rec.bicycles.racing
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=enrec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Omloop Het Nieuwsblad - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/bea6d61f57aa2583?hl=en
* Armstrong's urine samples requested by US authorities - 10 messages, 5
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e74e86a733c12701?hl=en
* Hitler - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/d1d0168fdecb8594?hl=en
* What's next for LA now that he's retired - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/b92c0def5059f438?hl=en
* bring out your dead - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/f47fc9061d350f01?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
* Questions about Seeing thre Tour in Paris - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/28d76208a6639cf9?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Omloop Het Nieuwsblad
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/bea6d61f57aa2583?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 8:31 pm
From: TheCoz
Filippo Pozzato takes the win.
Tom Boonen sweep up in 4th.
Coz
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 2:02 am
From: Simply Fred
TheCoz wrote:
> Filippo Pozzato takes the win.
> Tom Boonen sweep up in 4th.
Dumbass,
Kindly stick to convention and post the podium in the subject.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 8:02 am
From: TheCoz
On Feb 26, 4:02 am, Simply Fred <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> TheCoz wrote:
> > Filippo Pozzato takes the win.
> > Tom Boonen sweep up in 4th.
>
> Dumbass,
> Kindly stick to convention and post the podium in the subject.
Rabobank - Sky - Sky
Happy now?
Coz
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 9:20 am
From: "A. Dumas"
TheCoz wrote:
> Rabobank - Sky - Sky
> Happy now?
> Coz
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 1:47 pm
From: Simply Fred
On 02/26/11 19:20, A. Dumas wrote:
> Rabo, Rabo, Rabo
They must be dopers if they're on the podium.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Armstrong's urine samples requested by US authorities
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e74e86a733c12701?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 1:05 am
From: Frederick the Great
In article
<50d4aa91-7bf8-44fa-9f1c-8c69fe84a900@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Phil H <pholman50@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 1:19 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
> > Phil H wrote:
> > > On Feb 25, 12:32 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
> > >> ilan wrote:
> > >>> It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B
> > >>> sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that
> > >>> in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to be held
> > >>> up to scientific standards..
> > >> Single samples may be split into A and B samples, right? In fact, that
> > >> is how it is done when the rider pees into the cup. He doesn't come back
> > >> the next day for a second donation.
> >
> > > No [...]
> >
> > Then how? Rider pees into cup, half of it goes into another cup, both
> > are sealed, that's it. It's a single split sample from the outset. When
> > splitting it later doesn't change a thing (for the population).
>
> Several things can compromise the test. The A sample gets mixed up
> later with someone elses, wrong ID number or whatever, did you read
> the report on FL's test sample? I also assume these A samples were
> already tested introducing more opportunity for reducing reliability.
> Anyway, the B sample is a safeguard for screwups like these so if it
> the A sample does get mixed up or messed up and is later split into
> two, well, you get the picture. The samples need to be split at the
> time they are collected; done at a much later time reduces the
> itegrity ot the test. Otherwise, why bother?
There is (or should be) a seal on each sample container.
The seal proves that the donor and the official aver
that the biological sample came from the donor at the
time and place given on the seal. If the seal is not
intact ...
--
Old Fritz
== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 8:22 am
From: BLafferty
On 2/25/2011 11:14 PM, Phil H wrote:
> On Feb 25, 7:51 pm, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 2/25/2011 6:40 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 25, 4:14 pm, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> What is left over from
>>>> the prior French testing may be used for analysis if the chain of
>>>> custody is still intact (apparently it is)
>>
>>> Chain of custody is only one of many requirements for any testing on
>>> these samples to have validity. There also has to be proof that the
>>> samples were never intentionally or unintentionally contaminated, that
>>> the samples were maintained in a controlled condition for the past 11
>>> years (e.g. temperature), etc.
>>
>> That is all part of the chain of custody.
>>
>>> Should the samples show EPO present,
>>> I'm pretty sure LA's laywers would ( as they have in the past with
>>> these samples ) be able to produce all manner of explanations as to
>>> why the results have no significance.
>>
>> They would blow a lot of smoke, but in court that smoke gets cleared
>> very quickly. This isn't some UCI hack letting Lance off the hook.
>
> No, its some bullshit lawyer with a preconceived notion more intent on
> "winning" than truth seeking. For every expert witness that testifies
> to the validity of the test you'll find 10 that'll say it's BS and
> they'll say it's BS before the result is known and whatever the
> outcome. Given the apparent motivation of people like yourself who
> have been able to identify samples and whatever else, well, the whole
> thing doth stink m'lud.
> Phil H
Whether or not the test for EPO is accepted as valid within the
scientific community is likely not open to serious debate. There may be
an expert willing to testify otherwise. Will they be able to convince a
jury that the test itself isn't scientifically valid when a panel of
WADA experts has certified the test as valid? Probably not, but odd
thing can be decided by a jury. I suppose that the government could ask
the court to take judicial notice of the scientific validity of the test.
If the test itself is upheld as scientifically valid, the issues then
are chain of custody and the testing procedure/protocol used.
Armstrong's attorneys will have a good deal of work and make a good deal
of money for what is very likely to be a losing cause. However, they
will be well paid--up front.
== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 8:49 am
From: Scott
On Feb 26, 9:22 am, BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> Whether or not the test for EPO is accepted as valid >within the scientific community is likely not open to >serious debate. There may be an expert willing to >testify otherwise. Will they be able to convince a
> jury that the test itself isn't scientifically valid when a >panel of WADA experts has certified the test as valid? >Probably not, but odd thing can be decided by a jury. I >suppose that the government could ask
> the court to take judicial notice of the scientific validity >of the test.
>
I'd guess that a jury of red blooded Americans will have no trouble
coming to the conclusion that a French lab, one with a reputation for
not following protocols or protecting privacy, could very easily have
screwed up the storage of the samples in question, perhaps even
deliberately tampering with them.
How that would affect the outcome of a trial, well, as you like to
say, time will tell.
== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 9:09 am
From: "A. Dumas"
Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> In an individual case it might change something,
> and that's what individuals tend to care about.
For better or for worse, though; I can't tell right away which is more
likely, without diving in.
== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 11:42 am
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd
On Feb 26, 9:22 am, BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> Whether or not the test for EPO is accepted as valid within the
> scientific community is likely not open to serious debate. There may be
> an expert willing to testify otherwise. Will they be able to convince a
> jury that the test itself isn't scientifically valid when a panel of
> WADA experts has certified the test as valid? Probably not, but odd
> thing can be decided by a jury. I suppose that the government could ask
> the court to take judicial notice of the scientific validity of the test.
>
> If the test itself is upheld as scientifically valid, the issues then
> are chain of custody and the testing procedure/protocol used.
> Armstrong's attorneys will have a good deal of work and make a good deal
> of money for what is very likely to be a losing cause. However, they
> will be well paid--up front.
Dumbass,
IT'S NOT A DOPING TRIAL.
If they present ironclad evidence that Armstrong
had EPO metabolites in his pee in 1999, he still
doesn't get the chair unless they also prove that
he committed fraud on the US government based
on the terms of the USPS team contract. So lay off
wittering about how Armstrong's lawyers will be
well paid for a losing cause, because there is plenty
in that chain of reasoning that they will be paid to
poke at. I'm beginning to think you're jealous
for not getting a piece of the action, or at least a
retainer.
Fredmaster Ben
== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 12:27 pm
From: BLafferty
On 2/26/2011 11:49 AM, Scott wrote:
> On Feb 26, 9:22 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Whether or not the test for EPO is accepted as valid>within the scientific community is likely not open to>serious debate. There may be an expert willing to>testify otherwise. Will they be able to convince a
>> jury that the test itself isn't scientifically valid when a>panel of WADA experts has certified the test as valid?>Probably not, but odd thing can be decided by a jury. I>suppose that the government could ask
>> the court to take judicial notice of the scientific validity>of the test.
>>
>
> I'd guess that a jury of red blooded Americans will have no trouble
> coming to the conclusion that a French lab, one with a reputation for
> not following protocols or protecting privacy, could very easily have
> screwed up the storage of the samples in question, perhaps even
> deliberately tampering with them.
>
> How that would affect the outcome of a trial, well, as you like to
> say, time will tell.
You completely missed the point. The French lab's results won't be the
issue. The remaining urine will be tested in an FBI lab or in a US lab
under the eyes of the FBI.
== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 12:30 pm
From: BLafferty
On 2/26/2011 2:42 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On Feb 26, 9:22 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> Whether or not the test for EPO is accepted as valid within the
>> scientific community is likely not open to serious debate. There may be
>> an expert willing to testify otherwise. Will they be able to convince a
>> jury that the test itself isn't scientifically valid when a panel of
>> WADA experts has certified the test as valid? Probably not, but odd
>> thing can be decided by a jury. I suppose that the government could ask
>> the court to take judicial notice of the scientific validity of the test.
>>
>> If the test itself is upheld as scientifically valid, the issues then
>> are chain of custody and the testing procedure/protocol used.
>> Armstrong's attorneys will have a good deal of work and make a good deal
>> of money for what is very likely to be a losing cause. However, they
>> will be well paid--up front.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> IT'S NOT A DOPING TRIAL.
>
> If they present ironclad evidence that Armstrong
> had EPO metabolites in his pee in 1999, he still
> doesn't get the chair unless they also prove that
> he committed fraud on the US government based
> on the terms of the USPS team contract. So lay off
> wittering about how Armstrong's lawyers will be
> well paid for a losing cause, because there is plenty
> in that chain of reasoning that they will be paid to
> poke at. I'm beginning to think you're jealous
> for not getting a piece of the action, or at least a
> retainer.
>
> Fredmaster Ben
The EPO and all of his statements about racing drug free are thus shown
to be false. That's one of the five requisites of fraud.
== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 4:12 pm
From: Scott
On Feb 26, 1:27 pm, BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 2/26/2011 11:49 AM, Scott wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 9:22 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> Whether or not the test for EPO is accepted as valid>within the scientific community is likely not open to>serious debate. There may be an expert willing to>testify otherwise. Will they be able to convince a
> >> jury that the test itself isn't scientifically valid when a>panel of WADA experts has certified the test as valid?>Probably not, but odd thing can be decided by a jury. I>suppose that the government could ask
> >> the court to take judicial notice of the scientific validity>of the test.
>
> > I'd guess that a jury of red blooded Americans will have no trouble
> > coming to the conclusion that a French lab, one with a reputation for
> > not following protocols or protecting privacy, could very easily have
> > screwed up the storage of the samples in question, perhaps even
> > deliberately tampering with them.
>
> > How that would affect the outcome of a trial, well, as you like to
> > say, time will tell.
>
> You completely missed the point. The French lab's results won't be the
> issue. The remaining urine will be tested in an FBI lab or in a US lab
> under the eyes of the FBI.
No, I get it, even if you don't. It's not about the French lab's
results, it's about the French lab's ability to safeguard the
integrity of the samples such that the results of any current testing
would be valid in the eyes of the jury. Nobody gives a damn about the
earlier results.
== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 5:40 pm
From: BLafferty
On 2/26/2011 7:12 PM, Scott wrote:
> On Feb 26, 1:27 pm, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 2/26/2011 11:49 AM, Scott wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 26, 9:22 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Whether or not the test for EPO is accepted as valid>within the scientific community is likely not open to>serious debate. There may be an expert willing to>testify otherwise. Will they be able to convince a
>>>> jury that the test itself isn't scientifically valid when a>panel of WADA experts has certified the test as valid?>Probably not, but odd thing can be decided by a jury. I>suppose that the government could ask
>>>> the court to take judicial notice of the scientific validity>of the test.
>>
>>> I'd guess that a jury of red blooded Americans will have no trouble
>>> coming to the conclusion that a French lab, one with a reputation for
>>> not following protocols or protecting privacy, could very easily have
>>> screwed up the storage of the samples in question, perhaps even
>>> deliberately tampering with them.
>>
>>> How that would affect the outcome of a trial, well, as you like to
>>> say, time will tell.
>>
>> You completely missed the point. The French lab's results won't be the
>> issue. The remaining urine will be tested in an FBI lab or in a US lab
>> under the eyes of the FBI.
>
> No, I get it, even if you don't. It's not about the French lab's
> results, it's about the French lab's ability to safeguard the
> integrity of the samples such that the results of any current testing
> would be valid in the eyes of the jury. Nobody gives a damn about the
> earlier results.
That's what chain of custody is about. If there wasn't a valid chain,
the Dept. of Justice would not go to the trouble of Letters Rogatory to
get them.
== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 9:32 pm
From: Scott
On Feb 26, 6:40 pm, BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 2/26/2011 7:12 PM, Scott wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 1:27 pm, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/26/2011 11:49 AM, Scott wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 26, 9:22 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Whether or not the test for EPO is accepted as valid>within the scientific community is likely not open to>serious debate. There may be an expert willing to>testify otherwise. Will they be able to convince a
> >>>> jury that the test itself isn't scientifically valid when a>panel of WADA experts has certified the test as valid?>Probably not, but odd thing can be decided by a jury. I>suppose that the government could ask
> >>>> the court to take judicial notice of the scientific validity>of the test.
>
> >>> I'd guess that a jury of red blooded Americans will have no trouble
> >>> coming to the conclusion that a French lab, one with a reputation for
> >>> not following protocols or protecting privacy, could very easily have
> >>> screwed up the storage of the samples in question, perhaps even
> >>> deliberately tampering with them.
>
> >>> How that would affect the outcome of a trial, well, as you like to
> >>> say, time will tell.
>
> >> You completely missed the point. The French lab's results won't be the
> >> issue. The remaining urine will be tested in an FBI lab or in a US lab
> >> under the eyes of the FBI.
>
> > No, I get it, even if you don't. It's not about the French lab's
> > results, it's about the French lab's ability to safeguard the
> > integrity of the samples such that the results of any current testing
> > would be valid in the eyes of the jury. Nobody gives a damn about the
> > earlier results.
>
> That's what chain of custody is about. If there wasn't a valid chain,
> the Dept. of Justice would not go to the trouble of Letters Rogatory to
> get them.
That is your assumption, and besides, it's all about persuading the
jury, right?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hitler
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/d1d0168fdecb8594?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 2:03 am
From: Simply Fred
Frederick the Great wrote:
> Checkmate.
Dumbass,
Kindly stick to convention and post the entire podium in the subject.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 7:38 am
From: Fred Flintstein
On 2/26/2011 4:03 AM, Simply Fred wrote:
> Frederick the Great wrote:
>> Checkmate.
>
> Dumbass,
> Kindly stick to convention and post the entire podium in the subject.
Prosecute them all, God (Novitsky) will know His own.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 1:46 pm
From: Simply Fred
Simply Fred wrote:
>> Kindly stick to convention and post the entire podium in the subject.
Fred Flintstein wrote:
> Prosecute them all, God (Novitsky) will know His own.
Dumbass,
In the world according to Lafferty the podium would read:
1) LANCE 2) Hitler 3) Stalin
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What's next for LA now that he's retired
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/b92c0def5059f438?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 12:12 pm
From: Steven Bornfeld
On 2/25/2011 5:33 AM, ilan wrote:
> This seems to be the trend: first Lauritzen http://www.kjendis.no/2007/11/17/518536.html
> then Rasmussen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMKJU3wPU9k And
> refusing is not an option: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBEq-_EXNIg
>
> -ilan
I can dig pathos.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 1:53 pm
From: Simply Fred
ilan wrote:
>> This seems to be the trend: first Lauritzen
>> http://www.kjendis.no/2007/11/17/518536.html
>> then Rasmussen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMKJU3wPU9k And
>> refusing is not an option: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBEq-_EXNIg
Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> I can dig pathos.
Greek cuisine sucks.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: bring out your dead
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/f47fc9061d350f01?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 3:35 pm
From: Ben Trovato
What LANCE has to look forward to...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/franco-ballerinis-body-to-be-exhumed-for-insurance-investigation
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 7:17 pm
From: Brad Anders
On Feb 26, 4:35 pm, Ben Trovato <benn.trov...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What LANCE has to look forward to...http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/franco-ballerinis-body-to-be-exhumed-...
No shit. I'll bet dealing in bits of LA's bodily fluids and body parts
after he's croaked will go on for a couple of centuries, kind of like
a modern day Shroud of Turin.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 8:58 pm
From: Simply Fred
Ben Trovato wrote:
>> What LANCE has to look forward to...http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/franco-ballerinis-body-to-be-exhumed-...
Brad Anders wrote:
> No shit. I'll bet dealing in bits of LA's bodily fluids and body parts
> after he's croaked will go on for a couple of centuries, kind of like
> a modern day Shroud of Turin.
I bet the doctor who cut off the first ball wishes he kept it, although
that loss should drive up the value of the remaining one.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Iranian Cyclist Victorious in new Skinsuit Technology
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/d31e01b07e3cc183?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 5:22 pm
From: Phil H
On Feb 24, 8:10 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 9:34 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 7:18 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://tinypic.com/5nnhmt
>
> > I'd bet a dollar to a donut he's got a higher vertical leap than you
> > do (or ever did).
>
> And oddly enough he comes back to earth at the same 32 feet per second
> per second rate as us also
Could you give us the Einsteinian explanation of that.
Thanks
Phil H
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Questions about Seeing thre Tour in Paris
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/28d76208a6639cf9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 5:39 pm
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"
>Climbs are great places to take in the whole spectacle.
>
>DR
Yep. That was spelled out in this link-
http://www.chainreaction.com/tdfwatching.htm
The Genoble individual time trial could provide some great spots for
viewing, since it will be pretty hilly. And Alpe d'Huez is the day before.
It's going to be a tough final week
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
==============================================================================
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
Posts
