Fabiani--Dumb and Dumber

Now taking on Associated Press.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...06-02-03-06-17

On Jun 2, 12:43*pm, BL wrote:
Now taking on Associated Press.http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...RONG?SITE=AP&S...

This latest attack in fact gives the Armstrong camp their strongest
defense against these allegations:

"It was a unique situation and in those circumstances, it's not
appropriate for athletes or an athlete's entourage to be meeting with
lab operators," Howman said Wednesday. "Even if the meeting is as
innocent as the day is long, the perception it gives to other athletes
and members of the public is wrong, because the principle of anonymity
is what we rely on with labs."

This implies that knowledge by the laboratory that the suspicious
samples belonged to Armstrong immediately makes the samples void,
since the principle of anonymity has been violated.

-ilan

On 6/2/2011 8:05 AM, ilan wrote:
On Jun 2, 12:43 pm, wrote:
Now taking on Associated Press.http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...RONG?SITE=AP&S...

This latest attack in fact gives the Armstrong camp their strongest
defense against these allegations:

"It was a unique situation and in those circumstances, it's not
appropriate for athletes or an athlete's entourage to be meeting with
lab operators," Howman said Wednesday. "Even if the meeting is as
innocent as the day is long, the perception it gives to other athletes
and members of the public is wrong, because the principle of anonymity
is what we rely on with labs."

This implies that knowledge by the laboratory that the suspicious
samples belonged to Armstrong immediately makes the samples void,
since the principle of anonymity has been violated.

-ilan
It does not make them void relative to a criminal prosecution provided
the chain of physical custody is intact.

On 6/2/2011 8:17 AM, BL wrote:
On 6/2/2011 8:05 AM, ilan wrote:
On Jun 2, 12:43 pm, wrote:
Now taking on Associated
Press.http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...RONG?SITE=AP&S...


This latest attack in fact gives the Armstrong camp their strongest
defense against these allegations:

"It was a unique situation and in those circumstances, it's not
appropriate for athletes or an athlete's entourage to be meeting with
lab operators," Howman said Wednesday. "Even if the meeting is as
innocent as the day is long, the perception it gives to other athletes
and members of the public is wrong, because the principle of anonymity
is what we rely on with labs."

This implies that knowledge by the laboratory that the suspicious
samples belonged to Armstrong immediately makes the samples void,
since the principle of anonymity has been violated.

-ilan
It does not make them void relative to a criminal prosecution provided
the chain of physical custody is intact.

Did you check with a lawyer on that? Sure, they can present it.
Any decent lawyer (check with one) could tell you how to
undermine their credibility.

This time I'm not going to assume that you knew that.

F

On 6/2/2011 9:30 AM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
On 6/2/2011 8:17 AM, BL wrote:
On 6/2/2011 8:05 AM, ilan wrote:
On Jun 2, 12:43 pm, wrote:
Now taking on Associated
Press.http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...RONG?SITE=AP&S...



This latest attack in fact gives the Armstrong camp their strongest
defense against these allegations:

"It was a unique situation and in those circumstances, it's not
appropriate for athletes or an athlete's entourage to be meeting with
lab operators," Howman said Wednesday. "Even if the meeting is as
innocent as the day is long, the perception it gives to other athletes
and members of the public is wrong, because the principle of anonymity
is what we rely on with labs."

This implies that knowledge by the laboratory that the suspicious
samples belonged to Armstrong immediately makes the samples void,
since the principle of anonymity has been violated.

-ilan
It does not make them void relative to a criminal prosecution provided
the chain of physical custody is intact.

Did you check with a lawyer on that? Sure, they can present it.
Any decent lawyer (check with one) could tell you how to
undermine their credibility.

This time I'm not going to assume that you knew that.

F
Thanks for sharing, Moron.

"ilan" schreef in bericht
...

On Jun 2, 12:43 pm, BL wrote:
Now taking on Associated
Press.http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...RONG?SITE=AP&S...

This latest attack in fact gives the Armstrong camp their strongest
defense against these allegations:

"It was a unique situation and in those circumstances, it's not
appropriate for athletes or an athlete's entourage to be meeting with
lab operators," Howman said Wednesday. "Even if the meeting is as
innocent as the day is long, the perception it gives to other athletes
and members of the public is wrong, because the principle of anonymity
is what we rely on with labs."

This implies that knowledge by the laboratory that the suspicious
samples belonged to Armstrong immediately makes the samples void,
since the principle of anonymity has been violated.



I don't think so. If the first three of every stage and the man wearing the
golden jersey have been tested, Armstrong is the only one to have been
tested five times. If five samples of the same rider were suspicious, it's
impossible not to know they belonged to Armstrong.

Benjo

Last time I checked, "suspicious" doesn't mean "positive", so I don't
see how this news, if true, means much of anything to the LA case.
More of significance would be proving there was collusion between the
LA camp, the UCI, and the lab - even then, while unethical, short of
having transcripts of the meetings, I don't see this as being
significant, either. Still waiting on the paper trail of the USPS
money to the purchase of what Landis and Hamilton imply were huge
quantities of drugs over many years.

As for something that's suspicious, maybe WADA could talk about the T/
E ratio results across the whole peloton for the last 15+ years. While
there's a 4:1 limit for a positive test, my guess is that the
distribution of pro cyclist's T/E is probably 3 standard deviations
higher than the general male public.

Drug testing, in general, is a farce. This witch hunt against LA won't
change that.

On Jun 2, 3:49*pm, "Benjo Maso" wrote:
"ilan" *schreef in ...

On Jun 2, 12:43 pm, BL wrote:

Now taking on Associated
Press.http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...RONG?SITE=AP&S...

This latest attack in fact gives the Armstrong camp their strongest
defense against these allegations:

"It was a unique situation and in those circumstances, it's not
appropriate for athletes or an athlete's entourage to be meeting with
lab operators," Howman said Wednesday. "Even if the meeting is as
innocent as the day is long, the perception it gives to other athletes
and members of the public is wrong, because the principle of anonymity
is what we rely on with labs."

This implies that knowledge by the laboratory that the suspicious
samples belonged to Armstrong immediately makes the samples void,
since the principle of anonymity has been violated.

I don't think so. If the first three of every stage and the man wearing the
golden jersey have been tested, Armstrong is the only one to have been
tested five times. If five samples of the same rider were suspicious, it's
impossible not to know they belonged to Armstrong.

Benjo

If the scientific protocol is respected, then the laboratory cannot
know if samples from one day to the next are from the same rider.
Therefore, your argument is invalid, if the protocol is respected. If
the protocol is not respected, then the test is invalid.

-ilan

"ilan" schreef in bericht
...

On Jun 2, 3:49 pm, "Benjo Maso" wrote:
"ilan" schreef in
...

On Jun 2, 12:43 pm, BL wrote:

Now taking on Associated
Press.http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...RONG?SITE=AP&S...

This latest attack in fact gives the Armstrong camp their strongest
defense against these allegations:

"It was a unique situation and in those circumstances, it's not
appropriate for athletes or an athlete's entourage to be meeting with
lab operators," Howman said Wednesday. "Even if the meeting is as
innocent as the day is long, the perception it gives to other athletes
and members of the public is wrong, because the principle of anonymity
is what we rely on with labs."

This implies that knowledge by the laboratory that the suspicious
samples belonged to Armstrong immediately makes the samples void,
since the principle of anonymity has been violated.

I don't think so. If the first three of every stage and the man wearing
the
golden jersey have been tested, Armstrong is the only one to have been
tested five times. If five samples of the same rider were suspicious, it's
impossible not to know they belonged to Armstrong.

Benjo

If the scientific protocol is respected, then the laboratory cannot
know if samples from one day to the next are from the same rider.
Therefore, your argument is invalid, if the protocol is respected. If
the protocol is not respected, then the test is invalid.



They must not know if the samples are from the same rider before the
testing. But as soon they are tested the laboratory must at least be capable
to compare them, if only to check if they samples are indeed from the same
person.

benjo

On Jun 2, 5:37*pm, "Benjo Maso" wrote:
"ilan" *schreef in ...

On Jun 2, 3:49 pm, "Benjo Maso" wrote:









"ilan" *schreef in
...

On Jun 2, 12:43 pm, BL wrote:

Now taking on Associated
Press.http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...RONG?SITE=AP&S...

This latest attack in fact gives the Armstrong camp their strongest
defense against these allegations:

"It was a unique situation and in those circumstances, it's not
appropriate for athletes or an athlete's entourage to be meeting with
lab operators," Howman said Wednesday. "Even if the meeting is as
innocent as the day is long, the perception it gives to other athletes
and members of the public is wrong, because the principle of anonymity
is what we rely on with labs."

This implies that knowledge by the laboratory that the suspicious
samples belonged to Armstrong immediately makes the samples void,
since the principle of anonymity has been violated.

I don't think so. If the first three of every stage and the man wearing
the
golden jersey have been tested, Armstrong is the only one to have been
tested five times. If five samples of the same rider were suspicious, it's
impossible not to know they belonged to Armstrong.

Benjo

If the scientific protocol is respected, then the laboratory cannot
know if samples from one day to the next are from the same rider.
Therefore, your argument is invalid, if the protocol is respected. If
the protocol is not respected, then the test is invalid.

They must not know if the samples are from the same rider before the
testing. But as soon they are tested the laboratory must at least be capable
to compare them, if only to check if they samples are indeed from the same
person.

benjo

I do not see the reasoning behind your statement. On the contrary,
since all samples are anonymous, then the testing procedure does not
compare one sample to another. The laboratory has no need to know
whether samples from different days are from the same rider in order
to decide if a particular sample is positive. The identification of
the rider is done independently of the rider.

-ilan