Basso to be Cleared

[bob sullivan]

So will Mr. 60% welcome him back into the CSC fold with open arms?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/sep06/sep25news3

~bob

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, bob sullivan
('[email protected]') wrote:

> So will Mr. 60% welcome him back into the CSC fold with open arms?
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/sep06/sep25news3

No. Riis still wants Basso to take a DNA test.

http://www.ivanbasso.net/?p=188

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; This email may contain confidential or otherwise privileged
;; information, though, quite frankly, if you're not the intended
;; recipient and you've got nothing better to do than read other
;; folks' emails then I'm glad to have brightened up your sad little
;; life a tiny bit.

 

[Donald Munro]

bob sullivan wrote:
>> So will Mr. 60% welcome him back into the CSC fold with open arms?

Simon Brooke wrote:
> No. Riis still wants Basso to take a DNA test.
>
> http://www.ivanbasso.net/?p=188

A DNA test against every single blood bag they have since his name was not
on any bag as far as I know ?

 

[[email protected]]

Donald Munro wrote:
> bob sullivan wrote:
> >> So will Mr. 60% welcome him back into the CSC fold with open arms?
>
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > No. Riis still wants Basso to take a DNA test.
> >
> > http://www.ivanbasso.net/?p=188
>
> A DNA test against every single blood bag they have since his name was not
> on any bag as far as I know ?

They just want to make sure the DNA is all his and
he doesn't have any dog DNA in him, since his dog
is the one that was doping.

 

[billb]

A shame that it is ending this way -- no far-fetched stories/excuses re
in-vitro events, dogs and treatments for aged relatives. Clearly CONI
has no sense of theater.
Best,
Bill Black

Donald Munro wrote:
> bob sullivan wrote:
> >> So will Mr. 60% welcome him back into the CSC fold with open arms?
>
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > No. Riis still wants Basso to take a DNA test.
> >
> > http://www.ivanbasso.net/?p=188
>
> A DNA test against every single blood bag they have since his name was not
> on any bag as far as I know ?

 

[Donald Munro]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>> > No. Riis still wants Basso to take a DNA test.

Donald Munro wrote:
>> A DNA test against every single blood bag they have since his name was not
>> on any bag as far as I know ?

[email protected] wrote:
> They just want to make sure the DNA is all his and
> he doesn't have any dog DNA in him, since his dog
> is the one that was doping.

So VDB must be the result of an alien experiment involving human and dog
DNA.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Donald Munro
('[email protected]') wrote:

> bob sullivan wrote:
>>> So will Mr. 60% welcome him back into the CSC fold with open arms?
>
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> No. Riis still wants Basso to take a DNA test.
>>
>> http://www.ivanbasso.net/?p=188
>
> A DNA test against every single blood bag they have since his name was
> not on any bag as far as I know ?

Neither his name nor his alleged code name. So yes, it would have to be
matched against each of the 200 bags. I appreciate that (if not guilty)
Basso must feel 'why should I have to do this?', and I sympathise with
that; but I nevertheless think that (if not guilty) he'd be better off
doing it anyway, because it would prove he knew they wouldn't find
anything - because he's not guilty.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; lovely alternative to rice.

 

[nobody]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:38:26 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
wrote:

>in message <[email protected]>, Donald Munro
>('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> bob sullivan wrote:
>>>> So will Mr. 60% welcome him back into the CSC fold with open arms?
>>
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>> No. Riis still wants Basso to take a DNA test.
>>>
>>> http://www.ivanbasso.net/?p=188
>>
>> A DNA test against every single blood bag they have since his name was
>> not on any bag as far as I know ?
>
>Neither his name nor his alleged code name. So yes, it would have to be
>matched against each of the 200 bags. I appreciate that (if not guilty)
>Basso must feel 'why should I have to do this?', and I sympathise with
>that; but I nevertheless think that (if not guilty) he'd be better off
>doing it anyway, because it would prove he knew they wouldn't find
>anything - because he's not guilty.

Ill-advised to give your DNA unless legally compelled.

If compelled at most you provide a swab and -not- a vial of blood.

Plenty of scenarios where having your exact DNA in a databank can be
problematic.

 

[Keith]

>>>> http://www.ivanbasso.net/?p=188
>>>
>>> A DNA test against every single blood bag they have since his name was
>>> not on any bag as far as I know ?
>>
>>Neither his name nor his alleged code name. So yes, it would have to be
>>matched against each of the 200 bags. I appreciate that (if not guilty)
>>Basso must feel 'why should I have to do this?', and I sympathise with
>>that; but I nevertheless think that (if not guilty) he'd be better off
>>doing it anyway, because it would prove he knew they wouldn't find
>>anything - because he's not guilty.
>
>Ill-advised to give your DNA unless legally compelled.
>
>If compelled at most you provide a swab and -not- a vial of blood.
>
>Plenty of scenarios where having your exact DNA in a databank can be
>problematic.

In case you commit a crime later ? Possibly, on the other hand I hope
he has no plans for that !

 

[RonSonic]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:43:09 +0200, Donald Munro <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Simon Brooke wrote:
>>> > No. Riis still wants Basso to take a DNA test.
>
>Donald Munro wrote:
>>> A DNA test against every single blood bag they have since his name was not
>>> on any bag as far as I know ?
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> They just want to make sure the DNA is all his and
>> he doesn't have any dog DNA in him, since his dog
>> is the one that was doping.
>
>So VDB must be the result of an alien experiment involving human and dog
>DNA.

Ya ever see that movie "The Fly?" Well it's kinda like that but with a dog and
no transporter machine thingee. No Geena Davis either.

Ron

 

[[email protected]]

Keith wrote:
> >>>> http://www.ivanbasso.net/?p=188
> >>>
> >>> A DNA test against every single blood bag they have since his name was
> >>> not on any bag as far as I know ?
> >>
> >>Neither his name nor his alleged code name. So yes, it would have to be
> >>matched against each of the 200 bags. I appreciate that (if not guilty)
> >>Basso must feel 'why should I have to do this?', and I sympathise with
> >>that; but I nevertheless think that (if not guilty) he'd be better off
> >>doing it anyway, because it would prove he knew they wouldn't find
> >>anything - because he's not guilty.
> >
> >Ill-advised to give your DNA unless legally compelled.
> >
> >If compelled at most you provide a swab and -not- a vial of blood.
> >
> >Plenty of scenarios where having your exact DNA in a databank can be
> >problematic.
>
> In case you commit a crime later ? Possibly, on the other hand I hope
> he has no plans for that !

From:

http://www.khou.com/crimelab/stories/khou060222_ac_crimelab.509e945c.html

(begin quote);
Prosecutors say few convictions have been overturned because most of
the errors were not major factors in convictions.
But critics aren't so sure. Preliminary findings last month showed 40
percent of DNA cases examined and 22.5 percent of blood-test cases
scrutinized between 1987 and 2002 had major errors.
And the inquiry keeps growing. Michael Bromwich, an independent
investigator hired by the city in 2005, is extending his inquiry seven
years further back, to 1980, casting doubt on hundreds more cases. The
examination is unfolding even as other cases around the state and the
country have been overturned for similar problems.
Triggered by a 2002 KHOU-TV investigation that uncovered flaws in
Houston Police Department DNA testing, the investigation has gone
through several stages - prosecutors and police combed through more
than 400 DNA cases; two grand juries studied and criticized the police
lab; and Bromwich sampled 2,700 cases of various types for examination.
The findings have been shocking.
According to Bromwich's reports, poorly trained lab workers faked or
misinterpreted tests, withheld exculpatory findings and gave false
testimony in court.
Two convictions have been overturned. Josiah Sutton served more than
four years in prison for rape before being freed in 2003 after a DNA
retest contradicted earlier Houston lab work that helped convict him.
And George Rodriguez served 17 years in prison for rape before being
released in 2004 after DNA testing discredited lab work done in his
case. (end quote)

Poorly trained lab workers, faking tests, misreading tests, _witholding
exculpatory findings_, lying in court.

IOW, you don't want to give the criminals in the justice system the
rope to hang you with if you can help it.

OK, there's one general scenario. Others? --D-y

 

[bob sullivan]

Keith wrote:
>>>>>http://www.ivanbasso.net/?p=188
>>>>
>>>>A DNA test against every single blood bag they have since his name was
>>>>not on any bag as far as I know ?
>>>
>>>Neither his name nor his alleged code name. So yes, it would have to be
>>>matched against each of the 200 bags. I appreciate that (if not guilty)
>>>Basso must feel 'why should I have to do this?', and I sympathise with
>>>that; but I nevertheless think that (if not guilty) he'd be better off
>>>doing it anyway, because it would prove he knew they wouldn't find
>>>anything - because he's not guilty.
>>
>>Ill-advised to give your DNA unless legally compelled.
>>
>>If compelled at most you provide a swab and -not- a vial of blood.
>>
>>Plenty of scenarios where having your exact DNA in a databank can be
>>problematic.
>
> In case you commit a crime later ? Possibly, on the other hand I hope
> he has no plans for that !

You're kidding, right? It would be the perfect tool to frame you with.

~bob

 

[nobody]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:20:27 -0400, bob sullivan <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Keith wrote:
>>>>>>http://www.ivanbasso.net/?p=188
>>>>>
>>>>>A DNA test against every single blood bag they have since his name was
>>>>>not on any bag as far as I know ?
>>>>
>>>>Neither his name nor his alleged code name. So yes, it would have to be
>>>>matched against each of the 200 bags. I appreciate that (if not guilty)
>>>>Basso must feel 'why should I have to do this?', and I sympathise with
>>>>that; but I nevertheless think that (if not guilty) he'd be better off
>>>>doing it anyway, because it would prove he knew they wouldn't find
>>>>anything - because he's not guilty.
>>>
>>>Ill-advised to give your DNA unless legally compelled.
>>>
>>>If compelled at most you provide a swab and -not- a vial of blood.
>>>
>>>Plenty of scenarios where having your exact DNA in a databank can be
>>>problematic.
>>
>> In case you commit a crime later ? Possibly, on the other hand I hope
>> he has no plans for that !
>
>You're kidding, right? It would be the perfect tool to frame you with.
>
>~bob

What you said, plus...

DNA profiling by insurance agencies...(got the gene for ALS? Can't get
coverage anywhere, etc.)

Blackmail - angry mistress with a used condom?

If the results were put in a searchable database and not kept confidential,
then there might be such a risk. Trouble is you don't have any control
about where the info goes once it's in their possession. Could even be
accidental inclusion.

As far as matching to something in those blood bags...too easy to enter the
wrong information and claim there's a match, then that the original bag was
destroyed or something...you're sunk and no way to prove your innocence.
Chain of custody would be a nightmare, as would defendants' lawyer
attempting to check it for errors.

 

[Jeff Jones]

nobody wrote:

>
> Blackmail - angry mistress with a used condom?
>
Forget drugs, this is the real reason why pros shouldn't submit to DNA
testing.

Jeff

 

[Stu Fleming]

"Jeff Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> nobody wrote:
>
>>
>> Blackmail - angry mistress with a used condom?
>>
> Forget drugs, this is the real reason why pros shouldn't submit to DNA
> testing.

Remember Boris Becker.