| |
Main
Date: 15 Apr 2007 16:26:05
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Meeting Floyd
|
Last night was a blast.
Floyd Landis is in the process of touring the country raising money
and support in his effort to fight the doping charges that have
(termporarily...) stripped him of his '06 Tour de France yellow
jersey. Last night, he came to the Phoenix east valley, and I
attended the presentation.
The venue was a fairly small one - only 60-70 people attending, which
I can only attribute to lack of publicity. I spent a several hours
last night sitting about 10 feet (3m) from Floyd and his doctor
(Arnie Baker) and his PR guy Michael Henson.
The presentation has changed a bit from what is on Floyd's "Fairness
Fund" website, and according to Dr. Baker (a very confidence-inspiring
speaker, BTW), they're only presenting "about 10%" of the problems
with the testing that was done, since they've already seen the French
lab trying to cover their tracks by releasing updated "original"
documents that "fix" some of the glaring errors in the "original
originals".
Without going into a litany of details, there are SO many questions
raised by Dr. Baker's examination of the evidence that I have no doubt
at all that Floyd will prevail when the hearing occurs in mid-May.
Essentially, there are clearly-documented problems with chain of
custody, testing blindness, protocol, equipment malfunction, sample
contamination beyond testable standards, standards definition, not to
mention the common sense aspect of the fact that Floyd tested negative
two days prior and two days after (and tested WELL under the limits
for testosterone even after stage 17). Dr. Baker explained the
science of testosterone, and how clinical studies have shown that
there is no measureable performance gain even with 10x the allowed
testosterone level present on that day's effort (that is, it's not a
"one day drug"). There's simply no reason anyone would WANT to play
around with epitestosterone on a given stage... nothing to be gained.
Floyd's presentation was alternatively informative, spontaneous, and
humourous. He spent a good bit of the evening "talking racing" and
the personal glimpse into the politics of the peleton was fascinating.
He (and Dr. Baker) pointed out that although Floyd's stage 17
performance was a very, very good one, the real reason he gained so
much time was the infighting among teams in the peleton (each waiting
for the other teams to do the heavy lifting). As amazing as it was,
he really wasn't doing anything superhuman, but clearly something
unexpectedly audacious. His superior descending skills didn't hurt
either.
For those of you in Dallas, Austin or Atlanta - he's coming your way
soon - I suggest you do NOT miss the event. It's the best $35 I've
spent in a long, long time (though I also broke down and bought a $25
Floyd Fairness Fund T-shirt, which he autographed for me). There were
other fund-raising efforts, including auctioning off a replica yellow
jersey autographed by Floyd (which went for $3,300, so don't figure
it's a cheap way to cover a stain on your wall). ;-) Floyd spent
about half an hour signing autographs and was happy to pose for photos
with anyone who wanted one (making forgetting my camera a very dumb
thing to do).
I'd recommend that anyone who's genuinely concerned with the fairness
of the current drug testing processes should read the powerpoint
presentation that Dr. Baker put together - it's a fairly big download,
but fascinating reading (even without the good doctor's running
commentary on the details). It can be found at:
http://www.floydfairnessfund.org/resources/Wiki%20Denfense%20Slide.pdf
There's also a webcast on Floyd's site that I haven't previewed, but
suspect it contains the same information I saw last night.
My prediction is that the WADA (World Anti Doping Agency) and the
French lab that was involved will have to admit that there are FAR too
many problems with the handling of the samples, the testing of the
samples, and the results of the testing for the results to stand. I
appreciate the work Floyd is doing to take on these powerful
organizations (that are, BTW, doing everything in their power to keep
the details from leaking out - funny since they seem to relish the
opporutnity to leak details about certain riders' test results, even
before the UCI officials hear about it). Dr. Baker has also compiled
a number of documents that show the same lab was making errors on
other (non-cycling) athletes at the same time that Floyd's sample was
being tested (where the lab admits getting samples crossed or causing
contamination that resulted in a false positives).
Please support this effort - I think after you read the presentation
you'll begin to understand what a travesty this whole thing has been.
I look forward to the day when Floyd's name appears without an asterix
in the record books.
Go get 'em Floyd!
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 14:36:45
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
On Apr 17, 6:50 pm, Mark Hickey <m...@habcycles.com > wrote:
> "Tom Grosman" <gros...@aonix.fr> wrote:
> >"Mark Hickey" <m...@habcycles.com> a =E9crit dans le message de news:
> >
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 18:51:01
From: steve
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
On Apr 16, 4:37 pm, "bjorn" <procyclingpr...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 3:36 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > The protocol for handling the B samples was - I THOUGHT - to put the sample
> > out to ANOTHER lab for testing. The fact that the USAC wanted the same lab
> > to test these samples is significant.
>
> This is not how I would understand article 195 of part 14 of the UCI
> Regulation:
>
> "The analysis of the B sample shall be conducted by the laboratory
> that conducted the analysis of the A sample"
>
> bjorn
There is another issue here. The B sample is really the same as the A
sample thus any retesting only eliminates procedural errors (are these
type 1 or 2) not with the test itself. As someone who once tested
false positive for VD (try to explain that to your wife) I find the
whole procedure a little suspect.
I also have problems with the same lab doing the test. We are talking
about peoples livelihood and reputation.
That said I have the impression that the whole procedure is a farce
designed to catch only the foolish.
Steve Gerdemann
Steve Gerdemann
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 18:41:23
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
On Apr 16, 9:07 pm, bjorn <procyclingpr...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> No, not that I know of. To my understanding this is informational
> only, as it doesn't follow procedure. Which is why I am not clear why
> Landis is opposed to it. If they come back negative he can say "told
> ya". Do they come back positive he can make a case that the same lab
> analyzed the A and B with different results, therefore able to
> continue to question the practices at the lab...
I disagree. It is a fishing expedition by the anti-doping
authorities. Landis already tested negative in the A samples
for those results; that should take priority. If the B samples
come back negative, he hasn't proved anything since they
can always say he doped on day N and not N+1. If they
come back positive, he loses and the doping authorities
say something like "Well, the A sample was a 2.9 sigma
result and the B sample was a 3.1 sigma result, so clearly
we were letting him off easy the first time." The doping
authorities are basically asking for a do-over. This argument
still holds even if they are planning to do a more detailed
test than the one that was done on the A sample.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 20:57:00
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:07 pm, bjorn <procyclingpr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> No, not that I know of. To my understanding this is informational
>> only, as it doesn't follow procedure. Which is why I am not clear why
>> Landis is opposed to it. If they come back negative he can say "told
>> ya". Do they come back positive he can make a case that the same lab
>> analyzed the A and B with different results, therefore able to
>> continue to question the practices at the lab...
>
> I disagree. It is a fishing expedition by the anti-doping
> authorities. Landis already tested negative in the A samples
> for those results; that should take priority. If the B samples
> come back negative, he hasn't proved anything since they
> can always say he doped on day N and not N+1. If they
> come back positive, he loses and the doping authorities
> say something like "Well, the A sample was a 2.9 sigma
> result and the B sample was a 3.1 sigma result, so clearly
> we were letting him off easy the first time." The doping
> authorities are basically asking for a do-over. This argument
> still holds even if they are planning to do a more detailed
> test than the one that was done on the A sample.
I agree with everything you've said here, but to add a little:
They're being short sighted here. To the extent Mom and Pop average ever
hear about retested B samples that come up positive, it'll look like you
can't trust the test results. The test comes up negative. Test it again,
and it comes up positive. They can spin 2.9 vs 3.1 sigmas all day, but
it'll still look like the lab or the tests or both produce arbitrary
results.
Yeah, it's a fishing expedition. They better hope they don't catch
anything or they'll look even more foolish.
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 14:39:25
From: bjorn
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
On Apr 17, 2:10 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "William Asher" <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns991584804C6E1FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>
>
>
> > That statement was made before they figured out it wasn't a gas-phase
> > chemical process responsible for ozone depletion at high latitudes, but a
> > surface-catalyzed process on ice, that works with much lower
> > concentrations
> > of CFCs in the gas phase.
>
> I hate to point this out but CFC's are a very heavy molecule. MUCH heavier
> than CO2 which strangely, has a very difficult time getting into the upper
> atmosphere.
And CO2 is heavier than oxygen, so following this logic all Carbon
Dioxide should accumulate right underneath the oxygen layer - so below
our feet? Water vapor on the other hand is much lighter than oxygen so
low clouds shouldn't really exist?
>
> Of course there was also the fact that the hole in the ozone was only
> detected AFTER they put a satellite into orbit that could detect it. And
> then STRANGELY enough although ALL of the data showed that the hole was
> there from the very first time they looked, that it waxed and waned but
> never disappeared and that although the levels of CFC's are now a mere
> shadow of what they were at that time, and yet the holes appear to act
Can you provide a source for that? CFC's take a long time to break
down (up to 80 years), so if we stopped adding CFC 5 or 10 years ago
it would still take some time until we see a measurable impact.
bjorn
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 12:07:32
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
On Apr 16, 10:12 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "bjorn" <procyclingpr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176766625.514056.257360@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 16, 3:36 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >> The protocol for handling the B samples was - I THOUGHT - to put the
> >> sample
> >> out to ANOTHER lab for testing. The fact that the USAC wanted the same
> >> lab
> >> to test these samples is significant.
>
> > This is not how I would understand article 195 of part 14 of the UCI
> > Regulation:
>
> > "The analysis of the B sample shall be conducted by the laboratory
> > that conducted the analysis of the A sample"
>
> I thought I'd read it and that it said that the B sample could be passed on
> to a lab of the rider's choosing. Maybe i was that he could have his own
> technical people present.
dumbass,
a more appropriate response here would be "hmmm, i guess i was wrong".
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 21:28:51
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
In article <1176836852.300123.106330@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 10:12 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > I thought I'd read it and that it said that the B sample could be passed on
> > to a lab of the rider's choosing. Maybe i was that he could have his own
> > technical people present.
>
>
> dumbass,
>
> a more appropriate response here would be "hmmm, i guess i was wrong".
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!! As if...
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 07:29:20
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
On Apr 16, 10:56 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>
> news:1176776503.217718.8630@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 7:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >> Mark, now the theUSACwants the French lab which is being questioned to
> >> "test" all the old B samples that tells me that the intent is to find
> >> Floyd
> >> guilty no matter what.
>
> >> Imagine handing the man accused of trying to murder you a gun and telling
> >> him that everyone is going to look the other way so that no one can
> >> testify
> >> that they witnessed anything.
>
> >> As of that time I stopped anything resembling support ofUSAC.
>
> > It's the USADA (US Anti-Doping Agency) that wants the old B
> > samples tested. NotUSAC(USA Cycling).
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr12news2
> > That's USADA, notUSAC.
>
> Who licensed Floyd again?
dumbass,
a better response to ben would've been "oops, i was wrong".
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 18:53:44
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1176820160.874501.251290@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 16, 10:56 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1176776503.217718.8630@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 15, 7:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Mark, now the theUSACwants the French lab which is being questioned to
>> >> "test" all the old B samples that tells me that the intent is to find
>> >> Floyd
>> >> guilty no matter what.
>>
>> >> Imagine handing the man accused of trying to murder you a gun and
>> >> telling
>> >> him that everyone is going to look the other way so that no one can
>> >> testify
>> >> that they witnessed anything.
>>
>> >> As of that time I stopped anything resembling support ofUSAC.
>>
>> > It's the USADA (US Anti-Doping Agency) that wants the old B
>> > samples tested. NotUSAC(USA Cycling).
>> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr12news2
>> > That's USADA, notUSAC.
>>
>> Who licensed Floyd again?
>
> dumbass,
>
> a better response to ben would've been "oops, i was wrong".
WHO IS THE LICENSING AGENT AGAIN? Or perhaps you're too stupid to understand
how authority works?
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 17:04:03
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
amit.ghosh@gmail.com wrote:
> dumbass,
>
> a better response to ben would've been "oops, i was wrong".
Dumbass,
That will never happen. Some elements of Kunich are
random. Some are hard coded.
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 21:39:01
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
Bob Schwartz wrote:
> Some are hard coded.
That explains all the recent BJ references.
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 04:27:45
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
On Apr 16, 8:58 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> Fred Fredburger" <S...@spambot.com> wrote in message
>
> news:QcudnW8xo-oarLnbnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > bjorn wrote:
> >> On Apr 16, 3:36 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >>> The protocol for handling the B samples was - I THOUGHT - to put the
> >>> sample
> >>> out to ANOTHER lab for testing. The fact that the USAC wanted the same
> >>> lab
> >>> to test these samples is significant.
>
> >> This is not how I would understand article 195 of part 14 of the UCI
> >> Regulation:
>
> >> "The analysis of the B sample shall be conducted by the laboratory
> >> that conducted the analysis of the A sample"
>
> > Is there a place in there where it says you should grab samples from
> > stages where the rider has previously PASSED the test, and test the "B"
> > samples? Give them to 2 guys and say "Have at it!"
>
> > Maybe there's a "Just do a bunch of random stuff" clause.
>
> Floyd and his lawyer have a point - the French Lab has a stake in proving
> that they were correct. They have already been guilty of a litany of abuses
> of the rules and now they're being given a chance to clear their name at the
> expense of Floyd?
>
> This makes Nagin look almost honest.
The lab is in bed with the TdF organization and also the French gov't.
I doubt that WADA or anybody else is going to trash the lab to clear
Floyd. Just like having a stake in the process that nailed Tyler, they
will sacrifice Floyd for the sake of the TdF lab. Having it be an
American certainly doesn't help. The French have been bruised by
having an American when their precious race 11 times in the last 20
years, with no French rider anywhere to be seen.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 22:14:33
From: Tom Grosman
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com > a écrit dans le message de
news: 1176809265.873646.181290@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 21:07:41
From: bjorn
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
On Apr 16, 7:30 pm, Fred Fredburger <S...@spambot.com > wrote:
> bjorn wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 3:36 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >> The protocol for handling the B samples was - I THOUGHT - to put the sample
> >> out to ANOTHER lab for testing. The fact that the USAC wanted the same lab
> >> to test these samples is significant.
>
> > This is not how I would understand article 195 of part 14 of the UCI
> > Regulation:
>
> > "The analysis of the B sample shall be conducted by the laboratory
> > that conducted the analysis of the A sample"
>
> Is there a place in there where it says you should grab samples from
> stages where the rider has previously PASSED the test, and test the "B"
> samples? Give them to 2 guys and say "Have at it!"
>
> Maybe there's a "Just do a bunch of random stuff" clause.
No, not that I know of. To my understanding this is informational
only, as it doesn't follow procedure. Which is why I am not clear why
Landis is opposed to it. If they come back negative he can say "told
ya". Do they come back positive he can make a case that the same lab
analyzed the A and B with different results, therefore able to
continue to question the practices at the lab...
bjorn
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 22:11:37
From: Tom Grosman
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"bjorn" <procyclingpress@yahoo.com > a écrit dans le message de news:
1176782861.464167.109580@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 19:29:32
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"bjorn" <procyclingpress@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1176782861.464167.109580@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 16, 7:30 pm, Fred Fredburger <S...@spambot.com> wrote:
>> bjorn wrote:
>> > On Apr 16, 3:36 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> >> The protocol for handling the B samples was - I THOUGHT - to put the
>> >> sample
>> >> out to ANOTHER lab for testing. The fact that the USAC wanted the same
>> >> lab
>> >> to test these samples is significant.
>>
>> > This is not how I would understand article 195 of part 14 of the UCI
>> > Regulation:
>>
>> > "The analysis of the B sample shall be conducted by the laboratory
>> > that conducted the analysis of the A sample"
>>
>> Is there a place in there where it says you should grab samples from
>> stages where the rider has previously PASSED the test, and test the "B"
>> samples? Give them to 2 guys and say "Have at it!"
>>
>> Maybe there's a "Just do a bunch of random stuff" clause.
>
>
> No, not that I know of. To my understanding this is informational
> only, as it doesn't follow procedure. Which is why I am not clear why
> Landis is opposed to it. If they come back negative he can say "told
> ya". Do they come back positive he can make a case that the same lab
> analyzed the A and B with different results, therefore able to
> continue to question the practices at the lab...
While they can't press any MORE drug charges if a new test turns positive
they can use it to imply that the REAL(tm) positive was a good finding.
This is just one partiality after another by the drug lords of sport. I find
it entirely disgusting and USAC is at the bottom of it.
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 21:03:35
From: bjorn
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
On Apr 16, 7:12 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "bjorn" <procyclingpr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176766625.514056.257360@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 16, 3:36 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >> The protocol for handling the B samples was - I THOUGHT - to put the
> >> sample
> >> out to ANOTHER lab for testing. The fact that the USAC wanted the same
> >> lab
> >> to test these samples is significant.
>
> > This is not how I would understand article 195 of part 14 of the UCI
> > Regulation:
>
> > "The analysis of the B sample shall be conducted by the laboratory
> > that conducted the analysis of the A sample"
>
> I thought I'd read it and that it said that the B sample could be passed on
> to a lab of the rider's choosing. Maybe i was that he could have his own
> technical people present.
Yes, the rider or a rep can be present. The Anti Doping commission
(not the rider) can request the sample be analyzed by a second lab.
bjorn
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 19:00:25
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
bjorn <procyclingpress@yahoo.com > wrote:
>On Apr 16, 7:12 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "bjorn" <procyclingpr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1176766625.514056.257360@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Apr 16, 3:36 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> >> The protocol for handling the B samples was - I THOUGHT - to put the
>> >> sample
>> >> out to ANOTHER lab for testing. The fact that the USAC wanted the same
>> >> lab
>> >> to test these samples is significant.
>>
>> > This is not how I would understand article 195 of part 14 of the UCI
>> > Regulation:
>>
>> > "The analysis of the B sample shall be conducted by the laboratory
>> > that conducted the analysis of the A sample"
>>
>> I thought I'd read it and that it said that the B sample could be passed on
>> to a lab of the rider's choosing. Maybe i was that he could have his own
>> technical people present.
>
>Yes, the rider or a rep can be present. The Anti Doping commission
>(not the rider) can request the sample be analyzed by a second lab.
Floyd has (not surprisingly...) requested that, and has been denied.
The lab and the USADA / WADA aren't interested in finding the truth -
it's all about covering up the problems in their system now.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 19:21:43
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
On Apr 15, 7:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> Mark, now the the USAC wants the French lab which is being questioned to
> "test" all the old B samples that tells me that the intent is to find Floyd
> guilty no matter what.
>
> Imagine handing the man accused of trying to murder you a gun and telling
> him that everyone is going to look the other way so that no one can testify
> that they witnessed anything.
>
> As of that time I stopped anything resembling support of USAC.
It's the USADA (US Anti-Doping Agency) that wants the old B
samples tested. Not USAC (USA Cycling).
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr12news2
That's USADA, not USAC.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 02:56:50
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in message
news:1176776503.217718.8630@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 15, 7:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> Mark, now the the USAC wants the French lab which is being questioned to
>> "test" all the old B samples that tells me that the intent is to find
>> Floyd
>> guilty no matter what.
>>
>> Imagine handing the man accused of trying to murder you a gun and telling
>> him that everyone is going to look the other way so that no one can
>> testify
>> that they witnessed anything.
>>
>> As of that time I stopped anything resembling support of USAC.
>
> It's the USADA (US Anti-Doping Agency) that wants the old B
> samples tested. Not USAC (USA Cycling).
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr12news2
> That's USADA, not USAC.
Who licensed Floyd again?
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 17:27:58
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
On Apr 15, 6:29 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
> > Dr. Baker explained the
> > science of testosterone, and how clinical studies have shown that
> > there is no measureable performance gain even with 10x the allowed
> > testosterone level present on that day's effort (that is, it's not a
> > "one day drug"). There's simply no reason anyone would WANT to play
> > around with epitestosterone on a given stage... nothing to be gained.
>
> I wonder why he is looking at performance gain from something
> that riders take to enhance recovery?
>
> Bob Schwartz
Speaking of enhancement and recovery,
Mark posted about seeing Floyd in Phoenix two days ago.
Yesterday, I happened to ride along the route of the
Tucson Bicycle Classic circuit race after the course
had been cleaned up (I didn't do the race). No
kidding, just as the road started to go uphill, I
looked over in the mesquite where litterbugs throw crap
out of their cars, and there I saw clear as day an
airplane-size bottle of Jack Daniels. And instantly
I thought, "Shit, Floyd must have done the race today!
I should have come out to watch."
I checked the results though and he must have been
using an assumed name. But remember, the next time
you see a bottle of Jack Daniels on your favorite
training route, you'll know Floyd was there. He's
a Kilroy for our time.
Ben
fan of Floyd
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 16:37:05
From: bjorn
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
On Apr 16, 3:36 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> The protocol for handling the B samples was - I THOUGHT - to put the sample
> out to ANOTHER lab for testing. The fact that the USAC wanted the same lab
> to test these samples is significant.
This is not how I would understand article 195 of part 14 of the UCI
Regulation:
"The analysis of the B sample shall be conducted by the laboratory
that conducted the analysis of the A sample"
bjorn
|
| | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 19:30:28
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
bjorn wrote:
> On Apr 16, 3:36 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> The protocol for handling the B samples was - I THOUGHT - to put the sample
>> out to ANOTHER lab for testing. The fact that the USAC wanted the same lab
>> to test these samples is significant.
>
>
> This is not how I would understand article 195 of part 14 of the UCI
> Regulation:
>
> "The analysis of the B sample shall be conducted by the laboratory
> that conducted the analysis of the A sample"
Is there a place in there where it says you should grab samples from
stages where the rider has previously PASSED the test, and test the "B"
samples? Give them to 2 guys and say "Have at it!"
Maybe there's a "Just do a bunch of random stuff" clause.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 21:04:40
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
Fred Fredburger <Spam@spambot.com > wrote:
>bjorn wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 3:36 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>>> The protocol for handling the B samples was - I THOUGHT - to put the sample
>>> out to ANOTHER lab for testing. The fact that the USAC wanted the same lab
>>> to test these samples is significant.
>>
>>
>> This is not how I would understand article 195 of part 14 of the UCI
>> Regulation:
>>
>> "The analysis of the B sample shall be conducted by the laboratory
>> that conducted the analysis of the A sample"
>
>Is there a place in there where it says you should grab samples from
>stages where the rider has previously PASSED the test, and test the "B"
>samples? Give them to 2 guys and say "Have at it!"
>
>Maybe there's a "Just do a bunch of random stuff" clause.
Not only that, but the SAME TECH tested both the A and B samples.
That's CLEARLY a violation. Dr. Baker also said that the lab rejected
the idea of making the test blind by having an independent party
introduce other samples of known composition, and so that they
wouldn't know which one was actually Floyd's sample.
Guess what? They refused (mock shock would be a good emoticon if I
knew how to do it).
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 02:58:50
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
Fred Fredburger" <Spam@spambot.com > wrote in message
news:QcudnW8xo-oarLnbnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...
> bjorn wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 3:36 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>>> The protocol for handling the B samples was - I THOUGHT - to put the
>>> sample
>>> out to ANOTHER lab for testing. The fact that the USAC wanted the same
>>> lab
>>> to test these samples is significant.
>>
>>
>> This is not how I would understand article 195 of part 14 of the UCI
>> Regulation:
>>
>> "The analysis of the B sample shall be conducted by the laboratory
>> that conducted the analysis of the A sample"
>
> Is there a place in there where it says you should grab samples from
> stages where the rider has previously PASSED the test, and test the "B"
> samples? Give them to 2 guys and say "Have at it!"
>
> Maybe there's a "Just do a bunch of random stuff" clause.
Floyd and his lawyer have a point - the French Lab has a stake in proving
that they were correct. They have already been guilty of a litany of abuses
of the rules and now they're being given a chance to clear their name at the
expense of Floyd?
This makes Nagin look almost honest.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 02:12:29
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"bjorn" <procyclingpress@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1176766625.514056.257360@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 16, 3:36 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> The protocol for handling the B samples was - I THOUGHT - to put the
>> sample
>> out to ANOTHER lab for testing. The fact that the USAC wanted the same
>> lab
>> to test these samples is significant.
>
>
> This is not how I would understand article 195 of part 14 of the UCI
> Regulation:
>
> "The analysis of the B sample shall be conducted by the laboratory
> that conducted the analysis of the A sample"
I thought I'd read it and that it said that the B sample could be passed on
to a lab of the rider's choosing. Maybe i was that he could have his own
technical people present.
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 02:14:33
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"Mark Hickey" <mark@habcycles.com > wrote in message
news:f3d5231i5mh301ia81anaumpeg70qemoo5@4ax.com...
> Last night was a blast.
>
> Floyd Landis is in the process of touring the country raising money
> and support in his effort to fight the doping charges that have
> (termporarily...) stripped him of his '06 Tour de France yellow
> jersey. Last night, he came to the Phoenix east valley, and I
> attended the presentation.
>
> The venue was a fairly small one - only 60-70 people attending, which
> I can only attribute to lack of publicity. I spent a several hours
> last night sitting about 10 feet (3m) from Floyd and his doctor
> (Arnie Baker) and his PR guy Michael Henson.
>
> The presentation has changed a bit from what is on Floyd's "Fairness
> Fund" website, and according to Dr. Baker (a very confidence-inspiring
> speaker, BTW), they're only presenting "about 10%" of the problems
> with the testing that was done, since they've already seen the French
> lab trying to cover their tracks by releasing updated "original"
> documents that "fix" some of the glaring errors in the "original
> originals".
>
> Without going into a litany of details, there are SO many questions
> raised by Dr. Baker's examination of the evidence that I have no doubt
> at all that Floyd will prevail when the hearing occurs in mid-May.
> Essentially, there are clearly-documented problems with chain of
> custody, testing blindness, protocol, equipment malfunction, sample
> contamination beyond testable standards, standards definition, not to
> mention the common sense aspect of the fact that Floyd tested negative
> two days prior and two days after (and tested WELL under the limits
> for testosterone even after stage 17). Dr. Baker explained the
> science of testosterone, and how clinical studies have shown that
> there is no measureable performance gain even with 10x the allowed
> testosterone level present on that day's effort (that is, it's not a
> "one day drug"). There's simply no reason anyone would WANT to play
> around with epitestosterone on a given stage... nothing to be gained.
Mark, now the the USAC wants the French lab which is being questioned to
"test" all the old B samples that tells me that the intent is to find Floyd
guilty no matter what.
Imagine handing the man accused of trying to murder you a gun and telling
him that everyone is going to look the other way so that no one can testify
that they witnessed anything.
As of that time I stopped anything resembling support of USAC.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 21:01:28
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
>"Mark Hickey" <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message
>news:f3d5231i5mh301ia81anaumpeg70qemoo5@4ax.com...
>> Last night was a blast.
>>
>> Floyd Landis is in the process of touring the country raising money
>> and support in his effort to fight the doping charges that have
>> (termporarily...) stripped him of his '06 Tour de France yellow
>> jersey. Last night, he came to the Phoenix east valley, and I
>> attended the presentation.
>>
>> The venue was a fairly small one - only 60-70 people attending, which
>> I can only attribute to lack of publicity. I spent a several hours
>> last night sitting about 10 feet (3m) from Floyd and his doctor
>> (Arnie Baker) and his PR guy Michael Henson.
>>
>> The presentation has changed a bit from what is on Floyd's "Fairness
>> Fund" website, and according to Dr. Baker (a very confidence-inspiring
>> speaker, BTW), they're only presenting "about 10%" of the problems
>> with the testing that was done, since they've already seen the French
>> lab trying to cover their tracks by releasing updated "original"
>> documents that "fix" some of the glaring errors in the "original
>> originals".
>>
>> Without going into a litany of details, there are SO many questions
>> raised by Dr. Baker's examination of the evidence that I have no doubt
>> at all that Floyd will prevail when the hearing occurs in mid-May.
>> Essentially, there are clearly-documented problems with chain of
>> custody, testing blindness, protocol, equipment malfunction, sample
>> contamination beyond testable standards, standards definition, not to
>> mention the common sense aspect of the fact that Floyd tested negative
>> two days prior and two days after (and tested WELL under the limits
>> for testosterone even after stage 17). Dr. Baker explained the
>> science of testosterone, and how clinical studies have shown that
>> there is no measureable performance gain even with 10x the allowed
>> testosterone level present on that day's effort (that is, it's not a
>> "one day drug"). There's simply no reason anyone would WANT to play
>> around with epitestosterone on a given stage... nothing to be gained.
>
>Mark, now the the USAC wants the French lab which is being questioned to
>"test" all the old B samples that tells me that the intent is to find Floyd
>guilty no matter what.
>
>Imagine handing the man accused of trying to murder you a gun and telling
>him that everyone is going to look the other way so that no one can testify
>that they witnessed anything.
>
>As of that time I stopped anything resembling support of USAC.
What's REALLY sad is that the US taxpayer supports the whole thing. I
get the impression that it probably started out with a limited number
of people in the French lab "enhancing" results, and now the whole
organization (the lab, WADA, etc.) is so deeply committed to NOT
losing all credibility that they'll fight this tooth and nail til the
bitter end. But I have NO doubt whatsoever that Floyd will prevail,
and hopefully a new protocol, process and organization will result -
one with proper controls, accountability, and inherent fairness.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 22:20:23
From: Tom Grosman
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"Mark Hickey" <mark@habcycles.com > a écrit dans le message de news:
3fh823ha2jdi14bodeso1c30dpolmptgb5@4ax.com...
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 09:50:33
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
Tom Grosman wrote:
> "Misunderstandings and neglect occasion more mischief in the world than
> even malice and wickedness. At all events, the two latter are of less
> frequent occurrence." -Goethe
Dumbass,
That was Franklin.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 11:44:37
From: Tom Grosman
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > a écrit dans le message de news:
4625ce02$0$24774$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 05:53:08
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"Tom Grosman" <grosman@aonix.fr > wrote:
>"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>4625ce02$0$24774$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 05:49:04
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
In article <46252c13$0$28518$426a34cc@news.free.fr >,
"Tom Grosman" <grosman@aonix.fr > wrote:
> "Mark Hickey" <mark@habcycles.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 3fh823ha2jdi14bodeso1c30dpolmptgb5@4ax.com...
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 21:17:01
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"Tom Grosman" <grosman@aonix.fr > wrote in message
news:46252c13$0$28518$426a34cc@news.free.fr...
>
> IF Floyd was clean, then the results are due to incompetence (as Floyd is
> suggesting), not "enhancing" results. After that it's all CYA.
And the CYA could result in "enhanced" results. That's why it was
disgraceful to have the lab in question perform these further tests it was
unnecessary and obviously argumentative.
Though I agree that the original results were purely from incompetence.
However - the A sample was 4.5:1 T/E ratio and the B sample was 11:1 - that
wasn't likely incompetence in analysis - it was contamination. The T level
was NOT higher than normal. The rules of the lab stated that their accuracy
was ±30%. Having a result that far out of whack meant only one thing -
contamination and the rules said that they had to discard the results.
So precisely what happend that they not only continued but chose to obscure
the fact that their testing procedures were counter to the norm?
> "Misunderstandings and neglect occasion more mischief in the world than
> even malice and wickedness. At all events, the two latter are of less
> frequent occurrence." -Goethe
I believe that the initial problem was neglect of procedure but to carry on
was wickedness.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 18:59:18
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
>"Tom Grosman" <grosman@aonix.fr> wrote in message
>news:46252c13$0$28518$426a34cc@news.free.fr...
>>
>> IF Floyd was clean, then the results are due to incompetence (as Floyd is
>> suggesting), not "enhancing" results. After that it's all CYA.
>
>And the CYA could result in "enhanced" results. That's why it was
>disgraceful to have the lab in question perform these further tests it was
>unnecessary and obviously argumentative.
>
>Though I agree that the original results were purely from incompetence.
>However - the A sample was 4.5:1 T/E ratio and the B sample was 11:1 - that
>wasn't likely incompetence in analysis - it was contamination. The T level
>was NOT higher than normal. The rules of the lab stated that their accuracy
>was ±30%. Having a result that far out of whack meant only one thing -
>contamination and the rules said that they had to discard the results.
They also had contamination in the epitestosterone measurement well
above the "do not use" limit (7.7% vs. a max of 5%), and the second
test of the A sample produced results that varied from the first test
by 181% (testosterone) and 238% (epitestosterone). ANd then there's
the question as to whether the test actually even indicated a
"positive" anyway. For reference, of all the WADA labs out there, 955
tests have indicated T/E ratios between 4 and 6 (Floyd's was 4.9,
though his ratio has been greater than 4.1 since 2005 naturally). At
any rate, of the 955 results in WADA labs that had T/E values between
4 and 6, a whopping THREE have been deemed "positive". Go figger.
>So precisely what happend that they not only continued but chose to obscure
>the fact that their testing procedures were counter to the norm?
And continue to do so.
>> "Misunderstandings and neglect occasion more mischief in the world than
>> even malice and wickedness. At all events, the two latter are of less
>> frequent occurrence." -Goethe
>
>I believe that the initial problem was neglect of procedure but to carry on
>was wickedness.
It's "Nifong syndrome", IMHO.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 19:03:35
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"Mark Hickey" <mark@habcycles.com > wrote in message
news:3fh823ha2jdi14bodeso1c30dpolmptgb5@4ax.com...
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>>Mark, now the the USAC wants the French lab which is being questioned to
>>"test" all the old B samples that tells me that the intent is to find
>>Floyd
>>guilty no matter what.
>>
>>Imagine handing the man accused of trying to murder you a gun and telling
>>him that everyone is going to look the other way so that no one can
>>testify
>>that they witnessed anything.
>>
>>As of that time I stopped anything resembling support of USAC.
>
> What's REALLY sad is that the US taxpayer supports the whole thing. I
> get the impression that it probably started out with a limited number
> of people in the French lab "enhancing" results, and now the whole
> organization (the lab, WADA, etc.) is so deeply committed to NOT
> losing all credibility that they'll fight this tooth and nail til the
> bitter end. But I have NO doubt whatsoever that Floyd will prevail,
> and hopefully a new protocol, process and organization will result -
> one with proper controls, accountability, and inherent fairness.
I think that you've hit the nail right on the head and we're all looking at
another Nifong prosecution with everyone trying to hide the real evidence in
order to fulfill a preconceived notion.
Check this out:
"I am a retired scientist having worked for NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab for
nearly 35 years. ~
I had another experience later when I was put in charge of a project to
determine CFC transport rates from the surface to the upper atmosphere.
Ozone destruction by halogen catalysis is well understood and is easily
demonstrated in the laboratory. The observed depletion of the ozone layer at
both of the poles was of considerable concern and it was theorized that CFC
based refrigerants were at fault. (I am sure everyone remembers that one)
Well, anyway, we put together a program using high altitude aircraft and
balloons to measure the CFC particle population at various altitudes.
Mathematical models based on assumed ozone catalytic destruction had been
constructed that predicted the levels to expect at various altitudes so we
set about to confirm the model. What we found was that in both the Northern
and Southern hemispheres the CFC density was less than five percent of what
the model demanded to assign a causal relationship between CFC's and ozone
depletion. The measurements were repeated a number of times but we never
came close to finding enough halogen compounds to satisfy the model. We had
to conclude that CFC's were not a significant contributing factor to ozone
depletion and that catalysis did not dominate the process. Some other
mechanism was at work. These results were so disappointing to the sponsors
of the project we were instructed not to publish our results."
That last sentence tells us who is driving what in science these days.
We are asked to believe in Global Warming by people who receive hundreds of
millions of dollars in grant money (ALL taxpayer subsidized and no repayment
necessary) and then they turn around and tell us that any scientist who
accepts one dollar from the energy companies hasn't any credibility.
This is the brave new world where people decide what results they want and
only report what will substantiate their own positions.
Now the political parties are all alike - going for their own power while
the news media is no longer a news media but a propaganda filter for the
moguls of media and their agendas. We are no longer told the news but given
a bare sprinkling of suppositions and then told what to think about these
things.
And the pitty is that most people fall for it.
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 20:02:28
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Mark Hickey" <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message
> news:3fh823ha2jdi14bodeso1c30dpolmptgb5@4ax.com...
>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Mark, now the the USAC wants the French lab which is being questioned
>>>to "test" all the old B samples that tells me that the intent is to
>>>find Floyd
>>>guilty no matter what.
>>>
>>>Imagine handing the man accused of trying to murder you a gun and
>>>telling him that everyone is going to look the other way so that no
>>>one can testify
>>>that they witnessed anything.
>>>
>>>As of that time I stopped anything resembling support of USAC.
>>
>> What's REALLY sad is that the US taxpayer supports the whole thing.
>> I get the impression that it probably started out with a limited
>> number of people in the French lab "enhancing" results, and now the
>> whole organization (the lab, WADA, etc.) is so deeply committed to
>> NOT losing all credibility that they'll fight this tooth and nail til
>> the bitter end. But I have NO doubt whatsoever that Floyd will
>> prevail, and hopefully a new protocol, process and organization will
>> result - one with proper controls, accountability, and inherent
>> fairness.
>
> I think that you've hit the nail right on the head and we're all
> looking at another Nifong prosecution with everyone trying to hide the
> real evidence in order to fulfill a preconceived notion.
>
> Check this out:
>
> "I am a retired scientist having worked for NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab
> for nearly 35 years. ~
> I had another experience later when I was put in charge of a project
> to determine CFC transport rates from the surface to the upper
> atmosphere.
>
> Ozone destruction by halogen catalysis is well understood and is
> easily demonstrated in the laboratory. The observed depletion of the
> ozone layer at both of the poles was of considerable concern and it
> was theorized that CFC based refrigerants were at fault. (I am sure
> everyone remembers that one) Well, anyway, we put together a program
> using high altitude aircraft and balloons to measure the CFC particle
> population at various altitudes. Mathematical models based on assumed
> ozone catalytic destruction had been constructed that predicted the
> levels to expect at various altitudes so we set about to confirm the
> model. What we found was that in both the Northern and Southern
> hemispheres the CFC density was less than five percent of what the
> model demanded to assign a causal relationship between CFC's and ozone
> depletion. The measurements were repeated a number of times but we
> never came close to finding enough halogen compounds to satisfy the
> model. We had to conclude that CFC's were not a significant
> contributing factor to ozone depletion and that catalysis did not
> dominate the process. Some other mechanism was at work. These results
> were so disappointing to the sponsors of the project we were
> instructed not to publish our results."
>
> That last sentence tells us who is driving what in science these days.
>
> We are asked to believe in Global Warming by people who receive
> hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money (ALL taxpayer
> subsidized and no repayment necessary) and then they turn around and
> tell us that any scientist who accepts one dollar from the energy
> companies hasn't any credibility.
>
> This is the brave new world where people decide what results they want
> and only report what will substantiate their own positions.
>
> Now the political parties are all alike - going for their own power
> while the news media is no longer a news media but a propaganda filter
> for the moguls of media and their agendas. We are no longer told the
> news but given a bare sprinkling of suppositions and then told what to
> think about these things.
>
Dear Chemically Challenged Human:
That statement was made before they figured out it wasn't a gas-phase
chemical process responsible for ozone depletion at high latitudes, but a
surface-catalyzed process on ice, that works with much lower concentrations
of CFCs in the gas phase. Or more likely, the guy who worked at JPL for 35
years wasn't an atmospheric chemist and is completely ignorant of the
difference between solid surface catalysis at low vapor pressure and gas-
phase reactions. Susan Solomon got the national medal of science for this,
it's pretty well understood and documented, even by right-wing idealogues.
As an editorial aside, what the above statement demonstrates is precisely
how science works. They observed the ozone hole, tried modeling the
atmosphere using only gas-phase processes with the observed concentrations
of CFCs and found there was a huge discrepency. So they went looking for
what the problem was and low and behold, ice-surface photocatalysis
involving CFCs was the culprit. Now the models incorporate that process
and are quite happy to recreate ozone holes given the lower CFC
concentrations. Of course, the bad news is that we now understand the
impact of CFCs on ozone is much more sensitive to ozone concentrations so
it will take that much longer for the hole to go away as the CFCs get out
of the atmosphere. Oh well.
Let me know if you need me to post a link to another interpretive dance for
this to help you understand it. It's not really a subtle point, but I am
willing to do my part to help.
Final thing, could you provide a list of the agencies providing hundreds of
millions of dollars per year specifically for climate related research?
The entire budget for basic research at ONR is around 100 million per year
and that is a big pot itself, I want to know where one several times that
size is.
I know what I said, but technically this isn't climate change.
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 21:10:03
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns991584804C6E1FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>
> That statement was made before they figured out it wasn't a gas-phase
> chemical process responsible for ozone depletion at high latitudes, but a
> surface-catalyzed process on ice, that works with much lower
> concentrations
> of CFCs in the gas phase.
I hate to point this out but CFC's are a very heavy molecule. MUCH heavier
than CO2 which strangely, has a very difficult time getting into the upper
atmosphere.
Of course there was also the fact that the hole in the ozone was only
detected AFTER they put a satellite into orbit that could detect it. And
then STRANGELY enough although ALL of the data showed that the hole was
there from the very first time they looked, that it waxed and waned but
never disappeared and that although the levels of CFC's are now a mere
shadow of what they were at that time, and yet the holes appear to act
EXACTLY the same as they have all along - somehow the CFC's are still being
blamed for these things that have, to our knowledge always been there.
So I would suggest that someone who claims to be chemically knowledgeable
would probably have a better idea of the situation before shooting his
stupid mouth off.
> Final thing, could you provide a list of the agencies providing hundreds
> of
> millions of dollars per year specifically for climate related research?
> The entire budget for basic research at ONR is around 100 million per year
> and that is a big pot itself, I want to know where one several times that
> size is.
If you don't understand how grants are awarded by the NIH, the NSF and
others perhaps you shouldn't speak about it?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 22:04:35
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns991584804C6E1FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>
>> That statement was made before they figured out it wasn't a gas-phase
>> chemical process responsible for ozone depletion at high latitudes,
>> but a surface-catalyzed process on ice, that works with much lower
>> concentrations
>> of CFCs in the gas phase.
>
> I hate to point this out but CFC's are a very heavy molecule. MUCH
> heavier than CO2 which strangely, has a very difficult time getting
> into the upper atmosphere.
>
> Of course there was also the fact that the hole in the ozone was only
> detected AFTER they put a satellite into orbit that could detect it.
> And then STRANGELY enough although ALL of the data showed that the
> hole was there from the very first time they looked, that it waxed and
> waned but never disappeared and that although the levels of CFC's are
> now a mere shadow of what they were at that time, and yet the holes
> appear to act EXACTLY the same as they have all along - somehow the
> CFC's are still being blamed for these things that have, to our
> knowledge always been there.
>
> So I would suggest that someone who claims to be chemically
> knowledgeable would probably have a better idea of the situation
> before shooting his stupid mouth off.
>
>> Final thing, could you provide a list of the agencies providing
>> hundreds of
>> millions of dollars per year specifically for climate related
>> research? The entire budget for basic research at ONR is around 100
>> million per year and that is a big pot itself, I want to know where
>> one several times that size is.
>
> If you don't understand how grants are awarded by the NIH, the NSF and
> others perhaps you shouldn't speak about it?
Thomas:
According to articles in peer-reviewed journals like Nature, the mixing
ratio of CO2 decreases by about 7 ppmv in the stratosphere (out of a total
of around 360 ppmv). Above that, most measurements indicate a fairly flat
mizing ration for CO2 up until the stratopause at around 90 km, which I am
going to guess here, is right where the adiabatic lapse rate would predict
atmospheric temperature is below the freezing point of CO2. The maximum in
ozone is at 30 km, give or take, so CO2 doesn't decrease with altitude up
to the ozone layer. CFCs do decline in mixing ratio up to the
stratosphere, but the point is that with solid-surface catalysis driving
the ozone loss you don't need a whole lot of CFC around to degrade a lot of
ozone, it's a very efficient process. I mentioned that in my original
post, it must have gone by you.
As for your "historical perspective," well, read here:
http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part1.html
Look, as with a lot of stuff (except how many and what kind of bicycles you
have in your garage), you are a wealth of disinformation. Do you just
assimilate anything that fits into your world view as fact no matter how
fast it flies in the face of common sense, logic, or objective evidence?
How much experience I have or don't have with the process of obtaining
federal research dollars has nothing to do with your providing a reference
for where these hundreds of millions of climate-related research dollars
are.
My opinion is that you should stick to topics I find mildly entertaining,
like speculating on the sexual proclivities of other men. That's good
stuff, by the way.
Finally, I never claimed to be chemically knowledgable, I only claimed your
original source was speaking from a position of ignorance. That last
assertion, I can support.
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 09:54:08
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
>>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> William Asher wrote:
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>William Asher wrote:
>
SchwartzSoft thanks you for providing extensive beta testing of their
products.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 16:41:31
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
Donald Munro wrote:
>>>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>>>> William Asher wrote:
>
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>>William Asher wrote:
>>
>
> SchwartzSoft thanks you for providing extensive beta testing of their
> products.
>
>
You might even call it master beta testing.
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 21:44:46
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
In article <Xns991599351CC68FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 >,
William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:
> My opinion is that you should stick to topics I find mildly entertaining,
> like speculating on the sexual proclivities of other men. That's good
> stuff, by the way.
You know, I sure hope you don't ride a recumbent, otherwise Tom won't respect
your opinions or input.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 16:40:44
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <Xns991599351CC68FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4>,
> William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> My opinion is that you should stick to topics I find mildly
>> entertaining, like speculating on the sexual proclivities of other
>> men. That's good stuff, by the way.
>
> You know, I sure hope you don't ride a recumbent, otherwise Tom
> won't respect your opinions or input.
>
You are *so* mean.
--
Bill Asher
|
| | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 23:03:35
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> Mark, now the the USAC wants the French lab which is being questioned to
> "test" all the old B samples that tells me that the intent is to find
> Floyd guilty no matter what.
This bothers me.
There is a protocol for handling "A" and "B" samples that this lab is
apparently unable to follow. There is no protocol at all for
handling "C" - "Z" samples. In particular, it seems likely that you could
count on these samples being tested en mass. The same testers will be
involved and the same mistakes in testing will likely be seen on all
samples.
You can't treat the science like it's some sort of magic genie in a lamp and
expect reasonable results. At BEST, you provide Landis with additional fuel
for claiming he was railroaded.
Is there a process or isn't there? If there is, then follow it. If not, then
quit pretending.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 22:36:27
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"Fred Fredburger" <Fred.Fredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh > wrote in
message news:88ydnS7AC-ofJr7bnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>
>> Mark, now the the USAC wants the French lab which is being questioned to
>> "test" all the old B samples that tells me that the intent is to find
>> Floyd guilty no matter what.
>
> This bothers me.
>
> There is a protocol for handling "A" and "B" samples that this lab is
> apparently unable to follow. There is no protocol at all for
> handling "C" - "Z" samples. In particular, it seems likely that you could
> count on these samples being tested en mass. The same testers will be
> involved and the same mistakes in testing will likely be seen on all
> samples.
>
> You can't treat the science like it's some sort of magic genie in a lamp
> and
> expect reasonable results. At BEST, you provide Landis with additional
> fuel
> for claiming he was railroaded.
>
> Is there a process or isn't there? If there is, then follow it. If not,
> then
> quit pretending.
The protocol for handling the B samples was - I THOUGHT - to put the sample
out to ANOTHER lab for testing. The fact that the USAC wanted the same lab
to test these samples is significant.
|
| |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 20:29:59
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
Mark Hickey wrote:
> Dr. Baker explained the
> science of testosterone, and how clinical studies have shown that
> there is no measureable performance gain even with 10x the allowed
> testosterone level present on that day's effort (that is, it's not a
> "one day drug"). There's simply no reason anyone would WANT to play
> around with epitestosterone on a given stage... nothing to be gained.
I wonder why he is looking at performance gain from something
that riders take to enhance recovery?
Bob Schwartz
|
| | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 08:28:32
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
Bob Schwartz wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Dr. Baker explained the
>> science of testosterone, and how clinical studies have shown that
>> there is no measureable performance gain even with 10x the allowed
>> testosterone level present on that day's effort (that is, it's not a
>> "one day drug"). There's simply no reason anyone would WANT to play
>> around with epitestosterone on a given stage... nothing to be gained.
>
> I wonder why he is looking at performance gain from something
> that riders take to enhance recovery?
>
> Bob Schwartz
It's a classic case of obfuscation.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 10:36:41
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
Kyle Legate wrote:
> It's a classic case of obfuscation.
http://www0.us.ioccc.org/2004/anonymous.c
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 02:54:25
From: Tom Grosman
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"Mark Hickey" <mark@habcycles.com > a écrit dans le message de news:
f3d5231i5mh301ia81anaumpeg70qemoo5@4ax.com...
|
| | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 20:57:14
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"Tom Grosman" <grosman@aonix.fr > wrote:
>"Mark Hickey" <mark@habcycles.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>f3d5231i5mh301ia81anaumpeg70qemoo5@4ax.com...
>
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 22:08:12
From: Tom Grosman
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"Mark Hickey" <mark@habcycles.com > a écrit dans le message de news:
hbh823plecdv4sqrv9qh1sj8m2a69p0eq9@4ax.com...
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 18:50:37
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Meeting Floyd
|
"Tom Grosman" <grosman@aonix.fr > wrote:
>"Mark Hickey" <mark@habcycles.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>hbh823plecdv4sqrv9qh1sj8m2a69p0eq9@4ax.com...
>
|
|
