What's the problem ?

a écrit dans le message de news:
...

Mark wrote:
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
ink.net...
"benjo maso" wrote in message
...

If that's the case don't you think that they'd want to find a lab they
trusted? I sure as hell wouldn't trust a lab that leaked the
information
on the A Sample. It's my guess that the sample was tampered with.


If it's tampered, it doesn't matter which lab they use, it'll laways
show
up positive. But that's my guess, too. I think in 99.9% of all positive
doping cases it was a tampered probe. We need to trust the athletes and
if
they say they are innocent then they are, period. That would save a lot
of
money on all the dope tests, too. We also need to extend that policy to
the
criminal system.

I agree so completely. And think of the wonderful effect this would
have on all the young riders. The idea that a little patch of T could
mean eight minutes would forever be blown away from their young
impressionable minds my the breeze of truth nNever to be seen or heard
again. And the WADA witch will forever be locked away by the rays of
sunlite justice.


It is heartwarming to see that we are numerous to share the same opinion.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:16:39 GMT, Keith wrote:

The rules you just posted said he had a week. So what's this talk about delaying
tactic.

If he's got a week, then he's got a week.

Ron

True, but I guess if it were me and I believed I was innocent I'd be
demanding the B test ASAP.

Yes, another nail in the coffin, let's see:
1. 11:1 ratio
2. Exogeneous testosterone with IRMS that Phonak somehow "forgets" to
mention in their announcement
3. Lawyer trashes proven IRMS method
4. Playing for time

oops forgot one
5. Saying they know the B sample will come back positive too...almost
makes you think they knew they had it coming for the A one, but took a
chance.


Hopefully anyone with a brain will have now seen the light and written
off that cheater. Best thing would now be for him to fess up to avoid
going to Memmonite hell, that can't be much fun based on their life in
this world.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:23:52 -0700, "Mark" wrote:


"saki" wrote in message
...
Montesquiou wrote in :


The U.S. business magazine Forbes is reporting that Landis' lawyer did in
fact request a test for sample B:

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/...ap2916504.html

Yes, but according to this the UCI requested it Sunday night in order to
avoid the result getting delayed by vacation:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-23218,00.html


Aww now what the hell.

Haven't we been reading that the B sample is reserved for the riders defense and
is tested at his request.

If they're going to just go ahead and burn the B sample in testing without
waiting for the rider, then they damn well better make sure it's a negative.

Ron

"Mark" wrote in message
...

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
ink.net...
"benjo maso" wrote in message
...

If that's the case don't you think that they'd want to find a lab they
trusted? I sure as hell wouldn't trust a lab that leaked the information
on the A Sample. It's my guess that the sample was tampered with.

If it's tampered, it doesn't matter which lab they use, it'll laways show
up positive.

Thanks for showing that you don't know the slightest thing about drug
testing.

"Keith" wrote in message
...
I thought that the B Sample could be analyzed AT A LABORATORY of the
rider's
choosing as long as it was UCI approved?

If that's the case don't you think that they'd want to find a lab they
trusted? I sure as hell wouldn't trust a lab that leaked the information
on
the A Sample. It's my guess that the sample was tampered with.

What makes you think THEY leaked it, if it were the case they be in
massive trouble it seems. There were many, many opportunities for the
info to be leaked after it got to the UCI.

Somehow it turns out to be the same Lab that leaked all of the information
about the Armstrong tests I believe. Interesting is that the UCI is still
using them.

"Keith" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
I thought that the B Sample could be analyzed AT A LABORATORY of the
rider's
choosing as long as it was UCI approved?

If that's the case don't you think that they'd want to find a lab they
trusted? I sure as hell wouldn't trust a lab that leaked the information
on
the A Sample. It's my guess that the sample was tampered with.

What makes you think THEY leaked it, if it were the case they be in
massive trouble it seems. There were many, many opportunities for the
info to be leaked after it got to the UCI.


Because for 4 days, the only source for this information was a certain M
Ressiot of L'Equipe. The same reported who got leaked lab results from LNDD
in Armstrong's case a year ago.

What makes you think THEY leaked it, if it were the case they be in
massive trouble it seems. There were many, many opportunities for the
info to be leaked after it got to the UCI.


Because for 4 days, the only source for this information was a certain M
Ressiot of L'Equipe. The same reported who got leaked lab results from LNDD
in Armstrong's case a year ago.

Nothing got leaked last year, it was public information. What was
leaked were 1999 testing records that the UCI gave to L'Equipe after
some kind of misunderstanding with LA it seems.

L'Equipe just used their brains. The rule is that abnormal T/E
triggers an IRMS test for confirmation, period.

Mark wrote:
We need to trust the athletes and if
they say they are innocent then they are, period. That would save a lot of
money on all the dope tests, too. We also need to extend that policy to the
criminal system.

Excellent idea! And we know from TV that everyone in prison claims to
be innocent. This would be huge benefit to the economy. If only we
could find a way to enforce taxation on the drug dealers and other
criminal, uh I mean "innocence" enterprises we'd be projecting massive
surpluses instead of deficits.

And there would be second order savings as well. Since everyone will be
innocent there is no need for police forces. There will be no crime
because no one will admit to it.

I like it!

"Keith" wrote in message
...
What makes you think THEY leaked it, if it were the case they be in
massive trouble it seems. There were many, many opportunities for the
info to be leaked after it got to the UCI.


Because for 4 days, the only source for this information was a certain M
Ressiot of L'Equipe. The same reported who got leaked lab results from
LNDD
in Armstrong's case a year ago.

Nothing got leaked last year, it was public information. What was
leaked were 1999 testing records that the UCI gave to L'Equipe after
some kind of misunderstanding with LA it seems.

L'Equipe just used their brains. The rule is that abnormal T/E
triggers an IRMS test for confirmation, period.

"What was leaked were 1999 testing records that the UCI gave to L'Equipe
after some kind of misunderstanding with LA it seems."

Uhh, right, just some "misunderstanding".

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:52:34 GMT, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote:

"Keith" wrote in message
.. .
What makes you think THEY leaked it, if it were the case they be in
massive trouble it seems. There were many, many opportunities for the
info to be leaked after it got to the UCI.


Because for 4 days, the only source for this information was a certain M
Ressiot of L'Equipe. The same reported who got leaked lab results from
LNDD
in Armstrong's case a year ago.

Nothing got leaked last year, it was public information. What was
leaked were 1999 testing records that the UCI gave to L'Equipe after
some kind of misunderstanding with LA it seems.

L'Equipe just used their brains. The rule is that abnormal T/E
triggers an IRMS test for confirmation, period.

"What was leaked were 1999 testing records that the UCI gave to L'Equipe
after some kind of misunderstanding with LA it seems."

Uhh, right, just some "misunderstanding".

Well if your memory fails you, feel free to look up what LA declared
last year about that "mishap". He was happy to have them take notes,
thinking they would have no use for them. In any case the LNDD had
nothing to do with that unlike what you claim.