|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
RonSonic wrote: The rules you just posted said he had a week. So what's this talk about delaying tactic. If he's got a week, then he's got a week. Ron True, but I guess if it were me and I believed I was innocent I'd be demanding the B test ASAP. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
benjo maso wrote:
Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four month of deliberation to disqualify the first four? Benjo Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-) Will you tell the story? Please? j |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
"saki" wrote in message ... Montesquiou wrote in : The U.S. business magazine Forbes is reporting that Landis' lawyer did in fact request a test for sample B: http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/...ap2916504.html Yes, but according to this the UCI requested it Sunday night in order to avoid the result getting delayed by vacation: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-23218,00.html |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
"jc" a écrit dans le message de news: ... benjo maso wrote: Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four month of deliberation to disqualify the first four? Benjo Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-) Will you tell the story? Please? j Motion appuyée ! The story right now pls. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message ink.net... "benjo maso" wrote in message ... If that's the case don't you think that they'd want to find a lab they trusted? I sure as hell wouldn't trust a lab that leaked the information on the A Sample. It's my guess that the sample was tampered with. If it's tampered, it doesn't matter which lab they use, it'll laways show up positive. But that's my guess, too. I think in 99.9% of all positive doping cases it was a tampered probe. We need to trust the athletes and if they say they are innocent then they are, period. That would save a lot of money on all the dope tests, too. We also need to extend that policy to the criminal system. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
"jc" wrote in message ... benjo maso wrote: Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four month of deliberation to disqualify the first four? Benjo Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-) Will you tell the story? Please? Of course, in the first years there was hardly a serious supervision of the riders and most of them were immediately accused of fraud. They should covered many miles with the assistance of friendly car drivers, who motorpaced them, allowed them to have been used cars, to motorpace the, to allow them to clung to them or even to hide , which transported them used cars which pulled or motorpaced them, or even allowed them to hide in the cars. The should have taken short cuts, changed numbers with friendly riders to dodge checkpoints, etc., etc. In short: they had done about everthing - legal or not legal - to win. Tour director Desgranges knew quite well what was going on, but tried to hide it as much as possible. Unfortunately the UVF was incensed and investigated it as thouroughly as possible. The results was that the four main culprits were disqualified and suspended for several years (one of them even for life) with the result that the unknown, only 19 year old Henri Cornet was declared winner. Benjo |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
I thought that the B Sample could be analyzed AT A LABORATORY of the rider's
choosing as long as it was UCI approved? If that's the case don't you think that they'd want to find a lab they trusted? I sure as hell wouldn't trust a lab that leaked the information on the A Sample. It's my guess that the sample was tampered with. What makes you think THEY leaked it, if it were the case they be in massive trouble it seems. There were many, many opportunities for the info to be leaked after it got to the UCI. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
benjo maso wrote:
"jc" wrote in message ... benjo maso wrote: Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four month of deliberation to disqualify the first four? Benjo Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-) Will you tell the story? Please? Of course, in the first years there was hardly a serious supervision of the riders and most of them were immediately accused of fraud. They should covered many miles with the assistance of friendly car drivers, who motorpaced them, allowed them to have been used cars, to motorpace the, to allow them to clung to them or even to hide , which transported them used cars which pulled or motorpaced them, or even allowed them to hide in the cars. The should have taken short cuts, changed numbers with friendly riders to dodge checkpoints, etc., etc. In short: they had done about everthing - legal or not legal - to win. Tour director Desgranges knew quite well what was going on, but tried to hide it as much as possible. Unfortunately the UVF was incensed and investigated it as thouroughly as possible. The results was that the four main culprits were disqualified and suspended for several years (one of them even for life) with the result that the unknown, only 19 year old Henri Cornet was declared winner. Benjo Thanks! :-) If I could ask one more question? Are there any other cases in which the winner of the Tour was disqualified afterwards? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
The rules you just posted said he had a week. So what's this talk about delaying
tactic. If he's got a week, then he's got a week. Ron True, but I guess if it were me and I believed I was innocent I'd be demanding the B test ASAP. Yes, another nail in the coffin, let's see: 1. 11:1 ratio 2. Exogeneous testosterone with IRMS that Phonak somehow "forgets" to mention in their announcement 3. Lawyer trashes proven IRMS method 4. Playing for time Hopefully anyone with a brain will have now seen the light and written off that cheater. Best thing would now be for him to fess up to avoid going to Memmonite hell, that can't be much fun based on their life in this world. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
"benjo maso" a écrit dans le message de news: ... "jc" wrote in message ... benjo maso wrote: Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four month of deliberation to disqualify the first four? Benjo Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-) Will you tell the story? Please? Of course, in the first years there was hardly a serious supervision of the riders and most of them were immediately accused of fraud. They should covered many miles with the assistance of friendly car drivers, who motorpaced them, allowed them to have been used cars, to motorpace the, to allow them to clung to them or even to hide , which transported them used cars which pulled or motorpaced them, or even allowed them to hide in the cars. The should have taken short cuts, changed numbers with friendly riders to dodge checkpoints, etc., etc. In short: they had done about everthing - legal or not legal - to win. Tour director Desgranges knew quite well what was going on, but tried to hide it as much as possible. Unfortunately the UVF was incensed and investigated it as thouroughly as possible. The results was that the four main culprits were disqualified and suspended for several years (one of them even for life) with the result that the unknown, only 19 year old Henri Cornet was declared winner. Benjo Happy days ! The supreme authority was called "Union Vélocipédique de France " LOL ! Imagine McQuaid president of the IVU " Intenational Velocipedic Union " and Desgranges telling to the commissaires : " next year we have to follow them. Each one take his bike " |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chain Slip Problem cont'd.... | Mark Taylor | UK | 11 | June 20th 06 08:14 PM |
rsu mailing list problem (starting around 12:00 CST Dec 17) | Ken Fuchs | Unicycling | 0 | December 23rd 04 10:36 PM |
Ritchey Zero hub freewheel problem | Sasha | Techniques | 4 | November 29th 04 03:34 AM |
Ankle problem... | darchibald | Unicycling | 3 | May 8th 04 06:44 PM |
Fame at last! [warning: contains 5m*th] | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 308 | March 29th 04 12:00 AM |