Fabiani--Dumb and Dumber

On Jun 2, 6:49*am, "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

At the time of testing the samples were anonymous. The fact that it
can be figured out "after" the result doesn't necessarily invalidate
that result. It depends on whether the method used could have
identified the sample before or during the test or in some way allowed
the result to be fudged. An example of this would be switching
identifiers with a failed or clean sample and its B sample. On the
other hand, any further testing of those samples is arguably severely
compromised.
Phil H

On 6/2/2011 5:40 PM, Phil H wrote:
On Jun 2, 6:49 am, "Benjo wrote:
"ilan" schreef in ...

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.

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

At the time of testing the samples were anonymous. The fact that it
can be figured out "after" the result doesn't necessarily invalidate
that result. It depends on whether the method used could have
identified the sample before or during the test or in some way allowed
the result to be fudged. An example of this would be switching
identifiers with a failed or clean sample and its B sample. On the
other hand, any further testing of those samples is arguably severely
compromised.
Phil H
Quite right.

On Jun 2, 11:40*pm, Phil H wrote:
On Jun 2, 6:49*am, "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

At the time of testing the samples were anonymous. The fact that it
can be figured out "after" the result doesn't necessarily invalidate
that result. It depends on whether the method used could have
identified the sample before or during the test or in some way allowed
the result to be fudged. An example of this would be switching
identifiers with a failed or clean sample and its B sample. On the
other hand, any further testing of those samples is arguably severely
compromised.
Phil H

First of all, it is unclear that the samples were anonymous, if this
Swiss lab did actually report that they belonged to Armstrong.
Secondly, none of these samples has any validity as proof of doping,
no matter what result is found, since the B sample wasn't tested.

-ilan

"ilan" schreef in bericht
...

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

If they know that one rider was tested after the first two and the last
three stages, it's very easy for a laboratory to find which samples are his.
Of course, the most logical explanation is that the laboratory was informed
that the suspicious samples were Armstrong's after they had sent them to the
UCI.

Benjo

On 6/2/2011 3:43 AM, BL wrote:
Now taking on Associated Press.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...06-02-03-06-17


'The director of the Swiss anti-doping laboratory informed federal
authorities last fall that Lance Armstrong's test results from the 2001
Tour de Suisse were "suspicious" and "consistent with EPO use,"'

Pffft! What a non-story. Breathing is also "consistent with EPO use".

On 6/2/2011 6:12 PM, ilan wrote:
On Jun 2, 11:40 pm, Phil wrote:
On Jun 2, 6:49 am, "Benjo wrote:









"ilan" schreef in ...

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.

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

At the time of testing the samples were anonymous. The fact that it
can be figured out "after" the result doesn't necessarily invalidate
that result. It depends on whether the method used could have
identified the sample before or during the test or in some way allowed
the result to be fudged. An example of this would be switching
identifiers with a failed or clean sample and its B sample. On the
other hand, any further testing of those samples is arguably severely
compromised.
Phil H

First of all, it is unclear that the samples were anonymous, if this
Swiss lab did actually report that they belonged to Armstrong.
Secondly, none of these samples has any validity as proof of doping,
no matter what result is found, since the B sample wasn't tested.

-ilan
I think you're missing the point. The Grand Jury is not considering a
sporting doping case where a certain threshold must be met for a
positive finding. Any finding of EPO in Armstrong's blood and urine is
evidence of having perpetrated a criminal fraud. All that matters is the
physical chain of custody and that the testing was properly done.

On Jun 2, 7:49*am, "Benjo Maso" wrote:


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

This presumes that they use the same sample ID for a given rider on
each sample from that rider. If they assign a new ID to each sample,
then there'd be no way to know that five suspicious samples were from
the same rider. If they don't assign a new ID to each sample, they
may as well just write the rider's name on it, for the very reason you
point out above.

On 6/3/2011 8:25 AM, BL wrote:

I think you're missing the point. The Grand Jury is not considering a
sporting doping case where a certain threshold must be met for a
positive finding. Any finding of EPO in Armstrong's blood and urine is
evidence of having perpetrated a criminal fraud. All that matters is the
physical chain of custody and that the testing was properly done.

Good Grief Brian are seriously expecting any of us to believe this ?

What events prompted this "witch hunt" exactly ? be precise. It's solely
because of statements made a a few people. Correct ?

For the sake of argument - lets say "Three" People......

Therefore anytime three people accuse someone of doping, even as long as
ten years ago, our Govt will initiate a Grand Jury investigation to
pursue the matter ?!?!?!?

Not to mention if they fail to investigate a single case then they are
not following a dangerous precedent. A costly one too. But given your
hatred of Armstrong I'm sure you'd be willing to underwrite the entire
cost of this right ?

Furthermore, the US doesn't have jurisdiction over what a citizen puts
into their bodies while on foreign soil. So once again you fall well
short of the mark.

What is undoubtedly happening here is that they are investigating
widespread doping and "trafficking" and possible misuse of Govt funds to
facilitate it. And even if Armstrong is found to have evidence of, for
example: EPO, in past samples that does not provide proof of anything
other than what it is. EPO use. The same standards would apply with that
finding. There would have to be proof of how it actually got there.
Perhaps it will be another tainted meat defense lol. But the presence
of EPO while in France violates no US law. So while you get orgasmic at
the thought of wonder boy doing time for that - it will amount to
nothing. The Govt will have to prove the trafficking charge or misuse of
funds. And this become a lot harder to prove. Unless of course a Govt
check was signed over to the good doctor by Armstrong. Which is highly
unlikely.

The Govts best shot is an obstruction charge. But since "we" have no
knowledge of what he has testified to in the first place - it's only a
guess.

They must give out Law Degrees in Cracker Jack boxes these days....


Bill

--

William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com

On 6/3/2011 12:40 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
On 6/3/2011 10:48 AM, BL wrote:

Been living in your spider hole too long, friend. You're not even close
to knowing, let alone understanding, what's going on.


BS ....... You will need to support you claim by telling us what is
going on then. Which of course, you cannot do because you are as
clueless , or perhaps more so because of your *agenda*, than the rest of
us.
I don't "need" to do anything. The only "aganda" I have is to see the
facts come out, preferably in court.



More than a few people have asked you specifically to state what US
law(s) were broken. And yet you have declined to answer. And providing
details of suspected EPO use - while novel, does not support any such
infraction of US Law.


Again, you've been in the spider hole too long. We've discussed here,
RICO, insurance fraud, mail and wire fraud, money laundering, violation
of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to mention a few. Actual EPO use is
a very small, albeit important, part of the picture.


Bill

On 6/3/2011 12:53 PM, BL wrote:

Again, you've been in the spider hole too long. We've discussed here,
RICO, insurance fraud, mail and wire fraud, money laundering, violation
of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to mention a few. Actual EPO use is
a very small, albeit important, part of the picture.

Why did you leave genocide and impersonating an officer off the list?
We've discussed those, too!