| |
Main
Date: 16 May 2007 13:49:02
From: Sandy
Subject: Landis, continued
|
They can't get a capable translator !
In all of California, no one can do this ?
Really not too difficult as testimony.
I am amazed they can concentrate, but after all, it's the submissions that
will support a decision by the panel.
So long as USADA attorneys make this a lab course, and so long as Landis'
attorneys keep focused on legal and procedural issues, it is reasonably
possible for there to be no finding of a violation.
But............
Long road ahead.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
|
|
| |
Date: 17 May 2007 15:46:58
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
On May 17, 8:52 am, "Tom Grosman" <gros...@aonix.fr > wrote:
> "Bob Schwartz" <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> a =E9crit dans le messa=
ge denews:
>
>
|
| |
Date: 16 May 2007 16:00:57
From: Andre
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
On May 16, 1:48 pm, Victor Kan <victor....@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 16, 1:17 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
>
> > On 16 May 2007 08:54:46 -0700, Marty <m_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >LeMond will testify that he is the only American to win the TdF
> > >clean. So, he's better than Lance or Flandis.
>
> > >Not sure what Eddy will say.
>
> > Anything he wants to - even atheists believe in Eddy Merckx. Its not
> > an issue of whether they believe him; its whether he believes them...
>
> Eddy is there to say that on Stage 17, Floyd didn't put in a super-
> human performance possible only through the use of performance
> enhancing drugs, but that Perreiro, Kloden, Sastre and their
> respective DS's were morons.
Are Zoetemelk and Van Impe, and Jan Janssens....or Guimard and
Thevenet coming too?
Andre
|
| | |
Date: 17 May 2007 09:18:54
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
Andre wrote:
> Are Zoetemelk and Van Impe, and Jan Janssens....or Guimard and
> Thevenet coming too?
A free holiday in California. Perhaps they'll invite all of rbr to come
and testify as expert witnesses.
|
| |
Date: 16 May 2007 15:46:53
From:
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
On May 16, 1:49 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> They can't get a capable translator !
> In all of California, no one can do this ?
Hey, it's in Malibu, so they could have asked bilinguial Alerte A
Malibu (AKA Baywatch)
star David Charvet.
-ilan
|
| |
Date: 16 May 2007 21:15:07
From:
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > a écrit dans le message de news:
464aefae$0$25801$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
> They can't get a capable translator !
> In all of California, no one can do this ?
> Really not too difficult as testimony.
>
In short no one expected the french lab employers to be "French speaking".
;)
This French are so strange that they call "cheval" what we all know to be a
"horse"...
> I am amazed they can concentrate, but after all, it's the submissions that
> will support a decision by the panel.
>
> So long as USADA attorneys make this a lab course, and so long as Landis'
> attorneys keep focused on legal and procedural issues, it is reasonably
> possible for there to be no finding of a violation.
>
> But............
> Long road ahead.
> --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>
|
| | |
Date: 16 May 2007 15:07:07
From: WeaselPoopPower
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
Montesquiou wrote:
> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> a =E9crit dans le message de news:=20
> 464aefae$0$25801$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
>> They can't get a capable translator !
>> In all of California, no one can do this ?
>> Really not too difficult as testimony.
>>
>=20
> In short no one expected the french lab employers to be "French speakin=
g".=20
> ;)
>=20
Picture a scenario in which almost every single aspect is French. After =
almost a full year of preparation call a two week court case to discuss. =
Upon the first syllable dropped in French stop the entire process for 2=20
hours in an effort to handle this incredible unexpected development.=20
Throw in the balance of a professional career and possible health of an=20
entire sport as the outcome. Yow.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 May 2007 16:06:26
From: xzzy
Subject: Re: Landis, continued, oh Canada!
|
What is 'beyond words' to be able to describe the mess with the translator.
- French is the official language of France, one would expect people
from France to be speaking French
- French is the official language of the UCI, and while the USADA is not
the UCI, the 2 do know each other very well.
- French is one of the official languages of Canada
- why Canada this important in all of this?
- Dick Pound is Canadian and he is on record as saying that he
does not care if innocent people are wrongly convicted
- 2 of the 3 judges in Landis's trial are Canadian
Canadian: Dick Pound
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61120-2004Aug12.html
Canadian: Judges
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/columns/story?id=2865881
I would say this means the people in charge of the trial could have properly
handled language translation issues in advance, but instead they chose to
screw up.
"WeaselPoopPower" <weasel@poop.ca > wrote in message
news:4f-dnV1-xqkz-NbbnZ2dnUVZ_segnZ2d@comcast.com...
Montesquiou wrote:
> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 464aefae$0$25801$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
>> They can't get a capable translator !
>> In all of California, no one can do this ?
>> Really not too difficult as testimony.
>>
>
> In short no one expected the french lab employers to be "French speaking".
> ;)
>
Picture a scenario in which almost every single aspect is French. After
almost a full year of preparation call a two week court case to discuss.
Upon the first syllable dropped in French stop the entire process for 2
hours in an effort to handle this incredible unexpected development.
Throw in the balance of a professional career and possible health of an
entire sport as the outcome. Yow.
|
| |
Date: 16 May 2007 10:48:28
From: Victor Kan
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
On May 16, 1:17 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On 16 May 2007 08:54:46 -0700, Marty <m_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >LeMond will testify that he is the only American to win the TdF
> >clean. So, he's better than Lance or Flandis.
>
> >Not sure what Eddy will say.
>
> Anything he wants to - even atheists believe in Eddy Merckx. Its not
> an issue of whether they believe him; its whether he believes them...
Eddy is there to say that on Stage 17, Floyd didn't put in a super-
human performance possible only through the use of performance
enhancing drugs, but that Perreiro, Kloden, Sastre and their
respective DS's were morons.
|
| |
Date: 16 May 2007 09:11:24
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
Marty wrote:
>
> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=reu-landisdc&prov=reuters&type=lgns
>
> "Former Tour de France champions Greg LeMond and Eddy Merckx are
> expected to be called as witnesses later during the hearing being held
> at Pepperdine University.
>
> Three-times winner LeMond is scheduled to testify against fellow
> American Landis while Belgian Merckx, who won the Tour five times
> between 1969 and 1974, is set to testify in Landis's favor."
>
> LeMond will testify that he is the only American to win the TdF
> clean. So, he's better than Lance or Flandis.
>
> Not sure what Eddy will say.
Something along the lines of, "You silly, pig-dog, I fart in your
general direction." Then he'll challenge Lemond to an impromptu race
on the bikes they both just happened to bring along to prove who is
the Cannibal and who is the Oscar Meyer lunchmeat. The newly trim
Merckx will then kick the crap out of LeBlob and prove
conclusively...well, I'm not sure what it will prove, but it'll be fun
to watch Greg get all teary-eyed and defensive before getting his ass
beat. I'd guess he might opt for the I'm-riding-with-diarrhea
defense.
I don't understand why they're bringing in people without _specific_
knowledge of whether he doped or not during the stage in question.
Everything else is window dressing.
R
|
| | |
Date: 16 May 2007 22:13:47
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
In article
<1179331883.801928.45040@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com > wrote:
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=reu-landisdc&prov=reuters&type=lgns
> >
> > "Former Tour de France champions Greg LeMond and Eddy Merckx are
> > expected to be called as witnesses later during the hearing being held
> > at Pepperdine University.
> >
> > Three-times winner LeMond is scheduled to testify against fellow
> > American Landis while Belgian Merckx, who won the Tour five times
> > between 1969 and 1974, is set to testify in Landis's favor."
> >
> > LeMond will testify that he is the only American to win the TdF
> > clean. So, he's better than Lance or Flandis.
> >
> > Not sure what Eddy will say.
>
> Something along the lines of, "You silly, pig-dog, I fart in your
> general direction." Then he'll challenge Lemond to an impromptu race
> on the bikes they both just happened to bring along to prove who is
> the Cannibal and who is the Oscar Meyer lunchmeat. The newly trim
> Merckx will then kick the crap out of LeBlob and prove
> conclusively...well, I'm not sure what it will prove, but it'll be fun
> to watch Greg get all teary-eyed and defensive before getting his ass
> beat. I'd guess he might opt for the I'm-riding-with-diarrhea
> defense.
>
> I don't understand why they're bringing in people without _specific_
> knowledge of whether he doped or not during the stage in question.
> Everything else is window dressing.
Reminds me of when they brought in Miss America
to testify against Fielding Mellish.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 13:17:02
From: Tom Grosman
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > a écrit dans le message de news:
rubrum-33643E.15134816052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
|
| | |
Date: 16 May 2007 18:08:00
From: steve
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
On 16-May-2007, smacked up and reeling, RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com >
blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> Something along the lines of, "You silly, pig-dog, I fart in your
> general direction." Then he'll challenge Lemond to an impromptu race
> on the bikes they both just happened to bring along to prove who is
> the Cannibal and who is the Oscar Meyer lunchmeat. The newly trim
> Merckx will then kick the crap out of LeBlob and prove
> conclusively...well, I'm not sure what it will prove, but it'll be fun
> to watch Greg get all teary-eyed and defensive before getting his ass
> beat. I'd guess he might opt for the I'm-riding-with-diarrhea
> defense.
No, no. He'll accuse Eddy of doping.
From the sidelines this hearing sure is good theater. And it's only just
started (unless it was over first..lets hope not).
I cant imagine why WADA and USADA think it would be better for cycling to
railroad Landis. Isnt the best result if he is found not to be a doper?
And while we're at it, the whole testing protocol needs a fixup. I suggest
two A and two B samples (independent numbering systems) A/B pairs sent to
two different labs. Only if both labs agree on A by clear and objective
standards (and they wont know they agree until the guy with all the numbers
and names says so) will they then call A positive. Then the B samples will
be tested at both labs ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHERS randomly selected, so no
lab will know which samples represent the positive A. Agreement required
again.
Of course, that assumes the tests work to begin with. But it would end
conspiracy charges, anyway...and cost about twice as much. Still cheaper
than long court battles and reams of disillusioned fans.
steve
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce
|
| | | |
Date: 16 May 2007 22:15:15
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
In article <hJGdnY7p0Pfg1dbbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@rcn.net >,
"steve" <steve@steve.com > wrote:
> On 16-May-2007, smacked up and reeling, RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com>
> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
> > Something along the lines of, "You silly, pig-dog, I fart in your
> > general direction." Then he'll challenge Lemond to an impromptu race
> > on the bikes they both just happened to bring along to prove who is
> > the Cannibal and who is the Oscar Meyer lunchmeat. The newly trim
> > Merckx will then kick the crap out of LeBlob and prove
> > conclusively...well, I'm not sure what it will prove, but it'll be fun
> > to watch Greg get all teary-eyed and defensive before getting his ass
> > beat. I'd guess he might opt for the I'm-riding-with-diarrhea
> > defense.
>
> No, no. He'll accuse Eddy of doping.
>
> From the sidelines this hearing sure is good theater. And it's only just
> started (unless it was over first..lets hope not).
>
> I cant imagine why WADA and USADA think it would be better for cycling to
> railroad Landis. Isnt the best result if he is found not to be a doper?
>
> And while we're at it, the whole testing protocol needs a fixup. I suggest
> two A and two B samples (independent numbering systems) A/B pairs sent to
> two different labs. Only if both labs agree on A by clear and objective
> standards (and they wont know they agree until the guy with all the numbers
> and names says so) will they then call A positive. Then the B samples will
> be tested at both labs ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHERS randomly selected, so no
> lab will know which samples represent the positive A. Agreement required
> again.
>
> Of course, that assumes the tests work to begin with. But it would end
> conspiracy charges, anyway...and cost about twice as much. Still cheaper
> than long court battles and reams of disillusioned fans.
How are you going to end conspiracy charges, Pollyanna?
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 15:16:50
From: steve
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
On 16-May-2007, smacked up and reeling, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net >
blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> How are you going to end conspiracy charges, Pollyanna?
End them? Not a chance. My approach would make them less likely and less
credible.
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 19:45:49
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
In article <Z5GdnWvHuuBC7NHbnZ2dnUVZ_q2pnZ2d@rcn.net >,
a confused and tragic shell of his former self,
slurring his words unintelligibly,
"steve" <steve@steve.com > essayed
an ill-advised and woeful riposte:
> On 16-May-2007, smacked up and reeling, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>
> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
> > How are you going to end conspiracy charges, Pollyanna?
>
> End them? Not a chance. My approach would make them less likely and less
> credible.
These are your words.
In article <hJGdnY7p0Pfg1dbbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@rcn.net >,
"steve" <steve@steve.com > wrote:
> Of course, that assumes the tests work to begin with. But it would end
> conspiracy charges, anyway...and cost about twice as much. Still cheaper
> than long court battles and reams of disillusioned fans.
>
> steve
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 19:58:52
From: steve
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
On 17-May-2007, smacked up and reeling, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net >
blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> > > How are you going to end conspiracy charges, Pollyanna?
> >
> > End them? Not a chance. My approach would make them less likely and
> > less
> > credible.
>
> These are your words.
>
> In article <hJGdnY7p0Pfg1dbbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@rcn.net>,
> "steve" <steve@steve.com> wrote:
> > Of course, that assumes the tests work to begin with. But it would end
> > conspiracy charges, anyway...and cost about twice as much. Still
> > cheaper
> > than long court battles and reams of disillusioned fans.
OK, my foot was in it and I stand (on that foot) corrected.
Of course I meant it would end the conspiracy charges from reasonable
people. Crazies will charge anything anytime, and they will always be
around.
I think that clears it all up.
steve
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 00:00:46
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
In article <wZidnYT9pLVnLtHbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@rcn.net >,
"steve" <steve@steve.com > wrote:
> On 17-May-2007, smacked up and reeling, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>
> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
> > > > How are you going to end conspiracy charges, Pollyanna?
> > >
> > > End them? Not a chance. My approach would make them less likely and
> > > less
> > > credible.
> >
> > These are your words.
> >
> > In article <hJGdnY7p0Pfg1dbbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@rcn.net>,
> > "steve" <steve@steve.com> wrote:
> > > Of course, that assumes the tests work to begin with. But it would end
> > > conspiracy charges, anyway...and cost about twice as much. Still
> > > cheaper
> > > than long court battles and reams of disillusioned fans.
>
> OK, my foot was in it and I stand (on that foot) corrected.
>
> Of course I meant it would end the conspiracy charges from reasonable
> people. Crazies will charge anything anytime, and they will always be
> around.
>
> I think that clears it all up.
Not so fast, Chuckles; if you are going to include
scurrilous attribution lines, include them all.
Furthermore, you munged the quote levels. I will not
clean up after you, as I am not domestic help.
In article
<rubrum-9BB74F.12454917052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com >,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article <Z5GdnWvHuuBC7NHbnZ2dnUVZ_q2pnZ2d@rcn.net>,
> a confused and tragic shell of his former self,
> slurring his words unintelligibly,
> "steve" <steve@steve.com> essayed
> an ill-advised and woeful riposte:
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 00:16:04
From: steve
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
On 17-May-2007, smacked up and reeling, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net >
blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> > Of course I meant it would end the conspiracy charges from reasonable
> > people. Crazies will charge anything anytime, and they will always be
> > around.
> >
> > I think that clears it all up.
>
> Not so fast, Chuckles; if you are going to include
> scurrilous attribution lines, include them all.
> Furthermore, you munged the quote levels. I will not
> clean up after you, as I am not domestic help.
Sorry. I thought I was among civilized men. My mistake.
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 05:34:05
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
In article <QqCdnVj9b77fbdHbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@rcn.net >,
"steve" <steve@steve.com > wrote:
> On 17-May-2007, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>
> > > Of course I meant it would end the conspiracy charges from reasonable
> > > people. Crazies will charge anything anytime, and they will always be
> > > around.
> > >
> > > I think that clears it all up.
> >
> > Not so fast, Chuckles; if you are going to include
> > scurrilous attribution lines, include them all.
> > Furthermore, you munged the quote levels. I will not
> > clean up after you, as I am not domestic help.
>
> Sorry. I thought I was among civilized men. My mistake.
There you go thinking again, Sparky.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 19:04:03
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
Dans le message de news:Z5GdnWvHuuBC7NHbnZ2dnUVZ_q2pnZ2d@rcn.net,
steve <steve@steve.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On 16-May-2007, smacked up and reeling, Michael Press
> <rubrum@pacbell.net> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
>> How are you going to end conspiracy charges, Pollyanna?
>
> End them? Not a chance. My approach would make them less likely and
> less credible.
To help you understand, a "conspiracy" need not be allowed to culminate in a
bad act.
Did you get that?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 18:54:25
From: steve
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
On 17-May-2007, smacked up and reeling, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > blindly
formulated
the following incoherence:
> >> How are you going to end conspiracy charges, Pollyanna?
> >
> > End them? Not a chance. My approach would make them less likely and
> > less credible.
>
> To help you understand, a "conspiracy" need not be allowed to culminate in
> a
> bad act.
> Did you get that?
No, I dont. Not in this context, anyway. Sure a conspiracy can fail or
might never culminate in an act. Fine. So?
I really dont have a clue what you're getting at.
If the protocol is less prone to manipulation, fewer people will believe
that positive results (and there will, no doubt, be fewer positive results)
are the result of manipulation. So fewer people will charge conspiracy.
The protocol will be more credible.
The science, however, is another issue.
steve
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 02:10:18
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
"steve" <steve@steve.com > wrote in message
news:V4qdnTLsN7BDOdHbnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@rcn.net...
> On 17-May-2007, smacked up and reeling, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> blindly
> formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
>> >> How are you going to end conspiracy charges, Pollyanna?
>> >
>> > End them? Not a chance. My approach would make them less likely and
>> > less credible.
>>
>> To help you understand, a "conspiracy" need not be allowed to culminate
>> in
>> a
>> bad act.
>> Did you get that?
>
> No, I dont. Not in this context, anyway. Sure a conspiracy can fail or
> might never culminate in an act. Fine. So?
>
> I really dont have a clue what you're getting at.
>
> If the protocol is less prone to manipulation, fewer people will believe
> that positive results (and there will, no doubt, be fewer positive
> results)
> are the result of manipulation. So fewer people will charge conspiracy.
> The protocol will be more credible.
>
> The science, however, is another issue.
Is it just me or are you two guys talking about different things? If I
understand it correctly Sandy is saying that conspiracy to dope is the same
as doping whereas you're talking about the testing process being open to
charges of conspiracy.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 13:16:40
From: steve
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
On 17-May-2007, smacked up and reeling, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com >
blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> > The science, however, is another issue.
>
> Is it just me or are you two guys talking about different things? If I
> understand it correctly Sandy is saying that conspiracy to dope is the
> same
> as doping whereas you're talking about the testing process being open to
> charges of conspiracy.
That might explain things.
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce
|
| | | |
Date: 16 May 2007 20:39:13
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
Dans le message de news:hJGdnY7p0Pfg1dbbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@rcn.net,
steve <steve@steve.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On 16-May-2007, smacked up and reeling, RicodJour
> <ricodjour@worldemail.com> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
>> Something along the lines of, "You silly, pig-dog, I fart in your
>> general direction." Then he'll challenge Lemond to an impromptu race
>> on the bikes they both just happened to bring along to prove who is
>> the Cannibal and who is the Oscar Meyer lunchmeat. The newly trim
>> Merckx will then kick the crap out of LeBlob and prove
>> conclusively...well, I'm not sure what it will prove, but it'll be
>> fun to watch Greg get all teary-eyed and defensive before getting
>> his ass beat. I'd guess he might opt for the
>> I'm-riding-with-diarrhea defense.
>
> No, no. He'll accuse Eddy of doping.
>
> From the sidelines this hearing sure is good theater. And it's only
> just started (unless it was over first..lets hope not).
>
> I cant imagine why WADA and USADA think it would be better for
> cycling to railroad Landis. Isnt the best result if he is found not
> to be a doper?
>
> And while we're at it, the whole testing protocol needs a fixup. I
> suggest two A and two B samples (independent numbering systems) A/B
> pairs sent to two different labs. Only if both labs agree on A by
> clear and objective standards (and they wont know they agree until
> the guy with all the numbers and names says so) will they then call A
> positive. Then the B samples will be tested at both labs ALONG WITH
> SEVERAL OTHERS randomly selected, so no lab will know which samples
> represent the positive A. Agreement required again.
>
> Of course, that assumes the tests work to begin with. But it would
> end conspiracy charges, anyway...and cost about twice as much. Still
> cheaper than long court battles and reams of disillusioned fans.
>
> steve
Another puritan who believes lab work is more reliable than observed
conduct.
Remember when the IRMS was supposed to be the perfect analytic tool ? Gone.
Remember earlier how the urine screening was going to eliminate dopers ?
Finis.
Remember .....
No, you don't remember, and you also don't have any knowledge of what will
replace IRMS, nor why it is also an inadequate scientific tool.
Cheating, in this case, presumably using a prohibited substance in order to
gain some advantage, however small, is what is designed to be punished. You
want to condemn a body and its contents. You forgot to include the also
possible result that the entire series of scientific evaluations in play in
the Landis matter could ALL point to consumption of illegal stuff. What
then ? Revise your silly lab scenario ? Your only doubts in this arise
because you don't like the possibility of that being the reality.
If you stopped for a moment to examine the entire matter, you would find
lots of gaps in all of the criteria for calling someone a cheat. I somehow
doubt that you have been watching all the sessions. And I sincerely doubt
that you have the capacity to evaluate the presentations and come to a
decision not conforming to your presumptions.
What needs change is the entire system of accusation and proof. No one
needs cheaters in cycling, but this is NOT what is happening in California
these days. What is happening is the application of insane rules by
megalomaniacs with limited scope of review, designed to inflict punishment
on anyone.
Doping. What a laugh - banal. It's worth a fine in some states ; tolerated
without comment in many communities ; fully legal in others ; compulsory in
some. When the kilograms (tons, rather) of illegal street drugs are no
longer available (if that is what society wants), then it may be time to
look at sports doping closer. Seems no one really cared if Landis drank his
way through the evening, but everyone has a rock-solid position on his
doping, as if it were a bad thing to do. What about the champagne drunk on
the last stage's parade ? That's a violation. Those are the rules. Silly,
ain't it ?
--
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: 17 May 2007 15:15:39
From: steve
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
On 16-May-2007, smacked up and reeling, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > blindly
formulated
the following incoherence:
> Another puritan who believes lab work is more reliable than observed
> conduct.
> Remember when the IRMS was supposed to be the perfect analytic tool ?
> Gone.
> Remember earlier how the urine screening was going to eliminate dopers ?
> Finis.
> Remember .....
> No, you don't remember, and you also don't have any knowledge of what will
>
> replace IRMS, nor why it is also an inadequate scientific tool.
Im proposing a process that greatly reduces the opportunity for
manipulation. My approach would require the number/name holder to
communicate with TWO labs if a rigged result was desired. Communication
between labs would be useless because the two wouldnt use the same numbers
and could not determine which samples to manipulate. The B test would also
be blind, not only to the ID of the rider in question, but as to which
sample corresponds to the original positive. That would be an improvement
over the current protocol, dont you agree?
> You forgot to include the also
> possible result that the entire series of scientific evaluations in play
> in
> the Landis matter could ALL point to consumption of illegal stuff. What
> then ? Revise your silly lab scenario ? Your only doubts in this arise
> because you don't like the possibility of that being the reality.
Uh...what? I dont follow you.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the test itself is valid, if Landis
was guilty, under my testing scenario there should be two positives at the
different labs that both map back to Landis. Following that, two B samples
would be tested in the blind fashion I advocate, and, if positive, would
again map back to Landis.
What's silly about that?
> If you stopped for a moment to examine the entire matter, you would find
> lots of gaps in all of the criteria for calling someone a cheat.
Of course. I cant address the science, but I can suggest a protocol that
reduces the likelihood of manipulation.
> What needs change is the entire system of accusation and proof. No one
> needs cheaters in cycling, but this is NOT what is happening in California
>
> these days. What is happening is the application of insane rules by
> megalomaniacs with limited scope of review, designed to inflict punishment
>
> on anyone.
We agree, I think...but you're position isnt clear to me.
steve
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 19:02:42
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
Dans le message de news:ReqdnckfPe8E7NHbnZ2dnUVZ_sSmnZ2d@rcn.net,
steve <steve@steve.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On 16-May-2007, smacked up and reeling, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr>
> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
>> Another puritan who believes lab work is more reliable than observed
>> conduct.
>> Remember when the IRMS was supposed to be the perfect analytic tool ?
>> Gone.
>> Remember earlier how the urine screening was going to eliminate
>> dopers ? Finis.
>> Remember .....
>> No, you don't remember, and you also don't have any knowledge of
>> what will
>>
>> replace IRMS, nor why it is also an inadequate scientific tool.
>
> Im proposing a process
> That would be an improvement over the current
> protocol, dont you agree?
>
No - but if you want to convict and imprison molecules, and not examine
whether someone actually cheated, go ahead.
> Assuming for the sake of argument that the test itself is valid
They aren't, so I will not assume.
> What's silly about that?
I guess naïvté is different from silly.
>
> We agree, I think...but you're position isnt clear to me.
>
> steve
No, steve, we don't agree in the least.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 18:58:31
From: steve
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
On 17-May-2007, smacked up and reeling, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > blindly
formulated
the following incoherence:
> > That would be an improvement over the current
> > protocol, dont you agree?
> >
> No - but if you want to convict and imprison molecules, and not examine
> whether someone actually cheated, go ahead.
Convict molecules?
Are you suggesting that there are not (or never will be?) scientific tests
that can inform us about a riders drug use? Impossible?
> > Assuming for the sake of argument that the test itself is valid
>
> They aren't, so I will not assume.
Ah, so you are opposed to rational discussion. Enough said, I think.
steve
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 00:21:52
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
Sandy wrote:
>
> Another puritan who believes lab work is more reliable than observed
> conduct.
> Remember when the IRMS was supposed to be the perfect analytic tool ? Gone.
> Remember earlier how the urine screening was going to eliminate dopers ?
> Finis.
> Remember .....
> No, you don't remember, and you also don't have any knowledge of what will
> replace IRMS, nor why it is also an inadequate scientific tool.
>
An Orbitrap connected to a MS/MS would be a big improvement.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 01:00:38
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
Dans le message de news:5b1eg1F2qotm1U1@mid.individual.net,
Kyle Legate <legatek@hotmail.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Sandy wrote:
>>
>> Another puritan who believes lab work is more reliable than observed
>> conduct.
>> Remember when the IRMS was supposed to be the perfect analytic tool
>> ? Gone. Remember earlier how the urine screening was going to
>> eliminate dopers ? Finis.
>> Remember .....
>> No, you don't remember, and you also don't have any knowledge of
>> what will replace IRMS, nor why it is also an inadequate scientific
>> tool.
> An Orbitrap connected to a MS/MS would be a big improvement.
Now we will have a better mousetrap to be able to send viscious molecules to
prison.
I was hoping it was the Orgasmotron, augmented by little blue pills. Can't
have it all...
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
|
| |
Date: 16 May 2007 08:54:46
From: Marty
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
On May 16, 5:49 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> They can't get a capable translator !
> In all of California, no one can do this ?
> Really not too difficult as testimony.
>
> I am amazed they can concentrate, but after all, it's the submissions that
> will support a decision by the panel.
>
> So long as USADA attorneys make this a lab course, and so long as Landis'
> attorneys keep focused on legal and procedural issues, it is reasonably
> possible for there to be no finding of a violation.
>
> But............
> Long road ahead.
> --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
From:
http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=reu-landisdc&prov=reuters&type=lgns
"Former Tour de France champions Greg LeMond and Eddy Merckx are
expected to be called as witnesses later during the hearing being held
at Pepperdine University.
Three-times winner LeMond is scheduled to testify against fellow
American Landis while Belgian Merckx, who won the Tour five times
between 1969 and 1974, is set to testify in Landis's favor."
LeMond will testify that he is the only American to win the TdF
clean. So, he's better than Lance or Flandis.
Not sure what Eddy will say.
--
Marty
|
| | |
Date: 16 May 2007 12:17:00
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
On 16 May 2007 08:54:46 -0700, Marty <m_piet@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>LeMond will testify that he is the only American to win the TdF
>clean. So, he's better than Lance or Flandis.
>
>Not sure what Eddy will say.
Anything he wants to - even atheists believe in Eddy Merckx. Its not
an issue of whether they believe him; its whether he believes them...
If Eddy waves his hand, I'm for dismissing the entire lot.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 00:15:39
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On 16 May 2007 08:54:46 -0700, Marty <m_piet@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> LeMond will testify that he is the only American to win the TdF
>> clean. So, he's better than Lance or Flandis.
>>
>> Not sure what Eddy will say.
>
> Anything he wants to - even atheists believe in Eddy Merckx. Its not
> an issue of whether they believe him; its whether he believes them...
>
He can say anything he wants to, but not for the reason you think. Since
Eddy himself was guilty of a doping violation, his character will be
assassinated.
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 09:08:07
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
On Thu, 17 May 2007 00:15:39 +0200, Kyle Legate <legatek@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>He can say anything he wants to, but not for the reason you think. Since
>Eddy himself was guilty of a doping violation, his character will be
>assassinated.
That strikes me as a dangerous approach, what with Eddy known to be
impervious to bullets and knives.
In any event, we really need to rethink whether pro cycling gets any
real benefit from this association with 'amateur' sports and its
related minions. Sure, this comes from someone that only sees the
Olympics when walking by the TV when my wife is watching, but what,
every four years the Olympics screws up the racing schedule and, what
redux, they are slowly removing cycling from the Olympics one event at
a time anyway so the world can watch softball and beach volleyball?
OK, the last one is a good reason with the right participants, but
still...
I say abolish WADA until the Olympics solves the problems with scoring
the boxing matches. Until then, leave us alone.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | |
Date: 16 May 2007 18:06:24
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
Marty wrote:
> Not sure what Eddy will say.
I am god and, by decree, flandis is free.
|
| | |
Date: 16 May 2007 11:07:52
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
Marty wrote:
> From:
>
> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=reu-landisdc&prov=reuters&type=lgns
>
> "Former Tour de France champions Greg LeMond and Eddy Merckx are
> expected to be called as witnesses later during the hearing being held
> at Pepperdine University.
>
> Three-times winner LeMond is scheduled to testify against fellow
> American Landis while Belgian Merckx, who won the Tour five times
> between 1969 and 1974, is set to testify in Landis's favor."
WTF! Neither of these guys is relevant to the case.
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 17:52:08
From: Tom Grosman
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
"Bob Schwartz" <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net > a écrit dans le message de
news: t%F2i.262$u56.244@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
|
| | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 09:49:38
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:07:52 -0500, Bob Schwartz
<bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net > wrote:
>Marty wrote:
>> From:
>>
>> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=reu-landisdc&prov=reuters&type=lgns
>>
>> "Former Tour de France champions Greg LeMond and Eddy Merckx are
>> expected to be called as witnesses later during the hearing being held
>> at Pepperdine University.
>>
>> Three-times winner LeMond is scheduled to testify against fellow
>> American Landis while Belgian Merckx, who won the Tour five times
>> between 1969 and 1974, is set to testify in Landis's favor."
>
>WTF! Neither of these guys is relevant to the case.
Eddie is to testify that Stage 17 was just a strong rider using smart tactics, a
handy team car full of water and MTB descending skills to beat a bunch of
similarly strong but less motivated riders.
LeMond is coming in to whine like a French guy.
Ron
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 09:57:34
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
RonSonic wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:07:52 -0500, Bob Schwartz
> <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Marty wrote:
>>> From:
>>>
>>> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=reu-landisdc&prov=reuters&type=lgns
>>>
>>> "Former Tour de France champions Greg LeMond and Eddy Merckx are
>>> expected to be called as witnesses later during the hearing being held
>>> at Pepperdine University.
>>>
>>> Three-times winner LeMond is scheduled to testify against fellow
>>> American Landis while Belgian Merckx, who won the Tour five times
>>> between 1969 and 1974, is set to testify in Landis's favor."
>> WTF! Neither of these guys is relevant to the case.
>
> Eddie is to testify that Stage 17 was just a strong rider using smart tactics, a
> handy team car full of water and MTB descending skills to beat a bunch of
> similarly strong but less motivated riders.
WTF! That's not relevant to the case.
And Eddy got popped for dope THREE TIMES! WTF!!
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 11:11:17
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
On Thu, 17 May 2007 09:57:34 -0500, Bob Schwartz
<bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net > wrote:
>> Eddie is to testify that Stage 17 was just a strong rider using smart tactics, a
>> handy team car full of water and MTB descending skills to beat a bunch of
>> similarly strong but less motivated riders.
>
>WTF! That's not relevant to the case.
>
>And Eddy got popped for dope THREE TIMES! WTF!!
>
>Bob Schwartz
Interestingly (to me), its funnier if WTF is We're the French! and
makes the most sense as We're the Fuzz!
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | |
Date: 16 May 2007 19:35:15
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
in message <t%F2i.262$u56.244@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net >, Bob Schwartz
('bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net') wrote:
> Marty wrote:
>> From:
>>
>> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=reu-landisdc&prov=reuters&type=lgns
>>
>> "Former Tour de France champions Greg LeMond and Eddy Merckx are
>> expected to be called as witnesses later during the hearing being held
>> at Pepperdine University.
>>
>> Three-times winner LeMond is scheduled to testify against fellow
>> American Landis while Belgian Merckx, who won the Tour five times
>> between 1969 and 1974, is set to testify in Landis's favor."
>
> WTF! Neither of these guys is relevant to the case.
So what? Are you saying they shouldn't have called Mack the Finger or the
Monkey Man?
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; killing [afghan
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 May 2007 21:47:17
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
Bob Schwartz wrote:
>> WTF! Neither of these guys is relevant to the case.
Simon Brooke wrote:
> So what? Are you saying they shouldn't have called Mack the Finger or the
> Monkey Man?
Next they'll be calling a gorilla.
|
| |
Date: 16 May 2007 17:01:19
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
Sandy wrote:
> They can't get a capable translator !
> In all of California, no one can do this ?
> Really not too difficult as testimony.
Why don't they just use babelfish or the google equivalent. I'm sure that
would increase the entertainment value by several points.
|
| |
Date: 16 May 2007 05:57:51
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
Sandy wrote:
> They can't get a capable translator !
> In all of California, no one can do this ?
> Really not too difficult as testimony.
>
> I am amazed they can concentrate, but after all, it's the submissions that
> will support a decision by the panel.
>
> So long as USADA attorneys make this a lab course, and so long as Landis'
> attorneys keep focused on legal and procedural issues, it is reasonably
> possible for there to be no finding of a violation.
>
> But............
> Long road ahead.
A yellow tie at an arbitration meeting. Didn't Landis ever read Power
Dressing for Success? He should have gone with a trustworthy blue, or
an authoritative red.
I'm wondering what's up with the arbitration panel. Christopher
Campbell, Patrice Brunet and Richard McLaren...? This is amerikay,
dad-blammit! With names like that, it's obviously some Franco-Hooked-
On-Phonics conspiracy.
I'm glad to see that Landis' team represents a more balanced team.
Howard Jacobs and Maurice Suh. Can't get much more American than
that!*
R
* Well, actually it could, but Hector Rodriguez was left off due to
possible Puerto connections being raised.
|
| | |
Date: 17 May 2007 13:30:31
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
RicodJour a écrit :
> Sandy wrote:
>
>> They can't get a capable translator !
>> In all of California, no one can do this ?
>> Really not too difficult as testimony.
>>
>> I am amazed they can concentrate, but after all, it's the submissions that
>> will support a decision by the panel.
>>
>> So long as USADA attorneys make this a lab course, and so long as Landis'
>> attorneys keep focused on legal and procedural issues, it is reasonably
>> possible for there to be no finding of a violation.
>>
>> But............
>> Long road ahead.
>>
>
> A yellow tie at an arbitration meeting. Didn't Landis ever read Power
> Dressing for Success? He should have gone with a trustworthy blue, or
> an authoritative red.
>
> I'm wondering what's up with the arbitration panel. Christopher
> Campbell, Patrice Brunet and Richard McLaren...? This is amerikay,
> dad-blammit! With names like that, it's obviously some Franco-Hooked-
> On-Phonics conspiracy.
You may just want to observe Mr Campbell to see whether he's adequately
American.
|
| | |
Date: 16 May 2007 17:00:29
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
RicodJour wrote:
> A yellow tie at an arbitration meeting. Didn't Landis ever read Power
> Dressing for Success?
If you use your tie in lieu of a hankerchief a yellow one is good as a
camouflage, particularly if you have a upper respiratory tract infection.
|
| | |
Date: 16 May 2007 15:47:04
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
Dans le message de
news:1179320271.802033.166030@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Sandy wrote:
>> They can't get a capable translator !
>> In all of California, no one can do this ?
>> Really not too difficult as testimony.
>>
>> I am amazed they can concentrate, but after all, it's the
>> submissions that will support a decision by the panel.
>>
>> So long as USADA attorneys make this a lab course, and so long as
>> Landis' attorneys keep focused on legal and procedural issues, it is
>> reasonably possible for there to be no finding of a violation.
>>
>> But............
>> Long road ahead.
>
> A yellow tie at an arbitration meeting. Didn't Landis ever read Power
> Dressing for Success? He should have gone with a trustworthy blue, or
> an authoritative red.
Yellow tie - yellow jersey. He's already nostalgic.
|
| |
Date: 16 May 2007 14:26:49
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
On Wed, 16 May 2007 13:49:02 +0200, Sandy wrote:
> They can't get a capable translator !
F-E or E-F? For what, for which testimony, for whose benefit do you
mean?
--
E. Dronkert
|
| | |
Date: 16 May 2007 14:42:32
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Landis, continued
|
Dans le message de news:f1ul435hdnbntkgaiusgoq7373lmcop9mo@4ax.com,
Ewoud Dronkert <firstname@lastname.net.invalid > a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 13:49:02 +0200, Sandy wrote:
>> They can't get a capable translator !
>
> F-E or E-F? For what, for which testimony, for whose benefit do you
> mean?
Neither F-E nor E-F. But doing it both ways is tiring and difficult. My
sympathies lie with the translator(s) so burdened.
For the benefit of the panel - they are the only ones needing to benefit.
It's a bear to listen to, even ignoring the language gaps. It is just a
bunch of intermittent Q&A.
The parties rely, one presumes, on the written submissions, anyway. The
testimony is a decoration, and it would be more helpful (to all, especially
weary observers), if they just hit on the key points of dispute. It's about
10 times quicker to finish a murder trial.
But every lawyer has a style, and a book of business to deal with.
Should Landis prevail, I hope he is granted costs and expenses.
Should this go to TAS, it will take a miracle for Landis to find arbitrators
friendly to his position, I fear. Remember, if it goes there, WADA can
basically mandate a /de novo/ hearing, and we'll live with this another
year.
|
|
