Hamilton speaks
Robert Chung
Fred Marx
> http://www.roadcycling.com/news/article1029.shtml
>
>
sure looks like he got screwed but then that's just one mans opinion.
gev...@mindspring.com
what a load of bs! I truely feel sorry for his family. They have to
believe him or pretend to. It's just so obvious its almost funny. like
when pete rose said he didn't bet on baseball. Sad
Laz
<gev...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1113864915.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
ODH_Bikes
I think it's a bit strange Phonak went out of thier way to make sure
they own the same "hematocrit machine" as the UCI.
--
ODH_Bikes
gym.gravity
> I think it's a bit strange Phonak went out of thier way to make sure
> they own the same "hematocrit machine" as the UCI.
Yup.
Bob Schwartz
> Yup.
If someone were running tests that could potentially cause
a lot of problems for me, I would do that too. I'll bet
they've all got the same machine as the UCI vampires.
Bob Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
Alex Rodriguez
ODH_Bike...@news.forumbanter.com says...
>I think it's a bit strange Phonak went out of thier way to make sure
>they own the same "hematocrit machine" as the UCI.
Why? It makes a lot of sense to make sure you can verify the results put
up by the UCI. You would be stupid to go on blind faith that the UCI does
not make mistakes. Esecially when there is a lot of money at stake.
------------------
Alex
Hamish Ferguson
"ODH_Bikes" <ODH_Bike...@news.forumbanter.com> wrote in message
news:ODH_Bike...@news.forumbanter.com...
>
> I think it's a bit strange Phonak went out of thier way to make sure
> they own the same "hematocrit machine" as the UCI.
Do you mean in the same way as the Russian Olympic Team had a boat in Seoul
with full testing facilities or the way that many US athletes were pulled
with mystery illness's before the LA Games?
Hamish Ferguson
df...@hotmail.com
themselves - are obviously, blatantly ignorant of the scientific
process. If you cannot, or will not, present your "evidence" for review
and challenge, you don't have scientific evidence at all. You just have
accusations and words.
The claim about their evidence and the process that created it is that
"There is no risk of a false positive and no need to do so called
validation studies." Oh. OK.... Nothing to see here. Move along...
(http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/hamilton_decision)
The whole problem with this case against Hamilton is that it looks like
voodoo magic. And it looks like voodoo magic because WADA refuses to
submit their testing procedure to a normal scientific challenge.
Robert Chung
> I would do that too. I'll bet
> they've all got the same machine as the UCI vampires.
I RIDE A TREK, WEAR DISCOVERY CHANNEL CLOTHING, AND SLEEP WITH A WOMAN WHO
LOOKS LIKE MY MOTHER SO I CAN CALIBRATE MY PERFORMANCE AGAINST LANCE.
Donald Munro
>> I would do that too. I'll bet
>> they've all got the same machine as the UCI vampires.
Robert Chung wrote:
> I RIDE A TREK, WEAR DISCOVERY CHANNEL CLOTHING, AND SLEEP WITH A WOMAN WHO
> LOOKS LIKE MY MOTHER SO I CAN CALIBRATE MY PERFORMANCE AGAINST LANCE.
But does the woman who looks like your mother calibrate your performance ?
Donald Munro
> I think the problem here is that WADA - or whatever the geniuses call
> themselves - are obviously, blatantly ignorant of the scientific
> process. If you cannot, or will not, present your "evidence" for review
> and challenge, you don't have scientific evidence at all. You just have
> accusations and words.
>
> The claim about their evidence and the process that created it is that
> "There is no risk of a false positive and no need to do so called
> validation studies." Oh. OK.... Nothing to see here. Move along...
So you're saying the energy crisis could be solved if WADA was put in
charge of research into cold fusion.
Robert Chung
>
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> I RIDE A TREK, WEAR DISCOVERY CHANNEL CLOTHING, AND SLEEP WITH A WOMAN
>> WHO LOOKS LIKE MY MOTHER SO I CAN CALIBRATE MY PERFORMANCE AGAINST
>> LANCE.
>
> But does the woman who looks like your mother calibrate your
> performance ?
I HAD ONE OF MY BALLS REMOVED.
Donald Munro
>> But does the woman who looks like your mother calibrate your
>> performance ?
> I HAD ONE OF MY BALLS REMOVED.
That is dedication beyond the call of duty.
Robert Chung
THAT WAS EASY. WHAT WAS HARD WAS TRAINING MYSELF TO GET A STIFFY WHEN I
SEE HEIN.
Bob Schwartz
Lance's ex-personal assistant can tell you about some shit that
can help with that. It might be on the WADA list though, he's
not sure.
Bob Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
bfo...@gmail.com
cyclist own a hematocrit machine if they aren't doping? if you're not
doping your levels will never get to a point that would concern the UCI
or your team. is there some other reason a team would own this machine?
MyFirstname MyLastName
> someone give me an understanding...why the hell would a team or any
> cyclist own a hematocrit machine if they aren't doping? if you're not
> doping your levels will never get to a point that would concern the UCI
> or your team. is there some other reason a team would own this machine?
>
They buy the machines, or engage "their" laboratory, to have
foreknowledge of any possible bad news from independent WADA/UCI type
tests.
And on haemocrit levels, it is not all as cut and dried as as it seems.
My personal levels are consistently 48 or 49 and I do not attempt to
enhance them, reside only 8 floors up in my apartment block and never
sleep in Oxygen Tents.
--
Regards,
Ila Kutcherkokoff
(Lorena's Cousin)
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>.why the hell would a team or any
> cyclist own a hematocrit machine
> if they aren't doping?
To make sure you don't go over the banned level of hematocrit from
activities like altitude trainining or sleeping in those hypoxic
chambers. Those things are not doping, but can probably can raise
hematocrit too high for some people. Moreover, measuring hematocrit
might even help understand if those things are working, which is
useful info too.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Alex Rodriguez
bfo...@gmail.com says...
>someone give me an understanding...why the hell would a team or any
>cyclist own a hematocrit machine if they aren't doping? if you're not
>doping your levels will never get to a point that would concern the UCI
>or your team. is there some other reason a team would own this machine?
Very easy to understand. You know your team is going to get tested at some
time. That's a fact. The person/s doing the testing are human and can make
mistakes. So they might screw something up. To catch these inevitable errors
you use your machine to verify the results reported to the UCI. That does not
mean you are doping. It would be very stupid not to have one of the machines
when you have a large team with a large budget.
-------------
Alex
Jeff Jones
>
> Very easy to understand. You know your team is going to get tested
> at some time. That's a fact. The person/s doing the testing are
> human and can make mistakes. So they might screw something up. To
> catch these inevitable errors you use your machine to verify the
> results reported to the UCI. That does not mean you are doping. It
> would be very stupid not to have one of the machines when you have a
> large team with a large budget. -------------
So if your machine doesn't agree with the UCI's, where does that leave you?
To put it another way, how many riders have successfully argued their way
out of a two week hematocrit ban because their team's readings did not match
the UCI's?
Jeff
Alex Rodriguez
jeff@cyclingnews-punt-com says...
>Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>> Very easy to understand. You know your team is going to get tested
>> at some time. That's a fact. The person/s doing the testing are
>> human and can make mistakes. So they might screw something up. To
>> catch these inevitable errors you use your machine to verify the
>> results reported to the UCI. That does not mean you are doping. It
>> would be very stupid not to have one of the machines when you have a
>> large team with a large budget. -------------
>
>So if your machine doesn't agree with the UCI's, where does that leave you?
You then know that there might be a problem with the UCI results.
>To put it another way, how many riders have successfully argued their way
>out of a two week hematocrit ban because their team's readings did not match
>the UCI's?
No idea. But if you tell the UCI that you are using the same machine they are
and that you got different results than they did puts you in a better position
than just saying their results can't be right because you say so. If you are
going to challenge their results it is a good idea to have some facts to back
up the challenge.
---------------
Alex
Jeff Jones
> In article <4267dc61$0$15803$ba62...@news.skynet.be>,
> jeff@cyclingnews-punt-com says...
>
>>
>> leave you?
>
> You then know that there might be a problem with the UCI results.
>
questioned. Whaddya think this is, science? Bo Hamburger was lucky.
>> To put it another way, how many riders have successfully argued
>> their way out of a two week hematocrit ban because their team's
>> readings did not match the UCI's?
>
> No idea.
The answer is: not to my knowledge.
> But if you tell the UCI that you are using the same machine
> they are and that you got different results than they did puts you in
> a better position than just saying their results can't be right
> because you say so. If you are going to challenge their results it
> is a good idea to have some facts to back up the challenge.
In theory, having some evidence to back up your claim should help, but it
didn't really help Tyler's cause, did it? Or anyone else's. See Rule number
1.
Teams and riders having their own centrifuges, no matter how pure and
innocent their intentions are, are not really engendering that squeaky clean
image that seems to be so important. Pro cycling is as much about image as
it is about getting results.
Jeff
Carl Sundquist
"Jeff Jones" <jeff@cyclingnews-punt-com> wrote in message
news:42681546$0$7739$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> > In article <4267dc61$0$15803$ba62...@news.skynet.be>,
> > jeff@cyclingnews-punt-com says...
> >
> >>
> >> So if your machine doesn't agree with the UCI's, where does that
> >> leave you?
> >
> > You then know that there might be a problem with the UCI results.
> >
> Or yours :-) Rule number 1: the UCI results are always right. They cannot
be
> questioned.
Like the men's keirin heat at worlds when everybody thought the derny driver
pulled off a lap too soon and screwd it all up. A review of the videotape
showed that the officials forgot to change the lap board. Then the officials
refused to let anyone else see the video and tried to dump the blame on the
derny driver.