Australia/Russian federations are stupid

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7209.0.html

"Given there was blood doping, we think there is a chance that even
though there has been some contamination of the B sample there may be an
argument to say, well, the B sample may not be relevant," Phillips said.

---------------

Dear Jeff Jones,

You may want to tell your federation that it's not a good idea to
proceed on the idiotic argument that B samples are not important. What
kind of precedent would that be?

Not that it has any chance of winning, but rather the attorneys
representing the Russian and Australian federations are just stealing
hundreds of thousands of Euros from cycling programs to promote an
argument that has absolutely no chance of prevailing.

Yeah, let's throw out the B samples and apply that new rule (that
doesn't even exist and never will) RETROACTIVELY - what a great legal
argument.

Jeff - why not do an article and tell us how much money the Autralisn
are wasting on legal fees? Or maybe they work "pro bono" like the USAC
attorney CLAIMS.


Thanks,


Magilla

Why? Because they want the gold and bronze medals they earned?
"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7209.0.html

"Given there was blood doping, we think there is a chance that even
though there has been some contamination of the B sample there may be an
argument to say, well, the B sample may not be relevant," Phillips said.

---------------

Dear Jeff Jones,

You may want to tell your federation that it's not a good idea to
proceed on the idiotic argument that B samples are not important. What
kind of precedent would that be?

Not that it has any chance of winning, but rather the attorneys
representing the Russian and Australian federations are just stealing
hundreds of thousands of Euros from cycling programs to promote an
argument that has absolutely no chance of prevailing.

Yeah, let's throw out the B samples and apply that new rule (that
doesn't even exist and never will) RETROACTIVELY - what a great legal
argument.

Jeff - why not do an article and tell us how much money the Autralisn
are wasting on legal fees? Or maybe they work "pro bono" like the USAC
attorney CLAIMS.


Thanks,


Magilla

Why? Because they want the gold and bronze medals they earned?
"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7209.0.html

"Given there was blood doping, we think there is a chance that even
though there has been some contamination of the B sample there may be an
argument to say, well, the B sample may not be relevant," Phillips said.

---------------

Dear Jeff Jones,

You may want to tell your federation that it's not a good idea to
proceed on the idiotic argument that B samples are not important. What
kind of precedent would that be?

Not that it has any chance of winning, but rather the attorneys
representing the Russian and Australian federations are just stealing
hundreds of thousands of Euros from cycling programs to promote an
argument that has absolutely no chance of prevailing.

Yeah, let's throw out the B samples and apply that new rule (that
doesn't even exist and never will) RETROACTIVELY - what a great legal
argument.

Jeff - why not do an article and tell us how much money the Autralisn
are wasting on legal fees? Or maybe they work "pro bono" like the USAC
attorney CLAIMS.


Thanks,


Magilla

IOC and WADA rules say Tyler's test has to be considered negative
because they botched the B sample. So the Russians and Aussies deserve
no medals they don't already have, according to the IOC rules.

You should respect the rules as an attorney and not make these emotional
arguments that are not supported by the rules.

Thanks,

Magilla
King Gorilla of the Jungle


Philip W. Moore, Jr. wrote:

Why? Because they want the gold and bronze medals they earned?
"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7209.0.html

"Given there was blood doping, we think there is a chance that even
though there has been some contamination of the B sample there may be an
argument to say, well, the B sample may not be relevant," Phillips said.

---------------

Dear Jeff Jones,

You may want to tell your federation that it's not a good idea to
proceed on the idiotic argument that B samples are not important. What
kind of precedent would that be?

Not that it has any chance of winning, but rather the attorneys
representing the Russian and Australian federations are just stealing
hundreds of thousands of Euros from cycling programs to promote an
argument that has absolutely no chance of prevailing.

Yeah, let's throw out the B samples and apply that new rule (that
doesn't even exist and never will) RETROACTIVELY - what a great legal
argument.

Jeff - why not do an article and tell us how much money the Autralisn
are wasting on legal fees? Or maybe they work "pro bono" like the USAC
attorney CLAIMS.


Thanks,


Magilla

IOC and WADA rules say Tyler's test has to be considered negative
because they botched the B sample. So the Russians and Aussies deserve
no medals they don't already have, according to the IOC rules.

You should respect the rules as an attorney and not make these emotional
arguments that are not supported by the rules.

Thanks,

Magilla
King Gorilla of the Jungle


Philip W. Moore, Jr. wrote:

Why? Because they want the gold and bronze medals they earned?
"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7209.0.html

"Given there was blood doping, we think there is a chance that even
though there has been some contamination of the B sample there may be an
argument to say, well, the B sample may not be relevant," Phillips said.

---------------

Dear Jeff Jones,

You may want to tell your federation that it's not a good idea to
proceed on the idiotic argument that B samples are not important. What
kind of precedent would that be?

Not that it has any chance of winning, but rather the attorneys
representing the Russian and Australian federations are just stealing
hundreds of thousands of Euros from cycling programs to promote an
argument that has absolutely no chance of prevailing.

Yeah, let's throw out the B samples and apply that new rule (that
doesn't even exist and never will) RETROACTIVELY - what a great legal
argument.

Jeff - why not do an article and tell us how much money the Autralisn
are wasting on legal fees? Or maybe they work "pro bono" like the USAC
attorney CLAIMS.


Thanks,


Magilla

MagillaGorilla wrote:
IOC and WADA rules say Tyler's test has to be considered negative
because they botched the B sample. So the Russians and Aussies deserve
no medals they don't already have, according to the IOC rules.

You should respect the rules as an attorney and not make these emotional
arguments that are not supported by the rules.

Speaking of the rules...

http://www.wada-ama.org/docs/web/sta...ide%202004.pdf

Page 25, Results Management. Tyler's test is not negative, it's an invalidated
positive. Semantics, I know. I imagine their strategy will be to attack the
need for B sample validation. Stranger things have happened when lawyers are
involved. But not as strange as a positive test being considered negative.

As a gorilla you are allowed to make arguments based on rules that don't exist.
But it is still poor form.

Bob Schwartz

MagillaGorilla wrote:
IOC and WADA rules say Tyler's test has to be considered negative
because they botched the B sample. So the Russians and Aussies deserve
no medals they don't already have, according to the IOC rules.

You should respect the rules as an attorney and not make these emotional
arguments that are not supported by the rules.

Speaking of the rules...

http://www.wada-ama.org/docs/web/sta...ide%202004.pdf

Page 25, Results Management. Tyler's test is not negative, it's an invalidated
positive. Semantics, I know. I imagine their strategy will be to attack the
need for B sample validation. Stranger things have happened when lawyers are
involved. But not as strange as a positive test being considered negative.

As a gorilla you are allowed to make arguments based on rules that don't exist.
But it is still poor form.

Bob Schwartz

Equity and the Court of Chancery anyone?

"Bob Schwartz" wrote in message
...
MagillaGorilla wrote:
IOC and WADA rules say Tyler's test has to be considered negative
because they botched the B sample. So the Russians and Aussies deserve
no medals they don't already have, according to the IOC rules.

You should respect the rules as an attorney and not make these emotional
arguments that are not supported by the rules.

Speaking of the rules...

http://www.wada-ama.org/docs/web/sta...ide%202004.pdf

Page 25, Results Management. Tyler's test is not negative, it's an
invalidated
positive. Semantics, I know. I imagine their strategy will be to attack
the
need for B sample validation. Stranger things have happened when lawyers
are
involved. But not as strange as a positive test being considered negative.

As a gorilla you are allowed to make arguments based on rules that don't
exist.
But it is still poor form.

Bob Schwartz

Equity and the Court of Chancery anyone?

"Bob Schwartz" wrote in message
...
MagillaGorilla wrote:
IOC and WADA rules say Tyler's test has to be considered negative
because they botched the B sample. So the Russians and Aussies deserve
no medals they don't already have, according to the IOC rules.

You should respect the rules as an attorney and not make these emotional
arguments that are not supported by the rules.

Speaking of the rules...

http://www.wada-ama.org/docs/web/sta...ide%202004.pdf

Page 25, Results Management. Tyler's test is not negative, it's an
invalidated
positive. Semantics, I know. I imagine their strategy will be to attack
the
need for B sample validation. Stranger things have happened when lawyers
are
involved. But not as strange as a positive test being considered negative.

As a gorilla you are allowed to make arguments based on rules that don't
exist.
But it is still poor form.

Bob Schwartz

Bob Schwartz wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

IOC and WADA rules say Tyler's test has to be considered negative
because they botched the B sample. So the Russians and Aussies deserve
no medals they don't already have, according to the IOC rules.


You should respect the rules as an attorney and not make these emotional
arguments that are not supported by the rules.


Speaking of the rules...

http://www.wada-ama.org/docs/web/sta...ide%202004.pdf

Page 25, Results Management. Tyler's test is not negative, it's an invalidated
positive. Semantics, I know. I imagine their strategy will be to attack the
need for B sample validation. Stranger things have happened when lawyers are
involved. But not as strange as a positive test being considered negative.

As a gorilla you are allowed to make arguments based on rules that don't exist.
But it is still poor form.

Bob Schwartz



Bob,

Tyler's Olympic test is considered negative because when he asked for
the B sample to be tested, they said they destroyed it. So under the
rules, his test can not be considered positive annd the no sanction can
be taken against Tyler. Do you think you know something that Dick Pound
and the IOC don't?

All you did is cite some definition and are now trying to mis-apply it.

You don't think the IOC and WADA are aware of the ****ing link you cut
and pasted above?

Goddamn you are stupid.

Magilla