WADA Got Under Armstrong's Skin

amit wrote:

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.

"amit" 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.

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 bull****. 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

B. Lafferty 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 still hoping Rose Mary Woods will tell us what was in that 18 minute
gap.

"Snippy Bobkins" wrote in message
newsE0mg.70780$S61.57905@edtnps90...
"amit" 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.

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 bull****. 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.

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Snippy Bobkins" wrote in message
newsE0mg.70780$S61.57905@edtnps90...
"amit" 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.

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 bull****. 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.

--
Snippy

On 19 Jun 2006 21:53:37 -0700, "mtb Dad" wrote:


routebeer wrote:
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.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.

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

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
**** 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
**** 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.

"RonSonic" wrote in message
...
On 19 Jun 2006 21:53:37 -0700, "mtb Dad" wrote:


routebeer wrote:
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.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

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:00:35 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
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!

Snippy Bobkins wrote:
What bull****. 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.