athlete of cheating and then spend
> >> more
> >> than a year of the most profitable period of that athlete's life
> >> finagling
> >> about it?
>
> >> Something tells me that as an attorney you hadn't a single clue about
> >> what
> >> the hell you were really supposed to be doing. My guess is that Daniel
> >> Webster was more in your line.
>
> > Every system, judicial or otherwise, must function well for the
> > majority of its applications. Legislation/design by anecdote leads
> > only to disorganization and chaos -- much like your grammar and
> > attempts at thought.
>
> If I understand your sidestepping properly you seem to be saying that it's
> perfectly OK to falsely accuse Floyd of cheating and to keep him from making
> a living for what would have been the most profitable years of his career.
>
> Why is it that I'm not in the least surprised that a lawyer would hold such
> a position?
>
> If Bill C wasn't of another opinion I wouldn't hold you in much light.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
My initial response was regarding your suggesting that organizations
be sued out of existence if FL were exonerated -- I did not take a
position on the merits of the FL situation.
Best,
Bill Black
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 15:42:32
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
"billb" <wrbmaine@msn.com > wrote in message
news:1189886652.136021.87300@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> My initial response was regarding your suggesting that organizations
> be sued out of existence if FL were exonerated -- I did not take a
> position on the merits of the FL situation.
I see. Apparently you agree that the UCI should be able to stop Valverde
from racing at the Worlds after his own national organization looked
carefully over the presented evidence WHICH WAS GATHERED IN THEIR OWN
COUNTRY and decided that the evidence wasn't complete enough to warrant any
movement against him.
You must think that ASO and WADA are perfectly justified in kicking out
teams for transgressions by a single rider outside of the team's control.
If the evidence presented to us as true in the Landis case is factual the
UCI should be up on criminal charges and not just sued out of existence.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 17:01:40
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
In article <13eonusse5aq2d2@corp.supernews.com >, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:
> "billb" <wrbmaine@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1189886652.136021.87300@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > My initial response was regarding your suggesting that organizations
> > be sued out of existence if FL were exonerated -- I did not take a
> > position on the merits of the FL situation.
>
> I see. Apparently you agree that the UCI should be able to stop Valverde
> from racing at the Worlds after his own national organization looked
> carefully over the presented evidence WHICH WAS GATHERED IN THEIR OWN
> COUNTRY and decided that the evidence wasn't complete enough to warrant any
> movement against him.
>
> You must think that ASO and WADA are perfectly justified in kicking out
> teams for transgressions by a single rider outside of the team's control.
>
> If the evidence presented to us as true in the Landis case is factual the
> UCI should be up on criminal charges and not just sued out of existence.
Have you ever considered responding to what the other person has said, rather than
the things you've assigned him? I know, that makes it harder to have a "successful"
argument.
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 13:47:07
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
"billb" <wrbmaine@msn.com > wrote in message
news:1189886652.136021.87300@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 15, 3:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "billb" <wrbma...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1189868047.895951.103010@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Tell is something Bill, while you were proud being an attorney did
>> >> some
>> >> sorts group falsely accuse a leading athlete of cheating and then
>> >> spend
>> >> more
>> >> than a year of the most profitable period of that athlete's life
>> >> finagling
>> >> about it?
>>
>> >> Something tells me that as an attorney you hadn't a single clue
>> >> about
>> >> what
>> >> the hell you were really supposed to be doing. My guess is that
>> >> Daniel
>> >> Webster was more in your line.
>>
>> > Every system, judicial or otherwise, must function well for the
>> > majority of its applications. Legislation/design by anecdote leads
>> > only to disorganization and chaos -- much like your grammar and
>> > attempts at thought.
>>
>> If I understand your sidestepping properly you seem to be saying that
>> it's
>> perfectly OK to falsely accuse Floyd of cheating and to keep him from
>> making
>> a living for what would have been the most profitable years of his
>> career.
>>
>> Why is it that I'm not in the least surprised that a lawyer would
>> hold such
>> a position?
>>
>> If Bill C wasn't of another opinion I wouldn't hold you in much
>> light.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> My initial response was regarding your suggesting that organizations
> be sued out of existence if FL were exonerated -- I did not take a
> position on the merits of the FL situation.
> Best,
> Bill Black
Interesting that you would take umbrage at Tom's remark. Here's hoping
you give hell to the sue-happy of your profession. We had a lawyer come
and give a seminar on sexual misconduct at our school district a couple
of weeks ago. This was the defense attorney of one Mary Kay Letourneau
(Michael A.Patterson, LLB, JD). This guy was telling us how he would
like to get the wages stopped of any teacher under investigation and
suspension. For him it's obviously all about the money (several other
examples of this) and not, innocent till proved guilty. For school
teachers, it has nothing to do with the money; most of us were offended
by his stance. Way to go in making a dent in the general perception of
your profession.
Phil H
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 11:12:33
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
On Sep 15, 9:54 am, billb <wrbma...@msn.com > wrote:
> Every system, judicial or otherwise, must function well for the
> majority of its applications.
I just want to be clear that I was only asking Kunich to state his
case.
I was nice and said please in hopes of seeing a calm, ordered
presentation of information and opinion. He (Tom Kunich) is very
capable, when he chooses, to perform in such a manner.
There are people in every occupation at every level who are doing
their best to make it hard to take pride in what one does every day.
Maybe including people who work in French "drug labs", is my point
here.
OK, is it time to hop over and hope the fence holds, again? --D-y
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 11:00:04
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
On Sep 15, 9:52 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
>> YAAAHHHH!!!!! Tell me you did NOT just write that!!
> You got your red union suit on and running around in the pasture too?
> Maybe poking some bears with sticks?
No, just shooting off some electrons <g >.
TK has written to the effect that the large difference between test
results with Floyd's A and B ("other half of the A") sample are proof
of contamination of at least the B ("other half of the A") sample. I
believe he has contended that the results were so greviously bad the
test should have been thrown out immediately. Not Floyd. <g >, rueful.
That's one point. Another "problem" I have is the retro-testing they
did on Floyd which, if I followed this all, seems like a big, big CYA
maneuver to get him for something if the first test turns out to be a
giant fuckup, which is what it looks like to me.
Then we have the lack of confidentiality and white-out, and leaks to
the press, that area of stupidity.
I'm merely inviting discussion at this late date.
Here, bossy bossy... --D-y
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 07:54:07
From: billb
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
On Sep 15, 9:58 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "billb" <wrbma...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1189861298.644114.268800@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Sep 14, 9:12 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "DirtRoadie" <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1189805506.045543.161090@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/more/09/14/landis.ap/
>
> >> If he's found not guilty I hope he sues WADA, the UCI and the Tour
> >> organization into bankruptcy.
>
> > 25 years ago I was proud of being an attorney. Kunich-minded tort
> > chasers changed that.
>
> Tell is something Bill, while you were proud being an attorney did some
> sorts group falsely accuse a leading athlete of cheating and then spend more
> than a year of the most profitable period of that athlete's life finagling
> about it?
>
> Something tells me that as an attorney you hadn't a single clue about what
> the hell you were really supposed to be doing. My guess is that Daniel
> Webster was more in your line.
Every system, judicial or otherwise, must function well for the
majority of its applications. Legislation/design by anecdote leads
only to disorganization and chaos -- much like your grammar and
attempts at thought.
Best,
Bill Black
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 12:14:50
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
"billb" <wrbmaine@msn.com > wrote in message
news:1189868047.895951.103010@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Tell is something Bill, while you were proud being an attorney did some
>> sorts group falsely accuse a leading athlete of cheating and then spend
>> more
>> than a year of the most profitable period of that athlete's life
>> finagling
>> about it?
>>
>> Something tells me that as an attorney you hadn't a single clue about
>> what
>> the hell you were really supposed to be doing. My guess is that Daniel
>> Webster was more in your line.
>
> Every system, judicial or otherwise, must function well for the
> majority of its applications. Legislation/design by anecdote leads
> only to disorganization and chaos -- much like your grammar and
> attempts at thought.
If I understand your sidestepping properly you seem to be saying that it's
perfectly OK to falsely accuse Floyd of cheating and to keep him from making
a living for what would have been the most profitable years of his career.
Why is it that I'm not in the least surprised that a lawyer would hold such
a position?
If Bill C wasn't of another opinion I wouldn't hold you in much light.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 17:01:06
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
In article <13eobpe5o7aq556@corp.supernews.com >, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:
> "billb" <wrbmaine@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1189868047.895951.103010@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Tell is something Bill, while you were proud being an attorney did some
> >> sorts group falsely accuse a leading athlete of cheating and then spend
> >> more than a year of the most profitable period of that athlete's life
> >> finagling about it?
> >>
> >> Something tells me that as an attorney you hadn't a single clue about
> >> what the hell you were really supposed to be doing. My guess is that Daniel
> >> Webster was more in your line.
Ah, the Klassic Kunich lines: "Something tells me that you hadn't a single
clue..." and "My guess is..." So what tells you these things, the voices in your
head? As for your guesses, I'd suggest that you probably ought not play the lottery.
> > Every system, judicial or otherwise, must function well for the
> > majority of its applications. Legislation/design by anecdote leads
> > only to disorganization and chaos -- much like your grammar and
> > attempts at thought.
>
> If I understand your sidestepping properly you seem to be saying that it's
> perfectly OK to falsely accuse Floyd of cheating and to keep him from making
> a living for what would have been the most profitable years of his career.
"If I understand..." Nice strawman, T.
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 07:52:59
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
On Sep 15, 10:13 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com >
wrote:
>
> OK, Tom, you made an accusation ("falsely accuse").
>
> How about an A-Z explanation of what happened with Floyd, incl. the
> original test, and the subsequent tests?
> IOW, using your expertise, line it out for readers here, if you would,
> please. Thank you. --D-y
YAAAHHHH!!!!! Tell me you did NOT just write that!!
You got your red union suit on and running around in the pasture too?
Maybe poking some bears with sticks?
Bill C
Not a lawyer, but I think Bill Black treads a really reasonable,
rational line on when and how to take action. New England owes Bill a
huge debt, and always will, for stepping up and fighting hard for
making things better in cycling here. I'm not sure he gets a lot of
credit, or recognition outside of the handful of people who do things
like show up for the Nebra meetings or promote races.
To make it short, Bill always gets the benefit of the doubt, and a
rethink on my part, just to make sure I want to disagree with him.
Even then I have a sneaking suspicion he's probably right anyway.
He's pretty damned high on the list of people in the sport I respect.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 07:13:47
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
On Sep 15, 8:58 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> Tell is something Bill, while you were proud being an attorney did some
> sorts group falsely accuse a leading athlete of cheating and then spend more
> than a year of the most profitable period of that athlete's life finagling
> about it?
OK, Tom, you made an accusation ("falsely accuse").
How about an A-Z explanation of what happened with Floyd, incl. the
original test, and the subsequent tests?
IOW, using your expertise, line it out for readers here, if you would,
please. Thank you. --D-y
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 06:01:38
From: billb
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
On Sep 14, 9:12 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "DirtRoadie" <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1189805506.045543.161090@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/more/09/14/landis.ap/
>
> If he's found not guilty I hope he sues WADA, the UCI and the Tour
> organization into bankruptcy.
25 years ago I was proud of being an attorney. Kunich-minded tort
chasers changed that.
Best,
Bill Black
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 06:58:27
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
"billb" <wrbmaine@msn.com > wrote in message
news:1189861298.644114.268800@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 14, 9:12 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "DirtRoadie" <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1189805506.045543.161090@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/more/09/14/landis.ap/
>>
>> If he's found not guilty I hope he sues WADA, the UCI and the Tour
>> organization into bankruptcy.
>
> 25 years ago I was proud of being an attorney. Kunich-minded tort
> chasers changed that.
Tell is something Bill, while you were proud being an attorney did some
sorts group falsely accuse a leading athlete of cheating and then spend more
than a year of the most profitable period of that athlete's life finagling
about it?
Something tells me that as an attorney you hadn't a single clue about what
the hell you were really supposed to be doing. My guess is that Daniel
Webster was more in your line.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:12:11
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
"DirtRoadie" <DirtRoadie@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1189805506.045543.161090@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/more/09/14/landis.ap/
If he's found not guilty I hope he sues WADA, the UCI and the Tour
organization into bankruptcy.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 01:35:00
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
|
> If he's found not guilty I hope he sues WADA, the UCI and the Tour
> organization into bankruptcy.
Have you communicated this directly to those in charge of the hearings?
Perhaps they'll rethink the concept of coming up with a fair decision and
instead decide to declare him guilty regardless, since that would decrease
the civil exposure to the powers-that-be.
Perhaps it would be more appropriate to hope for justice that's blind to
such things.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
|
|
