Fabiani--Dumb and Dumber
BL
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CYC_DOPING_ARMSTRONG?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-06-02-03-06-17
ilan
> Now taking on Associated Press.http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CYC_DOPING_ARMSTRONG?SITE=AP&S...
This latest attack in fact gives the Armstrong camp their strongest
defense against these allegations:
"It was a unique situation and in those circumstances, it's not
appropriate for athletes or an athlete's entourage to be meeting with
lab operators," Howman said Wednesday. "Even if the meeting is as
innocent as the day is long, the perception it gives to other athletes
and members of the public is wrong, because the principle of anonymity
is what we rely on with labs."
This implies that knowledge by the laboratory that the suspicious
samples belonged to Armstrong immediately makes the samples void,
since the principle of anonymity has been violated.
-ilan
BL
the chain of physical custody is intact.
Fred Flintstein
Did you check with a lawyer on that? Sure, they can present it.
Any decent lawyer (check with one) could tell you how to
undermine their credibility.
This time I'm not going to assume that you knew that.
F
BL
Benjo Maso
"ilan" schreef in bericht
news:c4889e91-f347-4827...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I don't think so. If the first three of every stage and the man wearing the
golden jersey have been tested, Armstrong is the only one to have been
tested five times. If five samples of the same rider were suspicious, it's
impossible not to know they belonged to Armstrong.
Benjo
Brad Anders
see how this news, if true, means much of anything to the LA case.
More of significance would be proving there was collusion between the
LA camp, the UCI, and the lab - even then, while unethical, short of
having transcripts of the meetings, I don't see this as being
significant, either. Still waiting on the paper trail of the USPS
money to the purchase of what Landis and Hamilton imply were huge
quantities of drugs over many years.
As for something that's suspicious, maybe WADA could talk about the T/
E ratio results across the whole peloton for the last 15+ years. While
there's a 4:1 limit for a positive test, my guess is that the
distribution of pro cyclist's T/E is probably 3 standard deviations
higher than the general male public.
Drug testing, in general, is a farce. This witch hunt against LA won't
change that.
ilan
> "ilan" schreef in berichtnews:c4889e91-f347-4827...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
If the scientific protocol is respected, then the laboratory cannot
know if samples from one day to the next are from the same rider.
Therefore, your argument is invalid, if the protocol is respected. If
the protocol is not respected, then the test is invalid.
-ilan
Benjo Maso
"ilan" schreef in bericht
news:fb310258-8833-4180...@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
They must not know if the samples are from the same rider before the
testing. But as soon they are tested the laboratory must at least be capable
to compare them, if only to check if they samples are indeed from the same
person.
benjo
ilan
> "ilan" schreef in berichtnews:fb310258-8833-4180...@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
I do not see the reasoning behind your statement. On the contrary,
since all samples are anonymous, then the testing procedure does not
compare one sample to another. The laboratory has no need to know
whether samples from different days are from the same rider in order
to decide if a particular sample is positive. The identification of
the rider is done independently of the rider.
-ilan
Phil H
> "ilan" schreef in berichtnews:c4889e91-f347-4827...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
At the time of testing the samples were anonymous. The fact that it
can be figured out "after" the result doesn't necessarily invalidate
that result. It depends on whether the method used could have
identified the sample before or during the test or in some way allowed
the result to be fudged. An example of this would be switching
identifiers with a failed or clean sample and its B sample. On the
other hand, any further testing of those samples is arguably severely
compromised.
Phil H
BL
ilan
First of all, it is unclear that the samples were anonymous, if this
Swiss lab did actually report that they belonged to Armstrong.
Secondly, none of these samples has any validity as proof of doping,
no matter what result is found, since the B sample wasn't tested.
-ilan
Benjo Maso
"ilan" schreef in bericht
news:a4b35dbf-91a1-4f15...@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
-ilan
If they know that one rider was tested after the first two and the last
three stages, it's very easy for a laboratory to find which samples are his.
Of course, the most logical explanation is that the laboratory was informed
that the suspicious samples were Armstrong's after they had sent them to the
UCI.
Benjo
Jimmy July
> Now taking on Associated Press.
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CYC_DOPING_ARMSTRONG?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-06-02-03-06-17
>
'The director of the Swiss anti-doping laboratory informed federal
authorities last fall that Lance Armstrong's test results from the 2001
Tour de Suisse were "suspicious" and "consistent with EPO use,"'
Pffft! What a non-story. Breathing is also "consistent with EPO use".
BL
sporting doping case where a certain threshold must be met for a
positive finding. Any finding of EPO in Armstrong's blood and urine is
evidence of having perpetrated a criminal fraud. All that matters is the
physical chain of custody and that the testing was properly done.
Scott
>
> I don't think so. If the first three of every stage and the man wearing the
> golden jersey have been tested, Armstrong is the only one to have been
> tested five times. If five samples of the same rider were suspicious, it's
> impossible not to know they belonged to Armstrong.
>
> Benjo
This presumes that they use the same sample ID for a given rider on
each sample from that rider. If they assign a new ID to each sample,
then there'd be no way to know that five suspicious samples were from
the same rider. If they don't assign a new ID to each sample, they
may as well just write the rider's name on it, for the very reason you
point out above.
William R. Mattil
> I think you're missing the point. The Grand Jury is not considering a
> sporting doping case where a certain threshold must be met for a
> positive finding. Any finding of EPO in Armstrong's blood and urine is
> evidence of having perpetrated a criminal fraud. All that matters is the
> physical chain of custody and that the testing was properly done.
Good Grief Brian are seriously expecting any of us to believe this ?
What events prompted this "witch hunt" exactly ? be precise. It's solely
because of statements made a a few people. Correct ?
For the sake of argument - lets say "Three" People......
Therefore anytime three people accuse someone of doping, even as long as
ten years ago, our Govt will initiate a Grand Jury investigation to
pursue the matter ?!?!?!?
Not to mention if they fail to investigate a single case then they are
not following a dangerous precedent. A costly one too. But given your
hatred of Armstrong I'm sure you'd be willing to underwrite the entire
cost of this right ?
Furthermore, the US doesn't have jurisdiction over what a citizen puts
into their bodies while on foreign soil. So once again you fall well
short of the mark.
What is undoubtedly happening here is that they are investigating
widespread doping and "trafficking" and possible misuse of Govt funds to
facilitate it. And even if Armstrong is found to have evidence of, for
example: EPO, in past samples that does not provide proof of anything
other than what it is. EPO use. The same standards would apply with that
finding. There would have to be proof of how it actually got there.
Perhaps it will be another tainted meat defense <lol>. But the presence
of EPO while in France violates no US law. So while you get orgasmic at
the thought of wonder boy doing time for that - it will amount to
nothing. The Govt will have to prove the trafficking charge or misuse of
funds. And this become a lot harder to prove. Unless of course a Govt
check was signed over to the good doctor by Armstrong. Which is highly
unlikely.
The Govts best shot is an obstruction charge. But since "we" have no
knowledge of what he has testified to in the first place - it's only a
guess.
They must give out Law Degrees in Cracker Jack boxes these days....
Bill
--
William R. Mattil
BL
to knowing, let alone understanding, what's going on.
William R. Mattil
> Been living in your spider hole too long, friend. You're not even close
> to knowing, let alone understanding, what's going on.
BS ....... You will need to support you claim by telling us what is
going on then. Which of course, you cannot do because you are as
clueless , or perhaps more so because of your *agenda*, than the rest of us.
More than a few people have asked you specifically to state what US
law(s) were broken. And yet you have declined to answer. And providing
details of suspected EPO use - while novel, does not support any such
infraction of US Law.
Phil H
While that may be presented as evidence, the potential for an expert
witness to tear it to shreds
is extremely high. Thresholds exist to reduce the frequency of false
positives. It doesn't take much to convince
an average sample of the population that there is considerable doubt
in concluding that doping took place based
on a level considered inconclusive or insufficient by the designers of
the test. As for adding to the preponderance of
evidence, it doesn't even scratch the surface of the 500+ negative
results. Good game.
Phil H
Phil H
BL
> On 6/3/2011 10:48 AM, BL wrote:
>
>> Been living in your spider hole too long, friend. You're not even close
>> to knowing, let alone understanding, what's going on.
>
>
> BS ....... You will need to support you claim by telling us what is
> going on then. Which of course, you cannot do because you are as
> clueless , or perhaps more so because of your *agenda*, than the rest of
> us.
facts come out, preferably in court.
>
> More than a few people have asked you specifically to state what US
> law(s) were broken. And yet you have declined to answer. And providing
> details of suspected EPO use - while novel, does not support any such
> infraction of US Law.
Again, you've been in the spider hole too long. We've discussed here,
RICO, insurance fraud, mail and wire fraud, money laundering, violation
of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to mention a few. Actual EPO use is
a very small, albeit important, part of the picture.
>
> Bill
>
Jimmy July
> Again, you've been in the spider hole too long. We've discussed here,
> RICO, insurance fraud, mail and wire fraud, money laundering, violation
> of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to mention a few. Actual EPO use is
> a very small, albeit important, part of the picture.
Why did you leave genocide and impersonating an officer off the list?
We've discussed those, too!
William R. Mattil
> I don't "need" to do anything. The only "aganda" I have is to see the
> facts come out, preferably in court.
>
>
Actually Brian you are not interested in truth at all. You want him to
hang. This is obvious because you have already assigned guilt.
>
> Again, you've been in the spider hole too long. We've discussed here,
> RICO, insurance fraud, mail and wire fraud, money laundering, violation
> of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to mention a few. Actual EPO use is
> a very small, albeit important, part of the picture.
A supposed "positive" EPO test helps prove exactly none of these. Unless
of course you can weave Horse Manure into Egyptian Cotton.
Want to try again ?
Simply Fred
>> Again, you've been in the spider hole too long. We've discussed here,
>> RICO, insurance fraud, mail and wire fraud, money laundering, violation
>> of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to mention a few. Actual EPO use is
>> a very small, albeit important, part of the picture.
Jimmy July wrote:
> Why did you leave genocide and impersonating an officer off the list?
> We've discussed those, too!
Sex with a major ?
Jimmy July
> Want to try again ?
If this is in any kind of serious doubt, I'm willing to place a very
heavy bet on it.
BL
> On 6/3/2011 2:53 PM, BL wrote:
>
>> I don't "need" to do anything. The only "aganda" I have is to see the
>> facts come out, preferably in court.
>>
>>
>
> Actually Brian you are not interested in truth at all. You want him to
> hang. This is obvious because you have already assigned guilt.
That's a crock. IMO, by far more than a fair preponderance of the facts
as we know them today, Armstrong doped and perpetrated a sports fraud on
a scale never seen before. Hang him? Hardly. I'd be happy to see him do
5-8 in a Federal minimum security facility. IIRC, the have a nice one
in Duluth.
>
>>
>> Again, you've been in the spider hole too long. We've discussed here,
>> RICO, insurance fraud, mail and wire fraud, money laundering, violation
>> of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to mention a few. Actual EPO use is
>> a very small, albeit important, part of the picture.
>
> A supposed "positive" EPO test helps prove exactly none of these. Unless
> of course you can weave Horse Manure into Egyptian Cotton.
Nobody other than Fabiani and the Lance team of flack lawyers is talking
about a "supposed positive." Try reading the news reports for
comprehension.
>
>
> Want to try again ?
You might want to take a look at a real, informed discussion going on
over in The Clinic Forum at CyclingNews. Try you bullshitting over
there and one way or another you won't last long.
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
Scott
>
> That's a crock. IMO, by far more than a fair preponderance of the facts
> as we know them today, Armstrong doped and perpetrated a sports fraud on
> a scale never seen before. Hang him? Hardly. I'd be happy to see him do
> 5-8 in a Federal minimum security facility. IIRC, the have a nice one
> in Duluth.
How are you defining the scale of the so-called sports fraud? Is it
because he was so successful while he was allegedly doping? Or,
because he raised so much money for his foundation, in no small part
due to the success he had while allegedly doping? Surely you aren't
suggesting that the scale of his fraud was based on how much he
allegedly doped, while competing against others who allegedly weren't
doping?
While we're asking, could you tell us who actually suffered harm as a
result of the fraud? Isn't that a critical component to even have
fraud, that someone was harmed?
Simply Fred
> You might want to take a look at a real, informed discussion going on
> over in The Clinic Forum at CyclingNews. Try you bullshitting over there
> and one way or another you won't last long.
Is the moderator fat ? Or is it Bruce and/or Kunich ?
Michael Press
BL <b...@verizon.net> wrote:
> We've discussed here,
> RICO, insurance fraud, mail and wire fraud, money laundering, violation
> of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to mention a few.
What you mean "we", white man?
--
Michael Press
Frederick the Great
BL <b...@verizon.net> wrote:
> You might want to take a look at a real, informed discussion going on
> over in The Clinic Forum at CyclingNews. Try you bullshitting over
> there and one way or another you won't last long.
So it's okay to call your interlocutor "fucktard" in
The Clinic Forum at CyclingNews? Or did you not last long yourself?
--
Old Fritz
BL
morons like you on Usenet. Try posting your drivel and see how long you
last before you're completely ignored over there. The only reason I
reply to you here is because you're amusing in a pathetic sort of way.
Carry on, Moron.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> That's a crock. IMO, by far more than a fair preponderance of the facts
> as we know them today, Armstrong doped and perpetrated a sports fraud on
> a scale never seen before. Hang him? Hardly. I'd be happy to see him do
> 5-8 in a Federal minimum security facility. IIRC, the have a nice one
> in Duluth.
You should read about, say, the Italian Serie A
match fixing scandal before you talk about a
sports fraud on a scale never seen before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Italian_football_scandal
Also, sporting fraud is not a crime in the US,
so you can't send Armstrong to jail for it.
You need to convict him of defrauding the
government, a case which rests on relatively
novel legal theory. It might happen. I doubt
he'll see the inside of a jail on that charge
though.
I continue to think that Armstrong's greatest
exposure would be on perjury charges. Again,
these would not be charges of stealing the Tour
and dashing Brian's hopes of fair play, but
secondary charges related to previous legal
proceedings. Neither you nor Novitsky can convict
Armstrong for stealing the Tour. This is one
reason that the justification of these investigations
as cleaning up sport is a crock.
Of course, I think you've again made it clear that
your primary motivation is revenge rather than clean-up.
Once Armstrong gets the chair, I expect you to stop
paying attention to cycling and go back to chess.
Fredmaster Ben
Frederick the Great
BL <b...@verizon.net> wrote:
You would not last long in The Clinic Forum at CyclingNews.
--
Old Fritz
Fred Flintstein
> You might want to take a look at a real, informed discussion going on over in The Clinic Forum at CyclingNews. Try you bullshitting over there and one way or another you won't last long.
You know what's weird? There's a guy that posts a ton to
The Clinic, he must be 'retired' or somehow unable to
retain a job or something so he's got a lot of time on
his hands, that thinks that Och is going to eat it as a
result of the LANCE investigation. Other than you that's
the only place I've seen that.
Weird.
F
BL
> In article<v7WdnQsI59os-XfQ...@giganews.com>,
member by their reckoning. Go on over and start posting your stupidity
there. See what happens.
BL
Lance Armstrong threads--other threads, too. Give it a try.
BL
me. I'll continue to play chess and cycle. They aren't mutually
exclusive, Moron.
Frederick the Great
BL <b...@verizon.net> wrote:
I propose that you post there as you do here.
Then we will see who lasts longer.
--
Old Fritz
BL
> In article<T6qdnVxN5vH0P3fQ...@giganews.com>,
Simply Fred
> There are quite a few people who are regular posters to the Clinic on
> Lance Armstrong threads--other threads, too. Give it a try.
I must be an old fart since I prefer freedom of speech instead of
censorship by so called moderators.
BL
illogical, personal and stupid comments will be simply ignored or you'll
be made fun of in a gentle, but condescending way. Try it.
Frederick the Great
BL <b...@verizon.net> wrote:
> There are quite a few people who are regular posters to the Clinic on
> Lance Armstrong threads
I have some of his Hot Five and Hot Seven recordings,
and am listening to some of them now.
--
Old Fritz
Jimmy July
You're accusing SF of making personal insults? Do you ever _read_ this NG?
Frederick the Great
BL <b...@verizon.net> wrote:
I accept your capitulation.
--
Old Fritz
BL
> In article<PdmdnXVFMNHihHbQ...@giganews.com>,
BL
comprehension. That is a skill that has eluded you thus far in your life.
Jimmy July
You just called the most light hearted person here "illogical, personal
and stupid". Sea kelp!
Jimmy July
I was worried that the US ability to produce superior irony would
diminish when the Bush Administration left. But no, we're still
producing large quantities of high quality stuff. This might not be
"Waterboarding for Freedom" level stuff, but that bar is unreasonably high.
Frederick the Great
BL <b...@verizon.net> wrote:
And you are arguing with a delusional net persona.
--
Old Fritz
Fredmaster of Brainerd
I think it's nice that you've found some
more imaginary net.friends to talk to
(you know we're not real, right?)
The question remains why, given the high quality of
the cyclingnews forum, you would continue to come over
to RBR to converse with us dumbasses.
Fredmaster Ben
BL
> In article<NqidnfWpPukIjnHQ...@giganews.com>,
BL
Simply Fred
>>>> The moderation there is extremely light handed. Post there and your
>>>> illogical, personal and stupid comments will be simply ignored or
>>>> you'll be made fun of in a gentle, but condescending way. Try it.
Jimmy July wrote:
>>> You're accusing SF of making personal insults? Do you ever _read_ this
>>> NG?
BL wrote:
>> The more central question is when you are going to learn to read for
>> comprehension. That is a skill that has eluded you thus far in your life.
Jimmy July wrote:
> You just called the most light hearted person here "illogical, personal
> and stupid". Sea kelp!
I am an aspiring asshat.
Frederick the Great
BL <b...@verizon.net> wrote:
'Twas not an admission, counselor.
--
Old Fritz
Simply Fred
>> Moron, I've been posting over there for a long time.
Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> The question remains why, given the high quality of
> the cyclingnews forum, you would continue to come over
> to RBR to converse with us dumbasses.
Dumbass,
The answer is obvious. Fabio is paying him to.
Jimmy July
And it's comments like THAT that make you RBR's highest paid contributor.
Scott
Don't sell yourself short. You're way more than an aspiring asshat,
you're on your way to full journeyman asshat status. ;-)