The nightmare goes on, Ricco caught with EPO

On Jul 17, 12:24*pm, Montesquiou wrote:
"Scott" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
On Jul 17, 11:01 am, Keith wrote:





The real nightmare is that L'Equipe is the official leak of the AFLD.

ilan, as much as I respect and even admire your posts about cycling in
France, your cheap shots and rants against L'Equipe are really
annoying. The bottom line to me is that it doesn't matter how the news
gets out as long as it's the truth.

As far as I can remember, L'Equipe only really failed once, that was
in 1998 when they ferociously attacked Aimé Jacquet, they later
apologized. They certainly are NOT the cheap rag you try to picture.

What about the "investivative" report on Armstrong in 2005 in which
they lied to Armstrong and to the UCI (their head doctor subsequently
resigned for having believe their lies) and then managed to find
unethical members of the LNDD to help them and finally got the support
of the head of the LNDD, whose research results were savaged. That
shoddy article is now accepted as fact in France.

While they may have used questionnable methods they did expose him as
a cheat, look at the bottom line ilan.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Maybe we should waterboard the teams' directors to get information on
who's providing the drugs to their riders?

Why not ? *But let remember : *it is not the Tour of USA.

Would that be 'too questionable' a procedure, or would it be worth it
to catch the dopers?

Ask it to President Bush. I was told the Frog were not very fan of him

It is not ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Could you put that in English so we can understand what you're
saying? ;-

While you're at it, how about getting your sarcasm meter recalibrated?

On Jul 17, 9:50*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
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.

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

On Jul 17, 9:36 pm, Keith wrote:
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" ;-)

In my mind, the worst thing about that trial is that it had all played
out in almost every detail in the United States with the McMartin
affair in Manhattan Beach, CA, but that absolutely none of the
conclusions from that case (accusations of mass pedophilia in the US
and Canada went to zero shortly thereafter) had any effect in France.

-ilan

On Jul 17, 12:51 pm, Robert Chung wrote:
On Jul 17, 9:50 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

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.

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

It's the new ASO model: according to some poll floating around, the
public now follows the TdF 1) for the scenery 2) for the doping
circus; the scenery's already there, so just add more rings to the
circus...

On Jul 17, 12:05*pm, Keith wrote:
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.

Dumbass,

CAS said that having Landis's lawyers present a
wide-ranging challenge to the lab's conduct was
one of the reasons they ruled that he has to pay
USADA $100,000 for trial costs:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...ndis_cas_jun08
The ruling also said that the burden of proof is on
the rider to show that the lab didn't follow standards.
So if they screwed up, you have to prove it, but if
you question them too aggressively, you'll be
charged money. As Bob Schwartz says, one of the
goals is to make sure the rider can't afford to
defend himself. None of this means I think Landis
is not guilty; even a guilty man can be framed.
It's just not something we should celebrate as a
victory in the War on Dopes.

Ben

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.

Or should I have said, "Why trust a lab that has been shown to not
follow correct procedures, which has an extreme conflict of interest
problem?".

Or noted again, just for the record, I guess, that even Dick Pound
scoffed at the original findings, the outlandish "T/E ratio" IMS that
were published in the media-- "How does he get on the bike [with a
huge erection like that]?".

Not too fine a point there-- yeah, more like a knob.

Actually, that's two, two conflict of interest problems-- "ownership"
chain, *plus* having published (apparently) ridiculous "lab results"
that couldn't be fixed up with a few dabs of white-out once the
newspapers got hold of them. And had to be backed up ("find him guilty
of something that will fly in 'court'") no matter what...

What is different about a French sports testing lab, compared to a
dirty Houston operation, that makes it above reproach in your view?

The "bottom line" is, the officials are cheating. Again, what's the
difference? --D-y

"Scott" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
On Jul 17, 12:24 pm, Montesquiou wrote:
"Scott" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
On Jul 17, 11:01 am, Keith wrote:





The real nightmare is that L'Equipe is the official leak of the
AFLD.

ilan, as much as I respect and even admire your posts about cycling
in
France, your cheap shots and rants against L'Equipe are really
annoying. The bottom line to me is that it doesn't matter how the
news
gets out as long as it's the truth.

As far as I can remember, L'Equipe only really failed once, that was
in 1998 when they ferociously attacked Aimé Jacquet, they later
apologized. They certainly are NOT the cheap rag you try to picture.

What about the "investivative" report on Armstrong in 2005 in which
they lied to Armstrong and to the UCI (their head doctor subsequently
resigned for having believe their lies) and then managed to find
unethical members of the LNDD to help them and finally got the support
of the head of the LNDD, whose research results were savaged. That
shoddy article is now accepted as fact in France.

While they may have used questionnable methods they did expose him as
a cheat, look at the bottom line ilan.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Maybe we should waterboard the teams' directors to get information on
who's providing the drugs to their riders?

Why not ? But let remember : it is not the Tour of USA.

Would that be 'too questionable' a procedure, or would it be worth it
to catch the dopers?

Ask it to President Bush. I was told the Frog were not very fan of him

It is not ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Could you put that in English so we can understand what you're
saying? ;-

Hélas non !
..

While you're at it, how about getting your sarcasm meter recalibrated?

Pas mieux.cher ami.
Qu'est ce qu'on fait maintenant ?

Bob Schwartz wrote in
:

sluggo wrote:
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? 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.

Dumbass,

One point of agreement among all three arbitrators in the
Landis case was that the lab ****ed some things up.

And it was a WADA sponsored study that showed that there
were serious problems with the original EPO test.

Bob Schwartz


Why is it that some ****-ups in a lab on a test done 2 years ago should
be held as a reason why different tests performed in 2008 are not valid?


The hypothesis put forward was that "The sample is tested by a testing
lab (say, LNDD) using procedures of questionable accuracy under
questionable controls." Again, I just don't see the questionable
accuracy and questionable controls. I have read about the epo test and
how some scientists believe it can lead to false positives. I've also
read rebuttals on this issue. At the end of the day I haven't seen a
bike related doping case that looked overly suspicious. Some people
would agree with this, others think that some riders are incorrectly
accused and held accountable.

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 get.

On Jul 17, 12:47*pm, Amit Ghosh wrote:
doping control in a sport has nothing to do with a "semi-free" country
or the legal system.

doping controls and the processing of AAFs are part of the rules of
the race that ricco and all the participating riders agreed to.

How about a fair, reasonable, intelligent and just set of rules then?
How about a process that shows an *understanding* of the conditions,
and promotes the success of the sport? Instead of killing it...

On Jul 17, 7:11 pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
Keith wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:17:19 -0500, Don Piven
wrote:
2) The sample is tested by a testing lab (say, LNDD) using procedures of
questionable accuracy under questionable controls.

Sez who ? Oh yes Landis's lawyers who were trashed by the CAS recently
because of that tactic

Dumbass,

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

Bob Schwartz

They actually overturned the original testosterone positive for LNDD
incompetence. Given that decision, I don't understand how USADA could
have then found Landis guilty of the followup test. It's as if a
police search is found to be illegal, but the stuff that was found in
the search can be used.

-ilan