Steve Croft
http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/8034973p-8970704c.html
View Full Version : Adham Sbeih article
Dan Connelly
Steve Croft wrote:
> http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/8034973p-8970704c.html
1. Maybe I'm naive, but I tend to follow the principle that those who get caught are innocent, since
those who use are more careful. Clearly there are ways in which Sbieh could falsely test
positive, as has been discussed here.
2. Nevertheless, since he's stopped training, he hardly seems confident his position will prevail.
No testing procedure is going to be foolproof. There is always the threat of false positives. But
some threshold of false positives must be accepted, or there could be no testing. Indeed, if a
vigorous appeal process were followed in all decisions with punitive consequence, there could be no
cycling, as enforcement of rules outside the direct view of cameras would be essentially impossible.
Decisions are made, and penalties issued. Occasionally, innocent riders lose, and in such a highly
competitive environment, often these penalties compromise careers. But there would be no career
without rule enforcement, so riders live with the risk.
The issue with drug testing is -- do the tests curtail drug use? If the answer is no, obviously they
accomplish nothing more than cynical PR among European fans (US fans clearly don't care about drug
use -- no strictly domestic sport tests except in a most trivial sense.). However, I'm far from
convinced the answer is no. I think drug use would be a lot severe (and therefore a lot worse, on
rather fundamental principles) if the tests were removed, and therefore I support them. This issue
has been debated ad infinitum here, and won't be resolved now.
Dan
> http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/8034973p-8970704c.html
1. Maybe I'm naive, but I tend to follow the principle that those who get caught are innocent, since
those who use are more careful. Clearly there are ways in which Sbieh could falsely test
positive, as has been discussed here.
2. Nevertheless, since he's stopped training, he hardly seems confident his position will prevail.
No testing procedure is going to be foolproof. There is always the threat of false positives. But
some threshold of false positives must be accepted, or there could be no testing. Indeed, if a
vigorous appeal process were followed in all decisions with punitive consequence, there could be no
cycling, as enforcement of rules outside the direct view of cameras would be essentially impossible.
Decisions are made, and penalties issued. Occasionally, innocent riders lose, and in such a highly
competitive environment, often these penalties compromise careers. But there would be no career
without rule enforcement, so riders live with the risk.
The issue with drug testing is -- do the tests curtail drug use? If the answer is no, obviously they
accomplish nothing more than cynical PR among European fans (US fans clearly don't care about drug
use -- no strictly domestic sport tests except in a most trivial sense.). However, I'm far from
convinced the answer is no. I think drug use would be a lot severe (and therefore a lot worse, on
rather fundamental principles) if the tests were removed, and therefore I support them. This issue
has been debated ad infinitum here, and won't be resolved now.
Dan
Tom Arsenault
stevec@ditdash.com (Steve Croft) wrote in message news:<7d7cdd64.0401020800.11f74d1f@posting.google.com>...
> http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/8034973p-8970704c.html
So if someone has never taken EPO; how did it get in their system to begin with? Was there a mix up
in the lab? I wonder how he (Adam) intends to fight this.
> http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/8034973p-8970704c.html
So if someone has never taken EPO; how did it get in their system to begin with? Was there a mix up
in the lab? I wonder how he (Adam) intends to fight this.
B. Lafferty
"S. Anderson" <scott.anderson3@zsympaticoz.ca> wrote in message
news:uYkJb.15405$Vl6.3257131@news20.bellglobal.com... That's rather like a
> suspected criminal explaining how DNA testing works to the medical profession. Perhaps he has a
> PhD in biochemistry.
His best shot is finding an irregularity in the chain of custody effectively claiming it wasn't
his urine.
news:uYkJb.15405$Vl6.3257131@news20.bellglobal.com... That's rather like a
> suspected criminal explaining how DNA testing works to the medical profession. Perhaps he has a
> PhD in biochemistry.
His best shot is finding an irregularity in the chain of custody effectively claiming it wasn't
his urine.
Warren
In article <8UkJb.16465$lo3.4775@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tom
Kunich <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Tom Arsenault" <giantcu92@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b44a1227.0401021045.58628fe6@posting.google.com...
> > stevec@ditdash.com (Steve Croft) wrote in message
> news:<7d7cdd64.0401020800.11f74d1f@posting.google.com>...
> > > http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/8034973p-8970704c.html
> >
> > So if someone has never taken EPO; how did it get in their system
> to
> > begin with? Was there a mix up in the lab? I wonder how he (Adam) intends to fight this.
>
> The fact is that there ARE false positives that can be caused for a variety of reasons. A good
> separation scientist could blow holes through these cases but it would require several years in
> litigation and run into big money. The UCI and the USCF have decided to accept a level of false
> positives apparently on the theory that no one is going to fight it and the resulting publicity
> will scare real users away from the stuff.
I haven't had an in-depth conversation with Adham in a few years but he's never impressed me as
someone who cares enough about a particular race result to resort to cheating. He's very humble
about his results and himself in general, and he's a bike racer mainly because he loves cycling and
he has the physiology to be pretty good at it.
A few of his quotes from the article in the Sacramento Bee...
"It was a complete shock," Sbeih said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C., on Thursday.
"I didn't take any drugs, I didn't take any EPO. I had never even seen (EPO). I don't have a clue
what it's like."
Sbeih said he will likely know the result of his appeal in the next few months. Even if it is
overturned, he said he will not be in the Olympics. He said the ruling "basically forced me into
retirement" and criticized the process used in determining EPO usage.
"In a basic sense, there were a lot of problems with the test," said Sbeih, who claims he has never
used performance-enhancing drugs. "There were a lot of errors made, and it didn't take into account
a lot of variables. There are a lot of aspects of the test they don't understand. ... I have to
watch my words. But we (Sbeih and his lawyer, Howard Jacobs) have a pretty good idea of what
happened."
He says his appeal will cost about $30K.
-WG
Kunich <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Tom Arsenault" <giantcu92@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b44a1227.0401021045.58628fe6@posting.google.com...
> > stevec@ditdash.com (Steve Croft) wrote in message
> news:<7d7cdd64.0401020800.11f74d1f@posting.google.com>...
> > > http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/8034973p-8970704c.html
> >
> > So if someone has never taken EPO; how did it get in their system
> to
> > begin with? Was there a mix up in the lab? I wonder how he (Adam) intends to fight this.
>
> The fact is that there ARE false positives that can be caused for a variety of reasons. A good
> separation scientist could blow holes through these cases but it would require several years in
> litigation and run into big money. The UCI and the USCF have decided to accept a level of false
> positives apparently on the theory that no one is going to fight it and the resulting publicity
> will scare real users away from the stuff.
I haven't had an in-depth conversation with Adham in a few years but he's never impressed me as
someone who cares enough about a particular race result to resort to cheating. He's very humble
about his results and himself in general, and he's a bike racer mainly because he loves cycling and
he has the physiology to be pretty good at it.
A few of his quotes from the article in the Sacramento Bee...
"It was a complete shock," Sbeih said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C., on Thursday.
"I didn't take any drugs, I didn't take any EPO. I had never even seen (EPO). I don't have a clue
what it's like."
Sbeih said he will likely know the result of his appeal in the next few months. Even if it is
overturned, he said he will not be in the Olympics. He said the ruling "basically forced me into
retirement" and criticized the process used in determining EPO usage.
"In a basic sense, there were a lot of problems with the test," said Sbeih, who claims he has never
used performance-enhancing drugs. "There were a lot of errors made, and it didn't take into account
a lot of variables. There are a lot of aspects of the test they don't understand. ... I have to
watch my words. But we (Sbeih and his lawyer, Howard Jacobs) have a pretty good idea of what
happened."
He says his appeal will cost about $30K.
-WG
Xzzy
If I remember correctly, (1) in sports you are guilty until proven innocent
(2) he has the right to appeal the positive, but he can only appeal on the grounds that the testing
procedure was done improperly
My 2 cents about the cost of his defense is: it sounds like the $30,000 is not the right number ( it
is way too big )
John Bickmore www.BicycleCam.com www.Feed-Zone.com
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:iZgJb.4892$Nd6.1810@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> Steve Croft wrote:
> > http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/8034973p-8970704c.html
>
> 1. Maybe I'm naive, but I tend to follow the principle that those who get caught are innocent,
> since those who use are more careful. Clearly there are ways in which Sbieh could falsely test
> positive, as
has
> been discussed here.
>
> 2. Nevertheless, since he's stopped training, he hardly seems confident his position will prevail.
>
> No testing procedure is going to be foolproof. There is always the threat of false positives. But
> some threshold of false positives must be accepted, or there could be no testing. Indeed, if a
> vigorous appeal process were followed in all decisions with punitive consequence, there could be
> no cycling, as enforcement of rules outside the direct view of cameras would be essentially
> impossible. Decisions are made, and penalties issued. Occasionally, innocent riders lose, and in
> such a highly competitive environment, often these penalties compromise careers. But there would
> be no career without rule
enforcement,
> so riders live with the risk.
>
> The issue with drug testing is -- do the tests curtail drug use? If the answer is no, obviously
> they accomplish nothing more than cynical PR among European fans (US fans clearly don't care about
> drug use -- no strictly domestic sport tests except in a most trivial sense.). However, I'm far
> from convinced the answer is no. I think drug use would be a lot severe (and therefore a lot
> worse, on rather fundamental principles) if the tests were removed, and therefore I support them.
> This issue has been debated ad infinitum here, and won't be resolved now.
>
> Dan
(2) he has the right to appeal the positive, but he can only appeal on the grounds that the testing
procedure was done improperly
My 2 cents about the cost of his defense is: it sounds like the $30,000 is not the right number ( it
is way too big )
John Bickmore www.BicycleCam.com www.Feed-Zone.com
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:iZgJb.4892$Nd6.1810@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> Steve Croft wrote:
> > http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/8034973p-8970704c.html
>
> 1. Maybe I'm naive, but I tend to follow the principle that those who get caught are innocent,
> since those who use are more careful. Clearly there are ways in which Sbieh could falsely test
> positive, as
has
> been discussed here.
>
> 2. Nevertheless, since he's stopped training, he hardly seems confident his position will prevail.
>
> No testing procedure is going to be foolproof. There is always the threat of false positives. But
> some threshold of false positives must be accepted, or there could be no testing. Indeed, if a
> vigorous appeal process were followed in all decisions with punitive consequence, there could be
> no cycling, as enforcement of rules outside the direct view of cameras would be essentially
> impossible. Decisions are made, and penalties issued. Occasionally, innocent riders lose, and in
> such a highly competitive environment, often these penalties compromise careers. But there would
> be no career without rule
enforcement,
> so riders live with the risk.
>
> The issue with drug testing is -- do the tests curtail drug use? If the answer is no, obviously
> they accomplish nothing more than cynical PR among European fans (US fans clearly don't care about
> drug use -- no strictly domestic sport tests except in a most trivial sense.). However, I'm far
> from convinced the answer is no. I think drug use would be a lot severe (and therefore a lot
> worse, on rather fundamental principles) if the tests were removed, and therefore I support them.
> This issue has been debated ad infinitum here, and won't be resolved now.
>
> Dan
S. Anderson
"Tom Arsenault" <giantcu92@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b44a1227.0401021045.58628fe6@posting.google.com...
> So if someone has never taken EPO; how did it get in their system to begin with? Was there a mix
> up in the lab? I wonder how he (Adam) intends to fight this.
I find it interesting that he intends to instruct the medical professionals on the intricacies of
the EPO testing procedure. That's rather like a suspected criminal explaining how DNA testing works
to the medical profession. Perhaps he has a PhD in biochemistry.
Cheers,
Scott..
news:b44a1227.0401021045.58628fe6@posting.google.com...
> So if someone has never taken EPO; how did it get in their system to begin with? Was there a mix
> up in the lab? I wonder how he (Adam) intends to fight this.
I find it interesting that he intends to instruct the medical professionals on the intricacies of
the EPO testing procedure. That's rather like a suspected criminal explaining how DNA testing works
to the medical profession. Perhaps he has a PhD in biochemistry.
Cheers,
Scott..
Tom Kunich
"Tom Arsenault" <giantcu92@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b44a1227.0401021045.58628fe6@posting.google.com...
> stevec@ditdash.com (Steve Croft) wrote in message
news:<7d7cdd64.0401020800.11f74d1f@posting.google.com>...
> > http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/8034973p-8970704c.html
>
> So if someone has never taken EPO; how did it get in their system
to
> begin with? Was there a mix up in the lab? I wonder how he (Adam) intends to fight this.
The fact is that there ARE false positives that can be caused for a variety of reasons. A good
separation scientist could blow holes through these cases but it would require several years in
litigation and run into big money. The UCI and the USCF have decided to accept a level of false
positives apparently on the theory that no one is going to fight it and the resulting publicity will
scare real users away from the stuff.
news:b44a1227.0401021045.58628fe6@posting.google.com...
> stevec@ditdash.com (Steve Croft) wrote in message
news:<7d7cdd64.0401020800.11f74d1f@posting.google.com>...
> > http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/8034973p-8970704c.html
>
> So if someone has never taken EPO; how did it get in their system
to
> begin with? Was there a mix up in the lab? I wonder how he (Adam) intends to fight this.
The fact is that there ARE false positives that can be caused for a variety of reasons. A good
separation scientist could blow holes through these cases but it would require several years in
litigation and run into big money. The UCI and the USCF have decided to accept a level of false
positives apparently on the theory that no one is going to fight it and the resulting publicity will
scare real users away from the stuff.
Tom Kunich
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:iZgJb.4892$Nd6.1810@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> Steve Croft wrote:
> > http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/8034973p-8970704c.html
>
>1. Maybe I'm naive, but I tend to follow the principle that those
> who get caught are innocent, since those who use are more
careful.
> Clearly there are ways in which Sbieh could falsely test
positive, as has
> been discussed here.
>
> 2. Nevertheless, since he's stopped training, he hardly seems
confident
> his position will prevail.
>
> No testing procedure is going to be foolproof. There is always the
threat
> of false positives. But some threshold of false positives must be accepted, or there could be no
> testing. Indeed, if a vigorous
appeal
> process were followed in all decisions with punitive consequence, there could be no cycling, as
> enforcement of rules outside the
direct
> view of cameras would be essentially impossible. Decisions are
made,
> and penalties issued. Occasionally, innocent riders lose, and in such a highly competitive
> environment, often these penalties compromise careers. But there would be no career without rule
enforcement,
> so riders live with the risk.
>
> The issue with drug testing is -- do the tests curtail drug use? If
the
> answer is no, obviously they accomplish nothing more than cynical PR
among
> European fans (US fans clearly don't care about drug use -- no
strictly
> domestic sport tests except in a most trivial sense.). However,
I'm far
> from convinced the answer is no. I think drug use would be a lot
severe
> (and therefore a lot worse, on rather fundamental principles) if the
tests
> were removed, and therefore I support them. This issue has been
debated
> ad infinitum here, and won't be resolved now.
I don't know the EPO tests but I seem to recall that there are many blood tests that have a 30%
failure rate (false positives or false negatives).
Trdina seemed to think that you have to have a calibration serum there but in LC you measure the
time between peaks and there are many, many known peaks that can be used for calibration in any
complex material like blood or urine. I don't know whether the EPO tests use LC or GC-MS but
basically the results are the same - a graph with peaks on it at the periods at which specific
compounds clear the "column".
What this boils down to is that materials in the blood with similar molecular weights and/or similar
molecular shapes/sizes will throw peaks in the same general area. Generally speaking you like to
look for a compound that has several peaks in which you can be assured that there is no other
material that will give you the same set of multiple peaks over the test period.
And these tests are sensitive - so sensitive that only a handful of molecules can register as a
peak. That is why in the very near future it will become progressively harder to cheat. Right now
stuf like blood is so complex that they look for specific materials present rather than isolating
the normal peaks and seeing what else is there. But as the blood databases grow it will come to the
point where your blood will be analyzed and they will be able to tell you how much and what you ate
and drank for your last five meals.
news:iZgJb.4892$Nd6.1810@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> Steve Croft wrote:
> > http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/8034973p-8970704c.html
>
>1. Maybe I'm naive, but I tend to follow the principle that those
> who get caught are innocent, since those who use are more
careful.
> Clearly there are ways in which Sbieh could falsely test
positive, as has
> been discussed here.
>
> 2. Nevertheless, since he's stopped training, he hardly seems
confident
> his position will prevail.
>
> No testing procedure is going to be foolproof. There is always the
threat
> of false positives. But some threshold of false positives must be accepted, or there could be no
> testing. Indeed, if a vigorous
appeal
> process were followed in all decisions with punitive consequence, there could be no cycling, as
> enforcement of rules outside the
direct
> view of cameras would be essentially impossible. Decisions are
made,
> and penalties issued. Occasionally, innocent riders lose, and in such a highly competitive
> environment, often these penalties compromise careers. But there would be no career without rule
enforcement,
> so riders live with the risk.
>
> The issue with drug testing is -- do the tests curtail drug use? If
the
> answer is no, obviously they accomplish nothing more than cynical PR
among
> European fans (US fans clearly don't care about drug use -- no
strictly
> domestic sport tests except in a most trivial sense.). However,
I'm far
> from convinced the answer is no. I think drug use would be a lot
severe
> (and therefore a lot worse, on rather fundamental principles) if the
tests
> were removed, and therefore I support them. This issue has been
debated
> ad infinitum here, and won't be resolved now.
I don't know the EPO tests but I seem to recall that there are many blood tests that have a 30%
failure rate (false positives or false negatives).
Trdina seemed to think that you have to have a calibration serum there but in LC you measure the
time between peaks and there are many, many known peaks that can be used for calibration in any
complex material like blood or urine. I don't know whether the EPO tests use LC or GC-MS but
basically the results are the same - a graph with peaks on it at the periods at which specific
compounds clear the "column".
What this boils down to is that materials in the blood with similar molecular weights and/or similar
molecular shapes/sizes will throw peaks in the same general area. Generally speaking you like to
look for a compound that has several peaks in which you can be assured that there is no other
material that will give you the same set of multiple peaks over the test period.
And these tests are sensitive - so sensitive that only a handful of molecules can register as a
peak. That is why in the very near future it will become progressively harder to cheat. Right now
stuf like blood is so complex that they look for specific materials present rather than isolating
the normal peaks and seeing what else is there. But as the blood databases grow it will come to the
point where your blood will be analyzed and they will be able to tell you how much and what you ate
and drank for your last five meals.
Tom Kunich
"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:swlJb.21254$IM3.5951@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "S. Anderson" <scott.anderson3@zsympaticoz.ca> wrote in message
> news:uYkJb.15405$Vl6.3257131@news20.bellglobal.com... That's rather like a
> > suspected criminal explaining how DNA testing works to the medical profession. Perhaps he has a
> > PhD in biochemistry.
>
> His best shot is finding an irregularity in the chain of custody
effectively
> claiming it wasn't his urine.
That may be his best legal shot but I would concentrate on the chances of getting a false positive
for two samples. And what's more, if I were designing the testing I would ALWAYS test the athlete
after arriving at two positives with a single sample.
And there are plenty of other markers as well. My hematocrit is 48% normally, but pros tend to have
hc's closer to the 42% average because they have very high serum levels which delute the hc down.
And it also isn't all that peculiar to have hc's down into the 30's for professionals who are late
in a hard season.
If Adam is supposed to have taken EPO there are all sorts of other markers to look for. For
instance, EPO causes blood cells to be expelled from your bone marrow too rapidly to properly
developed. These show up as undeveloped cells and cell fragments in a much higher percentage than
those of someone not on EPO.
No one of these should prove guilt in the case of EPO but should be limited to a level of positive
from them all. Except in the case of these latest EPO "advances" which are designed to stay in the
body longer and therefore which are recognizable directly in the blood.
news:swlJb.21254$IM3.5951@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "S. Anderson" <scott.anderson3@zsympaticoz.ca> wrote in message
> news:uYkJb.15405$Vl6.3257131@news20.bellglobal.com... That's rather like a
> > suspected criminal explaining how DNA testing works to the medical profession. Perhaps he has a
> > PhD in biochemistry.
>
> His best shot is finding an irregularity in the chain of custody
effectively
> claiming it wasn't his urine.
That may be his best legal shot but I would concentrate on the chances of getting a false positive
for two samples. And what's more, if I were designing the testing I would ALWAYS test the athlete
after arriving at two positives with a single sample.
And there are plenty of other markers as well. My hematocrit is 48% normally, but pros tend to have
hc's closer to the 42% average because they have very high serum levels which delute the hc down.
And it also isn't all that peculiar to have hc's down into the 30's for professionals who are late
in a hard season.
If Adam is supposed to have taken EPO there are all sorts of other markers to look for. For
instance, EPO causes blood cells to be expelled from your bone marrow too rapidly to properly
developed. These show up as undeveloped cells and cell fragments in a much higher percentage than
those of someone not on EPO.
No one of these should prove guilt in the case of EPO but should be limited to a level of positive
from them all. Except in the case of these latest EPO "advances" which are designed to stay in the
body longer and therefore which are recognizable directly in the blood.
Xzzy
this is a sad situation no matter if he is either unjustly accused or if he really is guilty
John Bickmore www.BicycleCam.com www.Feed-Zone.com
"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8UkJb.16465$lo3.4775@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Tom Arsenault" <giantcu92@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b44a1227.0401021045.58628fe6@posting.google.com...
> > stevec@ditdash.com (Steve Croft) wrote in message
> news:<7d7cdd64.0401020800.11f74d1f@posting.google.com>...
> > > http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/8034973p-8970704c.html
> >
> > So if someone has never taken EPO; how did it get in their system
> to
> > begin with? Was there a mix up in the lab? I wonder how he (Adam) intends to fight this.
>
> The fact is that there ARE false positives that can be caused for a variety of reasons. A good
> separation scientist could blow holes through these cases but it would require several years in
> litigation and run into big money. The UCI and the USCF have decided to accept a level of false
> positives apparently on the theory that no one is going to fight it and the resulting publicity
> will scare real users away from the stuff.
John Bickmore www.BicycleCam.com www.Feed-Zone.com
"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8UkJb.16465$lo3.4775@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Tom Arsenault" <giantcu92@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b44a1227.0401021045.58628fe6@posting.google.com...
> > stevec@ditdash.com (Steve Croft) wrote in message
> news:<7d7cdd64.0401020800.11f74d1f@posting.google.com>...
> > > http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/8034973p-8970704c.html
> >
> > So if someone has never taken EPO; how did it get in their system
> to
> > begin with? Was there a mix up in the lab? I wonder how he (Adam) intends to fight this.
>
> The fact is that there ARE false positives that can be caused for a variety of reasons. A good
> separation scientist could blow holes through these cases but it would require several years in
> litigation and run into big money. The UCI and the USCF have decided to accept a level of false
> positives apparently on the theory that no one is going to fight it and the resulting publicity
> will scare real users away from the stuff.
Tom Kunich
"S. Anderson" <scott.anderson3@zsympaticoz.ca> wrote in message
news:uYkJb.15405$Vl6.3257131@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Tom Arsenault" <giantcu92@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b44a1227.0401021045.58628fe6@posting.google.com...
> > So if someone has never taken EPO; how did it get in their system
to
> > begin with? Was there a mix up in the lab? I wonder how he
(Adam)
> > intends to fight this.
>
> I find it interesting that he intends to instruct the medical
professionals
> on the intricacies of the EPO testing procedure. That's rather like
a
> suspected criminal explaining how DNA testing works to the medical profession. Perhaps he has a
> PhD in biochemistry.
Most of the testing procedures that were developed at the LC company I worked for were designed
by BS Chemists with a lot of experience in separation science. I wasn't impressed with the few
PhD's we had.
news:uYkJb.15405$Vl6.3257131@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Tom Arsenault" <giantcu92@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b44a1227.0401021045.58628fe6@posting.google.com...
> > So if someone has never taken EPO; how did it get in their system
to
> > begin with? Was there a mix up in the lab? I wonder how he
(Adam)
> > intends to fight this.
>
> I find it interesting that he intends to instruct the medical
professionals
> on the intricacies of the EPO testing procedure. That's rather like
a
> suspected criminal explaining how DNA testing works to the medical profession. Perhaps he has a
> PhD in biochemistry.
Most of the testing procedures that were developed at the LC company I worked for were designed
by BS Chemists with a lot of experience in separation science. I wasn't impressed with the few
PhD's we had.
Heather Locklea
"warren" <warren@usvhremove.com> wrote in message
news:020120041311012070%warren@usvhremove.com...
> In article <8UkJb.16465$lo3.4775@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tom Kunich
> <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> I haven't had an in-depth conversation with Adham in a few years but he's never impressed me as
> someone who cares enough about a particular race result to resort to cheating.
Dumbass -
That is not a way to tell if someone is taking performance enhancing drugs.
You don't know ****. Neither do I.
news:020120041311012070%warren@usvhremove.com...
> In article <8UkJb.16465$lo3.4775@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tom Kunich
> <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> I haven't had an in-depth conversation with Adham in a few years but he's never impressed me as
> someone who cares enough about a particular race result to resort to cheating.
Dumbass -
That is not a way to tell if someone is taking performance enhancing drugs.
You don't know ****. Neither do I.
Donald Munro
xzzy wrote:
> My 2 cents about the cost of his defense is: it sounds like the $30,000 is not the right number (
> it is way too big )
Perhaps his employing Johnnie Cochran for a few hours.
> My 2 cents about the cost of his defense is: it sounds like the $30,000 is not the right number (
> it is way too big )
Perhaps his employing Johnnie Cochran for a few hours.
Matabala
What does that have to do with this particular case? Zilch, nada, rien, nothing. I once worked at a
restaurant where I wasn't impressed with the quality of our chefs either but that doesn't mean those
at a four-star don't know what they're doing. Granted, I'm presuming that the US anti-doping Agency
has competent people working for them.
As for Sbeih, it's the Bob Dylan broken record response "It Ain't Me Babe". Would "Another One Bites
the Dust" be a better choice?
"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bamJb.16542$lo3.10548@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Most of the testing procedures that were developed at the LC company I worked for were designed
> by BS Chemists with a lot of experience in separation science. I wasn't impressed with the few
> PhD's we had.
restaurant where I wasn't impressed with the quality of our chefs either but that doesn't mean those
at a four-star don't know what they're doing. Granted, I'm presuming that the US anti-doping Agency
has competent people working for them.
As for Sbeih, it's the Bob Dylan broken record response "It Ain't Me Babe". Would "Another One Bites
the Dust" be a better choice?
"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bamJb.16542$lo3.10548@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Most of the testing procedures that were developed at the LC company I worked for were designed
> by BS Chemists with a lot of experience in separation science. I wasn't impressed with the few
> PhD's we had.
H Squared
matabala wrote:
>
> As for Sbeih, it's the Bob Dylan broken record response "It Ain't Me Babe".
while i get what yer sayin, as an aside, it's kinda funny (to me) that you picked that song because
i've always viewed it more as dylan's affirmation of being less than perfect.
("you say you're lookin for someone never weak but always strong, to protect you and defend you
whether you are right or wrong, someone to open each and every door, but it ain't me, babe, no, no,
no, it ain't me, babe, it ain't me you're lookin' for, babe. go lightly from the ledge, babe, go
lightly on the ground. i'm not the one you want, babe, i'll only let you down.")
hh
>
> As for Sbeih, it's the Bob Dylan broken record response "It Ain't Me Babe".
while i get what yer sayin, as an aside, it's kinda funny (to me) that you picked that song because
i've always viewed it more as dylan's affirmation of being less than perfect.
("you say you're lookin for someone never weak but always strong, to protect you and defend you
whether you are right or wrong, someone to open each and every door, but it ain't me, babe, no, no,
no, it ain't me, babe, it ain't me you're lookin' for, babe. go lightly from the ledge, babe, go
lightly on the ground. i'm not the one you want, babe, i'll only let you down.")
hh
Matabala
Right you are about the meaning of the song. Was more (or less) snatching the title than rereading
my Dylanology 101.
"h squared" <peckledoggyremovetoreply@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FF6F496.F4EEB26F@hotmail.com...
>
>
> matabala wrote:
> >
> > As for Sbeih, it's the Bob Dylan broken record response "It Ain't Me
Babe".
>
> while i get what yer sayin, as an aside, it's kinda funny (to me) that you picked that song
> because i've always viewed it more as dylan's affirmation of being less than perfect.
>
> ("you say you're lookin for someone never weak but always strong, to protect you and defend you
> whether you are right or wrong, someone to open each and every door, but it ain't me, babe, no,
> no, no, it ain't me, babe, it ain't me you're lookin' for, babe. go lightly from the ledge, babe,
> go lightly on the ground. i'm not the one you want, babe, i'll only let you down.")
>
> hh
my Dylanology 101.
"h squared" <peckledoggyremovetoreply@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FF6F496.F4EEB26F@hotmail.com...
>
>
> matabala wrote:
> >
> > As for Sbeih, it's the Bob Dylan broken record response "It Ain't Me
Babe".
>
> while i get what yer sayin, as an aside, it's kinda funny (to me) that you picked that song
> because i've always viewed it more as dylan's affirmation of being less than perfect.
>
> ("you say you're lookin for someone never weak but always strong, to protect you and defend you
> whether you are right or wrong, someone to open each and every door, but it ain't me, babe, no,
> no, no, it ain't me, babe, it ain't me you're lookin' for, babe. go lightly from the ledge, babe,
> go lightly on the ground. i'm not the one you want, babe, i'll only let you down.")
>
> hh
Tom Kunich
"matabala" <matabala@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:bt6qrl$2iv$1@news-reader4.wanadoo.fr...
> What does that have to do with this particular case? Zilch, nada,
rien,
> nothing. I once worked at a restaurant where I wasn't impressed
with the
> quality of our chefs either but that doesn't mean those at a
four-star don't
> know what they're doing. Granted, I'm presuming that the US
anti-doping
> Agency has competent people working for them.
There's an old description of education as learning more and more about less and less until you know
absolutely everything about nothing. That covers about 90% of the PhD's I've ever known. Of course
the other 10% were phenomena but that's another story.
> "Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:bamJb.16542$lo3.10548@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > Most of the testing procedures that were developed at the LC
company I
> > worked for were designed by BS Chemists with a lot of experience
in
> > separation science. I wasn't impressed with the few PhD's we had.
> >
> >
>
news:bt6qrl$2iv$1@news-reader4.wanadoo.fr...
> What does that have to do with this particular case? Zilch, nada,
rien,
> nothing. I once worked at a restaurant where I wasn't impressed
with the
> quality of our chefs either but that doesn't mean those at a
four-star don't
> know what they're doing. Granted, I'm presuming that the US
anti-doping
> Agency has competent people working for them.
There's an old description of education as learning more and more about less and less until you know
absolutely everything about nothing. That covers about 90% of the PhD's I've ever known. Of course
the other 10% were phenomena but that's another story.
> "Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:bamJb.16542$lo3.10548@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > Most of the testing procedures that were developed at the LC
company I
> > worked for were designed by BS Chemists with a lot of experience
in
> > separation science. I wasn't impressed with the few PhD's we had.
> >
> >
>
Andy Coggan
"Tom Arsenault" <giantcu92@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b44a1227.0401021045.58628fe6@posting.google.com...
> stevec@ditdash.com (Steve Croft) wrote in message
news:<7d7cdd64.0401020800.11f74d1f@posting.google.com>...
> > http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/8034973p-8970704c.html
>
> So if someone has never taken EPO; how did it get in their system to begin with?
Erythropoeitin is a naturally-occuring hormone.
Andy Coggan
news:b44a1227.0401021045.58628fe6@posting.google.com...
> stevec@ditdash.com (Steve Croft) wrote in message
news:<7d7cdd64.0401020800.11f74d1f@posting.google.com>...
> > http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/8034973p-8970704c.html
>
> So if someone has never taken EPO; how did it get in their system to begin with?
Erythropoeitin is a naturally-occuring hormone.
Andy Coggan
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0