Pound = Rumsfeld

[Bill C]

Anyone notice the both bluster and attack everyone who questions them?
Both are presiding over a major setback at best, both seem to be
protecting corrupt administrations, but at least the US has finally
gotten rid of scumsfeld.
When's the sporting world gonna be as smart as GWB?
Bill C

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 16 Nov 2006 13:50:32 -0800, "Bill C" >
wrote:

> Anyone notice the both bluster and attack everyone who questions them?
>Both are presiding over a major setback at best, both seem to be
>protecting corrupt administrations, but at least the US has finally
>gotten rid of scumsfeld.
> When's the sporting world gonna be as smart as GWB?
>Bill C

Pound is strange. A few years ago he was not at all agressive in
pursuing dopers. After the Salt Lake City Olympics, some journalists
asked the bronze medallist in the women's pursuit, who is outspoken
about fighting doping, if she thought the two people ahead of her in
that event were clean and she said something like "Not really." Pound
went ballistic, calling Scott's remarks irresponsible and pointing out
that those athletes had been tested.

Interestingly, over the course of the following year or two those two
athletes lost their medals due to doping and Scott eventually got the
gold (I think she's the only athlete to win bronze, silver and gold in
the same event).

Now instead of being sloppy and weak, Pound is reckless to try to look
strong.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[[email protected]]

Bill C wrote:
> Anyone notice the both bluster and attack everyone who questions them?
> Both are presiding over a major setback at best, both seem to be
> protecting corrupt administrations,

dumbass,

the two situations are not alike.

cycling is like the alcoholic, womanizing party-guy who's been dating a
woman who's a suspicous control-freak and marries her because of
pressure from parents even though he knows what she's like. eventually
he comes home smelling like booze and warm vagina and she's flipping
out, and he's like "wtf?", but what did you expect buddy ?

even though pound shoots his mouth off and a lot of improper things
have happened, the cycling bosses made the choice to sign on to WADA.
either were oblivious to the doping that was routine in euro-pro
cycling or they figured the dirty riders would somehow avoid scrutiny.

you can try to argue away one case or another (floyd, puerto, hondo,
hamilton), but there's dozens pending. these aren't all plots by pound
to justify the existence of WADA (which is what you seem to be
implying).

[RonSonic]

On 16 Nov 2006 13:50:32 -0800, "Bill C" > wrote:

> Anyone notice the both bluster and attack everyone who questions them?
>Both are presiding over a major setback at best, both seem to be
>protecting corrupt administrations, but at least the US has finally
>gotten rid of scumsfeld.
> When's the sporting world gonna be as smart as GWB?

Bad analogy. Rumsfield is vastly more competent than Pound. I'm sure you don't
think either has done his job well, but consider the level of difficulty. We've
got one guy in charge of a department of the US government and literally
millions of employees with opposition from literally every evil ******* on earth
as well as a lot of perfectly legitimate loyal opposition, versus what? A second
tier minion of a branch of the corrupt IOC.

Not even close. Pound wouldn't rate an appointment to any meaningful pentagon
job.

Ron

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:45:30 -0500, RonSonic
> wrote:

>Rumsfield is vastly more competent than Pound.

What evidence is there of this?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Chris]

I don't think there is another practical option for the bosses to have
chosen. Even though you can see problems, until others do and buy-in for
change there is little you can do unless you just want to quit, exit the
system and find another profession. The trick is to work with the system to
change it, being prepared for when change occurs and then to capitalize on
it when it happens.


> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Bill C wrote:
>> Anyone notice the both bluster and attack everyone who questions them?
>> Both are presiding over a major setback at best, both seem to be
>> protecting corrupt administrations,
>
> dumbass,
>
> the two situations are not alike.
>
> cycling is like the alcoholic, womanizing party-guy who's been dating a
> woman who's a suspicous control-freak and marries her because of
> pressure from parents even though he knows what she's like. eventually
> he comes home smelling like booze and warm vagina and she's flipping
> out, and he's like "wtf?", but what did you expect buddy ?
>
> even though pound shoots his mouth off and a lot of improper things
> have happened, the cycling bosses made the choice to sign on to WADA.
> either were oblivious to the doping that was routine in euro-pro
> cycling or they figured the dirty riders would somehow avoid scrutiny.
>
> you can try to argue away one case or another (floyd, puerto, hondo,
> hamilton), but there's dozens pending. these aren't all plots by pound
> to justify the existence of WADA (which is what you seem to be
> implying).
>

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
John Forrest Tomlinson >
wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:45:30 -0500, RonSonic
> > wrote:
>
> >Rumsfield is vastly more competent than Pound.
>
> What evidence is there of this?

He successfully ran a drug company.

--
Michael Press

[Donald Munro]

RonSonic wrote:
> We've got one guy in charge of a department of the US government and literally
> millions of employees with opposition from literally every evil ******* on earth

Is this evil ******* related to fat ******* and does he post to rbr ? Come
to think of it fat ******* is Scottish and we do have a Scottish poster......

[Bob Martin]

in 530677 20061117 072629 Donald Munro > wrote:
>RonSonic wrote:
>> We've got one guy in charge of a department of the US government and literally
>> millions of employees with opposition from literally every evil ******* on earth
>
>Is this evil ******* related to fat ******* and does he post to rbr ? Come
>to think of it fat ******* is Scottish and we do have a Scottish poster......

Is that Bliar's heavyweight successor?

[Donald Munro]

Donald Munro wrote:
>>Is this evil ******* related to fat ******* and does he post to rbr ? Come
>>to think of it fat ******* is Scottish and we do have a Scottish poster......

Bob Martin wrote:
> Is that Bliar's heavyweight successor?

I suspect the chancellor still has a way to go to get to this BMI:
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800018678/photo/436122

[Bill C]

On Nov 16, 6:51 pm, wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Anyone notice the both bluster and attack everyone who questions them?
> > Both are presiding over a major setback at best, both seem to be
> > protecting corrupt administrations,dumbass,
>
> the two situations are not alike.
>
> cycling is like the alcoholic, womanizing party-guy who's been dating a
> woman who's a suspicous control-freak and marries her because of
> pressure from parents even though he knows what she's like. eventually
> he comes home smelling like booze and warm vagina and she's flipping
> out, and he's like "wtf?", but what did you expect buddy ?
>
> even though pound shoots his mouth off and a lot of improper things
> have happened, the cycling bosses made the choice to sign on to WADA.
> either were oblivious to the doping that was routine in euro-pro
> cycling or they figured the dirty riders would somehow avoid scrutiny.
>
> you can try to argue away one case or another (floyd, puerto, hondo,
> hamilton), but there's dozens pending. these aren't all plots by pound
> to justify the existence of WADA (which is what you seem to be
> implying).

My thoughts were:
Egomaniacal - Both
Lust for power - Both
Bullies - Both
Liars - Both
**** poor, at best, ethics - Both
Have a major agenda - Both
Willing to massively overstate the case to get what they want - Both
Willing to cook the evidence - Both
Attack / Fire anyone who dares question them - both
Cover up lousy / wrong scientific analysis - Both
Cover for and protect , if not illegal then at least unethical actions
to promote the cause - Both
Damaging lots of innocents irreapairably - both

Different scale as others have pointed out, but same damn personality
pretty much.
Bill C

[Ken Prager]

In article m>,
"Bill C" > wrote:

> Anyone notice the both bluster and attack everyone who questions them?
> Both are presiding over a major setback at best, both seem to be
> protecting corrupt administrations, but at least the US has finally
> gotten rid of scumsfeld.

> When's the sporting world gonna be as smart as GWB?

You mean as smart as GWB's Dad's friends.

KP

[RonSonic]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:18:28 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:45:30 -0500, RonSonic
> wrote:
>
>>Rumsfield is vastly more competent than Pound.
>
>What evidence is there of this?

Dumbass -

I made that case and you snipped it.

Consulting the Peters Principle - that in any heirarchical organization
personnel will rise to the level of their incompetence - we see that both men
have pretty well pegged their respective personal achievement meters. Nobody's
giving either of them a promotion. So let's look at their most recent positions:
Rumsfield had employees who could successfully invade any country that Pound's
employees could mislabel a urine cup in.

Advantage Rummy

Ron

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 10:10:05 -0500, RonSonic
> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:18:28 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:45:30 -0500, RonSonic
> wrote:
>>
>>>Rumsfield is vastly more competent than Pound.
>>
>>What evidence is there of this?
>
>Dumbass -
>
>I made that case and you snipped it.


You wrote:
" I'm sure you don't think either has done his job well, but consider
the level of difficulty. We've got one guy in charge of a department
of the US government and literally millions of employees with
opposition from literally every evil ******* on earth as well as a lot
of perfectly legitimate loyal opposition, versus what? A second tier
minion of a branch of the corrupt IOC."

That's the case?

>Consulting the Peters Principle - that in any heirarchical organization
>personnel will rise to the level of their incompetence -

So you're saying that Rumsfeld is competent because he made it to
become Secretary of Defense? That begs the question of competent at
what? At being a toady who talks a good game? Of being good at
politics?

> So let's look at their most recent positions:
>Rumsfield had employees who could successfully invade any country that Pound's
>employees could mislabel a urine cup in.

You could surely say Rumsfeld was more powerful than Pound, but this
doesn't say much about his competence.


--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

Oops, I missed this
http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/2006/sixyears/index.html
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[MagillaGorilla]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> On 16 Nov 2006 13:50:32 -0800, "Bill C" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Anyone notice the both bluster and attack everyone who questions them?
>>Both are presiding over a major setback at best, both seem to be
>>protecting corrupt administrations, but at least the US has finally
>>gotten rid of scumsfeld.
>>When's the sporting world gonna be as smart as GWB?
>>Bill C
>
>
> Pound is strange. A few years ago he was not at all agressive in
> pursuing dopers. After the Salt Lake City Olympics, some journalists
> asked the bronze medallist in the women's pursuit, who is outspoken
> about fighting doping, if she thought the two people ahead of her in
> that event were clean and she said something like "Not really." Pound
> went ballistic, calling Scott's remarks irresponsible and pointing out
> that those athletes had been tested.
>
> Interestingly, over the course of the following year or two those two
> athletes lost their medals due to doping and Scott eventually got the
> gold (I think she's the only athlete to win bronze, silver and gold in
> the same event).
>
> Now instead of being sloppy and weak, Pound is reckless to try to look
> strong.


Give me a specific example fo when Pound was reckless?

Magilla

[Doug Smith]

Okay, so you don't like Pound. I'm sure Dick has some regard for human
life, unlike Don "A day without war is a day without sunshine" Rumsfeld.

But anyways....
I don't follow this topic as much as many of you, but I that won't stop me
from chipping in. How often is Pound actually correct or close to being
correct on the issues he spouts off on? Disregarding his style, ego, etc,
I get the feeling that he is closer to the truth than anyone else. I'll go
a step further and propose that he is one of the few that actually is
trying to uncover cheats, whatever his motivation is. Did you ever hear
about his accusation of doping in the NHL without any proof? Pound was
vilified in Canada for that. But you know what, he is probably close to
the truth. Dumbasses like Don Cherry insist good Canadian kids wouldn't
dope. uh-huh. There's hundreds of 18 year olds whose whole life is hockey,
maybe are too dumb to do anything else and they need to be stronger and
faster to get into the NHL. nah, they wouldn't dope.

Consider cycling. It's run by former cheats (ie former cyclists) and they
say they're trying to catch the cheats.

Pound reminds me of referees in professional sports. Everyone complains
about them and says what a ****ty job they do. At least they're doing it.
We have to put up with it until a better one comes along.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:39:18 -0500, MagillaGorilla
> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>> On 16 Nov 2006 13:50:32 -0800, "Bill C" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anyone notice the both bluster and attack everyone who questions them?
>>>Both are presiding over a major setback at best, both seem to be
>>>protecting corrupt administrations, but at least the US has finally
>>>gotten rid of scumsfeld.
>>>When's the sporting world gonna be as smart as GWB?
>>>Bill C
>>
>>
>> Pound is strange. A few years ago he was not at all agressive in
>> pursuing dopers. After the Salt Lake City Olympics, some journalists
>> asked the bronze medallist in the women's pursuit, who is outspoken
>> about fighting doping, if she thought the two people ahead of her in
>> that event were clean and she said something like "Not really." Pound
>> went ballistic, calling Scott's remarks irresponsible and pointing out
>> that those athletes had been tested.
>>
>> Interestingly, over the course of the following year or two those two
>> athletes lost their medals due to doping and Scott eventually got the
>> gold (I think she's the only athlete to win bronze, silver and gold in
>> the same event).
>>
>> Now instead of being sloppy and weak, Pound is reckless to try to look
>> strong.
>
>
>Give me a specific example fo when Pound was reckless?

Denouncing Landis before Landis's B sample was tested.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Bob Martin]

in 530688 20061117 151005 RonSonic > wrote:

>Rumsfield had employees who could successfully invade any country that Pound's
>employees could mislabel a urine cup in.

Please remind me : what was the last country his employees successfully invaded ?

[Kurgan Gringioni]

Chris wrote:
> I don't think there is another practical option for the bosses to have
> chosen.


<snip>




Dumbass -


In the US, Major League Baseball, the National Football League and the
National Basketball Association all test for drugs and none of them are
under the umbrella of WADA.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[RonSonic]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 09:16:56 GMT, Bob Martin > wrote:

>in 530688 20061117 151005 RonSonic > wrote:
>
>>Rumsfield had employees who could successfully invade any country that Pound's
>>employees could mislabel a urine cup in.
>
>Please remind me : what was the last country his employees successfully invaded ?

Uh, Iraq. Remember, it was in the news.

They have failed to take complete control of the country in the tyranical manner
to which it has been long accustomed but that's a question of politics not
maneuver.

Gotta admit, the whole, invade and conquer thing, they've got that down pretty
good.

Ron

[Donald Munro]

Bob Martin wrote:
>>Please remind me : what was the last country his employees successfully invaded ?

RonSonic wrote:
> Uh, Iraq. Remember, it was in the news.

Depends on how you define conquer.

[[email protected]]

Bill C wrote:
> On Nov 16, 6:51 pm, wrote:
> > Bill C wrote:
> > > Anyone notice the both bluster and attack everyone who questions them?
> > > Both are presiding over a major setback at best, both seem to be
> > > protecting corrupt administrations,dumbass,
> >
> > the two situations are not alike.
> >
> > cycling is like the alcoholic, womanizing party-guy who's been dating a
> > woman who's a suspicous control-freak and marries her because of
> > pressure from parents even though he knows what she's like. eventually
> > he comes home smelling like booze and warm vagina and she's flipping
> > out, and he's like "wtf?", but what did you expect buddy ?
> >
> > even though pound shoots his mouth off and a lot of improper things
> > have happened, the cycling bosses made the choice to sign on to WADA.
> > either were oblivious to the doping that was routine in euro-pro
> > cycling or they figured the dirty riders would somehow avoid scrutiny.
> >
> > you can try to argue away one case or another (floyd, puerto, hondo,
> > hamilton), but there's dozens pending. these aren't all plots by pound
> > to justify the existence of WADA (which is what you seem to be
> > implying).
>
> My thoughts were:
> Egomaniacal - Both
> Lust for power - Both
> Bullies - Both
> Liars - Both
> **** poor, at best, ethics - Both
> Have a major agenda - Both
> Willing to massively overstate the case to get what they want - Both
> Willing to cook the evidence - Both
> Attack / Fire anyone who dares question them - both
> Cover up lousy / wrong scientific analysis - Both
> Cover for and protect , if not illegal then at least unethical actions
> to promote the cause - Both
> Damaging lots of innocents irreapairably - both

dumbass,

good list.

[Kurgan Gringioni]

RonSonic wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 09:16:56 GMT, Bob Martin > wrote:
>
> >in 530688 20061117 151005 RonSonic > wrote:
> >
> >>Rumsfield had employees who could successfully invade any country that Pound's
> >>employees could mislabel a urine cup in.
> >
> >Please remind me : what was the last country his employees successfully invaded ?
>
> Uh, Iraq. Remember, it was in the news.
>
> They have failed to take complete control of the country in the tyranical manner
> to which it has been long accustomed but that's a question of politics not
> maneuver.
>
> Gotta admit, the whole, invade and conquer thing, they've got that down pretty
> good.




Dumbass -


The Iraq War which was successful (the one in 1991), there was no
invading nor conquering. Bush Sr. did the smart thing and stopped at
the border.

This time, they've invaded, but conquered? Saddam Hussein? Sure. The
Baath Party? Yes. Iraq itself? No. We'll leave and there will be a
civil war. It's only a matter of time and our "objective" will not have
been achieved.

"Many months ago it bacame obvious to all but the most ideologically
blinkered that America is losing the war launched to deal with a
chimeric problem (an arsenal of WMD) and to achieve a delusory goal (a
democracy that would inspire emulation, transforming the region)." -
George F. Will, conservative pundit


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[[email protected]]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2006 13:50:32 -0800, "Bill C" >
> wrote:
>
> > Anyone notice the both bluster and attack everyone who questions them?
> >Both are presiding over a major setback at best, both seem to be
> >protecting corrupt administrations, but at least the US has finally
> >gotten rid of scumsfeld.
> > When's the sporting world gonna be as smart as GWB?
> >Bill C
>
> Pound is strange. A few years ago he was not at all agressive in
> pursuing dopers. After the Salt Lake City Olympics, some journalists
> asked the bronze medallist in the women's pursuit, who is outspoken
> about fighting doping, if she thought the two people ahead of her in
> that event were clean and she said something like "Not really." Pound
> went ballistic, calling Scott's remarks irresponsible and pointing out
> that those athletes had been tested.
>
> Interestingly, over the course of the following year or two those two
> athletes lost their medals due to doping and Scott eventually got the
> gold (I think she's the only athlete to win bronze, silver and gold in
> the same event).
>

dumbass,

i forgot about the pound and beckie scott feud, looking back that
might've been a real turning point. he probably came out of that
feeling like the doping athletes made him look like a fool, which would
explain his current hostility.

[MagillaGorilla]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:39:18 -0500, MagillaGorilla
> > wrote:
>
>
>>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 16 Nov 2006 13:50:32 -0800, "Bill C" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anyone notice the both bluster and attack everyone who questions them?
>>>>Both are presiding over a major setback at best, both seem to be
>>>>protecting corrupt administrations, but at least the US has finally
>>>>gotten rid of scumsfeld.
>>>>When's the sporting world gonna be as smart as GWB?
>>>>Bill C
>>>
>>>
>>>Pound is strange. A few years ago he was not at all agressive in
>>>pursuing dopers. After the Salt Lake City Olympics, some journalists
>>>asked the bronze medallist in the women's pursuit, who is outspoken
>>>about fighting doping, if she thought the two people ahead of her in
>>>that event were clean and she said something like "Not really." Pound
>>>went ballistic, calling Scott's remarks irresponsible and pointing out
>>>that those athletes had been tested.
>>>
>>>Interestingly, over the course of the following year or two those two
>>>athletes lost their medals due to doping and Scott eventually got the
>>>gold (I think she's the only athlete to win bronze, silver and gold in
>>>the same event).
>>>
>>>Now instead of being sloppy and weak, Pound is reckless to try to look
>>>strong.
>>
>>
>>Give me a specific example fo when Pound was reckless?
>
>
> Denouncing Landis before Landis's B sample was tested.

But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time).
Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only
that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those cases, the
A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like the person is
truly negative, but rather that the concentration of banned substance
found was merely near the cut-off.

For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her
B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared
negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those
numbers.

The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO.


Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

> Chris wrote:
>
>>I don't think there is another practical option for the bosses to have
>>chosen.
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> In the US, Major League Baseball, the National Football League and the
> National Basketball Association all test for drugs and none of them are
> under the umbrella of WADA.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.
>


But that's only because none of those leagues select the players for the
Olympics. The only reason cycling is governed by WADA and USADA is
because they want to be able to select the athletes for the Olympics.

Magilla

[Bob Schwartz]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:39:18 -0500, MagillaGorilla
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 16 Nov 2006 13:50:32 -0800, "Bill C" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Anyone notice the both bluster and attack everyone who questions them?
>>>>> Both are presiding over a major setback at best, both seem to be
>>>>> protecting corrupt administrations, but at least the US has finally
>>>>> gotten rid of scumsfeld.
>>>>> When's the sporting world gonna be as smart as GWB?
>>>>> Bill C
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pound is strange. A few years ago he was not at all agressive in
>>>> pursuing dopers. After the Salt Lake City Olympics, some journalists
>>>> asked the bronze medallist in the women's pursuit, who is outspoken
>>>> about fighting doping, if she thought the two people ahead of her in
>>>> that event were clean and she said something like "Not really." Pound
>>>> went ballistic, calling Scott's remarks irresponsible and pointing out
>>>> that those athletes had been tested.
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, over the course of the following year or two those two
>>>> athletes lost their medals due to doping and Scott eventually got the
>>>> gold (I think she's the only athlete to win bronze, silver and gold in
>>>> the same event).
>>>>
>>>> Now instead of being sloppy and weak, Pound is reckless to try to look
>>>> strong.
>>>
>>>
>>> Give me a specific example fo when Pound was reckless?
>>
>>
>> Denouncing Landis before Landis's B sample was tested.
>
> But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time).
> Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only
> that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those cases, the
> A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like the person is
> truly negative, but rather that the concentration of banned substance
> found was merely near the cut-off.
>
> For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her
> B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared
> negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those
> numbers.
>
> The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO.

Dumbass,

What the **** are you talking about. Bergman was under 80%
and it didn't matter, they still got him. All they had to
do was change the rule (after the offense but before the
hearing) and that was that.

The EPO standard is an I-know-it-when-I-see-it standard,
they don't go just by the BAP cut-off anymore.

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/CAS%20Decision%20-%20Bergman.pdf

Bob Schwartz

[Kurgan Gringioni]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> > In the US, Major League Baseball, the National Football League and the
> > National Basketball Association all test for drugs and none of them are
> > under the umbrella of WADA.
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > K. Gringioni.
> >
>
>
> But that's only because none of those leagues select the players for the
> Olympics. The only reason cycling is governed by WADA and USADA is
> because they want to be able to select the athletes for the Olympics.




Dumbass -


And that's where the UCI is stupid.

They should let some other org. select Olympics riders and control the
drug testing process themselves. That way they could handle positives
more discreetly. The way it's handled now, there is a simultaneous
"testing process" going on in the press and the process is
overshadowing the racing.

You won't see that in the NFL even though their drug "problem" is
likely much more pervasive than in cycling. The result: ESPN reports on
the actual football being played.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[[email protected]]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time).
> Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only
> that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those cases, the
> A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like the person is
> truly negative, but rather that the concentration of banned substance
> found was merely near the cut-off.
>
> For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her
> B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared
> negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those
> numbers.
>
> The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO.

So what? The reason the cutoffs are where they are is so that
people can defend the testing process by saying that it is
conservatively defined so that an A and a B false positive
hardly ever happen. The have-it-both-ways position is then
to retroactively say, well the B sample was nearly positive,
so it counts even though it doesn't meet the criteria for a positive,
especially since we have reason to believe Marion Jones and
Adam Bergman are dirty dog dopers anyway. That increases
the number of dopers you can catch, at the price of making
it look like the process has no integrity.

When the process looks bad, even people who really did
get busted can use it for propaganda. Even your pal Ty-Ty
gets mileage out of every time Dick Pound shooots his
mouth off.

[Howard Kveck]

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> > But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time).
> > Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only
> > that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those cases, the
> > A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like the person is
> > truly negative, but rather that the concentration of banned substance
> > found was merely near the cut-off.
> >
> > For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her
> > B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared
> > negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those
> > numbers.
> >
> > The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO.
>
> So what? The reason the cutoffs are where they are is so that
> people can defend the testing process by saying that it is
> conservatively defined so that an A and a B false positive
> hardly ever happen. The have-it-both-ways position is then
> to retroactively say, well the B sample was nearly positive,
> so it counts even though it doesn't meet the criteria for a positive,
> especially since we have reason to believe Marion Jones and
> Adam Bergman are dirty dog dopers anyway.

They're (correctly) assuming that the general public isn't going to be interested
enough in the process to be aware (let alone care) that the difference is close as
that. They rely on the public believing that "it's a scientific test, so it can't be
wrong."

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Donald Munro]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
>> But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time).
>> Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only
>> that the B-sample tested below the cut-off.

wrote:
> So what? The reason the cutoffs are where they are is so that
> people can defend the testing process by saying that it is
> conservatively defined so that an A and a B false positive
> hardly ever happen. The have-it-both-ways position is then
> to retroactively say, well the B sample was nearly positive,

Its called fuzzy doping.

[RonSonic]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 18:15:08 +0200, Donald Munro >
wrote:

>Bob Martin wrote:
>>>Please remind me : what was the last country his employees successfully invaded ?
>
>RonSonic wrote:
>> Uh, Iraq. Remember, it was in the news.
>
>Depends on how you define conquer.

Ya know, if the greatest criticism of our fighting men is that they lack the
will to methodically stomp a people into submission, I can live with that.

Ron

[[email protected]]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Bob Martin wrote:
> >>Please remind me : what was the last country his employees successfully invaded ?
>
> RonSonic wrote:
> > Uh, Iraq. Remember, it was in the news.
>
> Depends on how you define conquer.

Actually, it depends on how you define "success."

The Rumsfeld metric for mission acccomplishment was
summarized neatly many years before Rummy first put
pen to memo paper:

"You can't break eggs without making an omelet -
That's what they tell the eggs."
-- Randall Jarrell

Ben

[Bill C]

On Nov 19, 1:19 pm, " >
wrote:
Actually, it depends on how you define "success."
>
> The Rumsfeld metric for mission acccomplishment was
> summarized neatly many years before Rummy first put
> pen to memo paper:
>
> "You can't break eggs without making an omelet -
> That's what they tell the eggs."
> -- Randall Jarrell
>
> Ben
Hey Ben
Rummy and his buddies are happy as hell. They drove up oil prices
making more fields here in the US economically viable while increasing
profits for all their other oil friends.
They've awarded shtiloads of no-bid or rigged contracts to their
friends who've delivererd either nothing, or faulty goods as documented
by the GAO, but they were ordered paid by Bush and Co. no matter how
egregious the faults were.
They have "privatized" tons of the military functions, at outrageous
cost, to their friends.
When Bush declared "Mission Accomplished!!", what he meant was
breaking our military, embarrassing the Country, and setting the table
for his war proffiteering friends.
Success on all counts judged by their scumbag standards.
Bill C

[Bill C]

On Nov 19, 1:50 pm, "Bill C" > wrote:
> When Bush declared "Mission Accomplished!!", what he meant was
> breaking our military, embarrassing the Country, and setting the table
> for his war proffiteering friends.
> Success on all counts judged by their scumbag standards.
> Bill C

Click on the report from Fresno:
http://www.sftt.org/

Americans die and Bush profits.
Bill C

[Carl Sundquist]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:45:30 -0500, RonSonic
> > wrote:
>
>>Rumsfield is vastly more competent than Pound.
>
> What evidence is there of this?
>

Google J. D. Searle, Rumsfeld


but then http://www.dorway.com/indexnew.html

[Howard Kveck]

In article om>,
" > wrote:

> Donald Munro wrote:
> > Bob Martin wrote:
> > >>Please remind me : what was the last country his employees successfully
> > >>invaded ?
> >
> > RonSonic wrote:
> > > Uh, Iraq. Remember, it was in the news.
> >
> > Depends on how you define conquer.
>
> Actually, it depends on how you define "success."

Well, if you go by the George W. Bush definition, "success" can be many different
things. Since he's made it clear that the troops are going to be there until after
he's out of office, then "victory" is anything that *doesn't* involve removing the
troops.

> The Rumsfeld metric for mission acccomplishment was
> summarized neatly many years before Rummy first put
> pen to memo paper:
>
> "You can't break eggs without making an omelet -
> That's what they tell the eggs."
> -- Randall Jarrell

Yep.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Howard Kveck]

In article >,
RonSonic > wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 18:15:08 +0200, Donald Munro >
> wrote:
>
> >Bob Martin wrote:
> >>>Please remind me : what was the last country his employees successfully
> >>>invaded ?
> >
> >RonSonic wrote:
> >> Uh, Iraq. Remember, it was in the news.
> >
> >Depends on how you define conquer.
>
> Ya know, if the greatest criticism of our fighting men is that they lack the
> will to methodically stomp a people into submission, I can live with that.

The complaints are not aimed at the soldiers, it's at the people above them
making the decisions that put them into this situation. The thing about wars is they
aren't very frequently as easily defined in terms of "victory" as, say, a bike race.
A rider crosses in front of everyone else and it's pretty clear-cut they won (yeah,
I know that's a gross oversimplification now that Pound is involved). In war,
particularly this one, there are circumstances beyond merely beating the other
country's army that will determine whether or not there is a real "victory." Iraq
was *far* more unstable than the neocons ever considered. They were ill served by
the Iraqi "Freedom Fighters" like Chalabi. They took a book called "The Arab Mind"
as gospel, even though any real Arabs could have told them it was a cartoonishly
drawn set of generalizations about "Arabs" and how they think. In particular, they
were ill-informed about the factionalization of the country. The Powell Doctrine
from GW 1 seems to have been the better choice.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Howard Kveck]

In article >, "Carl Sundquist" >
wrote:

> "John Forrest Tomlinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:45:30 -0500, RonSonic
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>Rumsfield is vastly more competent than Pound.
> >
> > What evidence is there of this?
> >
>
> Google J. D. Searle, Rumsfeld
>
>
> but then http://www.dorway.com/indexnew.html

It's also worth noting that Rumsfeld was on the board of directors of ABB, a
company that was awarded the contract to build two light water reactors for North
Korea in early 2000. He was involved in lobbying for ABB to get the job, according
to other board members. Of course, two years later, North Korea became part of the
"Axis of Evil." Heh...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Carl Sundquist]

> wrote in message
ups.com...

> "You can't break eggs without making an omelet -
> That's what they tell the eggs."
> -- Randall Jarrell

Ham and eggs: A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

[MagillaGorilla]

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:39:18 -0500, MagillaGorilla
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 16 Nov 2006 13:50:32 -0800, "Bill C" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone notice the both bluster and attack everyone who questions
>>>>>> them?
>>>>>> Both are presiding over a major setback at best, both seem to be
>>>>>> protecting corrupt administrations, but at least the US has finally
>>>>>> gotten rid of scumsfeld.
>>>>>> When's the sporting world gonna be as smart as GWB?
>>>>>> Bill C
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pound is strange. A few years ago he was not at all agressive in
>>>>> pursuing dopers. After the Salt Lake City Olympics, some journalists
>>>>> asked the bronze medallist in the women's pursuit, who is outspoken
>>>>> about fighting doping, if she thought the two people ahead of her in
>>>>> that event were clean and she said something like "Not really." Pound
>>>>> went ballistic, calling Scott's remarks irresponsible and pointing out
>>>>> that those athletes had been tested.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interestingly, over the course of the following year or two those two
>>>>> athletes lost their medals due to doping and Scott eventually got the
>>>>> gold (I think she's the only athlete to win bronze, silver and gold in
>>>>> the same event).
>>>>>
>>>>> Now instead of being sloppy and weak, Pound is reckless to try to look
>>>>> strong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Give me a specific example fo when Pound was reckless?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Denouncing Landis before Landis's B sample was tested.
>>
>>
>> But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the
>> time). Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent,
>> but only that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those
>> cases, the A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like
>> the person is truly negative, but rather that the concentration of
>> banned substance found was merely near the cut-off.
>>
>> For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her
>> B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared
>> negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those
>> numbers.
>>
>> The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO.
>
>
> Dumbass,
>
> What the **** are you talking about. Bergman was under 80%
> and it didn't matter, they still got him. All they had to
> do was change the rule (after the offense but before the
> hearing) and that was that.
>
> The EPO standard is an I-know-it-when-I-see-it standard,
> they don't go just by the BAP cut-off anymore.
>
> http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/CAS%20Decision%20-%20Bergman.pdf
>
>
> Bob Schwartz

Before I go and read this CAS decision, I will remind you that Bergman
confessed to using EPO. And that such a realization equates to USADA's
credibility as far as the EPO test is concerned, and not your
implication that the EPO standard is somehow incorrect.

In any event, there is a quantitative standard for the EPO test. You
probably just misread the CAS decision.

Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time).
>> Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only
>>that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those cases, the
>>A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like the person is
>>truly negative, but rather that the concentration of banned substance
>>found was merely near the cut-off.
>>
>>For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her
>>B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared
>>negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those
>>numbers.
>>
>>The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO.
>
>
> So what? The reason the cutoffs are where they are is so that
> people can defend the testing process by saying that it is
> conservatively defined so that an A and a B false positive
> hardly ever happen. The have-it-both-ways position is then
> to retroactively say, well the B sample was nearly positive,
> so it counts even though it doesn't meet the criteria for a positive,
> especially since we have reason to believe Marion Jones and
> Adam Bergman are dirty dog dopers anyway. That increases
> the number of dopers you can catch, at the price of making
> it look like the process has no integrity.
>
> When the process looks bad, even people who really did
> get busted can use it for propaganda. Even your pal Ty-Ty
> gets mileage out of every time Dick Pound shooots his
> mouth off.
>


Since the cut-off is determined by WADA/USADA to begin with, what real
difference does it make if they decide to lower it?

Also, you do know Bergman confessed to using EPO, right, thus proving
the EPO test in his case was correct. And USADA had the cojones to call
Jones's B-sample negative. So what exactly is it are you crying about?

Thanks,

Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

Howard Kveck wrote:

> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
>
>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>>But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time).
>>> Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only
>>>that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those cases, the
>>>A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like the person is
>>>truly negative, but rather that the concentration of banned substance
>>>found was merely near the cut-off.
>>>
>>>For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her
>>>B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared
>>>negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those
>>>numbers.
>>>
>>>The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO.
>>
>>So what? The reason the cutoffs are where they are is so that
>>people can defend the testing process by saying that it is
>>conservatively defined so that an A and a B false positive
>>hardly ever happen. The have-it-both-ways position is then
>>to retroactively say, well the B sample was nearly positive,
>>so it counts even though it doesn't meet the criteria for a positive,
>>especially since we have reason to believe Marion Jones and
>>Adam Bergman are dirty dog dopers anyway.
>
>
> They're (correctly) assuming that the general public isn't going to be interested
> enough in the process to be aware (let alone care) that the difference is close as
> that. They rely on the public believing that "it's a scientific test, so it can't be
> wrong."
>


Begman confessed to using EPO, so what exactly are you saying?

Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>>In the US, Major League Baseball, the National Football League and the
>>>National Basketball Association all test for drugs and none of them are
>>>under the umbrella of WADA.
>>>
>>>
>>>thanks,
>>>
>>>K. Gringioni.
>>>
>>
>>
>>But that's only because none of those leagues select the players for the
>>Olympics. The only reason cycling is governed by WADA and USADA is
>>because they want to be able to select the athletes for the Olympics.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> And that's where the UCI is stupid.
>
> They should let some other org. select Olympics riders and control the
> drug testing process themselves. That way they could handle positives
> more discreetly. The way it's handled now, there is a simultaneous
> "testing process" going on in the press and the process is
> overshadowing the racing.
>
> You won't see that in the NFL even though their drug "problem" is
> likely much more pervasive than in cycling. The result: ESPN reports on
> the actual football being played.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.
>


The reason why the UCI and USAC will never be like the NFL, NBA, or MLB
is because they are too greedy in wanting to control the Olympic
selections and reap the money from this Olympic control. So I think
it's hilarious that because of this greed to control the entire sport,
they get dragged through the mud with these doping cases.

Without controlling the Olympics, USAC and the UCI would lose a lot of
money and power. Remember something: the UCI and USAC do not control
the most prestigious races on their calendars...without the Olympics,
cycling federations like the UCI and USAC would be relegated to being
almost frivolous.

Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:39:18 -0500, MagillaGorilla
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 16 Nov 2006 13:50:32 -0800, "Bill C" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone notice the both bluster and attack everyone who questions
>>>>>> them?
>>>>>> Both are presiding over a major setback at best, both seem to be
>>>>>> protecting corrupt administrations, but at least the US has finally
>>>>>> gotten rid of scumsfeld.
>>>>>> When's the sporting world gonna be as smart as GWB?
>>>>>> Bill C
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pound is strange. A few years ago he was not at all agressive in
>>>>> pursuing dopers. After the Salt Lake City Olympics, some journalists
>>>>> asked the bronze medallist in the women's pursuit, who is outspoken
>>>>> about fighting doping, if she thought the two people ahead of her in
>>>>> that event were clean and she said something like "Not really." Pound
>>>>> went ballistic, calling Scott's remarks irresponsible and pointing out
>>>>> that those athletes had been tested.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interestingly, over the course of the following year or two those two
>>>>> athletes lost their medals due to doping and Scott eventually got the
>>>>> gold (I think she's the only athlete to win bronze, silver and gold in
>>>>> the same event).
>>>>>
>>>>> Now instead of being sloppy and weak, Pound is reckless to try to look
>>>>> strong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Give me a specific example fo when Pound was reckless?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Denouncing Landis before Landis's B sample was tested.
>>
>>
>> But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the
>> time). Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent,
>> but only that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those
>> cases, the A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like
>> the person is truly negative, but rather that the concentration of
>> banned substance found was merely near the cut-off.
>>
>> For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her
>> B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared
>> negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those
>> numbers.
>>
>> The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO.
>
>
> Dumbass,
>
> What the **** are you talking about. Bergman was under 80%
> and it didn't matter, they still got him. All they had to
> do was change the rule (after the offense but before the
> hearing) and that was that.
>
> The EPO standard is an I-know-it-when-I-see-it standard,
> they don't go just by the BAP cut-off anymore.
>
> http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/CAS%20Decision%20-%20Bergman.pdf
>
>
> Bob Schwartz

Okay, I read the Bergman CAS decision. There is a BAP standard, but
it's informal and lower than 80. And it's not a rule that there be any
specific cut-off. But I can assure you the labs use a numerical cut-off
(it use to be 80). They just don't want to state that cut-off number
and the WADA code doesn't require them to name that cut-off.

My guess is they lowered it to around 74 or so. Maybe even 70. But
given that Marion Jones's B-sample was negative, it proves there is
some kind of numerical cut-off.

Magilla

[Howard Kveck]

In article >,
MagillaGorilla > wrote:

> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> > In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >>
> >>>But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time).
> >>> Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only
> >>>that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those cases, the
> >>>A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like the person is
> >>>truly negative, but rather that the concentration of banned substance
> >>>found was merely near the cut-off.
> >>>
> >>>For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her
> >>>B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared
> >>>negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those
> >>>numbers.
> >>>
> >>>The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO.
> >>
> >>So what? The reason the cutoffs are where they are is so that
> >>people can defend the testing process by saying that it is
> >>conservatively defined so that an A and a B false positive
> >>hardly ever happen. The have-it-both-ways position is then
> >>to retroactively say, well the B sample was nearly positive,
> >>so it counts even though it doesn't meet the criteria for a positive,
> >>especially since we have reason to believe Marion Jones and
> >>Adam Bergman are dirty dog dopers anyway.
> >
> >
> > They're (correctly) assuming that the general public isn't going to be
> > interested
> > enough in the process to be aware (let alone care) that the difference is
> > close as
> > that. They rely on the public believing that "it's a scientific test, so it
> > can't be
> > wrong."
> >
>
>
> Begman confessed to using EPO, so what exactly are you saying?

It's simple; even you ought to be able to follow along. Yeah, Bergaman confessed.
So what? They set a standard and if the person tests above that limit, the second
sample is to be tested to see if it backs up the results of the first test. If ihat
test doesn't meet the standard, then the test is not deemed to be a positive. That's
the rules, not this "one sample tested a little over the standard, so we don't need
to bother with the other test 'cuz ought to match" thing you seem to believe is
adequate. I think the second sample should be sent to a different lab.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Bob Schwartz]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Okay, I read the Bergman CAS decision. There is a BAP standard, but
> it's informal and lower than 80. And it's not a rule that there be any
> specific cut-off. But I can assure you the labs use a numerical cut-off
> (it use to be 80). They just don't want to state that cut-off number
> and the WADA code doesn't require them to name that cut-off.
>
> My guess is they lowered it to around 74 or so. Maybe even 70. But
> given that Marion Jones's B-sample was negative, it proves there is some
> kind of numerical cut-off.

Dumbass,

Secret cut-offs. Jesus ****ing Christ.

Bergman was one of the the most tested cyclists that year and
he only rode into June. They saw what they needed to see after
the first test and then they went shopping for a result they
could use to put him away. Horner was tested 7 times, all the
guys that were tested 6 times were on the Olympic team except
Bergman who only rode half a season. The standard is I-know-it-
when-I-****ing-see-it.

Bob Schwartz

[Michael Press]

In article >,
MagillaGorilla > wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> >>But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time).
> >> Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only
> >>that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those cases, the
> >>A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like the person is
> >>truly negative, but rather that the concentration of banned substance
> >>found was merely near the cut-off.
> >>
> >>For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her
> >>B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared
> >>negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those
> >>numbers.
> >>
> >>The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO.
> >
> >
> > So what? The reason the cutoffs are where they are is so that
> > people can defend the testing process by saying that it is
> > conservatively defined so that an A and a B false positive
> > hardly ever happen. The have-it-both-ways position is then
> > to retroactively say, well the B sample was nearly positive,
> > so it counts even though it doesn't meet the criteria for a positive,
> > especially since we have reason to believe Marion Jones and
> > Adam Bergman are dirty dog dopers anyway. That increases
> > the number of dopers you can catch, at the price of making
> > it look like the process has no integrity.
> >
> > When the process looks bad, even people who really did
> > get busted can use it for propaganda. Even your pal Ty-Ty
> > gets mileage out of every time Dick Pound shooots his
> > mouth off.
> >
>
>
> Since the cut-off is determined by WADA/USADA to begin with, what real
> difference does it make if they decide to lower it?

How are the riders supposed to know how much EPO to
take if WADA/USADA decide to change the threshold
value. Do I have to explain everything?

Oh, and that is a butt-ugly hat you're wearing.
Whoops! Sorry. But maybe you should get a haircut.

--
Michael Press

[[email protected]]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > " > wrote:

> >>So what?

> > They're (correctly) assuming that the general public isn't going to be interested
> > enough in the process to be aware (let alone care) that the difference is close as
> > that. They rely on the public believing that "it's a scientific test, so it can't be
> > wrong."
>
> Begman confessed to using EPO, so what exactly are you saying?

Apey,

Even a guilty man can be framed.

Ben

[MagillaGorilla]

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Okay, I read the Bergman CAS decision. There is a BAP standard, but
>> it's informal and lower than 80. And it's not a rule that there be
>> any specific cut-off. But I can assure you the labs use a numerical
>> cut-off (it use to be 80). They just don't want to state that cut-off
>> number and the WADA code doesn't require them to name that cut-off.
>>
>> My guess is they lowered it to around 74 or so. Maybe even 70. But
>> given that Marion Jones's B-sample was negative, it proves there is
>> some kind of numerical cut-off.
>
>
> Dumbass,
>
> Secret cut-offs. Jesus ****ing Christ.
>
> Bergman was one of the the most tested cyclists that year and
> he only rode into June. They saw what they needed to see after
> the first test and then they went shopping for a result they
> could use to put him away. Horner was tested 7 times, all the
> guys that were tested 6 times were on the Olympic team except
> Bergman who only rode half a season. The standard is I-know-it-
> when-I-****ing-see-it.
>
> Bob Schwartz


There's a cut-off number. You are mischaracterizing the test. But WADA
doesn't require them to name it. The WADA labs prefer to keep the
cut-off number secret because it gives them the flexibility to not have
to defend it in arbitration.

The reason why you know there's a cut-off is because Marion Jones's
B-sample was declared negative.

Again, Bergman admitted to using EPO, so your comment about USADA "going
shopping" is bizarre.

Thanks,

Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

Howard Kveck wrote:

> In article >,
> MagillaGorilla > wrote:
>
>
>>Howard Kveck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . com>,
>>> " > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time).
>>>>> Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only
>>>>>that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those cases, the
>>>>>A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like the person is
>>>>>truly negative, but rather that the concentration of banned substance
>>>>>found was merely near the cut-off.
>>>>>
>>>>>For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her
>>>>>B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared
>>>>>negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those
>>>>>numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>>The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO.
>>>>
>>>>So what? The reason the cutoffs are where they are is so that
>>>>people can defend the testing process by saying that it is
>>>>conservatively defined so that an A and a B false positive
>>>>hardly ever happen. The have-it-both-ways position is then
>>>>to retroactively say, well the B sample was nearly positive,
>>>>so it counts even though it doesn't meet the criteria for a positive,
>>>>especially since we have reason to believe Marion Jones and
>>>>Adam Bergman are dirty dog dopers anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>> They're (correctly) assuming that the general public isn't going to be
>>> interested
>>>enough in the process to be aware (let alone care) that the difference is
>>>close as
>>>that. They rely on the public believing that "it's a scientific test, so it
>>>can't be
>>>wrong."
>>>
>>
>>
>>Begman confessed to using EPO, so what exactly are you saying?
>
>
> It's simple; even you ought to be able to follow along. Yeah, Bergaman confessed.
> So what? They set a standard and if the person tests above that limit, the second
> sample is to be tested to see if it backs up the results of the first test.


And they followed that standard. What's the problem?


If ihat
> test doesn't meet the standard, then the test is not deemed to be a positive. That's
> the rules, not this "one sample tested a little over the standard, so we don't need
> to bother with the other test 'cuz ought to match" thing you seem to believe is
> adequate. I think the second sample should be sent to a different lab.

The rules don't state that the B-sample should go to a different lab.
And given Bergman's confession we now know the EPO test was accurate.


Thanks,

Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>Howard Kveck wrote:
>>
>>> " > wrote:
>
>
>>>>So what?
>
>
>>> They're (correctly) assuming that the general public isn't going to be interested
>>>enough in the process to be aware (let alone care) that the difference is close as
>>>that. They rely on the public believing that "it's a scientific test, so it can't be
>>>wrong."
>>
>>Begman confessed to using EPO, so what exactly are you saying?
>
>
> Apey,
>
> Even a guilty man can be framed.
>
> Ben

But Bergman wasn't framed. He tested positive.


Thanks,


Magilla

[[email protected]]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> wrote:
> > Apey,
> >
> > Even a guilty man can be framed.
> >
> > Ben
>
> But Bergman wasn't framed. He tested positive.

He tested positive once, and sort-of-positive on the B sample.

Before that, it wasn't clear that "sort-of-positive" was a possible
test result. After, it was clear, but it wasn't clear what counts
as "sort-of." That is all.