No B Sample Needed For Tyler

I never said he was framed, loser. I said the test produces false
postives with his blood for whatever reason.

It's a scientific matter now - let's see what Hamilton's legal defense is.

What loophole are you talking about that I used? BTW, a loophole is
also known as an act that is in 100% compliance with the rules. You
appear to have a problem with the rules. I suggest you take that up with
the IOC and WADA.


Magilla from Manilla



JayofMontreal wrote:
And some idiots think despite the fact that someone said "I didn't do it"
that they actually didn't.

Tyler is blowing smoke, 2x he has tested positive, separate tests, separate
samples yet you still think he is being framed. He is guilty -- he did it,
the stakes are high and he figured no one would be looking for someone to
blood dope when there are so many drugs available. He assumed (wrongly)
that there was no way that they'd find out about him injecting someone elses
blood into him.

Look at the facts -- 2x being positive, 2 members of the same team positive,
0 positives from anyone else, any other team.

This isn't a legal argument, its a factual one, just because you're obsessed
with loopholes and blowing smoke doesn't add any validity to your argument.

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...

B. Lafferty wrote:


It appears that some people are quite certain that the new blood doping
test is relaible.

It appears that some people believe the earth is flat and aliens abduct
humans in spacecraft too.

What a great legal premise, Brian.

Magilla



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: 11/11/2004

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:05:33 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:


"Our in-house counsel, Simon Rofe,
has been speaking to medical experts to understand the scientific basis of
the test and if the B sample is actually necessary."


I thought the regs REQUIRED two tests, one to confirm. After all, it
isn't just the test itself that is being confirmed, but possible
issues with controls or contamination or singular events at the lab
(it was a pretty standard test at the hospital lab in Baltimore that
got messed up, over and over for a year, with lives on the line, so it
isn't just how reliably the test CAN be done - it is how well it WAS
done).

If the rules require it, then it is required, and thus necessary. What
is particularly hard about that?


Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
The cyclingnews piece indicates that the Russians and the Aussie's are
going to argue "an intent" to cheat and use the A sample and some other
facts (?) to prove thier case in front of the CAS. It's moved up a
level from the UCI and WADA as I read it.

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:05:33 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:


"Our in-house counsel, Simon Rofe,
has been speaking to medical experts to understand the scientific basis of
the test and if the B sample is actually necessary."


I thought the regs REQUIRED two tests, one to confirm. After all, it
isn't just the test itself that is being confirmed, but possible
issues with controls or contamination or singular events at the lab
(it was a pretty standard test at the hospital lab in Baltimore that
got messed up, over and over for a year, with lives on the line, so it
isn't just how reliably the test CAN be done - it is how well it WAS
done).

If the rules require it, then it is required, and thus necessary. What
is particularly hard about that?


Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
The cyclingnews piece indicates that the Russians and the Aussie's are
going to argue "an intent" to cheat and use the A sample and some other
facts (?) to prove thier case in front of the CAS. It's moved up a
level from the UCI and WADA as I read it.