The Bottom Line?

If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for; B
sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A sample;
the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of synthetic
testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there some way around
these findings. Don Catlin says no, the drug "police" don't lose those
types of cases. Any rbr "experts" want to weigh in with fact/argument and
not hyperbole.

B. Lafferty wrote:
If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for; B
sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A sample;
the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of synthetic
testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there some way around
these findings. Don Catlin says no, the drug "police" don't lose those
types of cases. Any rbr "experts" want to weigh in with fact/argument and
not hyperbole.

Nope, IMO that happens, he's toast and needs to be sanctioned per the
standing penalties.
I'll cheer like hell if they follow through that route, negative or
positive.
Bill C

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...
If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for;
B sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A
sample; the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of
synthetic testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there
some way around these findings. Don Catlin says no, the drug "police"
don't lose those types of cases. Any rbr "experts" want to weigh in
with fact/argument and not hyperbole.

There are quite a few "ifs" in your comments, but one is missing. If
Floyd's samples both test positive, does that mean he took
performance-enhancing drugs? _That_ seems to me to be the most important
question. No doubt that if both samples are positive, he will be
immediately stripped of his TdF title without an immediate and
convincing explanation, and no doubt the entire business will follow him
around the rest of his life regardless of the eventual outcome of this
case. There are simply too many unknowns at this point, IMHO, to make
speculation worthwhile. As there are innocent people behind bars and
criminals who go free, so too it is in the world of drug testing of
professional cyclists. All that a positive drug test means is exactly
that, a positive drug test.

You ask us to refrain from hyperbole, but the dictionary defines
hyperbole as "extravagant exaggeration", and exaggeration as "to enlarge
beyond the truth." If there is no truth to yet be had here, hyperbole
isn't possible. So far in this case, anything is possible. Maybe he
did, maybe he didn't, maybe if he did, he knew, maybe he didn't know,
maybe someone else knows some things that he doesn't and/or that we
don't, etc.., etc., etc.

Better to go out and ride a bike or otherwise get a life than to
consider every facet of this case.

Just my opinion, not an "expert."

-S-

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:55:29 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:

If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for; B
sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A sample;
the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of synthetic
testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there some way around
these findings. Don Catlin says no, the drug "police" don't lose those
types of cases. Any rbr "experts" want to weigh in with fact/argument and
not hyperbole.

That would be it yes, since the CIR/IRMS showed exogeneous
testosterone on the A sample, there isn't much to look forward to, the
game is over, it seems the media who fail to report that are either
incompetent or want to let it sink in.

"Keith" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
| On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:55:29 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
| wrote:
|
| If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for; B
| sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A
sample;
| the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of synthetic
| testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there some way around
| these findings. Don Catlin says no, the drug "police" don't lose those
| types of cases. Any rbr "experts" want to weigh in with fact/argument
and
| not hyperbole.
|
| That would be it yes, since the CIR/IRMS showed exogeneous
| testosterone on the A sample, there isn't much to look forward to, the
| game is over, it seems the media who fail to report that are either
| incompetent or want to let it sink in.

Or actually are waiting for an official source like UCI, USAC, Phonak,
Landis, WADA, LNDD to announce it. Oh, I forgot, LNDD doesn't announce test
results. That would be ethically wrong.

in message . net, B.
Lafferty ') wrote:

If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for; B
sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A
sample; the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of
synthetic testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there
some way around these findings.

If there's proven to be synthetic testosterone (in either sample), then
as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the argument; it there's none,
then I'd need more convincing.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:38:53 +0100, Simon Brooke
wrote:

in message . net, B.
Lafferty ') wrote:

If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for; B
sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A
sample; the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of
synthetic testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there
some way around these findings.

If there's proven to be synthetic testosterone (in either sample), then
as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the argument; it there's none,
then I'd need more convincing.

What if the same kind of synthetic testosterone was in use in the lab, say,
as a reference standard? Would the defense even be allowed to determine
this given the lab's apparent lack of cooperation previously?

What about retesting the athlete in an independent lab? Permitted, or not?

Ratio might have changed, but the traces of the 'so-called' exogenous T
should still exist.

On 7/29/06 12:55 PM, in article
et, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:

If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for; B
sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A sample;
the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of synthetic
testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there some way around
these findings. Don Catlin says no, the drug "police" don't lose those
types of cases. Any rbr "experts" want to weigh in with fact/argument and
not hyperbole.


Yea.......
Because we KNOW you ain't no ****in expert!!

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:46:53 GMT, Keith wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:55:29 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:

If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for; B
sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A sample;
the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of synthetic
testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there some way around
these findings. Don Catlin says no, the drug "police" don't lose those
types of cases. Any rbr "experts" want to weigh in with fact/argument and
not hyperbole.

That would be it yes, since the CIR/IRMS showed exogeneous
testosterone on the A sample, there isn't much to look forward to, the
game is over, it seems the media who fail to report that are either
incompetent or want to let it sink in.

Why would they report it?

It has not been announced by any responsible party.

Ron

On 07/29/2006 02:46 PM, in article
, "Keith"
wrote:


That would be it yes, since the CIR/IRMS showed exogeneous
testosterone on the A sample, there isn't much to look forward to, the
game is over, it seems the media who fail to report that are either
incompetent or want to let it sink in.



Source?