WADA Got Under Armstrong's Skin

mtb Dad wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
mtb Dad wrote:

By the way, I don't think I've proposed retroactive testing of samples
now in storage, only in future. It wouldn't bother me if they did, and
maybe with luck nail some of those responsible for the deaths in the
early 90's. What's so sacred about past results anyway?




Ignoramous -


Those deaths were relatively low level Dutch riders - there are no
samples from that level.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.



Here's one not early 90's but 2003 that might have some samples around.



****. You're an idiot.

Strawman. You said 90s. I addressed it.

And as for the Strawman: the 2003 speculation: that was 3 ****ing years
ago. What was their conclusion? No link to EPO, I'll wager, otherwise
we'd of heard about it. They were testing for 50% by then and guys
around 50% aren't in danger of having excessive viscosity.

****ing moron. You're getting close to a Kunichian level of ignorance.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
mtb Dad wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
mtb Dad wrote:

By the way, I don't think I've proposed retroactive testing of samples
now in storage, only in future. It wouldn't bother me if they did, and
maybe with luck nail some of those responsible for the deaths in the
early 90's. What's so sacred about past results anyway?




Ignoramous -


Those deaths were relatively low level Dutch riders - there are no
samples from that level.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.



Here's one not early 90's but 2003 that might have some samples around.



****. You're an idiot.

Patience. Your temper is showing.

Strawman. You said 90s. I addressed it.

No, the discussion was whether samples might be available for testing
later. I found an article about a death, an autopsy, and tests done in
an IOC lab, from which samples might still exist, in response to your
contention that "there are no samples from that level". Why couldn't
those others have had similar tests? Their level? EPO was known as a
factor in sport starting in 1987.

And as for the Strawman: the 2003 speculation: that was 3 ****ing years
ago. What was their conclusion? No link to EPO, I'll wager, otherwise
we'd of heard about it. They were testing for 50% by then and guys
around 50% aren't in danger of having excessive viscosity.

No, there was no conclusion about EPO, but again, this wasn't the
point, in fact YOUR point, that samples weren't taken. If you can find
that autopsies weren't conducted and no samples collected, great.
Until then, control yourself eh?

****ing moron. You're getting close to a Kunichian level of ignorance.

'Must have touched a raw nerve. Sorry man.

mtb Dad wrote:
Bob Schwartz wrote:
mtb Dad wrote:
Bob Schwartz wrote:
Bill C wrote:
mtb Dad wrote:
Just giving you the benefit of the doubt for missing the points of my
posts. How is retroactive testing going to hurt the innocent?
It's not, once they have a good test. They don't have one yet and are
using what they have to play politics.
Let's get it right, then do it.
mtb Dad, you are aware that WADA was using a test that was known
to have problems, aren't you? And that at least three athletes
suffered damage to their careers and reputations until they
overturned sanctions based on results from this test that WADA
knew had problems? And that this cost them a lot of money to do
and don't you wonder how many just walked away rather than
challenge results that they knew were wrong?

Or don't you give a ****.

Organizations like WADA survive on integrity and trust. Dick Pound
has the integrity of a pile of ****. That's why he can do stuff
like hand a test result to the someone that has an interest in
finding a positive, tell them who it belongs to, and ask them to
interpret it. Even if the guy did it (and I think he did) it is
still wrong, and it shows no respect for the process. Which damages
integrity and trust.

It was ancestors of yours that came up with the float test for
witches back at Salem. You and Dick Pound.

Bob Schwartz
You're saying the EPO test isn't good enough, period. That's a leap
from the discussion here.
No, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is (and I'll
try to use small words for you) is that what you are proposing
needs ethics that are beyond questioning. And Pound's ethics
are a pile of ****. And that piles of **** are very questionable.
in an ethical sense.

I illustrated this with WADA's flushing at least three innocent
athletes through their use of an EPO test that they knew was
flawed. And because challenging the test is so expensive there
are almost certainly innocent athletes that chose to just walk
away rather than try to clear themselves. This is not something
an ethical person does, although if your ethics were a pile of
**** you wouldn't have a problem with it.

And you responded:

If there was a hint of suggestion that innocent riders were being
caught, I could share your concerns. But it only seems to be guilty
ones getting off, over and over again.
Jesus, you're a piece of work. You're using the Kunich technique
of not seeing stuff you don't want to see.

Very well. I have learned that it is a waste of time to engage
true believers. I ignore Kunich and I will ignore you.

Bob Schwartz

And you are a believer that Pound is at fault, for which there is less
evidence than Lance doped. You said the test is unreliable, and I
asked if you meant for all tests (as suggested by your reference to, I
assume, Betke), then you said no, that's not what you meant. So what
do you mean?

I'm proposing that retroactive testing is the only way to deal with the
arms race of doping. Nothing more. You assume it's all about Lance
and the Paris lab.

I do think it's odd that several here argue so hard to defend Lance on
procedural grounds, yet say retroactive testing won't work, even in the
future. I'm not qualified to discuss the details of retroactive
testing, but the principle is still up for discussion.

Lance? I didn't say anything at all about Lance. Who is
this Lance person you are obsessed with?

You're as bad as Lafferty. That's not a good thing.

Bob Schwartz

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 23:06:22 +0200, Sandy wrote:


I also saw "The Daily Report" - we get the worldwide, weekend half-hour,
with an Ohio political party worker, whose platform was to decriminalize
drunk driving on the week-end. Her feeling was "You get five days, we
only get two." Enlightened. How about it ? Sounds right to me.
Mandatory racing under the influence. The cheaters would be the ones
not so jolly at departure - bidons full of 10% alcohol of choice -
calories and attitude.

Well, my brother said that in Wyoming they often argued that open
containers of alcohol should be permitted while driving, because the
prohibition against open containers encouraged everyone to drink down
whatever they had left before leaving the bar or restaurant. A bit
more logic in that one...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

In article .com,
mtb Dad wrote:

Bill C wrote:
mtb Dad wrote:
the idea of reaching back, I can't see another way to deal with
undetectable substances and methods. How will we deal with gene
doping, except to say, 'one day we can get you'? Also, isn't cheating
in sport fraud, and continuing to hide it, 'concealment'?

What is using testing methodologies that haven't been peer reviewed
and are being questioned by major universities to convict and destroy
people?

As Henry has pointed out a million times, sport is a mirror of
society, nothing more or less. You don't like what you see in sport,

You worry me more than anyone other than Tosi who's been here.
Bill C

Are you drunk?

Why, Lister, why? Why must you suddenly drag innocent, blameless, harmless
alcohol into this ugly fight?

That's just wrong,
--
Ryan Cousineau, , www.wiredcola.com
Democracy, whiskey, and sexy!