|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
WADA Got Under Armstrong's Skin
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. |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
WADA Got Under Armstrong's Skin
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 |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
WADA Got Under Armstrong's Skin
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... |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
WADA Got Under Armstrong's Skin
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! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UCI blasts WADA | tispectrum | Racing | 3 | June 13th 06 01:55 AM |
WADA blasts Dutch report | tispectrum | Racing | 25 | June 12th 06 07:28 PM |
The Armstrong 1999 report: Summary of Conclusions | Thomas Lund | Racing | 10 | June 5th 06 03:07 PM |
In the News: It's Armstrong's Final Chapter, and Cycling's Muddled Epilogue | Jason Spaceman | Racing | 15 | July 23rd 05 02:57 AM |
European reaction towards Lance Armstrong's Win | Larry | Racing | 46 | August 10th 04 07:28 AM |