For Landis : Dr Davis

I counter that Papp's testimony shows that Testoserone & al. really have a
limited effect. He clearly did not become a superstar because of superior
Pharms. Until they could show that he was a middling Cat II when he
discovered the chemically enhanced benefits would I believe he helped the
USADA.
As for the testimony of Joe Papp, well, is he any better as a witness of
the state of performance enhancement than the aspiring pro who posted
here about his kenacort problem? I know they just brought him in to
counter the "T is a useless drug for instant performance" assertion from
the Landis side, but while it's one thing if you've got Dr. Puffinstuff
declaring that he did a proper study with 10 athletes, and found out
that testosterone doping was like rocket fuel you could drink, but if
the most compelling evidence you can find is Joe Papp, nearly-pro rider,
who has apparently ridden in "multi-day stage races like the Tour de
France" (what, the Giro, the Vuelta, some other 21-day tour I haven't
heard about? RAAM?), then I begin to wonder if you don't have a very
good case on that point.

http://www.joepapp.com/index.php?pag...ws&element=219

Oh dear heavens. Papp is Kenacort Guy:

"During the Landis hearing, Papp acknowledged systematically doping
under the guidance of medical professionals in the United States, Europe
and Latin America. He admitted to using at various times EPO, HGH,
cortisone, insulin, thyroid hormone, anabolic steroids and amphetamines"

Aren't insulin and cortisone like the two-fer of drugs for dumb athletes?

Looking into the heart or soul of Landis would seem to be a bit outside
of the purview of this hearing, but I'm not a member of the AAA. or AA.
I'm an enemy of Bill W.

Also, and this has now gone from tangent to personal dissing, but can
anyone please explain the case of Joe Papp's missing wife? Like any
red-blooded American (note clever Joe Papp riding-the-Tour elision!) I
think Hugo Chavez is the devil, but if she was hiding in Venezuela, what
thing was preventing her from traveling to Europe, or the US, or for
that matter, just to Brazil? As far as I know, the country's borders are
still open, along with its airports.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" wrote:

His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing,
manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr
Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their
participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths appear, as I
see it.

A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the shelf.
His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo testing
and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a lab
machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that
anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine
for a test already being performed has to believe that the old machine
and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the effort and
justify the risk.

I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm thinking of the
test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of questions raised about that one
for me when they guy who created it said that he didn't need to do tests for false
positives, let alone demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it
showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in positive results
than good results.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Dans le message de
,
Howard Kveck a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" wrote:

His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing,
manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr
Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their
participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths
appear, as I see it.

A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the
shelf. His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo
testing and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a
lab machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that
anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine
for a test already being performed has to believe that the old
machine and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the
effort and justify the risk.

I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm
thinking of the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of
questions raised about that one for me when they guy who created it
said that he didn't need to do tests for false positives, let alone
demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it
showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in
positive results than good results.

I find it amusing to speculate what would ensue, should a lot of labs fail
to find positive samples in any cases over a substantial period of time.
Would WADA claim that the stuff is there, but deviously masked from
detection ? A certain GWB tried that approach in a different context. It
could never be, in that scenario, that there was simply no doping going on.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

On 23 May 2007 13:34:47 -0700, RicodJour wrote:
http://www.hrgiger.com/barmuseum.htm

You know, just yesterday we were talking at work how, in the context
of music, something can be in such bad taste it becomes beautiful
again. I was against that notion and I still am.

--
E. Dronkert

On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:57:28 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm thinking of the
test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of questions raised about that one
for me when they guy who created it said that he didn't need to do tests for false
positives, let alone demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it
showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in positive results
than good results.

Well, procedures do have to go through certification, of course. The
acceptable margin of error and the protocol for retesting varies based
on the possible consequences of positives, negatives, false positives
and false negatives. If you have a procedure to check to see if a
person is overly sensitive to Wayfarin, you tend to retest even at
high levels of confidence.

OTOH, since they do it before prescribing, most of your errors will go
away rather quickly...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

In article ,
"Sandy" wrote:

Dans le message de
,
Howard Kveck a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" wrote:

His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing,
manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr
Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their
participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths
appear, as I see it.

A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the
shelf. His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo
testing and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a
lab machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that
anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine
for a test already being performed has to believe that the old
machine and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the
effort and justify the risk.

I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm
thinking of the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of
questions raised about that one for me when they guy who created it
said that he didn't need to do tests for false positives, let alone
demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it
showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in
positive results than good results.

I find it amusing to speculate what would ensue, should a lot of labs fail
to find positive samples in any cases over a substantial period of time.
Would WADA claim that the stuff is there, but deviously masked from
detection ?

Yes, they would be correct, and were they to express the notion
equably they would attract sympathy from people who are not
looking for scapegoats.

--
Michael Press

On May 24, 3:32 pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,





"Sandy" wrote:
Dans le message de
,
Howard Kveck a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" wrote:

His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing,
manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr
Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their
participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths
appear, as I see it.

A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the
shelf. His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo
testing and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a
lab machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that
anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine
for a test already being performed has to believe that the old
machine and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the
effort and justify the risk.

I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm
thinking of the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of
questions raised about that one for me when they guy who created it
said that he didn't need to do tests for false positives, let alone
demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it
showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in
positive results than good results.

I find it amusing to speculate what would ensue, should a lot of labs fail
to find positive samples in any cases over a substantial period of time.
Would WADA claim that the stuff is there, but deviously masked from
detection ?

Yes, they would be correct, and were they to express the notion
equably they would attract sympathy from people who are not
looking for scapegoats.

--
Michael Press- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Except they'd lose their Wada certification in a heartbeat and Pound
would be accusing them of enabling and assisting the dopers.
Bill C

In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:57:28 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm thinking of
the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of questions raised about
that one for me when they guy who created it said that he didn't need to do tests
for false positives, let alone demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for
Pound, as it showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in
positive results than good results.

Well, procedures do have to go through certification, of course. The
acceptable margin of error and the protocol for retesting varies based
on the possible consequences of positives, negatives, false positives
and false negatives. If you have a procedure to check to see if a
person is overly sensitive to Wayfarin, you tend to retest even at
high levels of confidence.

Yeah, I believe that's how it works in "real life" situations but it really didn't
seem to be the way I recall them (and the guy who is credited with being behind the
Aussie EPO blood test in particular) talking about that procedure. The way they did
it seemed less than optimal to me.

OTOH, since they do it before prescribing, most of your errors will go
away rather quickly...

Yeah, go away in a big way.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article , "Sandy"
wrote:

Dans le message de
,
Howard Kveck a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" wrote:

His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing,
manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr
Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their
participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths
appear, as I see it.

A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the
shelf. His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo
testing and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a
lab machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that
anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine
for a test already being performed has to believe that the old
machine and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the
effort and justify the risk.

I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm
thinking of the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of
questions raised about that one for me when they guy who created it
said that he didn't need to do tests for false positives, let alone
demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it
showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in
positive results than good results.

I find it amusing to speculate what would ensue, should a lot of labs fail
to find positive samples in any cases over a substantial period of time.
Would WADA claim that the stuff is there, but deviously masked from
detection ? A certain GWB tried that approach in a different context. It
could never be, in that scenario, that there was simply no doping going on.

I think that's about what Pound has been implying all along.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?