Laff also bad for cycling

Six positive epo finding for Armstrong in 1999 out of 12 overall and 40+
positive findings for 1998. No one in the scientific community has
addressed the research that the Mabray lab was doing and declared the
findings to be incorrect. The research being done was itself a check and
balance on the test in use under the WADA code.

According to their own website -
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.c...tegory.id=253- the WADA came to
be on November 10, 1999, with the goal of being "fully operational" for the
Olympic Games in Sydney in 2000.

Reaching back earlier than the incorporation of the WADA for test results,
conducted under conditions which may have only coincidentally been in step
with later standards, seems a bit of a stretch.

WADA isn't doing itself any favors with this one. As I've said before,
there's evidence enough to slander, but not enough to either acquit or prove
guilt. The WADA appears to be taking on a tactic of seeking compliance
through intimidation, fear & reckless (but tolerated, so far) behaviour.
They've set the goal of "clean" (a relative term) sports back a number of
years, as they encourage endless bickering about questionable procedures
rather than unquestionable proof of drug usage.

When we think of the WADA, it should be in terms of "Dang, another stupid
athlete got caught." Instead, it's "Are these tests really that reliable,
when so-and-so was supposedly guilty until they rewrote the test due to
false positives?"

The WADA is, in effect, the highest court in the land. It should act in a
manner that creates respect, rather than questioning of motives & whether
procedures are designed to obtain expected results more so than prove guilt.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
news

"Phil Holman" wrote in message
...

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...

"k.papai" wrote in message
ups.com...
Cyclingnews: What are your thoughts on the latest in the EPO
allegations, particularly involving Lance Armstrong?

E. Merckx: I cannot understand it. How can you attack somebody that
cannot defend himself? It's not normal too... the testing [procedure.]
If you have something, you go to the UCI or WADA - but not after five
or six years. That is not correct. It's a bad thing for cycling.

Of course Eddy was the person who introduced Armstrong to Dr. Ferrari.

Not everyone agrees with Eddy:
"We have to respect the assumption of innocence. It's not up to the
athlete to prove he's not guilty, it is up to the sporting bodies to
prove that he is. I'm in favour of a thorough independent investigation,
accepted by all parties. The IOC wants to retro-actively have the urine
samples examined but first WADA has to determine the procedures to do
this. Only then the discussion will stop."--Jacques Rogge, IOC Chairman.

Lance Armstrong has stated that he had no objection to having his urine
stored and tested as new testing technologies were developed. Mon Dieu!
That was before his urine came up positive six times.

New technologies doesn't mean abandoning scientific checks and balances.
You argue around Armstrong's guilt purely on the basis of speculation and
your own lopsided suspicions. Get back to us when the hard evidence shows
up (seriously).

Phil H

Six positive epo finding for Armstrong in 1999 out of 12 overall and 40+
positive findings for 1998. No one in the scientific community has
addressed the research that the Mabray lab was doing and declared the
findings to be incorrect. The research being done was itself a check and
balance on the test in use under the WADA code.

There is far more than "speculation" with regard to Armstrong and the
others (seriously).

No doubt because Pappy knew your open mouth would be right there waiting for
Brown 24.



Direct hit!

Jim Flom wrote:

Brian ID's with the peons who would take the powerful down, just because
they can.

dumbass,

that's a good observation. the doping talk is just to take down LANCE,
because he represents the powers that be.

this is a common reaction by someone who feels rejected by the
establishment, though it is weird that a lawyer would be a guy who's
really out to "stick it to the man".

Before LANCE made his comeback Lafferty's obsession was USAC and USOC.
You can sense his glee when the US National team underperforms at
Worlds or Olympics.

"Phil Holman" wrote in message
...

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...

"k.papai" wrote in message
ups.com...
Cyclingnews: What are your thoughts on the latest in the EPO
allegations, particularly involving Lance Armstrong?

E. Merckx: I cannot understand it. How can you attack somebody that
cannot defend himself? It's not normal too... the testing [procedure.]
If you have something, you go to the UCI or WADA - but not after five
or six years. That is not correct. It's a bad thing for cycling.

Of course Eddy was the person who introduced Armstrong to Dr. Ferrari.

Not everyone agrees with Eddy:
"We have to respect the assumption of innocence. It's not up to the
athlete to prove he's not guilty, it is up to the sporting bodies to
prove that he is. I'm in favour of a thorough independent investigation,
accepted by all parties. The IOC wants to retro-actively have the urine
samples examined but first WADA has to determine the procedures to do
this. Only then the discussion will stop."--Jacques Rogge, IOC Chairman.

Lance Armstrong has stated that he had no objection to having his urine
stored and tested as new testing technologies were developed. Mon Dieu!
That was before his urine came up positive six times.

New technologies doesn't mean abandoning scientific checks and balances.
You argue around Armstrong's guilt purely on the basis of speculation and
your own lopsided suspicions. Get back to us when the hard evidence shows
up (seriously).

Phil H

In all fairness, there is quite hard evidence against Armstrong. You might
not consider it convincing, but that's a matter of judgement.

"amit" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jim Flom wrote:

Brian ID's with the peons who would take the powerful down, just because
they can.

dumbass,

that's a good observation. the doping talk is just to take down LANCE,
because he represents the powers that be.

this is a common reaction by someone who feels rejected by the
establishment, though it is weird that a lawyer would be a guy who's
really out to "stick it to the man".

Before LANCE made his comeback Lafferty's obsession was USAC and USOC.
You can sense his glee when the US National team underperforms at
Worlds or Olympics.

We had a team at the Worlds??!! USAC still sucks. The SF Weekly article
illustrated why. I don't recall being critical here as to the USOC; not
that they are a great group.

"Jim Flom " wrote in message
news:UEg0f.200245$wr.14656@clgrps12...

Brian ID's with the peons who would take the powerful down, just because
they can.

Take Brian out of it for a minute.

Lance gets on the podium and chastises everyone for not believing in dreams
and you're a lab worker who knows he failed an epo test 6 times... that's
not taking somebody down 'just because'.

That's taking them down because they are an arrogant, lying ass.

It's not uncommon:

According to the author of the article, Patrick Lefelon, Museeuw's arrogance
and his off-hand manner of treating things when the whole investigation
started in the summer of 2003, has motivated the magistrates and detectives
to investigate this dossier to the fullest. Every bit of information was
analysed and the SMSs and telephone conversations between Museeuw and
Landuyt were analysed to the last letter.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...t05/oct03news2


Lance's speech on this year's podium was the rope with which he hung
himself. Now comes the unpleasant part...

"TM" wrote ...

According to the author of the article, Patrick Lefelon, Museeuw's
arrogance and his off-hand manner of treating things when the whole
investigation started in the summer of 2003, has motivated the magistrates
and detectives to investigate this dossier to the fullest. Every bit of
information was analysed and the SMSs and telephone conversations between
Museeuw and Landuyt were analysed to the last letter.

Take Museeuw out of it, and put it back into its correct context. You have
the tests such as they are, the documented conflict of interest of L'Equipe,
the breach of scientific protocols, the violation of athlete's rights all
over the place... oh, don't get me started. The whole thing stinks... which
is where, well, nevermind.

JF

--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/

"Jim Flom " wrote in message
news:qJw0f.362$Io.68@clgrps13...
"TM" wrote ...

According to the author of the article, Patrick Lefelon, Museeuw's
arrogance and his off-hand manner of treating things when the whole
investigation started in the summer of 2003, has motivated the
magistrates and detectives to investigate this dossier to the fullest.
Every bit of information was analysed and the SMSs and telephone
conversations between Museeuw and Landuyt were analysed to the last
letter.

Take Museeuw out of it, and put it back into its correct context. You
have the tests such as they are, the documented conflict of interest of
L'Equipe, the breach of scientific protocols, the violation of athlete's
rights all over the place... oh, don't get me started. The whole thing
stinks... which is where, well, nevermind.

Which "scientific protocols" were breached by the Maybray lab's research?

"Jim Flom " wrote in message
news:qJw0f.362$Io.68@clgrps13...
"TM" wrote ...

According to the author of the article, Patrick Lefelon, Museeuw's
arrogance and his off-hand manner of treating things when the whole
investigation started in the summer of 2003, has motivated the
magistrates and detectives to investigate this dossier to the fullest.
Every bit of information was analysed and the SMSs and telephone
conversations between Museeuw and Landuyt were analysed to the last
letter.

Take Museeuw out of it, and put it back into its correct context. You
have the tests such as they are, the documented conflict of interest of
L'Equipe,

And what of Armstrong's conflict of interest in donating money to the UCI
for drug testing. Consider Sylvia Shenk's words before replying:
"But everything is suddenly different when it comes to Armstrong...There is
obviously a close relationship to Armstrong. For example, the UCI took a lot
of money from Armstrong - as far as I know, $500,000. Now of course there is
speculation that there are financial relationships to Armstrong as well as
to the American market."

Muy egotistical of you to place a quote of your own next to that of
Eddy. You assume that we care what you think.