rec.bicycles.racing
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=enrec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Anton feels sorry for you. Anton is sorry you don't believe in miracles. - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/3256b8a085d04d99?hl=en
* Vaughters Tondo Post on Cyclingnews.com - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/778d94209575cb90?hl=en
* Hai"welcome" - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/01f378e18fbc4dbf?hl=en
* I'm going to start accelerating in turns! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/c9bc8a59ae3b5760?hl=en
* Mahitha Mohan DOMINATES India National Championships - Hrundi V. Bakshi
mysteriously absent from results - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/01ee599080fd705c?hl=en
* The 'explanation' we've all been waiting for - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9351032af5e79a65?hl=en
* They fight like cyclists - they fight like girls - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/57dedb0a23db5e92?hl=en
* Iranian Cyclist Victorious in new Skinsuit Technology - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/d31e01b07e3cc183?hl=en
* Letters Rogatory Issue - 14 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0378cc8c8cbe13ae?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anton feels sorry for you. Anton is sorry you don't believe in miracles.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/3256b8a085d04d99?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 12:26 am
From: William Fred
Fredmaster of Brainerd <bjweiner@gmail.com> wrote in
news:951afc50-ee3e-40e2-adb8-b3b5885cd558@z3g2000prz.googlegroups.com:
> So part of the evidence against Armstrong is that
> he associates with suspected dopers, including
> Popvych, whom we know is under a cloud of doping
> suspicion because he was investigated. And why was
> he investigated? Because he was associated with
> Armstrong.
But he had to have known that if he was associated with Armstrong, he
would be suspected of doping, so only someone who really was suspected of
doping would be associated with Armstrong.
--
Bill Fred
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Vaughters Tondo Post on Cyclingnews.com
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/778d94209575cb90?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 12:46 am
From: Simply Fred
Mike wrote:
> 2) A sensitive man, he writes good painfully personal and emotional
> essays about his existential angst regarding his reputation and the
> lack of respect on stupid internet forums (forums and newspgroups that
> nobody but the posters even read).
So that's who Fred Sartre is.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 8:02 am
From: Brad Anders
I guess those new meds didn't work for you.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 10:05 am
From: Amit Ghosh
On Feb 22, 9:10 pm, Mike <mtschatz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jonathan-vaughters/connecting-the-dots
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> JV is obviously googling himself way too much. He seems to be very
> defensive and has very low self-esteem for a guy who was a successful
> pro and even more successful team manager who built a pro tour team
> from scratch.
dumbass,
yes. but the most annoying thing about this latest hand-wringing
column is that vaughters is constantly vying for attention, whether
it's with "transparency" on the lowe/white firing or his andre 3000
outfits.
in the sport the riders are supposed to be the center of attention,
not the managers.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hai"welcome"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/01f378e18fbc4dbf?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 3:25 am
From: Gandhimathy Mahendran
http://123maza.com/75/arrange451/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I'm going to start accelerating in turns!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/c9bc8a59ae3b5760?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 3:33 am
From: "A. Dumas"
William Fred wrote:
> Fred Flintstein wrote:
>> 43 minutes into a 45 minute race I concluded it
>> wasn't a well thought out plan.
>
> How long was the race for everyone else?
Nice.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 8:12 am
From: thirty-six
On Feb 23, 8:23 am, William Fred <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Fred Flintstein <bob.schwa...@sbcremoveglobal.net> wrote innews:Y_SdnRfxU4skUf7QnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>
>
> > 43 minutes into a 45 minute race I concluded it
> > wasn't a well thought out plan.
>
> How long was the race for everyone else?
>
> --
> Bill Fred
Cyclocross.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Mahitha Mohan DOMINATES India National Championships - Hrundi V. Bakshi
mysteriously absent from results
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/01ee599080fd705c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 5:54 am
From: Anton Berlin
Does this look like a 3x national champion ?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/events-tournaments/national-games-2011/Mahitha-Mohan-ends-on-a-high-with-three-gold-in-cycling/articleshow/7555066.cms
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The 'explanation' we've all been waiting for
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9351032af5e79a65?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 5:44 am
From: Anton Berlin
I didn't even bother to read it - it's a work day and my capacity for
bullshit is diminished
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/others/cycling-alberto-contadors-lawyer-explains-ban-uturn-2222669.html
Alberto Contador's lawyer has told The Independent how his client's
suspension has been lifted despite him being found with the banned
substance clenbuterol in his system when he won last year's Tour de
France after eating contaminated steak.
Andy Ramos said the defence team's default position in the case was
that Contador had strayed across the boundaries of anti-doping law
without being aware he was doing so. "The [anti-doping] legislation
states that a rider is responsible for any banned substance in his
body," Ramos says. "But there's a clause that frees him of that
responsibility if he can demonstrate there was no intentional
negligence. We proved that, and that was the key to his defence. From
day one his defence was based around that clause."
The other confusion surrounding Contador's proposed ban was the
length, which was just a year, but Ramos explains this "was no more
than a prosecutor's proposal". "It was wrongly thought that a year's
ban was an actual sentence, and that the Spanish cycling federation
was then influenced by political pressure in Spain [to reduce it]. But
that proposal was not legally binding."
As for those who believe that a banned substance in an athlete's body
is a positive under Wada regulations come what may, Ramos argued "they
should read the whole rulebook, not just the article [that states
that] and they would find there are exceptions to that rule."
"That exception was applied by the Spanish federation in Alberto's
case, by CAS in the case of [tennis player Richard] Gasquet, and by
the German Federation in the [table-tennis player Dimitrij] Ovtcharov
case."
Much of the collective bafflement and cynicism north of the Pyrenees
that greeted the Contador verdict has arguably been provoked by the
confusion over the exact nature of Contador's defence, given he had
literally consumed the prime piece of evidence in his favour, namely
the beef.
But Ramos says there was plenty of indirect evidence that helped to
clear Contador. "We showed that the testing for clenbuterol in cattle
is not infallible in Europe," he says. "There is a European Union norm
– 96/23/CE, dating from 1996 – which states that only 0.25 per cent of
cattle should be tested for clenbuterol. So 99.75 per cent are not.
"During the very same period the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture says
that there have been no positives for clenbuterol in [Spanish] cattle.
But we've shown that the police have gone on arresting people for
using clenbuterol and other banned substances in their livestock." As
for the offending cow itself, "The Basque Government gave us three
possibilities, and curiously enough, the owner of the one that was
most likely to be it is in partnership with his brother, who was
penalised a few years back for using clenbuterol.
"So when WADA [the World Anti-Doping Authority] says it is impossible
that the banned substance clenbuterol could be found in Spanish
cattle, that's like saying, 'Cocaine is banned, end of story'."
Ramos is adamant that any comparison with Spanish athlete Josephine
Onyia, who was banned for two years after claiming she ate clenbuterol-
infected meat, is invalid. "Onyia tested positive for two substances,
not just clenbuterol, because she also tested positive for
methylhexaneamine. And CAS [the Court of Arbitration for Sport] said
they could not determine the exact quantity in her system [on a
particular day]... so there was no way of knowing if it affected her
performance.
"With Alberto there was a maximum quantity of clenbuterol" – 40 times
less than the minimum required for an anti-doping lab to detect – " on
a specific day and it dropped afterwards."
In Europe it's not impossible [to eat contaminated meat], merely
improbable. And TAS themselves say that there is no way you can oblige
athletes to go to unrealistic extremes, such as analysing everything
they eat in a mobile lab or keeping a lump of every piece of meat they
eat."
Contador's case could well establish new anti-doping jurisprudence,
too, meaning that the onus may now shift back onto the authorities to
establish athletes' guilt, rather than athletes having to demonstrate
- as is currently the case - that they are wrongly accused of
cheating. Time will tell on that one, but Ramos already has his own
conviction of the verdict's importance, that "the system should not
penalize the innocent."
"The World Anti-Doping legislation is designed to guarantee fairplay,
but that doesn't mean you can suspend innocent people. The moment that
happens, the rules have to change."
==============================================================================
TOPIC: They fight like cyclists - they fight like girls
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/57dedb0a23db5e92?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 6:11 am
From: Anton Berlin
For some reason this reminds me of vintage porn
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/02/watch_melissa_leos_1985_catfig.html?mid=partnerfeed
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Iranian Cyclist Victorious in new Skinsuit Technology
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/d31e01b07e3cc183?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 6:18 am
From: Anton Berlin
http://tinypic.com/5nnhmt
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Letters Rogatory Issue
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0378cc8c8cbe13ae?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 8:12 am
From: BLafferty
The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine
samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
Not a good omen for Armstrong.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by-us-authorities
== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 9:29 am
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"
"BLafferty" <b@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:rP2dnY2wN95hrPjQnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine
> samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
> Not a good omen for Armstrong.
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by-us-authorities
If they could have simply "asked" for the AFLD or whomever to turn over
the samples, then why the expense of a trip to Europe a few months ago?
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 9:32 am
From: BLafferty
On 2/23/2011 11:12 AM, BLafferty wrote:
> The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine
> samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
> Not a good omen for Armstrong.
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by-us-authorities
>
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00275.htm
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Region/Europe/pjsystems/France.asp
== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 8:55 am
From: TheCoz
On Feb 23, 10:12 am, BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine
> samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
> Not a good omen for Armstrong.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by...
I thought the '99 samples were tainted, mishandled and contaminated?
Hasn't thousands of dollars been spent analyzing the '99 samples
allready?
What about the years after '99? I think the 02, 03 and 04 samples
should be put under extensive tests.
Coz
== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 9:41 am
From: BLafferty
On 2/23/2011 12:29 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> "BLafferty"<b@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:rP2dnY2wN95hrPjQnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine
>> samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
>> Not a good omen for Armstrong.
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by-us-authorities
>
> If they could have simply "asked" for the AFLD or whomever to turn over
> the samples, then why the expense of a trip to Europe a few months ago?
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
They were apparently asking questions and gathering potential trial
evidence of different types. They probably asked to see the chain of
custody as it exists at the French lab for Armstrong's, and perhaps
other rider's, samples from 1999 and later. They would not go the
Letters Rogatory route unless they were satisfied there are no chain of
custody problems.
It appears the Letters Rogatory process was started soon after their
return to the US. I've done one Letter Rogatory in a civil case through
diplomatic channels. It took about 7 months to effect service of the
materials in Germany. My understanding is that in criminal matters, the
process is now much quicker as the offices of Interpol are used.
If the AUSA obtains and tests urine and blood samples for Armstrong and
his teammates from every tour they rode for Postal, there could be an
avalanche of incriminating evidence produced at trial in this country.
It looks like finally the shit is hitting the fan, despite the PR
presented via the AP article of a couple of weeks ago questioning
whether Armstrong would ever be indicted.
== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 9:43 am
From: BLafferty
On 2/23/2011 11:55 AM, TheCoz wrote:
> On Feb 23, 10:12 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine
>> samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
>> Not a good omen for Armstrong.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by...
>
> I thought the '99 samples were tainted, mishandled and contaminated?
> Hasn't thousands of dollars been spent analyzing the '99 samples
> allready?
> What about the years after '99? I think the 02, 03 and 04 samples
> should be put under extensive tests.
> Coz
Armstrong has alleged that the chain of custody was broken. Apparently
not (surprise, surprise) as evidenced by the Letters Rogatory request.
Yes, other samples from the postal days from all teammates who rode can
be requested--probable have been, too. :-)
== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 9:46 am
From: BLafferty
On 2/23/2011 12:43 PM, BLafferty wrote:
> On 2/23/2011 11:55 AM, TheCoz wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 10:12 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine
>>> samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
>>> Not a good omen for
>>> Armstrong.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by...
>>>
>>
>> I thought the '99 samples were tainted, mishandled and contaminated?
>> Hasn't thousands of dollars been spent analyzing the '99 samples
>> allready?
>> What about the years after '99? I think the 02, 03 and 04 samples
>> should be put under extensive tests.
>> Coz
>
> Armstrong has alleged that the chain of custody was broken. Apparently
> not (surprise, surprise) as evidenced by the Letters Rogatory request.
> Yes, other samples from the postal days from all teammates who rode can
> be requested--probable have been, too. :-)
Let me add that now would be a very good time for certain riders to
start making deals to testify for immunity or a reduced plea.
== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 10:00 am
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"
"BLafferty" <b@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uaCdnYtuCPPP2vjQnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 2/23/2011 11:55 AM, TheCoz wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 10:12 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine
>>> samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
>>> Not a good omen for
>>> Armstrong.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by...
>>
>> I thought the '99 samples were tainted, mishandled and contaminated?
>> Hasn't thousands of dollars been spent analyzing the '99 samples
>> allready?
>> What about the years after '99? I think the 02, 03 and 04 samples
>> should be put under extensive tests.
>> Coz
>
> Armstrong has alleged that the chain of custody was broken.
> Apparently not (surprise, surprise) as evidenced by the Letters
> Rogatory request. Yes, other samples from the postal days from all
> teammates who rode can be requested--probable have been, too. :-)
Speaking as someone with no background in such things, could you explain
in what way a "Letters Rogatory" guarantees immunity from "chain of
custody" issues?
Looking here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_rogatory - it appears
that a "Letters Rogatory" request is nothing more than a formal request
for evidence between parties in different jurisdictions, without mention
of the quality or validity of that evidence being relevant.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 10:34 am
From: BLafferty
On 2/23/2011 1:00 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> "BLafferty"<b@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:uaCdnYtuCPPP2vjQnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 2/23/2011 11:55 AM, TheCoz wrote:
>>> On Feb 23, 10:12 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine
>>>> samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
>>>> Not a good omen for
>>>> Armstrong.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by...
>>>
>>> I thought the '99 samples were tainted, mishandled and contaminated?
>>> Hasn't thousands of dollars been spent analyzing the '99 samples
>>> allready?
>>> What about the years after '99? I think the 02, 03 and 04 samples
>>> should be put under extensive tests.
>>> Coz
>>
>> Armstrong has alleged that the chain of custody was broken.
>> Apparently not (surprise, surprise) as evidenced by the Letters
>> Rogatory request. Yes, other samples from the postal days from all
>> teammates who rode can be requested--probable have been, too. :-)
>
> Speaking as someone with no background in such things, could you explain
> in what way a "Letters Rogatory" guarantees immunity from "chain of
> custody" issues?
The Letters Rogatory request has nothing to do with proving at trial a
valid chain of custody. My point is that the feds would not start the
Rogatory process if they were not convinced there were not chain of
custody problems on the French side.
>
> Looking here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_rogatory - it appears
> that a "Letters Rogatory" request is nothing more than a formal request
> for evidence between parties in different jurisdictions, without mention
> of the quality or validity of that evidence being relevant.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 10:49 am
From: DirtRoadie
On Feb 23, 11:34 am, BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 2/23/2011 1:00 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "BLafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >news:uaCdnYtuCPPP2vjQnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com...
> >> On 2/23/2011 11:55 AM, TheCoz wrote:
> >>> On Feb 23, 10:12 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>> The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine
> >>>> samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
> >>>> Not a good omen for
> >>>> Armstrong.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by...
>
> >>> I thought the '99 samples were tainted, mishandled and contaminated?
> >>> Hasn't thousands of dollars been spent analyzing the '99 samples
> >>> allready?
> >>> What about the years after '99? I think the 02, 03 and 04 samples
> >>> should be put under extensive tests.
> >>> Coz
>
> >> Armstrong has alleged that the chain of custody was broken.
> >> Apparently not (surprise, surprise) as evidenced by the Letters
> >> Rogatory request. Yes, other samples from the postal days from all
> >> teammates who rode can be requested--probable have been, too. :-)
>
> > Speaking as someone with no background in such things, could you explain
> > in what way a "Letters Rogatory" guarantees immunity from "chain of
> > custody" issues?
>
> The Letters Rogatory request has nothing to do with proving at trial a
> valid chain of custody. My point is that the feds would not start the
> Rogatory process if they were not convinced there were not chain of
> custody problems on the French side.
That's a weak cheerleader's conclusion. They will keep fishing and
only worry about what they have to "throw back" if and when the time
comes.
In the same vein, they don't know what witnesses will say but they
take the testimony anyhow.
DR
== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 11:12 am
From: BLafferty
On 2/23/2011 1:49 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
> On Feb 23, 11:34 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 2/23/2011 1:00 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "BLafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uaCdnYtuCPPP2vjQnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> On 2/23/2011 11:55 AM, TheCoz wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 23, 10:12 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine
>>>>>> samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
>>>>>> Not a good omen for
>>>>>> Armstrong.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by...
>>
>>>>> I thought the '99 samples were tainted, mishandled and contaminated?
>>>>> Hasn't thousands of dollars been spent analyzing the '99 samples
>>>>> allready?
>>>>> What about the years after '99? I think the 02, 03 and 04 samples
>>>>> should be put under extensive tests.
>>>>> Coz
>>
>>>> Armstrong has alleged that the chain of custody was broken.
>>>> Apparently not (surprise, surprise) as evidenced by the Letters
>>>> Rogatory request. Yes, other samples from the postal days from all
>>>> teammates who rode can be requested--probable have been, too. :-)
>>
>>> Speaking as someone with no background in such things, could you explain
>>> in what way a "Letters Rogatory" guarantees immunity from "chain of
>>> custody" issues?
>>
>> The Letters Rogatory request has nothing to do with proving at trial a
>> valid chain of custody. My point is that the feds would not start the
>> Rogatory process if they were not convinced there were not chain of
>> custody problems on the French side.
>
> That's a weak cheerleader's conclusion. They will keep fishing and
> only worry about what they have to "throw back" if and when the time
> comes.
> In the same vein, they don't know what witnesses will say but they
> take the testimony anyhow.
> DR
Your ignorance is your bliss. Carry on. :-)
== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 11:26 am
From: Fred Flintstein
On 2/23/2011 12:00 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> Speaking as someone with no background in such things, could you explain
> in what way a "Letters Rogatory" guarantees immunity from "chain of
> custody" issues?
What that means is that Laff is having fantasies about
rogering LANCE.
And in all seriousness, I would not expect quality legal
commentary from Laff on anything to do with LANCE.
Fred Flintstein
== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 11:40 am
From: DirtRoadie
On Feb 23, 12:12 pm, BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 2/23/2011 1:49 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 11:34 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/23/2011 1:00 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> >>> "BLafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:uaCdnYtuCPPP2vjQnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com...
> >>>> On 2/23/2011 11:55 AM, TheCoz wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 23, 10:12 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine
> >>>>>> samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
> >>>>>> Not a good omen for
> >>>>>> Armstrong.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by...
>
> >>>>> I thought the '99 samples were tainted, mishandled and contaminated?
> >>>>> Hasn't thousands of dollars been spent analyzing the '99 samples
> >>>>> allready?
> >>>>> What about the years after '99? I think the 02, 03 and 04 samples
> >>>>> should be put under extensive tests.
> >>>>> Coz
>
> >>>> Armstrong has alleged that the chain of custody was broken.
> >>>> Apparently not (surprise, surprise) as evidenced by the Letters
> >>>> Rogatory request. Yes, other samples from the postal days from all
> >>>> teammates who rode can be requested--probable have been, too. :-)
>
> >>> Speaking as someone with no background in such things, could you explain
> >>> in what way a "Letters Rogatory" guarantees immunity from "chain of
> >>> custody" issues?
>
> >> The Letters Rogatory request has nothing to do with proving at trial a
> >> valid chain of custody. My point is that the feds would not start the
> >> Rogatory process if they were not convinced there were not chain of
> >> custody problems on the French side.
>
> > That's a weak cheerleader's conclusion. They will keep fishing and
> > only worry about what they have to "throw back" if and when the time
> > comes.
> > In the same vein, they don't know what witnesses will say but they
> > take the testimony anyhow.
>
> Your ignorance is your bliss. Carry on. :-)
My ignorance? You mean the fact that I don't know what will happen? I
don't. And that I have made no predictions and have no stake in the
matter?
Was there some point you wanted to make?
No? I thought as much.
We know your bias. That does not change facts,
nor the possibility that some portions of the investigation may lead
to dead ends, no matter how much YOU really really want it to be
otherwise.
So, Mister Know-it-all, what was that about a January indictment?
DR
== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 23 2011 11:51 am
From: BLafferty
On 2/23/2011 2:40 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
> On Feb 23, 12:12 pm, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 2/23/2011 1:49 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 23, 11:34 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2011 1:00 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>>>> "BLafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:uaCdnYtuCPPP2vjQnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>> On 2/23/2011 11:55 AM, TheCoz wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 10:12 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine
>>>>>>>> samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
>>>>>>>> Not a good omen for
>>>>>>>> Armstrong.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by...
>>
>>>>>>> I thought the '99 samples were tainted, mishandled and contaminated?
>>>>>>> Hasn't thousands of dollars been spent analyzing the '99 samples
>>>>>>> allready?
>>>>>>> What about the years after '99? I think the 02, 03 and 04 samples
>>>>>>> should be put under extensive tests.
>>>>>>> Coz
>>
>>>>>> Armstrong has alleged that the chain of custody was broken.
>>>>>> Apparently not (surprise, surprise) as evidenced by the Letters
>>>>>> Rogatory request. Yes, other samples from the postal days from all
>>>>>> teammates who rode can be requested--probable have been, too. :-)
>>
>>>>> Speaking as someone with no background in such things, could you explain
>>>>> in what way a "Letters Rogatory" guarantees immunity from "chain of
>>>>> custody" issues?
>>
>>>> The Letters Rogatory request has nothing to do with proving at trial a
>>>> valid chain of custody. My point is that the feds would not start the
>>>> Rogatory process if they were not convinced there were not chain of
>>>> custody problems on the French side.
>>
>>> That's a weak cheerleader's conclusion. They will keep fishing and
>>> only worry about what they have to "throw back" if and when the time
>>> comes.
>>> In the same vein, they don't know what witnesses will say but they
>>> take the testimony anyhow.
>>
>> Your ignorance is your bliss. Carry on. :-)
>
> My ignorance? You mean the fact that I don't know what will happen? I
> don't. And that I have made no predictions and have no stake in the
> matter?
>
> Was there some point you wanted to make?
> No? I thought as much.
>
> We know your bias. That does not change facts,
> nor the possibility that some portions of the investigation may lead
> to dead ends, no matter how much YOU really really want it to be
> otherwise.
> So, Mister Know-it-all, what was that about a January indictment?
>
> DR
No, your fishing comments belie your ignorance of what is going on. The
Feds are being quite specific and narrow in what they are looking for at
this point in the investigation.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.bicycles.racing"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.bicycles.racing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en