Floyd can't be let off the hook because...
Joe King
bdb...@gmail.com
Joe King wrote:
> ... he totally wrecked the sport of bike racing.
You're "joking", right?
Its tough to take you seriously.
Was the phoenetic approximation intentional?
-bdbafh
Simon Brooke
The BBC have a hard working radio producer of that name[1]; consequently
a remarkable number of British radio programmes end with the line 'the
producer was joking'. I keep looking forward to the day when the
announcer will say 'the producer was not joking'.
[1] Jo King, actually.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
IMHO, there aren't enough committed Christians, but that's care
in the community for you. -- Ben Evans
Fred Fredburger
> in message <1155344545.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> bdb...@gmail.com ('bdb...@gmail.com') wrote:
>
>> Joe King wrote:
>>> ... he totally wrecked the sport of bike racing.
>> You're "joking", right?
>> Its tough to take you seriously.
>> Was the phoenetic approximation intentional?
>
> The BBC have a hard working radio producer of that name[1]; consequently
> a remarkable number of British radio programmes end with the line 'the
> producer was joking'. I keep looking forward to the day when the
> announcer will say 'the producer was not joking'.
>
> [1] Jo King, actually.
>
So then, for some, the reason for the "Joe King" moniker may not be
obvious. Thanks for pointing that out. It hadn't occurred to me.
Recently, Joe King's name has been questioned sincerely enough that I've
been curiously awaiting the response to Hugh G. Rection's next post.
Carl Sundquist
"Fred Fredburger" <WhereAre...@Hammer.com> wrote in message
>>
>> [1] Jo King, actually.
>
> So then, for some, the reason for the "Joe King" moniker may not be
> obvious. Thanks for pointing that out. It hadn't occurred to me.
>
> Recently, Joe King's name has been questioned sincerely enough that I've
> been curiously awaiting the response to Hugh G. Rection's next post.
>
Or Sharon Peters.
Smokey
One of my biker friends swears he used to have a girlfriend named Fonda
Peters.
Smokey
Chris
process, so expect a smear campaign to be launched both in the press and
behind the scenes as this will a fight for the life of the UCI and WADA,
which are bigger than Landis. At best, that is he is clean, he will be a
casualty of fixing the anti-doping (after the fact, that is) machine.
"Joe King" <joe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EB9Dg.159$KV3...@newsfe03.lga...
Bob Dole
in bounds:
Margie Noverror
[with credit to "Car Talk", although this joke maybe much older than
their use of it]
dbr...@gmail.com
-dB
Chris
be fighting for their livelihood and position in life; cause should some of
the issues with their machines be exposed, there will be a replacement of
those organizations with new and improved, which means new leaders and
staff. So in survival mode means everyone is expendable but Me; therefore
you elevate yourself by making sure everyone else looks worse than you do by
tearing the down. This works to galvinized a mob effect on the other guy.
The target here will be Landis as it was Hamilton before him. This is
rationalized as politics and for the long term good of the sport.
You can see hints already in that Landis recognizes this has started looking
for ways to loose gracefully, starting with his choice of attorneys; maybe I
ingested something in what I was given (Tonight Show), etc.
<dbr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155444616.6...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
dbr...@gmail.com
> It's nothing compared to what it's going to be as the UCI and WADA boys will
> be fighting for their livelihood and position in life; cause should some of
> the issues with their machines be exposed, there will be a replacement of
> those organizations with new and improved, which means new leaders and
> staff. So in survival mode means everyone is expendable but Me; therefore
> you elevate yourself by making sure everyone else looks worse than you do by
> tearing the down. This works to galvinized a mob effect on the other guy.
> The target here will be Landis as it was Hamilton before him. This is
> rationalized as politics and for the long term good of the sport.
>
> You can see hints already in that Landis recognizes this has started looking
> for ways to loose gracefully, starting with his choice of attorneys; maybe I
> ingested something in what I was given (Tonight Show), etc.
I am more concerned that he won't have the money available to do his
own tests or that he allows himself to be distracted from disproving
the facts of the positive tests by bitching about leaks and side-show
process issues.
Yes, they are out to get him, and he needs to beat them at the USADA
hearing, or later as the CAS appeal. No smear is going to affect
those results, onlythe evidence he brings in. Hamilton's evidence
seemed wantonly lacking. Annoyingly, his site has further assertions
that might have been exculpatory had they been presented at the time of
the appeal, but they were not. This suggests either the defense was
incapable of getting that before the appear either because of their own
constraints, or on hide-the-ball maneuvering, or that Hamilton really
was guilty.
IThere's an argument to be made that the smears and the leaks are
intentional bait set but to mislead the defense down dead-ends.
Attacking the process in any way but the technical correctness of the
analytic protocol (or chain of custody) will not help in the appeal.
They'll only care about the test results.
-dB
Kyle Legate
>
> IThere's an argument to be made that the smears and the leaks are
> intentional bait set but to mislead the defense down dead-ends.
> Attacking the process in any way but the technical correctness of the
> analytic protocol (or chain of custody) will not help in the appeal.
> They'll only care about the test results.
>
confirmed cheater will get off on a technicality. Yes, confirmed
cheater, A and B tests. Before you all start whining on about questions
surrounding sample collection, confidentiality and problems with the
testing process itself, you create these issues to create the
technicalities. The dope testers are not amateurs. They know about chain
of custody, and they know how to perform the tests. I am one of the
"experts" that claims that the mass spec results are correct. The
experts claiming the opposite would have been right ten years ago, but
not today. There is a miniscule amount of wiggle room to squirm out from
under a positive mass spec result, and the fact that many people are
hoping to exploit that wiggle room to get Floyd off is shameful.
dbr...@gmail.com
It equally says a lot that outlining what a legitimate defense would be
are dismissed as shameful attempts to exploit wriggle room. If the
tests are as good as claimed, and Landis is guilty, consider two other
questions. (1) Was Floyd the only doper at this year's Tour? (2) Why
didn't these great tests detect anybody else? Note well
that I would not want to insert either of these discussion points into
a defense of Landis, but they are part of questioning the system.
In Floyd's case, the only points that are useful to address are the (a)
the accuracy of the test findings; (b) whether what they indicate is
proof of presence of illegal substances. I personally think that
chasing the chain of custody is a diversion, and only worth mentioning
for completeness. And I'm inclined to think that questioning the
numerical results is probably not worth much pursuit either, except in
conjunction with their accuracy in predicting illegal substances.
There is some open nquestion whether there are dietary things that
could account for odd CIR findings. I suspect the only thing that
could prove innocence in the context of the process would be conducting
experiments that showed some simulation where there were provably no
illegal substances involved that resulted in similar analytic values.
Doing so would discredit the conclusion drawn from the analytic
findings, and ought to be accepted as proof by the most skeptical.
It's my opinion that it would be best for the sport (and the world) for
Floyd to be shown to be innocent in this way. It would validate what
was seen, and would show that the testing regime is itselft not
totally broken and corrupt. That is, it would be good for there to be
false positives that are acknowledged and corrected.
The mudslinging brings little credit to anyone involved from either
persuasion.
-dB
Simon Brooke
dbr...@gmail.com ('dbr...@gmail.com') wrote:
> Kyle Legate wrote:
>> >
>> It says a lot about American values when so many people here hope that
>> a confirmed cheater will get off on a technicality. Yes, confirmed
>> cheater, A and B tests. Before you all start whining on about
>> questions surrounding sample collection, confidentiality and problems
>> with the testing process itself, you create these issues to create the
>> technicalities. The dope testers are not amateurs. They know about
>> chain of custody, and they know how to perform the tests. I am one of
>> the "experts" that claims that the mass spec results are correct. The
>> experts claiming the opposite would have been right ten years ago, but
>> not today. There is a miniscule amount of wiggle room to squirm out
>> from under a positive mass spec result, and the fact that many people
>> are hoping to exploit that wiggle room to get Floyd off is shameful.
>
> It equally says a lot that outlining what a legitimate defense would be
> are dismissed as shameful attempts to exploit wriggle room. If the
> tests are as good as claimed, and Landis is guilty, consider two other
> questions.
> (1) Was Floyd the only doper at this year's Tour?
Probably not.
> (2) Why
> didn't these great tests detect anybody else?
Because no-one else who was tested had a testosterone/epitestosterone
ration greater than 4:1, so no one else's sample was subjected to the
more sophisticated testing. Of course, that may merely mean that their
team doctors were competent. Of course, it would be interesting to see
what would be found if other riders' samples were subjected to this
testing.
> In Floyd's case, the only points that are useful to address are the (a)
> the accuracy of the test findings; (b) whether what they indicate is
> proof of presence of illegal substances. I personally think that
> chasing the chain of custody is a diversion, and only worth mentioning
> for completeness.
Following the 'B' sample test we've had no word from the Landis team that
they were dissatisfied with the condition of the seal, nor with the
technical procedure of the test itself.
Consequently I think any discussion of these is also persiflage.
> It's my opinion that it would be best for the sport (and the world) for
> Floyd to be shown to be innocent in this way.
In my opinion it would be best for the sport for Floyd to 'fess up and
take his punishment with dignity. However, /if/ he is innocent, then
certainly we will need a clear explanation of how that is compatible
with the results that were reported - from a test his representatives
observed.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other
;; languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their
;; pockets for new vocabulary -- James D. Nicoll
Keith
>
>> (1) Was Floyd the only doper at this year's Tour?
>
>Probably not.
>
>> (2) Why
>> didn't these great tests detect anybody else?
>
>Because no-one else who was tested had a testosterone/epitestosterone
>ration greater than 4:1, so no one else's sample was subjected to the
>more sophisticated testing. Of course, that may merely mean that their
>team doctors were competent. Of course, it would be interesting to see
>what would be found if other riders' samples were subjected to this
>testing.
Yes that's the trick here, stay below the 4:1 ratio and you don't get
tested for exogeneous testosterone, seems the test is expensive, did I
read $300, but they should really do some random checking as well.
Currently it's ok to cheat if you stay below the ratio.
>> In Floyd's case, the only points that are useful to address are the (a)
>> the accuracy of the test findings; (b) whether what they indicate is
>> proof of presence of illegal substances. I personally think that
>> chasing the chain of custody is a diversion, and only worth mentioning
>> for completeness.
>
>Following the 'B' sample test we've had no word from the Landis team that
>they were dissatisfied with the condition of the seal, nor with the
>technical procedure of the test itself.
>
>Consequently I think any discussion of these is also persiflage.
>
>> It's my opinion that it would be best for the sport (and the world) for
>> Floyd to be shown to be innocent in this way.
>
>In my opinion it would be best for the sport for Floyd to 'fess up and
>take his punishment with dignity.
Not going to happen, I saw an interview extract with his wife and it
was friggin' pathetic, I hope she dumps him when he finally has to
cough it up, asshole.
William O'Hara
>> didn't these great tests detect anybody else?
> Because no-one else who was tested had a testosterone/epitestosterone
> ration greater than 4:1, so no one else's sample was subjected to the
> more sophisticated testing. Of course, that may merely mean that their
Do you read the statements made by Pound and many others?
They talk about rampant cheating. The spanish authorities
have made allegations regarding over 50 cyclists. Why haven't
any of these guys tested positive?
MLB has preannouced testing, which seems to be a concession to
allow the players to continue their doping. They("players") don't
seem to think that they can mask doping. How come bicyclists
are able to mask doping? I think the testing regime is a failure
and should be catching more persons given the wanton belief of universal
doping.
--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR
RonSonic
>>> (2) Why
>>> didn't these great tests detect anybody else?
>> Because no-one else who was tested had a testosterone/epitestosterone
>> ration greater than 4:1, so no one else's sample was subjected to the
>> more sophisticated testing. Of course, that may merely mean that their
>
>
>Do you read the statements made by Pound and many others?
>They talk about rampant cheating.
Dick Pound attempts to make himself and his job sound more important by talking
like that. Ask Barney Fife about the rampant criminal activity they'd be having
in Mayberry without him.
> The spanish authorities
>have made allegations regarding over 50 cyclists. Why haven't
>any of these guys tested positive?
>
>MLB has preannouced testing, which seems to be a concession to
>allow the players to continue their doping. They("players") don't
>seem to think that they can mask doping. How come bicyclists
>are able to mask doping? I think the testing regime is a failure
>and should be catching more persons given the wanton belief of universal
>doping.
Okay, you notice a contradiction between A: what some people say and B: the
results of relatively scientific tests. Does that tell you the test is bad or
does it tell you that the people running their mouths are full of shit?
Ron
Donald Munro
> Currently it's ok to cheat if you stay below the ratio.
Dumbass,
If you're below the ratio then by definition you're not "cheating".
Sandy
>
Actually, WADA gets its two bites of the apple. They can cry foul if
you are tested positive - also, they can rummage through your life and
get you without tests.
I think the riders should be able to have typical civil rights, even
with respect to out of competition testing. Legal hours for the
vampires to come, no dawn raids, etc. Hopeless ?
The war on hard drugs results in them being called "recreational". The
general population, however, is huge. Cyclists present an easy target.
It's shitty, no matter how you look at it.
Just wondering - if a competitor went out and get really drunk after a
big personal event, would it be sensible to test him at that moment ?
Certainly, it's not a performance enhancement, but it violates the rules.
And the gross response to this post is probably - Who cares ?
Donald Munro
>>> Currently it's ok to cheat if you stay below the ratio.
Donald Munro wrote :
>> If you're below the ratio then by definition you're not "cheating".
Sandy wrote:
> Actually, WADA gets its two bites of the apple. They can cry foul if
> you are tested positive - also, they can rummage through your life and
> get you without tests.
However for testosterone if you are below the legal ratio then presumably
it doesn't matter if you took an "artificial" substance or not.
Ernst Noch
decided to test for synt Tes directly without doing the ratio test first
before the TdF, I think they could have done so.
I thought before that the WADA definition defines doping (cheating)
merely by describing how you mustn't measure in some tests, but the WADA
definition is broader than that.
Having certain substances in your body is only one of IIRC 4 issues
which define doping. Each one is sufficient to qualify you as a doper.
Donald Munro
> Having certain substances in your body is only one of IIRC 4 issues
> which define doping. Each one is sufficient to qualify you as a doper.
So by the WADA definitions Marlyn Manson was right, we're all stars now in
the dope show.
Nancy2
Joe King wrote:
> ... he totally wrecked the sport of bike racing.
According to Hemingway, bike races aren't sport. The only true sports
are mountaineering, bull fighting and auto racing. Everything else is
a game. LOL.
N.
Simon Brooke
O'Hara ('whoo...@yahoo.com') wrote:
>>> (2) Why
>>> didn't these great tests detect anybody else?
>> Because no-one else who was tested had a testosterone/epitestosterone
>> ration greater than 4:1, so no one else's sample was subjected to the
>> more sophisticated testing. Of course, that may merely mean that their
>
> Do you read the statements made by Pound and many others?
> They talk about rampant cheating. The spanish authorities
> have made allegations regarding over 50 cyclists. Why haven't
> any of these guys tested positive?
Pound has an axe to grind, and he's grinding it at cycling's expense. He
has no personal investment in cycling. Perhaps he honestly wants to
clean up 'sport', considering sport as a whole, but he seems to be quite
prepared to sacrifice one sport - ours - pour encourager les autres.
In saying that I'm not saying there's no doping in the peloton. We know
there is. But that doesn't mean to say you have to take Pound's
posturing at face value.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning.
Michael Press
<1155564752.4...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Nancy2" <nancy-...@uiowa.edu> wrote:
Tell that to the bull. Bull riding is different: the bull
always wins.
--
Michael Press