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.

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

"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.

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.

"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?

"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.

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.

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.