Landis Hearing Closed

On Sep 15, 2:28 pm, " wrote:
On Sep 15, 2:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

If I understand your sidestepping properly you seem to be saying that it's
perfectly OK to falsely accuse Floyd of cheating and to keep him from making
a living for what would have been the most profitable years of his career.

Gosh, Tom, what makes you think Floyd Landis was falsely accused?

(trying again) (Gee Mr. Wizard approach this time) (why not) --D-y

Come on Tom, I'll post my real name g

If I understand it properly WADA procedures say that if the A-test and
it's backup varied by more than 30% that the sample had to be thrown
out as contaminated. The initial test of Floyd's urinalysis was 4.5:1
for the T/E ratio. The backup on the same sample several hours later
showed 11:1 which signaled a contaminant present. The lab did not
follow procedure and toss the samples.

Since the proper procedures were not followed, any claim that Floyd
was using drugs is a complete fabrication without foundation. You do
know what being "falsely accused" means don't you?

wrote:
On Sep 15, 2:28 pm, " wrote:

On Sep 15, 2:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:


If I understand your sidestepping properly you seem to be saying that it's
perfectly OK to falsely accuse Floyd of cheating and to keep him from making
a living for what would have been the most profitable years of his career.

Gosh, Tom, what makes you think Floyd Landis was falsely accused?

(trying again) (Gee Mr. Wizard approach this time) (why not) --D-y

Come on Tom, I'll post my real name g


If I understand it properly WADA procedures say that if the A-test and
it's backup varied by more than 30% that the sample had to be thrown
out as contaminated. The initial test of Floyd's urinalysis was 4.5:1
for the T/E ratio. The backup on the same sample several hours later
showed 11:1 which signaled a contaminant present. The lab did not
follow procedure and toss the samples.

Since the proper procedures were not followed, any claim that Floyd
was using drugs is a complete fabrication without foundation. You do
know what being "falsely accused" means don't you?



The "positive" test comes from the metabolites of synthetic testosterone
of his positive sample as well as his negative samples, and not the T:E
ratio test itself. Specifically, the C13:C12 ratio test. That is what
this case is about, and not the T:E test.

Even if you were to argue for the invalidation of the T:E result, it
would not explain how come his samples also failed the synthetic C13:C12
test. "Contamination" would not explain it because the use of that word
means bacteria in Floyd's case and that would not cause a C13:C12
positive test.

You play fast and loose with the facts, ****hole.

Thanks,

Magilla

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:

William Asher wrote:
Speaking of apathetic, is it just me or is it really hard to get into
the Vuelta. I mean, I read the live reports, and find myself not really
caring, one way or the other. "Oh, Sanchez won. Neat." Is the racing
boring or has the Tour sucked the life out of cycling?

I feel compelled to care because of the Dutch Rabo connection. And I
must say, it's nice for Menchov to get his moment in the spotlight
after the Heras debacle.

Anything else is mostly an extended Worlds preview. On that note,
Sanchez's win was significant. He's strong again and could be a
deciding factor like he almost was last year (or he was, but not
getting his compatriot the win).



Yeah yeah, whatever. I guess I only care about Sanchez because last year I
had him on a fantasy Vuelta team along with Vinokourov and I did pretty
well. I would have done even better but I got a couple of Angel Gomez's
confused and picked the wrong one.

It all seems like the year that the ATP pros walked from Wimbledom and
Kodes won. Yeah, he won Wimbledom but ...

--
Bill Asher

On Sep 16, 5:49 pm, William Asher wrote:

Speaking of apathetic, is it just me or is it really hard to get into
the Vuelta. I mean, I read the live reports, and find myself not really
caring, one way or the other.

Watching bike racing is a recreation. Have you considered
recreational doping? It is performance enhancing, don't you know?

On Sep 15, 7:54 am, billb wrote:

Every system, judicial or otherwise, must function well for the
majority of its applications. Legislation/design by anecdote leads
only to disorganization and chaos...

So law in the US does not function well. I knew it!!!! {laughs}

On Sep 17, 10:41 am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
The "positive" test comes from the metabolites of synthetic testosterone
of his positive sample as well as his negative samples, and not the T:E
ratio test itself. Specifically, the C13:C12 ratio test. That is what
this case is about, and not the T:E test.

Well, firstly you have to get TO the ratio test. And to get there they
proved that the sample was contaminated and therefore the C13:C12
ratio was unreliable at best. And then you have to understand that in
fact the C13:C12 ratios were tested several times and came out
different each time. Some of the time the ratios were proper and if he
had been using artificial testosterone that would never be the case.

Even if you were to argue for the invalidation of the T:E result, it
would not explain how come his samples also failed the synthetic C13:C12
test. "Contamination" would not explain it because the use of that word
means bacteria in Floyd's case and that would not cause a C13:C12
positive test.

Contaminant might be bacteria but it could also be yeast which, in
case you missed your biology, is a plant.


You play fast and loose with the facts, ****hole.

Thanks,

Magilla- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sep 15, 2:28 pm, " wrote:

On Sep 15, 2:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:


If I understand your sidestepping properly you seem to be saying that
it's
perfectly OK to falsely accuse Floyd of cheating and to keep him from
making
a living for what would have been the most profitable years of his
career.

Gosh, Tom, what makes you think Floyd Landis was falsely accused?

(trying again) (Gee Mr. Wizard approach this time) (why not) --D-y

Come on Tom, I'll post my real name g

If I understand it properly WADA procedures say that if the A-test and
it's backup varied by more than 30% that the sample had to be thrown
out as contaminated. The initial test of Floyd's urinalysis was 4.5:1
for the T/E ratio. The backup on the same sample several hours later
showed 11:1 which signaled a contaminant present. The lab did not
follow procedure and toss the samples.

Since the proper procedures were not followed, any claim that Floyd
was using drugs is a complete fabrication without foundation. You do
know what being "falsely accused" means don't you?

The "positive" test comes from the metabolites of synthetic testosterone
of his positive sample as well as his negative samples, and not the T:E
ratio test itself. Specifically, the C13:C12 ratio test. That is what
this case is about, and not the T:E test.

In case you missed it - the carbon ratio tests were performed multiple times
and came out differently despite the test being completely automated and not
open to interpretation.

Even if you were to argue for the invalidation of the T:E result, it would
not explain how come his samples also failed the synthetic C13:C12 test.
"Contamination" would not explain it because the use of that word means
bacteria in Floyd's case and that would not cause a C13:C12 positive test.

You play fast and loose with the facts, ****hole.

Even if you had half of a clue you'd know that contamination by bacteria OR
yeast or many other things can change the carbon ratio tests.

You demonstrate utter ignorance and think that you're smart.