|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
Laff also bad for cycling
"TM" wrote in message
... "Tom Kunich" wrote in message High standards? Do you mean "normal laboratory procedure"? Well, no one knows if there was a control group or not. Moreover, even if there is not a control group that does not invalidate the test out of hand. There are a ton of people who are in prison right now because of the results of tests performed on evidence stored without a control group. Without a control group there's no way of knowing that the EPO test has any efficacy at all. The tests look for a difference between the electrical charge in naturally occuring EPO and rhEPO which are otherwise chemically identical. Unless there's been a standard study to determine if this changes in stored blood (which there hasn't been to the best of knowledge) the results could only be inconclusive and could just as well indicate guilt because natural EPO shifted or innocence because rhEPO shifted. Moreover the results could just as well have had Aranesp change its charge because the gel phoresis tests check only for molecular weight and charge and EPO, rhEPO and Aranesp are all similar save for slight differences in charges. The entire results without so silly a thing as controls means that whatever they found is of little or no worth even as a strictly scientific investigation. |
Ads |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
Laff also bad for cycling
In article ,
"Sandy" wrote: Dans le message de , Mad Dog a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : Considering that your entire presence here is due to an overabundance of energy expended on the minutiae of lab chemistry and its possible perversions, not offering any value to racing bikes, you, with very few others, shall only appear before my eyes, when misguided correspondents may write to you. If that was too confounding, then I will explain - PLONK. Bone rot! -- Michael Press |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
Laff also bad for cycling
"Tom Kunich" wrote in message Without a control group there's no way of knowing that the EPO test has any efficacy at all. The tests look for a difference between the electrical charge in naturally occuring EPO and rhEPO which are otherwise chemically identical. Unless there's been a standard study to determine if this changes in stored blood (which there hasn't been to the best of knowledge) the results could only be inconclusive and could just as well indicate guilt because natural EPO shifted or innocence because rhEPO shifted. Moreover the results could just as well have had Aranesp change its charge because the gel phoresis tests check only for molecular weight and charge and EPO, rhEPO and Aranesp are all similar save for slight differences in charges. The entire results without so silly a thing as controls means that whatever they found is of little or no worth even as a strictly scientific investigation. I tried to tell mad dog he should be making that argument, but he wasn't buying it. suffer-jet won't take him up on it, will you? For my part, I can see where people clinging to the lance legend would gravitate to this argument and huddle behind it like a shield. You've got that guy from the german lab in your corner and I have the head of an ioc lab in mine. Let me propose this trade for you. I'll buy your argument for now, if you'll state that lance never testing positive only means that he is as innocent as pantani and millar. |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Laff also bad for cycling
TM says...
You want a citation that he knows more about the oj trial than anyone else in this newsgroup? I gleaned that from observation, but if you'd like to challenge him for it I'll be fair and give you a shot. Are your observational deficiencies responsible for your tendency to obsessively knee-jerk? Or do you just enjoy being associated with the word "jerk" ? Are you talking about where he said the control argument was not even close That's not what I said. It went like this, with your bull**** following "" and my reply following "^^". The whole part about it being a pity the b sample was wasted is very misguided on your part. You should be claiming that the b sample could never provide a result you would accept because a control group had to be frozen with it in 99 in order for your high standards to be met. To even hint that the b sample could provide an answer acceptable to you is being such a kevin livingston. You gave up your first line of defense without even a shot! ^^Not even close, but do drone on. Plain and simple, you missed it - but to dumb it down to your level - my "Not even close, but do drone on" was equivalent to saying: "Don't try to put words into my mouth, since you are ill-equipped to understand my reasoning". Since I dug the information up for you, will you sort him out for me? You wouldn't know the truth if it pierced your gut like a spear. My recommendation is for you and Laff to start an Obsessive Compulsive Thread. He can obsess on Lance till the cows come home and you can go at OJ till the end of time. You and Laff are two peas in a pod full of boredom juice - imagine how perfectly you can play straight for each other. |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
Laff also bad for cycling
"Mad Dog" wrote in message ... TM says... You want a citation that he knows more about the oj trial than anyone else in this newsgroup? I gleaned that from observation, but if you'd like to challenge him for it I'll be fair and give you a shot. Are your observational deficiencies responsible for your tendency to obsessively knee-jerk? Or do you just enjoy being associated with the word "jerk" ? Are you talking about where he said the control argument was not even close That's not what I said. It went like this, with your bull**** following "" and my reply following "^^". The whole part about it being a pity the b sample was wasted is very misguided on your part. You should be claiming that the b sample could never provide a result you would accept because a control group had to be frozen with it in 99 in order for your high standards to be met. To even hint that the b sample could provide an answer acceptable to you is being such a kevin livingston. You gave up your first line of defense without even a shot! ^^Not even close, but do drone on. Plain and simple, you missed it - but to dumb it down to your level - my "Not even close, but do drone on" was equivalent to saying: "Don't try to put words into my mouth, since you are ill-equipped to understand my reasoning". Since I dug the information up for you, will you sort him out for me? You wouldn't know the truth if it pierced your gut like a spear. My recommendation is for you and Laff to start an Obsessive Compulsive Thread. He can obsess on Lance till the cows come home and you can go at OJ till the end of time. You and Laff are two peas in a pod full of boredom juice - imagine how perfectly you can play straight for each other. I was OJ, Lance and Gilbert who did it to Nicole with the help of Walsh, Ballestier and Pound. Sounds like a law firm doesn't it? |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
Laff also bad for cycling
"Mad Dog" wrote in message Are your observational deficiencies responsible for your tendency to obsessively knee-jerk? Or do you just enjoy being associated with the word "jerk" ? That's not what I said. It went like this, with your bull**** following "" and my reply following "^^". Plain and simple, you missed it - but to dumb it down to your level - my "Not even close, but do drone on" was equivalent to saying: "Don't try to put words into my mouth, since you are ill-equipped to understand my reasoning". You wouldn't know the truth if it pierced your gut like a spear. My recommendation is for you and Laff to start an Obsessive Compulsive Thread. He can obsess on Lance till the cows come home and you can go at OJ till the end of time. You and Laff are two peas in a pod full of boredom juice - imagine how perfectly you can play straight for each other. mad dog, the tough talk loses its effect once you post that you're afraid to ride your bike in traffic. It also gets old, fast. Let's see... Or do you just enjoy being associated with the word "jerk" ? I must because I keep replying to your posts. are two peas in a pod full of boredom juice You're right. I am ill equipped to understand your reasoning. |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
Laff also bad for cycling
B. Lafferty says...
I was OJ, Lance and Gilbert That's an diverse set of personalities for one psychotic to assimilate but if you work on a story line, I bet it will sell. |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
Laff also bad for cycling
TM says...
mad dog, the tough talk loses its effect once you post that you're afraid to ride your bike in traffic. You talkin' about the Mexico thread, dumbass? It also gets old, fast. Whiney bitch. You're right. I am ill equipped to understand your reasoning. Ignorant whiney bitch. But at least you know your limitations, so Clint would be partially proud. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Yer gotta laff (or running a bike over). | Peter B | UK | 38 | April 20th 04 09:35 AM |