The nightmare goes on, Ricco caught with EPO

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 get.

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

On Jul 17, 1:57*pm, Montesquiou wrote:

Qu'est ce qu'on fait maintenant ?

Laissez tomber?

BTW... anybody wonder why Ricco never tested positive before?

Cycling News: "The Italian from Spanish team Saunier Duval was part of
a targeted group of riders. Since the start of the race in Brest, the
AFLD performed numerous anti-doping tests on him, at least four
according to L'Equipe."

"Keith" wrote in message
...

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.

Sorry Keith but the procedures of the French lab were bad. In the USA
management of the labs wouldn't allow such half-assed bookkeeping. Wrong
sample numbers, wrong rider code numbers, erasures, etc. Those books could
not be used in a US court and yet people like you take them as gospel.

"sluggo" wrote in message
. 74...

(look! they used white out, therefore I wasn't doping)

Actually it was "Hey look, they CHANGED the results"! Apparently you don't
have a problem with that.

"Bob Schwartz" wrote in message
...

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.

Not to mention that there are several serious papers that demonstrate that
the EPO tests are questionable to begin with.

On Jul 17, 7:01 pm, 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.

The bottom line is that the head of the LNDD, whose anonymous research
data was illegally used by L'Equipe, signed his name to an article
right next to the article using said illegal data. He also made no
effort trying to locate the person who leaked the information
(shouldn't have been too hard, as it was probably him) and has since
made no effort to stop the continuing leaks to L'Equipe. The head of
the laboratory has shown no respect for scientific research and legal
protocols (as opposed to the head doctor of the UCI who resigned when
he realized that he had accepted L'Equipe's lies) so I conclude that
the whole laboratory is also wanting. All conclusions from that
laboratory are suspect, as far as I'm concerned. In the case of
Armstrong, the conclusions have absolutely no scientific validity
since scientific principles were not followed. Recall that both the
IOC and the UCI chastised the LNDD for this incident and threatened to
withdraw their accreditation.

The LNDD Armstrong case represents what I believe is the greatest
danger right now, that scientific principles, which are the basis of
the doping tests, will be abandoned for political expediency.

-ilan

"sluggo" wrote in message
. 74...

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?

Possibly because just this year they found a positive in the French lab and
when they sent the second test to be varified in Belgium (I believe) it came
back "unproven" and so the UCI wanted it tested again and again at the
French lab until it turned out positive?

On Jul 17, 2:28 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"sluggo" wrote in message

. 74...



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?

Possibly because just this year they found a positive in the French lab and
when they sent the second test to be varified in Belgium (I believe) it came
back "unproven" and so the UCI wanted it tested again and again at the
French lab until it turned out positive?

Ah yes, Belgium... the failed state of Europe... the most corrupt
country north of the Alps and west of Moldova... local specialties:
pot belge, and dogs on roids...

Keith wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:03:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 17, 12:58 pm, Keith wrote:
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breve...53_ricco-posit...

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


I was going to write that you don't know what's the truth, based on a
single test without due process, and then...

On Jul 17, 1:28 pm, wrote:
Also, the Mayo case shows that B samples will continue being tested
until the positive is confirmed, so these days a positive A sample is
enough to convict.

-ilan

....I was reminded that there is no due process.