Tom is confused

"Tom Kunich" wrote in message news:eIdnd.2490

OK Bill, since you've obviously seen the test results and since she
had been
tested just before and just after the positive test and the half life of
nandrolone in the human body is known you will be able to tell us the
maximum dosage that she could have taken to return the results that were
shown. And you'll also be able to judge the theraputic effect of that
dose.

Those stupid jerks on the Court of Arbitration would NEVER be able to
figure
something like that one out but luckily for us we have Ladien to give
us the
straight skinny.

-------

Tom,

Strict liability rules in the WADA code mean that the ONLY thing WADA
has to prove is that the substance is in an athlete's body above a
certain cutoff limit. They don't have to do any analysis like you state
and, as a matter of fact, they are not allowed to do any such analysis.

Second, your analysis is faulty. I could explain, but I don't feel like
it right now.

Third, the cutoff limits WERE designed to detect therapeutic usage.

Fourth, you are implying that Amber's test was administered to her when
her 19-norandrosterone level was at maximum concentration. It most
likely was not. What you are saying is that someone who tests .04 on a
BAC was NEVER higher (i.e. .10 or above). You can't say that, dodo bird.

The "stupid jerks" on the CAS are suppose to enforce the federation
rules (UCI). They are not allowed to change them. Amber was positive
under UCI rules. They did the right thing.

The CAS did make a mistake in Amber's case: it failed to enforce Article
151 and 152, which would have tacked an extra 3 months onto her 6 month
suspension. So they were stupid in that respect.

Would you prefer a CAS that makes up their own rules?

You are a bit confused about how the whole drug thing work, no?

Magilla

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...
"Tom Kunich" wrote in message news:eIdnd.2490

OK Bill, since you've obviously seen the test results and since she
had been
tested just before and just after the positive test and the half life of
nandrolone in the human body is known you will be able to tell us the
maximum dosage that she could have taken to return the results that were
shown. And you'll also be able to judge the theraputic effect of that
dose.

Those stupid jerks on the Court of Arbitration would NEVER be able to
figure something like that one out but luckily for us we have Ladien to
give us the straight skinny.

Strict liability rules in the WADA code mean that the ONLY thing WADA has
to prove is that the substance is in an athlete's body above a certain
cutoff limit. They don't have to do any analysis like you state and, as a
matter of fact, they are not allowed to do any such analysis.

Having trouble understanding what we're talking about? Here's a clue - we
weren't talking about guilt but whether it appeared to be purposeful or not
which has a bearing on the penalty.

Second, your analysis is faulty. I could explain, but I don't feel like it
right now.

Probably because you have such a weak mind to go with that puny little weak
body.

BTW if you don't understand what I'm discussing as your message plainly
implies, just don't post anything rather than making yourself look even
dumber than the rest of us think you are.

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...
"Tom Kunich" wrote in message news:eIdnd.2490

OK Bill, since you've obviously seen the test results and since she
had been
tested just before and just after the positive test and the half life of
nandrolone in the human body is known you will be able to tell us the
maximum dosage that she could have taken to return the results that were
shown. And you'll also be able to judge the theraputic effect of that
dose.

Those stupid jerks on the Court of Arbitration would NEVER be able to
figure something like that one out but luckily for us we have Ladien to
give us the straight skinny.

Strict liability rules in the WADA code mean that the ONLY thing WADA has
to prove is that the substance is in an athlete's body above a certain
cutoff limit. They don't have to do any analysis like you state and, as a
matter of fact, they are not allowed to do any such analysis.

Having trouble understanding what we're talking about? Here's a clue - we
weren't talking about guilt but whether it appeared to be purposeful or not
which has a bearing on the penalty.

Second, your analysis is faulty. I could explain, but I don't feel like it
right now.

Probably because you have such a weak mind to go with that puny little weak
body.

BTW if you don't understand what I'm discussing as your message plainly
implies, just don't post anything rather than making yourself look even
dumber than the rest of us think you are.

Tom Kunich wrote:

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...

"Tom Kunich" wrote in message news:eIdnd.2490

OK Bill, since you've obviously seen the test results and since she

had been

tested just before and just after the positive test and the half life of
nandrolone in the human body is known you will be able to tell us the
maximum dosage that she could have taken to return the results that were
shown. And you'll also be able to judge the theraputic effect of that
dose.

Those stupid jerks on the Court of Arbitration would NEVER be able to
figure something like that one out but luckily for us we have Ladien to
give us the straight skinny.

Strict liability rules in the WADA code mean that the ONLY thing WADA has
to prove is that the substance is in an athlete's body above a certain
cutoff limit. They don't have to do any analysis like you state and, as a
matter of fact, they are not allowed to do any such analysis.


Having trouble understanding what we're talking about? Here's a clue - we
weren't talking about guilt but whether it appeared to be purposeful or not
which has a bearing on the penalty.


snip

Dumbass,

Yes, I actually do have a clue. The standard penalty for a positive
doping test under strict liability provisions in a UCI race is from 5
months to 2 years. Amber got a minimum (6 months). So they took that
into account when it came to the penalty phase. If they thought it was
intentional doping, they would have given her 2 years.

However, it should have been 9 months because of Article 151-153, but
the CAS made a mistake in its interpretation.

How come Amber didn't return her prize money from the three races from
which she was DQ'ed though? Answer that rocket scientist.

Magilla

Tom Kunich wrote:

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...

"Tom Kunich" wrote in message news:eIdnd.2490

OK Bill, since you've obviously seen the test results and since she

had been

tested just before and just after the positive test and the half life of
nandrolone in the human body is known you will be able to tell us the
maximum dosage that she could have taken to return the results that were
shown. And you'll also be able to judge the theraputic effect of that
dose.

Those stupid jerks on the Court of Arbitration would NEVER be able to
figure something like that one out but luckily for us we have Ladien to
give us the straight skinny.

Strict liability rules in the WADA code mean that the ONLY thing WADA has
to prove is that the substance is in an athlete's body above a certain
cutoff limit. They don't have to do any analysis like you state and, as a
matter of fact, they are not allowed to do any such analysis.


Having trouble understanding what we're talking about? Here's a clue - we
weren't talking about guilt but whether it appeared to be purposeful or not
which has a bearing on the penalty.


snip

Dumbass,

Yes, I actually do have a clue. The standard penalty for a positive
doping test under strict liability provisions in a UCI race is from 5
months to 2 years. Amber got a minimum (6 months). So they took that
into account when it came to the penalty phase. If they thought it was
intentional doping, they would have given her 2 years.

However, it should have been 9 months because of Article 151-153, but
the CAS made a mistake in its interpretation.

How come Amber didn't return her prize money from the three races from
which she was DQ'ed though? Answer that rocket scientist.

Magilla

Tom Kunich wrote:

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...

"Tom Kunich" wrote in message news:eIdnd.2490

OK Bill, since you've obviously seen the test results and since she

had been

snip


Second, your analysis is faulty. I could explain, but I don't feel like it
right now.


Probably because you have such a weak mind to go with that puny little weak
body.



Ok, now that you challenged me, I will offer to explain. Tell me what
you are disagreeing with in the CAS decision in Neben's case, and I will
explain to you in great detail why it is you who doesn't understand the
rules.

I already told you in the previous post why you are wrong though. What
am I missing, Tom?

Magilla

Tom Kunich wrote:

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...

"Tom Kunich" wrote in message news:eIdnd.2490

OK Bill, since you've obviously seen the test results and since she

had been

snip


Second, your analysis is faulty. I could explain, but I don't feel like it
right now.


Probably because you have such a weak mind to go with that puny little weak
body.



Ok, now that you challenged me, I will offer to explain. Tell me what
you are disagreeing with in the CAS decision in Neben's case, and I will
explain to you in great detail why it is you who doesn't understand the
rules.

I already told you in the previous post why you are wrong though. What
am I missing, Tom?

Magilla

Other stupid stuff snipped...

BTW if you don't understand what I'm discussing as your message plainly
implies, just don't post anything rather than making yourself look even
dumber than the rest of us think you are.

HOLY ****! Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

We all know that the 2 of you are the acknowledged experts about
everything, even if you're not.

Tom

Other stupid stuff snipped...

BTW if you don't understand what I'm discussing as your message plainly
implies, just don't post anything rather than making yourself look even
dumber than the rest of us think you are.

HOLY ****! Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

We all know that the 2 of you are the acknowledged experts about
everything, even if you're not.

Tom

Tom Arsenault wrote:

Other stupid stuff snipped...

BTW if you don't understand what I'm discussing as your message plainly
implies, just don't post anything rather than making yourself look even
dumber than the rest of us think you are.


HOLY ****! Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

We all know that the 2 of you are the acknowledged experts about
everything, even if you're not.

Tom

Some people actually are experts in things, you know. You and the other
Tom are not two of those people though.

Thanks,

Magilla