the floyd bashers should be feeling REAL STOOPID about now...

Bill C wrote:
On Feb 25, 9:21 pm, "MMan" wrote:

On Feb 25, 7:50 pm, wrote:


You can call it a technicality, but if the only reason the test
results were announced as "positive" was due to the mishandling of the
samples and misuse of the machines, that's not a technicality, that's
one step below being framed. If they could find proof of intent, then
it would be being framed.

Damn right. If a tester was supposed to sign his full name and used
his middle initial instead of his middle name, *that* would be a
technicality.

This is beginning to look like gross negligence if not a deliberate
framing.


Which is what a lot of us have been saying about the negligence, and
political pressure being put on these labs to find athletes positive,
both by politicians and Dickpounder. There have been a long trail of
questioned and questionable activities, and not just by the riders
either.
I still can't see anyone having been deliberately framed, but I can
see tests that are open to interpretation being found positive, or
else, and then Pound convicting everyone in the press.
The system is screwed, and hopefully everything surrounding the sport
is in for a re-think shortly.
Bill C


Personally.. I would like to see dick poundsand get a nice healthy EPO
suppositotie shoved so far up his ass he tests 'positive' until his
final days. He has done nothing to combat drugs in sport, but he is a
master debater on the evils of certain athletes once they are 'outed'
for drug use.

Bob Schwartz wrote:
MMan wrote:

On Feb 25, 7:50 pm, wrote:

You can call it a technicality, but if the only reason the test
results were announced as "positive" was due to the mishandling of the
samples and misuse of the machines, that's not a technicality, that's
one step below being framed. If they could find proof of intent, then
it would be being framed.


Damn right. If a tester was supposed to sign his full name and used
his middle initial instead of his middle name, *that* would be a
technicality.

This is beginning to look like gross negligence if not a deliberate
framing.


Well, I asked the house specialist in mass spectroscopy. Her feeling
was that the stuff Baker came up with shouldn't matter. If there
were "major leaks near the inlet capillaries" introducing contaminants,
the most likely contaminants would be oxygen and nitrogen, ie air. And
it would be extremely unusual to see testosterone or epitestosterone
introduced as contaminants in this way. IOW, you might see stuff that
was not in the original sample show up, but you wouldn't see stuff in
the original sample show up as something else. If Landis' sample was
contaminated with T or E, it seems reasonable to ask where the **** it
could have come from.

She did say that it would be very unusual to not have the documentation
with the instrument. And this doesn't speak to having the same
technicians analyze the A and B samples.

Bob Schwartz

I sonehow have a feeling the this is going to result in a widespread
rework of the various anit-doping labs. I think that many organizations
are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the 'sheriff',
while not necessarily corrupt, is not capable of handling his deputies.

http://www.sportingo.com/more-sports...part/1001,2488

On Feb 25, 5:51?pm, "Burt" wrote:


"the floyd bashers should be feeling REAL STOOPID about now"

Nope. We didn't dope. Or get off on a technicality.

duped no more

On Feb 25, 5:20 pm, wrote:
On Feb 25, 5:51?pm, "Burt" wrote:

"the floyd bashers should be feeling REAL STOOPID about now"

Nope. We didn't dope. Or get off on a technicality.

duped no more

Considering that he can't PROVE his innocence, only defend himself
against the charges, a technicality may be the only way to go. The
whole issue of doping is ALL about technicalities, and while it may
pain you to think that a guilty party may get off due to a
technicality, it's far more aggregious for an innocent party to be
railroaded by an incompetent lab with incompetent techs because YOU
don't think a technicality is good enough.

You can call it a technicality, but if the only reason the test
results were announced as "positive" was due to the mishandling of the
samples and misuse of the machines, that's not a technicality, that's
one step below being framed. If they could find proof of intent, then
it would be being framed.

I'm sorry your career didn't work out the way you wanted or expected,
but Floyd shouldn't lose his livelyhood because you're still ****ed.

Fred

On Feb 25, 7:50 pm, wrote:
You can call it a technicality, but if the only reason the test
results were announced as "positive" was due to the mishandling of the
samples and misuse of the machines, that's not a technicality, that's
one step below being framed. If they could find proof of intent, then
it would be being framed.

Damn right. If a tester was supposed to sign his full name and used
his middle initial instead of his middle name, *that* would be a
technicality.

This is beginning to look like gross negligence if not a deliberate
framing.

MMan wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:50 pm, wrote:
You can call it a technicality, but if the only reason the test
results were announced as "positive" was due to the mishandling of the
samples and misuse of the machines, that's not a technicality, that's
one step below being framed. If they could find proof of intent, then
it would be being framed.

Damn right. If a tester was supposed to sign his full name and used
his middle initial instead of his middle name, *that* would be a
technicality.

This is beginning to look like gross negligence if not a deliberate
framing.


Getting off because you were framed might also be considered a
technicality by some...

On Feb 25, 9:21 pm, "MMan" wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:50 pm, wrote:

You can call it a technicality, but if the only reason the test
results were announced as "positive" was due to the mishandling of the
samples and misuse of the machines, that's not a technicality, that's
one step below being framed. If they could find proof of intent, then
it would be being framed.

Damn right. If a tester was supposed to sign his full name and used
his middle initial instead of his middle name, *that* would be a
technicality.

This is beginning to look like gross negligence if not a deliberate
framing.

Which is what a lot of us have been saying about the negligence, and
political pressure being put on these labs to find athletes positive,
both by politicians and Dickpounder. There have been a long trail of
questioned and questionable activities, and not just by the riders
either.
I still can't see anyone having been deliberately framed, but I can
see tests that are open to interpretation being found positive, or
else, and then Pound convicting everyone in the press.
The system is screwed, and hopefully everything surrounding the sport
is in for a re-think shortly.
Bill C

In article
,
Fred Fredburger
wrote:

MMan wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:50 pm, wrote:
You can call it a technicality, but if the only reason the test
results were announced as "positive" was due to the mishandling of the
samples and misuse of the machines, that's not a technicality, that's
one step below being framed. If they could find proof of intent, then
it would be being framed.

Damn right. If a tester was supposed to sign his full name and used
his middle initial instead of his middle name, *that* would be a
technicality.

This is beginning to look like gross negligence if not a deliberate
framing.


Getting off because you were framed might also be considered a
technicality by some...

Lie down and enjoy it.

--
Michael Press

MMan wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:50 pm, wrote:
You can call it a technicality, but if the only reason the test
results were announced as "positive" was due to the mishandling of the
samples and misuse of the machines, that's not a technicality, that's
one step below being framed. If they could find proof of intent, then
it would be being framed.

Damn right. If a tester was supposed to sign his full name and used
his middle initial instead of his middle name, *that* would be a
technicality.

This is beginning to look like gross negligence if not a deliberate
framing.

Well, I asked the house specialist in mass spectroscopy. Her feeling
was that the stuff Baker came up with shouldn't matter. If there
were "major leaks near the inlet capillaries" introducing contaminants,
the most likely contaminants would be oxygen and nitrogen, ie air. And
it would be extremely unusual to see testosterone or epitestosterone
introduced as contaminants in this way. IOW, you might see stuff that
was not in the original sample show up, but you wouldn't see stuff in
the original sample show up as something else. If Landis' sample was
contaminated with T or E, it seems reasonable to ask where the **** it
could have come from.

She did say that it would be very unusual to not have the documentation
with the instrument. And this doesn't speak to having the same
technicians analyze the A and B samples.

Bob Schwartz