| |
Main
Date: 10 May 2007 16:06:42
From: Burt
Subject: Landis - its all making sense now
|
http://doucheblogcycling.blogspot.com/2007/05/framed.html
|
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2007 11:17:56
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
On May 11, 4:00 am, Burt <burt.hoo...@gmail.com > wrote:
If you work at the LNDD, UCI, WADA, USADA,
> or are a member of the Arbitration Panel, you can fuck up, not follow
> the rules, leak information to the press, etc., etc., and its all
> okay, so long as you're working toward the "greater good" of trying to
> catch drug cheats...the fact that those "cheats" may actually be
> innocent never seems to cross their mind.
At the obvious level, this is all about selling a semi-plausible
fiction to big-money advertisers.
Dick Pound cleaned up the Olympics, and great was the profit. That's
the game.
"Holy we're all working together" horseshit, IOW.
How many (just for conversation's sake) fewer might have died had EPO
not been driven underground? IOW, (for instance) an official medical
board openly getting information from riders and trainers, working
toward safe administration of "whatever"?
Why are there still "tests" when the tests: 1) are known to be faulty,
expensive; and 2) not nearly as effective as wiretaps at catching
dopers even when the dopers are tested with "dope on board"?
(A) This goes a lot deeper than "fairness in sport". (stated opinion)
--D-y
|
| | |
Date: 14 May 2007 23:15:12
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
In article
<1179166676.296165.312020@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
"dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com > wrote:
> On May 11, 4:00 am, Burt <burt.hoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you work at the LNDD, UCI, WADA, USADA,
> > or are a member of the Arbitration Panel, you can fuck up, not follow
> > the rules, leak information to the press, etc., etc., and its all
> > okay, so long as you're working toward the "greater good" of trying to
> > catch drug cheats...the fact that those "cheats" may actually be
> > innocent never seems to cross their mind.
>
> At the obvious level, this is all about selling a semi-plausible
> fiction to big-money advertisers.
>
> Dick Pound cleaned up the Olympics, and great was the profit. That's
> the game.
>
> "Holy we're all working together" horseshit, IOW.
>
> How many (just for conversation's sake) fewer might have died had EPO
> not been driven underground? IOW, (for instance) an official medical
> board openly getting information from riders and trainers, working
> toward safe administration of "whatever"?
>
> Why are there still "tests" when the tests: 1) are known to be faulty,
> expensive; and 2) not nearly as effective as wiretaps at catching
> dopers even when the dopers are tested with "dope on board"?
>
> (A) This goes a lot deeper than "fairness in sport". (stated opinion)
Obviously drugs will not be driven out of sport.
Obviously the current strategy will neither `clean up
the sport', nor drive drugs out of sport. The
arguments against open doping are persuasive. I will
add another. We do not want to think about doping while
watching our sport. The old ways are the best ways. If
nobody dies, then nobody kicks up a fuss. I do not
follow FIFA, but the big money sports in the USA get it
right. No official doping announcements while testing
and appeals are underway, and no leaks. Then a quite
announcement that a named player has been suspended for
n games. First across the line is the winner. No
rewriting records. Track and field is where this
current bad idea got going.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2007 06:20:36
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
On May 11, 9:12 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
>
> Maybe little green men jumped out of a spaceship and their
> lethal bodily imminations ...
Are imminations things that will soon be expelled? I feel an eminent
immination is imminent. Must be the bran muffin.
R
|
| | |
Date: 15 May 2007 15:49:12
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
In article <1179148836.341690.266080@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >,
RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com > wrote:
> On May 11, 9:12 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe little green men jumped out of a spaceship and their
> > lethal bodily imminations ...
>
> Are imminations things that will soon be expelled? I feel an eminent
> immination is imminent. Must be the bran muffin.
But not a brain muffin.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | |
Date: 14 May 2007 09:33:30
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
On 14 May 2007 06:20:36 -0700, RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com >
wrote:
>Are imminations things that will soon be expelled? I feel an eminent
>immination is imminent. Must be the bran muffin.
Or the pictures of Basso's sister.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | |
Date: 14 May 2007 17:05:06
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
RicodJour wrote:
>>Are imminations things that will soon be expelled? I feel an eminent
>>immination is imminent. Must be the bran muffin.
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> Or the pictures of Basso's sister.
I trust that will get imminated from another orifice.
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 13:43:13
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
On May 11, 5:59 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Tell you what - let's test all NYSE brokers for drugs. Out of
> "competition". Recreational and otherwise. Cold remedies, too. Alcohol.
> Caffeine. Same for the military. Same for civil servants. Any time of
> day, day of week, season. For their entire working life. Suspension on
> suspicion. Two year bans for first offenses. Lifetime bans for repeaters.
dumbass,
this is the stupidest line of argument i've heard.
many professions have rules one agrees to abide by as part of the job,
this is not unique to the cycling profession.
brokers can be punished for breaking the rules (which would constitute
cheating at their job) even if they aren't charged with a crime.
military personnel can also be penalized for breaking rules that
aren't written into law.
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2007 22:57:10
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
Dans le message de
news:1178916193.888046.162100@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com,
amit.ghosh@gmail.com <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On May 11, 5:59 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>
>> Tell you what - let's test all NYSE brokers for drugs. Out of
>> "competition". Recreational and otherwise. Cold remedies, too.
>> Alcohol. Caffeine. Same for the military. Same for civil servants.
>> Any time of day, day of week, season. For their entire working
>> life. Suspension on suspicion. Two year bans for first offenses.
>> Lifetime bans for repeaters.
>
> dumbass,
>
> this is the stupidest line of argument i've heard.
>
> many professions have rules one agrees to abide by as part of the job,
> this is not unique to the cycling profession.
>
> brokers can be punished for breaking the rules (which would constitute
> cheating at their job) even if they aren't charged with a crime.
> military personnel can also be penalized for breaking rules that
> aren't written into law.
Really, really clever of you to pick out and treat the ironic part as if it
were crucial, yet fail completely to get the point. Take another stab at
it. You usually don't seem quite so dense. And the general rule is that NO
ONE is given the right to break the criminal law, be that a stockbroker, a
fireman, Daryll Strawberry or an idiot. And your lame idea that employment
law is fair and just when administered by the boss is as cute as any Grimm
fairy tale.
--
Sandy
--
Il n'est aucune sorte de sensation qui soit plus vive
que celle de la douleur ; ses impressions sont sûres,
elles ne trompent point comme celles du plaisir.
- de Sade.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 May 2007 08:49:47
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
On Fri, 11 May 2007 22:57:10 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:
>Daryll Strawberry or an idiot
Just a quibble here - it should read 'Darryl Strawberry/idiot' or
'Darryl Strawberry or another idiot'. The man couldn't get a clue on
the tenth go-around.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | |
Date: 12 May 2007 01:10:05
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote in message
news:4644d8a6$0$11158$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
>
> You usually don't seem quite so dense.
Let me commend you on your diplomacy. For my part I always see amit as
dense.
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 07:04:19
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
Sandy wrote:
>
> Tell you what - let's test all NYSE brokers for drugs. Out of
> "competition". Recreational and otherwise. Cold remedies, too. Alcohol.
> Caffeine. Same for the military. Same for civil servants. Any time of
> day, day of week, season. For their entire working life. Suspension on
> suspicion. Two year bans for first offenses. Lifetime bans for repeaters.
Are you out of your mind?! Test NYSE brokers? If that high-pressure,
fast-paced environment, with big money at stake and cut-throat
competitiors nipping at their heels doesn't _require_ boosting to stay
competitive, I don't know what does! It's not at all like
cycl.......errrr, nevermind.
Of course the brokers I know of that were heroin and ecstasy addicts
probably didn't have a Good Doctor to help them choose their drugs
wisely.
I find it curious that you would even attempt to hold brokers and the
military to such an unrealistic standard. No drugs, indeed! It's not
like those _jobs_ are of critical global importance - it's not bike
racing, Sandy! They probably don't even have their own newsgroups!
R
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 02:00:19
From: Burt
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
On May 10, 9:03 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On 10 May 2007 16:06:42 -0700, Burt <burt.hoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://doucheblogcycling.blogspot.com/2007/05/framed.html
>
> As conspiracy class theories go, it's as good as anyone else's got.
>
> I actually think it's a lot simpler than that, that no actual premeditation (or
> serious thought of any kind) is required. The lab fucked up a test, it happens.
> Someone leaked the result, it got announced. Everyone went into idiot defense
> mode and started saying really stupid stuff and stuck to it.
>
> Ron
I agree...my real opinion of what really happened is that the lab made
an error in a mass spec analysis that is difficult to run and
difficult to interpret (remember, the dates show that the mass spec
analysis was actually done before the T/E ratio screening) - It didn't
help that the lab analysts don't seem to be able to follow good
documentation practices or get sample numbers right. Once the 'A'
sample results were leaked by McQuaid, everyone involved HAD to see
the result be right, so everyone either went into "cover your ass
mode" and/or thought they could use Floyd to turn "state's evidence"
on the guy they could never get (LA).
The think that I find upsetting about the whole process is the blatent
double standard that exists. Sally Jenkins correctly pointed out that
if you're an athlete, you're supposed to adhere to a standard of
strict liability by which anytime you have a test show up positive for
any reason you get fried. If you work at the LNDD, UCI, WADA, USADA,
or are a member of the Arbitration Panel, you can fuck up, not follow
the rules, leak information to the press, etc., etc., and its all
okay, so long as you're working toward the "greater good" of trying to
catch drug cheats...the fact that those "cheats" may actually be
innocent never seems to cross their mind.
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2007 11:59:30
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
Dans le message de
news:1178874019.781445.113710@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
Burt <burt.hoovis@gmail.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On May 10, 9:03 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On 10 May 2007 16:06:42 -0700, Burt <burt.hoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://doucheblogcycling.blogspot.com/2007/05/framed.html
>>
>> As conspiracy class theories go, it's as good as anyone else's got.
>>
>> I actually think it's a lot simpler than that, that no actual
>> premeditation (or serious thought of any kind) is required. The lab
>> fucked up a test, it happens. Someone leaked the result, it got
>> announced. Everyone went into idiot defense mode and started saying
>> really stupid stuff and stuck to it.
>>
>> Ron
>
>
> I agree...my real opinion of what really happened is that the lab made
> an error in a mass spec analysis that is difficult to run and
> difficult to interpret (remember, the dates show that the mass spec
> analysis was actually done before the T/E ratio screening) - It didn't
> help that the lab analysts don't seem to be able to follow good
> documentation practices or get sample numbers right. Once the 'A'
> sample results were leaked by McQuaid, everyone involved HAD to see
> the result be right, so everyone either went into "cover your ass
> mode" and/or thought they could use Floyd to turn "state's evidence"
> on the guy they could never get (LA).
>
> The think that I find upsetting about the whole process is the blatent
> double standard that exists. Sally Jenkins correctly pointed out that
> if you're an athlete, you're supposed to adhere to a standard of
> strict liability by which anytime you have a test show up positive for
> any reason you get fried. If you work at the LNDD, UCI, WADA, USADA,
> or are a member of the Arbitration Panel, you can fuck up, not follow
> the rules, leak information to the press, etc., etc., and its all
> okay, so long as you're working toward the "greater good" of trying to
> catch drug cheats...the fact that those "cheats" may actually be
> innocent never seems to cross their mind.
To follow a slightly different course, presuming innocence (what a laugh
!) -
-Let's leave the nationality of the lab out of this, and even not discuss
its competence.
-Let's leave personalities out of it for just a moment ; if you don't like
someone, you can always find a way to interpret results against them ; the
contrapositive holds true also.
So, we know that only ONCE in seven tests did Landis test positive on a Test
A.
We know that Test B shows that 6/7 times he tests positive on the same
samples.
Ergo (pardon my "French"), Test A is useless as an indicator of culpability.
It should be abandoned.
One Test B fails to show exogenous testosterone, when it had to be there.
Ergo, Test B is similarly unreliable.
If Test A is bad, just shown, then there should be no testing using Test B,
since inadequate proof of a violation CAN NOT lead to Test B.
If Test B is also faulty, then neither the first Test B, nor the subsequent
6, should be bases for belief of a violation.
The principle of disqualifying cheaters is a good one. Nonetheless, when
you have a protocol which encourages finding violations, you have an
environment which mandates finding them. When the premise is that innocence
is presumed (which is not the case under the UCI Pro Tour Code of Ethics),
and the proof is deemed inadequate, then the case goes to a quiet death. In
short, when neither conduct nor contents are susceptible of overwhelming
proof, then you let the guy race.
Operation Puerto is different. There has been evidence of _conduct_, and
that is clearly punishable under most legal theories. There are legions of
prisoners who were convicted of "attempting" to commit a crime, or
"conspiring" to commit a crime. Basic legal theory does not demand that one
allow bad conduct to culminate in a violation before you are allowed to take
action or to convict.
The basic problem faced, is that the desire to root out sophisticaed cheats
has brought about reliance on scientific testing, which is biased in favor
of finding fault, not on finding out reality. And it is all a question of
money. More funding for WADA ; more frequent and more costly lab activity ;
more control over who decides which racers race ; more bickering over who
gets how much of an increasingly rich pot of gold.
I'm not being naïve about cheating, but I am not overwhelmed by it. I am
overwhelmed by the holier-than-thou practices and statements of the parties
who benefit most from the practices : the organizers, the federations, the
UCI, the enforcers, and the losers. The latter being all the ones who just
can't win any race at all, blaming everything on the misconduct of winners.
Tell you what - let's test all NYSE brokers for drugs. Out of
"competition". Recreational and otherwise. Cold remedies, too. Alcohol.
Caffeine. Same for the military. Same for civil servants. Any time of
day, day of week, season. For their entire working life. Suspension on
suspicion. Two year bans for first offenses. Lifetime bans for repeaters.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
|
| | | |
Date: 12 May 2007 00:27:16
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
Sandy wrote:
>
> So, we know that only ONCE in seven tests did Landis test positive on a Test
> A.
> We know that Test B shows that 6/7 times he tests positive on the same
> samples.
> Ergo (pardon my "French"), Test A is useless as an indicator of culpability.
> It should be abandoned.
> One Test B fails to show exogenous testosterone, when it had to be there.
> Ergo, Test B is similarly unreliable.
>
Your argument hinges on knowing which of those seven tests was the one
that tested negative. If it was the first one, it is possible that he
didn't start topping up until between the first and second test dates. I
don't think this piece of information (which test date was not positive)
was made public.
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 May 2007 08:22:56
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
Dans le message de news:5ak8u4F2ovacuU1@mid.individual.net,
Kyle Legate <legatek@hotmail.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Sandy wrote:
>>
>> So, we know that only ONCE in seven tests did Landis test positive
>> on a Test A.
>> We know that Test B shows that 6/7 times he tests positive on the
>> same samples.
>> Ergo (pardon my "French"), Test A is useless as an indicator of
>> culpability. It should be abandoned.
>> One Test B fails to show exogenous testosterone, when it had to be
>> there. Ergo, Test B is similarly unreliable.
>>
> Your argument hinges on knowing which of those seven tests was the one
> that tested negative. If it was the first one, it is possible that he
> didn't start topping up until between the first and second test
> dates. I don't think this piece of information (which test date was
> not positive) was made public.
Less than half-right, if that much.
From Cycling News :
"Pierre Bordry, President of the Châtenay-Malabry anti-doping laboratory
(LNDD), claimed that athletes are able to slip past testing because labs are
not looking for synthetic substances when their test results fall under
accepted limits."
Confirmation that Test A is faulty.
If Test A is faulty, then it is of no use, and no Test B was warranted.
Scratch the indicator of cheating in the original instance, and scratch the
uncalled-for first Test B. Scratch the entire procedure.
As to which Test B (of the supplementary tests) was negative, my memory
tells me it was in the middle, and I will try to research my source.
Nonetheless, if the original Test A was invalid, there was neither the need
for the first Test B, and certainly not the additional Tests B, so with an
eye to procedure, the supplementary tests could have been done on ANY rider
for any stage. That is also not the case. One could suggest, in parallel,
that ALL the samples from ALL the riders should have been analyzed by Test
B, and this also was not done. To isolate Landis, having no reason to rely
on Test A, amounts to arguing that all other Tests A were reliable, and we
now know that is not true.
Again, should I be fully awake this weekend, I will make some effort to
confirm that the negative Test B was in the middle. Regardless, the premise
that a Test B was indicated for him and him alone, and that the indicator is
reliable, is baseless.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 May 2007 01:12:23
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
"Kyle Legate" <legatek@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:5ak8u4F2ovacuU1@mid.individual.net...
> Sandy wrote:
>>
>> So, we know that only ONCE in seven tests did Landis test positive on a
>> Test A.
>> We know that Test B shows that 6/7 times he tests positive on the same
>> samples.
>> Ergo (pardon my "French"), Test A is useless as an indicator of
>> culpability. It should be abandoned.
>> One Test B fails to show exogenous testosterone, when it had to be there.
>> Ergo, Test B is similarly unreliable.
>>
> Your argument hinges on knowing which of those seven tests was the one
> that tested negative. If it was the first one, it is possible that he
> didn't start topping up until between the first and second test dates. I
> don't think this piece of information (which test date was not positive)
> was made public.
And what if it was the first one? Maybe it was really positive but the lab
made a mistake. Maybe little green men jumped out of a spaceship and their
lethal bodily imminations screwed up the chemical reactions in that oh so
reliable lab where people couldn't even mark the sample numbers correctly
and somehow didn't think it adviseable for the rider to have someone observe
their processes in action.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 May 2007 19:32:39
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote in message
news:46443e82$0$27172$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
>
> To follow a slightly different course, presuming innocence (what a laugh
> !) -
>
> -Let's leave the nationality of the lab out of this, and even not discuss
> its competence.
> -Let's leave personalities out of it for just a moment ; if you don't like
> someone, you can always find a way to interpret results against them ; the
> contrapositive holds true also.
>
> So, we know that only ONCE in seven tests did Landis test positive on a
> Test A.
> We know that Test B shows that 6/7 times he tests positive on the same
> samples.
> Ergo (pardon my "French"), Test A is useless as an indicator of
> culpability. It should be abandoned.
> One Test B fails to show exogenous testosterone, when it had to be there.
> Ergo, Test B is similarly unreliable.
>
> If Test A is bad, just shown, then there should be no testing using Test
> B, since inadequate proof of a violation CAN NOT lead to Test B.
> If Test B is also faulty, then neither the first Test B, nor the
> subsequent 6, should be bases for belief of a violation.
>
> The principle of disqualifying cheaters is a good one. Nonetheless, when
> you have a protocol which encourages finding violations, you have an
> environment which mandates finding them. When the premise is that
> innocence is presumed (which is not the case under the UCI Pro Tour Code
> of Ethics), and the proof is deemed inadequate, then the case goes to a
> quiet death. In short, when neither conduct nor contents are susceptible
> of overwhelming proof, then you let the guy race.
>
> Operation Puerto is different. There has been evidence of _conduct_, and
> that is clearly punishable under most legal theories. There are legions
> of prisoners who were convicted of "attempting" to commit a crime, or
> "conspiring" to commit a crime. Basic legal theory does not demand that
> one allow bad conduct to culminate in a violation before you are allowed
> to take action or to convict.
>
> The basic problem faced, is that the desire to root out sophisticaed
> cheats has brought about reliance on scientific testing, which is biased
> in favor of finding fault, not on finding out reality. And it is all a
> question of money. More funding for WADA ; more frequent and more costly
> lab activity ; more control over who decides which racers race ; more
> bickering over who gets how much of an increasingly rich pot of gold.
>
> I'm not being naïve about cheating, but I am not overwhelmed by it. I am
> overwhelmed by the holier-than-thou practices and statements of the
> parties who benefit most from the practices : the organizers, the
> federations, the UCI, the enforcers, and the losers. The latter being all
> the ones who just can't win any race at all, blaming everything on the
> misconduct of winners.
>
> Tell you what - let's test all NYSE brokers for drugs. Out of
> "competition". Recreational and otherwise. Cold remedies, too. Alcohol.
> Caffeine. Same for the military. Same for civil servants. Any time of
> day, day of week, season. For their entire working life. Suspension on
> suspicion. Two year bans for first offenses. Lifetime bans for
> repeaters.
Very well stated Sandy.
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2007 21:03:49
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
On 10 May 2007 16:06:42 -0700, Burt <burt.hoovis@gmail.com > wrote:
>http://doucheblogcycling.blogspot.com/2007/05/framed.html
As conspiracy class theories go, it's as good as anyone else's got.
I actually think it's a lot simpler than that, that no actual premeditation (or
serious thought of any kind) is required. The lab fucked up a test, it happens.
Someone leaked the result, it got announced. Everyone went into idiot defense
mode and started saying really stupid stuff and stuck to it.
Ron
|
| | |
Date: 10 May 2007 21:16:26
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Landis - its all making sense now
|
On Thu, 10 May 2007 21:03:49 -0400, RonSonic
<ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
>On 10 May 2007 16:06:42 -0700, Burt <burt.hoovis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>http://doucheblogcycling.blogspot.com/2007/05/framed.html
>
>As conspiracy class theories go, it's as good as anyone else's got.
>
>I actually think it's a lot simpler than that, that no actual premeditation (or
>serious thought of any kind) is required. The lab fucked up a test, it happens.
>Someone leaked the result, it got announced. Everyone went into idiot defense
>mode and started saying really stupid stuff and stuck to it.
Occam's razor fits.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
|
