the floyd bashers should be feeling REAL STOOPID about now...

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Burt

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 6:51:08 PM2/25/07
to

dupedc...@aol.com

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 7:20:51 PM2/25/07
to
On Feb 25, 5:51?pm, "Burt" <burt.hoo...@gmail.com> wrote:


"the floyd bashers should be feeling REAL STOOPID about now"

Nope. We didn't dope. Or get off on a technicality.

duped no more

fred....@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 7:50:36 PM2/25/07
to

Considering that he can't PROVE his innocence, only defend himself
against the charges, a technicality may be the only way to go. The
whole issue of doping is ALL about technicalities, and while it may
pain you to think that a guilty party may get off due to a
technicality, it's far more aggregious for an innocent party to be
railroaded by an incompetent lab with incompetent techs because YOU
don't think a technicality is good enough.

You can call it a technicality, but if the only reason the test
results were announced as "positive" was due to the mishandling of the
samples and misuse of the machines, that's not a technicality, that's
one step below being framed. If they could find proof of intent, then
it would be being framed.

I'm sorry your career didn't work out the way you wanted or expected,
but Floyd shouldn't lose his livelyhood because you're still pissed.

Fred

MMan

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 9:21:41 PM2/25/07
to
On Feb 25, 7:50 pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> You can call it a technicality, but if the only reason the test
> results were announced as "positive" was due to the mishandling of the
> samples and misuse of the machines, that's not a technicality, that's
> one step below being framed. If they could find proof of intent, then
> it would be being framed.

Damn right. If a tester was supposed to sign his full name and used
his middle initial instead of his middle name, *that* would be a
technicality.

This is beginning to look like gross negligence if not a deliberate
framing.

Fred Fredburger

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 10:37:06 PM2/25/07
to

Getting off because you were framed might also be considered a
technicality by some...

Bill C

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 11:19:43 PM2/25/07
to

Which is what a lot of us have been saying about the negligence, and
political pressure being put on these labs to find athletes positive,
both by politicians and Dickpounder. There have been a long trail of
questioned and questionable activities, and not just by the riders
either.
I still can't see anyone having been deliberately framed, but I can
see tests that are open to interpretation being found positive, or
else, and then Pound convicting everyone in the press.
The system is screwed, and hopefully everything surrounding the sport
is in for a re-think shortly.
Bill C

Joe Cipale

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 3:28:50 PM2/25/07
to

Personally.. I would like to see dick poundsand get a nice healthy EPO
suppositotie shoved so far up his ass he tests 'positive' until his
final days. He has done nothing to combat drugs in sport, but he is a
master debater on the evils of certain athletes once they are 'outed'
for drug use.

Michael Press

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 11:32:11 PM2/25/07
to
In article
<oKadnTNU3-t_yH_Y...@comcast.com>,
Fred Fredburger
<FredFre...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:

Lie down and enjoy it.

--
Michael Press

Bob Schwartz

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 11:40:46 PM2/25/07
to

Well, I asked the house specialist in mass spectroscopy. Her feeling
was that the stuff Baker came up with shouldn't matter. If there
were "major leaks near the inlet capillaries" introducing contaminants,
the most likely contaminants would be oxygen and nitrogen, ie air. And
it would be extremely unusual to see testosterone or epitestosterone
introduced as contaminants in this way. IOW, you might see stuff that
was not in the original sample show up, but you wouldn't see stuff in
the original sample show up as something else. If Landis' sample was
contaminated with T or E, it seems reasonable to ask where the fuck it
could have come from.

She did say that it would be very unusual to not have the documentation
with the instrument. And this doesn't speak to having the same
technicians analyze the A and B samples.

Bob Schwartz

Joe Cipale

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 3:43:45 PM2/25/07
to

I sonehow have a feeling the this is going to result in a widespread
rework of the various anit-doping labs. I think that many organizations
are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the 'sheriff',
while not necessarily corrupt, is not capable of handling his deputies.

Curtis L. Russell

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 9:03:34 AM2/26/07
to
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:43:45 +0000, Joe Cipale <jo...@aracnet.com>
wrote:

>> She did say that it would be very unusual to not have the documentation
>> with the instrument. And this doesn't speak to having the same
>> technicians analyze the A and B samples.
>>
>> Bob Schwartz
>
>I sonehow have a feeling the this is going to result in a widespread
>rework of the various anit-doping labs. I think that many organizations
>are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the 'sheriff',
>while not necessarily corrupt, is not capable of handling his deputies.

Well, the change in technicians is specific to these testing
requirements and not a technical requirement. Most errors in testing
in 'normal life' are more related to equipment, not the technicians,
at least in our stuff.

I would be more concerned about this so-called world renowned lab that
doesn't appear to meet basic QA requirements. This stuff, if not
addressed openly and immediately, would cost us pretty much all of our
certifications. Pretty much, we have to show that we could catch all
of these errors and have them addressed before the certifying body
walks in the door.

I guess 'world renowned' doesn't take as much as it once did. It would
be a pretty grim QA meeting if we did what apparently happened here -
and not caught and addressed it before it became news.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Tom Kunich

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 12:40:38 PM2/26/07
to
"Burt" <burt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172447468.8...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://www.sportingo.com/more-sports/usadas-case-against-floyd-landis-appears-to-be-falling-apart/1001,2488

I worked at one time for Altex Scientific and I worked on the designs of the
first production variable wavelength LC detector, a very high resolution
fixed wavelength detector, at least one LC pump (maybe more, I forget) and
the first system controller. We also manufactured the best LC columns on the
market.

To do this we had a very high quality lab in which testing of the columns
and design of tests were done. A customer would approach us and ask us how
to do a particular detection process and we would design the test using OUR
equipment and columns and then write very careful procedures which would
outline the test and precisely how it should be carried out.

We had no problems at all with anyone anywhere in the world except France.
Try as we might, we just could not get French scientists to follow the
procedures. In one case it was a world famous laboratory run by a Frenchman
who had a Nobel Prize. And STILL we couldn't get him to follow the
procedures for the tests they requested.

Tom Kunich

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 12:42:47 PM2/26/07
to
<fred....@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172451036.2...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 25, 5:20 pm, dupedcycl...@aol.com wrote:
>> Nope. We didn't dope. Or get off on a technicality.
>
> Considering that he can't PROVE his innocence, only defend himself
> against the charges, a technicality may be the only way to go. The
> whole issue of doping is ALL about technicalities, and while it may
> pain you to think that a guilty party may get off due to a
> technicality, it's far more aggregious for an innocent party to be
> railroaded by an incompetent lab with incompetent techs because YOU
> don't think a technicality is good enough.
>
> You can call it a technicality, but if the only reason the test
> results were announced as "positive" was due to the mishandling of the
> samples and misuse of the machines, that's not a technicality, that's
> one step below being framed. If they could find proof of intent, then
> it would be being framed.
>
> I'm sorry your career didn't work out the way you wanted or expected,
> but Floyd shouldn't lose his livelyhood because you're still pissed.

Duped is still mad because he thought everyone was doping so he did it too
and was caught. So his only defense now is to claim that regardless of so
few positives that EVERYONE is doping.


Tom Kunich

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 12:47:14 PM2/26/07
to
"Bill C" <trito...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1172463583....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

>
> I still can't see anyone having been deliberately framed, but I can
> see tests that are open to interpretation being found positive, or
> else, and then Pound convicting everyone in the press.

The FIRST test of Floyd's showed 4.5:1 - the second showed 11:1. This was
INSTANT proof of contamination. Why did the lab go beyond that? Instead they
called that a "positive" and then cheered when the carbon isotope ratio was
also off. Of course the contamination voided any accurate results but then
who really cared at LNDD? And the UCI and WADA got a lot of front page
headlines describing how much they care about the sport.


joseph.sa...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 2:33:25 PM2/26/07
to
On Feb 26, 5:40 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> MMan wrote:
> > On Feb 25, 7:50 pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> You can call it a technicality, but if the only reason the test
> >> results were announced as "positive" was due to the mishandling of the
> >> samples and misuse of the machines, that's not a technicality, that's
> >> one step below being framed. If they could find proof of intent, then
> >> it would be being framed.
>
> > Damn right. If a tester was supposed to sign his full name and used
> > his middle initial instead of his middle name, *that* would be a
> > technicality.
>
> > This is beginning to look like gross negligence if not a deliberate
> > framing.
>
> Well, I asked the house specialist in mass spectroscopy. Her feeling
> was that the stuff Baker came up with shouldn't matter. If there
> were "major leaks near the inlet capillaries" introducing contaminants,
> the most likely contaminants would be oxygen and nitrogen, ie air. And
> it would be extremely unusual to see testosterone or epitestosterone
> introduced as contaminants in this way. IOW, you might see stuff that
> was not in the original sample show up, but you wouldn't see stuff in
> the original sample show up as something else. If Landis' sample was
> contaminated with T or E, it seems reasonable to ask where the fuck it
> could have come from.

It doesn't explain the ratio, but is speaks volumes about what sort of
clowns these guys are. These guys don't know how to RTFM and they are
supposed to be experts? Kind of like how their not knowing how to use
computers turned into Landis hacking their system. If they can't
manage to know how to properly operate what seems to be one of their
most important pieces of equipment, why should anyone take their
results as undeniable fact?


> She did say that it would be very unusual to not have the documentation
> with the instrument. And this doesn't speak to having the same
> technicians analyze the A and B samples.
>

On every level, the cowboy, mickey mouse "procedures" are shown to be
somewhat less than robust to say the least.

Joseph

Dan Connelly

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 2:39:16 PM2/26/07
to
joseph.sa...@gmail.com wrote:

> On every level, the cowboy, mickey mouse "procedures" are shown to be
> somewhat less than robust to say the least.
>

This case would shut down really fast if Landis would allow his remaining B
samples to be tested, a test which surely will confirm what should have been a
clean result, unless the fear is that the samples have been doctored, which
seems rather difficult to do without a strong signature.

Dan

Krusty

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 2:45:38 PM2/26/07
to
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:40:38 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

I've worked in the drug testing industry, utilizing immunoassay
devices such as TDX, then on to GC, HPLC, GCMS, and LCMS, and I can
tell you that the errors committed by this lab were enough to
invalidate any result.

Never mind the fact that the chain of custody on the samples seems to
be so corrupted, that no definitive conclusion can be made as to the
accuracy of these samples.

Tom Kunich

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 2:52:24 PM2/26/07
to
<joseph.sa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172518405.5...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...

>
> It doesn't explain the ratio, but is speaks volumes about what sort of
> clowns these guys are. These guys don't know how to RTFM and they are
> supposed to be experts? Kind of like how their not knowing how to use
> computers turned into Landis hacking their system. If they can't
> manage to know how to properly operate what seems to be one of their
> most important pieces of equipment, why should anyone take their
> results as undeniable fact?

Uhh, you're arguing with Schwartz? If they don't understand how to operate a
MS properly how could you EVER suppose that their results are any good at
all?

The real basis for everything is that the first test was 4.5:1 and the UCI
decided that this demanded a second test. The second test showed t/e ratio
of 11:1. The labs are required to maintain an accuracy of plus or minus 30%.
Don't look now but the second test was WAY out of whack with that
requirement.

Originally I believe that the "further testing" ratio was 8:1 before further
testing. WADA said that 6:1 was the dividing line where making the
resolution any finer only prompted more tests without finding any more
positives - but a lot more false positives.

So UCI decided to use 4:1 JUST to demonstrate how strongly they were
fighting doping. Now that would have been fine if they had embraced the idea
that they would gain a lot more false positives and so design a system in
which no charges would be made until all of the tests were completed and all
of the hearings were decided.

But instead an initial positive finding by people that the press wanted to
fail were instantly publicized. Anyone else notice that there weren't any
French riders in that catagory?

What we're seeing between ASO and the UCI is an example of what they UCI and
WADA have perpetrated - they have essentially been trying to destroy cycling
instead of promote it. Should it be any surprise that the Grand Tours who
make their entire living off of the popularity of cycling are getting
pissed?

When the morons are running the show don't be surprised when people with
better sense object.


Tom Kunich

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 2:54:17 PM2/26/07
to
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
news:EHGEh.2882$8x....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...

After what we've seen you TRUST the samples not to have been tampered with
or contaminated? Landis and his lawyer are 100% right - he tested negative
on these tests and those samples are no longer valid.


Tom Kunich

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 3:00:28 PM2/26/07
to
"Krusty" <krust...@SPAMBLOCKyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uad6u29gsqo71o9it...@4ax.com...

I agree, that's why I'm shocked that the UCSF and Donnelly would want past
"samples" to test. Let's suppose that some sort of contaminant was the cause
of his first test and that this contaminant was in all of the sample jars -
after all it is likely that this contaminant was a bacterium. At this point
it is possible that all of his samples had the epitestosterone consumed by
the contaminant, that they have since degraded to the point where they are
no longer detectable and that measurements of these samples would illustrate
nothing but a positive test. And since the bacterium could very well be
carbon isotope specific, the samples would test positive on that test as
well!

What we really need is a system we can trust and the UCI and WADA have
demonstrated that they can't be trusted to defend the riders rights.


Kyle Legate

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 4:14:50 PM2/26/07
to
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:40:38 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>> We had no problems at all with anyone anywhere in the world except France.
>> Try as we might, we just could not get French scientists to follow the
>> procedures. In one case it was a world famous laboratory run by a Frenchman
>> who had a Nobel Prize. And STILL we couldn't get him to follow the
>> procedures for the tests they requested.
>>

I have never known a Nobel laureate to conduct his own experiments.

Tom Kunich

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 4:50:47 PM2/26/07
to
"Kyle Legate" <leg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:54h0uaF...@mid.individual.net...

And I have never known you to have the slightest clue about anything at all.
The man was the manager of the laboratory and responsible for training his
people. I listened in on the conference calls where he 1) wouldn't speak
French despite the fact that our PhD Lab manager was raised in France and
spoke better French than he did and 2) could not repeat BACK the written
instructions for the procedures and then claimed that it was our columns
which were incorrect. We replaced the column and the returned one tested
perfect.

Legate, I suggest you find something more your speed, like mocking
kindergarten teachers or something.


joseph.sa...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 4:51:18 PM2/26/07
to
On Feb 26, 8:52 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:1172518405.5...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > It doesn't explain the ratio, but is speaks volumes about what sort of
> > clowns these guys are. These guys don't know how to RTFM and they are
> > supposed to be experts? Kind of like how their not knowing how to use
> > computers turned into Landis hacking their system. If they can't
> > manage to know how to properly operate what seems to be one of their
> > most important pieces of equipment, why should anyone take their
> > results as undeniable fact?
>
> Uhh, you're arguing with Schwartz? If they don't understand how to operate a
> MS properly how could you EVER suppose that their results are any good at
> all?

That exactly what I mean. But we knew they were clowns well before
this RTFM incident. This only shows that their technical competence is
on par with their managerial/administrative competance.

Joseph

RonSonic

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 5:06:44 PM2/26/07
to

There's only one of those cards in the deck and OJ already cashed it in.


Ron

Effect pedal demo's up at http://www.soundclick.com/ronsonicpedalry

b...@mambo.ucolick.org

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 6:24:31 PM2/26/07
to
On Feb 26, 12:39 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
wrote:

T and E values are claimed to vary from day to day. After
all, none of his other A samples were positive, or at least
we haven't heard about it (and surely we would have). So
if Landis's B samples were tested, one of three outcomes
could occcur:
1. They all come back negative, in which case WADA points
out that this doesn't contradict the one positive test
(maybe he used testosterone the night before the test or
something), and Landis gains nothing.
2. One of them comes back positive, in which case WADA
calls this further evidence of doping, Landis says that
the disagreement between A and B sample invalidates the
test (an argument which won't help him), and Landis
gains nothing or loses.
3. Several of them come back positive, see case (2) but
in this case WADA grounds Landis for life (although
a highly informed observer would conclude instead that
there was something wrong with the test) and Landis
gains nothing.

So there is no earthly reason why Landis should allow
them to test the B samples. If they can't find anything
in the A samples, they don't deserve another shot; it
is like running an experiment until it "randomly"
finds the desired result.
Clearly, it would also be difficult to test
them blindly w/o knowledge of the athlete's name
(at minimum, they would have to be sent to a different
lab and mixed in with some other routine tests).

Ben

dusto...@mac.com

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 9:52:01 PM2/26/07
to
On Feb 26, 3:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> And I have never known you to have the slightest clue about anything at all.
> The man was the manager of the laboratory and responsible for training his
> people.

What was his name? What did he win the Nobel Prize for?

> I listened in on the conference calls where he 1) wouldn't speak
> French despite the fact that our PhD Lab manager was raised in France and
> spoke better French than he did

Hmmm, he wouldn't speak French? What language did you use? Are you
saying French was not his native language? Meaning, if he wasn't
French, why did you say "only the French" wouldn't follow procedures?

> and 2) could not repeat BACK the written
> instructions for the procedures and then claimed that it was our columns
> which were incorrect. We replaced the column and the returned one tested
> perfect.

Which language were the written instructions written in, pray tell--
one the man could speak? Or one he was confident in?

Sorry for doubting your holy word, but we've read so much French
bashing from the Kunich Korner, some explaining is called for. Thank
you.

Refresh my memory, please: what was the time gap between Floyd's A
test and the B test? Could a time gap account for any of the large
difference in ratios shown?
--D-y

Howard Kveck

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 11:02:36 PM2/26/07
to
In article <1172532271....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

All good points. Giving the UCI another shot via testing of his remaining B samples
doesn't have a lot of good outcomes for Landis. The UCI can find a reasonable way to
spin every outcome in their favor (read: against him). I really think it's yet another
argument for having a third sample that the rider / team hangs on to. And another
arugment for having B tests done by another lab. On that last one: it would be obvious
who was getting tested if they simply fired a single test off to some different lab,
so perhaps the UCI should be distributing the test samples to several different labs
the entire time. That way a single sample wouldn't stand out quite so much.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Kyle Legate

unread,
Feb 27, 2007, 2:03:46 AM2/27/07
to
dusto...@mac.com wrote:
> On Feb 26, 3:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> And I have never known you to have the slightest clue about anything at all.
>> The man was the manager of the laboratory and responsible for training his
>> people.
>
> What was his name? What did he win the Nobel Prize for?
>
Tom is revealing his ignorance over how labs are run, and therefore also
revealing that he has never worked in a lab setting.

The head of the lab never gets involved in day-to-day routine matters
such as equipment training or checking protocols. He knows he has a
particular piece of equipment but, especially if he's a Nobel laureate,
he wouldn't know how to operate it because, surprise surprise, he has
underlings to perform the experiments and gather the data. Once a
scientist leaves his postdoc for a higher position, his days of
benchwork are effectively over, replaced with paper pushing and
administration.

Howard Kveck

unread,
Feb 27, 2007, 3:04:29 AM2/27/07
to
In article <54i3ekF...@mid.individual.net>, Kyle Legate <leg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

And searching for funding.

Bob Schwartz

unread,
Feb 27, 2007, 8:30:37 AM2/27/07
to
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> I would be more concerned about this so-called world renowned lab that
> doesn't appear to meet basic QA requirements. This stuff, if not
> addressed openly and immediately, would cost us pretty much all of our
> certifications. Pretty much, we have to show that we could catch all
> of these errors and have them addressed before the certifying body
> walks in the door.

The house mass spec expert did mention that while you could use air
contaminated results for a PhD thesis (because everyone on the
committee would understand the instrument and how it worked) it
would cause you problems in a criminal case.

From a QA standpoint, we knew there were problems starting from the
transcription errors.

Bob Schwartz

Howard Kveck

unread,
Feb 27, 2007, 7:21:03 PM2/27/07
to
In article <1172544720.9...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"dusto...@mac.com" <dusto...@mac.com> wrote:

> On Feb 26, 3:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > And I have never known you to have the slightest clue about anything at all.
> > The man was the manager of the laboratory and responsible for training his
> > people.
>
> What was his name? What did he win the Nobel Prize for?

I hope you aren't holding your breath waiting for Tom's response to this. I'll make
a suggestion as to who he was talking about, since he seems to have suddenly gotten
all shy about it. The Nobel laureate he was talking to is Dr. Nan X. Zistant.

It's really absurd to suggest that a Nobel laureate would be spending time talking
to lab equipment salesmen or technicians unless they have some new machine that is
offering a serious breakthrough over any other piece of equipment. And even then, it's
far more likely that their assistants would be having that conversation.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages