This proves it: Landis is innocent

[Ken Prager]

Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the results
(again)???

<http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>

[RonSonic]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:45:13 -0700, Ken Prager > wrote:

>Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the results
>(again)???
>
><http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>

Are they TRYING to blow this case? Does LNDD and WADA and USADA want this case
to be thrown out on procedure while still sliming Floyd?

That is the only possible explanation for this egregious behavior.

Ron

[Mark Hickey]

Ken Prager > wrote:

>Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the results
>(again)???
>
><http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>

AND use up the last of the samples that could have been used for
independent testing to clear Floyd?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

[[email protected]]

On Apr 23, 9:19 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Ken Prager > wrote:
> >Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the results
> >(again)???
>
> ><http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>
> AND use up the last of the samples that could have been used for
> independent testing to clear Floyd?
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycleshttp://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

they started on monday last week and sunday is the only day his rep
wasn't in attendance- so they waited to do everything on one day
(sunday)?- or, because of the one day his rep was not allowed all the
other results become invalidated ?

[Sandy]

Dans le message de ,
Ken Prager > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the results
> (again)???
>
> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>

Within that same story, you will find that they did so as instructed by
USADA, or so CN says. As to leaking, this is not an "again" at all. They
did not previously leak results. I am neither for the lab nor against
Landis ; but please rely on facts, not gossip.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

[Sandy]

Dans le message de ,
RonSonic > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:45:13 -0700, Ken Prager >
> wrote:
>
>> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the
>> results (again)???
>>
>> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>
> Are they TRYING to blow this case? Does LNDD and WADA and USADA want
> this case to be thrown out on procedure while still sliming Floyd?

In the spirit of stamping out the Big Lie of our sport, procedure seems to
have been followed, just not your sense of how you want things to turn out
or how you imagine procedure to work. However, it is clear that the WADA
wants to get results that validate its own existence.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

[Sandy]

Dans le message de ,
Mark Hickey > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Ken Prager > wrote:
>
>> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the
>> results (again)???
>>
>> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>
> AND use up the last of the samples that could have been used for
> independent testing to clear Floyd?

Use, or use up ??? Are you certain, or are you just making this up ? I
really don't know.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

[[email protected]]

On Apr 24, 1:24 am, "Sandy" > wrote:
> Dans le message ,
> Mark Hickey > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > Ken Prager > wrote:
>
> >> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the
> >> results (again)???
>
> >> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>
> > AND use up the last of the samples that could have been used for
> > independent testing to clear Floyd?
>
> Use, or use up ??? Are you certain, or are you just making this up ? I
> really don't know.
> --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

dumbass,

from what i understand the a-sample and b-sample are sealed in front
of the athlete, so if the b-sample is tested i assume it's integrity
for the purposes of subsequent testing is destroyed.

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
ups.com,
> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Apr 24, 1:24 am, "Sandy" > wrote:
>> Dans le message ,
>> Mark Hickey > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>
>>> Ken Prager > wrote:
>>
>>>> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the
>>>> results (again)???
>>
>>>> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>>
>>> AND use up the last of the samples that could have been used for
>>> independent testing to clear Floyd?
>>
>> Use, or use up ??? Are you certain, or are you just making this up
>> ? I really don't know.
>> --
>> Bonne route !
>>
>> Sandy
>> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>
> dumbass,
>
> from what i understand the a-sample and b-sample are sealed in front
> of the athlete, so if the b-sample is tested i assume it's integrity
> for the purposes of subsequent testing is destroyed.

Chemical integrity, legal integrity or volumentric integrity ?
Again, I don't know as to other than legal, and I don't see that it is
compromised.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 24, 2:20 am, "Sandy" > wrote:
> Dans le message roups.com,
> > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 1:24 am, "Sandy" > wrote:
> >> Dans le message ,
> >> Mark Hickey > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> >>> Ken Prager > wrote:
>
> >>>> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the
> >>>> results (again)???
>
> >>>> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>
> >>> AND use up the last of the samples that could have been used for
> >>> independent testing to clear Floyd?
>
> >> Use, or use up ??? Are you certain, or are you just making this up
> >> ? I really don't know.
> >> --
> >> Bonne route !
>
> >> Sandy
> >> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > from what i understand the a-sample and b-sample are sealed in front
> > of the athlete, so if the b-sample is tested i assume it's integrity
> > for the purposes of subsequent testing is destroyed.
>
> Chemical integrity, legal integrity or volumentric integrity ?
> Again, I don't know as to other than legal, and I don't see that it is
> compromised.


legal. the a and b-samples are created when they are taken, but there
isn't a procedure to re-seal the unused portion to be used for later
testing.

[Donald Munro]

raamman wrote:
> they started on monday last week and sunday is the only day his rep
> wasn't in attendance

Do the French fit working on a sunday into a 35 hour week ?

[Sandy]

Dans le message de . com,
Donald Munro > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> raamman wrote:
>> they started on monday last week and sunday is the only day his rep
>> wasn't in attendance
>
> Do the French fit working on a sunday into a 35 hour week ?

We're not too hot on the idea of Thrusday or Friday, for that matter, not to
mention Monday!

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
oups.com,
> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Apr 24, 2:20 am, "Sandy" > wrote:
>> Dans le message
>> roups.com,
>> > a réfléchi, et puis a
>> déclaré :
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 24, 1:24 am, "Sandy" > wrote:
>>>> Dans le message ,
>>>> Mark Hickey > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>
>>>>> Ken Prager > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the
>>>>>> results (again)???
>>
>>>>>> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>>
>>>>> AND use up the last of the samples that could have been used for
>>>>> independent testing to clear Floyd?
>>
>>>> Use, or use up ??? Are you certain, or are you just making this up
>>>> ? I really don't know.
>>>> --
>>>> Bonne route !
>>
>>>> Sandy
>>>> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>>
>>> dumbass,
>>
>>> from what i understand the a-sample and b-sample are sealed in front
>>> of the athlete, so if the b-sample is tested i assume it's integrity
>>> for the purposes of subsequent testing is destroyed.
>>
>> Chemical integrity, legal integrity or volumentric integrity ?
>> Again, I don't know as to other than legal, and I don't see that it
>> is compromised.
>
>
> legal. the a and b-samples are created when they are taken, but there
> isn't a procedure to re-seal the unused portion to be used for later
> testing.

Only if one or both sides are being obstreperous, is there a problem in
creating an ad hoc formula.

[Bill C]

On Apr 24, 1:20 am, "Sandy" > wrote:
> Dans le message ,
> Ken Prager > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the results
> > (again)???
>
> > <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>
> Within that same story, you will find that they did so as instructed by
> USADA, or so CN says. As to leaking, this is not an "again" at all. They
> did not previously leak results. I am neither for the lab nor against
> Landis ; but please rely on facts, not gossip.
> --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Sandy at least AP is reporting it as "another" Leak:

http://tinyurl.com/3by6my

The news of Landis' positive test during the Tour, also conducted at
the Chatenay-Malabry lab outside Paris, also was leaked last year.

I have almost zero faith in the AP to report anything accurately, but
on the surface this seems to be a decent job of reporting what
happened, at least according to Landis. This is my big complaint with
AP's content. They take a position and have been caught, several
times, outright lieing to support it in hard news stories so who
knows.
Bill C

[Donald Munro]

Donald Munro wrote:
>> Do the French fit working on a sunday into a 35 hour week ?

Sandy wrote:
> We're not too hot on the idea of Thrusday or Friday, for that matter, not to
> mention Monday!

When I become rbr supreme leader I will issue a decree that henceforth
Monday is a stay at home recovery day following the sunday long ride (or
even the 30Km fatty master training ride "race").

[Mark Hickey]

"Sandy" > wrote:

>Dans le message de ,
>Ken Prager > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the results
>> (again)???
>>
>> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>
>Within that same story, you will find that they did so as instructed by
>USADA, or so CN says. As to leaking, this is not an "again" at all. They
>did not previously leak results.

Then perhaps you could explain how Landis was confronted DURING the
tour by the media about the results of his positive test, rather than
by UCI / WADA.... hmmmmm?

> I am neither for the lab nor against
>Landis ; but please rely on facts, not gossip.

You need to bolster your collection of facts, it appears.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

[Sandy]

Dans le message de ,
Mark Hickey > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> "Sandy" > wrote:
>
>> Dans le message de ,
>> Ken Prager > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the
>>> results (again)???
>>>
>>> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>>
>> Within that same story, you will find that they did so as instructed
>> by USADA, or so CN says. As to leaking, this is not an "again" at
>> all. They did not previously leak results.
>
> Then perhaps you could explain how Landis was confronted DURING the
> tour by the media about the results of his positive test, rather than
> by UCI / WADA.... hmmmmm?

I take it this was a smart-alecky "hmmmmm", yes?
Forgetting whether it was Pound or not, I do recall one of the hoity-toities
saying that there was a positive test result, and characterizing it as
something like "... and it couldn't be worse." Paraphrasing - I don't
recall perfectly. That's how I explain it.
>
>> I am neither for the lab nor against
>> Landis ; but please rely on facts, not gossip.
>
> You need to bolster your collection of facts, it appears.

No, I don't, or at least not to a non-paying non-client. For a substatial
fee, of course, I would be happy to do the legwork, but someone in the forum
will likely volunteer. Of course, if _you_ know precisely who it was who
disclosed the first inklings, I am sure you will let us all know.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 24, 1:24 am, "Sandy" > wrote:
> Dans le message ,
> Mark Hickey > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > Ken Prager > wrote:
>
> >> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the
> >> results (again)???
>
> >> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>
> > AND use up the last of the samples that could have been used for
> > independent testing to clear Floyd?
>
> Use, or use up ??? Are you certain, or are you just making this up ? I
> really don't know.
> --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Surely you understand that once the seal is broken on the container
that the contents are no longer valid? This is why there is supposed
to be an observer from the rider's camp present.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 24, 6:06 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> "Sandy" > wrote:
> >Dans le message ,
> >Ken Prager > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> >> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the results
> >> (again)???
>
> >> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>
> >Within that same story, you will find that they did so as instructed by
> >USADA, or so CN says. As to leaking, this is not an "again" at all. They
> >did not previously leak results.
>
> Then perhaps you could explain how Landis was confronted DURING the
> tour by the media about the results of his positive test, rather than
> by UCI / WADA.... hmmmmm?
>
> > I am neither for the lab nor against
> >Landis ; but please rely on facts, not gossip.
>
> You need to bolster your collection of facts, it appears.
>

C'mon man, don't be a candyass. Give us the names of the leakers.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 24, 6:06 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> "Sandy" > wrote:
> >Dans le message ,
> >Ken Prager > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> >> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the results
> >> (again)???
>
> >> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>
> >Within that same story, you will find that they did so as instructed by
> >USADA, or so CN says. As to leaking, this is not an "again" at all. They
> >did not previously leak results.
>
> Then perhaps you could explain how Landis was confronted DURING the
> tour by the media about the results of his positive test, rather than
> by UCI / WADA.... hmmmmm?
>
> > I am neither for the lab nor against
> >Landis ; but please rely on facts, not gossip.
>
> You need to bolster your collection of facts, it appears.
>

The "fact" that the "media" "confronted" Landis is neither necessary
nor sufficient to demonstrate that a person employed by the lab
communicated the results to a person who was not authorized to receive
them.
Now if you can name names, don't be a candyass, just give 'em up!

[Pete]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Sandy" > wrote:
>
>> Dans le message de ,
>> Ken Prager > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the results
>>> (again)???
>>>
>>> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>> Within that same story, you will find that they did so as instructed by
>> USADA, or so CN says. As to leaking, this is not an "again" at all. They
>> did not previously leak results.
>
> Then perhaps you could explain how Landis was confronted DURING the
> tour by the media about the results of his positive test, rather than
> by UCI / WADA.... hmmmmm?
>
>> I am neither for the lab nor against
>> Landis ; but please rely on facts, not gossip.
>
> You need to bolster your collection of facts, it appears.
>

The UCI announced that 'a rider' had failed a drug test after stage 17.
A process of deduction based on who would have been tested came to the
conclusion 'Landis' and the following day Phonak confirmed that it was
Landis.

So the lab didn't leak the results of the positive test on the 'A' sample.

Pete

[[email protected]]

On Apr 24, 3:46 am, "Sandy" > wrote:
> Dans le message groups.com,
> > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > legal. the a and b-samples are created when they are taken, but there
> > isn't a procedure to re-seal the unused portion to be used for later
> > testing.
>
> Only if one or both sides are being obstreperous, is there a problem in
> creating an ad hoc formula.

The whole point of test and measurement protocols is to
avoid ad hoc formulae. One of the issues here is that if
cases are handled ad hoc, the testing process may be
perceived as unfair, and tilted for or against one athlete
or another.

A judicial system is only as good as people's trust in it.
The anti-doping process is younger and smaller than the
years of precedent and (hopefully) trust built up in a
typical country's legal system. Also it's entirely built
around adjudicating questions of deception. So it should
ideally be as transparent as possible in order to build
trust in both the judged and the audience. I don't think
WADA sees it that way, though. They are on a crusade.

Ben

[Michael Press]

In article >,
"Sandy" > wrote:

> Dans le message de ,
> Mark Hickey > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> > "Sandy" > wrote:
> >
> >> Dans le message de ,
> >> Ken Prager > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> >>> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the
> >>> results (again)???
> >>>
> >>> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
> >>
> >> Within that same story, you will find that they did so as instructed
> >> by USADA, or so CN says. As to leaking, this is not an "again" at
> >> all. They did not previously leak results.
> >
> > Then perhaps you could explain how Landis was confronted DURING the
> > tour by the media about the results of his positive test, rather than
> > by UCI / WADA.... hmmmmm?
>
> I take it this was a smart-alecky "hmmmmm", yes?
> Forgetting whether it was Pound or not, I do recall one of the hoity-toities
> saying that there was a positive test result, and characterizing it as
> something like "... and it couldn't be worse." Paraphrasing - I don't
> recall perfectly. That's how I explain it.

It was Pat McQuaid who announced that an unnamed rider had tested
positive. He said, on record, that he announced the positive test
result to prevent Chatenay-Malabry laboratory from leaking the
result.

> >
> >> I am neither for the lab nor against
> >> Landis ; but please rely on facts, not gossip.
> >
> > You need to bolster your collection of facts, it appears.
>
> No, I don't, or at least not to a non-paying non-client. For a substatial
> fee, of course, I would be happy to do the legwork, but someone in the forum
> will likely volunteer. Of course, if _you_ know precisely who it was who
> disclosed the first inklings, I am sure you will let us all know.

--
Michael Press

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
oups.com,
> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
:
> On Apr 24, 3:46 am, "Sandy" > wrote:
>> Dans le message
>> groups.com,
>> > a réfléchi, et puis a
>> déclaré :
>>
>>> legal. the a and b-samples are created when they are taken, but
>>> there isn't a procedure to re-seal the unused portion to be used
>>> for later testing.
>>
>> Only if one or both sides are being obstreperous, is there a problem
>> in creating an ad hoc formula.
>
> The whole point of test and measurement protocols is to
> avoid ad hoc formulae.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. the issue of "procedure" I was referring to was a
legal procedure by which the parties could stipulate to a resealed vial.
And, if they don't, I would consider it bad faith or good lawyering,
depending on my mood.


--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
,
Michael Press > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article >,
> "Sandy" > wrote:
>
>> Dans le message de ,
>> Mark Hickey > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>> "Sandy" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dans le message de ,
>>>> Ken Prager > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>>>> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the
>>>>> results (again)???
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>>>>
>>>> Within that same story, you will find that they did so as
>>>> instructed by USADA, or so CN says. As to leaking, this is not an
>>>> "again" at all. They did not previously leak results.
>>>
>>> Then perhaps you could explain how Landis was confronted DURING the
>>> tour by the media about the results of his positive test, rather
>>> than by UCI / WADA.... hmmmmm?
>>
>> I take it this was a smart-alecky "hmmmmm", yes?
>> Forgetting whether it was Pound or not, I do recall one of the
>> hoity-toities saying that there was a positive test result, and
>> characterizing it as something like "... and it couldn't be worse."
>> Paraphrasing - I don't recall perfectly. That's how I explain it.
>
> It was Pat McQuaid who announced that an unnamed rider had tested
> positive. He said, on record, that he announced the positive test
> result to prevent Chatenay-Malabry laboratory from leaking the
> result.

Merci.

But as to McQuaid's comment, "to prevent" is just a little self-serving, no?

[Mark Hickey]

"Sandy" > wrote:

>Dans le message de ,
>Mark Hickey > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> "Sandy" > wrote:
>>
>>> Dans le message de ,
>>> Ken Prager > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>>> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the
>>>> results (again)???
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>>>
>>> Within that same story, you will find that they did so as instructed
>>> by USADA, or so CN says. As to leaking, this is not an "again" at
>>> all. They did not previously leak results.
>>
>> Then perhaps you could explain how Landis was confronted DURING the
>> tour by the media about the results of his positive test, rather than
>> by UCI / WADA.... hmmmmm?
>
>I take it this was a smart-alecky "hmmmmm", yes?
>Forgetting whether it was Pound or not, I do recall one of the hoity-toities
>saying that there was a positive test result, and characterizing it as
>something like "... and it couldn't be worse." Paraphrasing - I don't
>recall perfectly. That's how I explain it.
>>
>>> I am neither for the lab nor against
>>> Landis ; but please rely on facts, not gossip.
>>
>> You need to bolster your collection of facts, it appears.
>
>No, I don't, or at least not to a non-paying non-client. For a substatial
>fee, of course, I would be happy to do the legwork, but someone in the forum
>will likely volunteer. Of course, if _you_ know precisely who it was who
>disclosed the first inklings, I am sure you will let us all know.

It was obviously from the lab (just like this time). That's all we
really need to know.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

[Phil Holman]

"Sandy" > wrote in message
...
> Dans le message de
> oups.com,
> > a réfléchi, et puis a
> déclaré :
>> On Apr 24, 3:46 am, "Sandy" > wrote:
>>> Dans le message
>>> groups.com,
>>> > a réfléchi, et puis a
>>> déclaré :
>>>
>>>> legal. the a and b-samples are created when they are taken, but
>>>> there isn't a procedure to re-seal the unused portion to be used
>>>> for later testing.
>>>
>>> Only if one or both sides are being obstreperous, is there a problem
>>> in creating an ad hoc formula.
>>
>> The whole point of test and measurement protocols is to
>> avoid ad hoc formulae.
>
> Sorry if I wasn't clear. the issue of "procedure" I was referring to
> was a legal procedure by which the parties could stipulate to a
> resealed vial. And, if they don't, I would consider it bad faith or
> good lawyering, depending on my mood.

Your mood or on which side of the fence your client resides?

Phil H

[Phil Holman]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 24, 1:24 am, "Sandy" > wrote:
> Dans le message ,
> Mark Hickey > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > Ken Prager > wrote:
>
> >> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the
> >> results (again)???
>
> >> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>
> > AND use up the last of the samples that could have been used for
> > independent testing to clear Floyd?
>
> Use, or use up ??? Are you certain, or are you just making this up ?
> I
> really don't know.
> --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Surely you understand that once the seal is broken on the container
that the contents are no longer valid? This is why there is supposed
to be an observer from the rider's camp present.

Urr, you have to break the seal to test it. Maybe you could clarify what
you meant to say.

Phil H

[[email protected]]

On Apr 24, 1:20 am, "Sandy" > wrote:
> Dans le message ,
> Ken Prager > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the results
> > (again)???
>
> > <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>
> Within that same story, you will find that they did so as instructed by
> USADA, or so CN says. As to leaking, this is not an "again" at all. They
> did not previously leak results. I am neither for the lab nor against
> Landis ; but please rely on facts, not gossip.

So you don't believe that the results of the initial Landis tests were
leaked? Nor the so-called EPO positive of Armtrong? Come now Sandy,
prevarication doesn't become you.

[Pete]

wrote:
> On Apr 24, 1:20 am, "Sandy" > wrote:
>> Dans le message ,
>> Ken Prager > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>
>>> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the results
>>> (again)???
>>> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>> Within that same story, you will find that they did so as instructed by
>> USADA, or so CN says. As to leaking, this is not an "again" at all. They
>> did not previously leak results. I am neither for the lab nor against
>> Landis ; but please rely on facts, not gossip.
>
> So you don't believe that the results of the initial Landis tests were
> leaked? Nor the so-called EPO positive of Armtrong? Come now Sandy,
> prevarication doesn't become you.
>

The results of Landis' initial tests weren't leaked. They were
announced but the UCI and Phonak.

Peter

[Michael Press]

In article >,
"Sandy" > wrote:

> Dans le message de
> ,
> Michael Press > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> > In article >,
> > "Sandy" > wrote:
> >
> >> Dans le message de ,
> >> Mark Hickey > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> >>> "Sandy" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dans le message de ,
> >>>> Ken Prager > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> >>>>> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the
> >>>>> results (again)???
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
> >>>>
> >>>> Within that same story, you will find that they did so as
> >>>> instructed by USADA, or so CN says. As to leaking, this is not an
> >>>> "again" at all. They did not previously leak results.
> >>>
> >>> Then perhaps you could explain how Landis was confronted DURING the
> >>> tour by the media about the results of his positive test, rather
> >>> than by UCI / WADA.... hmmmmm?
> >>
> >> I take it this was a smart-alecky "hmmmmm", yes?
> >> Forgetting whether it was Pound or not, I do recall one of the
> >> hoity-toities saying that there was a positive test result, and
> >> characterizing it as something like "... and it couldn't be worse."
> >> Paraphrasing - I don't recall perfectly. That's how I explain it.
> >
> > It was Pat McQuaid who announced that an unnamed rider had tested
> > positive. He said, on record, that he announced the positive test
> > result to prevent Chatenay-Malabry laboratory from leaking the
> > result.
>
> Merci.
>
> But as to McQuaid's comment, "to prevent" is just a little self-serving, no?

I do not follow this argument. Do you mean to that say I
misquote? As to judgment, I am at a loss for words. He
alleges that Chatenay-Malabry laboratory is
untrustworthy, then participates in taking the
drug-testing process out of the charter and into the
newspapers. Appears that things will get much, much
worse. I have no idea what obstacle the runaway
drug-testing apparatus will finally run into. A tree, a
bridge abutment, ditch, ravine, river, a family home, ...

"We know that the French laboratory has a close
connection with L'Equipe, and we did not want this news
to come through the press, because we are sure they would
have leaked it."

--
Michael Press

[RonSonic]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:16:27 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Sandy" > wrote:
>
>> Dans le message de
>> ,
>> Michael Press > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> > In article >,
>> > "Sandy" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dans le message de ,
>> >> Mark Hickey > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> >>> "Sandy" > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Dans le message de ,
>> >>>> Ken Prager > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> >>>>> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the
>> >>>>> results (again)???
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Within that same story, you will find that they did so as
>> >>>> instructed by USADA, or so CN says. As to leaking, this is not an
>> >>>> "again" at all. They did not previously leak results.
>> >>>
>> >>> Then perhaps you could explain how Landis was confronted DURING the
>> >>> tour by the media about the results of his positive test, rather
>> >>> than by UCI / WADA.... hmmmmm?
>> >>
>> >> I take it this was a smart-alecky "hmmmmm", yes?
>> >> Forgetting whether it was Pound or not, I do recall one of the
>> >> hoity-toities saying that there was a positive test result, and
>> >> characterizing it as something like "... and it couldn't be worse."
>> >> Paraphrasing - I don't recall perfectly. That's how I explain it.
>> >
>> > It was Pat McQuaid who announced that an unnamed rider had tested
>> > positive. He said, on record, that he announced the positive test
>> > result to prevent Chatenay-Malabry laboratory from leaking the
>> > result.
>>
>> Merci.
>>
>> But as to McQuaid's comment, "to prevent" is just a little self-serving, no?
>
>I do not follow this argument. Do you mean to that say I
>misquote? As to judgment, I am at a loss for words. He
>alleges that Chatenay-Malabry laboratory is
>untrustworthy, then participates in taking the
>drug-testing process out of the charter and into the
>newspapers. Appears that things will get much, much
>worse. I have no idea what obstacle the runaway
>drug-testing apparatus will finally run into. A tree, a
>bridge abutment, ditch, ravine, river, a family home, ...

It's already plowed through the peloton without losing speed.

>"We know that the French laboratory has a close
>connection with L'Equipe, and we did not want this news
>to come through the press, because we are sure they would
>have leaked it."

Somebody needs a phone date with Alec Baldwin.

Ron

Ron

Effect pedal demo's up at http://www.soundclick.com/ronsonicpedalry

[dbrower]

On Apr 24, 12:34 pm, Pete > wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
> > "Sandy" > wrote:
>
> >> Dans le message ,
> >> Ken Prager > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> >>> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the results
> >>> (again)???
>
> >>> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
> >> Within that same story, you will find that they did so as instructed by
> >> USADA, or so CN says. As to leaking, this is not an "again" at all. They
> >> did not previously leak results.
>
> > Then perhaps you could explain howLandiswas confronted DURING the
> > tour by the media about the results of his positive test, rather than
> > by UCI / WADA.... hmmmmm?
>
> >> I am neither for the lab nor against
> >>Landis; but please rely on facts, not gossip.
>
> > You need to bolster your collection of facts, it appears.
>
> The UCI announced that 'a rider' had failed a drug test after stage 17.
> A process of deduction based on who would have been tested came to the
> conclusion 'Landis' and the following day Phonak confirmed that it wasLandis.
>
> So the lab didn't leak the results of the positive test on the 'A' sample.
>
> Pete

There are continuing stories that days before the end of the tour,
rumours were floating through the peleton and press corps of a
positive test result. I have not seen this referenced in print, but
have heard it through numerous sources.

There are clearly leaks. That M. Ressiot of L'Equipe is always the
bucket they drip into hints at a local connection rather, than one at
the UCI in Switzerland, but is not conclusive.

There should be a criminal investigation, as these are medical
records, and the questioning would have to start at the LNDD.

-dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and
comment.

[Halverde]

On Apr 26, 3:37 pm, dbrower > wrote:
> On Apr 24, 12:34 pm, Pete > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark Hickey wrote:
> > > "Sandy" > wrote:
>
> > >> Dans le message ,
> > >> Ken Prager > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> > >>> Why else would LNDD keep out his representative *and* leak the results
> > >>> (again)???
>
> > >>> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3>
> > >> Within that same story, you will find that they did so as instructed by
> > >> USADA, or so CN says. As to leaking, this is not an "again" at all. They
> > >> did not previously leak results.
>
> > > Then perhaps you could explain howLandiswas confronted DURING the
> > > tour by the media about the results of his positive test, rather than
> > > by UCI / WADA.... hmmmmm?
>
> > >> I am neither for the lab nor against
> > >>Landis; but please rely on facts, not gossip.
>
> > > You need to bolster your collection of facts, it appears.
>
> > The UCI announced that 'a rider' had failed a drug test after stage 17.
> > A process of deduction based on who would have been tested came to the
> > conclusion 'Landis' and the following day Phonak confirmed that it wasLandis.
>
> > So the lab didn't leak the results of the positive test on the 'A' sample.
>
> > Pete
>
> There are continuing stories that days before the end of the tour,
> rumours were floating through the peleton and press corps of a
> positive test result. I have not seen this referenced in print, but
> have heard it through numerous sources.
>
> There are clearly leaks. That M. Ressiot of L'Equipe is always the
> bucket they drip into hints at a local connection rather, than one at
> the UCI in Switzerland, but is not conclusive.
>
> There should be a criminal investigation, as these are medical
> records, and the questioning would have to start at the LNDD.
>
> -dB http://trustbut.blogspot.comfor Landis news, research, and
> comment.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If unsubstantiated rumours are passing as evidence this morning, it
should probably be known that there were rumours floating around
months BEFORE the Tour even started that Landis was constantly doped
up to the gills.

[Bill C]

On Apr 27, 3:09 am, Halverde > wrote:
>
> If unsubstantiated rumours are passing as evidence this morning, it
> should probably be known that there were rumours floating around
> months BEFORE the Tour even started that Landis was constantly doped
> up to the gills.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I thought that according to the rumors put out by Dick Pound that they
were all "doped to the gills", all the time? They were just beating
the system.
Bill C