Landis - its all making sense now

"Sandy" wrote in message
...

You usually don't seem quite so dense.

Let me commend you on your diplomacy. For my part I always see amit as
dense.

"Kyle Legate" wrote in message
...
Sandy wrote:

So, we know that only ONCE in seven tests did Landis test positive on a
Test A.
We know that Test B shows that 6/7 times he tests positive on the same
samples.
Ergo (pardon my "French"), Test A is useless as an indicator of
culpability. It should be abandoned.
One Test B fails to show exogenous testosterone, when it had to be there.
Ergo, Test B is similarly unreliable.

Your argument hinges on knowing which of those seven tests was the one
that tested negative. If it was the first one, it is possible that he
didn't start topping up until between the first and second test dates. I
don't think this piece of information (which test date was not positive)
was made public.

And what if it was the first one? Maybe it was really positive but the lab
made a mistake. Maybe little green men jumped out of a spaceship and their
lethal bodily imminations screwed up the chemical reactions in that oh so
reliable lab where people couldn't even mark the sample numbers correctly
and somehow didn't think it adviseable for the rider to have someone observe
their processes in action.

Dans le message de ,
Kyle Legate a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Sandy wrote:

So, we know that only ONCE in seven tests did Landis test positive
on a Test A.
We know that Test B shows that 6/7 times he tests positive on the
same samples.
Ergo (pardon my "French"), Test A is useless as an indicator of
culpability. It should be abandoned.
One Test B fails to show exogenous testosterone, when it had to be
there. Ergo, Test B is similarly unreliable.

Your argument hinges on knowing which of those seven tests was the one
that tested negative. If it was the first one, it is possible that he
didn't start topping up until between the first and second test
dates. I don't think this piece of information (which test date was
not positive) was made public.

Less than half-right, if that much.

From Cycling News :

"Pierre Bordry, President of the Châtenay-Malabry anti-doping laboratory
(LNDD), claimed that athletes are able to slip past testing because labs are
not looking for synthetic substances when their test results fall under
accepted limits."

Confirmation that Test A is faulty.

If Test A is faulty, then it is of no use, and no Test B was warranted.
Scratch the indicator of cheating in the original instance, and scratch the
uncalled-for first Test B. Scratch the entire procedure.

As to which Test B (of the supplementary tests) was negative, my memory
tells me it was in the middle, and I will try to research my source.
Nonetheless, if the original Test A was invalid, there was neither the need
for the first Test B, and certainly not the additional Tests B, so with an
eye to procedure, the supplementary tests could have been done on ANY rider
for any stage. That is also not the case. One could suggest, in parallel,
that ALL the samples from ALL the riders should have been analyzed by Test
B, and this also was not done. To isolate Landis, having no reason to rely
on Test A, amounts to arguing that all other Tests A were reliable, and we
now know that is not true.

Again, should I be fully awake this weekend, I will make some effort to
confirm that the negative Test B was in the middle. Regardless, the premise
that a Test B was indicated for him and him alone, and that the indicator is
reliable, is baseless.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

On May 11, 9:12 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

Maybe little green men jumped out of a spaceship and their
lethal bodily imminations ...

Are imminations things that will soon be expelled? I feel an eminent
immination is imminent. Must be the bran muffin.

R

On Fri, 11 May 2007 22:57:10 +0200, "Sandy" wrote:

Daryll Strawberry or an idiot

Just a quibble here - it should read 'Darryl Strawberry/idiot' or
'Darryl Strawberry or another idiot'. The man couldn't get a clue on
the tenth go-around.

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

On 14 May 2007 06:20:36 -0700, RicodJour
wrote:

Are imminations things that will soon be expelled? I feel an eminent
immination is imminent. Must be the bran muffin.


Or the pictures of Basso's sister.

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

RicodJour wrote:
Are imminations things that will soon be expelled? I feel an eminent
immination is imminent. Must be the bran muffin.

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
Or the pictures of Basso's sister.

I trust that will get imminated from another orifice.

On May 11, 4:00 am, Burt wrote:
If you work at the LNDD, UCI, WADA, USADA,
or are a member of the Arbitration Panel, you can **** up, not follow
the rules, leak information to the press, etc., etc., and its all
okay, so long as you're working toward the "greater good" of trying to
catch drug cheats...the fact that those "cheats" may actually be
innocent never seems to cross their mind.

At the obvious level, this is all about selling a semi-plausible
fiction to big-money advertisers.

Dick Pound cleaned up the Olympics, and great was the profit. That's
the game.

"Holy we're all working together" horse****, IOW.

How many (just for conversation's sake) fewer might have died had EPO
not been driven underground? IOW, (for instance) an official medical
board openly getting information from riders and trainers, working
toward safe administration of "whatever"?

Why are there still "tests" when the tests: 1) are known to be faulty,
expensive; and 2) not nearly as effective as wiretaps at catching
dopers even when the dopers are tested with "dope on board"?

(A) This goes a lot deeper than "fairness in sport". (stated opinion)
--D-y

In article
.com,
" wrote:

On May 11, 4:00 am, Burt wrote:
If you work at the LNDD, UCI, WADA, USADA,
or are a member of the Arbitration Panel, you can **** up, not follow
the rules, leak information to the press, etc., etc., and its all
okay, so long as you're working toward the "greater good" of trying to
catch drug cheats...the fact that those "cheats" may actually be
innocent never seems to cross their mind.

At the obvious level, this is all about selling a semi-plausible
fiction to big-money advertisers.

Dick Pound cleaned up the Olympics, and great was the profit. That's
the game.

"Holy we're all working together" horse****, IOW.

How many (just for conversation's sake) fewer might have died had EPO
not been driven underground? IOW, (for instance) an official medical
board openly getting information from riders and trainers, working
toward safe administration of "whatever"?

Why are there still "tests" when the tests: 1) are known to be faulty,
expensive; and 2) not nearly as effective as wiretaps at catching
dopers even when the dopers are tested with "dope on board"?

(A) This goes a lot deeper than "fairness in sport". (stated opinion)

Obviously drugs will not be driven out of sport.
Obviously the current strategy will neither `clean up
the sport', nor drive drugs out of sport. The
arguments against open doping are persuasive. I will
add another. We do not want to think about doping while
watching our sport. The old ways are the best ways. If
nobody dies, then nobody kicks up a fuss. I do not
follow FIFA, but the big money sports in the USA get it
right. No official doping announcements while testing
and appeals are underway, and no leaks. Then a quite
announcement that a named player has been suspended for
n games. First across the line is the winner. No
rewriting records. Track and field is where this
current bad idea got going.

--
Michael Press

In article .com,
RicodJour wrote:

On May 11, 9:12 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

Maybe little green men jumped out of a spaceship and their
lethal bodily imminations ...

Are imminations things that will soon be expelled? I feel an eminent
immination is imminent. Must be the bran muffin.

But not a brain muffin.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?