If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...

On Fri, 25 May 2007 08:53:58 -0500, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

Doug Taylor wrote:
Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
Statistical likelihood the test was correct?

You tell me, retard.

Dumbass,

If you have bad baseline resolution and peak shouldering, what is
the statistical probability that there were problems with the test
run?

You tell me, dumbass. That is an upstream issue. You have to
correctly resolve it before you can move on to your assertion that
Floyd tested positive for dope.

How are things upstream in la la land, Bob?

Please stop dumping your sewage in the public stream; the stench is
clouding the minds of the credulous.

On May 25, 6:14 am, Doug Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:33:33 -0700, Howard Kveck

wrote:

Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
Statistical likelihood the test was correct?

After reading much of the expert testimony that found a zillion flaws
in LNDD testing, statistical likelihood of correct results is low.
Very low. The tests are so bad there's no way of knowing if we're
dealing with a true positive or a false positive.

On 25 May 2007 07:53:10 -0700, wimpyVO2 wrote:

On May 25, 6:14 am, Doug Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:33:33 -0700, Howard Kveck

wrote:

Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
Statistical likelihood the test was correct?

After reading much of the expert testimony that found a zillion flaws
in LNDD testing, statistical likelihood of correct results is low.
Very low. The tests are so bad there's no way of knowing if we're
dealing with a true positive or a false positive.

Yeah. And pigs fly.

Will we EVER find the real killers?

On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:33:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:


At the jerk-offs in this forum who piled on Lemond, although it is
obvious and a fact that the Landis defense tried amateurishly to
intimidate him.

His pal Will G. did that, no doubt. But he isn't part of the defense, is he?

Like he acted all by himself and Floyd didn't know about it.

Did you listen to Floyd's "convincing" testimony?

If Floyd were Pinocchio his nose would be as long as Dillinger's dick.

Are you:

1) Really that naive and credulous?

2) Really that stupid?

3) Part of the defense?

Doug Taylor wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 08:53:58 -0500, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

Doug Taylor wrote:
Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
Statistical likelihood the test was correct?

You tell me, retard.
Dumbass,

If you have bad baseline resolution and peak shouldering, what is
the statistical probability that there were problems with the test
run?

You tell me, dumbass. That is an upstream issue. You have to
correctly resolve it before you can move on to your assertion that
Floyd tested positive for dope.

How are things upstream in la la land, Bob?

Please stop dumping your sewage in the public stream; the stench is
clouding the minds of the credulous.

Dumbass,

You remind me of this classic from Ed Meese:

U.S News: You criticize the Miranda ruling, which gives suspects the
right to have a lawyer present before police questioning. Shouldn't
people, who may be innocent, have such protection?
Meese: Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is,
you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's
contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.

A blast from the past,

Bob Schwartz

On Fri, 25 May 2007 10:21:29 -0500, Bob Schwartz
wrote:


Dumbass,

You remind me of this classic from Ed Meese:

U.S News: You criticize the Miranda ruling, which gives suspects the
right to have a lawyer present before police questioning. Shouldn't
people, who may be innocent, have such protection?
Meese: Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is,
you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's
contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.

Dumbass:

Objection! Irrelevant!

Floyd Landis is not accused of a crime, and is his case is not under
the jurisdiction of the US Constitution.

Appeal to common ****ing sense:

1) The pro peloton is replete with dopers.

Read this and see if it doesn't sound convincing:

German doctor Kurt Moosburger, who has looked after Jörg
Jaksche (among others) for the past two years, has told dpa that he
believes that performance enhancing drugs are "indispensable" for high
level cycling

In a frank interview, Moosburger pointed to the average speeds of
modern professional races, especially hard tours. "The average in last
year's Tour was 41 kilometres per hour - that is incredible. You can
do a hard Alpine stage without doping. But after that, the muscles are
exhausted. You need - depending on your training conditions - up to
three days in order to regenerate."

To help recover, testosterone and human growth hormone can be used.
"Both are made by the body and are therefore natural substances," he
said. "They help to build muscle as well as in muscle recovery."

Dr Moosburger explained how it was done. "You put a standard
testosterone patch that is used for male hormone replacement therapy
on your scrotum and leave it there for about six hours. The small dose
is not sufficient to produce a positive urine result in the doping
test, but the body actually recovers faster."

Dr Moosburger went onto explain that, "The supply of oxygen to the
blood decides what the body is capable of in terms of fat- and
carbohydrate metabolism. This capacity is mostly genetically
determined.The muscles of athletes who are able to reach the top level
of sport can carry about 60 millilitres per kilo per minute in an
untrained condition. That of an average person is only about 40
millilitres per kilo. In order to be able to keep up with the world's
best, it must be 85 to 90 millilitres.

EPO helps oxygen carrying capacity, and has long been the performance
enhancing drug of choice in endurance sports. "It enables you to hold
the haematocrit of the blood in the upper level of what's allowed for
the whole season. Before the EPO test, for example, athletes injected
4000 units three times per week. Now they inject a small dose almost
daily."

Finally, in the opinion of Dr Moosburger, blood doping via transfusion
would give an athlete a five percent boost for two to three weeks.
"And therefore can last for a grand tour."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...l06/jul07news3

2) Landis tests positive for exogenous testosterone, used among other
things, for muscle recovery, after bonking followed by a superhuman
stage win.

3) Landis's explanations are moronic "dog ate my homework" b.s.

4) Retests of Landis samples show 6 other instance of elevated
testosterone.

5) Having nothing to lose, Landis mounts an O.J. Simpson defencse
strategy of obsfucating the science and testing procedures, willy
nilly assassinating the characters of technicians and witnesses along
the way.

And people like you buy into it.

What is your problem?

You cite Ed Meese to me. Dude, I'm a freaking "Go Obama liberal", but
rbr class clown and noted Neo-con Jesus Freak Tom Kunick is on your
"Free Floyd" bandwagon.

Being a blue state intellectual snob lawyer, I'm smart enough to know
when to cite Miranda and when to read handriting on the wall.

What's your excuse?

Doug Taylor wrote:
What's your excuse?

Dumbass,

I think he did it. What I don't think is that the test
performed by the lab proves he did it.

You convict by association. And you're a lawyer? Holy
****.

As bjw has pointed out many times, even guilty people
can be framed. If the test is not valid, even if he
totally ****ing did it, there is no proof that he did
it. That is something that you seem to be totally
unable to grasp.

My wife teaches Chemistry. She knows how Mass Specs
work. If she looks at a test result and sees peak
shouldering, even if she has never seen the instrument,
even if she knows nothing about how the test was
conducted, she knows there were problems. Bad baseline
resolution means there were problems. Even if he
totally ****ing did it, there were still problems with
the way testing was conducted.

You've tested him positive for winning the Tour. Since
they all do it, in your world he's guilty. The test
could be total ****, it's still a positive test and
he's guilty.

I think he did it. I think LANCE did it. I think Ullrich
went to his extended pre-Tour training camps to get away
from any testing so he could charge his ass up without
restrictions. Everyone that gave a **** has known that
Riis did it.

Even so, you don't flush someone with test results that
were improperly conducted. And you don't rig the process
so that you regularly hand out sanctions to innocent
people like they did with Beke, like they did with
Berasategui, like they did with Rodríguez, like they did
with Lund. The damage you do to the credibility of the
process extends way beyond the individual case. A lawyer
ought to understand that. Are you sure you're a lawyer?
Or do you just play one on TV.

The point of the Meese quote was that he felt that there
was no need for any protections because innocent people
aren't accused of crimes. That sailed completely over
your head. Very well. Once someone takes out a pro
license any accusation that anyone pulls out of their
ass is as good as gold and they should be banned. They
all do it, so testing positive for a pro license should
be enough.

You're a dumbass.

Bob Schwartz

Dans le message de ,
Doug Taylor a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Being a blue state intellectual snob lawyer, I'm smart enough to know
when to cite Miranda and when to read handriting on the wall.

sad

On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:57:11 GMT, Bob Schwartz
wrote:


Even so, you don't flush someone with test results that
were improperly conducted. And you don't rig the process
so that you regularly hand out sanctions to innocent
people like they did with Beke, like they did with
Berasategui, like they did with Rodríguez, like they did
with Lund. The damage you do to the credibility of the
process extends way beyond the individual case. A lawyer
ought to understand that. Are you sure you're a lawyer?
Or do you just play one on TV.


The point of the Meese quote was that he felt that there
was no need for any protections because innocent people
aren't accused of crimes. That sailed completely over
your head. Very well. Once someone takes out a pro
license any accusation that anyone pulls out of their
ass is as good as gold and they should be banned. They
all do it, so testing positive for a pro license should
be enough.

I'm enough of a lawyer not to confuse US criminal law with WADA
hearing. Apples and oranges.

Yes, the athlete is presumed innocent and WADA has to prove its case,
but the standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the US
Constitution is 100% irrelevant. As are other athlete's cases. We'll
see how it plays out, but, yeah, my mind was made up in July 2006
listening to Floyd's lame excuses and non-explanations. He's guilty
as sin.

Meanwhile, I'm enough of a normal citizen to be outraged and disgusted
that one pampered athlete who can't take responsibility for his own
actions engages high paid suits and throws innocent people under the
bus in the process of turning a hearing on a positive drug test into a
media circus.

Which is what it is.

On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:00:10 -0400, Doug Taylor
wrote:

On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:57:11 GMT, Bob Schwartz
wrote:


Even so, you don't flush someone with test results that
were improperly conducted. And you don't rig the process
so that you regularly hand out sanctions to innocent
people like they did with Beke, like they did with
Berasategui, like they did with Rodríguez, like they did
with Lund. The damage you do to the credibility of the
process extends way beyond the individual case. A lawyer
ought to understand that. Are you sure you're a lawyer?
Or do you just play one on TV.


The point of the Meese quote was that he felt that there
was no need for any protections because innocent people
aren't accused of crimes. That sailed completely over
your head. Very well. Once someone takes out a pro
license any accusation that anyone pulls out of their
ass is as good as gold and they should be banned. They
all do it, so testing positive for a pro license should
be enough.

I'm enough of a lawyer not to confuse US criminal law with WADA
hearing. Apples and oranges.

Yes, the athlete is presumed innocent and WADA has to prove its case,
but the standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the US
Constitution is 100% irrelevant. As are other athlete's cases. We'll
see how it plays out, but, yeah, my mind was made up in July 2006
listening to Floyd's lame excuses and non-explanations. He's guilty
as sin.

Meanwhile, I'm enough of a normal citizen to be outraged and disgusted
that one pampered athlete who can't take responsibility for his own
actions engages high paid suits and throws innocent people under the
bus in the process of turning a hearing on a positive drug test into a
media circus.

Which is what it is.




I don't think Floyd asked Lemond to testify. In my opinion, it's Lemond
who turned the trial into a circus. It makes me want to replace my Lemond.

--
Bob in CT