ASO still refusing to admit Astana in TDF

[MagillaGorilla]

hizark21 wrote:

> I am not necessarily opposed to ASO's decision to decide what teams
> are in their races. If ASO decides to become a private series of races
> then they need to come up with a uniform standard method for allowing
> teams or excluding them. ASO also needs to publish their procedures
> for choosing teams as well.
>

Hey dumbass,

In an invitation race, there doesn't have to be any kind of standard.
Where do you come up with this stuff?

The ASO doesn't owe anyone an explanation. They can do whatever they want.

Magilla

 

[MagillaGorilla]

hizark21 wrote:

> On Jun 7, 5:13 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Jun 7, 3:43 am, hizark21 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If ASO decides to become a private series of races
>>>then they need to come up with a uniform standard method for allowing
>>>teams or excluding them. ASO also needs to publish their procedures
>>>for choosing teams as well.
>>
>>I suggest you have it the wrong way around. If the TdF moves
>>completely outside the bounds of world cycling governance then they
>>can, and will, invite whomever they please whenever they please.
>>
>
> I agree that the ASO has the right to conduct a private race. But I
> also agree with the UCI that French cycling federation should not be
> involved if they choose to do so.
>


Hey asshole,

95% of the NRC is not UCI sanctioned. So does that mean that USAC
shouldn't be involved in the NRC?

You make no sense.

Magilla

 

[MagillaGorilla]

hizark21 wrote:

> Yes, but Astana has gotten rid of all the old management and most of
> 07's riders. Like I said before the ASO should have told Astana that
> they have to resolve certain issues if they want to enter to the
> TDF.


The problem is the team owners, dumbass. They are still the same as last
year.


Magilla

 

[Kyle Legate]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> Mayo took EPO, make no mistake about it. The initial lab result was
> positive. Then Mayonnaise requested the B-sample be tested and it came
> back "inconclusive" (which is NOT considered a negative test). This
> inconclusive result was done by the Belgian lab at Ghent because the
> LNDD were on vacation. The UCI then requested LNDD re-do the B-test and
> it came back positive.
>
> Mayonnaise = 2 positive EPO tests.
>
> When you get an inconclusive result, you are suppose to re-run the test.
>
Then why didn't the Ghent lab rerun the test, they had the sample? Could
it be that only the LNDD would be able to produce the 'correct' result,
so that's why they were asked to do it again?

In order for these tests to be useful the results have to be
lab-independent.

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Kyle Legate wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>
>> Mayo took EPO, make no mistake about it. The initial lab result was
>> positive. Then Mayonnaise requested the B-sample be tested and it
>> came back "inconclusive" (which is NOT considered a negative test).
>> This inconclusive result was done by the Belgian lab at Ghent because
>> the LNDD were on vacation. The UCI then requested LNDD re-do the
>> B-test and it came back positive.
>>
>> Mayonnaise = 2 positive EPO tests.
>>
>> When you get an inconclusive result, you are suppose to re-run the test.
>>
> Then why didn't the Ghent lab rerun the test, they had the sample? Could
> it be that only the LNDD would be able to produce the 'correct' result,
> so that's why they were asked to do it again?


I don't know - ask the Ghent lab techs. That doesn't negate the fact
that under the LNDD's 2nd test, it came back positive. You can't
generate a positive EPO test unless there's EPO in the sample.

Magilla

 

[Donald Munro]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> I don't know - ask the Ghent lab techs. That doesn't negate the fact that
> under the LNDD's 2nd test, it came back positive. You can't generate a
> positive EPO test unless there's EPO in the sample.

If the test results can't be reproduced anywhere else then its just as
valid as cold fusion.

 

[hizark21]

On Jun 9, 10:23 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
> > John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:56:58 -0700 (PDT),hizark21<[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> ASO still refusing to admit Astana in TDF (http://www.cyclingnews.com/
> >>> news.php?id=news/2008/jun08/jun04news ).
>
> >>> It's simply ridiculous that the ASO is refusing to let Astana enter
> >>> the TDF.  The ASO should have put forth a set of condtions for Astana
> >>> to meet if they wished to enter the TDF. Astana is the dominant spring
> >>> team now and they deserve to ride in the TDF.
>
> >> I'm not saying I agree with ASO's decisions, but you don't get it.
> >> They told Astana they'll let them in after a year with no scandals.
> >> It's clear. Astana could sweep the top ten in every race they get
> >> into, and that wouldn't help then get into the Tour of France. In
> >> fact, it would probably hurt.
>
> > Indeed. Astana has ****** in the Tour's soup twice now.
> > They've earned this.
>
> > Bob Schwartz
>
> Bruyneel's little stunt with Basshole didn't help either.  Nor did
> Lance's 6 positive tests for EPO back in 1999.
>
I partially agree with you that Basso damaged Astana's reputation. As
for Lance you know as well as I do that he was cleared of the doping
charges.

> Thanks,
>
> Magilla

 

[hizark21]

On Jun 9, 10:48 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> hizark21wrote:
> > I am not necessarily opposed to ASO's decision to decide what teams
> > are in their races. If ASO decides to become a private series of races
> > then they need to come up with a uniform standard method for allowing
> > teams or excluding them. ASO also needs to publish their procedures
> > for choosing teams as well.
>
> Hey dumbass,
>
> In an invitation race, there doesn't have to be any kind of standard.
> Where do you come up with this stuff?
>
> The ASO doesn't owe anyone an explanation.  They can do whatever they want.

Yes, but the problem is that ASO want's things both ways. The ASO is
associating is having riders paying fines to the FFC. Yet the FFC is a
member of UCI. So in other words the ASO is working with a member of
the UCI, but wants none of the rules. The other issue is that the FFC
is choosing to selectively abide by UCI rules it chooses.
>
> Magilla

 

[hizark21]

On Jun 9, 10:48 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> hizark21wrote:
> > I am not necessarily opposed to ASO's decision to decide what teams
> > are in their races. If ASO decides to become a private series of races
> > then they need to come up with a uniform standard method for allowing
> > teams or excluding them. ASO also needs to publish their procedures
> > for choosing teams as well.
>
> Hey dumbass,
>
> In an invitation race, there doesn't have to be any kind of standard.
> Where do you come up with this stuff?
>
> The ASO doesn't owe anyone an explanation.  They can do whatever they want.

Yes, but the problem is that ASO want's things both ways. The ASO is
associating is having riders paying fines to the FFC. Yet the FFC is a
member of UCI. So in other words the ASO is working with a member of
the UCI, but wants none of the rules. The other issue is that the FFC
is choosing to selectively abide by UCI rules it chooses.
>
> Magilla

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Donald Munro wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>I don't know - ask the Ghent lab techs. That doesn't negate the fact that
>>under the LNDD's 2nd test, it came back positive. You can't generate a
>>positive EPO test unless there's EPO in the sample.
>
>
> If the test results can't be reproduced anywhere else then its just as
> valid as cold fusion.


You sound like one of Fraud's lawyers. Why don't you go donate to his
"fairness" foundation?

Magilla

 

[MagillaGorilla]

hizark21 wrote:

> On Jun 9, 10:23 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>>>>On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:56:58 -0700 (PDT),hizark21<[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>ASO still refusing to admit Astana in TDF (http://www.cyclingnews.com/
>>>>>news.php?id=news/2008/jun08/jun04news ).
>>
>>>>>It's simply ridiculous that the ASO is refusing to let Astana enter
>>>>>the TDF. The ASO should have put forth a set of condtions for Astana
>>>>>to meet if they wished to enter the TDF. Astana is the dominant spring
>>>>>team now and they deserve to ride in the TDF.
>>
>>>>I'm not saying I agree with ASO's decisions, but you don't get it.
>>>>They told Astana they'll let them in after a year with no scandals.
>>>>It's clear. Astana could sweep the top ten in every race they get
>>>>into, and that wouldn't help then get into the Tour of France. In
>>>>fact, it would probably hurt.
>>
>>>Indeed. Astana has ****** in the Tour's soup twice now.
>>>They've earned this.
>>
>>>Bob Schwartz
>>
>>Bruyneel's little stunt with Basshole didn't help either. Nor did
>>Lance's 6 positive tests for EPO back in 1999.
>>
>
> I partially agree with you that Basso damaged Astana's reputation. As
> for Lance you know as well as I do that he was cleared of the doping
> charges.



First of all he was never "charged." And he was never "cleared" of the
EPO positives from 1999.

Magilla

 

[MagillaGorilla]

hizark21 wrote:

> On Jun 9, 10:48 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>hizark21wrote:
>>
>>>I am not necessarily opposed to ASO's decision to decide what teams
>>>are in their races. If ASO decides to become a private series of races
>>>then they need to come up with a uniform standard method for allowing
>>>teams or excluding them. ASO also needs to publish their procedures
>>>for choosing teams as well.
>>
>>Hey dumbass,
>>
>>In an invitation race, there doesn't have to be any kind of standard.
>>Where do you come up with this stuff?
>>
>>The ASO doesn't owe anyone an explanation. They can do whatever they want.
>
>
> Yes, but the problem is that ASO want's things both ways. The ASO is
> associating is having riders paying fines to the FFC. Yet the FFC is a
> member of UCI. So in other words the ASO is working with a member of
> the UCI, but wants none of the rules. The other issue is that the FFC
> is choosing to selectively abide by UCI rules it chooses.
>
>>Magilla
>

Hey dumbass,

Most NRC races don't follow UCI rules either even though USA Cycling -
like the FFC - is "member of the UCI."

The FFC is not under any obligation to sanction races through the UCI.
What rules are the FFC violating by sanctioning the Tour de France?

Wouldn't USAC be violating those same UCI rules when they sanction a
race like Redlands?

You need to think before you post. Both you and McQualude.

Magilla

 

[Donald Munro]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> You sound like one of Fraud's lawyers. Why don't you go donate to his
> "fairness" foundation?

I assume SchwarzSoft must have opensourced the Tom9000 Strawman module.

 

[Bob Schwartz]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Hey dumbass,
>
> Most NRC races don't follow UCI rules either even though USA Cycling -
> like the FFC - is "member of the UCI."

Dumbass,

They don't?

Bob Schwartz

 

[Bob Schwartz]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Donald Munro wrote:
>> If the test results can't be reproduced anywhere else then its just as
>> valid as cold fusion.
>
>
> You sound like one of Fraud's lawyers. Why don't you go donate to his
> "fairness" foundation?

So you are saying that lab mistakes don't happen, and
athletes that come up positive are always guilty, right?

Bob Schwartz

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Hey dumbass,
>>
>> Most NRC races don't follow UCI rules either even though USA Cycling -
>> like the FFC - is "member of the UCI."
>
>
> Dumbass,
>
> They don't?
>
> Bob Schwartz


No, they don't. They follow USCF rules. Ever hear of the USCF
rulebook? If you haven't, then you should change your name to Shawn
Farrell or become a USCF official.

Because you are qualified based on your post.

Magilla

 

[Bob Schwartz]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>> So you are saying that lab mistakes don't happen, and
>> athletes that come up positive are always guilty, right?
>>
>> Bob Schwartz
>
>
> Lab mistakes do happen, but for the most part they don't matter. I
> don't believe a single cyclist has been found guilty who hasn't doped.
> Including Fraud.

Including Moninger?

Bob Schwartz

 

[Bob Schwartz]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>> Hey dumbass,
>>>
>>> Most NRC races don't follow UCI rules either even though USA Cycling
>>> - like the FFC - is "member of the UCI."
>>
>>
>> Dumbass,
>>
>> They don't?
>>
>> Bob Schwartz
>
>
> No, they don't. They follow USCF rules. Ever hear of the USCF
> rulebook? If you haven't, then you should change your name to Shawn
> Farrell or become a USCF official.
>
> Because you are qualified based on your post.

Dumbass,

Are there any clauses in the USCF rulebook referencing
UCI rules?

Bob Schwartz

 

[Bob Schwartz]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>>
>>>> So you are saying that lab mistakes don't happen, and
>>>> athletes that come up positive are always guilty, right?
>>>>
>>>> Bob Schwartz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lab mistakes do happen, but for the most part they don't matter. I
>>> don't believe a single cyclist has been found guilty who hasn't
>>> doped. Including Fraud.
>>
>>
>> Including Moninger?
>>
>> Bob Schwartz
>
>
> Moninger's case was a case of contaminated supplements. That has
> nothing to do with lab tests being in error.
>
> There was nothing wrong with the lab test in Moninger's case (or Neben's
> case for that matter).
>
> Why is it that you people have such a complete lack of knowledge for the
> facts and details and all your arguments come off like some layperson
> talking about the Theory of Relativity?

So you are saying that there was nothing wrong
with the lab test that found that the supplements
weren't contaminated? Which brings us back to
Magilla's Rule that all guilty cyclists doped?

Is there a corollary that exempts cyclists that
Magilla likes?

Bob Schwartz

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Bob Schwartz wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So you are saying that lab mistakes don't happen, and
>>>>> athletes that come up positive are always guilty, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Schwartz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lab mistakes do happen, but for the most part they don't matter. I
>>>> don't believe a single cyclist has been found guilty who hasn't
>>>> doped. Including Fraud.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Including Moninger?
>>>
>>> Bob Schwartz
>>
>>
>>
>> Moninger's case was a case of contaminated supplements. That has
>> nothing to do with lab tests being in error.
>>
>> There was nothing wrong with the lab test in Moninger's case (or
>> Neben's case for that matter).
>>
>> Why is it that you people have such a complete lack of knowledge for
>> the facts and details and all your arguments come off like some
>> layperson talking about the Theory of Relativity?
>
>
> So you are saying that there was nothing wrong
> with the lab test that found that the supplements
> weren't contaminated?


Dude,

Not even Moninger thinks there was anything wrong with the UCLA lab
testing in his case.


Magilla