Testosterone Acquital

[mal]

http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/sport_sto1038137.shtml

Spanish cyclist Inigo Landaluze will escape sanctions despite testing
positive for the male hormone testosterone after winning the 2005 edition of
the Dauphine Libere because of irregularities in the analysis.

Landaluze's Euskaltel-Euskado team and the Court of Arbitration for Sport
said on Wednesday the UCI's appeal against the decision of the Spanish
Cycling Federation to acquit the rider had been rejected.

Although CAS dismissed most of the arguments given by the rider, it did
accept there had been an error in the analysis procedure carried out by a
laboratory in France.

"It has been indeed established that the person who conducted the analysis
of the B sample was also involved in the analysis of the A sample, thus in
violation of the international standard applicable to accredited
laboratories," CAS said in a statement on its website.

"The Panel has considered that the non-compliance with this standard
constituted a procedural flaw serious enough to cause the invalidation of
the anti-doping test."

The CAS statement added that the error had been due to the heavy workload in
the laboratory and the decision did not mean that Landaluze's name had been
cleared.

"Even though Inigo Landaluze benefited from this flawed procedure to be
acquitted, the CAS decision does not constitute a declaration of his
innocence," said the statement.

Landaluze was the surprise winner of the eight-day Dauphine Libere race in
2005, finishing ahead of favourites such as Santiago Botero, Levi Leipheimer
and Lance Armstrong.

[mal]

The scary part of this whole thing is that many of these responses all
assume it was a technical error for the lab, and he was guilty anyway. If
the lab had not "identified" this guy, he would never have been under
suspicion. These lab check and safeguards were put in for a reason. Whether
he took drugs or not, we can not have the attitude that innocents are
acceptable collateral damage.

That's easy to say sitting in the computer room.

[Davey Crockett]

"mal" > writes:

> http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/sport_sto1038137.shtml
>
> Spanish cyclist Inigo Landaluze will escape sanctions despite testing
> positive for the male hormone testosterone after winning the 2005 edition of
> the Dauphine Libere because of irregularities in the analysis.
>

Sick isn't it.?

--
Best Regards
War criminal seeks forgiveness, on road to White House:

Sen. Clinton qualifies Iraq vote:

U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said she wouldn't have
supported a call for action against Iraq if she knew then what she
knows now.

Translation: I sure wish I hadn't jumped on Georgie's BandWagon

[[email protected]]

mal wrote:
> http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/sport_sto1038137.shtml
>
> Spanish cyclist Inigo Landaluze will escape sanctions despite testing
> positive for the male hormone testosterone after winning the 2005 edition of
> the Dauphine Libere because of irregularities in the analysis.
>
> Landaluze's Euskaltel-Euskado team and the Court of Arbitration for Sport
> said on Wednesday the UCI's appeal against the decision of the Spanish
> Cycling Federation to acquit the rider had been rejected.
>
> Although CAS dismissed most of the arguments given by the rider, it did
> accept there had been an error in the analysis procedure carried out by a
> laboratory in France.
>
> "It has been indeed established that the person who conducted the analysis
> of the B sample was also involved in the analysis of the A sample, thus in
> violation of the international standard applicable to accredited
> laboratories," CAS said in a statement on its website.
>
> "The Panel has considered that the non-compliance with this standard
> constituted a procedural flaw serious enough to cause the invalidation of
> the anti-doping test."
>
> The CAS statement added that the error had been due to the heavy workload in
> the laboratory and the decision did not mean that Landaluze's name had been
> cleared.
>
> "Even though Inigo Landaluze benefited from this flawed procedure to be
> acquitted, the CAS decision does not constitute a declaration of his
> innocence," said the statement.
>
> Landaluze was the surprise winner of the eight-day Dauphine Libere race in
> 2005, finishing ahead of favourites such as Santiago Botero, Levi Leipheimer
> and Lance Armstrong.

So, what happens to the lab, and the tech, and the boss(es) who ordered
the tech to violate protocol?

How about a two year suspension, forfeiture of income from the testing
for this race, and their names and pictures in the news? And let's go
back to at least 1999 <g>, and see what we can find. Anything will
do...

Butbutbut I thought it was like this:

There is no excuse for any error.

The lab is responsible, no matter what/how when the error occurred.
The tech is responsible, no matter what, etc.
The boss is responsible, no matter what, etc.

Right? Aren't those the *rules*?

Lab blows it, covers exposed nethers with another black eye for
cycling? IOW, WTF with the "not a declaration of his innocence"
baloney? Not enough guts to say "we screwed up" and leave it at that?
--D-y

[[email protected]]

> Lab blows it, covers exposed nethers with another black eye for
> cycling? IOW, WTF with the "not a declaration of his innocence"
> baloney? Not enough guts to say "we screwed up" and leave it at that?
> --D-y

Because it isn't clear at all that the screw up resulted in a false
positive. In fact, everything indicates just the opposite including
the statements from CAS. Landaluze was guilty of doping but gets a
free walk because of a protocol violation.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> > Lab blows it, covers exposed nethers with another black eye for
> > cycling? IOW, WTF with the "not a declaration of his innocence"
> > baloney? Not enough guts to say "we screwed up" and leave it at that?
> > --D-y
>
> Because it isn't clear at all that the screw up resulted in a false
> positive. In fact, everything indicates just the opposite including
> the statements from CAS. Landaluze was guilty of doping but gets a
> free walk because of a protocol violation.

This is informally called "Trying to rub off some of the stink". Or the
pot calling the kettle black, if you prefer.

"The lab was overworked because there are so many cheaters out there we
are trying to catch".
"We know he was cheating anyhow". And that's it????

Where oh where are the statements about heads rolling, techs and
supervisors being dismissed or going to jail ("sporting fraud"; it's
good enough for the athletes!), or anything whatsoever indicating that
someone cares about what goes on in these labs? Where is the
responsibility?

Let's get some priorities straightened out here:
The violation of protocol is far more serious than finding or missing a
positive. Fixing the lab(s), including publicity leaks, is much more
important than smearing a rider who did not screw up the test in the
first place.

Or: let's just all give our DNA (and blood and urine, whatever they
want) to the authorities and hope for the best! We have every
confidence that the tests are good!

Bad rules, bad testing, bad handling of the whole process, all the way
down the line. Hallmarks of the War on People. --D-y

[CowPunk]

wrote:

> Because it isn't clear at all that the screw up resulted in a false
> positive. In fact, everything indicates just the opposite including
> the statements from CAS. Landaluze was guilty of doping but gets a
> free walk because of a protocol violation.

The issue is that if there was a false positive because of a lab tech's
procedural error on the A sample, and you have the same lab tech
analyzing the B sample, then chances are he made the same mistake on
the B sample, and both will show up positive. Or worse yet, he spiked
both the A and B sample.

IMHO he deserves to walk and the lab supervisor should be reprimanded
and suspended without pay.

[nobody]

On 20 Dec 2006 14:37:50 -0800, " >
wrote:

>Or: let's just all give our DNA (and blood and urine, whatever they
>want) to the authorities and hope for the best! We have every
>confidence that the tests are good!
>
>Bad rules, bad testing, bad handling of the whole process, all the way
>down the line. Hallmarks of the War on People. --D-y

Imagine if all the professional athletes of the world got together and
decided to unionize. Or decided no more testing or no more sports.

A return to a 'none of your freaking business what I put in my body'
morality.

Sports Illustrated and ABC would have to declare bankruptcy.

Football fans would march on the White House with burning torches and
pitchforks.

The President would have to issue a special Presidential proclamation,
giving amnesty to all athletes now and into perpetuity.

Jack Nicholson would appear on TV and threaten to punch their lights out.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
> wrote:

> On 20 Dec 2006 14:37:50 -0800, " >
> wrote:
>
> >Or: let's just all give our DNA (and blood and urine, whatever they
> >want) to the authorities and hope for the best! We have every
> >confidence that the tests are good!
> >
> >Bad rules, bad testing, bad handling of the whole process, all the way
> >down the line. Hallmarks of the War on People. --D-y
>
> Imagine if all the professional athletes of the world got together and
> decided to unionize. Or decided no more testing or no more sports.
>
> A return to a 'none of your freaking business what I put in my body'
> morality.
>
> Sports Illustrated and ABC would have to declare bankruptcy.
>
> Football fans would march on the White House with burning torches and
> pitchforks.
>
> The President would have to issue a special Presidential proclamation,
> giving amnesty to all athletes now and into perpetuity.
>
> Jack Nicholson would appear on TV and threaten to punch their lights out.

Mm. Yes. I remember how the last NFL football strike closed the stadia
and resulted in a strongly pro-player contract.

No, wait...for the benefit of our European readers, I remember what
really happened: the NFL hired replacement players, the union went
through some strange paroxysms, there were lawsuits, and the NFL got one
of the more ownership-favouring contracts in pro sport. Free agency and
revenue sharing, but also a salary cap and non-guaranteed contracts.

This shouldn't be read, by the way, as a damnation of the NFL or its
labour-management relations. There is a strong case to be made that that
contract made the NFL what it is today, and made the players far richer
than they would have been under a more baseball-like contract: thanks to
revenue sharing, they have benefited in lockstep with the owners as the
popularity and value of the NFL has climbed.

Regarding the matter of testing and whatnot, I remain committed to the
idea and the ideal of clean sport. If it would actually help, there's
probably some merit to the plans to keep ongoing medical records on each
athlete and I have no real problem with retroactive as-science-advances
testing, as long as the athlete is aware when they pee that such a thing
may happen.

But holy moly, that is all contingent on the labs and WADA showing they
can actually handle the responsibility of properly testing pee! No, you
can't have technical violations in your lab. This is important, you're
going to ruin lives if you blow this test. Moreover, even the reasonable
perception of a problem inside the labs is a BIG DEAL. The testing
process should be both transparent and squeaky-clean.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[nobody]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:15:28 GMT, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

>Regarding the matter of testing and whatnot, I remain committed to the
>idea and the ideal of clean sport. If it would actually help, there's
>probably some merit to the plans to keep ongoing medical records on each
>athlete and I have no real problem with retroactive as-science-advances
>testing, as long as the athlete is aware when they pee that such a thing
>may happen.
>
>But holy moly, that is all contingent on the labs and WADA showing they
>can actually handle the responsibility of properly testing pee! No, you
>can't have technical violations in your lab. This is important, you're
>going to ruin lives if you blow this test. Moreover, even the reasonable
>perception of a problem inside the labs is a BIG DEAL. The testing
>process should be both transparent and squeaky-clean.

Ryan, you are sounding a bit naive on the idea of a clean sport.

Have you read Gaumont's book? The whole idea of testing is a farce. You've
already heard how they were getting around the EPO test using the protease.

If you want to use injectable Diprostene you just get a prescription for a
Diprosole cream. If you want to use injectable Kenacorte, you get a
prescription for Nasacort nasal spray. Instantly you'll never test
positive.

The guys in the back of the peloton are using the stuff from the 80s, but
the guys up front are doing cocktails of drugs that aren't being tested for
yet.

Yeah the lab is bad and they suck for outing riders and then realizing they
did invalid testing.

There's probably never going to be a clean sport. They'll just move into
the area of gene doping - always a step ahead of the testers.

[Davey Crockett]

Ryan Cousineau > writes:

> In article >,
> > wrote:
>
> > On 20 Dec 2006 14:37:50 -0800, " >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Or: let's just all give our DNA (and blood and urine, whatever they
> > >want) to the authorities and hope for the best! We have every
> > >confidence that the tests are good!
> > >
> > >Bad rules, bad testing, bad handling of the whole process, all the way
> > >down the line. Hallmarks of the War on People. --D-y
> >
> > Imagine if all the professional athletes of the world got together and
> > decided to unionize. Or decided no more testing or no more sports.
> >
> > A return to a 'none of your freaking business what I put in my body'
> > morality.
> >
> > Sports Illustrated and ABC would have to declare bankruptcy.
> >
> > Football fans would march on the White House with burning torches and
> > pitchforks.
> >
> > The President would have to issue a special Presidential proclamation,
> > giving amnesty to all athletes now and into perpetuity.
> >
> > Jack Nicholson would appear on TV and threaten to punch their lights out.
>
> Mm. Yes. I remember how the last NFL football strike closed the stadia
> and resulted in a strongly pro-player contract.
>
> No, wait...for the benefit of our European readers, I remember what
> really happened: the NFL hired replacement players,


Scab Labour? Who the firk did that bunch of Overweight, Oversized
Druggies have on the picket line? Their Wives?

--
Best Regards, Davey
As Robert Gates takes the helm at the Pentagon this week, he can be in
no doubt that Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush
remain determined to stay the course in Iraq (without using those
words) for the next two years. What Gates probably does not realize is
that the U.S. military is about to commit hara-kiri. They are not
losing the war; it is already lost

[RonSonic]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:15:28 GMT, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

>In article >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On 20 Dec 2006 14:37:50 -0800, " >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Or: let's just all give our DNA (and blood and urine, whatever they
>> >want) to the authorities and hope for the best! We have every
>> >confidence that the tests are good!
>> >
>> >Bad rules, bad testing, bad handling of the whole process, all the way
>> >down the line. Hallmarks of the War on People. --D-y
>>
>> Imagine if all the professional athletes of the world got together and
>> decided to unionize. Or decided no more testing or no more sports.
>>
>> A return to a 'none of your freaking business what I put in my body'
>> morality.
>>
>> Sports Illustrated and ABC would have to declare bankruptcy.
>>
>> Football fans would march on the White House with burning torches and
>> pitchforks.
>>
>> The President would have to issue a special Presidential proclamation,
>> giving amnesty to all athletes now and into perpetuity.
>>
>> Jack Nicholson would appear on TV and threaten to punch their lights out.
>
>Mm. Yes. I remember how the last NFL football strike closed the stadia
>and resulted in a strongly pro-player contract.
>
>No, wait...for the benefit of our European readers, I remember what
>really happened: the NFL hired replacement players, the union went
>through some strange paroxysms, there were lawsuits, and the NFL got one
>of the more ownership-favouring contracts in pro sport. Free agency and
>revenue sharing, but also a salary cap and non-guaranteed contracts.

In compensation for the salary cap there was a team minimum that raised wages
across a lot of positions for a lot of teams. The lack of contractual guarantee
is offset by substantial signing bonuses with long term payouts.

>This shouldn't be read, by the way, as a damnation of the NFL or its
>labour-management relations. There is a strong case to be made that that
>contract made the NFL what it is today, and made the players far richer
>than they would have been under a more baseball-like contract: thanks to
>revenue sharing, they have benefited in lockstep with the owners as the
>popularity and value of the NFL has climbed.
>
>Regarding the matter of testing and whatnot, I remain committed to the
>idea and the ideal of clean sport. If it would actually help, there's
>probably some merit to the plans to keep ongoing medical records on each
>athlete and I have no real problem with retroactive as-science-advances
>testing, as long as the athlete is aware when they pee that such a thing
>may happen.
>
>But holy moly, that is all contingent on the labs and WADA showing they
>can actually handle the responsibility of properly testing pee! No, you
>can't have technical violations in your lab. This is important, you're
>going to ruin lives if you blow this test. Moreover, even the reasonable
>perception of a problem inside the labs is a BIG DEAL. The testing
>process should be both transparent and squeaky-clean.

That is so much more important than WADA, UCI and LNDD seem to understand. The
bluster and buffoonery seem to confirm that these agencies live in a state of
confusion, ignorance and arrogance.

Ron

[Fred Fredburger]

Davey Crockett wrote:

> Best Regards
> War criminal seeks forgiveness, on road to White House:
>
> Sen. Clinton qualifies Iraq vote:
>
> U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said she wouldn't have
> supported a call for action against Iraq if she knew then what she
> knows now.
>
> Translation: I sure wish I hadn't jumped on Georgie's BandWagon

Better Translation: I am adept at determining which way the wind blows.

[Donald Munro]

Davey Crockett wrote:
>> Translation: I sure wish I hadn't jumped on Georgie's BandWagon

Fred Fredburger wrote:
> Better Translation: I am adept at determining which way the wind blows.

Which implies that boy george needs to work on his aero position. Perhaps
some TT bars on his MTB are called for.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:15:28 GMT, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
>
> >Regarding the matter of testing and whatnot, I remain committed to the
> >idea and the ideal of clean sport. If it would actually help, there's
> >probably some merit to the plans to keep ongoing medical records on each
> >athlete and I have no real problem with retroactive as-science-advances
> >testing, as long as the athlete is aware when they pee that such a thing
> >may happen.
> >
> >But holy moly, that is all contingent on the labs and WADA showing they
> >can actually handle the responsibility of properly testing pee! No, you
> >can't have technical violations in your lab. This is important, you're
> >going to ruin lives if you blow this test. Moreover, even the reasonable
> >perception of a problem inside the labs is a BIG DEAL. The testing
> >process should be both transparent and squeaky-clean.
>
> Ryan, you are sounding a bit naive on the idea of a clean sport.
>
> Have you read Gaumont's book? The whole idea of testing is a farce. You've
> already heard how they were getting around the EPO test using the protease.

Well, I'll freely admit to being naive about the state of the art in
doping. What I know about the technical side of doping is roughly "wash
your hands before the EPO tests and they still can't test for your own
blood."

That's not the same as saying that cheating is undetectable and
unbeatable.

> If you want to use injectable Diprostene you just get a prescription for a
> Diprosole cream. If you want to use injectable Kenacorte, you get a
> prescription for Nasacort nasal spray. Instantly you'll never test
> positive.

That's a bit of a stretch: there are still limits beyond which the lab
guys should be saying "hey, this guy's got a horse-sized dose of
corticosteroids in his body."

> The guys in the back of the peloton are using the stuff from the 80s, but
> the guys up front are doing cocktails of drugs that aren't being tested for
> yet.
>
> Yeah the lab is bad and they suck for outing riders and then realizing they
> did invalid testing.
>
> There's probably never going to be a clean sport. They'll just move into
> the area of gene doping - always a step ahead of the testers.

Well, that's one reason why I support ideas like retroactive testing: it
introduces some honesty-inspiring certainty if you know that you not
only have to beat today's test but also the test you've never heard
about that they have 7 years from now.

It should also be noted that where drug testing may fail, police
investigations may yet succeed. I have no idea who "Birilo" really is,
or which riders will ultimately be tracked back to Dr Fuentes' door, but
it seems pretty likely right now that Dr Fuentes was a doping doctor,
and that he's going down for it.

Paper trails, money trails, and random searches seem to be the undoing
of more athletes than drug tests. Millar was got that way, BALCO was
undone by an anonymous tip (with syringe), Festina was caught in a raid.

There is a bright line here: I seem to need to remind certain people in
this newsgroup why drug testing started: the riders were doing scary
**** in unsafe quantities and Tom Simpson died of it.

Trying to keep dope-cheating out of sport (and cycling in specific) is
hard. We know there are sneaky Petes out there who are just getting away
with stuff. But some of them get caught, through various means. When
that happens, it forces all the cheaters to be more cautious, more
circumspect, and maybe drives a few more to just give it up.

In the meantime, however, the labs and testers have an absolute
responsibility to not only do their jobs, but also to own their
mistakes. If the test is unusable, you say "well, we screwed up. Here's
how we're going to fix the process for the future." You don't say crap
like "we're letting that dirty doper off on a technicality. This
wouldn't happen if we got rid of B samples."

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[nobody]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:46:34 GMT, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

>In article >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:15:28 GMT, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
>>
>> >Regarding the matter of testing and whatnot, I remain committed to the
>> >idea and the ideal of clean sport. If it would actually help, there's
>> >probably some merit to the plans to keep ongoing medical records on each
>> >athlete and I have no real problem with retroactive as-science-advances
>> >testing, as long as the athlete is aware when they pee that such a thing
>> >may happen.
>> >
>> >But holy moly, that is all contingent on the labs and WADA showing they
>> >can actually handle the responsibility of properly testing pee! No, you
>> >can't have technical violations in your lab. This is important, you're
>> >going to ruin lives if you blow this test. Moreover, even the reasonable
>> >perception of a problem inside the labs is a BIG DEAL. The testing
>> >process should be both transparent and squeaky-clean.
>>
>> Ryan, you are sounding a bit naive on the idea of a clean sport.
>>
>> Have you read Gaumont's book? The whole idea of testing is a farce. You've
>> already heard how they were getting around the EPO test using the protease.

(OK, I probably misspoke here, I was reading an interview with Philippe
Gaumont where he talked about the types of doping and masking going on. I
can't recall if he's got a book out.) It's really amazing. Most people have
no idea and I think we're just now seeing the tip of the iceberg with the
revelations about the protease in detergent knocking out the EPO.

I'm seriously thinking of ordering Woodland's book, at least to browse.

<http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9781892495402>

>Well, I'll freely admit to being naive about the state of the art in
>doping. What I know about the technical side of doping is roughly "wash
>your hands before the EPO tests and they still can't test for your own
>blood."
>
>That's not the same as saying that cheating is undetectable and
>unbeatable.

There are so many ways to do it that I'm starting to get the feeling it is
unbeatable. They are so far ahead of the 'testers' that it's probably a
running joke. You've got doping with undetectable substances, you've got
masking, you've got state of the art stuff that's not on the 'illegal'
list, you've got people finding ways to present 'clean urine', ways to
clean the blood before testing and many other strategies.

You've even got mechanical ways of cheating. Ever hear of the "cork and
monofilament trick"? :-D

For instance, and I'm not saying this is the case, but imagine if a certain
TdF winner already knew the 'protease trick' back in 1998. It would
certainly give him good reason to say 'There was no EPO in those samples',
would it not? ;-)

>> If you want to use injectable Diprostene you just get a prescription for a
>> Diprosole cream. If you want to use injectable Kenacorte, you get a
>> prescription for Nasacort nasal spray. Instantly you'll never test
>> positive.
>
>That's a bit of a stretch: there are still limits beyond which the lab
>guys should be saying "hey, this guy's got a horse-sized dose of
>corticosteroids in his body."

No, it's apparently the way it's done (Paraphrasing Gaumont's comments).

>> The guys in the back of the peloton are using the stuff from the 80s, but
>> the guys up front are doing cocktails of drugs that aren't being tested for
>> yet.
>>
>> Yeah the lab is bad and they suck for outing riders and then realizing they
>> did invalid testing.
>>
>> There's probably never going to be a clean sport. They'll just move into
>> the area of gene doping - always a step ahead of the testers.
>
>Well, that's one reason why I support ideas like retroactive testing: it
>introduces some honesty-inspiring certainty if you know that you not
>only have to beat today's test but also the test you've never heard
>about that they have 7 years from now.

But what good is retroactive testing if they're doing the 'protease trick'.
Are you going to fry a rider based on finding 'nothing' in his sample?

What if they find that a team was using Actovegin in 1999? It wasn't
illegal then. What if they find the team was using resveratrol in 2000? It
wasn't illegal.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from your quest. Just offering some
thoughts.

>It should also be noted that where drug testing may fail, police
>investigations may yet succeed. I have no idea who "Birilo" really is,
>or which riders will ultimately be tracked back to Dr Fuentes' door, but
>it seems pretty likely right now that Dr Fuentes was a doping doctor,
>and that he's going down for it.

I think it's a very bad idea to take it to outside law enforcement
agencies. It just makes things worse, imo. It's like criminalizing certain
harmless durgs. You get the cops involved, next thing you know you've got
corruption, payoffs, organized crime involvement, and worse.

>Paper trails, money trails, and random searches seem to be the undoing
>of more athletes than drug tests. Millar was got that way, BALCO was
>undone by an anonymous tip (with syringe), Festina was caught in a raid.

They're catching a very tiny portion of the 'cheating'. It just looks big.
Same way with trying to intercept dope at the border. Tons get in, and they
catch pounds. ;-/

>There is a bright line here: I seem to need to remind certain people in
>this newsgroup why drug testing started: the riders were doing scary
>**** in unsafe quantities and Tom Simpson died of it.

Here you're trying to legislate what people do to try and make them 'safe'
from themselves. It's like laws about abortion and MD-assisted suicide,
isn't it?

>Trying to keep dope-cheating out of sport (and cycling in specific) is
>hard. We know there are sneaky Petes out there who are just getting away
>with stuff. But some of them get caught, through various means. When
>that happens, it forces all the cheaters to be more cautious, more
>circumspect, and maybe drives a few more to just give it up.

I'd suggest that so far it's had a minor effect. The biggest thing is that
it ruins individual rider's careers for no good reason, because the
investigation gets dropped, the testing is invalid, proteins interfere with
tests, yada, yada.

>In the meantime, however, the labs and testers have an absolute
>responsibility to not only do their jobs, but also to own their
>mistakes. If the test is unusable, you say "well, we screwed up. Here's
>how we're going to fix the process for the future." You don't say crap
>like "we're letting that dirty doper off on a technicality. This
>wouldn't happen if we got rid of B samples."

Oh, sure. That really burns me up.

Mind you, I don't like the whole thing, and I'm not suggesting exactly that
they give up trying to have some kind of clean sport, but I don't think
this enforcement and bringing in the law or having more reactionary people
in WADA and the other agencies is going to do it.

I think there are some ways that could work, but people won't be happy.
They want heads on a pike or something.

For instance the idea of an 'all clean' and an 'all dirty' cycling venue,
just like in bodybuilding has some promise - maybe not as a good idea, but
as an example of an idea that could work.

[dbrower]

mal wrote:
> The scary part of this whole thing is that many of these responses all
> assume it was a technical error for the lab, and he was guilty anyway. If
> the lab had not "identified" this guy, he would never have been under
> suspicion. These lab check and safeguards were put in for a reason. Whether
> he took drugs or not, we can not have the attitude that innocents are
> acceptable collateral damage.
>
> That's easy to say sitting in the computer room.

What's more scary to me is that folks are buying the story that is put
out in the perfidious ruling. They managed to duck all of the
scientific arguments that said the test results were wrong without
addressing them; acquit him on a technicality, and then smear him on
the way out.

More about this in
http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12/landaluze-decision-tbv-rant.html

-dB

[Bill C]

On Dec 21, 3:15 am, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
> may happen.
>
> But holy moly, that is all contingent on the labs and WADA showing they
> can actually handle the responsibility of properly testing pee! No, you
> can't have technical violations in your lab. This is important, you're
> going to ruin lives if you blow this test. Moreover, even the reasonable
> perception of a problem inside the labs is a BIG DEAL. The testing
> process should be both transparent and squeaky-clean.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau /
> "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Hallelujah and Amen!
Bill C

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:46:34 GMT, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:15:28 GMT, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Regarding the matter of testing and whatnot, I remain committed to the
> >> >idea and the ideal of clean sport. If it would actually help, there's
> >> >probably some merit to the plans to keep ongoing medical records on each
> >> >athlete and I have no real problem with retroactive as-science-advances
> >> >testing, as long as the athlete is aware when they pee that such a thing
> >> >may happen.
> >> >
> >> >But holy moly, that is all contingent on the labs and WADA showing they
> >> >can actually handle the responsibility of properly testing pee! No, you
> >> >can't have technical violations in your lab. This is important, you're
> >> >going to ruin lives if you blow this test. Moreover, even the reasonable
> >> >perception of a problem inside the labs is a BIG DEAL. The testing
> >> >process should be both transparent and squeaky-clean.
> >>

> There are so many ways to do it that I'm starting to get the feeling it is
> unbeatable. They are so far ahead of the 'testers' that it's probably a
> running joke. You've got doping with undetectable substances, you've got
> masking, you've got state of the art stuff that's not on the 'illegal'
> list, you've got people finding ways to present 'clean urine', ways to
> clean the blood before testing and many other strategies.
>
> You've even got mechanical ways of cheating. Ever hear of the "cork and
> monofilament trick"? :-D

I'm just hoping you're making that up.

> >Well, that's one reason why I support ideas like retroactive testing: it
> >introduces some honesty-inspiring certainty if you know that you not
> >only have to beat today's test but also the test you've never heard
> >about that they have 7 years from now.
>
> But what good is retroactive testing if they're doing the 'protease trick'.
> Are you going to fry a rider based on finding 'nothing' in his sample?

Not every method will catch every cheat. But the goal is to circumscribe
cheating to

> What if they find that a team was using Actovegin in 1999? It wasn't
> illegal then. What if they find the team was using resveratrol in 2000? It
> wasn't illegal.

Resveratrol? You really know how to hit a guy where it hurts. As it
happens, I'm using Resveratrol _right now_. Well, I think I am. Is there
resveratrol in sherry?

More to the point, the back of the bottle (I grabbed it to check the
ingredients for resveratrol; Harvey's Bristol Cream sherry) suggests
drinking it over ice with a slice of orange. WTF? LIVEDRUNK endorses
girl drinks, but sherry tastes awfully nice just as it is.

I'll try it later.

> I'm not trying to dissuade you from your quest. Just offering some
> thoughts.
>
> >It should also be noted that where drug testing may fail, police
> >investigations may yet succeed. I have no idea who "Birilo" really is,
> >or which riders will ultimately be tracked back to Dr Fuentes' door, but
> >it seems pretty likely right now that Dr Fuentes was a doping doctor,
> >and that he's going down for it.
>
> I think it's a very bad idea to take it to outside law enforcement
> agencies. It just makes things worse, imo. It's like criminalizing certain
> harmless durgs. You get the cops involved, next thing you know you've got
> corruption, payoffs, organized crime involvement, and worse.

Wait, you think adding the cops will increase corruption? That's an
extraordinarily dim view of the cops. This isn't a prohibition-type
step; organized sport already has prohibition, what they don't have (one
way or the other) is proper enforcement.

> >Paper trails, money trails, and random searches seem to be the undoing
> >of more athletes than drug tests. Millar was got that way, BALCO was
> >undone by an anonymous tip (with syringe), Festina was caught in a raid.
>
> They're catching a very tiny portion of the 'cheating'. It just looks big.
> Same way with trying to intercept dope at the border. Tons get in, and they
> catch pounds. ;-/

I'm willing to be convinced.

> >There is a bright line here: I seem to need to remind certain people in
> >this newsgroup why drug testing started: the riders were doing scary
> >**** in unsafe quantities and Tom Simpson died of it.
>
> Here you're trying to legislate what people do to try and make them 'safe'
> from themselves. It's like laws about abortion and MD-assisted suicide,
> isn't it?

Not at all. The issue is not what athletes do to themselves (though that
is bad enough, as EPO deaths can attest). The issue is that what dirty
athletes are willing to do to themselves creates a cultural and
practical circumstance in which riders assume they must dope in order to
keep up (and that may be true, as well).

It's easy to say that we could keep doping from being a problem by
declaring a "libre" formula as well, but can you really say that these
riders won't push the limits of safety even further? I envision a
peloton of 60-percenters, all rolling with full, heavy loads of T,
steroids, and 2 units of human blood.

Some people will die from doing that stuff. Either they'll push beyond
their doctor's recommendations, or their doctor will be willing to push
them beyond the line of safety, or the chronic effects of super-wacky
drug doses will do unpleasant long-term things to these people.


> Mind you, I don't like the whole thing, and I'm not suggesting exactly that
> they give up trying to have some kind of clean sport, but I don't think
> this enforcement and bringing in the law or having more reactionary people
> in WADA and the other agencies is going to do it.
>
> I think there are some ways that could work, but people won't be happy.
> They want heads on a pike or something.
>
> For instance the idea of an 'all clean' and an 'all dirty' cycling venue,
> just like in bodybuilding has some promise - maybe not as a good idea, but
> as an example of an idea that could work.

That has half a chance. Though I suspect the problem is that no sponsor
would want to go anywhere near an explicitly dirty race, so the "clean"
series would be the de facto pro series, with the dirty races left to
fattie masters, libertarians, and body modification fans.

I'm afraid the only thing that could really save cycling from itself
long term would be to create a culture of clean riding and racing, and I
don't know if there's even an interest in doing so. The next-best thing
for pro racing might be for it to just shrink a whole bunch, so there's
no financial incentives to cheat.

I have said it before, but to a large extent my current peace with the
state of the sport comes from entirely concentrating on categorized
amateur racing, where if some radioactive dude happens to be shooting
through the ranks, he'll end up in Cat 2 before I even have a chance to
learn his name. The racing is important, and I always want to win, but I
don't race because I need to win, I race because I want to race. It's
very liberating.

If, God willing, I have kids someday, I would do everything I could to
encourage them to get on a bike, ride recreationally, and if they showed
an interest, ride competitively. I can't ever see encouraging them, no
matter how talented, to pursue it as a profession.

If it sounds like I'm ambivalent about pro cycling, well, I am.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[nobody]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:08:18 GMT, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

>In article >,
> > wrote:

<snip>

>> There are so many ways to do it that I'm starting to get the feeling it is
>> unbeatable. They are so far ahead of the 'testers' that it's probably a
>> running joke. You've got doping with undetectable substances, you've got
>> masking, you've got state of the art stuff that's not on the 'illegal'
>> list, you've got people finding ways to present 'clean urine', ways to
>> clean the blood before testing and many other strategies.
>>
>> You've even got mechanical ways of cheating. Ever hear of the "cork and
>> monofilament trick"? :-D
>
>I'm just hoping you're making that up.

Just reporting what I read:

From 'The Crooked Path...' (paraphrased)

Guys would tie fishing line to the team cars door handles. They'd attach
the other end to a cork. They'd put the cork in their back teeth, bite down
and let the car pull them up the mountains. The best part, it looked like
they were grimacing from the effort of the climb by biting down on the
cork.

>> >Well, that's one reason why I support ideas like retroactive testing: it
>> >introduces some honesty-inspiring certainty if you know that you not
>> >only have to beat today's test but also the test you've never heard
>> >about that they have 7 years from now.
>>
>> But what good is retroactive testing if they're doing the 'protease trick'.
>> Are you going to fry a rider based on finding 'nothing' in his sample?
>
>Not every method will catch every cheat. But the goal is to circumscribe
>cheating to

There are smarter guys on the other side because that's the 'cutting edge'.
The tables were flipped in the Balco scandal because they had a top guy
gunning for them.

So they're going to be aware of what you might be able to test for retro.

>> What if they find that a team was using Actovegin in 1999? It wasn't
>> illegal then. What if they find the team was using resveratrol in 2000? It
>> wasn't illegal.
>
>Resveratrol? You really know how to hit a guy where it hurts. As it
>happens, I'm using Resveratrol _right now_. Well, I think I am. Is there
>resveratrol in sherry?
>
>More to the point, the back of the bottle (I grabbed it to check the
>ingredients for resveratrol; Harvey's Bristol Cream sherry) suggests
>drinking it over ice with a slice of orange. WTF? LIVEDRUNK endorses
>girl drinks, but sherry tastes awfully nice just as it is.
>
>I'll try it later.

Taking quantities in dosages used for the study might be in the 400 mg/kg
range or slightly less. Some people are taking 40mg/day. You'd have to
drink 30-50 bottles of wine to get similar doses.

I just picked that as an example, of course.

>> I'm not trying to dissuade you from your quest. Just offering some
>> thoughts.
>>
>> >It should also be noted that where drug testing may fail, police
>> >investigations may yet succeed. I have no idea who "Birilo" really is,
>> >or which riders will ultimately be tracked back to Dr Fuentes' door, but
>> >it seems pretty likely right now that Dr Fuentes was a doping doctor,
>> >and that he's going down for it.
>>
>> I think it's a very bad idea to take it to outside law enforcement
>> agencies. It just makes things worse, imo. It's like criminalizing certain
>> harmless durgs. You get the cops involved, next thing you know you've got
>> corruption, payoffs, organized crime involvement, and worse.
>
>Wait, you think adding the cops will increase corruption? That's an
>extraordinarily dim view of the cops. This isn't a prohibition-type
>step; organized sport already has prohibition, what they don't have (one
>way or the other) is proper enforcement.

Oh, yes, absolutely. Money gets involved. Black market, supply lines.

>> >Paper trails, money trails, and random searches seem to be the undoing
>> >of more athletes than drug tests. Millar was got that way, BALCO was
>> >undone by an anonymous tip (with syringe), Festina was caught in a raid.
>>
>> They're catching a very tiny portion of the 'cheating'. It just looks big.
>> Same way with trying to intercept dope at the border. Tons get in, and they
>> catch pounds. ;-/
>
>I'm willing to be convinced.
>
>> >There is a bright line here: I seem to need to remind certain people in
>> >this newsgroup why drug testing started: the riders were doing scary
>> >**** in unsafe quantities and Tom Simpson died of it.
>>
>> Here you're trying to legislate what people do to try and make them 'safe'
>> from themselves. It's like laws about abortion and MD-assisted suicide,
>> isn't it?
>
>Not at all. The issue is not what athletes do to themselves (though that
>is bad enough, as EPO deaths can attest). The issue is that what dirty
>athletes are willing to do to themselves creates a cultural and
>practical circumstance in which riders assume they must dope in order to
>keep up (and that may be true, as well).

Highly speculative. ;-)

>It's easy to say that we could keep doping from being a problem by
>declaring a "libre" formula as well, but can you really say that these
>riders won't push the limits of safety even further? I envision a
>peloton of 60-percenters, all rolling with full, heavy loads of T,
>steroids, and 2 units of human blood.
>
>Some people will die from doing that stuff. Either they'll push beyond
>their doctor's recommendations, or their doctor will be willing to push
>them beyond the line of safety, or the chronic effects of super-wacky
>drug doses will do unpleasant long-term things to these people.

Again, speculation. We don't know what would happen. Witness Amsterdam.

>> Mind you, I don't like the whole thing, and I'm not suggesting exactly that
>> they give up trying to have some kind of clean sport, but I don't think
>> this enforcement and bringing in the law or having more reactionary people
>> in WADA and the other agencies is going to do it.
>>
>> I think there are some ways that could work, but people won't be happy.
>> They want heads on a pike or something.
>>
>> For instance the idea of an 'all clean' and an 'all dirty' cycling venue,
>> just like in bodybuilding has some promise - maybe not as a good idea, but
>> as an example of an idea that could work.
>
>That has half a chance. Though I suspect the problem is that no sponsor
>would want to go anywhere near an explicitly dirty race, so the "clean"
>series would be the de facto pro series, with the dirty races left to
>fattie masters, libertarians, and body modification fans.

You never know. Depends on how the culture changes or not in the next 20
years, eh? Ideally you'd allow the two races and then gradually phase out
the doping one.

>I'm afraid the only thing that could really save cycling from itself
>long term would be to create a culture of clean riding and racing, and I
>don't know if there's even an interest in doing so. The next-best thing
>for pro racing might be for it to just shrink a whole bunch, so there's
>no financial incentives to cheat.

<Nods> Might be worth making a three lists. What won't work. What might
work. What might work and not be onerous philosophically. ;-p

>I have said it before, but to a large extent my current peace with the
>state of the sport comes from entirely concentrating on categorized
>amateur racing, where if some radioactive dude happens to be shooting
>through the ranks, he'll end up in Cat 2 before I even have a chance to
>learn his name. The racing is important, and I always want to win, but I
>don't race because I need to win, I race because I want to race. It's
>very liberating.

Yeah. There are probably a lot of guys who will do anything it takes, but
wish that PEDs just didn't exist; since they do, they get used.

>If, God willing, I have kids someday, I would do everything I could to
>encourage them to get on a bike, ride recreationally, and if they showed
>an interest, ride competitively. I can't ever see encouraging them, no
>matter how talented, to pursue it as a profession.
>
>If it sounds like I'm ambivalent about pro cycling, well, I am.

The vast majority of riders don't even race. Cycling is under a magnifying
glass right now.

But consider how many gym rats and casual riders who'd never take anything
illegal went out and bought and used pro hormones! Medicinal plants and the
need to alter consciousness has always been with us and I don't expect it
will be going away soon unless the Russians have their way with
cross-pollinating weed with their strain to try and eliminate psychoactive
MJ! ;-D

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/06/20/nocannabis.shtml

Great idea, huh!

[Donald Munro]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>Resveratrol? You really know how to hit a guy where it hurts. As it
>>happens, I'm using Resveratrol _right now_. Well, I think I am. Is there
>>resveratrol in sherry?

nobody wrote:
> Taking quantities in dosages used for the study might be in the 400 mg/kg
> range or slightly less. Some people are taking 40mg/day. You'd have to
> drink 30-50 bottles of wine to get similar doses.

How much is that in barrels (Ryan purchases his red wine by the barrel not
the bottle).

[nobody]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:27:03 +0200, Donald Munro >
wrote:

>Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>>Resveratrol? You really know how to hit a guy where it hurts. As it
>>>happens, I'm using Resveratrol _right now_. Well, I think I am. Is there
>>>resveratrol in sherry?
>
>nobody wrote:
>> Taking quantities in dosages used for the study might be in the 400 mg/kg
>> range or slightly less. Some people are taking 40mg/day. You'd have to
>> drink 30-50 bottles of wine to get similar doses.
>
>How much is that in barrels (Ryan purchases his red wine by the barrel not
>the bottle).

Rbr readers would probably rather know how long he's been dating Sherry.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
Donald Munro > wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >>Resveratrol? You really know how to hit a guy where it hurts. As it
> >>happens, I'm using Resveratrol _right now_. Well, I think I am. Is there
> >>resveratrol in sherry?
>
> nobody wrote:
> > Taking quantities in dosages used for the study might be in the 400 mg/kg
> > range or slightly less. Some people are taking 40mg/day. You'd have to
> > drink 30-50 bottles of wine to get similar doses.
>
> How much is that in barrels (Ryan purchases his red wine by the barrel not
> the bottle).

Ryan wishes. The truth is my wine consumption is so lacking that I
should probably just buy the best bagged wine in the liquor store, since
at my glass-a-day consumption rate, wine otherwise tends to be consumed
too slowly for best flavour.

Also, if I got a bag of white, I could joke about having hot and cold
running wine.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:27:03 +0200, Donald Munro >
> wrote:
>
> >Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >>>Resveratrol? You really know how to hit a guy where it hurts. As it
> >>>happens, I'm using Resveratrol _right now_. Well, I think I am. Is there
> >>>resveratrol in sherry?
> >
> >nobody wrote:
> >> Taking quantities in dosages used for the study might be in the 400 mg/kg
> >> range or slightly less. Some people are taking 40mg/day. You'd have to
> >> drink 30-50 bottles of wine to get similar doses.
> >
> >How much is that in barrels (Ryan purchases his red wine by the barrel not
> >the bottle).
>
> Rbr readers would probably rather know how long he's been dating Sherry.

My wife and I first became acquainted with sherry a few years ago in
Victoria. Since then, the three of us have had many a wonderful evening
together.

This conversation is making me thirsty,

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[nobody]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 06:46:29 GMT, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

>In article >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:27:03 +0200, Donald Munro >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> >>>Resveratrol? You really know how to hit a guy where it hurts. As it
>> >>>happens, I'm using Resveratrol _right now_. Well, I think I am. Is there
>> >>>resveratrol in sherry?
>> >
>> >nobody wrote:
>> >> Taking quantities in dosages used for the study might be in the 400 mg/kg
>> >> range or slightly less. Some people are taking 40mg/day. You'd have to
>> >> drink 30-50 bottles of wine to get similar doses.
>> >
>> >How much is that in barrels (Ryan purchases his red wine by the barrel not
>> >the bottle).
>>
>> Rbr readers would probably rather know how long he's been dating Sherry.
>
>My wife and I first became acquainted with sherry a few years ago in
>Victoria. Since then, the three of us have had many a wonderful evening
>together.
>
>This conversation is making me thirsty,

A connoisseur would know there is no dating sherry, unless, Mr Bond, you're
referring to the original vintage.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 06:46:29 GMT, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:27:03 +0200, Donald Munro >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >> >>>Resveratrol? You really know how to hit a guy where it hurts. As it
> >> >>>happens, I'm using Resveratrol _right now_. Well, I think I am. Is
> >> >>>there
> >> >>>resveratrol in sherry?
> >> >
> >> >nobody wrote:
> >> >> Taking quantities in dosages used for the study might be in the 400
> >> >> mg/kg
> >> >> range or slightly less. Some people are taking 40mg/day. You'd have to
> >> >> drink 30-50 bottles of wine to get similar doses.
> >> >
> >> >How much is that in barrels (Ryan purchases his red wine by the barrel
> >> >not
> >> >the bottle).
> >>
> >> Rbr readers would probably rather know how long he's been dating Sherry.
> >
> >My wife and I first became acquainted with sherry a few years ago in
> >Victoria. Since then, the three of us have had many a wonderful evening
> >together.
> >
> >This conversation is making me thirsty,
>
> A connoisseur would know there is no dating sherry, unless, Mr Bond, you're
> referring to the original vintage.

Our relationship was purely platonic. And besides, she swore she was 18
years old!

Coulda been the whisky,

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos