WADA Got Under Armstrong's Skin

B. Lafferty said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10063.0.html

Looks like attack/counter-attack to me. If cycling is 'chess on
wheels', then LANCE is playing 'chess in the press'.

~bob

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10063.0.html

Lafferty, you must admit, if they had the goods on Armstrong then they would
have gone by the book and followed every procedure perfectly. If they
really had found evidence of Armstrong doping then I doubt it would have
been handled this way. It makes no sense. L'Equipe just needed to increase
their revenues and this was a way to guarantee it for the next few years.
Armstrong may have been doped to the gills, but so far there is no evidence
of it.

You will have to get used to the idea of an American being the all time
greatest TdF champion. I bet the fact that he is a Texan chaps your ass all
the more, eh? What's your address, I'm going to buy you some Preparation H?

routebeer said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10063.0.html

Lafferty, you must admit, if they had the goods on Armstrong

They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
forms, puts two and two together?

bob sullivan said:

Looks like attack/counter-attack to me. If cycling is 'chess on
wheels', then LANCE is playing 'chess in the press'.

So he must have made the switch to beta blockers then. Lafferty please
take note.

mtb Dad said:

They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
forms, puts two and two together?

Dumbass -

It's pretty damn obvious that Pound has an axe to grind.

That's not a good way to run a nascent "worldwide" governing body. He
should be sticking to the book, that's how any governing body
gains/keeps its credibility.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"mtb Dad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

routebeer said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10063.0.html

Lafferty, you must admit, if they had the goods on Armstrong

They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
forms, puts two and two together?

You have to understand that this forum is predominantly pro-Armstrong and
anti-Pound. Just relax and watch the truth about Sir Lance unfold.

B. Lafferty said:

You have to understand that this forum is predominantly pro-Armstrong and
anti-Pound. Just relax and watch the truth about Sir Lance unfold.

Dumbass -

I'm not pro-LANCE (he very well could be dirty), but I am anti-Pound.

That's no way to run a governing body. Not just a sports governing
body, any governing body. Pound is way too biased. He's like Hugo
Chavez on the United States, Peter Gammons on the Red Sox, W. Bush on
Saddam Hussein, Sierraman on women's racing, a priest on pedophelia. No
credibility when you do that.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

You have to understand that this forum is predominantly pro-Armstrong and
anti-Pound. Just relax and watch the truth about Sir Lance unfold.

Dumbass -

I'm not pro-LANCE (he very well could be dirty), but I am anti-Pound.

That's no way to run a governing body. Not just a sports governing
body, any governing body. Pound is way too biased. He's like Hugo
Chavez on the United States, Peter Gammons on the Red Sox, W. Bush on
Saddam Hussein, Sierraman on women's racing, a priest on pedophelia. No
credibility when you do that.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Yada, yada, yada. Thanks.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

mtb Dad said:

They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
forms, puts two and two together?

Dumbass -

It's pretty damn obvious that Pound has an axe to grind.

That's not a good way to run a nascent "worldwide" governing body. He
should be sticking to the book, that's how any governing body
gains/keeps its credibility.

dumbass,

you (but not just you) are naive if you think pound has an axe to grind
with armstrong and that's where it ends.

a friend of mine who's more informed had what i thought was the right
take: pound doesn't care about cycling or armstrong, what he wants to
do is retroactively test olympic medals.

right now the provisions for retroactive testing within the WADA code
are vague, it had to be to get all these sports to agree to those
terms. but if he can lay some groundwork for retroactive testing with
the UCI, there's going to be huge pressure for other sports to enact
the same standards.

the tatic of declaring armstrong positive back in '99 when it's obvious
there's no way he can possibly be penalized (he's retired, there's no
B-samples etc.) is designed to put into place some concrete terms
allowing retroactive testing.

"amit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

mtb Dad said:

They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
forms, puts two and two together?

Dumbass -

It's pretty damn obvious that Pound has an axe to grind.

That's not a good way to run a nascent "worldwide" governing body. He
should be sticking to the book, that's how any governing body
gains/keeps its credibility.

dumbass,

you (but not just you) are naive if you think pound has an axe to grind
with armstrong and that's where it ends.

a friend of mine who's more informed had what i thought was the right
take: pound doesn't care about cycling or armstrong, what he wants to
do is retroactively test olympic medals.

right now the provisions for retroactive testing within the WADA code
are vague, it had to be to get all these sports to agree to those
terms. but if he can lay some groundwork for retroactive testing with
the UCI, there's going to be huge pressure for other sports to enact
the same standards.

the tatic of declaring armstrong positive back in '99 when it's obvious
there's no way he can possibly be penalized (he's retired, there's no
B-samples etc.) is designed to put into place some concrete terms
allowing retroactive testing.

That has been the strategy not only in the Armstrong situation but with
Hamilton's Olympic medal as well. As far as Armstrong vis a vis Pound,
Armstrong is a tick easily removed.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

mtb Dad said:

They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
forms, puts two and two together?

Dumbass -

It's pretty damn obvious that Pound has an axe to grind.

That's not a good way to run a nascent "worldwide" governing body. He
should be sticking to the book, that's how any governing body
gains/keeps its credibility.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Maybe it's just that real anti-doping measures are such a contrast to
the blind eye-shrug&deny tactics of the UCI that it takes a while to
get used to? I honestly don't see what he is doing wrong. The dopers
have had their way for so long it's time for a poke with a sharp stick.
Too bad (really) it's such a great story (Lance) that is being
deflated.

Didn't you ask yourself, "so how exactly did the lab find EPO in six
samples with different numbers, which all later turned out to come from
the same guy? " Spiking? That would take luck of impressive
proportions to find six Lance samples, but not others. To get six
tests of one guy they would have had to spike all of them, not to
mention the impossible odds of keeping THAT quiet, even if spiking can
be done.

I asked myself that question and I thank Pound for NOT looking for the
oft-used weasel routes ('oh, the testing guy was wearing the wrong
colour shirt, toss it'😉 of accepting any excuse to ignore an
inconvenient result. He and no-one else is asking for Armstrong's
disqualifiction in 1999. He is simply asking the UCI to deal with it.

I think Amit's friend (post below) is right. Pound is just testing the
UCI. There's nothing they could do, but watching UCI scurry off in
exactly the wrong direction is just laying the ground work for
retroactive testing by governments. In that light, it's kind of funny
really. "Hey, let's see what they do if we ask this." (Apologies to
McQuaid though who so far seems to be a little more sophisticated than
VerDRUGgen. At least he's still saying it's a problem, and offering to
help out.)

"bob sullivan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10063.0.html

Looks like attack/counter-attack to me. If cycling is 'chess on
wheels', then LANCE is playing 'chess in the press'.

Lance didn't release his letter to the IOC to the press. Someone else did.
Kinda forced a response, ya know?

--
Snippy

"amit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

mtb Dad said:

They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
forms, puts two and two together?

Dumbass -

It's pretty damn obvious that Pound has an axe to grind.

That's not a good way to run a nascent "worldwide" governing body. He
should be sticking to the book, that's how any governing body
gains/keeps its credibility.

dumbass,

you (but not just you) are naive if you think pound has an axe to grind
with armstrong and that's where it ends.

a friend of mine who's more informed had what i thought was the right
take: pound doesn't care about cycling or armstrong, what he wants to
do is retroactively test olympic medals.

right now the provisions for retroactive testing within the WADA code
are vague, it had to be to get all these sports to agree to those
terms. but if he can lay some groundwork for retroactive testing with
the UCI, there's going to be huge pressure for other sports to enact
the same standards.

the tatic of declaring armstrong positive back in '99 when it's obvious
there's no way he can possibly be penalized (he's retired, there's no
B-samples etc.) is designed to put into place some concrete terms
allowing retroactive testing.

If that's true he chose a stupid-ass test case. He'd have been on more
solid ground with Hamilton. Using data from improperly handled samples
obtained under false pretenses makes hi look like just that guy in a pissing
contest with lance.

--
Snippy

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You have to understand that this forum is predominantly pro-Armstrong and
anti-Pound. Just relax and watch the truth about Sir Lance unfold.

You keep saying that.

--
Snippy

Snippy Bobkins said:

Quoted message said:

the tatic of declaring armstrong positive back in '99 when it's obvious
there's no way he can possibly be penalized (he's retired, there's no
B-samples etc.) is designed to put into place some concrete terms
allowing retroactive testing.

If that's true he chose a stupid-ass test case. He'd have been on more
solid ground with Hamilton. Using data from improperly handled samples
obtained under false pretenses makes hi look like just that guy in a pissing
contest with lance.

dumbass,

no the armstrong case is a perfect choice. the hamilton case is not a
case to push for retroactive testing -- hamilton got off on a
technicality.

in 1999 there was no test for EPO, armstrong's samples were tested as
part of the research with an EPO test years later.

pound knows that there's probably no way armstrong can be sanctioned,
but the case can be used to establish a protocol for retroactive
testing.

until now WADA has had to stay away from retroactive testing -- the
conditions would've been too radical to get everyone on board.

if cycling is the first sport to formally implement retroactive
testing, once that is done there will be pressure on all the other
olympic sports to do the same.

anecdotally, we know a lot of olympians have used doping methods which
did not become detectable until years later. that's what pound wants
to go after -- ie. shut down the doping/evading "arms race".

it's very similar to a labour union negociation.

i have to admit that this was all pointed out to me by someone more
observant than me. but in this light it pound's actions make sense to
me.

mtb Dad said:

They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
forms, puts two and two together?

dumbass,

there is obviously some kind of conspiracy.

WADA commsioned a study and report which is to imply armstrong doped in
1999 and somehow found a collaborator within the UCI to leak the doping
control forms which would connect names with positive samples.

the source of the leak is the UCI's own doctor, who gets a slight
reprimand and has since been reinstated.

how did WADA get the UCI to leak those forms?

amit.ghosh said:

how did WADA get the UCI to leak those forms?

The aliens organized it.

B. Lafferty said:

You have to understand that this forum is predominantly pro-Armstrong and
anti-Pound. Just relax and watch the truth about Sir Lance unfold.

As more time goes by, the likelihood of solid evidence for something
that even a plurality of reasonable people could converge on as "truth"
becomes less likely, not more. People's memories get vague,
evidence gets lost, facts get jumbled, vials get opened.

You probably know that obtaining a conviction in a real criminal case
is difficult many years after the fact; it is quite easy to sow doubt.
It's not clear to me, but I suspect that [censored] Pound wants a regime of
dope testing that has no statute of limitations (amit made some good
points on this subject). When this is put into operation - and
probably to nail somebody less tricky/wealthy/high-profile than
LANCE - it will eventually lead to a maze of claim and counterclaim
worthy of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce. Asterisks in the record books are
for amateurs; under the Pound Rules, no regulated sporting event
will ever have a truly final outcome.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

You have to understand that this forum is predominantly pro-Armstrong and
anti-Pound. Just relax and watch the truth about Sir Lance unfold.

As more time goes by, the likelihood of solid evidence for something
that even a plurality of reasonable people could converge on as "truth"
becomes less likely, not more. People's memories get vague,
evidence gets lost, facts get jumbled, vials get opened.

You probably know that obtaining a conviction in a real criminal case
is difficult many years after the fact; it is quite easy to sow doubt.
It's not clear to me, but I suspect that [censored] Pound wants a regime of
dope testing that has no statute of limitations (amit made some good
points on this subject). When this is put into operation - and
probably to nail somebody less tricky/wealthy/high-profile than
LANCE - it will eventually lead to a maze of claim and counterclaim
worthy of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce. Asterisks in the record books are
for amateurs; under the Pound Rules, no regulated sporting event
will ever have a truly final outcome.

Time will tell. It's quite different from people witnessing a single
criminal event, often under less than optimal conditions. I'm still hoping
that Armstrong tells us what Emma gave him in the McDonalds car park in
Nice. ;-)