A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Context for TdS debacle



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 27th 11, 08:48 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Mike Jacoubowsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,972
Default Context for TdS debacle

Good reading here-
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swis...uspect-samples

So here's what we know-

#1: There was never a "positive" test to cover up in the first place. It was
a "suspicious" test with a reading of between 70-80% (percent of what I'm
not sure). To be "positive" it would have had to have been 85%. At that
time, the EPO testing was not solid enough to rule out natural means of
producing a positive result, thus the high threshold.

#2: There was no "special" meeting, according to Saugy, the person involved
who now happens to be the head of the lab in Lausanne. "And it also wasn't
about discussing a particular result or to cover up anything. I explained
how the EPO test worked and why there were suspect samples as well as
positive ones. This information was part of a lecture that I had been giving
in various locations." Saugy apparently had many meetings with many
teams/riders letting people know what the process was, how the testing
worked, etc. Yes, we can ascribe evil motivations to that, but seriously, if
your career was on the line based upon some new test, wouldn't you want to
know something about it, especially since there would be some concern
regarding false positives?

Within this context, it is entirely reasonable that Lance was not concerned
about the tests, whether he was doping or not. He had no reason to be
concerned. He had a suspicious test that was below the level of a positive,
and the process had been explained not just to Lance but other people as
well.

Of course, the 60 minutes interview put huge weight on Tyler's inference
that Lance made a positive test go away.

If you accept that Saugy is telling the truth, you come away not with the
idea that Tyler is lying, but that he completely misunderstood. He made
assumptions that were reasonable within his own framework, but that's all.
Assumptions that turn out to be falso.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Ads
  #2  
Old May 27th 11, 08:58 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Jimmy July[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Context for TdS debacle

On 5/27/2011 12:48 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
Good reading here-
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swis...uspect-samples


So here's what we know-

#1: There was never a "positive" test to cover up in the first place. It
was a "suspicious" test with a reading of between 70-80% (percent of
what I'm not sure). To be "positive" it would have had to have been 85%.
At that time, the EPO testing was not solid enough to rule out natural
means of producing a positive result, thus the high threshold.

#2: There was no "special" meeting, according to Saugy, the person
involved who now happens to be the head of the lab in Lausanne. "And it
also wasn't about discussing a particular result or to cover up
anything. I explained how the EPO test worked and why there were suspect
samples as well as positive ones. This information was part of a lecture
that I had been giving in various locations." Saugy apparently had many
meetings with many teams/riders letting people know what the process
was, how the testing worked, etc. Yes, we can ascribe evil motivations
to that, but seriously, if your career was on the line based upon some
new test, wouldn't you want to know something about it, especially since
there would be some concern regarding false positives?

Within this context, it is entirely reasonable that Lance was not
concerned about the tests, whether he was doping or not. He had no
reason to be concerned. He had a suspicious test that was below the
level of a positive, and the process had been explained not just to
Lance but other people as well.

Of course, the 60 minutes interview put huge weight on Tyler's inference
that Lance made a positive test go away.

If you accept that Saugy is telling the truth, you come away not with
the idea that Tyler is lying, but that he completely misunderstood. He
made assumptions that were reasonable within his own framework, but
that's all. Assumptions that turn out to be falso.


These are just facts, they will have no effect on Anton's opinions.
  #3  
Old May 27th 11, 09:01 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
dave a
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 308
Default Context for TdS debacle

On 5/27/2011 12:58 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
On 5/27/2011 12:48 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
Good reading here-
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swis...uspect-samples



So here's what we know-

#1: There was never a "positive" test to cover up in the first place. It
was a "suspicious" test with a reading of between 70-80% (percent of
what I'm not sure). To be "positive" it would have had to have been 85%.
At that time, the EPO testing was not solid enough to rule out natural
means of producing a positive result, thus the high threshold.

#2: There was no "special" meeting, according to Saugy, the person
involved who now happens to be the head of the lab in Lausanne. "And it
also wasn't about discussing a particular result or to cover up
anything. I explained how the EPO test worked and why there were suspect
samples as well as positive ones. This information was part of a lecture
that I had been giving in various locations." Saugy apparently had many
meetings with many teams/riders letting people know what the process
was, how the testing worked, etc. Yes, we can ascribe evil motivations
to that, but seriously, if your career was on the line based upon some
new test, wouldn't you want to know something about it, especially since
there would be some concern regarding false positives?

Within this context, it is entirely reasonable that Lance was not
concerned about the tests, whether he was doping or not. He had no
reason to be concerned. He had a suspicious test that was below the
level of a positive, and the process had been explained not just to
Lance but other people as well.

Of course, the 60 minutes interview put huge weight on Tyler's inference
that Lance made a positive test go away.

If you accept that Saugy is telling the truth, you come away not with
the idea that Tyler is lying, but that he completely misunderstood. He
made assumptions that were reasonable within his own framework, but
that's all. Assumptions that turn out to be falso.


These are just facts, they will have no effect on Anton's opinions.


and that's a fact.
  #4  
Old May 27th 11, 09:02 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
ilan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 672
Default Context for TdS debacle

On May 27, 9:48*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
Good reading here-http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-lab-director-confirms-meeting-b...

So here's what we know-

#1: There was never a "positive" test to cover up in the first place. It was
a "suspicious" test with a reading of between 70-80% (percent of what I'm
not sure). To be "positive" it would have had to have been 85%. At that
time, the EPO testing was not solid enough to rule out natural means of
producing a positive result, thus the high threshold.

#2: There was no "special" meeting, according to Saugy, the person involved
who now happens to be the head of the lab in Lausanne. "And it also wasn't
about discussing a particular result or to cover up anything. I explained
how the EPO test worked and why there were suspect samples as well as
positive ones. This information was part of a lecture that I had been giving
in various locations." Saugy apparently had many meetings with many
teams/riders letting people know what the process was, how the testing
worked, etc. Yes, we can ascribe evil motivations to that, but seriously, if
your career was on the line based upon some new test, wouldn't you want to
know something about it, especially since there would be some concern
regarding false positives?

Within this context, it is entirely reasonable that Lance was not concerned
about the tests, whether he was doping or not. He had no reason to be
concerned. He had a suspicious test that was below the level of a positive,
and the process had been explained not just to Lance but other people as
well.

Of course, the 60 minutes interview put huge weight on Tyler's inference
that Lance made a positive test go away.

If you accept that Saugy is telling the truth, you come away not with the
idea that Tyler is lying, but that he completely misunderstood. He made
assumptions that were reasonable within his own framework, but that's all..
Assumptions that turn out to be falso.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


It also confirms what I was saying, that the EPO test has a subjective
element.

-ilan
  #5  
Old May 27th 11, 09:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Mike Jacoubowsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,972
Default Context for TdS debacle

"ilan" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 9:48 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
Good reading
here-http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-lab-director-confirms-meeting-b...

So here's what we know-

#1: There was never a "positive" test to cover up in the first place. It
was
a "suspicious" test with a reading of between 70-80% (percent of what I'm
not sure). To be "positive" it would have had to have been 85%. At that
time, the EPO testing was not solid enough to rule out natural means of
producing a positive result, thus the high threshold.

#2: There was no "special" meeting, according to Saugy, the person
involved
who now happens to be the head of the lab in Lausanne. "And it also wasn't
about discussing a particular result or to cover up anything. I explained
how the EPO test worked and why there were suspect samples as well as
positive ones. This information was part of a lecture that I had been
giving
in various locations." Saugy apparently had many meetings with many
teams/riders letting people know what the process was, how the testing
worked, etc. Yes, we can ascribe evil motivations to that, but seriously,
if
your career was on the line based upon some new test, wouldn't you want to
know something about it, especially since there would be some concern
regarding false positives?

Within this context, it is entirely reasonable that Lance was not
concerned
about the tests, whether he was doping or not. He had no reason to be
concerned. He had a suspicious test that was below the level of a
positive,
and the process had been explained not just to Lance but other people as
well.

Of course, the 60 minutes interview put huge weight on Tyler's inference
that Lance made a positive test go away.

If you accept that Saugy is telling the truth, you come away not with the
idea that Tyler is lying, but that he completely misunderstood. He made
assumptions that were reasonable within his own framework, but that's all.
Assumptions that turn out to be falso.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

======
It also confirms what I was saying, that the EPO test has a subjective
element.

-ilan
======

That was then, this is now. Today we have a number of different ways to look
at whether someone is excessively doping or not. And that's what it is...
we're testing, realistically, for "excessive" doping. We're putting up
limits that allow someone to dope to a certain level and tacitly saying
that's OK, because there's probably no other way to run things without the
likelihood of innocent people getting caught. People getting caught now have
simply screwed up or are just plain stupid. We see unbelievable rides and,
in the back of our minds, wonder if that's really possible without being
doped to the gills... and a few days later, we discover that it's not. It
doesn't mean everyone else is clean though. Just much-better managed. Some
are clean, perhaps many are clean, could even be most, as the doping
controls become a bit tighter over time, lowering the advantage of, dare I
say, "legal" doping over someone who's racing clean.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

  #6  
Old May 27th 11, 11:38 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
ilan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 672
Default Context for TdS debacle

On May 27, 10:08*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
"ilan" wrote in message

...
On May 27, 9:48 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:







Good reading
here-http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-lab-director-confirms-meeting-b...


So here's what we know-


#1: There was never a "positive" test to cover up in the first place. It
was
a "suspicious" test with a reading of between 70-80% (percent of what I'm
not sure). To be "positive" it would have had to have been 85%. At that
time, the EPO testing was not solid enough to rule out natural means of
producing a positive result, thus the high threshold.


#2: There was no "special" meeting, according to Saugy, the person
involved
who now happens to be the head of the lab in Lausanne. "And it also wasn't
about discussing a particular result or to cover up anything. I explained
how the EPO test worked and why there were suspect samples as well as
positive ones. This information was part of a lecture that I had been
giving
in various locations." Saugy apparently had many meetings with many
teams/riders letting people know what the process was, how the testing
worked, etc. Yes, we can ascribe evil motivations to that, but seriously,
if
your career was on the line based upon some new test, wouldn't you want to
know something about it, especially since there would be some concern
regarding false positives?


Within this context, it is entirely reasonable that Lance was not
concerned
about the tests, whether he was doping or not. He had no reason to be
concerned. He had a suspicious test that was below the level of a
positive,
and the process had been explained not just to Lance but other people as
well.


Of course, the 60 minutes interview put huge weight on Tyler's inference
that Lance made a positive test go away.


If you accept that Saugy is telling the truth, you come away not with the
idea that Tyler is lying, but that he completely misunderstood. He made
assumptions that were reasonable within his own framework, but that's all.
Assumptions that turn out to be falso.


--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


======
It also confirms what I was saying, that the EPO test has a subjective
element.

-ilan
======

That was then, this is now. Today we have a number of different ways to look
at whether someone is excessively doping or not. And that's what it is...
we're testing, realistically, for "excessive" doping. We're putting up
limits that allow someone to dope to a certain level and tacitly saying
that's OK, because there's probably no other way *to run things without the
likelihood of innocent people getting caught. People getting caught now have
simply screwed up or are just plain stupid. We see unbelievable rides and,
in the back of our minds, wonder if that's really possible without being
doped to the gills... and a few days later, we discover that it's not. It
doesn't mean everyone else is clean though. Just much-better managed. Some
are clean, perhaps many are clean, could even be most, as the doping
controls become a bit tighter over time, lowering the advantage of, dare I
say, "legal" doping over someone who's racing clean.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


When two labs decide that Iban Mayo's sample is inconclusive and one
that it indicates doping, I call that subjective. When only the doping
lab's opinion is taken into account, I call that injustice. That all
happened long after the supposed Tour de Suisse affair.

-ilan
  #7  
Old May 28th 11, 01:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Mike Jacoubowsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,972
Default Context for TdS debacle

That was then, this is now. Today we have a number of different ways to
look
at whether someone is excessively doping or not. And that's what it is...
we're testing, realistically, for "excessive" doping. We're putting up
limits that allow someone to dope to a certain level and tacitly saying
that's OK, because there's probably no other way to run things without the
likelihood of innocent people getting caught. People getting caught now
have
simply screwed up or are just plain stupid. We see unbelievable rides and,
in the back of our minds, wonder if that's really possible without being
doped to the gills... and a few days later, we discover that it's not. It
doesn't mean everyone else is clean though. Just much-better managed. Some
are clean, perhaps many are clean, could even be most, as the doping
controls become a bit tighter over time, lowering the advantage of, dare I
say, "legal" doping over someone who's racing clean.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

=====
When two labs decide that Iban Mayo's sample is inconclusive and one
that it indicates doping, I call that subjective. When only the doping
lab's opinion is taken into account, I call that injustice. That all
happened long after the supposed Tour de Suisse affair.

-ilan
=====

What happened to Mayo was absurd. You had the Spanish federation doing their
usual thing (protecting their own) and then a comedy of screw-ups and
mis-steps that boggled the mind. I think the UCI & WADA have learned a lot
from that. It remains surprising to me that CAS found in favor of the UCI
and suspended Mayo, but in the end I think they did catch a doper.

That was, what, 2007? Are you suggesting we're no better off now than we
were then? I think the biological passport has helped significantly lower
the allowable doping bar. I suspect that, had we had that tool back then,
there would have been no question that Mayo was doping. But I also suspect
that, had the biological passport been in use then, Mayo would have been
more cautious.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"ilan" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 10:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
"ilan" wrote in message

...
On May 27, 9:48 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:







Good reading
here-http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-lab-director-confirms-meeting-b...


So here's what we know-


#1: There was never a "positive" test to cover up in the first place. It
was
a "suspicious" test with a reading of between 70-80% (percent of what
I'm
not sure). To be "positive" it would have had to have been 85%. At that
time, the EPO testing was not solid enough to rule out natural means of
producing a positive result, thus the high threshold.


#2: There was no "special" meeting, according to Saugy, the person
involved
who now happens to be the head of the lab in Lausanne. "And it also
wasn't
about discussing a particular result or to cover up anything. I
explained
how the EPO test worked and why there were suspect samples as well as
positive ones. This information was part of a lecture that I had been
giving
in various locations." Saugy apparently had many meetings with many
teams/riders letting people know what the process was, how the testing
worked, etc. Yes, we can ascribe evil motivations to that, but
seriously,
if
your career was on the line based upon some new test, wouldn't you want
to
know something about it, especially since there would be some concern
regarding false positives?


Within this context, it is entirely reasonable that Lance was not
concerned
about the tests, whether he was doping or not. He had no reason to be
concerned. He had a suspicious test that was below the level of a
positive,
and the process had been explained not just to Lance but other people as
well.


Of course, the 60 minutes interview put huge weight on Tyler's inference
that Lance made a positive test go away.


If you accept that Saugy is telling the truth, you come away not with
the
idea that Tyler is lying, but that he completely misunderstood. He made
assumptions that were reasonable within his own framework, but that's
all.
Assumptions that turn out to be falso.


--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


======
It also confirms what I was saying, that the EPO test has a subjective
element.

-ilan
======

That was then, this is now. Today we have a number of different ways to
look
at whether someone is excessively doping or not. And that's what it is...
we're testing, realistically, for "excessive" doping. We're putting up
limits that allow someone to dope to a certain level and tacitly saying
that's OK, because there's probably no other way to run things without the
likelihood of innocent people getting caught. People getting caught now
have
simply screwed up or are just plain stupid. We see unbelievable rides and,
in the back of our minds, wonder if that's really possible without being
doped to the gills... and a few days later, we discover that it's not. It
doesn't mean everyone else is clean though. Just much-better managed. Some
are clean, perhaps many are clean, could even be most, as the doping
controls become a bit tighter over time, lowering the advantage of, dare I
say, "legal" doping over someone who's racing clean.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


When two labs decide that Iban Mayo's sample is inconclusive and one
that it indicates doping, I call that subjective. When only the doping
lab's opinion is taken into account, I call that injustice. That all
happened long after the supposed Tour de Suisse affair.

-ilan

  #8  
Old May 28th 11, 02:04 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
ilan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 672
Default Context for TdS debacle

On May 28, 2:38*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
That was then, this is now. Today we have a number of different ways to
look
at whether someone is excessively doping or not. And that's what it is....
we're testing, realistically, for "excessive" doping. We're putting up
limits that allow someone to dope to a certain level and tacitly saying
that's OK, because there's probably no other way to run things without the
likelihood of innocent people getting caught. People getting caught now
have
simply screwed up or are just plain stupid. We see unbelievable rides and,
in the back of our minds, wonder if that's really possible without being
doped to the gills... and a few days later, we discover that it's not. It
doesn't mean everyone else is clean though. Just much-better managed. Some
are clean, perhaps many are clean, could even be most, as the doping
controls become a bit tighter over time, lowering the advantage of, dare I
say, "legal" doping over someone who's racing clean.


--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


=====
When two labs decide that Iban Mayo's sample is inconclusive and one
that it indicates doping, I call that subjective. When only the doping
lab's opinion is taken into account, I call that injustice. That all
happened long after the supposed Tour de Suisse affair.

-ilan
=====

What happened to Mayo was absurd. You had the Spanish federation doing their
usual thing (protecting their own) and then a comedy of screw-ups and
mis-steps that boggled the mind. I think the UCI & WADA have learned a lot
from that. It remains surprising to me that CAS found in favor of the UCI
and suspended Mayo, but in the end I think they did catch a doper.

That was, what, 2007? Are you suggesting we're no better off now than we
were then? I think the biological passport has helped significantly lower
the allowable doping bar. I suspect that, had we had that tool back then,
there would have been no question that Mayo was doping. But I also suspect
that, had the biological passport been in use then, Mayo would have been
more cautious.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA"ilan" wrote in message

...
On May 27, 10:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:









"ilan" wrote in message


...
On May 27, 9:48 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:


Good reading
here-http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-lab-director-confirms-meeting-b...


So here's what we know-


#1: There was never a "positive" test to cover up in the first place. It
was
a "suspicious" test with a reading of between 70-80% (percent of what
I'm
not sure). To be "positive" it would have had to have been 85%. At that
time, the EPO testing was not solid enough to rule out natural means of
producing a positive result, thus the high threshold.


#2: There was no "special" meeting, according to Saugy, the person
involved
who now happens to be the head of the lab in Lausanne. "And it also
wasn't
about discussing a particular result or to cover up anything. I
explained
how the EPO test worked and why there were suspect samples as well as
positive ones. This information was part of a lecture that I had been
giving
in various locations." Saugy apparently had many meetings with many
teams/riders letting people know what the process was, how the testing
worked, etc. Yes, we can ascribe evil motivations to that, but
seriously,
if
your career was on the line based upon some new test, wouldn't you want
to
know something about it, especially since there would be some concern
regarding false positives?


Within this context, it is entirely reasonable that Lance was not
concerned
about the tests, whether he was doping or not. He had no reason to be
concerned. He had a suspicious test that was below the level of a
positive,
and the process had been explained not just to Lance but other people as
well.


Of course, the 60 minutes interview put huge weight on Tyler's inference
that Lance made a positive test go away.


If you accept that Saugy is telling the truth, you come away not with
the
idea that Tyler is lying, but that he completely misunderstood. He made
assumptions that were reasonable within his own framework, but that's
all.
Assumptions that turn out to be falso.


--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


======
It also confirms what I was saying, that the EPO test has a subjective
element.


-ilan
======


That was then, this is now. Today we have a number of different ways to
look
at whether someone is excessively doping or not. And that's what it is....
we're testing, realistically, for "excessive" doping. We're putting up
limits that allow someone to dope to a certain level and tacitly saying
that's OK, because there's probably no other way to run things without the
likelihood of innocent people getting caught. People getting caught now
have
simply screwed up or are just plain stupid. We see unbelievable rides and,
in the back of our minds, wonder if that's really possible without being
doped to the gills... and a few days later, we discover that it's not. It
doesn't mean everyone else is clean though. Just much-better managed. Some
are clean, perhaps many are clean, could even be most, as the doping
controls become a bit tighter over time, lowering the advantage of, dare I
say, "legal" doping over someone who's racing clean.


--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


When two labs decide that Iban Mayo's sample is inconclusive and one
that it indicates doping, I call that subjective. When only the doping
lab's opinion is taken into account, I call that injustice. That all
happened long after the supposed Tour de Suisse affair.

-ilan


I agree with your assessment of the handling of the Mayo case.
However, I disagree with you that WADA has learnt anything from that,
they seem even worse, if anything. In any case, that recent case
indicates that the anti-doping system itself doesn't work correctly.
If there are going to be investigations of 10 year old doping cases,
one should also review the doping cases which were mishandled. That
includes Mayo, and Landis as well, where the original AFLD test was
shown to be incompetent.

If the Armstrong 1999 AFLD samples ever come to a US trial, the
defense is going to have a field day destroying the lab's
credibility.

-ilan
  #9  
Old May 28th 11, 03:10 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Brad Anders
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 759
Default Context for TdS debacle

On May 27, 1:02*pm, ilan wrote:

It also confirms what I was saying, that the EPO test has a subjective
element.


,,, as do a number of dope tests. IIRC, Ashenden's test for exogenous
blood doping only requires a subjective detection of a peak
corresponding to the non-native blood cells - no criteria as to the
peak or the integrated quantity.

With regard to the EPO test, my understanding is that it also is
sensitive to the presence of exogenous EPO only for a very short
period of time after the EPO is administered, yet the effects last for
days to weeks. Just another reason why anyone who takes care can avoid
detection of many dope tests and appear "clean"
  #10  
Old May 28th 11, 05:24 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
DirtRoadie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,915
Default Context for TdS debacle

On May 27, 6:38*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

That was, what, 2007? Are you suggesting we're no better off now than we
were then?


Two words (and a link) - "Festina Affair"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festina_affair

That was what, 1998?
As an aside, geez - wouldn't you love to have been a sponsor and have
your name immortalized as an inextricable link to cheating in sports?

DR
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Missing context Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_] UK 48 September 12th 10 02:55 AM
Highway Code debacle - CTC David Damerell UK 10 May 11th 07 05:26 PM
Odd, no talk of the Sony debacle [email protected] Racing 24 October 15th 05 11:07 PM
Q: Effectiveness of flashing front lights in rural context? Peter Fox UK 15 February 16th 05 09:14 AM
What does "R+5" mean in the context of a BB? Dave Thompson Techniques 2 January 22nd 05 08:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.