Plasticizers irrelevant to old USPS samples
Mike Jacoubowsky
enquiry"
They got it half-right anyway. IV Rehydration wasn't banned (actually, it's
still allowed if required for medical reasons and administered by a doctor)
back in the USPS days. It's a fairly-recent addition to WADA's list
(although I'm having a tough time finding the date, but it seems to be
around 2007 or 2008).
USPS samples that contain plasticizers prove only that IVs were performed,
not what was put into the body. It wouldn't be evidence of transfusions.
But for samples stored during the past few years, yes, there could be some
out there who are more than a bit concerned right now.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
BLafferty
Fred Fredburger
Quit twitching and think, for once.
No prosecutor in the world would throw away additional evidence. I
guaran-fucking-tee you that Novitsky didn't hear about those 2005 tests
of 1999 samples and immediately say "We're done!" like you just did.
If someone can find proof that LA's circulatory system was full of
plastic in 2004 at such levels that it indicates blood doping, Novitsky
will use that information regardless of whether WADA tested for it in
those days.
Mike Jacoubowsky
"Fred Fredburger" <I...@just.dont.know.anymore> wrote in message
news:4cae8555$1...@news.x-privat.org...
But he'd be nuts to introduce something as evidence when it can so
easily be explained away. IV use was allowed back then, for "casual"
rehydration. You needed no documentation or rationale for using one.
There have been plenty of scientific articles published showing the
benefits of IV vs oral rehydration, so it may have even been common for
teams to do so.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
BLafferty
It's time for you to put your thinking cap on, Fred. If IVs were allowed
back then, as they were, the plasticizers are readily explained from a
non-doping rationale and are thus irrelevant.
Steve Freides
> There have been plenty of scientific articles published showing the
> benefits of IV vs oral rehydration, so it may have even been common
> for teams to do so.
It's really banned now? Seems pretty stupid to me to do that.
-S-
Fred Fredburger
Yes. Part one is finding plasticizers, part 2 is proving that it means
something.
Fred Fredburger
Yes, unless he can show some difference in quality, quantity, or type of
plasticizers introduced via blood doping versus IV hydration, it would
be easily explained.
William R. Mattil
>
> If IVs were allowed
> back then, as they were, the plasticizers are readily explained from a
> non-doping rationale and are thus irrelevant.
Even for Lance ?!?!?!?!?!??
Bill
--
William R. Mattil
Kurgan Gringioni
"Fred Fredburger" <I...@just.dont.know.anymore> wrote in message
: >>
: >> If someone can find proof that LA's circulatory system was full of
: >> plastic in 2004 at such levels that it indicates blood doping, Novitsky
: >> will use that information regardless of whether WADA tested for it in
: >> those days.
: >
: > It's time for you to put your thinking cap on, Fred. If IVs were allowed
: > back then, as they were, the plasticizers are readily explained from a
: > non-doping rationale and are thus irrelevant.
:
: Yes, unless he can show some difference in quality, quantity, or type of
: plasticizers introduced via blood doping versus IV hydration, it would
: be easily explained.
Dumbass -
The chances are about zero that they have one type of plastic for blood and
another type for saline. From a engineering materials standpoint the IV
system with blood and IV system with saline is the same thing.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Kurgan Gringioni
"Fred Fredburger" <I...@just.dont.know.anymore> wrote in message
:
: No prosecutor in the world would throw away additional evidence. I
: guaran-fucking-tee you that Novitsky didn't hear about those 2005 tests
: of 1999 samples and immediately say "We're done!" like you just did.
Dumbass -
Statute of limitations again. Evidence of something that happened in 1999
isn't admissable.
Phil H
> On 10/7/2010 6:18 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Plasticizer test could have consequences for 2010 Tour and US Postal
> > doping enquiry"
>
>
> > They got it half-right anyway. IV Rehydration wasn't banned (actually,
> > it's still allowed if required for medical reasons and administered by a
> > doctor) back in the USPS days. It's a fairly-recent addition to WADA's
> > list (although I'm having a tough time finding the date, but it seems to
> > be around 2007 or 2008).
>
> > USPS samples that contain plasticizers prove only that IVs were
> > performed, not what was put into the body. It wouldn't be evidence of
> > transfusions.
>
> > But for samples stored during the past few years, yes, there could be
> > some out there who are more than a bit concerned right now.
>
> > --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > Chain Reaction Bicycles
> >www.ChainReaction.com
> > Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
They did?........ then there must be some "logical" reason why they
haven't stripped him of his tour wins and banned him from racing. I
wonder what that could be..........
Phil H
Fredmaster of Brainerd
wrote:
Arguably, if LANCE doped in 1999 and in 2010 says
"I never doped" while under oath, then the statute of
limitations argument doesn't rule out introducing the
1999 evidence.
I think the article in the OP was meaningless hype
anyway for the reasons you and others discuss.
Plasticizers from 2005 or whenever are easily explained
away. Even the old tests from 1999 with EPO can be
impeached by a lawyer. The standard of proof in a
criminal case is higher than in a doping proceeding.
Fredmaster Ben
Fred Fredburger
That's reasonable.
dbrower
wrote:
> Dumbass -
>
> The chances are about zero that they have one type of plastic for blood and
> another type for saline. From a engineering materials standpoint the IV
> system with blood and IV system with saline is the same thing.
>
Some discussions say the plastic stuff binds differently to blood and
saline, so the levels are distinguishable. That means the saline IV
argument might not, as they say, hold water.
If I had samples stored from 2000-2005, I would not be hanging my
hopes on the belief that these tests are invalid, and easily
dismissed. They are going to be parts of a pile of evidence, not the
only pieces.
-dB
BLafferty
> On Oct 7, 4:43 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 10/7/2010 6:18 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Plasticizer test could have consequences for 2010 Tour and US Postal
>>> doping enquiry"
>>
>>> http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5931/Plasticizer-test-could-have-co...
>>
>>> They got it half-right anyway. IV Rehydration wasn't banned (actually,
>>> it's still allowed if required for medical reasons and administered by a
>>> doctor) back in the USPS days. It's a fairly-recent addition to WADA's
>>> list (although I'm having a tough time finding the date, but it seems to
>>> be around 2007 or 2008).
>>
>>> USPS samples that contain plasticizers prove only that IVs were
>>> performed, not what was put into the body. It wouldn't be evidence of
>>> transfusions.
>>
>>> But for samples stored during the past few years, yes, there could be
>>> some out there who are more than a bit concerned right now.
>>
>>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>>> Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>> www.ChainReaction.com
>>
>> Irrelevant. They've already found EPO in multiple Armstrong samples.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> They did?........ then there must be some "logical" reason why they
> haven't stripped him of his tour wins and banned him from racing. I
> wonder what that could be..........
> Phil H
The positive from 1999 will be potentially admissible in the US at a
criminal trial if a proper base for its introduction is shown in court.
Frederick the Great
<c1cb4c1a-0046-4e24...@i13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
dbrower <dbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
What are the samples stored in? Plastic?
Glass vial with a ground glass stopper?
--
Old Fritz
RicodJour
>
> There is a reason. Do some Googling and you'll find it easy enough.
> The positive from 1999 will be potentially admissible in the US at a
> criminal trial if a proper base for its introduction is shown in court.
Potentially + if + proper = candy ass weaseling.
R
BLafferty
someone doesn't know (really) it behooves him to spend the time (very
little needed) getting their own answer. Unless you'd like to tell the
poster. :-)
Fred Fredburger
Yeah, but...
The only reason we're talking about this is because BL/Maggy finds the
1999 samples that were tested in 2005 as absolute, 100% compelling
proof. As though:
- The number of controlled field studies of the EPO test on 6 year old
urine is not exactly 0.
- The AFLD hadn't referred to these tests as "experiments" and "tests".
- The chain of custody were indisputable.
- The defense attorneys will break down in tears when faced with these
tests instead of confusing the hell out of the jury with "expert"
testimony that say the tests are crap.
When compared to the Lafferty/Magilla blind acceptance of the 2005 tests
ability to convince a jury, this plasticizer stuff isn't bad.
Of course, all these tests are pointless nonsense when compared to Betsy
Andreau's accusations of genocide, or Kristin Armstrong's pictures of
Lance snaking on small Bosnian children. This is the shit that will get
LA tried at The Hague.
Fred Fredburger
You're in favor of people "getting their own answer"?
Jesus Christ, you are wonderful!
RicodJour
> On 10/9/2010 2:33 AM, RicodJour wrote:> On Oct 8, 3:26 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> There is a reason. Do some Googling and you'll find it easy enough.
> >> The positive from 1999 will be potentially admissible in the US at a
> >> criminal trial if a proper base for its introduction is shown in court.
>
> > Potentially + if + proper = candy ass weaseling.
>
>
> someone doesn't know (really) it behooves him to spend the time (very
> little needed) getting their own answer. Unless you'd like to tell the
> poster. :-)
No, Barry L'Enema. I was addressing your weaselly way of phrasing
things. Sufficient numbers of modifiers make a statement not a
statement...pointless. Much like your existence. You also didn't
mention LANCE. You're slipping.
R
Fred Fredburger
He doesn't know what candyass means.
Frederick the Great
Fred Fredburger <JimJoeBobFred@Everywhere> wrote:
Oh, yeah; I agree, which is the point of mentioning the
sample containers. If this were argued in a USA court
instead of rbr or the UCI/WADA klown skool the the
doping prosecutors would know what it is to be at the sharp end.
--
Old Fritz
Beloved Fred No. 1
> Of course, all these tests are pointless nonsense when compared to Betsy
> Andreau's accusations of genocide, or Kristin Armstrong's pictures of
> Lance snaking on small Bosnian children. This is the shit that will get
> LA tried at The Hague.
You still haven't explained how Naomi Campbell is involved.