What's the problem ?

RonSonic 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.

benjo maso wrote:


Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four
month of deliberation to disqualify the first four?

Benjo



Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-)

Will you tell the story? Please?

j

"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

"jc" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
benjo maso wrote:


Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four
month of deliberation to disqualify the first four?

Benjo

Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-)

Will you tell the story? Please?

j

Motion appuyée !

The story right now pls.

"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.

"jc" wrote in message
...
benjo maso wrote:


Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four
month of deliberation to disqualify the first four?

Benjo

Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-)

Will you tell the story? Please?


Of course, in the first years there was hardly a serious supervision of the
riders and most of them were immediately accused of fraud. They should
covered many miles with the assistance of friendly car drivers, who
motorpaced them, allowed them to have been used cars, to motorpace the, to
allow them to clung to them or even to hide , which transported them used
cars which pulled or motorpaced them, or even allowed them to hide in the
cars. The should have taken short cuts, changed numbers with friendly riders
to dodge checkpoints, etc., etc. In short: they had done about everthing -
legal or not legal - to win. Tour director Desgranges knew quite well what
was going on, but tried to hide it as much as possible. Unfortunately the
UVF was incensed and investigated it as thouroughly as possible. The
results was that the four main culprits were disqualified and suspended for
several years (one of them even for life) with the result that the unknown,
only 19 year old Henri Cornet was declared winner.

Benjo

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.

benjo maso wrote:
"jc" wrote in message
...

benjo maso wrote:


Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four
month of deliberation to disqualify the first four?

Benjo

Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-)

Will you tell the story? Please?



Of course, in the first years there was hardly a serious supervision of the
riders and most of them were immediately accused of fraud. They should
covered many miles with the assistance of friendly car drivers, who
motorpaced them, allowed them to have been used cars, to motorpace the, to
allow them to clung to them or even to hide , which transported them used
cars which pulled or motorpaced them, or even allowed them to hide in the
cars. The should have taken short cuts, changed numbers with friendly riders
to dodge checkpoints, etc., etc. In short: they had done about everthing -
legal or not legal - to win. Tour director Desgranges knew quite well what
was going on, but tried to hide it as much as possible. Unfortunately the
UVF was incensed and investigated it as thouroughly as possible. The
results was that the four main culprits were disqualified and suspended for
several years (one of them even for life) with the result that the unknown,
only 19 year old Henri Cornet was declared winner.

Benjo



Thanks! :-)

If I could ask one more question?

Are there any other cases in which the winner of the Tour was
disqualified afterwards?

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

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.

"benjo maso" a écrit dans le message de news:
...

"jc" wrote in message
...
benjo maso wrote:


Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four
month of deliberation to disqualify the first four?

Benjo

Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-)

Will you tell the story? Please?


Of course, in the first years there was hardly a serious supervision of
the riders and most of them were immediately accused of fraud. They should
covered many miles with the assistance of friendly car drivers, who
motorpaced them, allowed them to have been used cars, to motorpace the,
to allow them to clung to them or even to hide , which transported them
used cars which pulled or motorpaced them, or even allowed them to hide in
the cars. The should have taken short cuts, changed numbers with friendly
riders to dodge checkpoints, etc., etc. In short: they had done about
everthing - legal or not legal - to win. Tour director Desgranges knew
quite well what was going on, but tried to hide it as much as possible.
Unfortunately the UVF was incensed and investigated it as thouroughly as
possible. The results was that the four main culprits were disqualified
and suspended for several years (one of them even for life) with the
result that the unknown, only 19 year old Henri Cornet was declared
winner.

Benjo


Happy days !
The supreme authority was called "Union Vélocipédique de France " LOL !
Imagine McQuaid president of the IVU " Intenational Velocipedic Union "
and Desgranges telling to the commissaires : " next year we have to follow
them. Each one take his bike "