WADA Got Under Armstrong's Skin

"amit" wrote in message
oups.com...

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
mtb Dad wrote:

They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
forms, puts two and two together?

Dumbass -


It's pretty damn obvious that Pound has an axe to grind.

That's not a good way to run a nascent "worldwide" governing body. He
should be sticking to the book, that's how any governing body
gains/keeps its credibility.

dumbass,

you (but not just you) are naive if you think pound has an axe to grind
with armstrong and that's where it ends.

a friend of mine who's more informed had what i thought was the right
take: pound doesn't care about cycling or armstrong, what he wants to
do is retroactively test olympic medals.

right now the provisions for retroactive testing within the WADA code
are vague, it had to be to get all these sports to agree to those
terms. but if he can lay some groundwork for retroactive testing with
the UCI, there's going to be huge pressure for other sports to enact
the same standards.

the tatic of declaring armstrong positive back in '99 when it's obvious
there's no way he can possibly be penalized (he's retired, there's no
B-samples etc.) is designed to put into place some concrete terms
allowing retroactive testing.

That has been the strategy not only in the Armstrong situation but with
Hamilton's Olympic medal as well. As far as Armstrong vis a vis Pound,
Armstrong is a tick easily removed.

"bob sullivan" wrote in message
. ..
B. Lafferty wrote:
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10063.0.html

Looks like attack/counter-attack to me. If cycling is 'chess on
wheels', then LANCE is playing 'chess in the press'.

Lance didn't release his letter to the IOC to the press. Someone else did.
Kinda forced a response, ya know?

--
Snippy

"amit" wrote in message
oups.com...

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
mtb Dad wrote:

They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
forms, puts two and two together?

Dumbass -


It's pretty damn obvious that Pound has an axe to grind.

That's not a good way to run a nascent "worldwide" governing body. He
should be sticking to the book, that's how any governing body
gains/keeps its credibility.

dumbass,

you (but not just you) are naive if you think pound has an axe to grind
with armstrong and that's where it ends.

a friend of mine who's more informed had what i thought was the right
take: pound doesn't care about cycling or armstrong, what he wants to
do is retroactively test olympic medals.

right now the provisions for retroactive testing within the WADA code
are vague, it had to be to get all these sports to agree to those
terms. but if he can lay some groundwork for retroactive testing with
the UCI, there's going to be huge pressure for other sports to enact
the same standards.

the tatic of declaring armstrong positive back in '99 when it's obvious
there's no way he can possibly be penalized (he's retired, there's no
B-samples etc.) is designed to put into place some concrete terms
allowing retroactive testing.

If that's true he chose a stupid-ass test case. He'd have been on more
solid ground with Hamilton. Using data from improperly handled samples
obtained under false pretenses makes hi look like just that guy in a ****ing
contest with lance.

--
Snippy

"B. Lafferty" wrote ...

You have to understand that this forum is predominantly pro-Armstrong and
anti-Pound. Just relax and watch the truth about Sir Lance unfold.

You keep saying that.

--
Snippy

Snippy Bobkins wrote:

the tatic of declaring armstrong positive back in '99 when it's obvious
there's no way he can possibly be penalized (he's retired, there's no
B-samples etc.) is designed to put into place some concrete terms
allowing retroactive testing.

If that's true he chose a stupid-ass test case. He'd have been on more
solid ground with Hamilton. Using data from improperly handled samples
obtained under false pretenses makes hi look like just that guy in a ****ing
contest with lance.

dumbass,

no the armstrong case is a perfect choice. the hamilton case is not a
case to push for retroactive testing -- hamilton got off on a
technicality.

in 1999 there was no test for EPO, armstrong's samples were tested as
part of the research with an EPO test years later.

pound knows that there's probably no way armstrong can be sanctioned,
but the case can be used to establish a protocol for retroactive
testing.

until now WADA has had to stay away from retroactive testing -- the
conditions would've been too radical to get everyone on board.

if cycling is the first sport to formally implement retroactive
testing, once that is done there will be pressure on all the other
olympic sports to do the same.

anecdotally, we know a lot of olympians have used doping methods which
did not become detectable until years later. that's what pound wants
to go after -- ie. shut down the doping/evading "arms race".

it's very similar to a labour union negociation.

i have to admit that this was all pointed out to me by someone more
observant than me. but in this light it pound's actions make sense to
me.

mtb Dad wrote:

They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
forms, puts two and two together?

dumbass,

there is obviously some kind of conspiracy.

WADA commsioned a study and report which is to imply armstrong doped in
1999 and somehow found a collaborator within the UCI to leak the doping
control forms which would connect names with positive samples.

the source of the leak is the UCI's own doctor, who gets a slight
reprimand and has since been reinstated.

how did WADA get the UCI to leak those forms?

amit.ghosh wrote:
how did WADA get the UCI to leak those forms?

The aliens organized it.

B. Lafferty wrote:

You have to understand that this forum is predominantly pro-Armstrong and
anti-Pound. Just relax and watch the truth about Sir Lance unfold.

As more time goes by, the likelihood of solid evidence for something
that even a plurality of reasonable people could converge on as "truth"
becomes less likely, not more. People's memories get vague,
evidence gets lost, facts get jumbled, vials get opened.

You probably know that obtaining a conviction in a real criminal case
is difficult many years after the fact; it is quite easy to sow doubt.
It's not clear to me, but I suspect that Dick Pound wants a regime of
dope testing that has no statute of limitations (amit made some good
points on this subject). When this is put into operation - and
probably to nail somebody less tricky/wealthy/high-profile than
LANCE - it will eventually lead to a maze of claim and counterclaim
worthy of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce. Asterisks in the record books are
for amateurs; under the Pound Rules, no regulated sporting event
will ever have a truly final outcome.

wrote in message
ups.com...
B. Lafferty wrote:

You have to understand that this forum is predominantly pro-Armstrong and
anti-Pound. Just relax and watch the truth about Sir Lance unfold.

As more time goes by, the likelihood of solid evidence for something
that even a plurality of reasonable people could converge on as "truth"
becomes less likely, not more. People's memories get vague,
evidence gets lost, facts get jumbled, vials get opened.

You probably know that obtaining a conviction in a real criminal case
is difficult many years after the fact; it is quite easy to sow doubt.
It's not clear to me, but I suspect that Dick Pound wants a regime of
dope testing that has no statute of limitations (amit made some good
points on this subject). When this is put into operation - and
probably to nail somebody less tricky/wealthy/high-profile than
LANCE - it will eventually lead to a maze of claim and counterclaim
worthy of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce. Asterisks in the record books are
for amateurs; under the Pound Rules, no regulated sporting event
will ever have a truly final outcome.

Time will tell. It's quite different from people witnessing a single
criminal event, often under less than optimal conditions. I'm still hoping
that Armstrong tells us what Emma gave him in the McDonalds car park in
Nice. ;-)

amit says...

dumbass,

no the armstrong case is a perfect choice. the hamilton case is not a
case to push for retroactive testing -- hamilton got off on a
technicality.

in 1999 there was no test for EPO, armstrong's samples were tested as
part of the research with an EPO test years later.

pound knows that there's probably no way armstrong can be sanctioned,
but the case can be used to establish a protocol for retroactive
testing.

Dumbass,

Too bad that term is overused here, because it really is appropriate in
response to your posts. Pud Pounder could have done his research and
worked to implement retroactive testing without getting into a media
**** flinging contest with the UCI and one of the most famous athletes
in the world. If the testing was all he was worried about, he chose a
**** poor way to go about establishing credibility. If it really was
experimental testing, we should have never heard about it, and the exact
origin of the samples wouldn't have mattered one bit. It would be hard
to imagine a more sordid story of abuse of power. WADA and the French
testing lab have revealed themselves as laughably inept organizations
motivated by personal vendettas. Both should be disbanded and replaced
with a better caliber of people.