What bothers me about the Landis drug charge
Ken
illegally. I find it difficult the accept that it could happen again when
the leak came about the carbon 13. To me it looks and smells like a
set-up. I have no great love for Landis but do believe he or his samples
was in some way contaminated. It might be that he was set-up with a
contaminated sample bottle. It might be that he was contaminated in another
manner. It might be that the samples were tainted at some time after being
taken.
I have no faith in the system. However I do think whoever is responsible
will be successful at toasting Landis. Too bad. He is one of the few
honest folks in the sport.
Froid Landis
You are a moron
Stu Fleming
> I find it hard to believe in a lab that allows results to get to the press
> illegally. I find it difficult the accept that it could happen again when
Nothing more than a tech who is pals with an Equipe journalist and told
"let me know if any positives crop up during the Tour and let me know if
any retro-testing shows up anything from any Tour in the past 10 years"
trg
qgbBg.9330$Vq1....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
You seem to have a problem distinguishing between content of information and
it's dissemenation. Was the fact the information about Watergate came from a
leak mean that Nixon was framed ? There's a leak at the lab. That doesn't
mean that Landis is innocent, nor does it mean that he's guilty. It means
there's a leak.
Tom Kunich
news:44d64f96$0$7488$626a...@news.free.fr...
>
> You seem to have a problem distinguishing between content of information
> and
> it's dissemenation. Was the fact the information about Watergate came from
> a
> leak mean that Nixon was framed ? There's a leak at the lab. That doesn't
> mean that Landis is innocent, nor does it mean that he's guilty. It means
> there's a leak.
Do you even know what Watergate was?
Stu Fleming
Hotel/Apartment complex in Washington DC. Still there. Monica stayed
there.
Donald Munro
>> Do you even know what Watergate was?
Stu Fleming wrote:
> Hotel/Apartment complex in Washington DC. Still there. Monica stayed
> there.
Apparently their laundering facilities are not very good.
Fred Fredburger
The White House sent plumbers to take a look once, but they were
interrupted.
trg
9HsBg.4781$xp2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal -
"The term "Watergate" refers to a series of events, spanning from 1972 to
1975, that began with U.S. President Nixon's administration's abuse of power
toward the goal of undermining the Democratic Party and the opposition to
the Vietnam War. The events got their name from burglaries of the
headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotel
complex in Washington, D.C.."
Next time, please consult wikipedia first before posting an RFI to RBR.
Tom Kunich
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 9HsBg.4781$xp2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal -
>
> "The term "Watergate" refers to a series of events, spanning from 1972 to
> 1975, that began with U.S. President Nixon's administration's abuse of
> power toward the goal of undermining the Democratic Party and the
> opposition to the Vietnam War. The events got their name from burglaries
> of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate
> Hotel complex in Washington, D.C.."
>
> Next time, please consult wikipedia first before posting an RFI to RBR.
Thanks for the demonstration of nearly complete ignorance. 1) Nixon had
nothing at all to do with Watergate save trying to stand behind his own
people whom he trusted. 2) Nixon for all his personality that so many people
disliked, was one of the great thinkers of his generation. Almost everything
he predicted in the diplomatic realm came to pass. 3) Strange that no one
criticized Nixon for detante with the USSR or his overatures to China.
Ray_...@hotmail.com
trg wrote:
>
> You seem to have a problem distinguishing between content of information and
> it's dissemenation. Was the fact the information about Watergate came from a
> leak mean that Nixon was framed ? There's a leak at the lab. That doesn't
> mean that Landis is innocent, nor does it mean that he's guilty. It means
> there's a leak.
I'll take issue with you. First, to compare le affair Landis and
Watergate is the height of absurdity. It even transcendences the old
standard for that measure which was "a flea floating down the river on
his back with a hardon screaming 'open the draw bridge'".
Secondly, the leak was merely a premature _________. The results from
the lab would have been publicly available a few days latter in any
event. The premee served no useful purpose. And it was damaging.
Some on this site have criticized the press for failing to crucify
(publicly vilify) Gatlin to the same extent as Landis. This was a
result that on the American side there where not the incessant leaks
Landis was subjected to. In fact nothing was publicly known of the
Gatlin case until the B sample was complete. Damage to the sport was
minimized while treating Gatiln fairly. On the other hand le affair
Landis with its continual leaks and piecemeal treatment assured maximum
injury to both Landis and to the sport which has become synonymous
which with doping.
Thirdly, you may have forgotten, but pillorying in the press is far
more dangerous a practice than the crime of wearing a T patch. (which,
by the way, you might find helpful yourself). But you are a student
of history and you already knew this.
trg
Read the first line. Watergate was a "series of events." You seem to be as
dense as he was. Of course he wasn't involved in the break-in. He got done
for the coverup. "What did the president know and when did he know it?"
Ring a bell?
I agree, even with his paranoia and anti-semetisim, he was a damned sight
better that the current occupant of 1600 PA ave. File that under the faint
praise category.
trg
1154972402.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
First. The point that a leak does not change the facts of the case is as
valid for Landis as for Watergate. You don't like the analogy, fine, pick
one you like better.
Second. I agree, Landis was treated unfairly and I think the leaker should
have been fired and pilloried a year ago (assuming it's the same person).
And as I've consistently written, we can't/shouldn't assume the the
information that came from
the leak is true. However, whatever damage was done to Landis's reputation
and ability to absorb the news in tranquility, the fact that there was a
leak, does not equate to a sabotaged test.
Third. Are you saying that we can excuse Floyd's doping because he has
suffered in the press? Punishing the leaker is not mutually exclusive with
punishing the doper. If you want to start a separate thread attacking
l'Equipe, go for it. My views on the attitude and actions of that paper are
known.
Finally dumbass, your medical diagnosis is 180 degrees wrong. I've been
quite a bit more agressive than usual recently. Somebody musta spiked my
bidon.
Stu Fleming
> Next time, please consult wikipedia first before posting an RFI to RBR.
>
>
You can't do that in RBR. You have to experience history first-hand.
trg
44d7a629$1...@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
| trg wrote:
|
| > Next time, please consult wikipedia first before posting an RFI to RBR.
| >
| >
|
| You can't do that in RBR. You have to experience history first-hand.
My bad.
Tom Kunich
>
> First. The point that a leak does not change the facts of the case is as
> valid for Landis as for Watergate. You don't like the analogy, fine, pick
> one you like better.
People who leaked Watergate could AT LEAST be considered as doing something
right in their own minds. As for Landis, there could be NO idea of morals or
ethics. If the B test had come back positive it would have been public
knowledge anyway. The only reason that the A sample results were released
was because the laboratory results couldn't be trusted by anyone.
> Second. I agree, Landis was treated unfairly and I think the leaker should
> have been fired and pilloried a year ago (assuming it's the same person).
Well, DUHH, why do you suppose the leaker wasn't fired? Could it be because
the "leaker" is the head of the laboratory?
> Third. Are you saying that we can excuse Floyd's doping because he has
> suffered in the press?
It HASN'T been established to my satisfaction that the tests were valid in
the first place, the the laboratory could be trusted to perform the tests as
stated, that they are competent enough to perform the tests correctly,
accurately and report the correct and accurate information, or that natural
variations aren't at work here nullifying the accurate results of the tests.
Wayne
In fact once there was anonymous and unethical behavior at the lab, all
results -from- that lab should be suspect. Did the leaker(s) behave as
they did out of some sort of strange altruism? From pecuniary or other
less noble interests? Was there a reward for reporting a positive
test? What access may they have had to the samples and/or the test
procedures?
The first time there was a leak of this sort the lab should have bent
all its energies on finding those responsible and terminating them, and
ensuring this sort of activity could never happen again. Until this
occurred the lab should have been removed as a WADA facility.
Perhaps none of this was deemed necessary; as the lab's isotope testing
is "foolproof." C.L. Dodgson, where are you?
Wayne
Montesquiou
"Wayne" <belb...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1154988286....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
In fact once there was anonymous and unethical behavior at the lab, all
trg
6EOBg.814$Sn3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| "trg" <t...@world.REMOVETHIS.std.com> wrote in message
| news:eb81ck$dlm$1...@s1.news.oleane.net...
| >
| > First. The point that a leak does not change the facts of the case is as
| > valid for Landis as for Watergate. You don't like the analogy, fine,
pick
| > one you like better.
|
| People who leaked Watergate could AT LEAST be considered as doing
something
| right in their own minds. As for Landis, there could be NO idea of morals
or
| ethics. If the B test had come back positive it would have been public
| knowledge anyway. The only reason that the A sample results were released
| was because the laboratory results couldn't be trusted by anyone.
Oh, now you can read the mind of the leaker? When did you learn French ? :)
People who leaked the lab results could also think (wrongly, IMO) that they
were doing something right in their own mind. Assuming that they work in the
lab because they want to stamp out cheating (not too far fetched an idea),
they could easily consider that immediate media attention the day after the
Tour would create a greater demand for action than waiting for 2 months for
the UCI to inform the rider, the rider to request B sample, people to return
from vacation, the B sample to be tested, and the results to be announced.
Remember, the leaker didn't know it was the Tour winner that tested positive
when he leaked the results. It might have been Cédric Coutouly's piss. Just
as people who leak government secrets often think they are doing the moral
thing, unless you are in the head of the leaker, you can't state
categorically that the leaker has NO idea of morals or ethics.
|
| > Second. I agree, Landis was treated unfairly and I think the leaker
should
| > have been fired and pilloried a year ago (assuming it's the same
person).
|
| Well, DUHH, why do you suppose the leaker wasn't fired? Could it be
because
| the "leaker" is the head of the laboratory?
That's one hypothesis. Another is that the head of the lab doesn't consider
the leak important, or doesn't know who the leaker is. All are unacceptable.
|
| > Third. Are you saying that we can excuse Floyd's doping because he has
| > suffered in the press?
|
| It HASN'T been established to my satisfaction that the tests were valid in
| the first place, the the laboratory could be trusted to perform the tests
as
| stated, that they are competent enough to perform the tests correctly,
| accurately and report the correct and accurate information, or that
natural
| variations aren't at work here nullifying the accurate results of the
tests.
|
|
Everyone has their own level of doubt. But there is an established testing
procedure and unless Floyd can show (and not just hypothesize) that the
testing procedure was either flawed or not followed (and not just that
someone blabbed the results to the press), or that there is some other
natural explanation for *accurate* results, then he will and should be found
guilty.
Sandy
> In fact once there was anonymous and unethical behavior at the lab, all
> results -from- that lab should be suspect.
Since you seem to have both good inside knowledge, plus a brilliant
command of recent events (2005, 2006) please tell us _exactly_ what was
leaked by the LAB, giving the very specific information, data, or
documents. My memory is so bad, I have trouble remembering what
Amstrong authorized, what UCI authorized, what WADA authorized ;
contrasting that, of course with your specific knowledge. I'll be happy
to wait ................................
>
> The first time
Aha ! When and what was that, exactly. Help an old guy out.
> there was a leak of this sort .......
I'm sure you will fill in the gaps of my memory here ..........
>
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
--
Ce message, issu de l'agriculture biologique, a été rédigé avec des
électrons recyclés. En conséquence, il est possible que des fautes
d'orthographes s'y soient malencontreusement glissées.
Michael Press
"trg" <t...@world.REMOVETHIS.std.com> wrote:
> That's one hypothesis. Another is that the head of the lab doesn't consider
> the leak important, or doesn't know who the leaker is. All are unacceptable.
That makes the head of the laboratory the de facto leaker.
In future he knows there will be leaks and is complicit.
--
Michael Press
Froid Landis
Bad message for kids
Wayne
Your questions should perhaps be directed to Pat McQuaid --
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/28/sports/bike.php or to
cyclingnews --
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jul06/jul31news --
unless the latter has changed its understanding of the background
machinations at work.
Wayne
Tom Kunich
>
> Remember, the leaker didn't know it was the Tour winner that tested
> positive
> when he leaked the results.
You do not know that and past experience is that they DID know whose samples
were being tested.
> Everyone has their own level of doubt.
Apparently yours is the merest suggestion that someone is guilty regardless
of the sense of it all.
Tom Kunich
news:44d7bf8a$0$19112$626a...@news.free.fr...
>
> Since you seem to have both good inside knowledge, plus a brilliant
> command of recent events (2005, 2006) please tell us _exactly_ what was
> leaked by the LAB, giving the very specific information, data, or
> documents. My memory is so bad, I have trouble remembering what Amstrong
> authorized, what UCI authorized, what WADA authorized ; contrasting that,
> of course with your specific knowledge. I'll be happy to wait
> ................................
Was it JUST my imagination or didn't Equipe publish the actual testing sheet
from the lab in the Armstrong case?
Tom Kunich
news:1155000260....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Here's what bothers ME. I believe that Olaf Ludwig was somewhat aware of
Rudy Pevenage's inclinations to mislead Jan but really couldn't afford to be
too stiff necked for fear of losing his best chance at winning a Tour. So
now he is being punished for something he had little control over.
Can anyone suggest how he could have handled this without simply having Jan
walk out by giving him an ultimatum of getting rid of Rudy Pevenage?
Carl Sundquist
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:6EOBg.814$Sn3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "trg" <t...@world.REMOVETHIS.std.com> wrote in message
> news:eb81ck$dlm$1...@s1.news.oleane.net...
>>
>> First. The point that a leak does not change the facts of the case is as
>> valid for Landis as for Watergate. You don't like the analogy, fine, pick
>> one you like better.
>
> People who leaked Watergate could AT LEAST be considered as doing
> something right in their own minds.
Is it possible that you are Gordon Liddy's twin?
www.kenpapai.com/cycling/rbr/Tomk.JPG
http://chickenhed.us/images/liddythong_1.jpg
Curtis L. Russell
<t...@world.REMOVETHIS.std.com> wrote:
>
>
>Oh, now you can read the mind of the leaker? When did you learn French ? :)
You mean they think in French too? Damn, I just figured they thought
in English and spoke French to be different.
Sandy, could you confirm this to be true? I think I need a drink.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Donald Munro
>>Oh, now you can read the mind of the leaker? When did you learn French ? :)
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> You mean they think in French too? Damn, I just figured they thought
> in English and spoke French to be different.
>
> Sandy, could you confirm this to be true? I think I need a drink.
Then you'll be able to think in Incoherent.
Sandy
(My Fair Lady, not Pygmalion), who complained :
"Why can't the English teach their children how to speak !?"
But you're American, so typical rules of engagement don't apply.
Most commonly these days, I think in French in the morning, in English
midday, and Russian until I cook dinner, which turns me back into a frog
par excellence. You wouldn't curse me with thinking in English during a
foray in the cuisine !! Sunday pub brunch, and yorkshire pudding, OK,
but not magret de canard au poivre.
"English" as a language is spoken in the minority by the English. And
amongst them, only a small minority offer the tones and snoot of OxCam
leather. My Yorkshire friends find so much more in common with the
nearby Scots. Indian English is probably the most common pronunciation
set, although the Chinese variety is gaining. Must be difficult to know
that you no longer have either control or influence over a language
denominated your national one. Unlike French fries, which are Belgian,
and much tastier there. Mayonnaise, not ketchup. With Leffe or Trappe
or the less distributed brands. And not deprived of their lofty
greasiness, as with cider vinegar, salted to cause thromboses.
After dinner, depends on the company I am keeping for that day. I am
willing to learn new languages on the proper inspiration, even if
pidgin. But I do math in English, usually. I dream in color and
non-lingual. Silent era or just turned off the sound - I don't know.
At least I have the good sense never to sing in any language. My voice
has been declared a délit public, and I could go to jail if I tried.
Even in church, they let me pass without comment. Gone are the days in
Latin, I fear.
And with that, I will join you in non-sobriety, having a gentle Bordeaux
before me that wants to sacrifice itself for my pleasure. Incidentally,
should you really have a hankering for a good wine, I recommend a buying
group get together for this one - Châteauneuf-du-Pape, domaine Durieu,
variety "Lucie Avril", of ANY year. This is sharing a secret, but of
course, you'll tell no one.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
--
-Si les autres parties du monde ont des singes ; l'Europe a des Français.
Cela se compense.
-Arthur Schopenhauer
Dan Gregory
Bon appétit Sandy!
Curtis L. Russell
>And with that, I will join you in non-sobriety, having a gentle Bordeaux
>before me that wants to sacrifice itself for my pleasure. Incidentally,
>should you really have a hankering for a good wine, I recommend a buying
>group get together for this one - Chāteauneuf-du-Pape, domaine Durieu,
>variety "Lucie Avril", of ANY year. This is sharing a secret, but of
>course, you'll tell no one.
Buying group? This is what thinking in French, even part time, gets
you. It sounds as if you are willing to sacrifice quantity for
quality. But I'll take the recommendation under advisement.
As for the difference between English and American, as long as I can
follow half of what the Brit and Scottish announcers say during club
soccer matches, I'm good. And of course, what's important is that Tony
and George can have meaningful discussions.
As long as that is true, i can sleep well at night...
Howard Kveck
> Most commonly these days, I think in French in the morning, in English
> midday, and Russian until I cook dinner, which turns me back into a frog
> par excellence. You wouldn't curse me with thinking in English during a
> foray in the cuisine !! Sunday pub brunch, and yorkshire pudding, OK,
> but not magret de canard au poivre.
Mmm, that's good. I loves me some duck.
> And with that, I will join you in non-sobriety, having a gentle Bordeaux
> before me that wants to sacrifice itself for my pleasure. Incidentally,
> should you really have a hankering for a good wine, I recommend a buying
> group get together for this one - Chāteauneuf-du-Pape, domaine Durieu,
> variety "Lucie Avril", of ANY year. This is sharing a secret, but of
> course, you'll tell no one.
Thanks for the tip.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
David Brower
>Thanks for the demonstration of nearly complete ignorance. 1) Nixon had
>nothing at all to do with Watergate save trying to stand behind his own
>people whom he trusted.
Excuse me? "How much money do you need", the President asked Dean
early in the March 21 conversation, according to the transcript.
"I would say these people are going to cost a million dollars over
the next two years," Dean replied.
"We could get that," the President continued. "On the money, if
you need the money you could get that. You could get a million
dollars. You could get it in cash. I know where it could be
gotten. It is not easy, but it could be done. But the question
is who the hell would handle it? Any ideas on that?"
Conspiracy to obstruct justice. Leading to the now universally
acknowledged truth that in many things, the cover up is worse
than the crime. No, Nixon didn't plan the burglary. He did condone
the atmosphere that let it happen, and actively participated in the
coverup for political gain. This is problematic even if you approved
his policies (which retrospectively look like a lot like what would
today be those of a moderate Democrat).
-dB
William O'Hara
> the atmosphere that let it happen, and actively participated in the
> coverup for political gain. This is problematic even if you approved
> his policies (which retrospectively look like a lot like what would
> today be those of a moderate Democrat).
I agree with you. He is very close to the moderate side.
It is bizarre that other people don't want to look at this
and bring it forward for comparing current politicians.
--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR
Howard Kveck
"William O'Hara" <whoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > than the crime. No, Nixon didn't plan the burglary. He did condone
> > the atmosphere that let it happen, and actively participated in the
> > coverup for political gain. This is problematic even if you approved
> > his policies (which retrospectively look like a lot like what would
> > today be those of a moderate Democrat).
>
> I agree with you. He is very close to the moderate side.
> It is bizarre that other people don't want to look at this
> and bring it forward for comparing current politicians.
True. But the person here trying to pretend that Nixon knew nothing about the
Watergate crowd (Haldeman, etc.) also likes to pretend that JFK would be doing the
same thing as GWB. He also likes to pretend that the Watergate burglary/dirty tricks
stuff didn't matter, as Nixon was going to win anyway.
As far as Nixon and today's political climate go, it is a strange situation. On
one hand, some of Nixon's proposals (universal health care, for example) were quite
progressive and would get him pilloried in today's GOP. At the same time, he and his
political handlers did create the "Southern Strategy," which every GOP candidate has
used to some degree or other since.
William O'Hara
> be doing the same thing as GWB. He also likes to pretend that the
> Watergate burglary/dirty tricks stuff didn't matter, as Nixon was
> going to win anyway.
In the grand scheme no they don't matter.
> As far as Nixon and today's political climate go, it is a strange
> situation. On
> one hand, some of Nixon's proposals (universal health care, for
> example) were quite progressive and would get him pilloried in today's
> GOP. At the same time, he and his political handlers did create the
> "Southern Strategy," which every GOP candidate has used to some degree
> or other since.
Yes. The one thing that really had me interested was his idea of
price controls. I believe that medicine should follow that trend;
nationalized medicine is not needed. Any mandatory and subsidized
insurance system would be a national system akin to Canada or
GB. Costs are not rational and comparable from provider to provider.
An X-Ray in an hospital can cost twenty times the one in a doctor's
office. It could be $75 in one hospital or $1,000 in another hospital
in the same metropolitian area. I don't find that acceptable.