More Aussie stupidity
 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...v04/nov18news2


5. Where there is no admission and the B sample is collected, but for
some reason is incapable of being analyzed, the A sample on its own will
likely be insufficient proof of a violation of use of a Prohibited
Substance of a Prohibited Method, as clearly the draftsperson/s of the
World-Anti Doping Code felt that a single sample test was unreliable
without a second confirmatory test sample.

--------------

So apparently now the Aussie legal malpractice team thinks they're going
to use "other evidence" to prove Hamilton's guilt. And they don't have
that. The Vuelta test is irrelevant because it occurred AFTER the
Olympics and will thus have no effect on the Athens test even if he's
found guilty.

So basically it took them weeks too realize the A test doesn't count
without the B test. And they realize they have no other evidence of
blood transfusions during the Olympics.

So they admit they have no legitimate legal grounds upon which to
proceed, but yet are still billing the Aussie federation for hours on a
legal case that has no chance of success.

What a joke. When is Jeff Jones going to report how much money the
Aussie federation is being ripped off for by idiot kangaroo attorneys?

Even WADA and the IOC believe Tyler should get to keep his gold medal.

The decision by the CAS is going to unanimous that Tyler gets to keep
his gold medal because the A test doens't count without the B confirmation.

End of argument. How come the Aussie's can't accept the rules?

Magilla

How dare you comment on the likely outcome of this case before it has
been heard?
I hope you are never on a jury!
This is far worse than someone saying they think Tyler is guilty. I am
shocked and outraged.


--
patch70

How dare you comment on the likely outcome of this case before it has
been heard?
I hope you are never on a jury!
This is far worse than someone saying they think Tyler is guilty. I am
shocked and outraged.


--
patch70

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...v04/nov18news2


5. Where there is no admission and the B sample is collected, but for
some reason is incapable of being analyzed, the A sample on its own will
likely be insufficient proof of a violation of use of a Prohibited
Substance of a Prohibited Method, as clearly the draftsperson/s of the
World-Anti Doping Code felt that a single sample test was unreliable
without a second confirmatory test sample.

--------------

So apparently now the Aussie legal malpractice team thinks they're going
to use "other evidence" to prove Hamilton's guilt. And they don't have
that. The Vuelta test is irrelevant because it occurred AFTER the
Olympics and will thus have no effect on the Athens test even if he's
found guilty.


Nipplehead,

though not applicable to the Oly case, the A-B positive test from the Vuelta
reinforces the presence of blood doping.

Dave

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...v04/nov18news2


5. Where there is no admission and the B sample is collected, but for
some reason is incapable of being analyzed, the A sample on its own will
likely be insufficient proof of a violation of use of a Prohibited
Substance of a Prohibited Method, as clearly the draftsperson/s of the
World-Anti Doping Code felt that a single sample test was unreliable
without a second confirmatory test sample.

--------------

So apparently now the Aussie legal malpractice team thinks they're going
to use "other evidence" to prove Hamilton's guilt. And they don't have
that. The Vuelta test is irrelevant because it occurred AFTER the
Olympics and will thus have no effect on the Athens test even if he's
found guilty.


Nipplehead,

though not applicable to the Oly case, the A-B positive test from the Vuelta
reinforces the presence of blood doping.

Dave