#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The Bottom Line?
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The Bottom Line?
"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- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The Bottom Line?
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The Bottom Line?
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The Bottom Line?
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The Bottom Line?
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The Bottom Line?
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!! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The Bottom Line?
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The Bottom Line?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
TDF: Where is the finish line ? | Ravi | General | 1 | July 11th 06 11:51 PM |
Millar Line Stage 8: Chung Charts, and I'm Famous! | Ryan Cousineau | Racing | 5 | July 11th 06 03:11 AM |
RR: West Coast Vets "A finish line too far" | Brett | Australia | 1 | February 15th 05 10:46 AM |
Bottom bracket getting loose on Ridgeback Speed | Colin Murphy | UK | 3 | August 19th 04 10:45 AM |
Here's the bottom line | Kevin | Social Issues | 1 | December 20th 03 10:23 AM |