you people are idiots

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 30 Dec 2006 18:40:00
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: you people are idiots

http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html

Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump
off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
"unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.

You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in
conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
employment drug tests.

So the idea that this breach means the test was wrong is ludicrous.

Thanks,

Magilla

Date: 05 Jan 2007 11:22:46
From: dbrower
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> dbrower wrote:
>
> > MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> >>dbrower wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The delays in the Landis annd Hamilton cases were caused by Hamilton and
> >>>>Landis.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Other than not accepting a sanction nolo-contendre, what exactly has
> >>>Landis done to delay his case? I'm unaware of anything procedural
> >>>that he's done that constitutes a delay. Perhaps you are thinking
> >>>that wanting a public hearing is a delaying tactic?
> >>>
> >>>To what advantage do you believe delay would be for Landis that he'd be
> >>>pursuing it as a strategy?
> >>>
> >>>Please advise,
> >>>
> >>>-dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and
> >>>comment.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>Landis doesn't dictate the pace personally. However his legal team
> >>does. The motive to delay a case is done by Landis's attorney (read:
> >>billable hours).
> >
> >
> > You refute yourself, then, since you originally said it was Hamilton
> > and Landis; now it's not them, but the attorneys? And the client has
> > no say? And puts up with it?
>
> Hey dumbass - their atorneys represent them so it's fair-game to
> attribute their conduct to their clients approval/endorsement.
> Attorneys and clients are one of the same entity for the purposes of a
> legal process (according to both attorney and athlete client, the
> attorney represents ALL legal interests, strategies, and tactics of the
> athlete). My point however was much more germane: the delay isn't being
> caused by USADA.
>
>
> >
> > What is the attorney doing procedurally that is dragging Landis out?
>
> Why don't you go out to lunch with some attorney sometime, buy him a
> scotch, and ask him to tell you about the concept of billable hours as
> it relates to how law firms operate. Better yet, go rent The Firm with
> Tom Cruise if you need it reduced to a 9th grade homework assignment.
>
>
> > I just want to understand what you think someone on the Landis side of
> > the case is doing specifically to drag the case out.
>
> I don't think, I know. They're doing the exact same thing every defense
> attorney does to their client. Do you really think a guy like Johnny
> Cochran is worth $30 million just because he gets minority juries to
> turn every case into a re-enactment of the Civil War?
>
> >
> > The original statement made it seem that Landis had no interest in a
> > resolution. If that is not what you intended to say, please explain
> > what you did mean.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > -dB
> >
>
> I meant what I said in that statment, and I did not use, nor did I
> intimate the word "resolution."
>

Dumbass,

First you said Landis was dragging his case out.

Then you said it was his lawyers.

Then you said he was approving of it.

Then you said his lawyers were playing games on him to rack up hours.

Then when asked what the lawyers were doing, you didn't offer a
specific example.

When asked if you think Landis is trying to delay resolution, you say
you never mentioned resolution, and didn't really answer the question,
pulling a Tony Snow/Scott McLellan and claiming you've already
addressed the point and stand by your previously (confusing) statement.

I don't know what the hell you are trying to say, because you seem to
mostly be making outrageous statements to get a reaction, then denying
what you seem to be implying when called on it, evading, and changing
the subject.

Yes, I am a simpleton, and I'm trying to understand the plot, but you
are too complicated for me to follow. It will help if I can get you
to directly answer two simple questions.

1. Is Landis personally trying to drag it out?

2. What procedurally has the Landis side done to draw it out?

thanks!

-dB

Date: 05 Jan 2007 23:34:42
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

dbrower wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>dbrower wrote:
>>
>>
>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>

SNIP

>
> Dumbass,
>
> First you said Landis was dragging his case out.
>
> Then you said it was his lawyers.

They're one of the same. Landis's lawyers are Landis's chosen
representatives and as such, they do speak for him officially.

>
> Then you said he was approving of it.

Since he didn't fire them, it must be interpreted to mean that Landis
approves of their conduct. If he didn't, he would have fired them.

>
> Then you said his lawyers were playing games on him to rack up hours.

Correct.

> Then when asked what the lawyers were doing, you didn't offer a
> specific example.

Okay, here is an example of wasting time:

1. Howard Jacobs asking for evidence that he knows he can't get and he
knows has been denied to him in numerous CAS cases. This request for
additional evidence was a rather large document and probably cost Floyd
$15,000 in legal fees to prepare. It never should have been filed.
However, what it does is generate money for Jacobs.

This wasted about a month.

But I have no idea why his defense costs are around $150,000 at this
point given that Arnie Baker said he was working pro bono. All I know
is it's a waste of money.

Floyd's solution to this is to let his attorney and experts run up the
bill and then ask the public to pay. This is pathetic and comes across
as arrogant.

>
> When asked if you think Landis is trying to delay resolution, you say
> you never mentioned resolution, and didn't really answer the question,
> pulling a Tony Snow/Scott McLellan and claiming you've already
> addressed the point and stand by your previously (confusing) statement.

Landis and his attorneys are delaying the case by filing frivolous
requests for evidence they know they cannot get under the rules and by
asking for dismissals they know they will not get. These requests takes
weeks to resolve and cost Landis thousands of dollars in billable hour
fees. Jacobs knows they are all going to be denied, but he files them
anyway to run up the bill.

Landis then asks the public to pick up the tab even though it is he, his
team, USAC, and the UCI that is collectively reponsible for signing onto
the WADA code. All these athlete groups, committees, trustees, UCI
councils, Pro Tour this and Pro Tour that..and then athletes want the
public to pay for their governmental ineptitude?

>
> I don't know what the hell you are trying to say, because you seem to
> mostly be making outrageous statements to get a reaction, then denying
> what you seem to be implying when called on it, evading, and changing
> the subject.
>
> Yes, I am a simpleton, and I'm trying to understand the plot, but you
> are too complicated for me to follow. It will help if I can get you
> to directly answer two simple questions.
>
> 1. Is Landis personally trying to drag it out?

He is. Landis is responsible for not exerting the proper oversight over
his attorney.

Magilla

Date: 04 Jan 2007 08:57:38
From: dbrower
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> dbrower wrote:
>
> > MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The delays in the Landis annd Hamilton cases were caused by Hamilton and
> >>Landis.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Other than not accepting a sanction nolo-contendre, what exactly has
> > Landis done to delay his case? I'm unaware of anything procedural
> > that he's done that constitutes a delay. Perhaps you are thinking
> > that wanting a public hearing is a delaying tactic?
> >
> > To what advantage do you believe delay would be for Landis that he'd be
> > pursuing it as a strategy?
> >
> > Please advise,
> >
> > -dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and
> > comment.
> >
>
>
> Landis doesn't dictate the pace personally. However his legal team
> does. The motive to delay a case is done by Landis's attorney (read:
> billable hours).

You refute yourself, then, since you originally said it was Hamilton
and Landis; now it's not them, but the attorneys? And the client has
no say? And puts up with it?

What is the attorney doing procedurally that is dragging Landis out?

I just want to understand what you think someone on the Landis side of
the case is doing specifically to drag the case out.

The original statement made it seem that Landis had no interest in a
resolution. If that is not what you intended to say, please explain
what you did mean.

thanks,

-dB

Date: 05 Jan 2007 02:46:40
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

dbrower wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>dbrower wrote:
>>
>>
>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The delays in the Landis annd Hamilton cases were caused by Hamilton and
>>>>Landis.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Other than not accepting a sanction nolo-contendre, what exactly has
>>>Landis done to delay his case? I'm unaware of anything procedural
>>>that he's done that constitutes a delay. Perhaps you are thinking
>>>that wanting a public hearing is a delaying tactic?
>>>
>>>To what advantage do you believe delay would be for Landis that he'd be
>>>pursuing it as a strategy?
>>>
>>>Please advise,
>>>
>>>-dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and
>>>comment.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Landis doesn't dictate the pace personally. However his legal team
>>does. The motive to delay a case is done by Landis's attorney (read:
>>billable hours).
>
>
> You refute yourself, then, since you originally said it was Hamilton
> and Landis; now it's not them, but the attorneys? And the client has
> no say? And puts up with it?

Hey dumbass - their atorneys represent them so it's fair-game to
attribute their conduct to their clients approval/endorsement.
Attorneys and clients are one of the same entity for the purposes of a
legal process (according to both attorney and athlete client, the
attorney represents ALL legal interests, strategies, and tactics of the
athlete). My point however was much more germane: the delay isn't being
caused by USADA.

>
> What is the attorney doing procedurally that is dragging Landis out?

Why don't you go out to lunch with some attorney sometime, buy him a
scotch, and ask him to tell you about the concept of billable hours as
it relates to how law firms operate. Better yet, go rent The Firm with
Tom Cruise if you need it reduced to a 9th grade homework assignment.

> I just want to understand what you think someone on the Landis side of
> the case is doing specifically to drag the case out.

I don't think, I know. They're doing the exact same thing every defense
attorney does to their client. Do you really think a guy like Johnny
Cochran is worth $30 million just because he gets minority juries to
turn every case into a re-enactment of the Civil War?

>
> The original statement made it seem that Landis had no interest in a
> resolution. If that is not what you intended to say, please explain
> what you did mean.
>
> thanks,
>
> -dB
>

I meant what I said in that statment, and I did not use, nor did I
intimate the word "resolution."

Thanks,

Magilla

Date: 04 Jan 2007 08:24:34
From: dbrower
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:

> This trustbut guy is a simpleton and uses flawed logic left and right.

It must be true. Please enlighten me with more examples, exalted
banana eater.

simply,

-dB

Date: 04 Jan 2007 08:21:55
From: dbrower
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:

> Just because Catlin's lab has a more stringent standard, doesn't mean
> that a lower threshold is wrong (or means it is negative under WADA
> Protocol).
>
> The way to look at this issue is that Catlin's lab has simply adopted a
> higher standard on its own. Labs are free to do that so long as their
> threshold meets WADA protocol, which the Landis result does.
>
> Let me know if you need any more help with your homework, Junior.

Hey Sonny, do you you really think WADA and Mr. Pound are down with a
lab letting DOPERS!!!! off the hook by having more stringent standards
than prescribed on the stone?

Uh huh. OK.

right.

-dB

Date: 05 Jan 2007 02:23:22
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

dbrower wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>
>>Just because Catlin's lab has a more stringent standard, doesn't mean
>>that a lower threshold is wrong (or means it is negative under WADA
>>Protocol).
>>
>>The way to look at this issue is that Catlin's lab has simply adopted a
>>higher standard on its own. Labs are free to do that so long as their
>>threshold meets WADA protocol, which the Landis result does.
>>
>>Let me know if you need any more help with your homework, Junior.
>
>
> Hey Sonny, do you you really think WADA and Mr. Pound are down with a
> lab letting DOPERS!!!! off the hook by having more stringent standards
> than prescribed on the stone?
>
> Uh huh. OK.
>
> right.
>
> -dB
>

Evidently they are.

Thanks,

Magilla

Date: 03 Jan 2007 21:23:34
From: dbrower
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:

> > Well, no. Your "~.005%" is off. A lot. In a study by the National Academy of
> > Sciences, they found that just contamination of the glassware used in the tests
> > causes a false positive rate of 3-5%. Furthermore, those tests will show positives
> > for illegal drugs if the testee has used any number of over the counter medications
> > or such things as anti-depressants, heart, ulcer or diabetes medication.
>
> Not true. Ask Catlin aty UCLA and he'll tell you why this doesn't
> apply to his lab.

Excellent, let's play "Appeal-to-Authority!"

When it's clear that Catlin's lab would have declared Landis' IRMS/CIR
results negative, what will you say?

-dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and
comment.

Date: 04 Jan 2007 11:13:25
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

dbrower wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>
>>> Well, no. Your "~.005%" is off. A lot. In a study by the National Academy of
>>>Sciences, they found that just contamination of the glassware used in the tests
>>>causes a false positive rate of 3-5%. Furthermore, those tests will show positives
>>>for illegal drugs if the testee has used any number of over the counter medications
>>>or such things as anti-depressants, heart, ulcer or diabetes medication.
>>
>>Not true. Ask Catlin aty UCLA and he'll tell you why this doesn't
>>apply to his lab.
>
>
> Excellent, let's play "Appeal-to-Authority!"
>
> When it's clear that Catlin's lab would have declared Landis' IRMS/CIR
> results negative, what will you say?
>
> -dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and
> comment.
>

This trustbut guy is a simpleton and uses flawed logic left and right.

The issue in CAS isn't going to be whether the UCLA lab protocol would
have declared Landis test negative or not, but rather whether Catlin
testifies that just having 1 metabolite out of 4 being positive is good
enough (it clearly is under WADA Protocol). Given that USADA declined
to dimiss the case, I think we pretty much know that this is going to
have to be Catlin's answer.

Just because Catlin's lab has a more stringent standard, doesn't mean
that a lower threshold is wrong (or means it is negative under WADA
Protocol).

The way to look at this issue is that Catlin's lab has simply adopted a
higher standard on its own. Labs are free to do that so long as their
threshold meets WADA protocol, which the Landis result does.

Let me know if you need any more help with your homework, Junior.

Magilla

Date: 03 Jan 2007 21:21:31
From: dbrower
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:

>
> The delays in the Landis annd Hamilton cases were caused by Hamilton and
> Landis.
>

Other than not accepting a sanction nolo-contendre, what exactly has
Landis done to delay his case? I'm unaware of anything procedural
that he's done that constitutes a delay. Perhaps you are thinking
that wanting a public hearing is a delaying tactic?

To what advantage do you believe delay would be for Landis that he'd be
pursuing it as a strategy?

Please advise,

-dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and
comment.

Date: 04 Jan 2007 11:05:49
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

dbrower wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>
>>The delays in the Landis annd Hamilton cases were caused by Hamilton and
>>Landis.
>>
>
>
> Other than not accepting a sanction nolo-contendre, what exactly has
> Landis done to delay his case? I'm unaware of anything procedural
> that he's done that constitutes a delay. Perhaps you are thinking
> that wanting a public hearing is a delaying tactic?
>
> To what advantage do you believe delay would be for Landis that he'd be
> pursuing it as a strategy?
>
> Please advise,
>
> -dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and
> comment.
>

Landis doesn't dictate the pace personally. However his legal team
does. The motive to delay a case is done by Landis's attorney (read:
billable hours).

Thanks,

Magilla

Date: 02 Jan 2007 22:57:28
From: bdbafh
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

On Jan 2, 8:45 pm, MagillaGorilla <MagillaGori...@zoo.com > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 5:00 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >>MagillaGorilla wrote:(me):
>
> >>>>Doping isn't going to be stopped. To some extent, yes, the problem is
> >>>>"finding out about it", or rather, scapegoating athletes. Which is
> >>>>what's going on in the present system. Bad rules, bad enforcement; when
> >>>>the guy next to you can dope with little fear of detection, what's your
> >>>>choice?('rilla):
>
> >>>You sound like Landis and Hamilton about 2 weeks before they were caught
> >>>doping. Landis positive test is going to ruin his life and his family's
> >>>life.So, are you agreeing with me, or what?
>
> >>>Landis ain't riding his bike again if he's found guilty. He's done.
> >>>And then his wife will divorce him.Let's hope for some true justice here. --D-y
>
> > It's hopeless, don't even waste your time. Kangaroo courts and twisted
> > science are justice in cycling.
> > Just shows how fucked the situation is when a fascist like me thinks
> > the system is screwed beyond hope.
> > Bill CActually, since the Landaluze case, I'm thinking Landis actually got a
> decent chance of beating this rap. Much better than if the Landaluze
> case wasn't overturned - that was also for a T:E test from the LNDD, you
> know. It's almost as if the CAS wanted to send a shot across the bow of
> the Frnech lab in preparation for geting the Landis appeal (regarldess
> of who wins in the Denver hearing next month, the Swiss CAS will
> definitely hear the Landis appeal). You gotta wonder how much of the
> Landaluze decision was due to Landis publishing all the errors and
> mistakes on his test on the Internet. Did the CAS arbitrators read
> that and just get pissed off and decide to send an early message to WADA?
>
> Landis's defense is lookin' good right now. If Amish boy wins his
> case, he's gonna do Larry King and give some cool quotes about Pound and
> McQualude. And then iShares will come back into the game and Landis can
> go apeshit in the Tour again with his bionic hip, and continue the
> tradition of American Tour champions who have come back from the dead to
> win that race.
>
> As a matter of fact, if you want to win the Tour and are an American,
> you should first go throw yourself in fron of an AMTRAK Metroliner. And
> then spend the next 4 years trying to get out of a wheelchair.
>
> Magilla

Amtrak struggles enough with ontime arrivals without having to face
delays due to people offing themselves via an 80 mph locomotive.
Go for maximum inconvenience to NY sports fans and pick the LIRR or
MetroNorth instead.

thanks,

-bdbafh

Date: 02 Jan 2007 16:31:45
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Bill C wrote:
> I suppose I shouldn't be but I'm bipolar on humanity. I know they
> suck, (snip)

The only thing wrong with human nature is human nature. --k Twain

We have met the enemy, and he is us. --Walt Kelly

--D-y

Date: 02 Jan 2007 15:11:31
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

dustoyevsky@mac.com wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> (me):
> > > Doping isn't going to be stopped. To some extent, yes, the problem is
> > > "finding out about it", or rather, scapegoating athletes. Which is
> > > what's going on in the present system. Bad rules, bad enforcement; when
> > > the guy next to you can dope with little fear of detection, what's your
> > > choice?
>
> ('rilla):
>
> > You sound like Landis and Hamilton about 2 weeks before they were caught
> > doping. Landis positive test is going to ruin his life and his family's
> > life.
>
> So, are you agreeing with me, or what?
>
> > Landis ain't riding his bike again if he's found guilty. He's done.
> > And then his wife will divorce him.
>
> Let's hope for some true justice here. --D-y

Why waste your time. I'm amazed at the level of support for Kangaroo
Courts and guilt by State propaganda that's been shown here.
I suppose I shouldn't be but I'm bipolar on humanity. I know they
suck, but continue to work for, and hope for the best. Seems you do the
same.
Bill C

Date: 02 Jan 2007 14:35:36
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Howard Jacobs has a poster of all these guys he defends on his wall too.
> Why? Because they write him checks for $250,000 because they took
> dope and want to be acquitted.

Well, I hope he succeeds to the point where justice is served.

Even these legal fees are a sign that the system is very, very broken.
To get that sort of sanction (just speaking to comparisons here) in
NASCAR, you would probably have to run three or four guys, and
front-runners, too, into the wall at Daytona all at once. You might get
some season-long probation, too, but you'd probably be at the next
race. I know it's an apples/grapefruit comparison to some degree, but
one system polices itself with no appreciable harm to its image, and
the other does a poor job of control while inflicting maximum damage.
--D-y

Date: 02 Jan 2007 14:31:45
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

On Jan 2, 5:00 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com > wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:(me):
>
> > > Doping isn't going to be stopped. To some extent, yes, the problem is
> > > "finding out about it", or rather, scapegoating athletes. Which is
> > > what's going on in the present system. Bad rules, bad enforcement; when
> > > the guy next to you can dope with little fear of detection, what's your
> > > choice?('rilla):
>
> > You sound like Landis and Hamilton about 2 weeks before they were caught
> > doping. Landis positive test is going to ruin his life and his family's
> > life.So, are you agreeing with me, or what?
>
> > Landis ain't riding his bike again if he's found guilty. He's done.
> > And then his wife will divorce him.Let's hope for some true justice here. --D-y

It's hopeless, don't even waste your time. Kangaroo courts and twisted
science are justice in cycling.
Just shows how fucked the situation is when a fascist like me thinks
the system is screwed beyond hope.
Bill C

Date: 02 Jan 2007 20:45:28
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Bill C wrote:

>
> On Jan 2, 5:00 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>MagillaGorilla wrote:(me):
>>
>>
>>>>Doping isn't going to be stopped. To some extent, yes, the problem is
>>>>"finding out about it", or rather, scapegoating athletes. Which is
>>>>what's going on in the present system. Bad rules, bad enforcement; when
>>>>the guy next to you can dope with little fear of detection, what's your
>>>>choice?('rilla):
>>
>>>You sound like Landis and Hamilton about 2 weeks before they were caught
>>>doping. Landis positive test is going to ruin his life and his family's
>>>life.So, are you agreeing with me, or what?
>>
>>>Landis ain't riding his bike again if he's found guilty. He's done.
>>>And then his wife will divorce him.Let's hope for some true justice here. --D-y
>
>
> It's hopeless, don't even waste your time. Kangaroo courts and twisted
> science are justice in cycling.
> Just shows how fucked the situation is when a fascist like me thinks
> the system is screwed beyond hope.
> Bill C
>

Actually, since the Landaluze case, I'm thinking Landis actually got a
decent chance of beating this rap. Much better than if the Landaluze
case wasn't overturned - that was also for a T:E test from the LNDD, you
know. It's almost as if the CAS wanted to send a shot across the bow of
the Frnech lab in preparation for geting the Landis appeal (regarldess
of who wins in the Denver hearing next month, the Swiss CAS will
definitely hear the Landis appeal). You gotta wonder how much of the
Landaluze decision was due to Landis publishing all the errors and
mistakes on his test on the Internet. Did the CAS arbitrators read
that and just get pissed off and decide to send an early message to WADA?

Landis's defense is lookin' good right now. If Amish boy wins his
case, he's gonna do Larry King and give some cool quotes about Pound and
McQualude. And then iShares will come back into the game and Landis can
go apeshit in the Tour again with his bionic hip, and continue the
tradition of American Tour champions who have come back from the dead to
win that race.

As a matter of fact, if you want to win the Tour and are an American,
you should first go throw yourself in fron of an AMTRAK Metroliner. And
then spend the next 4 years trying to get out of a wheelchair.

Magilla

Date: 02 Jan 2007 14:29:14
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> So you're tellng me if I look up the word "corrupt" in a dictionary,
> it's going to say that?
>
> Not sure about that one, boss.

How long was it that the "mini doses" of EPO were effective, according
to the popular flow, in avoiding detection while increasing
performance?

What other tricks are being used right now? Corrupt meaning dishonest
in selling the idea that the testers will ever catch up 100% with the
dopers. Even Pound casts a fearful eye at the future, when gene
alteration may come into the picture. He's glad he'll be gone by then,
I'd imagine. --D-y

Date: 02 Jan 2007 14:22:24
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:

(me):
> > Nope. I'm saying that WADA's selling of the idea that they're "going to
> > clean up sports" is phony, and they know it, too. A sell-out to
> > sponsors (Pound at work), riders scapegoated, bad rules and bad
> > enforcement. I'm repeating. --D-y

(Him):
> Dude, they're cleaning up the sport pretty good from where I sit -
> Hamilton, Heras, Aitor Gonzalez...Camenzind...busting the guy who won
> the Tour de France.

> That's some serious-ass house cleaning WADA is doing. It's a lot
> cleaner now than when Furlan put 1 minute on Bettini's time up the
> Poggio. Do you have any fucking idea how fast Furlan rode that climb to
> put 1 minute on Bettini?

Point(s) taken on busting the names. Clean-er. Never "clean".

It's the attitude that bothers me, if that hasn't been obvious-- the
contrast between the "real" of the NASCAR idom ("my job to cheat, their
job to catch me") v. lifelong suspensions in the cycling world. The
"moral outrage" thing just doesn't do it for me, and yes, I have
watched other Vets ride up the road when I knew I was clean and
riding/training to my limits.

When faced with career-ending sanctions, and in light of the
fallibility of the tests, the pressure to perform when others can dope
without detection, and indeed the politics, I'm totally on the riders'
side. Guarantee effective testing (instead of police work), I could
change my mind so to speak.
--D-y

Date: 02 Jan 2007 14:00:08
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:

(me):
> > Doping isn't going to be stopped. To some extent, yes, the problem is
> > "finding out about it", or rather, scapegoating athletes. Which is
> > what's going on in the present system. Bad rules, bad enforcement; when
> > the guy next to you can dope with little fear of detection, what's your
> > choice?

('rilla):

> You sound like Landis and Hamilton about 2 weeks before they were caught
> doping. Landis positive test is going to ruin his life and his family's
> life.

So, are you agreeing with me, or what?

> Landis ain't riding his bike again if he's found guilty. He's done.
> And then his wife will divorce him.

Let's hope for some true justice here. --D-y

Date: 02 Jan 2007 13:57:24
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:

> Damn, where were you when I needed you to help me beat down all these
> punks who were trying to tell me Armstrong's doctors would have written
> down everything he said in the records (during the McIllvain thread).

I've responded in at least three of those threads, to the effect that
asking that question with others around is so completely unprofessional
that I doubt it happened. --D-y

Date: 02 Jan 2007 10:46:58
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> First of all, why would your doc get "pissed off" at you for asking for
> a confirmation test? Second, do you think someone is worthy of your
> trust if they get pissed off simply because you merely want
> confirmation? And third, you imply the doctoor will do something bad to
> you or in some way sabotage your health (i.e. "don't want to piss them
> off") simply because you ask for a second test...but then you state that
> "people trust their docs."

I'm happy for you that your medical experience apparently has been so
completely positive.

Mine hasn't. Sabotage health due to being pissed off? Uh, yeah. Like
when my son was born. I'll spare you the details in the ng. Like when
my mom passed, likewise. Plus minor affairs, not "sabotaging health"
but being put down for asking a simple question-- "control issues".
Very, very common esp. with surgeons, for instance. Assholes and proud
of it.

> Can you give me any examples of athletes who were wrongly crucified by
> these so-called crusaders who dyou don't bother to mention by name, of
> course? I keep asking for people to give me examples of athletes
> wrongly convicted, and I have yet to see a single example.

The riders, including Ullrich and Basso, kept out of the TdF. Not a
"conviction" per se but how about some due process? (And if they can't
be tagged without giving up their DNA, more power to them for refusing
to give a DNA sample.)

> What does not talking about doping have to do with stopping its use?
> You imply that the problem in doping is people finding out about it.

Doping isn't going to be stopped. To some extent, yes, the problem is
"finding out about it", or rather, scapegoating athletes. Which is
what's going on in the present system. Bad rules, bad enforcement; when
the guy next to you can dope with little fear of detection, what's your
choice?

> I agree. I think WADA should be prosecuted criminally for causing
> cyclists' death because dope testers "drove EPO use underground."
> Goddamnit you are stupid.

I didn't say that. Didn't say I think you're stupid, either <g >. During
some period of time, riders were allegedly able to use EPO without
being caught (by timing and limiting amounts of EPO used, per the
"stories"). One way of looking at that is the dopers worked out a
protocol that stopped killing them. Could have been done a whole lot
faster in the plain light of day, and saved some lives in the process.

> So are you saying that EPO deaths no longer occur? WADA has stepped up
> its enforcement of EPO, driving EPO use further underground. You think
> WADA is to blame for this (as opposed to the athletes or their
> pharmalogical suppliers).

I haven't read of EPO deaths in a good while. Enlighten me.

(me):
> Maybe not exactly orange juice, but you know, EPO is
> > given to some pretty sick people who are under add'l stress from chemo
> > and radiation, and it helps them.

(him):
> No kidding. What's your point?

"Protecting the health of riders".

> That's like saying since decades of prosecutions of people who committed
> robberies, rapes, and murders has failed to completely eradicate those
> crimes, we should stop prosecuting those crimes altogether.
>
> Wow, you're really st. Thanks for demonstrating your frivolous logic.

Nope. I'm saying that WADA's selling of the idea that they're "going to
clean up sports" is phony, and they know it, too. A sell-out to
sponsors (Pound at work), riders scapegoated, bad rules and bad
enforcement. I'm repeating. --D-y

Date: 02 Jan 2007 16:27:05
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

dustoyevsky@mac.com wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>First of all, why would your doc get "pissed off" at you for asking for
>>a confirmation test? Second, do you think someone is worthy of your
>>trust if they get pissed off simply because you merely want
>>confirmation? And third, you imply the doctoor will do something bad to
>>you or in some way sabotage your health (i.e. "don't want to piss them
>>off") simply because you ask for a second test...but then you state that
>>"people trust their docs."
>
>
> I'm happy for you that your medical experience apparently has been so
> completely positive.
>
> Mine hasn't. Sabotage health due to being pissed off? Uh, yeah. Like
> when my son was born. I'll spare you the details in the ng. Like when
> my mom passed, likewise. Plus minor affairs, not "sabotaging health"
> but being put down for asking a simple question-- "control issues".
> Very, very common esp. with surgeons, for instance. Assholes and proud
> of it.
>
>
>>Can you give me any examples of athletes who were wrongly crucified by
>>these so-called crusaders who dyou don't bother to mention by name, of
>>course? I keep asking for people to give me examples of athletes
>>wrongly convicted, and I have yet to see a single example.
>
>
> The riders, including Ullrich and Basso, kept out of the TdF. Not a
> "conviction" per se but how about some due process? (And if they can't
> be tagged without giving up their DNA, more power to them for refusing
> to give a DNA sample.)
>
>
>
>>What does not talking about doping have to do with stopping its use?
>>You imply that the problem in doping is people finding out about it.
>
>
> Doping isn't going to be stopped. To some extent, yes, the problem is
> "finding out about it", or rather, scapegoating athletes. Which is
> what's going on in the present system. Bad rules, bad enforcement; when
> the guy next to you can dope with little fear of detection, what's your
> choice?
>
>
>>I agree. I think WADA should be prosecuted criminally for causing
>>cyclists' death because dope testers "drove EPO use underground."
>>Goddamnit you are stupid.
>
>
> I didn't say that. Didn't say I think you're stupid, either <g>. During
> some period of time, riders were allegedly able to use EPO without
> being caught (by timing and limiting amounts of EPO used, per the
> "stories"). One way of looking at that is the dopers worked out a
> protocol that stopped killing them. Could have been done a whole lot
> faster in the plain light of day, and saved some lives in the process.
>
>
>>So are you saying that EPO deaths no longer occur? WADA has stepped up
>>its enforcement of EPO, driving EPO use further underground. You think
>>WADA is to blame for this (as opposed to the athletes or their
>>pharmalogical suppliers).
>
>
> I haven't read of EPO deaths in a good while. Enlighten me.
>
> (me):
>
>>Maybe not exactly orange juice, but you know, EPO is
>>
>>>given to some pretty sick people who are under add'l stress from chemo
>>>and radiation, and it helps them.
>
>
> (him):
>
>>No kidding. What's your point?
>
>
> "Protecting the health of riders".
>
>
>>That's like saying since decades of prosecutions of people who committed
>>robberies, rapes, and murders has failed to completely eradicate those
>>crimes, we should stop prosecuting those crimes altogether.
>>
>>Wow, you're really st. Thanks for demonstrating your frivolous logic.
>
>
> Nope. I'm saying that WADA's selling of the idea that they're "going to
> clean up sports" is phony, and they know it, too. A sell-out to
> sponsors (Pound at work), riders scapegoated, bad rules and bad
> enforcement. I'm repeating. --D-y
>

Dude, they're cleaning up the sport pretty good from where I sit -
Hamilton, Heras, Aitor Gonzalez...Camenzind...busting the guy who won
the Tour de France.

That's some serious-ass house cleaning WADA is doing. It's a lot
cleaner now than when Furlan put 1 minute on Bettini's time up the
Poggio. Do you have any fucking idea how fast Furlan rode that climb to
put 1 minute on Bettini?

Ferrari definitely builds the best engines.

Magilla

Date: 02 Jan 2007 16:22:29
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Date: 02 Jan 2007 16:20:37
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Date: 02 Jan 2007 09:09:15
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> The delays in the Landis annd Hamilton cases were caused by Hamilton and
> Landis.

They should have just rolled over?

> Yes, I trust the tests for the most part. Facts have shown the cyclists
> are lying through their teeth and are doping on a regular basis. How
> you can sit here doping scandal after doping scandal in cycling and
> claim that WADA labs are corrupt is hilarious.

WADA is corrupt because they are selling the idea that they can "clean
up sports". This is, like Pound's work with the IOC, a sell-out to
big-bux sponsors at the expense of athletes. If they had "perfect"
testing, that would be a different story. Like I said, not on this
planet.

> You must have a poster of Virenque on your wall.

Hamilton. I'm an American.

But, on that subject, when I stood near the Prologue start house, '02
TdF, I heard Virenque receive a (really) thundering applause when his
name was announced. Far more than any other, save Armstrong. Well, what
can I say, they knew better than to invade Iraq, too. --D-y

Date: 02 Jan 2007 16:30:48
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

dustoyevsky@mac.com wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>The delays in the Landis annd Hamilton cases were caused by Hamilton and
>>Landis.
>
>
> They should have just rolled over?
>
>
>>Yes, I trust the tests for the most part. Facts have shown the cyclists
>>are lying through their teeth and are doping on a regular basis. How
>>you can sit here doping scandal after doping scandal in cycling and
>>claim that WADA labs are corrupt is hilarious.
>
>
> WADA is corrupt because they are selling the idea that they can "clean
> up sports". This is, like Pound's work with the IOC, a sell-out to
> big-bux sponsors at the expense of athletes. If they had "perfect"
> testing, that would be a different story. Like I said, not on this
> planet.
>
>
>>You must have a poster of Virenque on your wall.
>
>
> Hamilton. I'm an American.
>
> But, on that subject, when I stood near the Prologue start house, '02
> TdF, I heard Virenque receive a (really) thundering applause when his
> name was announced. Far more than any other, save Armstrong. Well, what
> can I say, they knew better than to invade Iraq, too. --D-y
>

Howard Jacobs has a poster of all these guys he defends on his wall too.
Why? Because they write him checks for $250,000 because they took
dope and want to be acquitted.

Thanks,

Magilla

Date: 02 Jan 2007 16:29:12
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Date: 02 Jan 2007 08:59:53
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:

> It depends what procedures weren't followed. Some are minor, and others
> are major. Keep in mind that for any given WADA test, there's probably
> 200 procedures that have to be followed. Making a mistake on 1 or 2 of
> them doesn't necessarily mean the entire test mujst be invalidated.

The fact that the tests are complicated, and complicated enough to
require "interpretation" (not to mention that "positive reader" thing
again) is a huge strike against them IMHO. Interpret the results, then
interpret the significance of errors if found? How many years does that
take? While an athlete (usually only cyclists, of course!) is kept from
plying his trade?

"We see here you have a dog named Fido..." --D-y

Date: 02 Jan 2007 13:03:01
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

dustoyevsky@mac.com wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>
>>It depends what procedures weren't followed. Some are minor, and others
>>are major. Keep in mind that for any given WADA test, there's probably
>>200 procedures that have to be followed. Making a mistake on 1 or 2 of
>>them doesn't necessarily mean the entire test mujst be invalidated.
>
>
> The fact that the tests are complicated, and complicated enough to
> require "interpretation" (not to mention that "positive reader" thing
> again) is a huge strike against them IMHO. Interpret the results, then
> interpret the significance of errors if found? How many years does that
> take? While an athlete (usually only cyclists, of course!) is kept from
> plying his trade?
>
> "We see here you have a dog named Fido..." --D-y
>

You're so glib with the evidence the Spanish Guard found, which was a
lot more than how you misrepresented it. They found coolers of blood,
dopehead. Who do you think those bags belong to? Nobody?

Athletes are not suspended prior to their CAS hearings. Landis isn't
suspended right now from racing. He has chosen not to race. And teams
have chosen not to hire him. Why do you make it sound like WADA has
done this to him?

As far as Basso's dog's name goes, I have no problem with such evidence.
It's a valid investigatory technique that has been proven effective -
i.e. Museuuw's "wasps" and Vadebroken's dog drop story show that
athletes use codenames and drop stories.

In fact, thhe biggest drop story in use by pro cyclists is claiming to
have asthma just so they can use the bronchodilator albuterol.

Thanks,

Magilla

Date: 03 Jan 2007 07:49:54
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

In article <VRCdnWUYgKTLAwfYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:

> You're so glib with the evidence the Spanish Guard found, which was a
> lot more than how you misrepresented it. They found coolers of blood,
> dopehead. Who do you think those bags belong to? Nobody?

A bunch of futbol players who were not named nor suspended.

--
Michael Press

Date: 02 Jan 2007 08:50:52
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:

> The same tech doing the B-test or white out doesn't translate into bad
> science.

Never said it did. I offered the links to the evil goings-on in the
Houston crime lab as a pointer towards why procedures are (or should
be!) open in the first place, and what can happen once "politics" takes
over.

You hear/read Pound's statements, and don't have at least a twinge?
--D-y

Date: 02 Jan 2007 12:28:25
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

dustoyevsky@mac.com wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>
>>The same tech doing the B-test or white out doesn't translate into bad
>>science.
>
>
> Never said it did. I offered the links to the evil goings-on in the
> Houston crime lab as a pointer towards why procedures are (or should
> be!) open in the first place, and what can happen once "politics" takes
> over.
>
> You hear/read Pound's statements, and don't have at least a twinge?
> --D-y
>

Pound's statements don't bother me because I'm st enough to know that
both him and his opinions have nothing to do with the outcome of any
doping case, which are decided exclusively by CAS panels, who have
nothing to do with WADA or Pound.

Pound and his big mouth are a red herring that people merely use to
perpetuate this persecutorial doping tyr syndrome rant. In reality,
Pound is just a figurehead with no authority in doping cases.

Why you and everyone else is so concerned about him is beyond
comprehension. When Pound leaves, cyclists will still get busted under
the exact same system and you dumb fucks will still be blaming it on Pound.

Magilla

Date: 02 Jan 2007 08:46:36
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Okay, so you admit that people go with just an A-test result for their
> own medical care. Why should athletes be afforded more protections if,
> according to you, it's standard medical treatment to go with only the A
> test result? Everything else you said is off-point and moot.

Didn't say that. Said, "people trust their docs". Plus don't want to
piss them off.

"Get a second (third, etc.) opinion" is standard. As are the stories of
"finally finding a doctor who cured me".

Athletes should be afforded protections from gas-bag crusaders and bad
rules/enforcement because there are gas-bag crusaders and bad
rules/enforcement out there.

We were better off with omerta, once they got the 'crit level thing
going.

The EPO deaths happened because EPO use was driven underground by bad
rules/enforcement. Maybe not exactly orange juice, but you know, EPO is
given to some pretty sick people who are under add'l stress from chemo
and radiation, and it helps them.

Kathleen Nelson (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) offered another "kick them
all out" IRT the Dirty 100 in baseball. Whoops, names on a list,
steroid positives apparently (2003!), and "this would avoid the
appearance of racial profiling" IRT Barry Bonds. Followed by "I was
thrilled that the teams entered in the Tour de France followed their
ethics code and refuse to allow favorites Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich to
start because of allegations of their involvement in a doping scandal."
Further on: "The solution is simple." Yup, the athletes who dope are
supposed to admit what they do. Give up their DNA, "serve your time if
found guilty".

IOW, "stand aside for those who know how to dope without getting
caught". Not gonna happen on this planet, if that's news to anyone
besides Ms Nelson.

Point is, it's an unsolveable problem. How much punishment will fix it?
--D-y

Date: 02 Jan 2007 12:48:54
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

dustoyevsky@mac.com wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>Okay, so you admit that people go with just an A-test result for their
>>own medical care. Why should athletes be afforded more protections if,
>>according to you, it's standard medical treatment to go with only the A
>>test result? Everything else you said is off-point and moot.
>
>
> Didn't say that. Said, "people trust their docs". Plus don't want to
> piss them off.

First of all, why would your doc get "pissed off" at you for asking for
a confirmation test? Second, do you think someone is worthy of your
trust if they get pissed off simply because you merely want
confirmation? And third, you imply the doctoor will do something bad to
you or in some way sabotage your health (i.e. "don't want to piss them
off") simply because you ask for a second test...but then you state that
"people trust their docs."

It sounds like you trust a psychopath who is easily angered and is
willing to harm you. What bizarre logic you have.

>
> "Get a second (third, etc.) opinion" is standard. As are the stories of
> "finally finding a doctor who cured me".
>
> Athletes should be afforded protections from gas-bag crusaders and bad
> rules/enforcement because there are gas-bag crusaders and bad
> rules/enforcement out there.

Can you give me any examples of athletes who were wrongly crucified by
these so-called crusaders who dyou don't bother to mention by name, of
course? I keep asking for people to give me examples of athletes
wrongly convicted, and I have yet to see a single example.

>
> We were better off with omerta, once they got the 'crit level thing
> going.

What does not talking about doping have to do with stopping its use?
You imply that the problem in doping is people finding out about it.

>
> The EPO deaths happened because EPO use was driven underground by bad
> rules/enforcement.

I agree. I think WADA should be prosecuted criminally for causing
cyclists' death because dope testers "drove EPO use underground."
Goddamnit you are stupid.

So are you saying that EPO deaths no longer occur? WADA has stepped up
its enforcement of EPO, driving EPO use further underground. You think
WADA is to blame for this (as opposed to the athletes or their
pharmalogical suppliers).

Maybe not exactly orange juice, but you know, EPO is
> given to some pretty sick people who are under add'l stress from chemo
> and radiation, and it helps them.

No kidding. What's your point?

>
> Kathleen Nelson (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) offered another "kick them
> all out" IRT the Dirty 100 in baseball. Whoops, names on a list,
> steroid positives apparently (2003!), and "this would avoid the
> appearance of racial profiling" IRT Barry Bonds. Followed by "I was
> thrilled that the teams entered in the Tour de France followed their
> ethics code and refuse to allow favorites Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich to
> start because of allegations of their involvement in a doping scandal."
> Further on: "The solution is simple." Yup, the athletes who dope are
> supposed to admit what they do. Give up their DNA, "serve your time if
> found guilty".
>
> IOW, "stand aside for those who know how to dope without getting
> caught". Not gonna happen on this planet, if that's news to anyone
> besides Ms Nelson.
>
> Point is, it's an unsolveable problem. How much punishment will fix it?
> --D-y
>

That's like saying since decades of prosecutions of people who committed
robberies, rapes, and murders has failed to completely eradicate those
crimes, we should stop prosecuting those crimes altogether.

Wow, you're really st. Thanks for demonstrating your frivolous logic.

Magilla

Date: 03 Jan 2007 07:44:42
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

In article <JBGdnYC2h4SbBgfYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:

> Can you give me any examples of athletes who were wrongly crucified by
> these so-called crusaders who dyou don't bother to mention by name, of
> course? I keep asking for people to give me examples of athletes
> wrongly convicted, and I have yet to see a single example.

Already have. Ullrich, Basso, and Landis.

--
Michael Press

Date: 04 Jan 2007 11:56:26
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Michael Press wrote:

> In article <JBGdnYC2h4SbBgfYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Can you give me any examples of athletes who were wrongly crucified by
>>these so-called crusaders who dyou don't bother to mention by name, of
>>course? I keep asking for people to give me examples of athletes
>>wrongly convicted, and I have yet to see a single example.
>
>
> Already have. Ullrich, Basso, and Landis.
>

You are aware of the fact that none of those riders have been suspended
by the UCI/WADA/CAS. Rather, it was THEIR TEAMS who forced them not to
race, which they were entitled to do as per their contract.

You are aware of that MAJOR FACT, correct? So how is enforcing a
contractual term a "crucifixion?" The riders agreed to those terms,
dumbass.

Thanks,

Magilla

Date: 05 Jan 2007 10:35:45
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

In article <drWcnfx144omrADYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article <JBGdnYC2h4SbBgfYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> > MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Can you give me any examples of athletes who were wrongly crucified by
> >>these so-called crusaders who dyou don't bother to mention by name, of
> >>course? I keep asking for people to give me examples of athletes
> >>wrongly convicted, and I have yet to see a single example.
> >
> > Already have. Ullrich, Basso, and Landis.
>
> You are aware of the fact that none of those riders have been suspended
> by the UCI/WADA/CAS. Rather, it was THEIR TEAMS who forced them not to
> race, which they were entitled to do as per their contract.
>
> You are aware of that MAJOR FACT, correct? So how is enforcing a
> contractual term a "crucifixion?" The riders agreed to those terms,
> dumbass.

You asked about "wrongly convicted." You have my
answer. Waiving their rights makes them stupid, not
guilty.

What is with the quotes around `crucifixion'?

And why is team management Dick Pound's hatchet man?

--
Michael Press

Date: 05 Jan 2007 22:25:39
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Michael Press wrote:

> In article <drWcnfx144omrADYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Press wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <JBGdnYC2h4SbBgfYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
>>> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Can you give me any examples of athletes who were wrongly crucified by
>>>>these so-called crusaders who dyou don't bother to mention by name, of
>>>>course? I keep asking for people to give me examples of athletes
>>>>wrongly convicted, and I have yet to see a single example.
>>>
>>>Already have. Ullrich, Basso, and Landis.
>>
>>You are aware of the fact that none of those riders have been suspended
>>by the UCI/WADA/CAS. Rather, it was THEIR TEAMS who forced them not to
>>race, which they were entitled to do as per their contract.
>>
>>You are aware of that MAJOR FACT, correct? So how is enforcing a
>>contractual term a "crucifixion?" The riders agreed to those terms,
>>dumbass.
>
>
> You asked about "wrongly convicted." You have my
> answer. Waiving their rights makes them stupid, not
> guilty.

Under their contractual terms with their teams, riders were properly
suspended. Your argument that waiving their rights doesn't make them
guilty, but only stupid, is irrelevant. The teams didn't suspend them
because they were guilty - they suspended them because under the terms
the riders agreed to abide by in their contracts, the teams can suspend
a rider who is merely implicated in a drug offense. This rule was
necessary for the preservation of sponsorshp dollars and the integrity
of the sport.

>
> And why is team management Dick Pound's hatchet man?

Are you saying Dick Pound doesn't have the right to voice his opinion?

Thanks,

Magilla

Date: 06 Jan 2007 08:34:12
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

In article <WrGdnfM1DNcpiwLYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article <drWcnfx144omrADYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> > MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Michael Press wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <JBGdnYC2h4SbBgfYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> >>> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Can you give me any examples of athletes who were wrongly crucified by
> >>>>these so-called crusaders who dyou don't bother to mention by name, of
> >>>>course? I keep asking for people to give me examples of athletes
> >>>>wrongly convicted, and I have yet to see a single example.
> >>>
> >>>Already have. Ullrich, Basso, and Landis.
> >>
> >>You are aware of the fact that none of those riders have been suspended
> >>by the UCI/WADA/CAS. Rather, it was THEIR TEAMS who forced them not to
> >>race, which they were entitled to do as per their contract.
> >>
> >>You are aware of that MAJOR FACT, correct? So how is enforcing a
> >>contractual term a "crucifixion?" The riders agreed to those terms,
> >>dumbass.
> >
> >
> > You asked about "wrongly convicted." You have my
> > answer. Waiving their rights makes them stupid, not
> > guilty.
>
> Under their contractual terms with their teams, riders were properly
> suspended. Your argument that waiving their rights doesn't make them
> guilty, but only stupid, is irrelevant. The teams didn't suspend them
> because they were guilty - they suspended them because under the terms
> the riders agreed to abide by in their contracts, the teams can suspend
> a rider who is merely implicated in a drug offense. This rule was
> necessary for the preservation of sponsorshp dollars and the integrity
> of the sport.
>
> > And why is team management Dick Pound's hatchet man?
>
> Are you saying Dick Pound doesn't have the right to voice his opinion?

What does it look like?

--
Michael Press

Date: 02 Jan 2007 02:53:04
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> Real-life example of why that's a bad thing to do. A good friend of mine, 37
> years old, went to the doctor because he'd been feeling fatigued lately. The
> doctor does one test, then tells him he's got liver cancer. Don't know what
> you know about that sort of thing, but liver cancer is pretty much a 95%
> death sentence. My goodness, we (and he) really thought he was going to die,
> and his decline had been pretty rapid, so it looked like it might be soon.
> THREE DAYS LATER more tests were done... tests that should have been done
> IMMEDIATELY when the first test indicated something was seriously amiss,
> most-likely cancer.
>
> #1: My friend shouldn't have been told he had liver cancer until the doctor
> was positive, which isn't the case until a different type of test comes back
> indicating so, and then followed by a biopsy. You really need to be POSITIVE
> of something like that before you tell someone they need to get their
> affairs in order 'cuz they're not going to be around much longer.
>
> #2: The doctor being so positive about what the initial test meant ended up
> delaying the appropriate treatment for three days.
>
> But getting to your point about a "cancerous biopsy"- even those are checked
> out by more than one person. There's a lab tech who initially reports on the
> findings (the section on the slide), and then an oncologist who verifies it.
> As I've been through this thing twice (wife & father), I've got a pretty
> good handle on the procedure.

You're not going to believe this, but exactly the same
thing happened to a guy I know. The docs told him he had
finger cancer.

Ben

Date: 01 Jan 2007 17:38:11
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> The athlete has the right to have their own expert present during the
> testing of the B-sample. The expert can then testify at the CAS hearing
> as to what they saw. Having said this, there's not one single case in
> WADA's 6 years of existence of a single case where a lab tech has even
> been accused of doctoring a B-test! So why you dumb fucks in here think
> that this angle is such a terrific legal argument proves you are clueless.

Have WADA's B tests all been observed?

It's a good "legal argument" when procedures are not followed-- even
"little" things we have found out about, like the same tech doing A and
B tests, and the "white-out" violation(s).

> > http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/03/crimelab/index.html

> Give me examples in WADA where the lab has been shown to be corrupt.

Give examples where the testing protocols have been open.

> There's nothing stopping a patient from paying for a lab test if they
> felt it was so necessary. Gee, I wonder why they don't do it (Hint:
> it's because they trust the "A-sample" test)

They trust their doctors. Which trust is pretty frequently misplaced,
as things turn out. One thing that might stop a patient for paying for
their own test is "money", especially after they've already paid $850
for health insurance that month. Plus, pissing off their doctor when
their choice of doctor is limited by their health insurance plans...
You always try to make things sound simple in your favor, have you
noticed?

> >>You people are all idiots.

Wrong. But, no, we don't agree with you, and that is apparently very
upsetting to you.

> >> Having the A and B samples analyzed by
> >>different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in
> >>conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
> >>employment drug tests.
> >>
> >>So the idea that this breach means the test was wrong is ludicrous.

It doesn't matter if the "test was wrong" or "right", is the point.
When procedures are not followed, test results are moot.

> > When they drag you in, which of your rights are you willing to give up?
> > (Don't claim to be innocent if that makes you look bad, BTW)

> Shut up

Decline.

> with this "violate your rights" bullshit. All athletes are
> given CAS hearing where they can talk about anything they want and bring
> in any evidence they want. Their rights aren't violated. Stop talking
> nonsense.

Yes, and the people the Houston lab helped falsely convict had trials,
where they had legal representation. Too bad about those years in
jail... or does getting some money after waiting another three or four
years for a lawsuit to be settled square things in your book--
referencing the grand delays in the Hamilton and Landis cases. Delays
meant to cost the defendents dearly. Where does the vast pool of WADA
money come from, again?

This gets down to whether you trust "the tests", and the uses test
results will be put to. I don't.
--D-y

Date: 02 Jan 2007 10:22:24
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

dustoyevsky@mac.com wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>The athlete has the right to have their own expert present during the
>>testing of the B-sample. The expert can then testify at the CAS hearing
>>as to what they saw. Having said this, there's not one single case in
>>WADA's 6 years of existence of a single case where a lab tech has even
>>been accused of doctoring a B-test! So why you dumb fucks in here think
>>that this angle is such a terrific legal argument proves you are clueless.
>
>
> Have WADA's B tests all been observed?
>
> It's a good "legal argument" when procedures are not followed-- even
> "little" things we have found out about, like the same tech doing A and
> B tests, and the "white-out" violation(s).
>
>
>>>http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/03/crimelab/index.html
>
>
>>Give me examples in WADA where the lab has been shown to be corrupt.
>
>
> Give examples where the testing protocols have been open.
>
>
>>There's nothing stopping a patient from paying for a lab test if they
>>felt it was so necessary. Gee, I wonder why they don't do it (Hint:
>>it's because they trust the "A-sample" test)
>
>
> They trust their doctors. Which trust is pretty frequently misplaced,
> as things turn out. One thing that might stop a patient for paying for
> their own test is "money", especially after they've already paid $850
> for health insurance that month. Plus, pissing off their doctor when
> their choice of doctor is limited by their health insurance plans...
> You always try to make things sound simple in your favor, have you
> noticed?
>
>
>>>>You people are all idiots.
>
>
> Wrong. But, no, we don't agree with you, and that is apparently very
> upsetting to you.
>
>
>>>>Having the A and B samples analyzed by
>>>>different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in
>>>>conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
>>>>employment drug tests.
>>>>
>>>>So the idea that this breach means the test was wrong is ludicrous.
>
>
> It doesn't matter if the "test was wrong" or "right", is the point.
> When procedures are not followed, test results are moot.
>
>
>>>When they drag you in, which of your rights are you willing to give up?
>>>(Don't claim to be innocent if that makes you look bad, BTW)
>
>
>>Shut up
>
>
> Decline.
>
>
>>with this "violate your rights" bullshit. All athletes are
>>given CAS hearing where they can talk about anything they want and bring
>>in any evidence they want. Their rights aren't violated. Stop talking
>>nonsense.
>
>
> Yes, and the people the Houston lab helped falsely convict had trials,
> where they had legal representation. Too bad about those years in
> jail... or does getting some money after waiting another three or four
> years for a lawsuit to be settled square things in your book--
> referencing the grand delays in the Hamilton and Landis cases. Delays
> meant to cost the defendents dearly. Where does the vast pool of WADA
> money come from, again?
>
> This gets down to whether you trust "the tests", and the uses test
> results will be put to. I don't.
> --D-y
>

The delays in the Landis annd Hamilton cases were caused by Hamilton and
Landis.

Yes, I trust the tests for the most part. Facts have shown the cyclists
are lying through their teeth and are doping on a regular basis. How
you can sit here doping scandal after doping scandal in cycling and
claim that WADA labs are corrupt is hilarious.

You must have a poster of Virenque on your wall.

Thanks,

Magilla

Date: 02 Jan 2007 10:19:02
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Date: 02 Jan 2007 10:15:27
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Date: 02 Jan 2007 10:12:13
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Date: 02 Jan 2007 10:10:02
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Date: 01 Jan 2007 03:36:02
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

In article <p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:

> Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
> equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump
> off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
> done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
> "unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.

They request a new sample.

--
Michael Press

Date: 31 Dec 2006 23:29:20
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Michael Press wrote:

> In article <p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
>>equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump
>>off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
>>done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
>>"unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
>
>
> They request a new sample.
>

Who requests a new sample - what are you talking about?

Magilla

Date: 01 Jan 2007 10:21:28
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

In article <f6-dnWev1v68EwXYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article <p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> > MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
> >>equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump
> >>off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
> >>done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
> >>"unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
> >
> >
> > They request a new sample.
> >
>
>
> Who requests a new sample - what are you talking about?

Do you read what you write? You offered the example of
going to my doctor, where a single sample is taken and
used for the test. The answer to the lack of a B sample
when visiting one's personal physician is that he can
always get another sample. Try to keep up.

--
Michael Press

Date: 01 Jan 2007 11:06:29
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Michael Press wrote:

> In article <f6-dnWev1v68EwXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Press wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
>>> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
>>>>equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump
>>>>off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
>>>>done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
>>>>"unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
>>>
>>>
>>>They request a new sample.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Who requests a new sample - what are you talking about?
>
>
> Do you read what you write? You offered the example of
> going to my doctor, where a single sample is taken and
> used for the test. The answer to the lack of a B sample
> when visiting one's personal physician is that he can
> always get another sample. Try to keep up.

And in 99.9% of the time the second sample (read: B-sample) confirms the
A-sample. What does this tell you?

Besides, athletes already get a B-sample so your example doesn't even
make sense.

Thanks,

Magilla

Date: 01 Jan 2007 16:15:26
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

In article <puKdnXVLP5cYrATYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article <f6-dnWev1v68EwXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> > MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Michael Press wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> >>> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
> >>>>equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump
> >>>>off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
> >>>>done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
> >>>>"unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>They request a new sample.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>Who requests a new sample - what are you talking about?
> >
> >
> > Do you read what you write? You offered the example of
> > going to my doctor, where a single sample is taken and
> > used for the test. The answer to the lack of a B sample
> > when visiting one's personal physician is that he can
> > always get another sample. Try to keep up.
>
>
> And in 99.9% of the time the second sample (read: B-sample) confirms the
> A-sample. What does this tell you?
>
> Besides, athletes already get a B-sample so your example doesn't even
> make sense.

The sense it makes is why your example of one sample
for a visit to the personal physician makes sense.
Whereas the athlete cannot present another sample
later.

--
Michael Press

Date: 01 Jan 2007 19:55:47
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Michael Press wrote:

> In article <puKdnXVLP5cYrATYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Press wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <f6-dnWev1v68EwXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
>>> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Michael Press wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
>>>>>MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
>>>>>>equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump
>>>>>>off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
>>>>>>done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
>>>>>>"unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>They request a new sample.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Who requests a new sample - what are you talking about?
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you read what you write? You offered the example of
>>>going to my doctor, where a single sample is taken and
>>>used for the test. The answer to the lack of a B sample
>>>when visiting one's personal physician is that he can
>>>always get another sample. Try to keep up.
>>
>>
>>And in 99.9% of the time the second sample (read: B-sample) confirms the
>>A-sample. What does this tell you?
>>
>>Besides, athletes already get a B-sample so your example doesn't even
>>make sense.
>
>
> The sense it makes is why your example of one sample
> for a visit to the personal physician makes sense.
> Whereas the athlete cannot present another sample
> later.
>

Sure he can - it's called the B-sample. Jack.

Magilla

Date: 03 Jan 2007 07:26:53
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

In article <ZLycnY5SC84OMATYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article <puKdnXVLP5cYrATYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> > MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Michael Press wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <f6-dnWev1v68EwXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> >>> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Michael Press wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article <p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> >>>>>MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
> >>>>>>equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump
> >>>>>>off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
> >>>>>>done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
> >>>>>>"unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>They request a new sample.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Who requests a new sample - what are you talking about?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Do you read what you write? You offered the example of
> >>>going to my doctor, where a single sample is taken and
> >>>used for the test. The answer to the lack of a B sample
> >>>when visiting one's personal physician is that he can
> >>>always get another sample. Try to keep up.
> >>
> >>
> >>And in 99.9% of the time the second sample (read: B-sample) confirms the
> >>A-sample. What does this tell you?
> >>
> >>Besides, athletes already get a B-sample so your example doesn't even
> >>make sense.
> >
> >
> > The sense it makes is why your example of one sample
> > for a visit to the personal physician makes sense.
> > Whereas the athlete cannot present another sample
> > later.
> >
>
>
> Sure he can - it's called the B-sample. Jack.

What did you mean when you said the following?
"Remember something before you jump
off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
"unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired."

--
Michael Press

Date: 31 Dec 2006 12:13:06
From: nobody
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:40:00 -0500, MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com >
wrote:

>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>
>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
>equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump
>off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
>done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
>"unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
>
>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
>different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in
>conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
>employment drug tests.
>
>So the idea that this breach means the test was wrong is ludicrous.
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Magilla

I agree with this to a degree. Bad science, though, means not following
testing protocol. If you have a requirement that two techs verify a sample
then you can't have 'one tech' do it twice.

This is the case, for example, in blood type testing. Two techs must run
the sample and do a verification behind them in one protocol we had.

It's usually used in cases where you're issuing a product, GMP, such as a
medication or blood transfusion where the result can have serious
consequences. It should be used more often in cases of drug administration.
Two anesthesiologists should check the medication to make sure they don't
select a bottle that looks similar doesn't have a 10x concentration of the
drug.

Date: 31 Dec 2006 12:49:52
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

nobody wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:40:00 -0500, MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>
>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
>>equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump
>>off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
>>done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
>>"unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
>>
>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
>>different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in
>>conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
>>employment drug tests.
>>
>>So the idea that this breach means the test was wrong is ludicrous.
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>
>>Magilla
>
>
> I agree with this to a degree. Bad science, though, means not following
> testing protocol. If you have a requirement that two techs verify a sample
> then you can't have 'one tech' do it twice.

That's an administrative requirement, not a scientific requirement. If
it were an important medical or scientific necessity, then medical labs
all across the country would do that. They don't. What does that tell
you?

>
> This is the case, for example, in blood type testing. Two techs must run
> the sample and do a verification behind them in one protocol we had.

In 99% of medical tests, there's just one tech, one lab result.

Thanks,

Magilla

Date: 30 Dec 2006 21:06:50
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:

> http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>
> Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
> equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump
> off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
> done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
> "unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
>
> You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
> different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in
> conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
> employment drug tests.

So, in your opinion, it's OK for the UCI or WADA to break their own rules.
Is that your point? Why is that more acceptable than Landaluze breaking
their rules?

Date: 31 Dec 2006 11:24:04
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Fred Fredburger wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>
>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>
>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
>>equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump
>>off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
>>done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
>>"unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
>>
>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
>>different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in
>>conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
>>employment drug tests.
>
>
> So, in your opinion, it's OK for the UCI or WADA to break their own rules.
> Is that your point? Why is that more acceptable than Landaluze breaking
> their rules?

I didn't say it was okay, just that it doesn't really matter from a
scientific standpoint. People in here think that because it didn't
conform to some kind of WADA rule, that it means the test was wrong.
Nothing can be further from the truth.

Magilla

Date: 03 Jan 2007 21:25:52
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>
>>> http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>>
>>> Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
>>> equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump
>>> off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
>>> done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
>>> "unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
>>>
>>> You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
>>> different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in
>>> conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
>>> employment drug tests.
>>
>>
>> So, in your opinion, it's OK for the UCI or WADA to break their own
>> rules.
>> Is that your point? Why is that more acceptable than Landaluze breaking
>> their rules?
>
>
> I didn't say it was okay, just that it doesn't really matter from a
> scientific standpoint. People in here think that because it didn't
> conform to some kind of WADA rule, that it means the test was wrong.
> Nothing can be further from the truth.

I agree that they are separate issues but I think there is some overlap.
If WADA or the UCI doesn't care if they break the rules in the process
of enforcing them, it indicates a disturbing lack of integrity. The
rules on the testing procedures should ensure that the variables are
properly controlled enough to produce valid results. Most of the
procedure violations I've read about seem pretty minor and don't
necessarily mean the test was compromised.

Either the rules dictate unnecessary things and should be changed or
else they don't and shouldn't be enforced.

Date: 04 Jan 2007 16:05:40
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote in
message news:hbidnfLS8ZF_EgHYnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@comcast.com...
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>>
>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>>>
>>>> Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
>>>> equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you
>>>> jump
>>>> off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab
>>>> test
>>>> done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
>>>> "unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
>>>>
>>>> You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
>>>> different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used
>>>> in
>>>> conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
>>>> employment drug tests.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, in your opinion, it's OK for the UCI or WADA to break their own
>>> rules.
>>> Is that your point? Why is that more acceptable than Landaluze
>>> breaking
>>> their rules?
>>
>>
>> I didn't say it was okay, just that it doesn't really matter from a
>> scientific standpoint. People in here think that because it didn't
>> conform to some kind of WADA rule, that it means the test was wrong.
>> Nothing can be further from the truth.
>
> I agree that they are separate issues but I think there is some
> overlap. If WADA or the UCI doesn't care if they break the rules in
> the process of enforcing them, it indicates a disturbing lack of
> integrity. The rules on the testing procedures should ensure that the
> variables are properly controlled enough to produce valid results.
> Most of the procedure violations I've read about seem pretty minor and
> don't necessarily mean the test was compromised.

You are absolutely right but what it does mean is, *you don't know* for
sure if the test was compromised, which equals what? Why have procedures
if they don't mean anything?

Phil H

Date: 05 Jan 2007 02:33:00
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Phil Holman wrote:

> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote in
> message news:hbidnfLS8ZF_EgHYnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>>Fred Fredburger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
>>>>>equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you
>>>>>jump
>>>>>off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab
>>>>>test
>>>>>done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
>>>>>"unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
>>>>>
>>>>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
>>>>>different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used
>>>>>in
>>>>>conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
>>>>>employment drug tests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So, in your opinion, it's OK for the UCI or WADA to break their own
>>>>rules.
>>>>Is that your point? Why is that more acceptable than Landaluze
>>>>breaking
>>>>their rules?
>>>
>>>
>>>I didn't say it was okay, just that it doesn't really matter from a
>>>scientific standpoint. People in here think that because it didn't
>>>conform to some kind of WADA rule, that it means the test was wrong.
>>>Nothing can be further from the truth.
>>
>>I agree that they are separate issues but I think there is some
>>overlap. If WADA or the UCI doesn't care if they break the rules in
>>the process of enforcing them, it indicates a disturbing lack of
>>integrity. The rules on the testing procedures should ensure that the
>>variables are properly controlled enough to produce valid results.
>>Most of the procedure violations I've read about seem pretty minor and
>>don't necessarily mean the test was compromised.
>
>
> You are absolutely right but what it does mean is, *you don't know* for
> sure if the test was compromised, which equals what? Why have procedures
> if they don't mean anything?
>
> Phil H
>
>

This is my answer to your question: Just because a football player
commits a penalty during a game, it doesn't mean their team gets DQ'ed
from the game and the opponent is awarded a victory.

Another answer using a different sport: Just because a boxer hits his
opponent low once during a bout, doesn't mean he's DQ'ed from the fight
and the victory is awarded to the opponent.

So just becauuse WADA messed up on some....

Thanks,

Magilla

Date: 05 Jan 2007 08:54:33
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> This is my answer to your question: Just because a football player
> commits a penalty during a game, it doesn't mean their team gets DQ'ed
> from the game and the opponent is awarded a victory.
>
> Another answer using a different sport: Just because a boxer hits his
> opponent low once during a bout, doesn't mean he's DQ'ed from the fight
> and the victory is awarded to the opponent.
>
> So just becauuse WADA messed up on some....

Oh, I thought you were making a case for one-day-'Roid Floyd.

--
E. Dronkert

Date: 06 Jan 2007 08:15:04
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> This is my answer to your question: Just because a football player
>> commits a penalty during a game, it doesn't mean their team gets DQ'ed
>> from the game and the opponent is awarded a victory.
>>
>> Another answer using a different sport: Just because a boxer hits his
>> opponent low once during a bout, doesn't mean he's DQ'ed from the
>> fight and the victory is awarded to the opponent.
>>
>> So just becauuse WADA messed up on some....
>
>
> Oh, I thought you were making a case for one-day-'Roid Floyd.

Floyd's penalty for a positive test - assuming its affirmed - will be 2
years as specified by the rules.

I'm not one of those people in here who tries to change the rules after
the fact or claims the rules are unfair only after they're applied and
then tries to start a publicly-funded defense fund.

Magilla

Date: 10 Jan 2007 18:19:52
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:ocGdnQod6rl8PQLYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>> This is my answer to your question: Just because a football player
>>> commits a penalty during a game, it doesn't mean their team gets
>>> DQ'ed from the game and the opponent is awarded a victory.
>>>
>>> Another answer using a different sport: Just because a boxer hits
>>> his opponent low once during a bout, doesn't mean he's DQ'ed from
>>> the fight and the victory is awarded to the opponent.
>>>
>>> So just becauuse WADA messed up on some....
>>
>>
>> Oh, I thought you were making a case for one-day-'Roid Floyd.
>
>
> Floyd's penalty for a positive test - assuming its affirmed - will be
> 2 years as specified by the rules.
>
> I'm not one of those people in here who tries to change the rules
> after the fact or claims the rules are unfair only after they're
> applied and then tries to start a publicly-funded defense fund.

Even though you sound like you'd do away with the B sample!

Phil H

Date: 04 Jan 2007 11:25:14
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Fred Fredburger wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>>
>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>>>
>>>> Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
>>>> equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump
>>>> off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
>>>> done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
>>>> "unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
>>>>
>>>> You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
>>>> different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in
>>>> conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
>>>> employment drug tests.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, in your opinion, it's OK for the UCI or WADA to break their own
>>> rules.
>>> Is that your point? Why is that more acceptable than Landaluze breaking
>>> their rules?
>>
>>
>>
>> I didn't say it was okay, just that it doesn't really matter from a
>> scientific standpoint. People in here think that because it didn't
>> conform to some kind of WADA rule, that it means the test was wrong.
>> Nothing can be further from the truth.
>
>
> I agree that they are separate issues but I think there is some overlap.
> If WADA or the UCI doesn't care if they break the rules in the process
> of enforcing them, it indicates a disturbing lack of integrity. The
> rules on the testing procedures should ensure that the variables are
> properly controlled enough to produce valid results. Most of the
> procedure violations I've read about seem pretty minor and don't
> necessarily mean the test was compromised.
>
> Either the rules dictate unnecessary things and should be changed or
> else they don't and shouldn't be enforced.

I agree and think the Landaluze ruling was the correct ruling. Whether
Floyd can get the same silver platter handed to him remains to be seen.
I will say this though....the Landaluze case is a serious shot across
the bow of WADA.

And when USADA read that opinion, they began to tremble. And I don't
think the trembling will stop anytime within the next 12 months.

If USADA loses the Landis case, it's going to be big headlines and USADA
is going to lose its street cred.

Magilla

Date: 30 Dec 2006 18:49:08
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>
> Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
> equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump
> off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
> done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
> "unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
>
> You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
> different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in
> conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
> employment drug tests.

Cerebral vomit. Medical screening tests do not rely on a single result
for a diagnosis and unlike drugs, the disease sticks around for more
accurate testing and confirmation.

Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro......, I mean posts.

Phil H

Date: 30 Dec 2006 22:27:59
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Phil Holman wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>
>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
>>equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump
>>off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
>>done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
>>"unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
>>
>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
>>different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in
>>conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
>>employment drug tests.
>
>
> Cerebral vomit. Medical screening tests do not rely on a single result
> for a diagnosis and unlike drugs, the disease sticks around for more
> accurate testing and confirmation.
>
> Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro......, I mean posts.
>
> Phil H

So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes, strep throat,
meningitis, or a positive result from a cancerous biopsy, you're telling
me the doctor doesn't go by those lab results, but instead chases some
red herring that's based upon some subjective observation?

Yeah, okay. Sure.

Nice troll. Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro...I mean
posts. Bitch.

Magilla

Date: 01 Jan 2007 14:48:44
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

> So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes, strep throat,
> meningitis, or a positive result from a cancerous biopsy, you're telling
> me the doctor doesn't go by those lab results, but instead chases some red
> herring that's based upon some subjective observation?
>
> Yeah, okay. Sure.

Real-life example of why that's a bad thing to do. A good friend of mine, 37
years old, went to the doctor because he'd been feeling fatigued lately. The
doctor does one test, then tells him he's got liver cancer. Don't know what
you know about that sort of thing, but liver cancer is pretty much a 95%
death sentence. My goodness, we (and he) really thought he was going to die,
and his decline had been pretty rapid, so it looked like it might be soon.
THREE DAYS LATER more tests were done... tests that should have been done
IMMEDIATELY when the first test indicated something was seriously amiss,
most-likely cancer.

#1: My friend shouldn't have been told he had liver cancer until the doctor
was positive, which isn't the case until a different type of test comes back
indicating so, and then followed by a biopsy. You really need to be POSITIVE
of something like that before you tell someone they need to get their
affairs in order 'cuz they're not going to be around much longer.

#2: The doctor being so positive about what the initial test meant ended up
delaying the appropriate treatment for three days.

But getting to your point about a "cancerous biopsy"- even those are checked
out by more than one person. There's a lab tech who initially reports on the
findings (the section on the slide), and then an oncologist who verifies it.
As I've been through this thing twice (wife & father), I've got a pretty
good handle on the procedure.

For what it's worth, my guess is that most people who have a positive test
for HIV probably have a second test to confirm.

For the rest of the items you mentioned, perhaps they do accept the results
without question, but that can, and has, resulted in misdiagnosis due to lab
error. Would I trust a test result at face value for strep? Yes. Meningitis
or Hepatitis? I'd want to be absolutely certain, and would want to make sure
the diagnosis fit based on more than one test. HIV or Herpes? I'd be making
an assumption it was an incorrect test and demand a re-test.
--
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:oOqdnYJGg-vcswrYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>
>>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>>
>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't equate
>>>to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump off that
>>>lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test done, there
>>>isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that "unethical" and asks
>>>the lab director to be fired.
>>>
>>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
>>>different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in
>>>conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for employment
>>>drug tests.
>>
>>
>> Cerebral vomit. Medical screening tests do not rely on a single result
>> for a diagnosis and unlike drugs, the disease sticks around for more
>> accurate testing and confirmation.
>>
>> Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro......, I mean posts.
>>
>> Phil H
>
>
> So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes, strep throat,
> meningitis, or a positive result from a cancerous biopsy, you're telling
> me the doctor doesn't go by those lab results, but instead chases some red
> herring that's based upon some subjective observation?
>
> Yeah, okay. Sure.
>
> Nice troll. Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro...I mean
> posts. Bitch.
>
>
> Magilla

Date: 01 Jan 2007 19:54:32
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

>>So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes, strep throat,
>>meningitis, or a positive result from a cancerous biopsy, you're telling
>>me the doctor doesn't go by those lab results, but instead chases some red
>>herring that's based upon some subjective observation?
>>
>>Yeah, okay. Sure.
>
>
> Real-life example of why that's a bad thing to do. A good friend of mine, 37
> years old, went to the doctor because he'd been feeling fatigued lately. The
> doctor does one test, then tells him he's got liver cancer. Don't know what
> you know about that sort of thing, but liver cancer is pretty much a 95%
> death sentence. My goodness, we (and he) really thought he was going to die,
> and his decline had been pretty rapid, so it looked like it might be soon.
> THREE DAYS LATER more tests were done... tests that should have been done
> IMMEDIATELY when the first test indicated something was seriously amiss,
> most-likely cancer.
>
> #1: My friend shouldn't have been told he had liver cancer until the doctor
> was positive, which isn't the case until a different type of test comes back
> indicating so, and then followed by a biopsy. You really need to be POSITIVE
> of something like that before you tell someone they need to get their
> affairs in order 'cuz they're not going to be around much longer.

Why should a doctor be "positive." He has a clinic to run, boat slip
rental fees, and he's trying to fuck the nurse on the 7th floor. Why
should your friend's liver test be allowed to detract from those other
things that are more important to the doctor.

> #2: The doctor being so positive about what the initial test meant ended up
> delaying the appropriate treatment for three days.

So what? You think your doctor cares about your life? He doesn't. You
only think he does.

>
> But getting to your point about a "cancerous biopsy"- even those are checked
> out by more than one person. There's a lab tech who initially reports on the
> findings (the section on the slide), and then an oncologist who verifies it.
> As I've been through this thing twice (wife & father), I've got a pretty
> good handle on the procedure.

And you know for a fact that before WADA calls a test positive that they
don't do the very same thing - i.e. get the supervisor and the most
experienced tech to confirm? Of course they do.

>
> For what it's worth, my guess is that most people who have a positive test
> for HIV probably have a second test to confirm.

The B-sample test for AIDS is answering the following question: do you
get fucked in the ass by gay men? If the answer is yes, then you're
B-sample test is considered POSITIVE. I think you automatically qualify
to get your name on a quilt or something too.

'Gilla

Date: 02 Jan 2007 07:46:16
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

>> But getting to your point about a "cancerous biopsy"- even those are
>> checked out by more than one person. There's a lab tech who initially
>> reports on the findings (the section on the slide), and then an
>> oncologist who verifies it. As I've been through this thing twice (wife &
>> father), I've got a pretty good handle on the procedure.
>
> And you know for a fact that before WADA calls a test positive that they
> don't do the very same thing - i.e. get the supervisor and the most
> experienced tech to confirm? Of course they do.

And you know this how?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:ZLycnY9SC87VMATYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>>>So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes, strep throat,
>>>meningitis, or a positive result from a cancerous biopsy, you're telling
>>>me the doctor doesn't go by those lab results, but instead chases some
>>>red herring that's based upon some subjective observation?
>>>
>>>Yeah, okay. Sure.
>>
>>
>> Real-life example of why that's a bad thing to do. A good friend of mine,
>> 37 years old, went to the doctor because he'd been feeling fatigued
>> lately. The doctor does one test, then tells him he's got liver cancer.
>> Don't know what you know about that sort of thing, but liver cancer is
>> pretty much a 95% death sentence. My goodness, we (and he) really thought
>> he was going to die, and his decline had been pretty rapid, so it looked
>> like it might be soon. THREE DAYS LATER more tests were done... tests
>> that should have been done IMMEDIATELY when the first test indicated
>> something was seriously amiss, most-likely cancer.
>>
>> #1: My friend shouldn't have been told he had liver cancer until the
>> doctor was positive, which isn't the case until a different type of test
>> comes back indicating so, and then followed by a biopsy. You really need
>> to be POSITIVE of something like that before you tell someone they need
>> to get their affairs in order 'cuz they're not going to be around much
>> longer.
>
> Why should a doctor be "positive." He has a clinic to run, boat slip
> rental fees, and he's trying to fuck the nurse on the 7th floor. Why
> should your friend's liver test be allowed to detract from those other
> things that are more important to the doctor.
>
>
>> #2: The doctor being so positive about what the initial test meant ended
>> up delaying the appropriate treatment for three days.
>
> So what? You think your doctor cares about your life? He doesn't. You
> only think he does.
>
>
>>
>> But getting to your point about a "cancerous biopsy"- even those are
>> checked out by more than one person. There's a lab tech who initially
>> reports on the findings (the section on the slide), and then an
>> oncologist who verifies it. As I've been through this thing twice (wife &
>> father), I've got a pretty good handle on the procedure.
>
> And you know for a fact that before WADA calls a test positive that they
> don't do the very same thing - i.e. get the supervisor and the most
> experienced tech to confirm? Of course they do.
>
>
>>
>> For what it's worth, my guess is that most people who have a positive
>> test for HIV probably have a second test to confirm.
>
> The B-sample test for AIDS is answering the following question: do you get
> fucked in the ass by gay men? If the answer is yes, then you're B-sample
> test is considered POSITIVE. I think you automatically qualify to get
> your name on a quilt or something too.
>
>
> 'Gilla
>

Date: 02 Jan 2007 10:24:27
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

>>>But getting to your point about a "cancerous biopsy"- even those are
>>>checked out by more than one person. There's a lab tech who initially
>>>reports on the findings (the section on the slide), and then an
>>>oncologist who verifies it. As I've been through this thing twice (wife &
>>>father), I've got a pretty good handle on the procedure.
>>
>>And you know for a fact that before WADA calls a test positive that they
>>don't do the very same thing - i.e. get the supervisor and the most
>>experienced tech to confirm? Of course they do.
>
>
> And you know this how?
>

It's common knowledge, dude. Your failure to know this means you are
out of the loop in dope testing. Why don't you ask Landis's attorney and
see if he tells you the same thing.

Thanks,

Magilla

Date: 02 Jan 2007 10:39:53
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

>>>And you know for a fact that before WADA calls a test positive that they
>>>don't do the very same thing - i.e. get the supervisor and the most
>>>experienced tech to confirm? Of course they do.
>>
>>
>> And you know this how?
>>
>
> It's common knowledge, dude. Your failure to know this means you are out
> of the loop in dope testing. Why don't you ask Landis's attorney and see
> if he tells you the same thing.

You're offering a standard of proof far below what you'd expect from anyone
else. As you'd say, "prove it."

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:oOadnQZi06a25AfYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>>>>But getting to your point about a "cancerous biopsy"- even those are
>>>>checked out by more than one person. There's a lab tech who initially
>>>>reports on the findings (the section on the slide), and then an
>>>>oncologist who verifies it. As I've been through this thing twice (wife
>>>>& father), I've got a pretty good handle on the procedure.
>>>
>>>And you know for a fact that before WADA calls a test positive that they
>>>don't do the very same thing - i.e. get the supervisor and the most
>>>experienced tech to confirm? Of course they do.
>>
>>
>> And you know this how?
>>
>
> It's common knowledge, dude. Your failure to know this means you are out
> of the loop in dope testing. Why don't you ask Landis's attorney and see
> if he tells you the same thing.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Magilla

Date: 02 Jan 2007 16:35:13
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

>>>>And you know for a fact that before WADA calls a test positive that they
>>>>don't do the very same thing - i.e. get the supervisor and the most
>>>>experienced tech to confirm? Of course they do.
>>>
>>>
>>>And you know this how?
>>>
>>
>>It's common knowledge, dude. Your failure to know this means you are out
>>of the loop in dope testing. Why don't you ask Landis's attorney and see
>>if he tells you the same thing.
>
>
> You're offering a standard of proof far below what you'd expect from anyone
> else. As you'd say, "prove it."
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

I don't have to prove it because all athletes are allowed to have their
experts view the testing of the B-sample. And it's a fact that not a
single expert has been able to come into a CAS hearing in the past 6
years and win a case under the claim the test was mishandled or sabotaged.

So you're asking for evidence that is neither here nor there in the
whole scheme of things.

Magilla

Date: 03 Jan 2007 07:40:12
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

In article <WzGdnXkiD7uPTQfYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:

> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> >>>>And you know for a fact that before WADA calls a test positive that they
> >>>>don't do the very same thing - i.e. get the supervisor and the most
> >>>>experienced tech to confirm? Of course they do.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And you know this how?
> >>>
> >>
> >>It's common knowledge, dude. Your failure to know this means you are out
> >>of the loop in dope testing. Why don't you ask Landis's attorney and see
> >>if he tells you the same thing.
> >
> >
> > You're offering a standard of proof far below what you'd expect from anyone
> > else. As you'd say, "prove it."
> >
> > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> > www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
> I don't have to prove it because all athletes are allowed to have their
> experts view the testing of the B-sample. And it's a fact that not a
> single expert has been able to come into a CAS hearing in the past 6
> years and win a case under the claim the test was mishandled or sabotaged.
>
> So you're asking for evidence that is neither here nor there in the
> whole scheme of things.

So let me see. CAS rulings are 100% for evidence of
drug use. It's good to have something to depend upon in
this life.

--
Michael Press

Date: 03 Jan 2007 14:40:30
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Michael Press wrote:

> In article <WzGdnXkiD7uPTQfYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>And you know for a fact that before WADA calls a test positive that they
>>>>>>don't do the very same thing - i.e. get the supervisor and the most
>>>>>>experienced tech to confirm? Of course they do.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And you know this how?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's common knowledge, dude. Your failure to know this means you are out
>>>>of the loop in dope testing. Why don't you ask Landis's attorney and see
>>>>if he tells you the same thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're offering a standard of proof far below what you'd expect from anyone
>>>else. As you'd say, "prove it."
>>>
>>>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>>
>>I don't have to prove it because all athletes are allowed to have their
>>experts view the testing of the B-sample. And it's a fact that not a
>>single expert has been able to come into a CAS hearing in the past 6
>>years and win a case under the claim the test was mishandled or sabotaged.
>>
>>So you're asking for evidence that is neither here nor there in the
>>whole scheme of things.
>
>
> So let me see. CAS rulings are 100% for evidence of
> drug use. It's good to have something to depend upon in
> this life.
>

They're just as much "100% evidence" as a conviction in criminal court
for murdering someone. Why - do you think a rider's vehement denial
should be afforded greater weight?

Thanks,

Magilla

Date: 05 Jan 2007 10:15:04
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

In article <2MWcnXg1r6szmwHYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article <WzGdnXkiD7uPTQfYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> > MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>And you know for a fact that before WADA calls a test positive that they
> >>>>>>don't do the very same thing - i.e. get the supervisor and the most
> >>>>>>experienced tech to confirm? Of course they do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>And you know this how?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>It's common knowledge, dude. Your failure to know this means you are out
> >>>>of the loop in dope testing. Why don't you ask Landis's attorney and see
> >>>>if he tells you the same thing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You're offering a standard of proof far below what you'd expect from anyone
> >>>else. As you'd say, "prove it."
> >>>
> >>>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> >>>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
> >>
> >>
> >>I don't have to prove it because all athletes are allowed to have their
> >>experts view the testing of the B-sample. And it's a fact that not a
> >>single expert has been able to come into a CAS hearing in the past 6
> >>years and win a case under the claim the test was mishandled or sabotaged.
> >>
> >>So you're asking for evidence that is neither here nor there in the
> >>whole scheme of things.
> >
> >
> > So let me see. CAS rulings are 100% for evidence of
> > drug use. It's good to have something to depend upon in
> > this life.
> >
>
> They're just as much "100% evidence" as a conviction in criminal court
> for murdering someone. Why - do you think a rider's vehement denial
> should be afforded greater weight?

It is not that you are a gadfly; it is that you are a dishonest jerk.

--
Michael Press

Date: 03 Jan 2007 18:08:09
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:2MWcnXg1r6szmwHYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>
>> So let me see. CAS rulings are 100% for evidence of drug use. It's good
>> to have something to depend upon in this life.
>>
>
> They're just as much "100% evidence" as a conviction in criminal court for
> murdering someone. Why - do you think a rider's vehement denial should
> be afforded greater weight?
>

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."

Date: 04 Jan 2007 11:15:43
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Carl Sundquist wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2MWcnXg1r6szmwHYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>>So let me see. CAS rulings are 100% for evidence of drug use. It's good
>>>to have something to depend upon in this life.
>>>
>>
>>They're just as much "100% evidence" as a conviction in criminal court for
>>murdering someone. Why - do you think a rider's vehement denial should
>>be afforded greater weight?
>>
>
>
> "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."

Or in Landis's case, "If the patch ain't on the sack, you must not sack."

I like Carl, even though he lives in the Redneck Riviera.

Magilla

Date: 31 Dec 2006 09:20:27
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:oOqdnYJGg-vcswrYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>
>>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>>
>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
>>>equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you
>>>jump off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab
>>>test done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
>>>"unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
>>>
>>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
>>>different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used
>>>in conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
>>>employment drug tests.
>>
>>
>> Cerebral vomit. Medical screening tests do not rely on a single
>> result for a diagnosis and unlike drugs, the disease sticks around
>> for more accurate testing and confirmation.
>>
>> Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro......, I mean
>> posts.
>>
>> Phil H
>
>
> So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes, strep
> throat, meningitis, or a positive result from a cancerous biopsy,
> you're telling me the doctor doesn't go by those lab results, but
> instead chases some red herring that's based upon some subjective
> observation?
>
> Yeah, okay. Sure.

No, for example ELISA is a screening test for HIV, and a chest X ray for
lung cancer. These quick non invasive tests will be followed up with
more accurate testing (biopsy or whatever) to confirm a condition.
There are exceptions but to imply that medical diagnosis relies on a
single test is generally not true.
Medical tests are subject to conditional probabilities as a measure of
their effectiveness and some screening tests have high incidence of
false positives.

In the case of drug testing, there is a single window of opportunity for
the test so it makes a lot of sense to have two samples. The occurrence
of differing results between A and B samples is confirmation of this.
What are you proposing, ignoring the inaccuracies and tough shit if your
test comes back a false positive?

Phil H

Date: 31 Dec 2006 16:30:56
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Phil Holman wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:oOqdnYJGg-vcswrYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>>>
>>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
>>>>equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you
>>>>jump off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab
>>>>test done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
>>>>"unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
>>>>
>>>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
>>>>different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used
>>>>in conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
>>>>employment drug tests.
>>>
>>>
>>>Cerebral vomit. Medical screening tests do not rely on a single
>>>result for a diagnosis and unlike drugs, the disease sticks around
>>>for more accurate testing and confirmation.
>>>
>>>Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro......, I mean
>>>posts.
>>>
>>>Phil H
>>
>>
>>So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes, strep
>>throat, meningitis, or a positive result from a cancerous biopsy,
>>you're telling me the doctor doesn't go by those lab results, but
>>instead chases some red herring that's based upon some subjective
>>observation?
>>
>>Yeah, okay. Sure.
>
>
> No, for example ELISA is a screening test for HIV, and a chest X ray for
> lung cancer. These quick non invasive tests will be followed up with
> more accurate testing (biopsy or whatever) to confirm a condition.
> There are exceptions but to imply that medical diagnosis relies on a
> single test is generally not true.
> Medical tests are subject to conditional probabilities as a measure of
> their effectiveness and some screening tests have high incidence of
> false positives.
>
> In the case of drug testing, there is a single window of opportunity for
> the test so it makes a lot of sense to have two samples. The occurrence
> of differing results between A and B samples is confirmation of this.
> What are you proposing, ignoring the inaccuracies and tough shit if your
> test comes back a false positive?
>
> Phil H

Let me ask you this then...when you do a drug screening for a new
employer, do you think the drug test has more or less protections than
athletes are afforded under WADA Protocol?

The answer is less. So all this hype that athletes are somehow
railroaded with these false positive tests is a bunch of nonsense.

Magilla

Date: 31 Dec 2006 14:26:51
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:7POcnXlW2b2PsQXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:oOqdnYJGg-vcswrYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>
>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
>>>>>equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you
>>>>>jump off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a
>>>>>lab test done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls
>>>>>that "unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
>>>>>
>>>>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
>>>>>different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used
>>>>>in conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
>>>>>employment drug tests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Cerebral vomit. Medical screening tests do not rely on a single
>>>>result for a diagnosis and unlike drugs, the disease sticks around
>>>>for more accurate testing and confirmation.
>>>>
>>>>Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro......, I mean
>>>>posts.
>>>>
>>>>Phil H
>>>
>>>
>>>So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes, strep
>>>throat, meningitis, or a positive result from a cancerous biopsy,
>>>you're telling me the doctor doesn't go by those lab results, but
>>>instead chases some red herring that's based upon some subjective
>>>observation?
>>>
>>>Yeah, okay. Sure.
>>
>>
>> No, for example ELISA is a screening test for HIV, and a chest X ray
>> for lung cancer. These quick non invasive tests will be followed up
>> with more accurate testing (biopsy or whatever) to confirm a
>> condition.
>> There are exceptions but to imply that medical diagnosis relies on a
>> single test is generally not true.
>> Medical tests are subject to conditional probabilities as a measure
>> of their effectiveness and some screening tests have high incidence
>> of false positives.
>>
>> In the case of drug testing, there is a single window of opportunity
>> for the test so it makes a lot of sense to have two samples. The
>> occurrence of differing results between A and B samples is
>> confirmation of this. What are you proposing, ignoring the
>> inaccuracies and tough shit if your test comes back a false positive?
>
> Let me ask you this then...when you do a drug screening for a new
> employer, do you think the drug test has more or less protections than
> athletes are afforded under WADA Protocol?
> The answer is less. So all this hype that athletes are somehow
> railroaded with these false positive tests is a bunch of nonsense.

Way to go ace. Why strive for a 99% probability when 90% will do.

Phil H

Date: 31 Dec 2006 18:49:52
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Phil Holman wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7POcnXlW2b2PsQXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:oOqdnYJGg-vcswrYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
>>>>>>equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you
>>>>>>jump off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a
>>>>>>lab test done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls
>>>>>>that "unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
>>>>>>different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used
>>>>>>in conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
>>>>>>employment drug tests.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Cerebral vomit. Medical screening tests do not rely on a single
>>>>>result for a diagnosis and unlike drugs, the disease sticks around
>>>>>for more accurate testing and confirmation.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro......, I mean
>>>>>posts.
>>>>>
>>>>>Phil H
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes, strep
>>>>throat, meningitis, or a positive result from a cancerous biopsy,
>>>>you're telling me the doctor doesn't go by those lab results, but
>>>>instead chases some red herring that's based upon some subjective
>>>>observation?
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, okay. Sure.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, for example ELISA is a screening test for HIV, and a chest X ray
>>>for lung cancer. These quick non invasive tests will be followed up
>>>with more accurate testing (biopsy or whatever) to confirm a
>>>condition.
>>>There are exceptions but to imply that medical diagnosis relies on a
>>>single test is generally not true.
>>>Medical tests are subject to conditional probabilities as a measure
>>>of their effectiveness and some screening tests have high incidence
>>>of false positives.
>>>
>>>In the case of drug testing, there is a single window of opportunity
>>>for the test so it makes a lot of sense to have two samples. The
>>>occurrence of differing results between A and B samples is
>>>confirmation of this. What are you proposing, ignoring the
>>>inaccuracies and tough shit if your test comes back a false positive?
>>
>>Let me ask you this then...when you do a drug screening for a new
>>employer, do you think the drug test has more or less protections than
>>athletes are afforded under WADA Protocol?
>>The answer is less. So all this hype that athletes are somehow
>>railroaded with these false positive tests is a bunch of nonsense.
>
>
> Way to go ace. Why strive for a 99% probability when 90% will do.
>
> Phil H
>

So you think employment drug tests are wrong 10% of the time? Where did
you pull that number from?

Magilla

Date: 01 Jan 2007 11:03:53
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:QpOdnezdS8w90QXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:7POcnXlW2b2PsQXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>
>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>
>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:oOqdnYJGg-vcswrYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it
>>>>>>>doesn't equate to the science being "bad." Remember something
>>>>>>>before you jump off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor
>>>>>>>and get a lab test done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and
>>>>>>>nobody calls that "unethical" and asks the lab director to be
>>>>>>>fired.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed
>>>>>>>by different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even
>>>>>>>used in conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or
>>>>>>>even for employment drug tests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cerebral vomit. Medical screening tests do not rely on a single
>>>>>>result for a diagnosis and unlike drugs, the disease sticks around
>>>>>>for more accurate testing and confirmation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro......, I mean
>>>>>>posts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Phil H
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes, strep
>>>>>throat, meningitis, or a positive result from a cancerous biopsy,
>>>>>you're telling me the doctor doesn't go by those lab results, but
>>>>>instead chases some red herring that's based upon some subjective
>>>>>observation?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, okay. Sure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, for example ELISA is a screening test for HIV, and a chest X ray
>>>>for lung cancer. These quick non invasive tests will be followed up
>>>>with more accurate testing (biopsy or whatever) to confirm a
>>>>condition.
>>>>There are exceptions but to imply that medical diagnosis relies on a
>>>>single test is generally not true.
>>>>Medical tests are subject to conditional probabilities as a measure
>>>>of their effectiveness and some screening tests have high incidence
>>>>of false positives.
>>>>
>>>>In the case of drug testing, there is a single window of opportunity
>>>>for the test so it makes a lot of sense to have two samples. The
>>>>occurrence of differing results between A and B samples is
>>>>confirmation of this. What are you proposing, ignoring the
>>>>inaccuracies and tough shit if your test comes back a false
>>>>positive?
>>>
>>>Let me ask you this then...when you do a drug screening for a new
>>>employer, do you think the drug test has more or less protections
>>>than athletes are afforded under WADA Protocol?
>>>The answer is less. So all this hype that athletes are somehow
>>>railroaded with these false positive tests is a bunch of nonsense.
>>
>>
>> Way to go ace. Why strive for a 99% probability when 90% will do.
>>
>> Phil H
>
> So you think employment drug tests are wrong 10% of the time? Where
> did you pull that number from?
>
I didn't pull it from anywhere in particualr but the accuracy of testing
varies widely so 10% for false positives isn't difficult to find. When
confirmation testing is used, the accuracy improves.

Phil H

Date: 01 Jan 2007 15:38:23
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Phil Holman wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:QpOdnezdS8w90QXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:7POcnXlW2b2PsQXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:oOqdnYJGg-vcswrYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it
>>>>>>>>doesn't equate to the science being "bad." Remember something
>>>>>>>>before you jump off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor
>>>>>>>>and get a lab test done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and
>>>>>>>>nobody calls that "unethical" and asks the lab director to be
>>>>>>>>fired.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed
>>>>>>>>by different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even
>>>>>>>>used in conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or
>>>>>>>>even for employment drug tests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Cerebral vomit. Medical screening tests do not rely on a single
>>>>>>>result for a diagnosis and unlike drugs, the disease sticks around
>>>>>>>for more accurate testing and confirmation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro......, I mean
>>>>>>>posts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Phil H
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes, strep
>>>>>>throat, meningitis, or a positive result from a cancerous biopsy,
>>>>>>you're telling me the doctor doesn't go by those lab results, but
>>>>>>instead chases some red herring that's based upon some subjective
>>>>>>observation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yeah, okay. Sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, for example ELISA is a screening test for HIV, and a chest X ray
>>>>>for lung cancer. These quick non invasive tests will be followed up
>>>>>with more accurate testing (biopsy or whatever) to confirm a
>>>>>condition.
>>>>>There are exceptions but to imply that medical diagnosis relies on a
>>>>>single test is generally not true.
>>>>>Medical tests are subject to conditional probabilities as a measure
>>>>>of their effectiveness and some screening tests have high incidence
>>>>>of false positives.
>>>>>
>>>>>In the case of drug testing, there is a single window of opportunity
>>>>>for the test so it makes a lot of sense to have two samples. The
>>>>>occurrence of differing results between A and B samples is
>>>>>confirmation of this. What are you proposing, ignoring the
>>>>>inaccuracies and tough shit if your test comes back a false
>>>>>positive?
>>>>
>>>>Let me ask you this then...when you do a drug screening for a new
>>>>employer, do you think the drug test has more or less protections
>>>>than athletes are afforded under WADA Protocol?
>>>>The answer is less. So all this hype that athletes are somehow
>>>>railroaded with these false positive tests is a bunch of nonsense.
>>>
>>>
>>>Way to go ace. Why strive for a 99% probability when 90% will do.
>>>
>>>Phil H
>>
>>So you think employment drug tests are wrong 10% of the time? Where
>>did you pull that number from?
>>
>
> I didn't pull it from anywhere in particualr but the accuracy of testing
> varies widely so 10% for false positives isn't difficult to find. When
> confirmation testing is used, the accuracy improves.
>
> Phil H

Well, the reality is employment drug tests are wrong in probably ~.005%
of the cases. And that's an acceptable amount to get wrong. If it were
10%, there'd be a serious problem. But that's just an illusion you
fabricated to advance a falacious argument.

Magilla

Date: 01 Jan 2007 15:24:22
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

In article <YCudnQZuO-2i7ATYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:

> Well, the reality is employment drug tests are wrong in probably ~.005%
> of the cases. And that's an acceptable amount to get wrong. If it were
> 10%, there'd be a serious problem. But that's just an illusion you
> fabricated to advance a falacious argument.

Well, no. Your "~.005%" is off. A lot. In a study by the National Academy of
Sciences, they found that just contamination of the glassware used in the tests
causes a false positive rate of 3-5%. Furthermore, those tests will show positives
for illegal drugs if the testee has used any number of over the counter medications
or such things as anti-depressants, heart, ulcer or diabetes medication. The false
positive rate for these tests were shown to be more in the range of 4 to 30%. A big
portion of the problems werer related to the people performing the tests and
analysis of them. The were under-trained and frequently inept. The hair tests show
huge false positive rates because simply being around someone using, say, pot will
cause the metabolytes to bind to another person's hair. And that will last for
months.

http://www.drug-testing-solutions.net/statinabdrug.html
--------------------
"Only 85 of the estimated 1,200 laboratories in the United States currently
testing urine for drugs meet federal standards for accuracy, qualified lab
personnel, and proper documentation and record-keeping procedures.

- (snip)

Findings from the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta stated: "...the labs
somehow detected cocaine in as many as 6 percent, and amphetamines in up to 37
percent of urine specimens that were 'blank" (those containing no drugs at all)."

- (snip)

In a UCLA study of 161 legally prescribed and over-the-counter drugs, 65 gave
false positive results. A National Institute of Drug Abuse study of 50 labs revealed
that all 50 labs responded with some false positive results for drug tests.
--------------------

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 02 Jan 2007 08:24:44
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Howard Kveck wrote:
> Well, no. Your "~.005%" is off. A lot. In a study by the National Academy of
> Sciences, they found that just contamination of the glassware used in the tests
> causes a false positive rate of 3-5%. Furthermore, those tests will show positives
> for illegal drugs if the testee has used any number of over the counter medications
> or such things as anti-depressants, heart, ulcer or diabetes medication.

Its those damned NY bagels again:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_116.html

Date: 01 Jan 2007 19:44:40
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Howard Kveck wrote:

> In article <YCudnQZuO-2i7ATYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Well, the reality is employment drug tests are wrong in probably ~.005%
>>of the cases. And that's an acceptable amount to get wrong. If it were
>>10%, there'd be a serious problem. But that's just an illusion you
>>fabricated to advance a falacious argument.
>
>
> Well, no. Your "~.005%" is off. A lot. In a study by the National Academy of
> Sciences, they found that just contamination of the glassware used in the tests
> causes a false positive rate of 3-5%. Furthermore, those tests will show positives
> for illegal drugs if the testee has used any number of over the counter medications
> or such things as anti-depressants, heart, ulcer or diabetes medication.

Not true. Ask Catlin aty UCLA and he'll tell you why this doesn't
apply to his lab.

The false
> positive rate for these tests were shown to be more in the range of 4 to 30%.

False positive rate for what - EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone? I
don't think so. Nice try though.

A big
> portion of the problems werer related to the people performing the tests and
> analysis of them. The were under-trained and frequently inept. The hair tests show
> huge false positive rates because simply being around someone using, say, pot will
> cause the metabolytes to bind to another person's hair. And that will last for
> months.

The hair test is not a WADA test so obviously this study isn't talking
about WADA tests, which predominantly only run golden shower tests.

>
> http://www.drug-testing-solutions.net/statinabdrug.html
> --------------------
> "Only 85 of the estimated 1,200 laboratories in the United States currently
> testing urine for drugs meet federal standards for accuracy, qualified lab
> personnel, and proper documentation and record-keeping procedures.

I'm sure the UCLA Lab - the only USADA lab in the country - is one of them.
>
> - (snip)
>
> Findings from the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta stated: "...the labs
> somehow detected cocaine in as many as 6 percent, and amphetamines in up to 37
> percent of urine specimens that were 'blank" (those containing no drugs at all)."
>

How do they "know" they were "blank?" And don't tell me they asked the
subjects if they took cocaine and they said no and therefore concluded
they were blank.

Once again, I come in here and just kick the shit out of people like
it's nothing.

> - (snip)
>
> In a UCLA study of 161 legally prescribed and over-the-counter drugs, 65 gave
> false positive results. A National Institute of Drug Abuse study of 50 labs revealed
> that all 50 labs responded with some false positive results for drug tests.
> --------------------

That's why on all WADA specimen forms, you have to declare what other
medications you're taking.

Thanks,

Magilla

Date: 01 Jan 2007 17:31:44
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

In article <fpKcnaq0zaxlNwTYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:

> Howard Kveck wrote:

> The false
> > positive rate for these tests were shown to be more in the range of 4 to
> > 30%.
>
> False positive rate for what - EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone? I
> don't think so. Nice try though.

I wasn't addressing WADA stuff - just your assertion that job related drug tests
are wrong only ~.005% of the time.

> > http://www.drug-testing-solutions.net/statinabdrug.html
> > --------------------
> > "Only 85 of the estimated 1,200 laboratories in the United States
> > currently
> > testing urine for drugs meet federal standards for accuracy, qualified lab
> > personnel, and proper documentation and record-keeping procedures.
>
>
> I'm sure the UCLA Lab - the only USADA lab in the country - is one of them.

Well, it's great that you're sure. Do you *know* it?

> > - (snip)
> >
> > Findings from the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta stated: "...the
> > labs somehow detected cocaine in as many as 6 percent, and amphetamines in up to
> > 37percent of urine specimens that were 'blank" (those containing no drugs at all)."
> >
>
> How do they "know" they were "blank?" And don't tell me they asked the
> subjects if they took cocaine and they said no and therefore concluded
> they were blank.

Wow, you really don't know the answer to that? Holy crap.

> Once again, I come in here and just kick the shit out of people like
> it's nothing.

Snicker...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 01 Jan 2007 13:12:24
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:YCudnQZuO-2i7ATYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:QpOdnezdS8w90QXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>
>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:7POcnXlW2b2PsQXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:oOqdnYJGg-vcswrYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it
>>>>>>>>>doesn't equate to the science being "bad." Remember something
>>>>>>>>>before you jump off that lemming cliff: when you go to the
>>>>>>>>>doctor and get a lab test done, there isn't even a fucking
>>>>>>>>>B-sample and nobody calls that "unethical" and asks the lab
>>>>>>>>>director to be fired.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed
>>>>>>>>>by different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't
>>>>>>>>>even used in conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings
>>>>>>>>>or even for employment drug tests.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Cerebral vomit. Medical screening tests do not rely on a single
>>>>>>>>result for a diagnosis and unlike drugs, the disease sticks
>>>>>>>>around for more accurate testing and confirmation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro......, I mean
>>>>>>>>posts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Phil H
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes, strep
>>>>>>>throat, meningitis, or a positive result from a cancerous biopsy,
>>>>>>>you're telling me the doctor doesn't go by those lab results, but
>>>>>>>instead chases some red herring that's based upon some subjective
>>>>>>>observation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yeah, okay. Sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, for example ELISA is a screening test for HIV, and a chest X
>>>>>>ray for lung cancer. These quick non invasive tests will be
>>>>>>followed up with more accurate testing (biopsy or whatever) to
>>>>>>confirm a condition.
>>>>>>There are exceptions but to imply that medical diagnosis relies on
>>>>>>a single test is generally not true.
>>>>>>Medical tests are subject to conditional probabilities as a
>>>>>>measure of their effectiveness and some screening tests have high
>>>>>>incidence of false positives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In the case of drug testing, there is a single window of
>>>>>>opportunity for the test so it makes a lot of sense to have two
>>>>>>samples. The occurrence of differing results between A and B
>>>>>>samples is confirmation of this. What are you proposing, ignoring
>>>>>>the inaccuracies and tough shit if your test comes back a false
>>>>>>positive?
>>>>>
>>>>>Let me ask you this then...when you do a drug screening for a new
>>>>>employer, do you think the drug test has more or less protections
>>>>>than athletes are afforded under WADA Protocol?
>>>>>The answer is less. So all this hype that athletes are somehow
>>>>>railroaded with these false positive tests is a bunch of nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Way to go ace. Why strive for a 99% probability when 90% will do.
>>>>
>>>>Phil H
>>>
>>>So you think employment drug tests are wrong 10% of the time? Where
>>>did you pull that number from?
>>>
>>
>> I didn't pull it from anywhere in particualr but the accuracy of
>> testing varies widely so 10% for false positives isn't difficult to
>> find. When confirmation testing is used, the accuracy improves.
>>
>> Phil H
>
>
> Well, the reality is employment drug tests are wrong in probably
> ~.005% of the cases. And that's an acceptable amount to get wrong.
> If it were 10%, there'd be a serious problem. But that's just an
> illusion you fabricated to advance a falacious argument.
>
> Magilla
>

Is your .005% a measure of false positive, false negative, sensitivity
or specificity?
Like I said, a number of 10% for false positives isn't hard to find if
you can be bothered to look.

Phil H

Date: 01 Jan 2007 16:25:15
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Phil Holman wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:YCudnQZuO-2i7ATYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:QpOdnezdS8w90QXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:7POcnXlW2b2PsQXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:oOqdnYJGg-vcswrYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it
>>>>>>>>>>doesn't equate to the science being "bad." Remember something
>>>>>>>>>>before you jump off that lemming cliff: when you go to the
>>>>>>>>>>doctor and get a lab test done, there isn't even a fucking
>>>>>>>>>>B-sample and nobody calls that "unethical" and asks the lab
>>>>>>>>>>director to be fired.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed
>>>>>>>>>>by different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't
>>>>>>>>>>even used in conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings
>>>>>>>>>>or even for employment drug tests.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Cerebral vomit. Medical screening tests do not rely on a single
>>>>>>>>>result for a diagnosis and unlike drugs, the disease sticks
>>>>>>>>>around for more accurate testing and confirmation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro......, I mean
>>>>>>>>>posts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Phil H
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes, strep
>>>>>>>>throat, meningitis, or a positive result from a cancerous biopsy,
>>>>>>>>you're telling me the doctor doesn't go by those lab results, but
>>>>>>>>instead chases some red herring that's based upon some subjective
>>>>>>>>observation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yeah, okay. Sure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, for example ELISA is a screening test for HIV, and a chest X
>>>>>>>ray for lung cancer. These quick non invasive tests will be
>>>>>>>followed up with more accurate testing (biopsy or whatever) to
>>>>>>>confirm a condition.
>>>>>>>There are exceptions but to imply that medical diagnosis relies on
>>>>>>>a single test is generally not true.
>>>>>>>Medical tests are subject to conditional probabilities as a
>>>>>>>measure of their effectiveness and some screening tests have high
>>>>>>>incidence of false positives.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In the case of drug testing, there is a single window of
>>>>>>>opportunity for the test so it makes a lot of sense to have two
>>>>>>>samples. The occurrence of differing results between A and B
>>>>>>>samples is confirmation of this. What are you proposing, ignoring
>>>>>>>the inaccuracies and tough shit if your test comes back a false
>>>>>>>positive?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Let me ask you this then...when you do a drug screening for a new
>>>>>>employer, do you think the drug test has more or less protections
>>>>>>than athletes are afforded under WADA Protocol?
>>>>>>The answer is less. So all this hype that athletes are somehow
>>>>>>railroaded with these false positive tests is a bunch of nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Way to go ace. Why strive for a 99% probability when 90% will do.
>>>>>
>>>>>Phil H
>>>>
>>>>So you think employment drug tests are wrong 10% of the time? Where
>>>>did you pull that number from?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I didn't pull it from anywhere in particualr but the accuracy of
>>>testing varies widely so 10% for false positives isn't difficult to
>>>find. When confirmation testing is used, the accuracy improves.
>>>
>>>Phil H
>>
>>
>>Well, the reality is employment drug tests are wrong in probably
>>~.005% of the cases. And that's an acceptable amount to get wrong.
>>If it were 10%, there'd be a serious problem. But that's just an
>>illusion you fabricated to advance a falacious argument.
>>
>>Magilla
>>
>
>
> Is your .005% a measure of false positive, false negative, sensitivity
> or specificity?
> Like I said, a number of 10% for false positives isn't hard to find if
> you can be bothered to look.
>
> Phil H

I find a 10% false positive rate to be an inflammatory overestimate
intended to incite people into thinking athletes are being wrongfully
convicted left and right.

The reality is there's probably been 1 or 2 athletes in the history of
WADA who have been wrongfully convicted, but it wouldn't surprise me if
the actual number were zero. But it's no more than a few rare cases at
most.

Every system has a failure rate. It's not grounds to stop using it.

Magilla

Date: 01 Jan 2007 13:43:05
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:ECGdndaTjKCg4QTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:YCudnQZuO-2i7ATYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>
>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:QpOdnezdS8w90QXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:7POcnXlW2b2PsQXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:oOqdnYJGg-vcswrYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it
>>>>>>>>>>>doesn't equate to the science being "bad." Remember
>>>>>>>>>>>something before you jump off that lemming cliff: when you go
>>>>>>>>>>>to the doctor and get a lab test done, there isn't even a
>>>>>>>>>>>fucking B-sample and nobody calls that "unethical" and asks
>>>>>>>>>>>the lab director to be fired.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples
>>>>>>>>>>>analyzed by different techs is a WADA rule that was broken,
>>>>>>>>>>>but isn't even used in conventional labroatory work for
>>>>>>>>>>>cancer screenings or even for employment drug tests.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Cerebral vomit. Medical screening tests do not rely on a
>>>>>>>>>>single result for a diagnosis and unlike drugs, the disease
>>>>>>>>>>sticks around for more accurate testing and confirmation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro......, I
>>>>>>>>>>mean posts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Phil H
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes, strep
>>>>>>>>>throat, meningitis, or a positive result from a cancerous
>>>>>>>>>biopsy, you're telling me the doctor doesn't go by those lab
>>>>>>>>>results, but instead chases some red herring that's based upon
>>>>>>>>>some subjective observation?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yeah, okay. Sure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, for example ELISA is a screening test for HIV, and a chest X
>>>>>>>>ray for lung cancer. These quick non invasive tests will be
>>>>>>>>followed up with more accurate testing (biopsy or whatever) to
>>>>>>>>confirm a condition.
>>>>>>>>There are exceptions but to imply that medical diagnosis relies
>>>>>>>>on a single test is generally not true.
>>>>>>>>Medical tests are subject to conditional probabilities as a
>>>>>>>>measure of their effectiveness and some screening tests have
>>>>>>>>high incidence of false positives.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In the case of drug testing, there is a single window of
>>>>>>>>opportunity for the test so it makes a lot of sense to have two
>>>>>>>>samples. The occurrence of differing results between A and B
>>>>>>>>samples is confirmation of this. What are you proposing,
>>>>>>>>ignoring the inaccuracies and tough shit if your test comes back
>>>>>>>>a false positive?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Let me ask you this then...when you do a drug screening for a new
>>>>>>>employer, do you think the drug test has more or less protections
>>>>>>>than athletes are afforded under WADA Protocol?
>>>>>>>The answer is less. So all this hype that athletes are somehow
>>>>>>>railroaded with these false positive tests is a bunch of
>>>>>>>nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Way to go ace. Why strive for a 99% probability when 90% will do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Phil H
>>>>>
>>>>>So you think employment drug tests are wrong 10% of the time?
>>>>>Where did you pull that number from?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I didn't pull it from anywhere in particualr but the accuracy of
>>>>testing varies widely so 10% for false positives isn't difficult to
>>>>find. When confirmation testing is used, the accuracy improves.
>>>>
>>>>Phil H
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, the reality is employment drug tests are wrong in probably
>>>~.005% of the cases. And that's an acceptable amount to get wrong.
>>>If it were 10%, there'd be a serious problem. But that's just an
>>>illusion you fabricated to advance a falacious argument.
>>>
>>>Magilla
>>>
>>
>>
>> Is your .005% a measure of false positive, false negative,
>> sensitivity or specificity?
>> Like I said, a number of 10% for false positives isn't hard to find
>> if you can be bothered to look.
>>
>> Phil H
>
>
> I find a 10% false positive rate to be an inflammatory overestimate
> intended to incite people into thinking athletes are being wrongfully
> convicted left and right.

Only if you conclude employee drug testing accuracy reads over to sports
testing.

>
> The reality is there's probably been 1 or 2 athletes in the history of
> WADA who have been wrongfully convicted, but it wouldn't surprise me
> if the actual number were zero. But it's no more than a few rare
> cases at most.
>
> Every system has a failure rate. It's not grounds to stop using it.
>

Or for doing away with the B sample.

Phil H

Date: 01 Jan 2007 16:55:12
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Phil Holman wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ECGdndaTjKCg4QTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:YCudnQZuO-2i7ATYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:QpOdnezdS8w90QXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:7POcnXlW2b2PsQXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:oOqdnYJGg-vcswrYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>doesn't equate to the science being "bad." Remember
>>>>>>>>>>>>something before you jump off that lemming cliff: when you go
>>>>>>>>>>>>to the doctor and get a lab test done, there isn't even a
>>>>>>>>>>>>fucking B-sample and nobody calls that "unethical" and asks
>>>>>>>>>>>>the lab director to be fired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples
>>>>>>>>>>>>analyzed by different techs is a WADA rule that was broken,
>>>>>>>>>>>>but isn't even used in conventional labroatory work for
>>>>>>>>>>>>cancer screenings or even for employment drug tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Cerebral vomit. Medical screening tests do not rely on a
>>>>>>>>>>>single result for a diagnosis and unlike drugs, the disease
>>>>>>>>>>>sticks around for more accurate testing and confirmation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro......, I
>>>>>>>>>>>mean posts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Phil H
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes, strep
>>>>>>>>>>throat, meningitis, or a positive result from a cancerous
>>>>>>>>>>biopsy, you're telling me the doctor doesn't go by those lab
>>>>>>>>>>results, but instead chases some red herring that's based upon
>>>>>>>>>>some subjective observation?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yeah, okay. Sure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No, for example ELISA is a screening test for HIV, and a chest X
>>>>>>>>>ray for lung cancer. These quick non invasive tests will be
>>>>>>>>>followed up with more accurate testing (biopsy or whatever) to
>>>>>>>>>confirm a condition.
>>>>>>>>>There are exceptions but to imply that medical diagnosis relies
>>>>>>>>>on a single test is generally not true.
>>>>>>>>>Medical tests are subject to conditional probabilities as a
>>>>>>>>>measure of their effectiveness and some screening tests have
>>>>>>>>>high incidence of false positives.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In the case of drug testing, there is a single window of
>>>>>>>>>opportunity for the test so it makes a lot of sense to have two
>>>>>>>>>samples. The occurrence of differing results between A and B
>>>>>>>>>samples is confirmation of this. What are you proposing,
>>>>>>>>>ignoring the inaccuracies and tough shit if your test comes back
>>>>>>>>>a false positive?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Let me ask you this then...when you do a drug screening for a new
>>>>>>>>employer, do you think the drug test has more or less protections
>>>>>>>>than athletes are afforded under WADA Protocol?
>>>>>>>>The answer is less. So all this hype that athletes are somehow
>>>>>>>>railroaded with these false positive tests is a bunch of
>>>>>>>>nonsense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Way to go ace. Why strive for a 99% probability when 90% will do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Phil H
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So you think employment drug tests are wrong 10% of the time?
>>>>>>Where did you pull that number from?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't pull it from anywhere in particualr but the accuracy of
>>>>>testing varies widely so 10% for false positives isn't difficult to
>>>>>find. When confirmation testing is used, the accuracy improves.
>>>>>
>>>>>Phil H
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, the reality is employment drug tests are wrong in probably
>>>>~.005% of the cases. And that's an acceptable amount to get wrong.
>>>>If it were 10%, there'd be a serious problem. But that's just an
>>>>illusion you fabricated to advance a falacious argument.
>>>>
>>>>Magilla
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Is your .005% a measure of false positive, false negative,
>>>sensitivity or specificity?
>>>Like I said, a number of 10% for false positives isn't hard to find
>>>if you can be bothered to look.
>>>
>>>Phil H
>>
>>
>>I find a 10% false positive rate to be an inflammatory overestimate
>>intended to incite people into thinking athletes are being wrongfully
>>convicted left and right.
>
>
> Only if you conclude employee drug testing accuracy reads over to sports
> testing.
>
>
>>The reality is there's probably been 1 or 2 athletes in the history of
>>WADA who have been wrongfully convicted, but it wouldn't surprise me
>>if the actual number were zero. But it's no more than a few rare
>>cases at most.
>>
>>Every system has a failure rate. It's not grounds to stop using it.
>>
>
>
> Or for doing away with the B sample.
>
> Phil H

When a police officer writes you a speeding ticket from radar and you go
to court to contest it, do you tell the judge, "But your honor, he
didn't even run a B-sample radar gun."

Also, when people are tried for capital crimes and DNA evidence is
admitted, the defense attorneys rarely if ever re-run the DNA tests.

So why all you dumb fucks in here think dope tests in sports deserves
B-sample testing is beyond me. I bet you half you motherfuckers in here
would convict some guy on a rape or murder charge where the only DNA
evidence was a fucking A-sample test done by the prosecutor.

And then you come in here and talk about the WADA system railroading
riders. Go fuck yourselves you hypocrites.

Happy New Year,

Magilla

Date: 01 Jan 2007 15:28:54
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:2CKdnYJprbLcHgTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ECGdndaTjKCg4QTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>
>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:YCudnQZuO-2i7ATYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:QpOdnezdS8w90QXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:7POcnXlW2b2PsQXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:oOqdnYJGg-vcswrYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>news:p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>doesn't equate to the science being "bad." Remember
>>>>>>>>>>>>>something before you jump off that lemming cliff: when you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>go to the doctor and get a lab test done, there isn't even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that "unethical" and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>asks the lab director to be fired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples
>>>>>>>>>>>>>analyzed by different techs is a WADA rule that was broken,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>but isn't even used in conventional labroatory work for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>cancer screenings or even for employment drug tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Cerebral vomit. Medical screening tests do not rely on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>single result for a diagnosis and unlike drugs, the disease
>>>>>>>>>>>>sticks around for more accurate testing and confirmation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro......, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>mean posts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Phil H
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes,
>>>>>>>>>>>strep throat, meningitis, or a positive result from a
>>>>>>>>>>>cancerous biopsy, you're telling me the doctor doesn't go by
>>>>>>>>>>>those lab results, but instead chases some red herring that's
>>>>>>>>>>>based upon some subjective observation?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah, okay. Sure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No, for example ELISA is a screening test for HIV, and a chest
>>>>>>>>>>X ray for lung cancer. These quick non invasive tests will be
>>>>>>>>>>followed up with more accurate testing (biopsy or whatever) to
>>>>>>>>>>confirm a condition.
>>>>>>>>>>There are exceptions but to imply that medical diagnosis
>>>>>>>>>>relies on a single test is generally not true.
>>>>>>>>>>Medical tests are subject to conditional probabilities as a
>>>>>>>>>>measure of their effectiveness and some screening tests have
>>>>>>>>>>high incidence of false positives.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In the case of drug testing, there is a single window of
>>>>>>>>>>opportunity for the test so it makes a lot of sense to have
>>>>>>>>>>two samples. The occurrence of differing results between A and
>>>>>>>>>>B samples is confirmation of this. What are you proposing,
>>>>>>>>>>ignoring the inaccuracies and tough shit if your test comes
>>>>>>>>>>back a false positive?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Let me ask you this then...when you do a drug screening for a
>>>>>>>>>new employer, do you think the drug test has more or less
>>>>>>>>>protections than athletes are afforded under WADA Protocol?
>>>>>>>>>The answer is less. So all this hype that athletes are somehow
>>>>>>>>>railroaded with these false positive tests is a bunch of
>>>>>>>>>nonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Way to go ace. Why strive for a 99% probability when 90% will
>>>>>>>>do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Phil H
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So you think employment drug tests are wrong 10% of the time?
>>>>>>>Where did you pull that number from?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I didn't pull it from anywhere in particualr but the accuracy of
>>>>>>testing varies widely so 10% for false positives isn't difficult
>>>>>>to find. When confirmation testing is used, the accuracy improves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Phil H
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, the reality is employment drug tests are wrong in probably
>>>>>~.005% of the cases. And that's an acceptable amount to get wrong.
>>>>>If it were 10%, there'd be a serious problem. But that's just an
>>>>>illusion you fabricated to advance a falacious argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>Magilla
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Is your .005% a measure of false positive, false negative,
>>>>sensitivity or specificity?
>>>>Like I said, a number of 10% for false positives isn't hard to find
>>>>if you can be bothered to look.
>>>>
>>>>Phil H
>>>
>>>
>>>I find a 10% false positive rate to be an inflammatory overestimate
>>>intended to incite people into thinking athletes are being wrongfully
>>>convicted left and right.
>>
>>
>> Only if you conclude employee drug testing accuracy reads over to
>> sports testing.
>>
>>
>>>The reality is there's probably been 1 or 2 athletes in the history
>>>of WADA who have been wrongfully convicted, but it wouldn't surprise
>>>me if the actual number were zero. But it's no more than a few rare
>>>cases at most.
>>>
>>>Every system has a failure rate. It's not grounds to stop using it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Or for doing away with the B sample.
>>
>> Phil H

>
> When a police officer writes you a speeding ticket from radar and you
> go to court to contest it, do you tell the judge, "But your honor, he
> didn't even run a B-sample radar gun."
>
> Also, when people are tried for capital crimes and DNA evidence is
> admitted, the defense attorneys rarely if ever re-run the DNA tests.
>
> So why all you dumb fucks in here think dope tests in sports deserves
> B-sample testing is beyond me. I bet you half you motherfuckers in
> here would convict some guy on a rape or murder charge where the only
> DNA evidence was a fucking A-sample test done by the prosecutor.

Oh dear, earthquakes in China.
>
> And then you come in here and talk about the WADA system railroading
> riders. Go fuck yourselves you hypocrites.

Trusting WADA with a single test sample is like boarding your dog at the
taxidermist. Sure....., you'll get it back.
>
> Happy New Year,

Same to you
>
> Magilla

Phil H

Date: 01 Jan 2007 19:35:47
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Phil Holman wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2CKdnYJprbLcHgTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ECGdndaTjKCg4QTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:YCudnQZuO-2i7ATYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:QpOdnezdS8w90QXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:7POcnXlW2b2PsQXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:oOqdnYJGg-vcswrYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>doesn't equate to the science being "bad." Remember
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>something before you jump off that lemming cliff: when you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>go to the doctor and get a lab test done, there isn't even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that "unethical" and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>asks the lab director to be fired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>analyzed by different techs is a WADA rule that was broken,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but isn't even used in conventional labroatory work for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cancer screenings or even for employment drug tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cerebral vomit. Medical screening tests do not rely on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>single result for a diagnosis and unlike drugs, the disease
>>>>>>>>>>>>>sticks around for more accurate testing and confirmation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro......, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>mean posts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Phil H
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>strep throat, meningitis, or a positive result from a
>>>>>>>>>>>>cancerous biopsy, you're telling me the doctor doesn't go by
>>>>>>>>>>>>those lab results, but instead chases some red herring that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>based upon some subjective observation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah, okay. Sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>No, for example ELISA is a screening test for HIV, and a chest
>>>>>>>>>>>X ray for lung cancer. These quick non invasive tests will be
>>>>>>>>>>>followed up with more accurate testing (biopsy or whatever) to
>>>>>>>>>>>confirm a condition.
>>>>>>>>>>>There are exceptions but to imply that medical diagnosis
>>>>>>>>>>>relies on a single test is generally not true.
>>>>>>>>>>>Medical tests are subject to conditional probabilities as a
>>>>>>>>>>>measure of their effectiveness and some screening tests have
>>>>>>>>>>>high incidence of false positives.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In the case of drug testing, there is a single window of
>>>>>>>>>>>opportunity for the test so it makes a lot of sense to have
>>>>>>>>>>>two samples. The occurrence of differing results between A and
>>>>>>>>>>>B samples is confirmation of this. What are you proposing,
>>>>>>>>>>>ignoring the inaccuracies and tough shit if your test comes
>>>>>>>>>>>back a false positive?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Let me ask you this then...when you do a drug screening for a
>>>>>>>>>>new employer, do you think the drug test has more or less
>>>>>>>>>>protections than athletes are afforded under WADA Protocol?
>>>>>>>>>>The answer is less. So all this hype that athletes are somehow
>>>>>>>>>>railroaded with these false positive tests is a bunch of
>>>>>>>>>>nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Way to go ace. Why strive for a 99% probability when 90% will
>>>>>>>>>do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Phil H
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So you think employment drug tests are wrong 10% of the time?
>>>>>>>>Where did you pull that number from?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I didn't pull it from anywhere in particualr but the accuracy of
>>>>>>>testing varies widely so 10% for false positives isn't difficult
>>>>>>>to find. When confirmation testing is used, the accuracy improves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Phil H
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, the reality is employment drug tests are wrong in probably
>>>>>>~.005% of the cases. And that's an acceptable amount to get wrong.
>>>>>>If it were 10%, there'd be a serious problem. But that's just an
>>>>>>illusion you fabricated to advance a falacious argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Magilla
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Is your .005% a measure of false positive, false negative,
>>>>>sensitivity or specificity?
>>>>>Like I said, a number of 10% for false positives isn't hard to find
>>>>>if you can be bothered to look.
>>>>>
>>>>>Phil H
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I find a 10% false positive rate to be an inflammatory overestimate
>>>>intended to incite people into thinking athletes are being wrongfully
>>>>convicted left and right.
>>>
>>>
>>>Only if you conclude employee drug testing accuracy reads over to
>>>sports testing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The reality is there's probably been 1 or 2 athletes in the history
>>>>of WADA who have been wrongfully convicted, but it wouldn't surprise
>>>>me if the actual number were zero. But it's no more than a few rare
>>>>cases at most.
>>>>
>>>>Every system has a failure rate. It's not grounds to stop using it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Or for doing away with the B sample.
>>>
>>>Phil H
>
>
>>When a police officer writes you a speeding ticket from radar and you
>>go to court to contest it, do you tell the judge, "But your honor, he
>>didn't even run a B-sample radar gun."
>>
>>Also, when people are tried for capital crimes and DNA evidence is
>>admitted, the defense attorneys rarely if ever re-run the DNA tests.
>>
>>So why all you dumb fucks in here think dope tests in sports deserves
>>B-sample testing is beyond me. I bet you half you motherfuckers in
>>here would convict some guy on a rape or murder charge where the only
>>DNA evidence was a fucking A-sample test done by the prosecutor.
>
>
> Oh dear, earthquakes in China.
>
>>And then you come in here and talk about the WADA system railroading
>>riders. Go fuck yourselves you hypocrites.
>
>
> Trusting WADA with a single test sample is like boarding your dog at the
> taxidermist. Sure....., you'll get it back.

I got news for you - WADA is more ethical than your sister's gynecologist.

Magilla

Date: 01 Jan 2007 14:55:13
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

> When a police officer writes you a speeding ticket from radar and you go
> to court to contest it, do you tell the judge, "But your honor, he didn't
> even run a B-sample radar gun."

It's a whole lot easier than that. They have to provide proof that the radar
gun had been recently tested, if asked. You could even demand a trial by
jury if it's important enough, and recreate the circumstances that you feel
led to the false reading. And if you can create any reasonable possibility
that it could happen the way you demonstrated, you're likely to win the
case. Of course, you can also come off like a bumbling idiot who's just
trying to get out of a legit ticket if you're not careful. I was an "expert
witness" in a case like that once. Somebody was trying to claim that a key
used for the oxy-acetylene rig they used to cut into a jewelry store with
was actually a bicycle tool for fixing spokes. What an idiot.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:2CKdnYJprbLcHgTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ECGdndaTjKCg4QTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>
>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:YCudnQZuO-2i7ATYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:QpOdnezdS8w90QXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:7POcnXlW2b2PsQXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:oOqdnYJGg-vcswrYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>news:p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>doesn't equate to the science being "bad." Remember something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>before you jump off that lemming cliff: when you go to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>doctor and get a lab test done, there isn't even a fucking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>B-sample and nobody calls that "unethical" and asks the lab
>>>>>>>>>>>>>director to be fired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>by different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>even used in conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>or even for employment drug tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Cerebral vomit. Medical screening tests do not rely on a single
>>>>>>>>>>>>result for a diagnosis and unlike drugs, the disease sticks
>>>>>>>>>>>>around for more accurate testing and confirmation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro......, I mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>posts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Phil H
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes, strep
>>>>>>>>>>>throat, meningitis, or a positive result from a cancerous biopsy,
>>>>>>>>>>>you're telling me the doctor doesn't go by those lab results, but
>>>>>>>>>>>instead chases some red herring that's based upon some subjective
>>>>>>>>>>>observation?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah, okay. Sure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No, for example ELISA is a screening test for HIV, and a chest X
>>>>>>>>>>ray for lung cancer. These quick non invasive tests will be
>>>>>>>>>>followed up with more accurate testing (biopsy or whatever) to
>>>>>>>>>>confirm a condition.
>>>>>>>>>>There are exceptions but to imply that medical diagnosis relies on
>>>>>>>>>>a single test is generally not true.
>>>>>>>>>>Medical tests are subject to conditional probabilities as a
>>>>>>>>>>measure of their effectiveness and some screening tests have high
>>>>>>>>>>incidence of false positives.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In the case of drug testing, there is a single window of
>>>>>>>>>>opportunity for the test so it makes a lot of sense to have two
>>>>>>>>>>samples. The occurrence of differing results between A and B
>>>>>>>>>>samples is confirmation of this. What are you proposing, ignoring
>>>>>>>>>>the inaccuracies and tough shit if your test comes back a false
>>>>>>>>>>positive?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Let me ask you this then...when you do a drug screening for a new
>>>>>>>>>employer, do you think the drug test has more or less protections
>>>>>>>>>than athletes are afforded under WADA Protocol?
>>>>>>>>>The answer is less. So all this hype that athletes are somehow
>>>>>>>>>railroaded with these false positive tests is a bunch of nonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Way to go ace. Why strive for a 99% probability when 90% will do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Phil H
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So you think employment drug tests are wrong 10% of the time? Where
>>>>>>>did you pull that number from?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I didn't pull it from anywhere in particualr but the accuracy of
>>>>>>testing varies widely so 10% for false positives isn't difficult to
>>>>>>find. When confirmation testing is used, the accuracy improves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Phil H
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, the reality is employment drug tests are wrong in probably ~.005%
>>>>>of the cases. And that's an acceptable amount to get wrong. If it were
>>>>>10%, there'd be a serious problem. But that's just an illusion you
>>>>>fabricated to advance a falacious argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>Magilla
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Is your .005% a measure of false positive, false negative, sensitivity
>>>>or specificity?
>>>>Like I said, a number of 10% for false positives isn't hard to find if
>>>>you can be bothered to look.
>>>>
>>>>Phil H
>>>
>>>
>>>I find a 10% false positive rate to be an inflammatory overestimate
>>>intended to incite people into thinking athletes are being wrongfully
>>>convicted left and right.
>>
>>
>> Only if you conclude employee drug testing accuracy reads over to sports
>> testing.
>>
>>
>>>The reality is there's probably been 1 or 2 athletes in the history of
>>>WADA who have been wrongfully convicted, but it wouldn't surprise me if
>>>the actual number were zero. But it's no more than a few rare cases at
>>>most.
>>>
>>>Every system has a failure rate. It's not grounds to stop using it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Or for doing away with the B sample.
>>
>> Phil H
>
>
>
> When a police officer writes you a speeding ticket from radar and you go
> to court to contest it, do you tell the judge, "But your honor, he didn't
> even run a B-sample radar gun."
>
> Also, when people are tried for capital crimes and DNA evidence is
> admitted, the defense attorneys rarely if ever re-run the DNA tests.
>
> So why all you dumb fucks in here think dope tests in sports deserves
> B-sample testing is beyond me. I bet you half you motherfuckers in here
> would convict some guy on a rape or murder charge where the only DNA
> evidence was a fucking A-sample test done by the prosecutor.
>
> And then you come in here and talk about the WADA system railroading
> riders. Go fuck yourselves you hypocrites.
>
>
> Happy New Year,
>
>
> Magilla

Date: 01 Jan 2007 16:36:20
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

In article <Djgmh.11095$ZT3.9496@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com >,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote:

> I was an "expert witness" in a case like that once. Somebody was trying to
> claim that a key used for the oxy-acetylene rig they used to cut into a
> jewelry store with was actually a bicycle tool for fixing spokes. What an idiot.

So they were big spokes. Very big spokes.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 01 Jan 2007 19:34:37
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>When a police officer writes you a speeding ticket from radar and you go
>>to court to contest it, do you tell the judge, "But your honor, he didn't
>>even run a B-sample radar gun."
>
>
> It's a whole lot easier than that. They have to provide proof that the radar
> gun had been recently tested, if asked.

So what - WADA calibrates its machines too. And they have to prove this
as well.

You could even demand a trial by
> jury if it's important enough, and recreate the circumstances that you feel
> led to the false reading.

Hey dumbass - riders waived their right to contest a lot of this info
when they sign thier licenses every year. Rules are rules. If riders
don't like the arbitration rules, they should do something to change
them rather than sit on their fucking ass and complain about it.

And if you can create any reasonable possibility
> that it could happen the way you demonstrated, you're likely to win the
> case.

No way, Jose. Juries convict based upon which attorney they like better
and whether or not the defendant has a reassuring deameanor. OJ Simpson
was acquitted because black jurors were too stupid to understand the DNA
evidence and because he's a sports star. However a white jury hearing
the same evidence convicted him in the civil trial.

So don't try to make it sound like juries always do the riight thing.
Juries are losers for the most part. A good 30-40% of jurors, if
polled, would tell you the world is flat ad that God exists and gets
really pissed off if people don't worship him on Sunday and then sends
them to Hell.

Of course, you can also come off like a bumbling idiot who's just
> trying to get out of a legit ticket if you're not careful. I was an "expert
> witness" in a case like that once. Somebody was trying to claim that a key
> used for the oxy-acetylene rig they used to cut into a jewelry store with
> was actually a bicycle tool for fixing spokes. What an idiot.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Was he trying to break into Nick Chenowth's storage locker?

Thanks,

Magilla

Date: 30 Dec 2006 17:51:16
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>
> Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
> equate to the science being "bad."

Well, the science might be bad, when you have tests that require status
(or maybe just some notoriety <g >) within the scientific community for
your reading to be taken seriously-- as compared to some flunky lab
tech, for instance. "Get me a positive reader in here!".

They violated their own procedural rules. The same tech running the B
test, with the identity of the pisser or bleeder known to all and
sundry, opens the door to personal feelings influencing the "reading".
Not to mention all the bad stuff that came to light with just one lab:

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/03/crimelab/index.html

Of course, sometimes it works out OK, like if you, say, attend Duke,
and it only takes a year or so, plus who knows how much money, to more
or less get off, with your reputation more or less intact, after a "we
know they are guilty" manhandling by the (excuse me) proper
authorities.

> Remember something before you jump
> off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
> done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
> "unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.

Apples/oranges. One reason there isn't a B sample test is because the
insurance companies don't want to pay anything, even their just
obligations.

> You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
> different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in
> conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
> employment drug tests.
>
> So the idea that this breach means the test was wrong is ludicrous.

When they drag you in, which of your rights are you willing to give up?
(Don't claim to be innocent if that makes you look bad, BTW) --D-y

Date: 30 Dec 2006 21:23:07
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

dustoyevsky@mac.com wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>
>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't
>>equate to the science being "bad."
>
>
> Well, the science might be bad, when you have tests that require status
> (or maybe just some notoriety <g>) within the scientific community for
> your reading to be taken seriously-- as compared to some flunky lab
> tech, for instance. "Get me a positive reader in here!".
>
> They violated their own procedural rules. The same tech running the B
> test, with the identity of the pisser or bleeder known to all and
> sundry, opens the door to personal feelings influencing the "reading".
> Not to mention all the bad stuff that came to light with just one lab:

The athlete has the right to have their own expert present during the
testing of the B-sample. The expert can then testify at the CAS hearing
as to what they saw. Having said this, there's not one single case in
WADA's 6 years of existence of a single case where a lab tech has even
been accused of doctoring a B-test! So why you dumb fucks in here think
that this angle is such a terrific legal argument proves you are clueless.

>
> http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/03/crimelab/index.html
>
> Of course, sometimes it works out OK, like if you, say, attend Duke,
> and it only takes a year or so, plus who knows how much money, to more
> or less get off, with your reputation more or less intact, after a "we
> know they are guilty" manhandling by the (excuse me) proper
> authorities.
>

Give me examples in WADA where the lab has been shown to be corrupt.

>>Remember something before you jump
>>off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test
>>done, there isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that
>>"unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired.
>
>
> Apples/oranges. One reason there isn't a B sample test is because the
> insurance companies don't want to pay anything, even their just
> obligations.

There's nothing stopping a patient from paying for a lab test if they
felt it was so necessary. Gee, I wonder why they don't do it (Hint:
it's because they trust the "A-sample" test)

>
>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
>>different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in
>>conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for
>>employment drug tests.
>>
>>So the idea that this breach means the test was wrong is ludicrous.
>
>
> When they drag you in, which of your rights are you willing to give up?
> (Don't claim to be innocent if that makes you look bad, BTW) --D-y

Shut up with this "violate your rights" bullshit. All athletes are
given CAS hearing where they can talk about anything they want and bring
in any evidence they want. Their rights aren't violated. Stop talking
nonsense.

The Gorilla

Date: 30 Dec 2006 18:30:27
From: xzzy
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

1. When being treated by doctors, 'citizens' have the option of a second
opinion. All doctors I have ever known understand the process in a positive
manner, and make good decisions with the additional information. There is
no right or wrong, there is only let's get this done.

2. Outside of sports, a person is innocent until proven guilty as the
process of proving guilt or innocence is not perfect and is subject to
opininon.

3. In cycling, a person is always guilty until proven innocent.

a. each cylist acceptances the paradigm of guilt until proven
innocent with the reciprical obligation that:

i. the people and processes that determine guilt or innocence
are always be either perfectly correct in their processes, or their
conclusion is absolutely false.

"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>
> Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't equate
> to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump off that
> lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test done, there
> isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that "unethical" and asks
> the lab director to be fired.
>
> You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
> different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in
> conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for employment
> drug tests.
>
> So the idea that this breach means the test was wrong is ludicrous.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Magilla

Date: 30 Dec 2006 20:58:42
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

xzzy wrote:

> 1. When being treated by doctors, 'citizens' have the option of a second
> opinion. All doctors I have ever known understand the process in a positive
> manner, and make good decisions with the additional information. There is
> no right or wrong, there is only let's get this done.

Not when you test positive in an employee drug test, assfuck. Also, the
athlete is allowed to have their expert present to ensure the integrity
of the B-sample test. This is comparable to having a second (and third)
opinion wrapped up in one.

>
> 2. Outside of sports, a person is innocent until proven guilty as the
> process of proving guilt or innocence is not perfect and is subject to
> opininon.

And so are athletes, assfuck. Floyd (or any other athlete) has not been
found guilty of anything yet. That will be decided by the CAS, which is
considered the same as a court of law. The CAS affords athletes due
process protection.

>
> 3. In cycling, a person is always guilty until proven innocent.

Give me an example of a cyclist who was found guilty before their CAS
hearing, and if so by whom? Good luck finding these examples because
they don't exist, you dumbass.

>
> a. each cylist acceptances the paradigm of guilt until proven
> innocent with the reciprical obligation that:
>
> i. the people and processes that determine guilt or innocence
> are always be either perfectly correct in their processes, or their
> conclusion is absolutely false.

What the fuck are you talking about?

>
>
> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:p86dnXJPl6pMZQvYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html
>>
>>Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't equate
>>to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump off that
>>lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test done, there
>>isn't even a fucking B-sample and nobody calls that "unethical" and asks
>>the lab director to be fired.
>>
>>You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by
>>different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in
>>conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for employment
>>drug tests.
>>
>>So the idea that this breach means the test was wrong is ludicrous.
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>
>>Magilla
>
>
>

Date: 01 Jan 2007 03:47:10
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

In article <_vudnbkXYLDOhArYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:

> Give me an example of a cyclist who was found guilty before their CAS
> hearing, and if so by whom? Good luck finding these examples because
> they don't exist, you dumbass.

Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso, Floyd Landis. Don't bother me
with facts, my mind is made up.

--
Michael Press

Date: 31 Dec 2006 23:32:47
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Michael Press wrote:

> In article <_vudnbkXYLDOhArYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Give me an example of a cyclist who was found guilty before their CAS
>>hearing, and if so by whom? Good luck finding these examples because
>>they don't exist, you dumbass.
>
>
> Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso, Floyd Landis. Don't bother me
> with facts, my mind is made up.
>

Who found them guilty? And if Floyd is already guilty, as you say, why
is he spending his life savings on an attorney and getting ready for a
big public trial?

Thanks,

Magilla

Date: 01 Jan 2007 10:22:05
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

In article <zqmdnUcnFrJyEwXYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article <_vudnbkXYLDOhArYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> > MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Give me an example of a cyclist who was found guilty before their CAS
> >>hearing, and if so by whom? Good luck finding these examples because
> >>they don't exist, you dumbass.
> >
> >
> > Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso, Floyd Landis. Don't bother me
> > with facts, my mind is made up.
> >
>
>
> Who found them guilty? And if Floyd is already guilty, as you say, why
> is he spending his life savings on an attorney and getting ready for a
> big public trial?

Reread what I have to say.

--
Michael Press

Date: 31 Dec 2006 12:14:01
From: nobody
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:58:42 -0500, MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com >
wrote:

>And so are athletes, assfuck. Floyd (or any other athlete) has not been
>found guilty of anything yet. That will be decided by the CAS, which is
>considered the same as a court of law. The CAS affords athletes due
>process protection.

Haha. I'd like to see one of your 'peer-reviewed' papers where your
research has been rejected and you must argue for re-review.

I'm sure this 'technique' serves you well. Call the moderators names. ;-D

Date: 31 Dec 2006 12:44:19
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

nobody wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:58:42 -0500, MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>And so are athletes, assfuck. Floyd (or any other athlete) has not been
>>found guilty of anything yet. That will be decided by the CAS, which is
>>considered the same as a court of law. The CAS affords athletes due
>>process protection.
>
>
> Haha. I'd like to see one of your 'peer-reviewed' papers where your
> research has been rejected and you must argue for re-review.

Huh??

>
> I'm sure this 'technique' serves you well. Call the moderators names. ;-D
>
>

What techniques? Where do I call any "moderators" names?

I have no idea what the fuck you're even talking about.

Magilla

Date: 30 Dec 2006 21:42:14
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:_vudnbkXYLDOhArYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> xzzy wrote:
>
>> 1. When being treated by doctors, 'citizens' have the option of a second
>> opinion. All doctors I have ever known understand the process in a
>> positive manner, and make good decisions with the additional information.
>> There is no right or wrong, there is only let's get this done.
>
> Not when you test positive in an employee drug test, assfuck. Also, the
> athlete is allowed to have their expert present to ensure the integrity of
> the B-sample test. This is comparable to having a second (and third)
> opinion wrapped up in one.
>

When I had to take a random test for work, the way my sample was handled for
submitting and sealing the sample was so poor, there is no way it could have
held up in court if challenged. I doubt many techs involved in the handling
of a sample are trained properly. On the other hand, very few people being
tested would know to recognize errors on the part of the tech.

Date: 30 Dec 2006 22:52:27
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Carl Sundquist wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:_vudnbkXYLDOhArYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>xzzy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>1. When being treated by doctors, 'citizens' have the option of a second
>>>opinion. All doctors I have ever known understand the process in a
>>>positive manner, and make good decisions with the additional information.
>>>There is no right or wrong, there is only let's get this done.
>>
>>Not when you test positive in an employee drug test, assfuck. Also, the
>>athlete is allowed to have their expert present to ensure the integrity of
>>the B-sample test. This is comparable to having a second (and third)
>>opinion wrapped up in one.
>>
>
>
> When I had to take a random test for work, the way my sample was handled for
> submitting and sealing the sample was so poor, there is no way it could have
> held up in court if challenged. I doubt many techs involved in the handling
> of a sample are trained properly. On the other hand, very few people being
> tested would know to recognize errors on the part of the tech.

Employment drug tests are almost always upheld by courts. Same with
parole/probation drug tests. No B-samples in any of them and it's
unheard of to challenge the lab science in those cases. And that's
science that will put you in jail!

So all you people in here who think athletes are getting railroaded are
living in a fantasyland. The real justice system is more cookbook than
WADA.

Sorry Carl, but if you ever failed an employee drug test, you can kiss
that job goodbye. And there ain't no B-sample to look to either.

Magilla

Date: 31 Dec 2006 00:27:30
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:DRqdncuhOtthrgrYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>
>> When I had to take a random test for work, the way my sample was handled
>> for submitting and sealing the sample was so poor, there is no way it
>> could have held up in court if challenged. I doubt many techs involved in
>> the handling of a sample are trained properly. On the other hand, very
>> few people being tested would know to recognize errors on the part of the
>> tech.
>
>
> Employment drug tests are almost always upheld by courts. Same with
> parole/probation drug tests. No B-samples in any of them and it's unheard
> of to challenge the lab science in those cases. And that's science that
> will put you in jail!
>
> So all you people in here who think athletes are getting railroaded are
> living in a fantasyland. The real justice system is more cookbook than
> WADA.
>
> Sorry Carl, but if you ever failed an employee drug test, you can kiss
> that job goodbye. And there ain't no B-sample to look to either.
>
> Magilla

It's not the "science" in the lab, it's the handling of the sample before it
was sealed. As I said, very few people being tested would know to look for
errors on the part of the tech. After I returned to work from giving my
sample, I told the head of our security department about the protocol
violations so they could tell the lab to train their techs. She told/asked
me not to mention to anyone else that had been tested.

But you're right. If you fail an employee drug test and slide out on a
technicality, they'll fire you for something inconsequential like stealing
from the company by sending personal emails on the corporate system.

Date: 31 Dec 2006 11:15:17
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Carl Sundquist wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:DRqdncuhOtthrgrYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>>When I had to take a random test for work, the way my sample was handled
>>>for submitting and sealing the sample was so poor, there is no way it
>>>could have held up in court if challenged. I doubt many techs involved in
>>>the handling of a sample are trained properly. On the other hand, very
>>>few people being tested would know to recognize errors on the part of the
>>>tech.
>>
>>
>>Employment drug tests are almost always upheld by courts. Same with
>>parole/probation drug tests. No B-samples in any of them and it's unheard
>>of to challenge the lab science in those cases. And that's science that
>>will put you in jail!
>>
>>So all you people in here who think athletes are getting railroaded are
>>living in a fantasyland. The real justice system is more cookbook than
>>WADA.
>>
>>Sorry Carl, but if you ever failed an employee drug test, you can kiss
>>that job goodbye. And there ain't no B-sample to look to either.
>>
>>Magilla
>
>
> It's not the "science" in the lab, it's the handling of the sample before it
> was sealed. As I said, very few people being tested would know to look for
> errors on the part of the tech. After I returned to work from giving my
> sample, I told the head of our security department about the protocol
> violations so they could tell the lab to train their techs. She told/asked
> me not to mention to anyone else that had been tested.
>
> But you're right. If you fail an employee drug test and slide out on a
> technicality, they'll fire you for something inconsequential like stealing
> from the company by sending personal emails on the corporate system.

You would never get off on a technicality. If you're arrested for DWI,
and they take a blood test try going into court with the defense that
the chain of custody of your blood cannot be guaranteed, and see how
well that goes over with the judge.

Your security guy was probably some high school graduate who didn't even
understand your complaint. And it is unlikely that any lab that needs
to be educated by its own non-medical employees will take constructive
criticism well, let alone implement any changes.

Magilla

Date: 30 Dec 2006 16:01:13
From: Joe King
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

Though we'd all like to think it came from their hearts, it was external
circumstance that finally forced Magilla Gorilla and Hitler to come together
in common cause at last, after all these years.

"It's different when you get to know someone face to face," said Hitler.
"All the group hatred melts away and you see he's just like you -- so OK,
maybe he comes from a race of people that listens to shitty music and has
bad haircuts, but blood and guts and sinews and bile and fear and flesh and
gristle and hard throbbing cocks and mucus and smegma trump music and hair
any day."

He put his arm around Magilla and Magilla reciprocated.

But that was just the photo op before they got down to the serious business
of saving the world, saving humanity, from the greatest threat it had ever
known: me.

"We both wanted a better world," Magilla said to Hitler once they were alone
together with their aides Einstein, Da Vinci, Galileo, Sandy Koufax, Sunny
Day Real Estate, Velocity Girl, Napoleon, Tim Berners-Lee, vin Minsky and
Kurt Schwitters.

"We just had different ways of going about it based on our different native
temperaments and our differing early childhood experiences," Hitler finished
Magilla's thought, as he would often do with Magilla and vice versa during
the 2 weeks we spent living with them and their assistants and their
high-tech equipment, making this documentary.

Bangladesh had fronted the millions for the state of the art conference room
they were meeting in -- the 360 degree surround-vision video walls could be
split into 4096 million different individual views of anything or any
combination of things anywhere anytime at any scale from infra-nano to
ultra-cosmic, and images could be individually arranged into any conceptual
structure known to man -- like the binary branching tree structure or the
uhhh, uhhhh, the uhhh, you know, all those other structures that man is
always putting things into in order to pretend cognition works when we all
know it's just a fucking lie -- in fact, the FIRST fucking lie.

Whatever. The point is that Hitler and Magilla had all existence and all
knowledge at their fingertips to aid them in figuring out how to stop the
most profound threat to man and cosmos in all human history, me.

"I'm not into all this video whiz-bang technology crap," said Magilla.

"Neither am I," said Hitler. "It's just a cover for man's true ignorance."

"And a side track," said Magilla. "Nobody solves problems. Instead, they
build a TOOL to solve the problem and then nobody uses it."

"Or they use it for the opposite of what it was intended for," said Hitler.
"But let's get down to business. We may have only a few weeks before this
guy figures it all out."

But for all their great and powerful hearts, they didn't realize I was in
there with them as part of the crew making this documentary.

I had written a program that searched the internet and peoples' hard drives
looking for an optimal way to exterminate the universe.

When it came up with an idea -- any idea -- it immediately tried to
implement it -- by doing massive email bombing or devising online ad
campaigns designed to either directly force the idea into physical being, or
bring in people who could.

Using online commerce and online payment systems, the program was able to
set up meetings and conferences all over the world on its own, and book
travel for well-credentialed participants. It could rent factory space and
set up and pay a work force to build complex devices it designed with
off-the-shelf CAD-CAM software based on the assimilation and correlation of
voluminous scientific data, facts and theory off the Princeton, MIT, and MTV
websites.

And as each idea failed miserably to achieve not only its OWN ends, but ANY
fucking ends whatsoever, the program modified it ever so slightly and sent
it back out to try again -- even as it was generating newer, more
off-the-wall, more drug-crazed psychotic ideas and implementing them each
femtosecond.

As a result, I had lots of free time and so could afford to be here watching
Magilla and Hitler and writing this on the side, while my purpose bored
effortlessly ceaselessly forward on its own, tearing a near-infinite number
of paths through the sphinctral substrate of universal computation,
communication and memory.

And in my position as assistant sound man I knew that, purely as a rote
function of my trade, I would be unresistably mandated, sooner or later, to
point an index finger to the sky above and say: "Uhhh, could you hold that
thought a second, Adolph -- I've gotta change the tape."

Date: 30 Dec 2006 15:52:43
From: Joe King
Subject: Re: you people are idiots

The small number of onlookers at that point began to snap their heads
apprehensively from one to the other and back to the bot. And then, at 4
hours and 15 minutes into the process, a second feature emerged -- another
embedded ble -- and the look on the collective face made it clear that,
down to the core, each one of them felt that for none of them to have ever
been born would have been best.