|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
For Landis : Dr Davis and Sr.Papp
I counter that Papp's testimony shows that Testoserone & al. really have a limited effect. He clearly did not become a superstar because of superior Pharms. Until they could show that he was a middling Cat II when he discovered the chemically enhanced benefits would I believe he helped the USADA. As for the testimony of Joe Papp, well, is he any better as a witness of the state of performance enhancement than the aspiring pro who posted here about his kenacort problem? I know they just brought him in to counter the "T is a useless drug for instant performance" assertion from the Landis side, but while it's one thing if you've got Dr. Puffinstuff declaring that he did a proper study with 10 athletes, and found out that testosterone doping was like rocket fuel you could drink, but if the most compelling evidence you can find is Joe Papp, nearly-pro rider, who has apparently ridden in "multi-day stage races like the Tour de France" (what, the Giro, the Vuelta, some other 21-day tour I haven't heard about? RAAM?), then I begin to wonder if you don't have a very good case on that point. http://www.joepapp.com/index.php?pag...ws&element=219 Oh dear heavens. Papp is Kenacort Guy: "During the Landis hearing, Papp acknowledged systematically doping under the guidance of medical professionals in the United States, Europe and Latin America. He admitted to using at various times EPO, HGH, cortisone, insulin, thyroid hormone, anabolic steroids and amphetamines" Aren't insulin and cortisone like the two-fer of drugs for dumb athletes? Looking into the heart or soul of Landis would seem to be a bit outside of the purview of this hearing, but I'm not a member of the AAA. or AA. I'm an enemy of Bill W. Also, and this has now gone from tangent to personal dissing, but can anyone please explain the case of Joe Papp's missing wife? Like any red-blooded American (note clever Joe Papp riding-the-Tour elision!) I think Hugo Chavez is the devil, but if she was hiding in Venezuela, what thing was preventing her from traveling to Europe, or the US, or for that matter, just to Brazil? As far as I know, the country's borders are still open, along with its airports. -- Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
For Landis : Dr Davis
In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote: On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" wrote: His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing, manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths appear, as I see it. A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the shelf. His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo testing and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a lab machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine for a test already being performed has to believe that the old machine and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the effort and justify the risk. I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm thinking of the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of questions raised about that one for me when they guy who created it said that he didn't need to do tests for false positives, let alone demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in positive results than good results. -- tanx, Howard Never take a tenant with a monkey. remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
For Landis : Dr Davis
Dans le message de
, Howard Kveck a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : In article , Curtis L. Russell wrote: On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" wrote: His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing, manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths appear, as I see it. A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the shelf. His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo testing and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a lab machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine for a test already being performed has to believe that the old machine and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the effort and justify the risk. I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm thinking of the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of questions raised about that one for me when they guy who created it said that he didn't need to do tests for false positives, let alone demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in positive results than good results. I find it amusing to speculate what would ensue, should a lot of labs fail to find positive samples in any cases over a substantial period of time. Would WADA claim that the stuff is there, but deviously masked from detection ? A certain GWB tried that approach in a different context. It could never be, in that scenario, that there was simply no doping going on. -- Bonne route ! Sandy Verneuil-sur-Seine FR |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
For Landis : Dr Davis
On 23 May 2007 13:34:47 -0700, RicodJour wrote:
http://www.hrgiger.com/barmuseum.htm You know, just yesterday we were talking at work how, in the context of music, something can be in such bad taste it becomes beautiful again. I was against that notion and I still am. -- E. Dronkert |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
For Landis : Dr Davis
On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:57:28 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote: I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm thinking of the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of questions raised about that one for me when they guy who created it said that he didn't need to do tests for false positives, let alone demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in positive results than good results. Well, procedures do have to go through certification, of course. The acceptable margin of error and the protocol for retesting varies based on the possible consequences of positives, negatives, false positives and false negatives. If you have a procedure to check to see if a person is overly sensitive to Wayfarin, you tend to retest even at high levels of confidence. OTOH, since they do it before prescribing, most of your errors will go away rather quickly... Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels... |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
For Landis : Dr Davis
In article ,
"Sandy" wrote: Dans le message de , Howard Kveck a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : In article , Curtis L. Russell wrote: On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" wrote: His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing, manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths appear, as I see it. A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the shelf. His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo testing and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a lab machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine for a test already being performed has to believe that the old machine and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the effort and justify the risk. I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm thinking of the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of questions raised about that one for me when they guy who created it said that he didn't need to do tests for false positives, let alone demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in positive results than good results. I find it amusing to speculate what would ensue, should a lot of labs fail to find positive samples in any cases over a substantial period of time. Would WADA claim that the stuff is there, but deviously masked from detection ? Yes, they would be correct, and were they to express the notion equably they would attract sympathy from people who are not looking for scapegoats. -- Michael Press |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
For Landis : Dr Davis
On May 24, 3:32 pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article , "Sandy" wrote: Dans le message de , Howard Kveck a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : In article , Curtis L. Russell wrote: On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" wrote: His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing, manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths appear, as I see it. A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the shelf. His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo testing and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a lab machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine for a test already being performed has to believe that the old machine and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the effort and justify the risk. I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm thinking of the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of questions raised about that one for me when they guy who created it said that he didn't need to do tests for false positives, let alone demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in positive results than good results. I find it amusing to speculate what would ensue, should a lot of labs fail to find positive samples in any cases over a substantial period of time. Would WADA claim that the stuff is there, but deviously masked from detection ? Yes, they would be correct, and were they to express the notion equably they would attract sympathy from people who are not looking for scapegoats. -- Michael Press- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Except they'd lose their Wada certification in a heartbeat and Pound would be accusing them of enabling and assisting the dopers. Bill C |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
For Landis : Dr Davis
In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote: On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:57:28 -0700, Howard Kveck wrote: I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm thinking of the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of questions raised about that one for me when they guy who created it said that he didn't need to do tests for false positives, let alone demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in positive results than good results. Well, procedures do have to go through certification, of course. The acceptable margin of error and the protocol for retesting varies based on the possible consequences of positives, negatives, false positives and false negatives. If you have a procedure to check to see if a person is overly sensitive to Wayfarin, you tend to retest even at high levels of confidence. Yeah, I believe that's how it works in "real life" situations but it really didn't seem to be the way I recall them (and the guy who is credited with being behind the Aussie EPO blood test in particular) talking about that procedure. The way they did it seemed less than optimal to me. OTOH, since they do it before prescribing, most of your errors will go away rather quickly... Yeah, go away in a big way. -- tanx, Howard Never take a tenant with a monkey. remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
For Landis : Dr Davis
In article , "Sandy"
wrote: Dans le message de , Howard Kveck a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : In article , Curtis L. Russell wrote: On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" wrote: His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing, manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths appear, as I see it. A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the shelf. His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo testing and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a lab machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine for a test already being performed has to believe that the old machine and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the effort and justify the risk. I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm thinking of the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of questions raised about that one for me when they guy who created it said that he didn't need to do tests for false positives, let alone demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in positive results than good results. I find it amusing to speculate what would ensue, should a lot of labs fail to find positive samples in any cases over a substantial period of time. Would WADA claim that the stuff is there, but deviously masked from detection ? A certain GWB tried that approach in a different context. It could never be, in that scenario, that there was simply no doping going on. I think that's about what Pound has been implying all along. -- tanx, Howard Never take a tenant with a monkey. remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UC Davis Bike Auction May 5 | [email protected] | Marketplace | 0 | April 25th 07 12:23 AM |
UC Davis Bike Auction, Oct. 14 | twotired | Marketplace | 0 | September 22nd 06 11:08 PM |
Davis Phinney: how can we help? | Veloise | General | 1 | May 25th 05 07:10 PM |
Dr Robert Davis on the radio | Colin McKenzie | UK | 30 | December 7th 04 06:11 PM |
Tour for Allan Davis? | Kenny | Racing | 1 | June 27th 04 04:18 PM |