|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Beth Got Married! | harv | Recumbent Biking | 238 | August 17th 04 05:27 PM |
Stupid Behavior Caught on Tape | Gary Smiley | General | 7 | September 5th 03 02:11 AM |