Bordry threatens to ass-rape Pharmstrong
Magilla Gorilla
BLafferty
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bordry-prepared-to-hand-over-armstrongs-1999-tour-de-france-samples
>
Of course Lance will challenge the chain of custordy and claim the lab
tampered with the samples. He'll have nothing on which to substantiate
those allegations and will look rather foolish to a jury when considered
in context of all the other evidence being gathered. It's getting time
for the Uniballer to tell Monty which door he wants.
Magilla Gorilla
The feds don't need to run a B-sample in order to introduce it as evidence iin a federal trial. Most
lab results introduced as evidence in federal court do not have "B-tests." No DWI conviction in the
U.S. is required to have a B-sample test confirmation.
No athlete in the history of sport has ever showed a WADA-certified lab contaminated a sample with a
doping product. Lance thinks he's going to be the first.
Good luck, Lance.
Magilla
BLafferty
Absolutely right. My point was only that they will attack the chain of
custody on the B sample. It is fully admissible once a proper
foundation has been laid.
Brad Anders
> On 9/16/2010 8:36 AM, Magilla Gorilla wrote:>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bordry-prepared-to-hand-over-armstron...
>
> Of course Lance will challenge the chain of custordy and claim the lab
> tampered with the samples. He'll have nothing on which to substantiate
> those allegations and will look rather foolish to a jury when considered
> in context of all the other evidence being gathered. It's getting time
> for the Uniballer to tell Monty which door he wants.
I suspect that things will go quite differently that what you suggest.
LA's lawyers have many options to attack the samples and any test
results on them. Not only will they challenge every aspect of the
chain of custody (which I'm sure has those samples moving between
multiple locations, and stored in relatively unsecured areas for
years), but they will go after the validity of any testing done on 10-
year-old samples. They'll attack issues of degredation of the samples,
the actual test method (guarantee that nobody evaluated the test on
ancient urine during the development and publication), and probably a
dozen other factors. By the time they're done, there will be a ton of
doubt in the juror's minds. BTW, I read MG's follow-on comment, and my
reply is - time will tell. Oh, and I didn't know you could get DWI
convictions on decade-old urine with a unknown history of custody and
control.
IMO, LA probably took EPO in the '99 TdF and the B-samples show it. I
just don't think the feds are going to be able to prove it to a jury.
Brad Anders
BLafferty
> On Sep 16, 6:26 am, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 9/16/2010 8:36 AM, Magilla Gorilla wrote:>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bordry-prepared-to-hand-over-armstron...
>>
>> Of course Lance will challenge the chain of custordy and claim the lab
>> tampered with the samples. He'll have nothing on which to substantiate
>> those allegations and will look rather foolish to a jury when considered
>> in context of all the other evidence being gathered. It's getting time
>> for the Uniballer to tell Monty which door he wants.
>
> I suspect that things will go quite differently that what you suggest.
> LA's lawyers have many options to attack the samples and any test
> results on them. Not only will they challenge every aspect of the
> chain of custody (which I'm sure has those samples moving between
> multiple locations, and stored in relatively unsecured areas for
> years)
They can try, but my recollection is that a proper chain of custody was
maintained by the lab. That will be an issue at trial.
, but they will go after the validity of any testing done on 10-
> year-old samples. They'll attack issues of degredation of the samples,
> the actual test method (guarantee that nobody evaluated the test on
> ancient urine during the development and publication), and probably a
> dozen other factors.
Of course they will. Will they convince anyone when they also have
tesinony from multiple people who testify that they saw Armstrong use
EPO in the 1999 Tour? Juries do strange things, but Armstrong has an
extreme uphill battle on that one. There will be experts contering
Armstrong's experts. All to be expected.
>By the time they're done, there will be a ton of
> doubt in the juror's minds.
Maybe. The test will not be considered in a vacuum. It will be
considered along with lots of damning, first hand testimony.
> BTW, I read MG's follow-on comment, and my
> reply is - time will tell. Oh, and I didn't know you could get DWI
> convictions on decade-old urine with a unknown history of custody and
> control.
False analogy. I think you know that, but nice try anyway.
>
> IMO, LA probably took EPO in the '99 TdF and the B-samples show it. I
> just don't think the feds are going to be able to prove it to a jury.
Time will tell.
>
> Brad Anders
Brad Anders
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reasonable reply, thanks.
Brad Anders
Magilla Gorilla
> On Sep 16, 6:26 am, BLafferty <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > On 9/16/2010 8:36 AM, Magilla Gorilla wrote:>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bordry-prepared-to-hand-over-armstron...
> >
> > Of course Lance will challenge the chain of custordy and claim the lab
> > tampered with the samples. He'll have nothing on which to substantiate
> > those allegations and will look rather foolish to a jury when considered
> > in context of all the other evidence being gathered. It's getting time
> > for the Uniballer to tell Monty which door he wants.
>
> I suspect that things will go quite differently that what you suggest.
> LA's lawyers have many options to attack the samples and any test
> results on them. Not only will they challenge every aspect of the
> chain of custody (which I'm sure has those samples moving between
> multiple locations, and stored in relatively unsecured areas for
> years), but they will go after the validity of any testing done on 10-
> year-old samples.
Every athlete who tests positive - including Fraud Landis - challenges the chain of custody. It's never been successful.
Why would Lance's case be any different?
> They'll attack issues of degredation of the samples,
Degraded samples cannot materialize EPO. You should know that.
>
> the actual test method (guarantee that nobody evaluated the test on
> ancient urine during the development and publication), and probably a
> dozen other factors.
Sounds like a typical defense that every athlete employs whose ever been charged with a doping violation by USADA. 100%
of them are convicted and 90% later go on to admit the tests were correct.
> By the time they're done, there will be a ton of
> doubt in the juror's minds.
Try no doubt.
> BTW, I read MG's follow-on comment, and my
> reply is - time will tell. Oh, and I didn't know you could get DWI
> convictions on decade-old urine with a unknown history of custody and
> control.
Sorry, but time doesn't cause EPO to materialize in urine. It just doesn't. So where did it come from?
>
>
> IMO, LA probably took EPO in the '99 TdF and the B-samples show it. I
> just don't think the feds are going to be able to prove it to a jury.
>
> Brad Anders
"Probably?" Let's see...every single athlete who tests positive is convicted by WADA/USADA....most later go on to admit
they indeed took the drug, and the only conclusion you can come up with for 8 positive EPO samples is "probably?"
Magilla
Brad Anders
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're right, "probably" is weak. "Definitely" is the right word. BTW,
I don't think that degradation causes EPO to appear, I'm suggesting
the lawyers and the experts they call will say that what <appears> to
be an EPO positive is actually a false result due to degradation. I
don't know the exact nature of the urine test (molecular weight?
markers?), so I can't suggest exactly how they'll go at it.
You and Brian think this case will be simple for the feds to prove, I
think it will be a lot more difficult, due to the legal fog that LA's
team will put forth. Time will tell how it will turn out.
Brad Anders
BLafferty
The comment that EPO can't just materialize in a sample over time was
mad by the woman who heads up the WADA lab in Montreal. The attack comes
from well paid attorneys.
>
>
>>
>>
>> IMO, LA probably took EPO in the '99 TdF and the B-samples show it. I
>> just don't think the feds are going to be able to prove it to a jury.
>>
>> Brad Anders
>
> "Probably?" Let's see...every single athlete who tests positive is convicted by WADA/USADA....most later go on to admit
> they indeed took the drug, and the only conclusion you can come up with for 8 positive EPO samples is "probably?"
To play devil's advocate for a moment, Armstrong has retained excellent
trial counsel. They will make the the best arguments they can to blow
as much smoke as they can. Will it be enough to get a US Attorney to
not indict? I doubt it. But, if the US Attorney is looking to nail
someone else, perhaps Thom Weisel, then it might be make a deal time.
I can see Armstrong pleading guilty to a reduced charge and being given
probation in return for his testimony and all the good deeds done to aid
cancer victims. Time will tell.
>
> Magilla
>
BLafferty
I absolutely do NOT think this is an easy case to prove. It is a very
complex case factually and on the law. Is there enough to indict
Armstrong and business partners? Time will tell. Is there enough
evidence to obtain a conviction? Time will tell. That said, if the US
Attorney is not confident of a conviction, I doubt there will be an
indictment.
That said, I think Lance and friends are in a world of trouble.
Kyle Legate
>
> I suspect that things will go quite differently that what you suggest.
> LA's lawyers have many options to attack the samples and any test
> results on them. Not only will they challenge every aspect of the chain
> of custody (which I'm sure has those samples moving between multiple
> locations, and stored in relatively unsecured areas for years), but they
> will go after the validity of any testing done on 10- year-old samples.
> They'll attack issues of degredation of the samples, the actual test
> method (guarantee that nobody evaluated the test on ancient urine during
> the development and publication), and probably a dozen other factors.
>
I have said it before and I'll say it again. Degradation of a sample
would turn a positive into a negative, not the other way around.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:4C920F54...@sandiegozoo.org...
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bordry-prepared-to-hand-over-armstrongs-1999-tour-de-france-samples
>
Does anybody have links to stories written back when those samples were
taken? Something saying what they were going to be used for, how they were
going to be stored etc? Documents generated at that time detailing how the
samples were going to be dealt with, rather than the retroactive stuff we
see now?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
William R. Mattil
>
> Does anybody have links to stories written back when those samples were
> taken? Something saying what they were going to be used for, how they
> were going to be stored etc? Documents generated at that time detailing
> how the samples were going to be dealt with, rather than the retroactive
> stuff we see now?
>
Mike,
A good question. What possible legal ramifications could there be
resulting from this ? IOW are the samples releasable to the outside
world ? or kept for future testing from which accusations can be made ?
Phil ? Can you comment ?
Bill
--
William R. Mattil
Jimmy July
> "Probably?" Let's see...every single athlete who tests positive is convicted by WADA/USADA.
I don't believe that. I expect that any number of athlete's have used
non-sanctioned tests in order to test their ability to beat the tests
WADA uses. When they failed those tests, they weren't reported and no
one was "convicted".
What you MEANT to say was that every single athlete who fails a WADA
administered test is "convicted". But that blows your point, since the
tests on the '99 samples were not administered by any sanctioning body.
Magilla Gorilla
That's not possible. The EPO tests isoforms of the EPO molecule. Degradation cannot cause a positive test for EPO anymore
than degradation of blood can cause a positive DNA match for a different person.
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
BLafferty wrote:
Bodry might also end up being indicted for ass-raping Lance once he turns over those EPO piss samples to the feds.
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
> On 09/16/2010 09:50 AM, Magilla Gorilla wrote:
>
> > "Probably?" Let's see...every single athlete who tests positive is convicted by WADA/USADA.
>
> I don't believe that. I expect that any number of athlete's have used
> non-sanctioned tests in order to test their ability to beat the tests
> WADA uses. When they failed those tests, they weren't reported and no
> one was "convicted".
>
Stop acting like an asshole.
>
> What you MEANT to say was that every single athlete who fails a WADA
> administered test is "convicted". But that blows your point, since the
> tests on the '99 samples were not administered by any sanctioning body.
The tests were carried out by a WADA lab (LNDD) from samples taken by the UCI during the '99
Tour.
What's your point?
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
Kyle Legate wrote:
Correct. Lance won't be able to find an expert to say otherwise.
Magilla
Brad Anders
Question is whether or not a jury will understand that. With enough
arm-flapping and babbling, maybe not.
Brad Anders
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:i6togh$u6j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
For that matter, I'm wondering what the riders knew at the time. Did they
know the samples were being stored, and for what purpose? And if you knew
that ahead of time, would you still dope in a way that you'd get caught?
I do recall something coming up a couple years ago, probably when Lance
refused to allow the samples to be tested in 2008, regarding that. The fact
that Lance was allowed to refuse having the samples tested tells us that
there was some sort of agreement that the riders must have signed, and
limits for the samples' use.
Again, this is not about whether someone doped or not, this is about the
procedures, protocols and intent.
Frederick the Great
Magilla Gorilla <m.go...@sandiegozoo.org> wrote:
Yes he will, if he needs to.
Not presenting one is not proof that he cannot.
--
Old Fritz
Magilla Gorilla
Lance's defense will want to get that fucking psycho woman on the Lance Chronicles who was crying outside the Postal bus at the
Tour de Georgia.
Magilla
Fredmaster of Brainerd
It appears to depend on how the test works, in part because
it looked for a percentage of isoforms rather than simply
the existence or non-existence of a chemical in the sample.
Rutger Beke got himself exonerated because he was able to
cast doubt on the test. There was this:
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/epotest_problems
I don't seriously believe this as an excuse for LANCE
(nor do I know if the tests in question were done with
revised procedures), but it is the kind of thing that expensive
lawyers would be able to use to cast doubt in the courtroom.
Since a criminal proceeding operates to a higher standard
of proof than a CAS tribunal, smoke-blowing that would not
exonerate an athlete in front of CAS could still get them off
of criminal charges.
Fredmaster Ben
BLafferty
Frederick the Great
BLafferty <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Are you thinking these days?
I mean instead of salivating
at every news story about LANCE.
--
Old Fritz
Frederick the Great
Magilla Gorilla <m.go...@sandiegozoo.org> wrote:
You certainly know plenty about Armstrong: more than I do.
--
Old Fritz
BLafferty
> In article<ddGdnZEHJIn02w7R...@giganews.com>,
Nothing of substance to say, FuckTard? Have a great day.
Kyle Legate
> On Sep 16, 10:29 am, Kyle Legate <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:10:37 -0700, Brad Anders wrote:
>>
>> > I suspect that things will go quite differently that what you
>> > suggest. LA's lawyers have many options to attack the samples and any
>> > test results on them. Not only will they challenge every aspect of
>> > the chain of custody (which I'm sure has those samples moving between
>> > multiple locations, and stored in relatively unsecured areas for
>> > years), but they will go after the validity of any testing done on
>> > 10- year-old samples. They'll attack issues of degredation of the
>> > samples, the actual test method (guarantee that nobody evaluated the
>> > test on ancient urine during the development and publication), and
>> > probably a dozen other factors.
>>
>> I have said it before and I'll say it again. Degradation of a sample
>> would turn a positive into a negative, not the other way around.
>
> It appears to depend on how the test works, in part because it looked
> for a percentage of isoforms rather than simply the existence or
> non-existence of a chemical in the sample. Rutger Beke got himself
> exonerated because he was able to cast doubt on the test. There was
> this:
>
> http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/
epotest_problems
>
For the generation of EPO that LANCE would have been using then, the test
detected the glycosylation status of the EPO. Glycosylation is a natural
modification of EPO that changes its size in the detection method. During
the period in question, EPO was made in CHO cells, which are chinese
hamster ovary cells. Hamster cells modify EPO slightly differently than
human cells, allowing the two sources to be differentiated in the test.
Storing a sample for years might cause the degradation of a sample such
that nothing would be detected, and therefore the test would be
inconclusive. It would not turn human EPO into hamster-modified human EPO.
Brad Anders
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your explanation that it would be impossible for human EPO, even in
decade-old samples, to be interpreted as modified EPO seems reasonable
to me, especially given the miniscule knowedge I have of the details
of the test, procedures, and potential interferences. That said, I'm
certain that LA's lawyers will go after the testing of these samples
for the reasons I suggested, will be able to find experts to support
their arguments, and in a trial setting, have a good chance of
convincing jurors that the tests are meaningless. Why? Because I've
seen it happen in a number of high profile court cases involving
complex forensic testing, and my confidence in the ability of laywers
to hoodwink juries.
Brad Anders
Frederick the Great
BLafferty <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
And your thinking is substantive?
It would be if you explained it.
--
Old Fritz
Brad Anders
> You certainly know plenty about Armstrong: more than I do.
I have it on good knowledge that MG is actually Sheryl Crow.
Brad Anders
Brad Anders
>
> - Show quoted text -
FYI, found this cite in an article someone posted a couple of days
ago. Pretty much supports what I think LA and his lawyers are going to
do regarding the '99 samples.
http://squadraprofessore.com/2010/05/21/teflon-branding-lance-armstrong-and-jaccuse/
----------
Here is an excerpt from a 2005 CNN interview:
COSTAS: But they were stored and then supposedly, newer more
sophisticated techniques come along. They test the B samples and they
found the B sample to be positive from 1999. That’s what they’re
alleging. They’re not saying any other time.
ARMSTRONG: Right. But for starters, the test is in question itself.
Take all of this aside, me and these new allegations, forget about all
that. The actual test for EPO, what they call electrophoresis, is
actually being questioned on a pretty serious level right now. Why do
you think they’re still working on it? Because it doesn’t work that
well.
So you throw that in. Then you throw in the fact that these samples
were stored for six or seven years. Where were they stored? What was
the temperature, et cetera, et cetera? There’s not any scientific data
that suggests that after five years, samples look and act the same
that they did before. It doesn’t exist.
----------
The poster made essentially the same objections as MG and Kyle did.
I'm just saying that this seems to be his strategy. Given how stupid
jurors seem to be, it may be more effective than you'd expect.
Brad Anders
blazing_saddles
I knew these fuckers shouldn't be trusted.
blazing_saddles
> ----------
> Here is an excerpt from a 2005 CNN interview:
>
> COSTAS: But they were stored and then supposedly, newer more
> sophisticated techniques come along. They test the B samples and they
> found the B sample to be positive from 1999. That’s what they’re
> alleging. They’re not saying any other time.
>
> ARMSTRONG: Right. But for starters, the test is in question itself.
> Take all of this aside, me and these new allegations, forget about all
> that. The actual test for EPO, what they call electrophoresis, is
> actually being questioned on a pretty serious level right now. Why do
> you think they’re still working on it? Because it doesn’t work that
> well.
>
> So you throw that in. Then you throw in the fact that these samples
> were stored for six or seven years. Where were they stored? What was
> the temperature, et cetera, et cetera? There’s not any scientific data
> that suggests that after five years, samples look and act the same
> that they did before. It doesn’t exist.
> ----------
>
> The poster made essentially the same objections as MG and Kyle did.
> I'm just saying that this seems to be his strategy. Given how stupid
> jurors seem to be, it may be more effective than you'd expect.
>
> Brad Anders
Lance's eloquence and depth of the subject is in stark contrast to his
typical bull-simple what's EPO and who's Ferrari bullshitting
Lance is a detestable cunt and you fucking ball garglers have been
drinking the uniball kool-aid for way too long.
Frederick the Great
<a7f0a1f2-b7a9-49aa...@i4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Brad Anders <pban...@gmail.com> wrote:
That explains _everything_!
Resentment, mood swings, constant sexual references.
--
Old Fritz
Beloved Fred No. 1
>> I have it on good knowledge that MG is actually Sheryl Crow.
Frederick the Great wrote:
> That explains _everything_!
> Resentment, mood swings, constant sexual references.
Magilla is suffering from PMT.