Another well-known person weighs in on Floyd Landis



S

Steve Freides

Guest
Clarence Bass may not be well-known to racing bicyclists but he is
well-known and well-respected in the areas of bodybuilding, weight
lifting, and diet. He regularly posts new articles on his site and his
most recent offering is

http://www.cbass.com/FloydLandis.htm

I haven't even read the whole thing yet, just posting it for those who
would like to read yet another perspective on the issue.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com
 
Why do people give any credibility to the arguement that testosterone
wouldn't offer any benefit therefore a cyclist wouldn't use it?

We know professional cyclists and their doctors say they've used it and
it's been uncovered in police raids.

It's very misleading to imply the French lab did something wrong in the
testing of the '99 Tour urine samples for EPO. It was clear from the
beginning this was research and therefore protocols were not followed
to declare a positive drug test. To suggest this somehow indicates the
lab isn't up to snuff makes no sense.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> It's very misleading to imply the French lab did something wrong in the
> testing of the '99 Tour urine samples for EPO. It was clear from the
> beginning this was research and therefore protocols were not followed
> to declare a positive drug test.


It's misleading to claim that this was "just research" when it's been
used as something else entirely. All because the information leaked out
of the lab. It makes the lab look bad to a lot of people even though you
may find it acceptable.
 
Steve Freides wrote:
> Clarence Bass may not be well-known to racing bicyclists but he is
> well-known and well-respected in the areas of bodybuilding, weight
> lifting, and diet. He regularly posts new articles on his site and his
> most recent offering is
>
> http://www.cbass.com/FloydLandis.htm
>
> I haven't even read the whole thing yet, just posting it for those who
> would like to read yet another perspective on the issue.
>
> -S-
> http://www.kbnj.com


Excellent article, the best I've read of several on the subject. It's
nice to know not everyone has rushed to judgement on Floyd Landis.

Smokey
 
"It's misleading to claim that this was "just research" when it's been
used as something else entirely."

That came about not because of the lab.

"All because the information leaked out of the lab. It makes the lab
look bad to a lot of people even though you may find it acceptable."

The critical information was not leaked by the lab. The results of the
testing were made public but I'm not sure by what entity (UCI, WADA,
etc.) I don't believe it was by the lab. The critical information to
create the Armstrong scandal was obtained by Rossier from the UCI with
Armstrong's permission.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> The critical information was not leaked by the lab. The results of the
> testing were made public but I'm not sure by what entity (UCI, WADA,
> etc.) I don't believe it was by the lab. The critical information to
> create the Armstrong scandal was obtained by Rossier from the UCI with
> Armstrong's permission.


The critical information in the Armstrong case wasn't the UCI forms. The
critical piece was the printed summary of the lab's results. That summary
was organized in a way that was nearly useless for the purposes it was
supposed to have been created for, but exactly ordered in a way to show
that (at least) one of the positives was Armstrong. Only the lab could
have done that.
 
On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 22:01:50 -0400, Robert Chung <[email protected]>
wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> The critical information was not leaked by the lab. The results of the
>> testing were made public but I'm not sure by what entity (UCI, WADA,
>> etc.) I don't believe it was by the lab. The critical information to
>> create the Armstrong scandal was obtained by Rossier from the UCI with
>> Armstrong's permission.

>
> The critical information in the Armstrong case wasn't the UCI forms. The
> critical piece was the printed summary of the lab's results. That summary
> was organized in a way that was nearly useless for the purposes it was
> supposed to have been created for, but exactly ordered in a way to show
> that (at least) one of the positives was Armstrong. Only the lab could
> have done that.
>
>


If the lab was operating correctly, we never should have heard the
EPO/Armstrong connection. Instead, we did.

--
Bob in CT
 

Similar threads