Another proof point for tyler

"Bob Schwartz" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
| Alex Rodriguez wrote:
| In article .com,
| says...
|
|
| Tyler tested positive at the Olympics and at the Vuelta.
|
| He didn't test positive at the Olympics. That is why he got to keep his
| medal.
|
| He did test positive at the Olympics. Haven't we been though
| this before? The positive positive positive positive positive
| positive positive positive positive positive positive positive
| positive positive positive positive positive positive positive
| test was invalidated by the destruction of the B sample.
|
| That's why he still has the medal. But you knew that.
|

No, his test sample was declared negative at the Olympics. That's why the B
sample was subsequently frozen. Later his A sample was reclassified under
rather screwy circumstances as a positive. So whether you say he tested
negative or positive is a matter of semantics and which lab interpretation
you choose to follow.

But you knew that.

trg wrote:
"Bob Schwartz" a ?crit dans le message de news:
...
| Alex Rodriguez wrote:
| In article .com,
| says...
|
|
| Tyler tested positive at the Olympics and at the Vuelta.
|
| He didn't test positive at the Olympics. That is why he got to keep his
| medal.
|
| He did test positive at the Olympics. Haven't we been though
| this before? The positive positive positive positive positive
| positive positive positive positive positive positive positive
| positive positive positive positive positive positive positive
| test was invalidated by the destruction of the B sample.
|
| That's why he still has the medal. But you knew that.
|

No, his test sample was declared negative at the Olympics. That's why the B
sample was subsequently frozen. Later his A sample was reclassified under
rather screwy circumstances as a positive. So whether you say he tested
negative or positive is a matter of semantics and which lab interpretation
you choose to follow.

But you knew that.

Indeed I did. And that's why I would not say he didn't test positive.
Because he did test positive. Screwy circumstances or no.

Bob Schwartz

Donald Munro wrote:

Tim Lines wrote:
Oh, that's nothing. They found an entire EPO factory in my left
testicle. Which only makes Lance's victories seem all the more remarkable.

Donald Munro wrote:
You must be quite popular with female endurance athletes.

Bob Schwartz wrote:
heather prefers sprinters.

I thought she preferred pursuiters, albeit one at a time.


It's not the "kill," it's the thrill of the chase?



-----------------------------------------
KNOCKING AT YOUR BACK DOOR


Sweet lucy was a dancer
But none of us would chance her
Because she was a samurai
She made electric shadows
Beyond our fingertips
And none of us could reach that high
She came on like a teaser
I had to touch and please her
Enjoy a little paradise
The log was in my pocket
When lucy met the rocket
And she never knew the reason why

I can’t deny it
With that smile on her face
It’s not the kill
It’s the thrill of the chase

Feel it coming
It’s knocking at the door
You know it’s no good running
It’s not against the law
The point of no return
And now you know the score
And now you’re learning
What’s knockin’ at your back door

Sweet nancy was so fancy
To get into her pantry
Had to be the aristocracy
The members that she toyed with
At her city club
Were something in diplomacy
So we put her on the hit list
Of a common cunning linguist
A master of many tongues
And now she eases gently
From her austin to her bentley
Suddenly she feels so young

I can’t deny it
With that smile on her face
It’s not the kill
It’s the thrill of the chase

Feel it coming
It’s knocking at the door
You know it’s no good running
It’s not against the law
The point of no return
And now you know the score
And now you’re learning
What’s knockin’ at your back door

"Tom Kunich" wrote:
"explain why there have been only TWO positives for blood packing in cycling
when this was supposedly so wide-spread?"

This one is easy. If the incidence of normal people having a heterogeneous
population of red cells is not very uncommon, say 1 in 10,000, how many
tests would have to be done before the incidence of positives in the absence
of blood transfusion is noted? How many of these tests have been run? Note
that 1 in 10,000 is more common than many diseases that we worry about a
lot. Meningococcal disease is roughly 1 in 100,000. Lyme disease is roughly
1:10,000 in high prevalence areas.

Mike Murray

There are better and safer methods of getting your hematocrit up.

Various preparations of Epo are the most popular. Transfusion of your
own or someone else's blood are other options. Which would you chose?

I would guess that elite athletes are fairly reluctant to blood dope
with homologous blood when Epo etc are safer as long as you work out
the best timing to avoid getting caught.

Only two people caught with this test - the two top riders in a
suddenly successful team.

Donald Munro wrote:

Bob Schwartz wrote:

heather prefers sprinters.


I thought she preferred pursuiters, albeit one at a time.

ok, in goofy heather code
individual pursuit=wacking off

h
and it's been too long since i last paid a visit to the track

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
"Tom Kunich" wrote:
"explain why there have been only TWO positives for blood packing in
cycling when this was supposedly so wide-spread?"

This one is easy. If the incidence of normal people having a
heterogeneous population of red cells is not very uncommon, say 1 in
10,000, how many tests would have to be done before the incidence of
positives in the absence of blood transfusion is noted? How many of these
tests have been run? Note that 1 in 10,000 is more common than many
diseases that we worry about a lot. Meningococcal disease is roughly 1 in
100,000. Lyme disease is roughly 1:10,000 in high prevalence areas.

You've hit on my point - if this was supposed to be so common and they've
turned up essentially nothing one has to wonder if the positives that they
have found are FALSE POSITIVES.

"Patricio Carlos" wrote in message
oups.com...
There are better and safer methods of getting your hematocrit up.

Various preparations of Epo are the most popular. Transfusion of your
own or someone else's blood are other options. Which would you chose?

I would guess that elite athletes are fairly reluctant to blood dope
with homologous blood when Epo etc are safer as long as you work out
the best timing to avoid getting caught.

Only two people caught with this test - the two top riders in a
suddenly successful team.

"Suddenly successful"??? Don't you think that spending a great deal of money
and buying some really great racers might have had something to do with
those successes?

"Bob Schwartz" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
| trg wrote:
| "Bob Schwartz" a ?crit dans le message de news:
| ...
| | Alex Rodriguez wrote:
| | In article .com,
| | says...
| |
| |
| | Tyler tested positive at the Olympics and at the Vuelta.
| |
| | He didn't test positive at the Olympics. That is why he got to keep
his
| | medal.
| |
| | He did test positive at the Olympics. Haven't we been though
| | this before? The positive positive positive positive positive
| | positive positive positive positive positive positive positive
| | positive positive positive positive positive positive positive
| | test was invalidated by the destruction of the B sample.
| |
| | That's why he still has the medal. But you knew that.
| |
|
| No, his test sample was declared negative at the Olympics. That's why
the B
| sample was subsequently frozen. Later his A sample was reclassified
under
| rather screwy circumstances as a positive. So whether you say he tested
| negative or positive is a matter of semantics and which lab
interpretation
| you choose to follow.
|
| But you knew that.
|
| Indeed I did. And that's why I would not say he didn't test positive.
| Because he did test positive. Screwy circumstances or no.
|

And that's why I'd say that he tested negative. Because he did test
negative. We are both correct. Ain't they some screwy circumstances?

Bob Schwartz wrote:
| Indeed I did. And that's why I would not say he didn't test positive.
| Because he did test positive. Screwy circumstances or no.

trg wrote:
And that's why I'd say that he tested negative. Because he did test
negative. We are both correct. Ain't they some screwy circumstances?

No, just quantum mechanics. Tugboat is chasing Schroedinger's cat somewhen.