Interesting Joe Lindsey Article Re L'Equipe Revelations

http://www.mountainbike.com/communit...11_621,00.html

B. Lafferty wrote:
http://www.mountainbike.com/communit...11_621,00.html


Joe Lindsey wrote a nice piece, but he's no Magilla:

http://www.mountainbike.com/communit...15_621,00.html

He says in the unspin section [i.e. the truth section], "But, lacking
the A sample, nothing would really change except the clear knowledge
that the B sample is his [Armstrong's]."

However, later on, he writes in the unspin section:

http://www.mountainbike.com/communit...17_621,00.html

"Experts also point out that if EPO in a sample did degrade, it would
simply become undetectable; there's no way other substances could
degrade and somehow form EPO metabolites."

---------------

The mistake is that Lindsey does not say why an A-sample would be
necessary in order to confirm EPO use if Lindsey concedes there was (1)
no doubt the B sample was Lance's and (2) there's no way EPO could
materialize through degradation.

The A and B-sample rule is only an administrative rule under WADA
protocol. It has nothing to do with science, and Lindsey is confusing
the two. Defendants are routinely executed or sent to prison for life
on the basis of lab tests that only had one positive sample.

A lot of you dumbasses in here are confusing a bureaucratic WADA rule as
having dispositive scientific meaning, when in fact there is little or
no scientific meaning to it. It's just a WADA rule that means Lance
cannot be sanctioned under WADA code. It doesn't mean the test result
is not scientifically valid.

Second, if the lab could sabotage the B-sample, then what difference
would it make if they had an A sample - couldn't they just as easily
sabotage the A-sample too?

This is quite an implication for Armstrong's camp to argue. I am aware
of no other case where the athlete even suggested that their positive
result was due to intentional sabotage by the lab. That's more
far-reaching than a chimera defense.

And if Lance "doesn't believe" in the science of the EPO test, then why
did he routinely give very different quotes to the media prior to the
revelations by L'Equipe?

-------------
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...PG6O5ONH21.DTL

Last year I was drug tested more than 24 times. That's twice a month.
Ms. Knapp claims that "savvy fans know that the tests are unreliable."
Really? If that's the case, then I know a lot of professional cyclists
who are not very "savvy." The truth is that we believe the current tests
do work and we are proud that our sport has led the way to create
cutting-edge testing and forced that testing on ourselves. I would ask
Ms. Knapp if she called someone like Dr. Don Catlin head of the
IOC-accredited UCLA testing lab, to ask him if he thought that drug
testing was "unreliable" or if, specifically, the test for EPO does not
work.

I would challenge her to do a little homework on the EPO test and
reconsider her view.

Lance Armstrong - Sunday, March 21, 2004

-------------

Thanks,


Magilla

professor magilla breaking it down to it's very last
compound, dropping a little science.
when did magilla start referring to himself in the
third person?
who carest? a sample this and b sample
that, mumbo jumbo.
human beings can't do that stuff naturally...period.
anyone who has raced a bike seriously,. or been
an athlete in any endurance sport knows the
truth, even a knowledgable fan could connect
the dots and use some critical thinking skills.

anyone who still believes that LA
or Hamilton or any pro cyclist is clean,
they aren't gonna be swayed by science or
evidence - their faith is
stronger than science, it's like trying
to convince Ned Flanders that there is
no god.

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

A lot of you dumbasses in here are confusing a bureaucratic WADA rule as
having dispositive scientific meaning, when in fact there is little or
no scientific meaning to it. It's just a WADA rule that means Lance
cannot be sanctioned under WADA code. It doesn't mean the test result
is not scientifically valid.

Agreed. It does not mean the test result is not
scientifically valid. What does mean that it does not have
scientific meaning was covered recently in the article
.

A test on five year old samples from which we can draw
conclusions does not exist. The data from laboratory
procedures on five year old samples were published, and
people use those data to support their beliefs, opinions,
and what not. It should be enough for someone to say "I
think rider's name here doped." That they choose to
support their position with an inconclusive laboratory
result is a sign of fanaticism, poor critical faculties,
and lack of trust in their own acumen. Neither does what I
have just said falsify any such opinion.

Breaking the "bureaucratic WADA rule" does permit me to
conclude that WADA's acts are no more well founded than
the opinions of anyone in rbr, and I do.

--
Michael Press

Brian, Is it your life goal to show that the emporer has no clothes ?
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...
http://www.mountainbike.com/communit...11_621,00.html

MagillaGorilla wrote:
B. Lafferty wrote:
http://www.mountainbike.com/communit...11_621,00.html


Joe Lindsey wrote a nice piece, but he's no Magilla:

http://www.mountainbike.com/communit...15_621,00.html

He says in the unspin section [i.e. the truth section], "But, lacking
the A sample, nothing would really change except the clear knowledge
that the B sample is his [Armstrong's]."

However, later on, he writes in the unspin section:

http://www.mountainbike.com/communit...17_621,00.html

"Experts also point out that if EPO in a sample did degrade, it would
simply become undetectable; there's no way other substances could
degrade and somehow form EPO metabolites."

---------------

The mistake is that Lindsey does not say why an A-sample would be
necessary in order to confirm EPO use if Lindsey concedes there was (1)
no doubt the B sample was Lance's and (2) there's no way EPO could
materialize through degradation.

The A and B-sample rule is only an administrative rule under WADA
protocol. It has nothing to do with science, and Lindsey is confusing
the two. Defendants are routinely executed or sent to prison for life
on the basis of lab tests that only had one positive sample.

A lot of you dumbasses in here are confusing a bureaucratic WADA rule as
having dispositive scientific meaning, when in fact there is little or
no scientific meaning to it. It's just a WADA rule that means Lance
cannot be sanctioned under WADA code. It doesn't mean the test result
is not scientifically valid.

Second, if the lab could sabotage the B-sample, then what difference
would it make if they had an A sample - couldn't they just as easily
sabotage the A-sample too?

This is quite an implication for Armstrong's camp to argue. I am aware
of no other case where the athlete even suggested that their positive
result was due to intentional sabotage by the lab. That's more
far-reaching than a chimera defense.

And if Lance "doesn't believe" in the science of the EPO test, then why
did he routinely give very different quotes to the media prior to the
revelations by L'Equipe?

-------------
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...PG6O5ONH21.DTL

Last year I was drug tested more than 24 times. That's twice a month.
Ms. Knapp claims that "savvy fans know that the tests are unreliable."
Really? If that's the case, then I know a lot of professional cyclists
who are not very "savvy." The truth is that we believe the current tests
do work and we are proud that our sport has led the way to create
cutting-edge testing and forced that testing on ourselves. I would ask
Ms. Knapp if she called someone like Dr. Don Catlin head of the
IOC-accredited UCLA testing lab, to ask him if he thought that drug
testing was "unreliable" or if, specifically, the test for EPO does not
work.

I would challenge her to do a little homework on the EPO test and
reconsider her view.

Lance Armstrong - Sunday, March 21, 2004

-------------

Thanks,



Magilla wrote:

Second, if the lab could sabotage the B-sample, then what difference
would it make if they had an A sample - couldn't they just as easily
sabotage the A-sample too?

No, not if the second sample was stored in a separate facility and with
a different custodian. The requirement of a two samples is so that
they can be stored in two locations. It is an anti-tampering
requirement. It is far more difficult to tamper with both samples when
each is securely stored in separate a location and the persons in
custody of the facilities are entirely different. The perpetrator
must break into facilities, not just one.

While in criminal proceedings one sample is sufficient, the chain of
custody must be absolutely proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." And
where are the detailed descriptions of the practices and procedures use
by the lab to assure the integrity of the samples? Yes, the same lab
that was so poorly administered that it could not preserve data
integrity and leaked the results.

ray

ray

Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:


A lot of you dumbasses in here are confusing a bureaucratic WADA rule as
having dispositive scientific meaning, when in fact there is little or
no scientific meaning to it. It's just a WADA rule that means Lance
cannot be sanctioned under WADA code. It doesn't mean the test result
is not scientifically valid.


Agreed. It does not mean the test result is not
scientifically valid. What does mean that it does not have
scientific meaning was covered recently in the article
.

A test on five year old samples from which we can draw
conclusions does not exist. The data from laboratory
procedures on five year old samples were published, and
people use those data to support their beliefs, opinions,
and what not. It should be enough for someone to say "I
think rider's name here doped." That they choose to
support their position with an inconclusive laboratory
result is a sign of fanaticism, poor critical faculties,
and lack of trust in their own acumen. Neither does what I
have just said falsify any such opinion.

Breaking the "bureaucratic WADA rule" does permit me to
conclude that WADA's acts are no more well founded than
the opinions of anyone in rbr, and I do.


The press are not bound by WADA protocol, secrecy, or anonymity of
testing samples. WADA did not leak Lance Armstrong's name. L'Equipe
made the link.

And what evidence do you have the lab result was "inconclusive?" Lance
himself said he believes in the EPO test.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...PG6O5ONH21.DTL

Last year I was drug tested more than 24 times. That's twice a month.
Ms. Knapp claims that "savvy fans know that the tests are unreliable."
Really? If that's the case, then I know a lot of professional cyclists
who are not very "savvy." The truth is that we believe the current tests
do work and we are proud that our sport has led the way to create
cutting-edge testing and forced that testing on ourselves. I would ask
Ms. Knapp if she called someone like Dr. Don Catlin head of the
IOC-accredited UCLA testing lab, to ask him if he thought that drug
testing was "unreliable" or if, specifically, the test for EPO does not
work.

I would challenge her to do a little homework on the EPO test and
reconsider her view.

Lance Armstrong - Sunday, March 21, 2004

Thanks,

Magilla

wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

snip

Magilla wrote:


Second, if the lab could sabotage the B-sample, then what difference
would it make if they had an A sample - couldn't they just as easily
sabotage the A-sample too?


No, not if the second sample was stored in a separate facility and with
a different custodian. The requirement of a two samples is so that
they can be stored in two locations. It is an anti-tampering
requirement. It is far more difficult to tamper with both samples when
each is securely stored in separate a location and the persons in
custody of the facilities are entirely different. The perpetrator
must break into facilities, not just one.

While in criminal proceedings one sample is sufficient, the chain of
custody must be absolutely proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." And
where are the detailed descriptions of the practices and procedures use
by the lab to assure the integrity of the samples? Yes, the same lab
that was so poorly administered that it could not preserve data
integrity and leaked the results.

ray

ray


ray x 2:

Are you saying the French lab sabotaged Lance's sample? Because if you
are, then come right out and say it. Don't play these little games of
vague insinuations. And tell me what your proof is, who did it, and
when they did it.

Also, has their ever been so much as an allegation that a WADA lab
sabotaged a sample prior to the revelation that Lance's '99 samples
tested positive for EPO? Think of all the tens of thousands of tests
that have been done in all the Olympics and sports since WADA's
inception. Not once has an athlete gone to a CAS hearing and asserted
that as a defense.

Sounds like a strange time to make such an insinuation, no? Do you
think the police framed OJ too?


Magilla

MagillaGorilla says...

Do you think the police framed OJ too?

Not successfully, but it's clear that they bent forensic rules past the breaking
point. Or do you think it's OK to take his blood sample to his house at the
time they were taking samples that they later claimed to contain blood? The
sampling videos the LAPD took are classic Keystone Cops.

Contamination? What's a little contamination to an LA cop when sampling for DNA
analysis? Not too important, apparently.

Mad Dog wrote:

MagillaGorilla says...


Do you think the police framed OJ too?


Not successfully, but it's clear that they bent forensic rules past the breaking
point. Or do you think it's OK to take his blood sample to his house at the
time they were taking samples that they later claimed to contain blood? The
sampling videos the LAPD took are classic Keystone Cops.

Contamination? What's a little contamination to an LA cop when sampling for DNA
analysis? Not too important, apparently.


No forensic rules were bent. How do you explain OJ's blood at thhe
scene and his wife' and Ron Goldman's blood in thew Bronco - was it all
planted by detectives.

You do realize that planting evidence in a capital case is a capital
crime. Are you saying the police committed a capital crime? Name the
police officers by name and tell me exactly what evidence they planted.

Thanks,


Magilla