The nightmare goes on, Ricco caught with EPO

Robert Chung wrote in
:

On Jul 17, 8:22*pm, sluggo wrote:
Robert Chung wrote in
news:ea5d2168-e2fb-458a-90a5-
:

On Jul 17, 2:01*pm, sluggo wrote:

Why is there a will to believe in railroading and false positives
as opposed to drug controls catching the cheats? *That's what I
don't g
et.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Landis' A sample? That was
a false positive.

Again, I don't see the relevance of the Landis case to what is
happening today. *A lab that was run poorly 2 years and had
questionable test res
ults
on a test that is different from what is being used today should not
be held accountable for today's test. *Labs change, tests change,
people change.

I think I understand some of the concerns around drug testing, but I
thought that the original post I referred to *made it sound like all
of today's testing was suspicious and of questionable accuracy. *In
this regard I just do not see the reason for such suspicions.

Again, the reason why you don't see the relevance is because you
haven't been paying attention. Your argument about "run poorly 2 years
ago" doesn't wash because there's no evidence that the labs have
changed procedures. In fact, recently urine samples of known EPO users
were sent to WADA-certified labs, with differing results. Those false
negatives were not revealed by the WADA. What makes you think they'd
reveal false positives?


What I haven't seen is public critism of the testing from the pro teams
- the riders and managers. Surely some of the people involved in pro
teams are intelligent and outspoken enough to come to the same
conclusion and voice their opinions, and if they did I would think it
would be reported. All I've heard recently is "we're catching the
cheats, the system is working, etc." What is known within the pro team
that gives the clean riders confidence that they won't get nailed for a
false positive? Maybe I'm naive, but I assume that the people directly
involved in all of this have a whole other level of understanding than
most laymen.

On Jul 18, 9:50*am, sluggo wrote:
Robert Chung wrote :



On Jul 17, 8:22*pm, sluggo wrote:
Robert Chung wrote in
news:ea5d2168-e2fb-458a-90a5-
:

On Jul 17, 2:01*pm, sluggo wrote:

Why is there a will to believe in railroading and false positives
as opposed to drug controls catching the cheats? *That's what I
don't g
et.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Landis' A sample? That was
a false positive.

Again, I don't see the relevance of the Landis case to what is
happening today. *A lab that was run poorly 2 years and had
questionable test res
ults
on a test that is different from what is being used today should not
be held accountable for today's test. *Labs change, tests change,
people change.

I think I understand some of the concerns around drug testing, but I
thought that the original post I referred to *made it sound like all
of today's testing was suspicious and of questionable accuracy. *In
this regard I just do not see the reason for such suspicions.

Again, the reason why you don't see the relevance is because you
haven't been paying attention. Your argument about "run poorly 2 years
ago" doesn't wash because there's no evidence that the labs have
changed procedures. In fact, recently urine samples of known EPO users
were sent to WADA-certified labs, with differing results. Those false
negatives were not revealed by the WADA. What makes you think they'd
reveal false positives?

What I haven't seen is public critism of the testing from the pro teams
- the riders and managers. *Surely some of the people involved in pro
teams are intelligent and outspoken enough to come to the same
conclusion and voice their opinions, and if they did I would think it
would be reported. All I've heard recently is "we're catching the
cheats, the system is working, etc." *What is known within the pro team
that gives the clean riders confidence that they won't get nailed for a
false positive? *Maybe I'm naive, but I assume that the people directly
involved in all of this have a whole other level of understanding than
most laymen.

Why would the teams publicly criticize a system that benefits them?
The false negative rate appears high so the teams get to say that
racing is cleaner than before -- plus, when a rider does come up
positive they can say they're shocked, shocked; that he swore on the
head of his mother that he was clean; that it was an isolated
incident; and then they fire his sorry ass. There's no incentive for
the teams to complain.

In article ,
Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
Robert Chung wrote:


I already gave the solution: treat sporting violations like sporting
violations by imposing sporting penalties.

I think that's the best idea - and the least likely to be implemented.


The best idea I've heard is to make dopers wear black shirts and
have the caravan hand out rotten fruit....

_ Booker C. Bense

Robert Chung wrote in
:

On Jul 18, 9:50*am, sluggo wrote:
Robert Chung wrote
innews:01412989-a4e5-467a-bff0-d55
:



On Jul 17, 8:22*pm, sluggo wrote:
Robert Chung wrote in
news:ea5d2168-e2fb-458a-90a5-
:

On Jul 17, 2:01*pm, sluggo wrote:

Why is there a will to believe in railroading and false
positives as opposed to drug controls catching the cheats?
*That's what I don't g
et.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Landis' A sample? That
was a false positive.

Again, I don't see the relevance of the Landis case to what is
happening today. *A lab that was run poorly 2 years and had
questionable test res
ults
on a test that is different from what is being used today should
not be held accountable for today's test. *Labs change, tests
change, people change.

I think I understand some of the concerns around drug testing, but
I thought that the original post I referred to *made it sound like
all of today's testing was suspicious and of questionable
accuracy. *In this regard I just do not see the reason for such
suspicions.

Again, the reason why you don't see the relevance is because you
haven't been paying attention. Your argument about "run poorly 2
years ago" doesn't wash because there's no evidence that the labs
have changed procedures. In fact, recently urine samples of known
EPO users were sent to WADA-certified labs, with differing results.
Those false negatives were not revealed by the WADA. What makes you
think they'd reveal false positives?

What I haven't seen is public critism of the testing from the pro
teams - the riders and managers. *Surely some of the people involved
in pro teams are intelligent and outspoken enough to come to the same
conclusion and voice their opinions, and if they did I would think it
would be reported. All I've heard recently is "we're catching the
cheats, the system is working, etc." *What is known within the pro
team that gives the clean riders confidence that they won't get
nailed for a false positive? *Maybe I'm naive, but I assume that the
people directly involved in all of this have a whole other level of
understanding than most laymen.

Why would the teams publicly criticize a system that benefits them?
The false negative rate appears high so the teams get to say that
racing is cleaner than before -- plus, when a rider does come up
positive they can say they're shocked, shocked; that he swore on the
head of his mother that he was clean; that it was an isolated
incident; and then they fire his sorry ass. There's no incentive for
the teams to complain.


But why do riders put up with it without saying something? It's been
put forth that anyone, for example Vandevelde or Evans, could be have a
false positive. Are they happy with playing russian roulette? They
have to play, but they can also be very vocal in opposition. Although I
suppose there would be backlash in that - he doesn't like the testing
therefore he must be doping...

Robert Chung wrote in
:

On Jul 18, 9:50*am, sluggo wrote:
Robert Chung wrote
innews:01412989-a4e5-467a-bff0-d55
:



On Jul 17, 8:22*pm, sluggo wrote:
Robert Chung wrote in
news:ea5d2168-e2fb-458a-90a5-
:

On Jul 17, 2:01*pm, sluggo wrote:

Why is there a will to believe in railroading and false
positives as opposed to drug controls catching the cheats?
*That's what I don't g
et.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Landis' A sample? That
was a false positive.

Again, I don't see the relevance of the Landis case to what is
happening today. *A lab that was run poorly 2 years and had
questionable test res
ults
on a test that is different from what is being used today should
not be held accountable for today's test. *Labs change, tests
change, people change.

I think I understand some of the concerns around drug testing, but
I thought that the original post I referred to *made it sound like
all of today's testing was suspicious and of questionable
accuracy. *In this regard I just do not see the reason for such
suspicions.

Again, the reason why you don't see the relevance is because you
haven't been paying attention. Your argument about "run poorly 2
years ago" doesn't wash because there's no evidence that the labs
have changed procedures. In fact, recently urine samples of known
EPO users were sent to WADA-certified labs, with differing results.
Those false negatives were not revealed by the WADA. What makes you
think they'd reveal false positives?

What I haven't seen is public critism of the testing from the pro
teams - the riders and managers. *Surely some of the people involved
in pro teams are intelligent and outspoken enough to come to the same
conclusion and voice their opinions, and if they did I would think it
would be reported. All I've heard recently is "we're catching the
cheats, the system is working, etc." *What is known within the pro
team that gives the clean riders confidence that they won't get
nailed for a false positive? *Maybe I'm naive, but I assume that the
people directly involved in all of this have a whole other level of
understanding than most laymen.

Why would the teams publicly criticize a system that benefits them?
The false negative rate appears high so the teams get to say that
racing is cleaner than before -- plus, when a rider does come up
positive they can say they're shocked, shocked; that he swore on the
head of his mother that he was clean; that it was an isolated
incident; and then they fire his sorry ass. There's no incentive for
the teams to complain.


Robert, do you have any links to this: "there's no evidence that the
labs have changed procedures. In fact, recently urine samples of known
EPO users were sent to WADA-certified labs, with differing results.
Those false negatives were not revealed by the WADA."

thx

sluggo wrote in
. 74:

Robert Chung wrote in
news:570d4c06-d994-4809-843e-
:

On Jul 18, 9:50*am, sluggo wrote:
Robert Chung wrote
innews:01412989-a4e5-467a-bff0-d55
:



On Jul 17, 8:22*pm, sluggo wrote:
Robert Chung wrote in
news:ea5d2168-e2fb-458a-90a5-
:

On Jul 17, 2:01*pm, sluggo wrote:

Why is there a will to believe in railroading and false
positives as opposed to drug controls catching the cheats?
*That's what I don't g
et.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Landis' A sample? That
was a false positive.

Again, I don't see the relevance of the Landis case to what is
happening today. *A lab that was run poorly 2 years and had
questionable test res
ults
on a test that is different from what is being used today should
not be held accountable for today's test. *Labs change, tests
change, people change.

I think I understand some of the concerns around drug testing,
but I thought that the original post I referred to *made it sound
like all of today's testing was suspicious and of questionable
accuracy. *In this regard I just do not see the reason for such
suspicions.

Again, the reason why you don't see the relevance is because you
haven't been paying attention. Your argument about "run poorly 2
years ago" doesn't wash because there's no evidence that the labs
have changed procedures. In fact, recently urine samples of known
EPO users were sent to WADA-certified labs, with differing
results. Those false negatives were not revealed by the WADA. What
makes you think they'd reveal false positives?

What I haven't seen is public critism of the testing from the pro
teams - the riders and managers. *Surely some of the people involved
in pro teams are intelligent and outspoken enough to come to the
same conclusion and voice their opinions, and if they did I would
think it would be reported. All I've heard recently is "we're
catching the cheats, the system is working, etc." *What is known
within the pro team that gives the clean riders confidence that they
won't get nailed for a false positive? *Maybe I'm naive, but I
assume that the people directly involved in all of this have a whole
other level of understanding than most laymen.

Why would the teams publicly criticize a system that benefits them?
The false negative rate appears high so the teams get to say that
racing is cleaner than before -- plus, when a rider does come up
positive they can say they're shocked, shocked; that he swore on the
head of his mother that he was clean; that it was an isolated
incident; and then they fire his sorry ass. There's no incentive for
the teams to complain.


Robert, do you have any links to this: "there's no evidence that the
labs have changed procedures. In fact, recently urine samples of known
EPO users were sent to WADA-certified labs, with differing results.
Those false negatives were not revealed by the WADA."

thx


ah, is this the Mayo case/situation?

In article ,
sluggo wrote:


[...]

But why do riders put up with it without saying something? It's been
put forth that anyone, for example Vandevelde or Evans, could be have a
false positive. Are they happy with playing russian roulette? They
have to play, but they can also be very vocal in opposition. Although I
suppose there would be backlash in that - he doesn't like the testing
therefore he must be doping...

No, they are not happy, but they do not know how to go about
doing anything about it. Athletes in many other sports know
how to deal with threats.

--
Michael Press

On Jul 19, 8:36*am, sluggo wrote:
Robert Chung wrote :



On Jul 18, 9:50*am, sluggo wrote:
Robert Chung wrote
innews:01412989-a4e5-467a-bff0-d55
:

On Jul 17, 8:22*pm, sluggo wrote:
Robert Chung wrote in
news:ea5d2168-e2fb-458a-90a5-
:

On Jul 17, 2:01*pm, sluggo wrote:

Why is there a will to believe in railroading and false
positives as opposed to drug controls catching the cheats?
*That's what I don't g
et.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Landis' A sample? That
was a false positive.

Again, I don't see the relevance of the Landis case to what is
happening today. *A lab that was run poorly 2 years and had
questionable test res
ults
on a test that is different from what is being used today should
not be held accountable for today's test. *Labs change, tests
change, people change.

I think I understand some of the concerns around drug testing, but
I thought that the original post I referred to *made it sound like
all of today's testing was suspicious and of questionable
accuracy. *In this regard I just do not see the reason for such
suspicions.

Again, the reason why you don't see the relevance is because you
haven't been paying attention. Your argument about "run poorly 2
years ago" doesn't wash because there's no evidence that the labs
have changed procedures. In fact, recently urine samples of known
EPO users were sent to WADA-certified labs, with differing results.
Those false negatives were not revealed by the WADA. What makes you
think they'd reveal false positives?

What I haven't seen is public critism of the testing from the pro
teams - the riders and managers. *Surely some of the people involved
in pro teams are intelligent and outspoken enough to come to the same
conclusion and voice their opinions, and if they did I would think it
would be reported. All I've heard recently is "we're catching the
cheats, the system is working, etc." *What is known within the pro
team that gives the clean riders confidence that they won't get
nailed for a false positive? *Maybe I'm naive, but I assume that the
people directly involved in all of this have a whole other level of
understanding than most laymen.

Why would the teams publicly criticize a system that benefits them?
The false negative rate appears high so the teams get to say that
racing is cleaner than before -- plus, when a rider does come up
positive they can say they're shocked, shocked; that he swore on the
head of his mother that he was clean; that it was an isolated
incident; and then they fire his sorry ass. There's no incentive for
the teams to complain.

Robert, do you have any links to this: "there's no evidence that the
labs have changed procedures. In fact, recently urine samples of known
EPO users were sent to WADA-certified labs, with differing results. *
Those false negatives were not revealed by the WADA."

thx

http://tinyurl.com/5wvtut

and this story that discusses that paper:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/sp.../26doping.html

On Jul 19, 8:41*am, sluggo wrote:
sluggo wrote 3.74:

Robert Chung wrote in
news:570d4c06-d994-4809-843e-

:





On Jul 18, 9:50*am, sluggo wrote:
Robert Chung wrote
innews:01412989-a4e5-467a-bff0-d55
:

On Jul 17, 8:22*pm, sluggo wrote:
Robert Chung wrote in
news:ea5d2168-e2fb-458a-90a5-
:

On Jul 17, 2:01*pm, sluggo wrote:

Why is there a will to believe in railroading and false
positives as opposed to drug controls catching the cheats?
*That's what I don't g
et.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Landis' A sample? That
was a false positive.

Again, I don't see the relevance of the Landis case to what is
happening today. *A lab that was run poorly 2 years and had
questionable test res
ults
on a test that is different from what is being used today should
not be held accountable for today's test. *Labs change, tests
change, people change.

I think I understand some of the concerns around drug testing,
but I thought that the original post I referred to *made it sound
like all of today's testing was suspicious and of questionable
accuracy. *In this regard I just do not see the reason for such
suspicions.

Again, the reason why you don't see the relevance is because you
haven't been paying attention. Your argument about "run poorly 2
years ago" doesn't wash because there's no evidence that the labs
have changed procedures. In fact, recently urine samples of known
EPO users were sent to WADA-certified labs, with differing
results. Those false negatives were not revealed by the WADA. What
makes you think they'd reveal false positives?

What I haven't seen is public critism of the testing from the pro
teams - the riders and managers. *Surely some of the people involved
in pro teams are intelligent and outspoken enough to come to the
same conclusion and voice their opinions, and if they did I would
think it would be reported. All I've heard recently is "we're
catching the cheats, the system is working, etc." *What is known
within the pro team that gives the clean riders confidence that they
won't get nailed for a false positive? *Maybe I'm naive, but I
assume that the people directly involved in all of this have a whole
other level of understanding than most laymen.

Why would the teams publicly criticize a system that benefits them?
The false negative rate appears high so the teams get to say that
racing is cleaner than before -- plus, when a rider does come up
positive they can say they're shocked, shocked; that he swore on the
head of his mother that he was clean; that it was an isolated
incident; and then they fire his sorry ass. There's no incentive for
the teams to complain.

Robert, do you have any links to this: "there's no evidence that the
labs have changed procedures. In fact, recently urine samples of known
EPO users were sent to WADA-certified labs, with differing results. *
Those false negatives were not revealed by the WADA."

thx

ah, is this the Mayo case/situation?

No.