The nightmare goes on, Ricco caught with EPO

I didn't think the CAS was going to let Landis off
(or that that would have unambiguously served
justice), but I thought the CAS decision saying that
you're not allowed to question the lab and you'll
be fined if you do was Sovietistic.

That's not what they said, they told Landis' lawyers that trying to
trash the reputation on some petty details wasn't helping their
cllient.

1) A rider gives a sample.
2) The sample is tested by a testing lab (say, LNDD) using procedures
of questionable accuracy under questionable controls.
3) The lab pronounces the sample as testing positive.
4) The rider is booted from the tour, and
5) Spends the next few days in le bagne.

In the US, that'd be like being pulled over, cuffed, and jailed
because some local yahoo with a badge says his radar clocked you as
going 200 mph over the limit.

Seeing as how Ricco is now criminally liable, I'd wonder what would
happen if, say, Landis' lawyers took Ricco's case and brought the
quality of the evidence into question in front of a real court,
instead of the allegedly-impartial sport tribunals.


I don't get why there is a lot of talk about #2 above. Aside from
conspiracy theorists and dopers trying to get off the hook (look! they
used white out, therefore I wasn't doping), who thinks the labs and
tests are questionable?

Touché !

Who thinks that Beltran, Ricco and Duenas were
false positives? From what I read, people actually involved in pro
cycling don't sound like they think they are false positives. And I
have no idea why anything pertaining to the Landis case should cast
doubt on what is going on now. For crying out loud, they caught Duenas
with prohibited products in his hotel room.

s

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:11:11 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jul 17, 12:07Â*pm, Keith wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:10:07 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:58Â*am, Keith wrote:
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breve...53_ricco-posit...

So it seems he wasn't saved by his natural hematocrit level.

If his B sample is tested tested tested by the same lab and even same
lab tech, there's scant chance he will be "saved" at all.

Especially since they found "stuff" in his room.

That's two different things.

You have another problem: possession "proves" use?

In your headlong rush to your brave new world where everyone is tested
for everything all the time, perhaps you could pause to google
"Houston Crime Lab Scandal" and do some reading about bad labs and bad
techs and bad cops and bad prosecutors who used the golden cloak of
Science to pull some mighty dirty ****. And got caught.

I'm not interested in discussing the finer points of the "conspiracy
theory", sorry.

Bob Schwartz writes:

All three arbitrators in the Landis case agreed there
were problems at the lab.

There's very little there not to agree, as you would have known, had
you ever worked with any lab. The ISO9000s and what nots they have are
just indicators of the variety of ways they can fail. However, making
errors often does not mean they make errors always. It is more
important to knwo the probability of errors. Try to tell that to the
labs. THEY think they're error free. I don't really like the lab
people, you know.

MJ;

--
..signature necesse est

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:11:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 17, 12:50Â*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
| Seeing as how Ricco is now criminally liable, I'd wonder what would
| happen if, say, Landis' lawyers took Ricco's case and brought the
| quality of the evidence into question in front of a real court, instead
| of the allegedly-impartial sport tribunals.

Isn't Ladis' lawyer now 0-2?

I'm against the shoddy testing & appeal procedures as much as anybody. But at the same time, we have to accept that many ARE doping. We come across sounding pretty darned silly making claims about the terrible system in place without mentioning the serious need to get things cleaned up. The credibility of both sides is
questionable at best. One side needs to take the lead and establish a nearly-foolproof nearly-inarguable system to regain credibility. And it's clear it's NOT going to be the riders and/or teams.

--Mike-- Â* Â* Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com


how much of that "shoddiness" is just diatribe created by defense
lawyers ? it's their job to maximize every bump and jiggle to cast
doubt over the evidence against their client.

Exactly what the CAS told them, trying to trash the reputation of the
lab for some petty details won't get you anywhere and is shameful.

On Jul 17, 1:57*pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
The credibility of both sides is questionable at

* best. One side needs to take the lead and establish
* a nearly-foolproof nearly-inarguable system to
* regain credibility.

I'd like to see this happen. And a pony, I'd like a
pony also.

No no no, Bob, I already 'splained this befo ponies are nasty, some
much worse than others. You want a small, mellow Arabian.
--D-y

On Jul 17, 2:08*pm, Keith wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:11:11 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:
On Jul 17, 12:07*pm, Keith wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:10:07 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:58*am, Keith wrote:
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breve...53_ricco-posit...

So it seems he wasn't saved by his natural hematocrit level.

If his B sample is tested tested tested by the same lab and even same
lab tech, there's scant chance he will be "saved" at all.

Especially since they found "stuff" in his room.

That's two different things.

You have another problem: possession "proves" use?

In your headlong rush to your brave new world where everyone is tested
for everything all the time, perhaps you could pause to google
"Houston Crime Lab Scandal" and do some reading about bad labs and bad
techs and bad cops and bad prosecutors who used the golden cloak of
Science to pull some mighty dirty ****. And got caught.

I'm not interested in discussing the finer points of the "conspiracy
theory", sorry.

Chicken. --D-y

On Jul 17, 12:50*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
| Seeing as how Ricco is now criminally liable, I'd wonder what would
| happen if, say, Landis' lawyers took Ricco's case and brought the
| quality of the evidence into question in front of a real court, instead
| of the allegedly-impartial sport tribunals.

Isn't Ladis' lawyer now 0-2?

I'm against the shoddy testing & appeal procedures as much as anybody. But at the same time, we have to accept that many ARE doping. We come across sounding pretty darned silly making claims about the terrible system in place without mentioning the serious need to get things cleaned up. The credibility of both sides is questionable at best. One side needs to take the lead and establish a nearly-foolproof nearly-inarguable system to regain credibility. And it's clear it's NOT going to be the riders and/or teams.

--Mike-- * * Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090605/quotes - Alien
Ripley: ... nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be
sure. ...

-bdbafh

"Don Piven" wrote in ...
| wrote:

| These days, TdF dopers and other miscreants are put in "garde a vue"
| by the French police which means being locked in a cell with hardly
| anywhere to sit, no food, water, sleep impossible, and incessant
| accusatory questioning and threatening harassment by the police, all
| this without having the right to a lawyer for the first 72 hours.
| Pillory might be preferable, at least that way everyone can observe
| the injustice.
|
| Let me see if I understand the situation:
|
| 1) A rider gives a sample.
| 2) The sample is tested by a testing lab (say, LNDD) using procedures of
| questionable accuracy under questionable controls.
| 3) The lab pronounces the sample as testing positive.
| 4) The rider is booted from the tour, and
| 5) Spends the next few days in le bagne.
|
| In the US, that'd be like being pulled over, cuffed, and jailed because
| some local yahoo with a badge says his radar clocked you as going 200
| mph over the limit.
|
| Seeing as how Ricco is now criminally liable, I'd wonder what would
| happen if, say, Landis' lawyers took Ricco's case and brought the
| quality of the evidence into question in front of a real court, instead
| of the allegedly-impartial sport tribunals.
|

On Jul 17, 9:04 pm, Keith wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:02:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:37 pm, Amit Ghosh wrote:
On Jul 17, 7:54 am, wrote:

These days, TdF dopers and other miscreants are put in "garde a vue"
by the French police

dumbass,

duenas was taken into custody only after a search of his room turned
up illegal substances. this apparently is the procedure for dealing
with criminal cases - in this case the possession of doping products.

the initial AAF motivated the search, but it wasn't the reason he was
taken into custody.

you can question the point of using the police to fight cheating in
sports, but the fact remains if you break the laws in a country you
risk being prosecuted under that legal system.

Speaking of the French legal system, if you're in jail pending your
judgment and that judgment finds you not guilty then you can be sent
back to jail for up to a day for "processing". Somehow, that just
doesn't seem right.

Source ?

The Outreau suspects were all acquitted on December 1, 2005 but at
least some of the were immediately sent back to jail after the
verdict.

-ilan

you can question the point of using the police to fight cheating in
sports, but the fact remains if you break the laws in a country you
risk being prosecuted under that legal system.

Speaking of the French legal system, if you're in jail pending your
judgment and that judgment finds you not guilty then you can be sent
back to jail for up to a day for "processing". Somehow, that just
doesn't seem right.

Source ?

The Outreau suspects were all acquitted on December 1, 2005 but at
least some of the were immediately sent back to jail after the
verdict.

Among the many "problems" of that trial, I don't remember that one,
but it would have to be the "exception that confirms the rule" ;-)