WADA Got Under Armstrong's Skin
B. Lafferty
bob sullivan
> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10063.0.html
Looks like attack/counter-attack to me. If cycling is 'chess on
wheels', then LANCE is playing 'chess in the press'.
~bob
routebeer
news:K4Hlg.8170$lf4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10063.0.html
Lafferty, you must admit, if they had the goods on Armstrong then they would
have gone by the book and followed every procedure perfectly. If they
really had found evidence of Armstrong doping then I doubt it would have
been handled this way. It makes no sense. L'Equipe just needed to increase
their revenues and this was a way to guarantee it for the next few years.
Armstrong may have been doped to the gills, but so far there is no evidence
of it.
You will have to get used to the idea of an American being the all time
greatest TdF champion. I bet the fact that he is a Texan chaps your ass all
the more, eh? What's your address, I'm going to buy you some Preparation H?
mtb Dad
routebeer wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.com> wrote in message
> news:K4Hlg.8170$lf4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10063.0.html
>
> Lafferty, you must admit, if they had the goods on Armstrong
They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
forms, puts two and two together?
Donald Munro
> Looks like attack/counter-attack to me. If cycling is 'chess on
> wheels', then LANCE is playing 'chess in the press'.
So he must have made the switch to beta blockers then. Lafferty please
take note.
Kurgan Gringioni
mtb Dad wrote:
>
> They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
> Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
> forms, puts two and two together?
Dumbass -
It's pretty damn obvious that Pound has an axe to grind.
That's not a good way to run a nascent "worldwide" governing body. He
should be sticking to the book, that's how any governing body
gains/keeps its credibility.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
B. Lafferty
"mtb Dad" <lister...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:1150779217....@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
anti-Pound. Just relax and watch the truth about Sir Lance unfold.
Kurgan Gringioni
B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> You have to understand that this forum is predominantly pro-Armstrong and
> anti-Pound. Just relax and watch the truth about Sir Lance unfold.
Dumbass -
I'm not pro-LANCE (he very well could be dirty), but I am anti-Pound.
That's no way to run a governing body. Not just a sports governing
body, any governing body. Pound is way too biased. He's like Hugo
Chavez on the United States, Peter Gammons on the Red Sox, W. Bush on
Saddam Hussein, Sierraman on women's racing, a priest on pedophelia. No
credibility when you do that.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
B. Lafferty
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150801527....@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Yada, yada, yada. Thanks.
amit
dumbass,
you (but not just you) are naive if you think pound has an axe to grind
with armstrong and that's where it ends.
a friend of mine who's more informed had what i thought was the right
take: pound doesn't care about cycling or armstrong, what he wants to
do is retroactively test olympic medals.
right now the provisions for retroactive testing within the WADA code
are vague, it had to be to get all these sports to agree to those
terms. but if he can lay some groundwork for retroactive testing with
the UCI, there's going to be huge pressure for other sports to enact
the same standards.
the tatic of declaring armstrong positive back in '99 when it's obvious
there's no way he can possibly be penalized (he's retired, there's no
B-samples etc.) is designed to put into place some concrete terms
allowing retroactive testing.
B. Lafferty
"amit" <am...@physics.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:1150806194.4...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
That has been the strategy not only in the Armstrong situation but with
Hamilton's Olympic medal as well. As far as Armstrong vis a vis Pound,
Armstrong is a tick easily removed.
mtb Dad
Maybe it's just that real anti-doping measures are such a contrast to
the blind eye-shrug&deny tactics of the UCI that it takes a while to
get used to? I honestly don't see what he is doing wrong. The dopers
have had their way for so long it's time for a poke with a sharp stick.
Too bad (really) it's such a great story (Lance) that is being
deflated.
Didn't you ask yourself, "so how exactly did the lab find EPO in six
samples with different numbers, which all later turned out to come from
the same guy? " Spiking? That would take luck of impressive
proportions to find six Lance samples, but not others. To get six
tests of one guy they would have had to spike all of them, not to
mention the impossible odds of keeping THAT quiet, even if spiking can
be done.
I asked myself that question and I thank Pound for NOT looking for the
oft-used weasel routes ('oh, the testing guy was wearing the wrong
colour shirt, toss it') of accepting any excuse to ignore an
inconvenient result. He and no-one else is asking for Armstrong's
disqualifiction in 1999. He is simply asking the UCI to deal with it.
I think Amit's friend (post below) is right. Pound is just testing the
UCI. There's nothing they could do, but watching UCI scurry off in
exactly the wrong direction is just laying the ground work for
retroactive testing by governments. In that light, it's kind of funny
really. "Hey, let's see what they do if we ask this." (Apologies to
McQuaid though who so far seems to be a little more sophisticated than
VerDRUGgen. At least he's still saying it's a problem, and offering to
help out.)
Snippy Bobkins
news:0eqdnQj5R9xixgrZ...@comcast.com...
Lance didn't release his letter to the IOC to the press. Someone else did.
Kinda forced a response, ya know?
--
Snippy
Snippy Bobkins
news:1150806194.4...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
If that's true he chose a stupid-ass test case. He'd have been on more
solid ground with Hamilton. Using data from improperly handled samples
obtained under false pretenses makes hi look like just that guy in a pissing
contest with lance.
--
Snippy
Snippy Bobkins
>>
> You have to understand that this forum is predominantly pro-Armstrong and
> anti-Pound. Just relax and watch the truth about Sir Lance unfold.
You keep saying that.
--
Snippy
amit
Snippy Bobkins wrote:
> > the tatic of declaring armstrong positive back in '99 when it's obvious
> > there's no way he can possibly be penalized (he's retired, there's no
> > B-samples etc.) is designed to put into place some concrete terms
> > allowing retroactive testing.
>
> If that's true he chose a stupid-ass test case. He'd have been on more
> solid ground with Hamilton. Using data from improperly handled samples
> obtained under false pretenses makes hi look like just that guy in a pissing
> contest with lance.
dumbass,
no the armstrong case is a perfect choice. the hamilton case is not a
case to push for retroactive testing -- hamilton got off on a
technicality.
in 1999 there was no test for EPO, armstrong's samples were tested as
part of the research with an EPO test years later.
pound knows that there's probably no way armstrong can be sanctioned,
but the case can be used to establish a protocol for retroactive
testing.
until now WADA has had to stay away from retroactive testing -- the
conditions would've been too radical to get everyone on board.
if cycling is the first sport to formally implement retroactive
testing, once that is done there will be pressure on all the other
olympic sports to do the same.
anecdotally, we know a lot of olympians have used doping methods which
did not become detectable until years later. that's what pound wants
to go after -- ie. shut down the doping/evading "arms race".
it's very similar to a labour union negociation.
i have to admit that this was all pointed out to me by someone more
observant than me. but in this light it pound's actions make sense to
me.
amit....@gmail.com
mtb Dad wrote:
> They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
> Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
> forms, puts two and two together?
dumbass,
there is obviously some kind of conspiracy.
WADA commsioned a study and report which is to imply armstrong doped in
1999 and somehow found a collaborator within the UCI to leak the doping
control forms which would connect names with positive samples.
the source of the leak is the UCI's own doctor, who gets a slight
reprimand and has since been reinstated.
how did WADA get the UCI to leak those forms?
Donald Munro
> how did WADA get the UCI to leak those forms?
The aliens organized it.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
>
> You have to understand that this forum is predominantly pro-Armstrong and
> anti-Pound. Just relax and watch the truth about Sir Lance unfold.
As more time goes by, the likelihood of solid evidence for something
that even a plurality of reasonable people could converge on as "truth"
becomes less likely, not more. People's memories get vague,
evidence gets lost, facts get jumbled, vials get opened.
You probably know that obtaining a conviction in a real criminal case
is difficult many years after the fact; it is quite easy to sow doubt.
It's not clear to me, but I suspect that Dick Pound wants a regime of
dope testing that has no statute of limitations (amit made some good
points on this subject). When this is put into operation - and
probably to nail somebody less tricky/wealthy/high-profile than
LANCE - it will eventually lead to a maze of claim and counterclaim
worthy of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce. Asterisks in the record books are
for amateurs; under the Pound Rules, no regulated sporting event
will ever have a truly final outcome.
B. Lafferty
<b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:1150835094....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
criminal event, often under less than optimal conditions. I'm still hoping
that Armstrong tells us what Emma gave him in the McDonalds car park in
Nice. ;-)
Barnard Frederick
> dumbass,
>
> no the armstrong case is a perfect choice. the hamilton case is not a
> case to push for retroactive testing -- hamilton got off on a
> technicality.
>
> in 1999 there was no test for EPO, armstrong's samples were tested as
> part of the research with an EPO test years later.
>
> pound knows that there's probably no way armstrong can be sanctioned,
> but the case can be used to establish a protocol for retroactive
> testing.
Dumbass,
Too bad that term is overused here, because it really is appropriate in
response to your posts. Pud Pounder could have done his research and
worked to implement retroactive testing without getting into a media
shit flinging contest with the UCI and one of the most famous athletes
in the world. If the testing was all he was worried about, he chose a
piss poor way to go about establishing credibility. If it really was
experimental testing, we should have never heard about it, and the exact
origin of the samples wouldn't have mattered one bit. It would be hard
to imagine a more sordid story of abuse of power. WADA and the French
testing lab have revealed themselves as laughably inept organizations
motivated by personal vendettas. Both should be disbanded and replaced
with a better caliber of people.
Robert Chung
> a friend of mine who's more informed had what i thought was the right
> take: pound doesn't care about cycling or armstrong, what he wants to
> do is retroactively test olympic medals.
Dumbass,
You've got a dumbass for a friend.
mtb Dad
Amit
How is it obvious? There are three distinct entities here, the Paris
lab, UCI and L'Equipe. Plus WADA after the fact. Paris had samples
and numbers only (no names), since before WADA's days. UCI had the
forms with names. Paris did research on the new EPO test and used B
samples from 1999. WADA says they expressed interest in the result, as
they should.
(Sorry if I'm restating the obvious-wasn't sure from your post.)
Meanwhile, L'Equipe journalist Ressot asked Lance for permission to see
his doping forms on which theraputic use exemptions (TUE) are recorded,
such as asthma medications, and, so th erumour went, EPO for cancer
patients. Lance says yes, and the UCI hands them over , which of
course show nothing, hoping to clear Lance of this rumour. The stupid
UCI denies it until Dick showed him his copies of the UCI forms he
probably got from Ressot. Ressot then gets the leaked lab research, and
compares numbers with the numbers on the forms. Voila, six of the EPO
containing samples have Lance's number.
For all that to be driven by WADA, that's a pretty complicated
conspiracy, which would be even juicier news for L'Equipe than
Armstrong testing positive. Can you imagine Ressot keeping quiet? Not
in his DNA. The lab? I believe it was the same lab that leaked
Delgado's postive/not positive for probenicid in 1988. How would they
keep the lab staff quiet about a WADA frame-up? The most I could
believe is that the lab passed along the research results to WADA
because they want to keep them, a client, happy. But even when they
get it, they don't know who the riders are.
I don't believe there is any suggestion WADA commissioned the research
at the Paris lab. The lab is certified by WADA, but is not owned by
them; the government of France owns it. It's not proof, but WADA
sounded like they were caught unprepared by the L'Equipe piece in this
quote from last summer: "A spokesman for the World Anti-Doping Agency
told VeloNews Tuesday that the agency does "not have enough information
at the moment," adding that "it would be premature for us to comment on
the specifics of this case."
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8740.0.html
For there to be a conspiracy, WADA would have had to put Ressot up to
the TUE story to get the forms, and supply him with the research
results. Is this what you're suggesting?
Snippy Bobkins
>
> no the armstrong case is a perfect choice. the hamilton case is not a
> case to push for retroactive testing -- hamilton got off on a
> technicality.
>
> in 1999 there was no test for EPO, armstrong's samples were tested as
> part of the research with an EPO test years later.
>
> pound knows that there's probably no way armstrong can be sanctioned,
> but the case can be used to establish a protocol for retroactive
> testing.
>
> until now WADA has had to stay away from retroactive testing -- the
> conditions would've been too radical to get everyone on board.
>
> if cycling is the first sport to formally implement retroactive
> testing, once that is done there will be pressure on all the other
> olympic sports to do the same.
>
> anecdotally, we know a lot of olympians have used doping methods which
> did not become detectable until years later. that's what pound wants
> to go after -- ie. shut down the doping/evading "arms race".
>
> it's very similar to a labour union negociation.
>
> i have to admit that this was all pointed out to me by someone more
> observant than me. but in this light it pound's actions make sense to
> me.
What bullshit. Not you but the principle of retroactive testing. The
doping police have their hands full with current doping controls. What on
earth is the point of going back and declaring the podium of the 'XX summer
olympics null and void because the top four spots were tested positive for
controlled substance Y X number of years later, so let's call up the 5-6-7
places and do the awards ceremony all over again. What nonsense. There's
plenty of warrant and debatable (enough? too many? too few?) resources for
testing and sanctioning existing cheaters. Retroactive witch hunts are for
people with demons they're in denial about.
--
Snippy
Tim Lines
> Time will tell. It's quite different from people witnessing a single
> criminal event, often under less than optimal conditions. I'm still hoping
> that Armstrong tells us what Emma gave him in the McDonalds car park in
> Nice. ;-)
I'm still hoping Rose Mary Woods will tell us what was in that 18 minute
gap.
B. Lafferty
"Snippy Bobkins" <snippy....@hotmail.com.edu> wrote in message
news:oE0mg.70780$S61.57905@edtnps90...
Out of curiosity, what's your opinion of the E. German athletes who used
drugs and the role of Stazi in that drug system.
Snippy Bobkins
My opinion of them is irrelevant. In any case, it doesn't lead me,
personally, to go gravedigging. This does however lend support to Kurgan's
prediction of the longevity of your LANCE obsession.
--
Snippy
RonSonic
That isn't the way WADA reacted. Their stated policies and principles were
severely compromised and yet they acted as if it were a good thing.
Imagine the reaction if any other medical testing lab were to release the
results of any other form of testing in that way. Heads would roll and the
sponsors and promoters of that lab would be publicly horrified that it had
happened. These guys are standing by something that should never have happened
and may in fact be a hoax.
Ron
amit
Barnard Frederick wrote:
> Dumbass,
>
> Too bad that term is overused here, because it really is appropriate in
> response to your posts.
dumbass,
don't get me wrong. i don't condone what pound did, i think he's a
renegade, i'm just trying to understand his motivation.
> Pud Pounder could have done his research and
> worked to implement retroactive testing without getting into a media
> shit flinging contest with the UCI and one of the most famous athletes
> in the world. If the testing was all he was worried about, he chose a
> piss poor way to go about establishing credibility.
he doesn't care if he's credible or not. i think pound's objective all
along was simply to put a cloud of suspicion over armstrong. i don't
think he thinks that armstrong will ever be proved guilty.
> If it really was
> experimental testing, we should have never heard about it, and the exact
> origin of the samples wouldn't have mattered one bit. It would be hard
> to imagine a more sordid story of abuse of power.
i agree. but i don't think it's just a matter of a lafferty-like
obsession with armstrong -- i think he's trying whatever he can to
establish some protocol for retroactive testing.
B. Lafferty
"RonSonic" <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:n4jh92h4bnjbb7kju...@4ax.com...
> On 19 Jun 2006 21:53:37 -0700, "mtb Dad" <lister...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>routebeer wrote:
>>> "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.com> wrote in message
>>> news:K4Hlg.8170$lf4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> > http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10063.0.html
>>>
>>> Lafferty, you must admit, if they had the goods on Armstrong
>>
>>They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
>> Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
>>forms, puts two and two together?
>
> That isn't the way WADA reacted. Their stated policies and principles were
> severely compromised and yet they acted as if it were a good thing.
Explain. Specifically, what policies (and their underlying princilple) were
violated by WADA.
>
> Imagine the reaction if any other medical testing lab were to release the
> results of any other form of testing in that way. Heads would roll and the
> sponsors and promoters of that lab would be publicly horrified that it had
> happened. These guys are standing by something that should never have
> happened
> and may in fact be a hoax.
We've been over this ground before. Someone at the lab leaked results, BUT
it was the UCI, with Armstrong's permissioin as to at least one form, that
provided the forms signed by Armstrong to L'Equipe. Now, what information
do you have that would indicate that this is a hoax? Remember, to be
terrific, you must be specific.
>
> Ron
Hroller
wrote:
>Time will tell. It's quite different from people witnessing a single
>criminal event, often under less than optimal conditions. I'm still hoping
>that Armstrong tells us what Emma gave him in the McDonalds car park in
>Nice. ;-)
I'm convinced it was a hummer...
Mike
Hroller McKnutt
Pornstar, Mad Scientist, Genius for Hire
Girls chased and caught!
mtb Dad
> >> What bullshit. Not you but the principle of retroactive testing. The
> >> doping police have their hands full with current doping controls. What
> >> on earth is the point of going back and declaring the podium of the 'XX
> >> summer olympics null and void because the top four spots were tested
> >> positive for controlled substance Y X number of years later, so let's
> >> call up the 5-6-7 places and do the awards ceremony all over again. What
> >> nonsense. There's plenty of warrant and debatable (enough? too many? too
> >> few?) resources for testing and sanctioning existing cheaters.
> >> Retroactive witch hunts are for people with demons they're in denial
> >> about.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Snippy
> >
> > Out of curiosity, what's your opinion of the E. German athletes who used
> > drugs and the role of Stazi in that drug system.
>
> My opinion of them is irrelevant. In any case, it doesn't lead me,
> personally, to go gravedigging. This does however lend support to Kurgan's
> prediction of the longevity of your LANCE obsession.
Hey, here in Canada we were happy for Becky Scott to get her xc ski
gold medal two years after Salt Lake.
Gravedigging? Do you mean mean it's ok to cheat as long as you don't
get caught right away? If so, wow. I wonder if you'd feel the same if
your kid died from using an undetectable substance, which was later
traceable to his/her coach.
By the way, the attacks on Lafferty don't really help your argument.
It makes it look like you're running out of ideas.
And how about your, and that of others here, LANCE obsession? I mean
the one where it doesn't matter what the evidence is adding up to, he
is still a hero.
Stu Fleming
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:00:35 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Time will tell. It's quite different from people witnessing a single
>>criminal event, often under less than optimal conditions. I'm still hoping
>>that Armstrong tells us what Emma gave him in the McDonalds car park in
>>Nice. ;-)
>
>
> I'm convinced it was a hummer...
You might be able to park an H2 there, but not the original H1.
RonSonic
Thankfully over.
And that, my friend, is the point. Those days are gone.
Now, start figuring out how to enforce against recombinant DNA alteration and
the next generation of engineered hormones and look to the future.
Ron
Robert Chung
> i agree. but i don't think it's just a matter of a lafferty-like
> obsession with armstrong -- i think he's trying whatever he can to
> establish some protocol for retroactive testing.
Dumbass,
The reason why your friend is a dumbass is cuz there's no percentage is
showing someone doped in 1999. If Pound were really interested in changing
the behavior of *current* athletes, he'd say: 1) henceforth any sample can
be tested in perpetuity for anything; and 2) the Armstrong case shows a
*failure* of the system to care for samples in perpetuity, so iron-clad
protocols have to be put into place now.
If he wants iron-clad protocols, he could've said, "Iron-clad protocols
were missing in this case, so the Tour's reputation, the UCI's reputation,
L'Equipe's reputation, and Armstrong's reputation have all been cast under
a cloud. Today I'm proposing protocols which, had they been in place seven
years ago in 1999, would have resolved this case. If my proposal is not
adopted you can expect the same problem seven years from now in 2013."
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
>no the armstrong case is a perfect choice. the hamilton case is not a
>case to push for retroactive testing -- hamilton got off on a
>technicality.
That's looped logic or logic while looped. You are strongly implying
that Pound chose this 'test' to set up standards that are only
peripheral (at best) to the IOC anyway, and this is after you had a
sequence of events where Pound isn't the one choosing anyway. Could we
have one sequence of events that shows how Pound chose this perfect
test?
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Curtis L. Russell
<cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
>That's looped logic or logic while looped. You are strongly implying
>that Pound chose this 'test' to set up standards that are only
>peripheral (at best) to the IOC anyway, and this is after you had a
>sequence of events where Pound isn't the one choosing anyway. Could we
>have one sequence of events that shows how Pound chose this perfect
>test?
Ahh, wrong attribution for the original comment, so I withdraw all but
the looped logic part. And I have no real problem with logic while
looped.
Snippy Bobkins
>
> Hey, here in Canada we were happy for Becky Scott to get her xc ski
> gold medal two years after Salt Lake.
Hey, here in Canada I agree. In that case, Larissa Lazutina and Olga
Danilova were DQ'd as a result of testing that occurred in the Olympic games
in which they were competing. They appealed the decisions, the court case
took two years, and Becky Scott was properly awarded the gold (at least if
she wasn't doping). That's how it should be done and I support active
testing of active athletes using current protocols.
> Gravedigging? Do you mean mean it's ok to cheat as long as you don't
> get caught right away? If so, wow. I wonder if you'd feel the same if
> your kid died from using an undetectable substance, which was later
> traceable to his/her coach.
So you are an advocate of going back over the last, what, say twenty years?
to what end? Testing for banned substances in athletic contests that were
completed in the past would not have saved your kid. Testing your kid now,
and advocating at all levels for clean competition, might.
I can appreciate your concern about the apparently pervasive presence of
doping opportunities in cycling. I have kids too. But dad, what are you
going to do? You may wish to disagree, but Pound's using the L'Equipe
situation as a forum to build a case for retroactive testing was foolish.
> By the way, the attacks on Lafferty don't really help your argument.
> It makes it look like you're running out of ideas.
Brian and I have been doing this for years. He knows the first beer's on me
whenever he gets to BC. You, on the other hand, read like the president of
his fan club. With a membership of one.
> And how about your, and that of others here, LANCE obsession? I mean
> the one where it doesn't matter what the evidence is adding up to, he
> is still a hero.
Sorry, losing you on this one. All the evidence that is on the table looks
like biased people using unethical tactics in an embarrassing attempt to
shoot in the ass the guy highest up on the flagpole. did he dope? I dunno.
Would I be surprised if he had? No.
My obsession is with Tyler Hamilton. I confess I will supporting him
whether he did or did not blood dope. But that's another story.
---
Snippy
mtb Dad
> "mtb Dad" <lister...@telus.net> wrote ...
> >
> > Hey, here in Canada we were happy for Becky Scott to get her xc ski
> > gold medal two years after Salt Lake.
>
> Hey, here in Canada I agree. In that case, Larissa Lazutina and Olga
> Danilova were DQ'd as a result of testing that occurred in the Olympic games
> in which they were competing. They appealed the decisions, the court case
> took two years, and Becky Scott was properly awarded the gold (at least if
> she wasn't doping). That's how it should be done and I support active
> testing of active athletes using current protocols.
One of them tested positive from a test taken at a later race, not the
race for which Scott received the medal. The IOC thought the rules
made the positive irrelevant to the result earlier in the Games, as you
suggest a positive in 99 is today. The Court of Arbitration for Sport
disagreed.
>
> > Gravedigging? Do you mean mean it's ok to cheat as long as you don't
> > get caught right away? If so, wow. I wonder if you'd feel the same if
> > your kid died from using an undetectable substance, which was later
> > traceable to his/her coach.
>
> So you are an advocate of going back over the last, what, say twenty years?
> to what end? Testing for banned substances in athletic contests that were
> completed in the past would not have saved your kid.
That's like saying we can't bring back the world trade centre victims
by pursuing Al Qaeda. Retroactive testing is about the threat of
accountability in the future preventing the Saiz's and Fuente's of the
world doing what they do now. Why limit it to 20 years? The only limit
should be what was against the rules at the time.
>Testing your kid now,
> and advocating at all levels for clean competition, might.
Not if there's no test. Unless we can come back and expell the
suppliers later.
> I can appreciate your concern about the apparently pervasive presence of
> doping opportunities in cycling. I have kids too. But dad, what are you
> going to do? You may wish to disagree, but Pound's using the L'Equipe
> situation as a forum to build a case for retroactive testing was foolish.
What I'm doing is discussing this to convince others to support Pound.
I don't think his positon was foolish. Pointing out that the top
athlete in the sport has doped but we can't penalize him makes the
point that retroactive testing is needed. Is there a better way to get
the attention of people to make the change?
>
> > By the way, the attacks on Lafferty don't really help your argument.
> > It makes it look like you're running out of ideas.
>
> Brian and I have been doing this for years. He knows the first beer's on me
> whenever he gets to BC. You, on the other hand, read like the president of
> his fan club. With a membership of one.
It's a public forum, with issues of behaviour that affect
participation, as behaviour does in any other free exchange. Ok
because of your personal arrangement? Readers are supposed to know
that how?
> > And how about your, and that of others here, LANCE obsession? I mean
> > the one where it doesn't matter what the evidence is adding up to, he
> > is still a hero.
> Sorry, losing you on this one. All the evidence that is on the table looks
> like biased people using unethical tactics in an embarrassing attempt to
> shoot in the ass the guy highest up on the flagpole. did he dope? I dunno.
> Would I be surprised if he had? No.
No other champion has raised so much suspicion, from so many quarters,
save maybe Bonds. Yet this forum predominantly features his defenders.
> My obsession is with Tyler Hamilton. I confess I will supporting him
> whether he did or did not blood dope. But that's another story.
So tell it. You buy the twin story?
> ---
> Snippy
B. Lafferty
"mtb Dad" <lister...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:1150909185.8...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Your point is well taken.
As an imperfect analogy, some criminal statutes have no statute of
limitation.
>
>>Testing your kid now,
>> and advocating at all levels for clean competition, might.
>
> Not if there's no test. Unless we can come back and expell the
> suppliers later.
>
>> I can appreciate your concern about the apparently pervasive presence of
>> doping opportunities in cycling. I have kids too. But dad, what are you
>> going to do? You may wish to disagree, but Pound's using the L'Equipe
>> situation as a forum to build a case for retroactive testing was foolish.
>
> What I'm doing is discussing this to convince others to support Pound.
> I don't think his positon was foolish. Pointing out that the top
> athlete in the sport has doped but we can't penalize him makes the
> point that retroactive testing is needed. Is there a better way to get
> the attention of people to make the change?
>>
>> > By the way, the attacks on Lafferty don't really help your argument.
>> > It makes it look like you're running out of ideas.
>>
>> Brian and I have been doing this for years. He knows the first beer's on
>> me
>> whenever he gets to BC. You, on the other hand, read like the president
>> of
>> his fan club. With a membership of one.
You mean.....you're not in my fan club??!! Oh, man.
>
> It's a public forum, with issues of behaviour that affect
> participation, as behaviour does in any other free exchange. Ok
> because of your personal arrangement? Readers are supposed to know
> that how?
Once you're here for a while, you will understand that I tolerate misguided
"Christian" clerics, although it does put a terrible strain on my Buddha
Nature.
>
>> > And how about your, and that of others here, LANCE obsession? I mean
>> > the one where it doesn't matter what the evidence is adding up to, he
>> > is still a hero.
>
>> Sorry, losing you on this one. All the evidence that is on the table
>> looks
>> like biased people using unethical tactics in an embarrassing attempt to
>> shoot in the ass the guy highest up on the flagpole. did he dope? I
>> dunno.
>> Would I be surprised if he had? No.
>
> No other champion has raised so much suspicion, from so many quarters,
> save maybe Bonds. Yet this forum predominantly features his defenders.
Amen, Brother mtb Dad. The reason why Pound is personally vilified is that
he's constantly in the face of the dopers and the federations that have
allowed doping to tacitly go on for years.
>
>
>> My obsession is with Tyler Hamilton. I confess I will supporting him
>> whether he did or did not blood dope. But that's another story.
>
> So tell it. You buy the twin story?
Jim would buy anything from Tyler since he gave Tyler a lift in his car down
from Mt. Washington and Tyler thanked him. Do you know how few thank yous
clergy get in this day and age? Sad thing is he's still trying to figure
out which twin gave him the autograph.
>
>> ---
>> Snippy
>
Snippy Bobkins
> made the positive irrelevant to the result earlier in the Games, as you
> suggest a positive in 99 is today.
The '99 "results" are so beset with problems, thoroughly discussed elsewhere
in this forum and in the media, that it defies comparison.
>> So you are an advocate of going back over the last, what, say twenty
>> years?
>> to what end? Testing for banned substances in athletic contests that
>> were
>> completed in the past would not have saved your kid.
>
> That's like saying we can't bring back the world trade centre victims
> by pursuing Al Qaeda.
How's that?
> Retroactive testing is about the threat of
> accountability in the future preventing the Saiz's and Fuente's of the
> world doing what they do now.
Plausible, but it seems like a lot of trouble for a hypothetical deterrent.
>>Testing your kid now,
>> and advocating at all levels for clean competition, might.
>
> Not if there's no test. Unless we can come back and expel the
> suppliers later.
Uhhh, I think I just advocated for testing.
>> My obsession is with Tyler Hamilton. I confess I will supporting him
>> whether he did or did not blood dope. But that's another story.
>
> So tell it. You buy the twin story?
Not necessarily. Even in Hamilton's case, the dissenting arbitrator makes a
persuasive case. If guilty, suffice it say that that the possibility of
having transgressed does not discount the possibility of redemption. Even
in Brian's case. I wish Hamilton the best of success.
--
Snippy
Snippy Bobkins
>
> Jim would buy anything from Tyler since he gave Tyler a lift in his car
> down from Mt. Washington and Tyler thanked him.
Infidel,
Don't forget the hat.
--
Snippy
B. Lafferty
> "mtb Dad" <lister...@telus.net> wrote ...
>>
>> The IOC thought the rules
>> made the positive irrelevant to the result earlier in the Games, as you
>> suggest a positive in 99 is today.
>
> The '99 "results" are so beset with problems, thoroughly discussed
> elsewhere
> in this forum and in the media, that it defies comparison.
Those problems redside predominantly in the minds of Armstrong, his minios
and ardent fans. The head of the WADA lab in Montreal has stated she has no
doubt that the French lab found epo in the 99 urine it tested. However,
there can be no sanction for other reasons--a totally diffrent issue that
the Armstrong camp loves to hide with smoke and mirrors.
>
>>> So you are an advocate of going back over the last, what, say twenty
>>> years?
>>> to what end? Testing for banned substances in athletic contests that
>>> were
>>> completed in the past would not have saved your kid.
>>
>> That's like saying we can't bring back the world trade centre victims
>> by pursuing Al Qaeda.
>
> How's that?
>
>> Retroactive testing is about the threat of
>> accountability in the future preventing the Saiz's and Fuente's of the
>> world doing what they do now.
>
> Plausible, but it seems like a lot of trouble for a hypothetical
> deterrent.
>
>>>Testing your kid now,
>>> and advocating at all levels for clean competition, might.
>>
>> Not if there's no test. Unless we can come back and expel the
>> suppliers later.
>
> Uhhh, I think I just advocated for testing.
>
>>> My obsession is with Tyler Hamilton. I confess I will supporting him
>>> whether he did or did not blood dope. But that's another story.
>>
>> So tell it. You buy the twin story?
>
> Not necessarily. Even in Hamilton's case, the dissenting arbitrator makes
> a
> persuasive case.
The dissenting arbitrator was the one arbitrator of the three who decided
the case to have been selected by Hamilton's legal team. His opinion ranted
about alleged ethical violations but said very little of substance as to the
science of the test, and what was said was logically strained at best. The
decision to affirm that tribunal was unaninmous
> If guilty, suffice it say that that the possibility of
> having transgressed does not discount the possibility of redemption.
The type of redemption you're speaking of requires an admission of
wrongdoing. Let me know when Hamilton, et al. confess--there's a nice
Christian term. :-)
> Even in Brian's case.
Now you've done it. It's Calvinist damnation for you no matter what you do.
>I wish Hamilton the best of success.
In what? Cheating properly with autologous this time.
>
>
> --
> Snippy
>
>
>
Stu Fleming
Superman don't need no plane.
amit....@gmail.com
mtb Dad wrote:
> How is it obvious?
okay, i was exaggerating, but it is fishy.
> (Sorry if I'm restating the obvious-wasn't sure from your post.)
>
> Meanwhile, L'Equipe journalist Ressot asked Lance for permission to see
> his doping forms on which theraputic use exemptions (TUE) are recorded,
> such as asthma medications, and, so th erumour went, EPO for cancer
> patients. Lance says yes, and the UCI hands them over , which of
> course show nothing, hoping to clear Lance of this rumour.
this is the weird part. that the UCI agrees to hand over the very forms
which correspond with the samples being studied at the lab. the UCI
threw armstrong under the bus.
> For there to be a conspiracy, WADA would have had to put Ressot up to
> the TUE story to get the forms, and supply him with the research
> results. Is this what you're suggesting?
they might not have put him on the TUE story, but all the information
the led to the 'equipe story had been magically released to him.
information that should normally be confidential.
amit....@gmail.com
Robert Chung wrote:
> If Pound were really interested in changing
> the behavior of *current* athletes, he'd say: 1) henceforth any sample can
> be tested in perpetuity for anything; and 2) the Armstrong case shows a
> *failure* of the system to care for samples in perpetuity, so iron-clad
> protocols have to be put into place now.
dumbass,
WADA or dick pound can't unilaterally dictate the testing protocols,
gov. bodies may not want to or be able to comply.
the WADA code deliberately skirts the retroactive testing issue in
order to get the gov. bodies and big leagues to sign on. it was hard
work to get FIFA and the UCI to comply with the WADA code.
WADA can bully curling, but WADA probably doesn't have the power to
exclude big sports like track and field from the olympics if those
bodies decide not to comply.
instead the protocol for retroactive testing has to come from the gov.
bodies, and if it becomes an accepted standard in one sport, other
sports will have pressure to implement it, and retroactive testing can
appear in a future revised WADA code and be applied to olympic medals.
> Today I'm proposing protocols which, had they been in place seven
> years ago in 1999, would have resolved this case. If my proposal is not
> adopted you can expect the same problem seven years from now in 2013."
it was necessary to create the strong impression that armstrong was
doped, and have the UCI lead the way for retroactive testing. the
supposedly strong evidence in the l'equipe article is to be the
motivation behind it.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
Dumbass,
You're going about this in a fully logical and procedural way. I don't
think that's quite how the Pounder operates. He does go off
half-cocked sometimes, going for the PR value. Some of his comments
about Marion Jones, for ex, would give a lawyer for her plenty of
ammunition to challenge WADA's impartiality (even if you think she is
guilty, guilty, guilty!)
I don't think there was a big Oliver Stone-style conspiracy from the
beginning to get Armstrong. Rather, it seems likely that WADA put
LNDD up to this research project in order to establish the viability of
retrospective testing. Then somehow, once something turned up,
between Ressiot, the LNDD, and the UCI, enough connections were
made to throw Armstrong under the bus. I still don't understand how
this happened or why the UCI played along (maybe they just got
rolled). I would not be surprised if Ressiot had gotten a tip (from
LNDD or WADA?) that there was something interesting and he should
fish around in certain waters.
Anyway, once this all blew up, a logical, coolly disinterested person
running WADA might have said what you propose. But Dick Pound is
not that person. Hardly any prosecutor or cop is. He saw Armstrong on
the hook and his immediate reaction was to try to reel him in rather
than throw him back. There is always a percentage for WADA in
showing someone doped, 1999 or now, because it makes WADA look
more necessary. Plus, this gets more exposure, and he may have
figured that it has high deterrent value: other athletes would think
"Shit, if he can nail LANCE, he can lock up a little guy like me and
throw away the key."
Robert Chung
> it was necessary to create the strong impression that armstrong was
> doped, and have the UCI lead the way for retroactive testing. the
> supposedly strong evidence in the l'equipe article is to be the
> motivation behind it.
Dumbass,
I didn't say that Pound could dictate protocols. I specifically wrote that
he could propose protocols, and show that their absence had made everyone
look bad.
Retroactive testing to 1999 undermines this is because he's saying that
there needn't be any new protocols at all--that, like my President, he's
already got enough information to be the Decider. The real way to do this
(if this is what you want to get done) is to get the IOC to agree that as
a condition of being in the Games, athletes' samples can be tested from
now on. To get sanctioning organizations to sign on to that, he has to
propose iron-clad protocols.
That he hasn't taken this approach shows either 1) he doesn't really care
about stopping doping but only making headllines; or 2) he's an idiot who
doesn't know how to work with bureaucratic organizations. I guess there's
a third explanation: he's thinking of getting American citizenship and
he's auditioning as an incompetent doofus for the current administration.
Robert Chung
> I don't think there was a big Oliver Stone-style conspiracy from the
> beginning to get Armstrong. Rather, it seems likely that WADA put
> LNDD up to this research project in order to establish the viability of
> retrospective testing.
I don't think there was a conspiracy, either. I think that LNDD did
exactly what they said they were doing--they were trying to improve the
EPO test, they needed samples to work with, and there were some in the
freezer at the back of the lab.
> Then somehow, once something turned up,
> between Ressiot, the LNDD, and the UCI, enough connections were
> made to throw Armstrong under the bus. I still don't understand how
> this happened or why the UCI played along (maybe they just got
> rolled). I would not be surprised if Ressiot had gotten a tip (from
> LNDD or WADA?) that there was something interesting and he should
> fish around in certain waters.
LNDD is maybe a 10 minute drive down the road from L'Equipe offices, and
the head of LNDD is, shall we say, not publicity shy. If I were a reporter
at L'Equipe I'd cultivate him as a source. The rest isn't hard. Ewoud
figured out who three of the other positives were almost immediately.
Snippy Bobkins
>
> Dumbass,
>
> I didn't say that Pound could dictate protocols. I specifically wrote that
> he could propose protocols, and show that their absence had made everyone
> look bad.
>
> Retroactive testing to 1999 undermines this is because he's saying that
> there needn't be any new protocols at all--that, like my President, he's
> already got enough information to be the Decider. The real way to do this
> (if this is what you want to get done) is to get the IOC to agree that as
> a condition of being in the Games, athletes' samples can be tested from
> now on. To get sanctioning organizations to sign on to that, he has to
> propose iron-clad protocols.
>
> That he hasn't taken this approach shows either 1) he doesn't really care
> about stopping doping but only making headllines; or 2) he's an idiot who
> doesn't know how to work with bureaucratic organizations. I guess there's
> a third explanation: he's thinking of getting American citizenship and
> he's auditioning as an incompetent doofus for the current administration.
Maybe 4) he's a psychopath
Researchers Paul Babiak and Robert Hare have long studied psychopaths. Hare,
the author of Without Conscience, is a world-renowned expert on psychopathy,
and Babiak is an industrial-organizational psychologist. Recently the two
came together to study how psychopaths operate in corporations, and the
results were surprising.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060837721/103-2990514-6483842?v=glance&n=283155
--
Snippy
mtb Dad
amit....@gmail.com wrote:
> mtb Dad wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile, L'Equipe journalist Ressot asked Lance for permission to see
> > his doping forms on which theraputic use exemptions (TUE) are recorded,
> > such as asthma medications, and, so th erumour went, EPO for cancer
> > patients. Lance says yes, and the UCI hands them over , which of
> > course show nothing, hoping to clear Lance of this rumour.
>
> this is the weird part. that the UCI agrees to hand over the very forms
> which correspond with the samples being studied at the lab. the UCI
> threw armstrong under the bus.
It's not so wierd. 99 was the first Tour after cancer. Everyone was
saying the win was the Lemond effect; epo was part of the cure for
cancer, and because Lance needed it for medical reasons, he had been
given an exemption to take it, thereby leading to his race winning
performance. Lance gave his permission first. Also, UCI would not
have known the lab was doing research on the 99 samples. They have
just thought that, 'Finally, a chance to clear Lance ! (and by
association, pro road cycling) " Kinda funny really, the way it turned
out.
>
> > For there to be a conspiracy, WADA would have had to put Ressot up to
> > the TUE story to get the forms, and supply him with the research
> > results. Is this what you're suggesting?
>
> they might not have put him on the TUE story, but all the information
> the led to the 'equipe story had been magically released to him.
> information that should normally be confidential.
Well he certainly had the lab research results, but there's no
indication yet how he got them. WADA would have had to get the
results, pass them to Ressiot, then suggest he try out the 99 TUE angle
on Lance and UCI. The release of forms was no magic; it was in Lance's
interest to cooperate with what appeared to be a sympthetic, or at
least unbiased reporter looking to 'clear up' the TUE rumours. The
mistake was Lance and UCI's for not removing the numbers. 'Bet they've
replayed that a few times before falling asleep.
Ewoud Dronkert
>at L'Equipe I'd cultivate him as a source. The rest isn't hard. Ewoud
>figured out who three of the other positives were almost immediately.
Yeah that was not hard at all. Never heard about them later. Goes to
show how publicity oriented that whole thing was (is?).
--
E. Dronkert
mtb Dad
The difference is that there is no proof who the others are from
matching doping forms with numbers.
Publicity? Some might see the absence of the other names as evidence
the media actually does wait until it has corroboration for a story,
and even further weight to the Armstrong story.
Robert Chung
> Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
>> Robert Chung wrote:
>>> The rest isn't hard. Ewoud
>>> figured out who three of the other positives were almost immediately.
>>
>> Yeah that was not hard at all. Never heard about them later. Goes to
>> show how publicity oriented that whole thing was (is?).
>>
> matching doping forms with numbers.
>
> Publicity? Some might see the absence of the other names as evidence
> the media actually does wait until it has corroboration for a story,
> and even further weight to the Armstrong story.
It absolutely shows the publicity aspect. Ressiot asked for Armstrong's
doping forms but, based on exactly the same information, he didn't ask for
Beltran's, or Castelblanco's, or Hamburger's. Some might see the absence
of the other names as evidence that Ressiot actually didn't do much other
investigation at all. I find it odd that you think not doing a thorough
investigating job adds weight to the Armstrong story; but then I find it
odd that some people think that not finding WMDs in Iraq adds weight to
the claim that they were there.
Sandy
with the seeming intention of being a glory piece. It is also not
obvious that guessing the other names (some with more reason than
others) would have made a great story. For example, the Spanish
investigation has the public focused, it appears, on very few of the 200
names. Why ? You don't need me to point that out.
--
Sandy
- ?Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts
from reliable figures.?
- Essar, E.
Snippy Bobkins
> odd that some people think that not finding WMDs in Iraq adds weight to
> the claim that they were there.
WASHINGTON - The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since
2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two
Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
--
Snippy
Robert Chung
> Try to remember - it was _designed_ to be a story on Armstrong,
"Try to remember?" Of course it was a story on Armstrong. That was exactly
Ewoud's point. mtb dad claimed that it wasn't publicity-driven. L'Equipe
is in the business of selling papers. What gets more papers sold: a story
about Armstrong doping or Castelblanco doping?
> It is also not
> obvious that guessing the other names (some with more reason than
> others) would have made a great story.
There was no guessing involved. It wasn't a jig-saw puzzle in logic at
all. In fact, Ressiot's story would have been stronger had he not dug up
the doping control forms but instead googled up the same info that Ewoud
did. Take a look again at the original anonymized results he got from
LNDD.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> Sandy wrote:
> > It is also not
> > obvious that guessing the other names (some with more reason than
> > others) would have made a great story.
>
> There was no guessing involved. It wasn't a jig-saw puzzle in logic at
> all. In fact, Ressiot's story would have been stronger had he not dug up
> the doping control forms but instead googled up the same info that Ewoud
> did. Take a look again at the original anonymized results he got from
> LNDD.
Wasn't it Jenko who found the article that allowed linking
prologue vials to names:
Robert Chung
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html
"[...] despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of
the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered."
Robert Chung
> Wasn't it Jenko who found the article that allowed linking
> prologue vials to names:
> <http://groups.google.fr/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/a48ba2fb08a2956a/f16837d7f50a9d3f?hl=en#f16837d7f50a9d3f>
Oops. Yup. Apologies to Jenko.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
It's retroactive testing for WMDs. If you redefine what constitutes
a positive finding enough times, eventually you can come up with
a result. Even if it's been stepped on too many times to get a
sanction, you can take the case to the press for the PR value.
Ben
If stupidity and meretriciousness were weapons
of mass destruction, Rick Santorum would be the
world's single superpower.
dusto...@mac.com
"the whole country was an ammo dump"
Reading further: There were projectiles containing degraded mustard gas
and sarin found among piles of "normal" artillery shells, if I have
penetrated the usual Fox doublespeak in the article you link to. Dang!
No ranks of ICBMs loaded with tons of "whatever", programmed to hit key
targets in the USA. What a letdown!
Note "degraded"; what was found is thought to be old stuff, pre-'91,
certainly no sign that "Saddem" was mass-producing even new spiked
artillery shells (max range, what? 12 miles?).
Good, fear-mongering headline though. Gotta hand it to good ol' Fox
"news", they know their audience well.
amit....@gmail.com
Robert Chung wrote:
> I didn't say that Pound could dictate protocols. I specifically wrote that
> he could propose protocols, and show that their absence had made everyone
> look bad.
>
> Retroactive testing to 1999 undermines this is because he's saying that
> there needn't be any new protocols at all
dumbass,
he's already made the proposal:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep16news
"Finally, Pound didn't rule out that retrospective testing could one
day serve in a disciplinary manner. "Within the Anti-Doping Code, we
now have a provision that allows us to go back eight years on retesting
samples, whether they have been taken in our out of competition. What
we have to make sure now is the appropriate legal rule. So that if we
do find something in what would then be the B sample, that we have the
ability to impose a sanction. But you have to provide the athlete with
some means of assuring that it's been properly done - either be keeping
enough of the B sample to allow for retesting, or by checking the DNA
markers of the urine or blood for identification."
DNA testing (I believe) is not allowed under the WADA code as a
violation of privacy (thus in the fuentes case you can't use DNA to
match riders with the blood in the bags).
> The real way to do this
> (if this is what you want to get done) is to get the IOC to agree that as
> a condition of being in the Games, athletes' samples can be tested from
> now on. To get sanctioning organizations to sign on to that, he has to
> propose iron-clad protocols.
that's a big sticking point.
if sports don't (or can't) comply either they are excluded from the
olympics (to the detriment of the sport and the olympics) or compliance
with WADA becomes in effect optional. both are PR disasters.
Sandy
> Sandy wrote:
>
>
>> Try to remember - it was _designed_ to be a story on Armstrong,
>>
>
> "Try to remember?" Of course it was a story on Armstrong. That was exactly
> Ewoud's point. mtb dad claimed that it wasn't publicity-driven.
Perhaps I just don't quite understand how the word "publicity" is being
used.
Pretty much everything in print is publicity, by that standard.
There's probably not a disagreement.
amit....@gmail.com
> It's not so wierd. 99 was the first Tour after cancer. Everyone was
> saying the win was the Lemond effect;
what do you mean by "Lemond effect" ?
> epo was part of the cure for
> cancer, and because Lance needed it for medical reasons, he had been
> given an exemption to take it, thereby leading to his race winning
> performance.
no one with a brain would buy that armstrong had the exemtion to take
EPO two years after being cleared to train. people undergoing EPO
treatment are not in any shape to be bike racers.
> > they might not have put him on the TUE story, but all the information
> > the led to the 'equipe story had been magically released to him.
> > information that should normally be confidential.
>
> Well he certainly had the lab research results, but there's no
> indication yet how he got them. WADA would have had to get the
> results, pass them to Ressiot, then suggest he try out the 99 TUE angle
> on Lance and UCI. The release of forms was no magic; it was in Lance's
> interest to cooperate with what appeared to be a sympthetic, or at
> least unbiased reporter looking to 'clear up' the TUE rumours. The
> mistake was Lance and UCI's for not removing the numbers. 'Bet they've
> replayed that a few times before falling asleep.
the LNDD research was done a full year before the forms were obtained.
it is very plausible that someone at WADA knew about the research and
the results and just needed to link the apparent prologue positives to
names.
either deliberately or by accident lance got hosed by the UCI. i'm
assuming the actual source of the documents was zorzoli, who gave
ressiot what he needed to write the l'equipe article.
mtb Dad
Should I assume you have a personal arrangement with Pound that allows
you to speculate on his personality? Or that you are attacking another
personality because you have no argument, like yesterday?
Robert Chung
> Robert Chung wrote:
>
>> I didn't say that Pound could dictate protocols. I specifically wrote
>> that he could propose protocols, and show that their absence had made
>> everyone look bad.
>>
>> Retroactive testing to 1999 undermines this is because he's saying that
>> there needn't be any new protocols at all
>
> dumbass,
>
> he's already made the proposal:
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep16news
>
> "Finally, Pound didn't rule out that retrospective testing could one
> day serve in a disciplinary manner. "Within the Anti-Doping Code, we
> now have a provision that allows us to go back eight years on retesting
> samples, whether they have been taken in our out of competition. What
> we have to make sure now is the appropriate legal rule. So that if we
> do find something in what would then be the B sample, that we have the
> ability to impose a sanction. But you have to provide the athlete with
> some means of assuring that it's been properly done - either be keeping
> enough of the B sample to allow for retesting, or by checking the DNA
> markers of the urine or blood for identification."
Dumbass,
Exactly. So Pound's effort ought to be focused on getting protocols in
place that would prove to the world that everything was done above board.
Going back to 1999 doesn't do that *cuz the protocols weren't in
place*--the only reason you'd go back to 1999 is to show an example of the
problem caused by a lack of protocols. The pissing match he's currently
embroiled in with the UCI doesn't help get sanctioning organizations
signed on. Whether LANCE doped in 1999 doesn't help
get sanctioning organizations signed on. If Brian had a true interest in
doping rather than a true interest in a particular retired bicycle racer,
he'd be spending his time trying to make sure that protocols were in
place.
Donald Munro
> if sports don't (or can't) comply either they are excluded from the
> olympics (to the detriment of the sport and the olympics) or compliance
> with WADA becomes in effect optional. both are PR disasters.
I doubt if being excluded from the olympics would be much to the detriment
of cycling. If might be worth getting excluded just to stop Bettini
wearing that dumb gold helmet.
Robert Chung
> Perhaps I just don't quite understand how the word "publicity" is being
> used.
> Pretty much everything in print is publicity, by that standard.
> There's probably not a disagreement.
mtb dad claimed that publicity had no role in Armstrong being identified
while the others weren't; that others not being identified is evidence
that the story was carefully done; and that the story being carefully done
strengthens the charge against Armstrong. Perhaps the reason why you don't
quite understand his argument is...hmmm, how can I put this? Oh, I know:
CUZ IT'S NUTS.
mtb Dad
> what do you mean by "Lemond effect" ?
The idea that somehow the treatment for a serious medical condition
makes you stronger. Remember how people couldn't beleive Lemond should
be able to win after his injury?
>
> > epo was part of the cure for
> > cancer, and because Lance needed it for medical reasons, he had been
> > given an exemption to take it, thereby leading to his race winning
> > performance.
>
> no one with a brain would buy that armstrong had the exemtion to take
> EPO two years after being cleared to train. people undergoing EPO
> treatment are not in any shape to be bike racers.
I'd have to spend more time with google than I have right now, but
'no-one with a brain' doesn't exactly exclude all fans...
>
> > > they might not have put him on the TUE story, but all the information
> > > the led to the 'equipe story had been magically released to him.
> > > information that should normally be confidential.
> >
> > Well he certainly had the lab research results, but there's no
> > indication yet how he got them. WADA would have had to get the
> > results, pass them to Ressiot, then suggest he try out the 99 TUE angle
> > on Lance and UCI. The release of forms was no magic; it was in Lance's
> > interest to cooperate with what appeared to be a sympthetic, or at
> > least unbiased reporter looking to 'clear up' the TUE rumours. The
> > mistake was Lance and UCI's for not removing the numbers. 'Bet they've
> > replayed that a few times before falling asleep.
>
> the LNDD research was done a full year before the forms were obtained.
>
> it is very plausible that someone at WADA knew about the research and
> the results and just needed to link the apparent prologue positives to
> names.
>
> either deliberately or by accident lance got hosed by the UCI.
Depends on whether you believe the research results.
> assuming the actual source of the documents was zorzoli, who gave
> ressiot what he needed to write the l'equipe article.
Well, only UCI and Lance have forms with names on. Zorzoli hasn't
denied it, and served a suspension for it; in my opinion undeserved, as
LA had approved the release.
Sandy
understanding ?
mtb Dad
> Sandy wrote:
>
> > Try to remember - it was _designed_ to be a story on Armstrong,
>
> "Try to remember?" Of course it was a story on Armstrong. That was exactly
> Ewoud's point. mtb dad claimed that it wasn't publicity-driven.
Nope. Just that it wasn't only about Armstrong for profile reasons;;
it was about Armstrong because he had cancer, EPO is included in the
treatment, and there was speculation (not proof) that it helped him.
and L'Equipe
> is in the business of selling papers. What gets more papers sold: a story
> about Armstrong doping or Castelblanco doping?
Armstrong. Especially when there is no previous story about
Castelblanco, and no proof in the form of doping forms with numbers.
>
> > It is also not
> > obvious that guessing the other names (some with more reason than
> > others) would have made a great story.
>
> There was no guessing involved. It wasn't a jig-saw puzzle in logic at
> all. In fact, Ressiot's story would have been stronger had he not dug up
> the doping control forms but instead googled up the same info that Ewoud
> did. Take a look again at the original anonymized results he got from
> LNDD.
Can you show the same evidence that the other names were positive in
the research to the same extent as LA (ie sample numbers). And not
just that someone figured out (speculated?) who else was tested during
the tour? I don't see that in the link provided.
amit....@gmail.com
diamond encrusted gold helmet.
Robert Chung
> either deliberately or by accident lance got hosed by the UCI. i'm
> assuming the actual source of the documents was zorzoli, who gave
> ressiot what he needed to write the l'equipe article.
Dumbass,
If LANCE got hosed (and since he retired before this came out and it looks
like there's no way his 1999 TdF win can be taken away it's arguable that
he's been hosed) he got hosed by LANCE.
Ressiot screwed up. He could've published his story before the 2005 TdF,
before Armstrong retired, but he was too dumb to figure out what he had.
The UCI thing took months and in the end all it did was eliminate Beltran,
Castelblanco, and Hamburger from the story. That's cuz Ressiot was
LANCE-obsessed.
Robert Chung
Hmmm. I don't know. If you replace "publicity" with "sensationalizm" what
would your understanding be?
Robert Chung
> Can you show the same evidence that the other names were positive in
> the research to the same extent as LA (ie sample numbers). And not
> just that someone figured out (speculated?) who else was tested during
> the tour? I don't see that in the link provided.
Dumbass:
You're being thick. *All four* of the results from the prologue were
positive. We know that stage winners are always tested. Armstrong won the
prologue, ergo he had to have been one of the four. Boom. You don't need
to link to the UCI forms to know that Armstrong was positive.
However, Jenko found an article from the day of the 1999 prologue that
actually named the three other riders who gave samples. That wasn't
necessary to prove that Armstrong was already one of the four, but now we
know each of them. Without the link to the UCI doping forms, we don't know
which was which, but we know that each of them was just as positive
(according to the same standards) as Armstrong.
So Ressiot and L'Equipe could have written the story earlier. Instead,
taking the time to link to the UCI forms just delayed Ressiot's story
until *after* the 2005 TdF was over, and even then they didn't bother to
link to Beltran, Castelblanco, and Hamburger. So the real question is:
why'd he wait?
mtb Dad
Robert Chung wrote:
> amit....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > either deliberately or by accident lance got hosed by the UCI. i'm
> > assuming the actual source of the documents was zorzoli, who gave
> > ressiot what he needed to write the l'equipe article.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> If LANCE got hosed (and since he retired before this came out and it looks
> like there's no way his 1999 TdF win can be taken away it's arguable that
> he's been hosed) he got hosed by LANCE.
>
> Ressiot screwed up.
Sorry if I mised this elsewhere, but isn't this assuming Ressiot had
the research results then?
Snippy Bobkins
>
> Should I assume you have a personal arrangement with Pound that allows
> you to speculate on his personality? Or that you are attacking another
> personality because you have no argument, like yesterday?
I am asserting a plausible alternative. BTW, I'm still waiting for you to
explain your Al Qaeda analogy, dad.
--
Snippy
Snippy Bobkins
>
> "[...] despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of
> the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered."
No wonder I couldn't find the same story on the NYT or CNN.
--
Snippy
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
We need cycling to stay in at least until 2008 or Bettini will be able
to wear that godawful helmet forever. But also, in the US, the
governing bodies for various sports get money from USOC for
development, earmarks, nest-feathering, clandestine doping programs,
promoting the sport, and whatever the hell else it is that governing
bodies do. The USOC wants more qualifying athletes and more medals,
and it hands out the greenery on that basis. No medals, no Benjamins.
For example, this is one reason USAC has relatively little support for
cyclocross and half or more of the US cross team pays its own way
to worlds - there are no medals in cyclocross. (Of course, even if
there were, the US wouldn't win them, but that doesn't stop us from
competing in other events we have a hopeless record in.)
So, get kicked out of the Olympics, see the development money
disappear. Now, any reasonable person could say that a sport might
be smaller, but better off, that way. Euro pro cycling would survive;
US cycling, I dunno. A reasonable person could also say that the
whole web of nepotistic interlocking NGO/IOC interests is a corrupt
violation of the Olympic Spirit. I can't agree there since I think
that corrupt self-dealing and nepotism embody the Olympic
Spirit quite well, thank you.
-Benjamin
It's all about the Benjamins.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> Robert Chung wrote:
> > Sandy wrote:
> >
> > > Try to remember - it was _designed_ to be a story on Armstrong,
> >
> > "Try to remember?" Of course it was a story on Armstrong. That was exactly
> > Ewoud's point. mtb dad claimed that it wasn't publicity-driven.
>
> Nope. Just that it wasn't only about Armstrong for profile reasons;;
> it was about Armstrong because he had cancer, EPO is included in the
> treatment, and there was speculation (not proof) that it helped him.
Isn't cancer and EPO a big red herring here? Armstrong's cancer
treatment was a couple years in the past by the 1999 Tour. Ressiot
can't have sincerely been looking for a TUE form that specified EPO.
It was something else nominally to do with the TUEs, maybe the
saddle cream? Anyway, something that sounded harmless enough
that Armstrong said he could go ahead and look at the TUEs.
Robert Chung
> Sorry if I mised this elsewhere, but isn't this assuming Ressiot had
> the research results then?
So what you're saying is, you've been spouting off all this time but you
were overlooking easily available information that was in the original
story? Hmmm. I'll keep that in mind for the next time you post. Here's the
lead from the Aug 23, 2005 edition of L'Equipe. Pay attention to the last
sentence:
"Souvent soupçonné, jamais contrôlé positif. Lance Armstrong, septuple
vainqueur de la Grande Boucle, se retrouve aujourd'hui sous les feux de la
rampe pour autre chose que ses exploits sportifs. Le journal L'Equipe,
documents officiels à l'appui, démontre en effet que l'Américain a bien eu
recours à des produits dopants en 1999, lors de sa première conquête du
Tour de France.
"Quatre mois d'enquête par le quotidien sportif ont abouti à cette
évidence... "
That means L'Equipe had the evidence in April 2005. The LNDD analysis had
been done several months before that, around the end of 2004. Somebody at
LNDD had to have noticed that all four of the prologue samples were
positive. de Ceaurriz kept saying that no one at his lab knew who the
samples were from, but he was trying to lay down a false scent. When all
the samples are positive, you know the stage winner is positive.
amit....@gmail.com
b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> So, get kicked out of the Olympics, see the development money
> disappear. Now, any reasonable person could say that a sport might
> be smaller, but better off, that way.
dumbass,
when i made the statement that WADA would try to exclude a sport to
it's detriment, i wasn't referring to euro-pro cycling. "pro" sports
have done fine without the olympics.
WADA might be able to bully curling, but what about track and field or
gymnastics ?
Robert Chung
I'll bet you can find the story on the Washington Times.
Sandy
Libération.
or not
Robert Chung
> "Quatre mois d'enquête par le quotidien sportif ont abouti à cette
> évidence... "
>
> That means L'Equipe had the evidence in April 2005.
Who made what announcement on April 18, 2005?
Michael Press
<1150992447.2...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
"mtb Dad" <lister...@telus.net> wrote:
> Snippy Bobkins wrote:
[...]
> > Maybe 4) he's a psychopath
> > Researchers Paul Babiak and Robert Hare have long studied psychopaths. Hare,
> > the author of Without Conscience, is a world-renowned expert on psychopathy,
> > and Babiak is an industrial-organizational psychologist. Recently the two
> > came together to study how psychopaths operate in corporations, and the
> > results were surprising.
> > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060837721/103-2990514-6483842?v=glance&n=283155
> > --
> > Snippy
>
> Should I assume you have a personal arrangement with Pound that allows
> you to speculate on his personality? Or that you are attacking another
> personality because you have no argument, like yesterday?
When someone makes a movie such as
_Invasion_of_the_Body_Snatchers_ [1956], it is not always
a simple matter of a runaway imagination. The movie is
frightening for real reasons.
--
Michael Press
Stu Fleming
> "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote ...
>
>>odd that some people think that not finding WMDs in Iraq adds weight to
>>the claim that they were there.
>
>
> WASHINGTON - The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since
> 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two
> Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
>
Please don't elect any more of these insane jackasses.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/dod-disavows-santorum/
Stu Fleming
"irreversible peace"?
mtb Dad
> > made the positive irrelevant to the result earlier in the Games, as you
> > suggest a positive in 99 is today.
>
> The '99 "results" are so beset with problems, thoroughly discussed elsewhere
> in this forum and in the media, that it defies comparison.
Explain to me this. How is using six research tests showing EPO (yes,
not full blown positives by current rules, but substantively there),
that much of a leap, compared to the Russians' disqualification from a
race in which they tested clean?
I'd say the Salt Lake DQ was more of a leap. The Russians were 'proven'
clean, but still lost their medals. With that track record, I'm betting
on the CAS (if they do the investigation into Pound vs Armstrong) to
back Pound, and further to support retoactive testing.
> >> So you are an advocate of going back over the last, what, say twenty
> >> years?
> >> to what end? Testing for banned substances in athletic contests that
> >> were
> >> completed in the past would not have saved your kid.
> >
> > That's like saying we can't bring back the world trade centre victims
> > by pursuing Al Qaeda.
>
> How's that?
Not saving my kid, but would bring those responsible to account. And
maybe stopped them doing it, if it had been in place. Just to be
clear, I'm talking about retroactive testing in the future , (though
I'm not against testing whatever is in storage from any year). I
understood you to say this is not useful because it's "completed in the
past". The Al Qaeda reference is: the bombing was still a crime, and
even if catching those responsible doesn't right the wrong, they should
be accountable.
> > Retroactive testing is about the threat of
> > accountability in the future preventing the Saiz's and Fuente's of the
> > world doing what they do now.
>
> Plausible, but it seems like a lot of trouble for a hypothetical deterrent.
Easier because you already have the sample. Hypothetical? I'd say it
is a real deterrent. Maybe the only deterent for genetic doping.
>
> >>Testing your kid now,
> >> and advocating at all levels for clean competition, might.
> >
> > Not if there's no test. Unless we can come back and expel the
> > suppliers later.
>
> Uhhh, I think I just advocated for testing.
My "...no test." meant if there's no test now, but one comes along,
retroactive testing will make my kid's coach accountable then, and
therefore less inclined to dope them now.
Snippy Bobkins
> clean, but still lost their medals. With that track record, I'm betting
> on the CAS (if they do the investigation into Pound vs Armstrong) to
> back Pound, and further to support retoactive testing.
Please explain what you mean by "proven clean." Even though the
substance(s) were not on the banned substance list, their presence in the
athletes' systems violated the underlying principle of clean competition.
Besides, "Darbepoetin, a relatively new drug, is not the IOC's banned
substances list, but was similar enough to EPO for FIS to act, FIS president
Gian Franco Kasper said. "For us, it is clear, it was man-made EPO," he
said. "It's a performance enhancer. We now have to take sanctions."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2002/news/2002/03/01/russian_tests_ap/
http://www.sportrecht.org/urteile/TASlazutinadanilowa29-11-02.htm
says the athletes were found to have a prohibited substance, and the basis
for their appeal involved the methodology for testing, not the presence or
absence of prohibited substance(s). The appeal failed, in that "the Panel
was satisfied that the test for darbepoetin was scientifically
reliable....The three arbitrators came to the conclusion that Larissa
Lazutina [the one who medalled] had committed a number of doping
offences..."
>> >> So you are an advocate of going back over the last, what, say twenty
>> >> years?
>> >> to what end? Testing for banned substances in athletic contests that
>> >> were
>> >> completed in the past would not have saved your kid.
>> >
>> > That's like saying we can't bring back the world trade centre victims
>> > by pursuing Al Qaeda.
>>
>> How's that?
>
> Not saving my kid,
That was my point.
>> Plausible, but it seems like a lot of trouble for a hypothetical
>> deterrent.
>
> Easier because you already have the sample. Hypothetical? I'd say it
> is a real deterrent. Maybe the only deterent for genetic doping.
Maybe you and Bud Selig can thumb-wrestle. But no caffeine prior to
competition.
mtb dad fights on many fronts today.
--
Snippy the Bobkins
Barnard Frederick
> Dumbass,
>
> Exactly. So Pound's effort ought to be focused on getting protocols in
> place that would prove to the world that everything was done above board.
> Going back to 1999 doesn't do that *cuz the protocols weren't in
> place*--the only reason you'd go back to 1999 is to show an example of the
> problem caused by a lack of protocols. The pissing match he's currently
> embroiled in with the UCI doesn't help get sanctioning organizations
> signed on. Whether LANCE doped in 1999 doesn't help
> get sanctioning organizations signed on. If Brian had a true interest in
> doping rather than a true interest in a particular retired bicycle racer,
> he'd be spending his time trying to make sure that protocols were in
> place.
Mr. Lafferty is right about one thing: we haven't heard the last of
this. But probably not for the reasons he thinks. Pud Pounder's
shocking disregard of procedure and fair play is going to make a lot of
people very nervous. Imagine you are the athlete giving a sample and
living for years waiting for that time bomb to go off. Who exactly is
looking after all these samples for years on end? The LNDD violated the
second most sacred rule of any laboratory: privacy and confidentiality.
The only thing more sacred than that would be not to report false or
falsified data. Given that they had little regard for the one
principle, I don't see much reason to believe they care much for any
other scientific or ethical laboratory guidelines. So who is to be
trusted to guard samples from rich and famous athletes with reasonable
certainty that they are never tampered with? A lot can happen in 5-8
years, even if we forget the ethical travesties of Pound and the LNDD.
Employees come and go, so the chain of custody becomes less and less
certain. The chances for handling and storage errors accumulate. Were
temperatures maintained? Did an accident happen where things were mixed
up? Did containers fail? The expense and logistical problems of
storing a growing number of samples for several years would be
formidable.
When I was testing water for metal contamination (lead, thallium,
arsenic, etc), samples were only valid for 6 months, and since these are
elements they never degrade or turn into something else. I have to
wonder what sort of world we live in when an industrial polluter can be
off the hook in 6 months, but a TDF stage winner is held hostage for 8
years. And let's not forget that EPO, or whatever they test for, is not
an element. We had better be damned sure we know what happens to a
urine sample containing EPO, or whatever they are testing for, after 5
years.
mtb Dad
Why is this important? Other than to your theory that Ressiot is
incompetant? How do you know that means he had the lab results? If my
French is accurate, that doesn't actually say he got the lab research
results four months before, only that the inquiry took four months.
That could have started with his first fishing expedition to Lance on
the TUE story, or any other of the many rumours about LA.
The UCI web site says:
"In July 2005 Damien Ressiot from L'Equipe informed UCI that he
wanted to write an article on Lance Armstrong confirming that since his
return to competition in 1999, he had never taken any medicine in
relation with possible consequences of the cancer he had overcome. It
was agreed with Mr. Armstrong that Mr. Ressiot could come and see the
doping control forms at the UCI office and ascertain for himself that
no such medication had been mentioned on the forms by Mr. Armstrong.
While at the UCI office Mr. Ressiot asked for and was authorized to
have a copy of one doping control form as an example, in order to prove
to his readers that he had effectively had consulted the forms."
and
"However, Mr. Ressiot's article of 23 August in L'Equipe was about
the confidential report of the anti-doping laboratory of Paris
containing results of research conducted on 1999 Tour de France
samples. The laboratory had sent this confidential report the day
before to WADA and the French Ministry of Sports."
http://www.uci.ch/modello.asp?1stlevelid=B&level1=0&level2=0&idnews=4013
That doesn't mean Ressiot didn't get it another way, but I still don't
know why it's important when he got it.
As for the lab knowing who the four athletes tested in the prologue
were from news reports, yes, it means the lab director may have been
less than straight up, though he probably didn't exactly lie; the lab
doesn't know from the forms, but could know if it watched the event
closely. In fact, anyone could just by watching who goes in to the
doping venue. By the way, this phenomenon is aided by the UCI rule
about posting, and announcing on Tour radio, who is selected for doping
control. No other sport does that to my knowledge; they use discrete
doping marshals instead.
mtb Dad
> "mtb Dad" <lister...@telus.net> wrote ...
> >
> > I'd say the Salt Lake DQ was more of a leap. The Russians were 'proven'
> > clean, but still lost their medals. With that track record, I'm betting
> > on the CAS (if they do the investigation into Pound vs Armstrong) to
> > back Pound, and further to support retoactive testing.
>
> Please explain what you mean by "proven clean." Even though the
> substance(s) were not on the banned substance list, their presence in the
> athletes' systems violated the underlying principle of clean competition.
A clarification. They were 'clean' in the test after the race against
Scott, but positive later in the Olympics in another race. They were
then found to have been positive at World Cup events earlier in the
season, which nulified their 'clean' result, but only after the FIS and
IOC said they would keep their medals from the early race.
So, the CAS did overule the IOC and FIS and took away their medals.
Your SI reference below is referring to the second race, and says they
would be allowed to keep their earlier medals (ie those won ahead of
Scott). This was overturned by the CAS, who even made the Russians pay
costs for their appeal. Doesn't sound like they'll nuke Pound to me...
>
> Besides, "Darbepoetin, a relatively new drug, is not the IOC's banned
> substances list, but was similar enough to EPO for FIS to act, FIS president
> Gian Franco Kasper said. "For us, it is clear, it was man-made EPO," he
> said. "It's a performance enhancer. We now have to take sanctions."
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2002/news/2002/03/01/russian_tests_ap/
>
> http://www.sportrecht.org/urteile/TASlazutinadanilowa29-11-02.htm
>
>
> >> >> So you are an advocate of going back over the last, what, say twenty
> >> >> years?
> >> >> to what end? Testing for banned substances in athletic contests that
> >> >> were
> >> >> completed in the past would not have saved your kid.
> >> >
> >> > That's like saying we can't bring back the world trade centre victims
> >> > by pursuing Al Qaeda.
> >>
> >> How's that?
> >
> > Not saving my kid,
>
> That was my point.
I don't get it. My original comment was, "I wonder if you'd feel the
same if your kid died from using an undetectable substance, which was
later traceable to his/her coach." By later, I meant with a
retroactive test, and I was suggesting the coach could then be held
accountable.
You said: "Testing for banned substances in athletic contests that were
completed in the past would not have saved your kid."
I said:"Not saving my kid, but would bring those responsible to
account. And could maybe have stopped them doing it, if it
(retroactive testing) had been in place.
You said:"That was my point." I don't follow.
Snippy Bobkins
> same if your kid died from using an undetectable substance, which was
> later traceable to his/her coach." By later, I meant with a
> retroactive test, and I was suggesting the coach could then be held
> accountable.
This was the part that wasn't clear to me. Thanks.
--
Snippy
Robert Chung
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> "Quatre mois d'enquête par le quotidien sportif ont abouti à cette
>> évidence... "
>>
>> That means L'Equipe had the evidence in April 2005. The LNDD analysis
>> had been done several months before that, around the end of 2004.
>> Somebody at LNDD had to have noticed that all four of the prologue
>> samples were positive. de Ceaurriz kept saying that no one at his lab
>> knew who the samples were from, but he was trying to lay down a false
>> scent. When all the samples are positive, you know the stage winner is
>> positive.
>
> Why is this important? Other than to your theory that Ressiot is
> incompetant? How do you know that means he had the lab results? If my
> French is accurate, that doesn't actually say he got the lab research
> results four months before, only that the inquiry took four months.
> That could have started with his first fishing expedition to Lance on
> the TUE story, or any other of the many rumours about LA.
So, you're saying Ressiot had spent the time from April 2005 to August
2005 on a fishing expedition trying to get UCI doping forms on Armstrong,
then on August 22 got his first look at the LNDD report and said to
himself, "Omigod, by pure chance I happen to have been asking for exactly
the right forms with the codes that let me interpret one and only one of
these riders," and this was central enough to have led off his story with
"quatre mois d'enquête par le quotidien sportif ?"
Hmmm. Okay. I guess it could've happened that way. Oh wait, as you pointed
out here:
> The UCI web site says:
>
> "In July 2005 Damien Ressiot from L'Equipe informed UCI that he
> wanted to write an article on Lance Armstrong confirming that since his
> return to competition in 1999, he had never taken any medicine in
> relation with possible consequences of the cancer he had overcome. It
> was agreed with Mr. Armstrong that Mr. Ressiot could come and see the
> doping control forms at the UCI office
Hmmm. July? I don't know how you count the months but July to August
doesn't count as four months.
amit....@gmail.com
Robert Chung wrote:
> Dumbass,
>
> If LANCE got hosed (and since he retired before this came out and it looks
> like there's no way his 1999 TdF win can be taken away it's arguable that
> he's been hosed) he got hosed by LANCE.
dumbass,
he got hosed because he gave the go ahead for the TUE story and the UCI
went and released the doping forms which happened to correspond to the
LNDD samples.
amit....@gmail.com
Robert Chung wrote:
> There was no guessing involved. It wasn't a jig-saw puzzle in logic at
> all. In fact, Ressiot's story would have been stronger had he not dug up
> the doping control forms but instead googled up the same info that Ewoud
> did. Take a look again at the original anonymized results he got from
> LNDD.
dumbass,
http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2005/interviews/?id=damien_ressiot_05
" CN: How can you know that four of the positive samples in 1999 were
taken after the prologue?
DR: When you read the results table of the laboratory, you see that the
first series of samples that arrived in Chatenay-Malabry (the four
flasks) bear one number that differs from the next number of presumably
the first stage, where Lance's sample also revealed traces of EPO.
Therefore, we can conclude this.
CN: But the names of the four riders tested at the prologue 1999 are no
secret.
DR: Yes, that's true. If you take the book L.A. Confidentiel, on page
202, the names of the riders that were tested after the prologue are
listed. [Cyclingnews knows of at least one other source which would
also reveal those rider's names.] But I don't want to take the
responsibility of publishing them because, on the lab results table,
there are very technical remarks added to one of the prologue samples,
which also tested positive but where some sort of reservations were
made by the lab director. So we decided not to publish those names, as
we'd need the original 1999 protocols to identify which sample belonged
to whom. But the concerns of the lab director weren't directed at
Armstrong's sample."
Robert Chung
Yeah, I remember that interview. My favorite line is this: "The testing on
EPO at the laboratory did indeed take a certain amount of time. Every test
took them two and a half days and there were nearly 150 samples to test
from the 1999 and 1998 Tours."
Someone ought to buy LNDD another set of test tubes.
Robert Chung
Dumbass,
No one needed the doping forms since all of the prologue tests were
positive.