I
IMKen
Guest
This entire doping thing has demonstrated that the system is screwed up and
need re work. I no longer trust WADA or Lance.
Ken
need re work. I no longer trust WADA or Lance.
Ken
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J
Jet
Guest
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:58:58 GMT, "IMKen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>This entire doping thing has demonstrated that the system is screwed up and
>need re work. I no longer trust WADA or Lance.
>
>Ken
So whom do you like, Ken
a definitely evil Corporation which would harm hundreds of riders without
just cause, which definitely harmed accused athletes who turned out to be
innocent and did not make them whole afterwards.
-or-
a possibly untruthful individual who could potentially cheat three other
potentially cheating riders out of their placings in a bicycle race?
I kid in that there's no good justification for immoral behavior. The
irony, however, is ...
-jet
>This entire doping thing has demonstrated that the system is screwed up and
>need re work. I no longer trust WADA or Lance.
>
>Ken
So whom do you like, Ken
a definitely evil Corporation which would harm hundreds of riders without
just cause, which definitely harmed accused athletes who turned out to be
innocent and did not make them whole afterwards.
-or-
a possibly untruthful individual who could potentially cheat three other
potentially cheating riders out of their placings in a bicycle race?
I kid in that there's no good justification for immoral behavior. The
irony, however, is ...
-jet
D
D. Ferguson
Guest
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:05:46 -0400, Jet<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:58:58 GMT, "IMKen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>This entire doping thing has demonstrated that the system is screwed up and
>>need re work. I no longer trust WADA or Lance.
>>
>>Ken
>
>So whom do you like, Ken
>
>a definitely evil Corporation which would harm hundreds of riders without
>just cause, which definitely harmed accused athletes who turned out to be
>innocent and did not make them whole afterwards.
>
>-or-
>
>a possibly untruthful individual who could potentially cheat three other
>potentially cheating riders out of their placings in a bicycle race?
>
>I kid in that there's no good justification for immoral behavior. The
>irony, however, is ...
>
>-jet
I'm sorta with Ken on this one. It's not a matter of "like". It's a
matter of trust.
The "Testing for EPO" thread I started yesterday brought Robert Chung
linking the EPO testing procedure outline at:
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/td2004epo_en.pdf
After reading it I pretty much don't trust any labs either. There is
WAY too much room for not only error but sabatoge.
It wouldn't change anything for me to find out he did "play the game".
But then again I'm a big Pantani fan so my expectations are probably
lower than most.
>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:58:58 GMT, "IMKen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>This entire doping thing has demonstrated that the system is screwed up and
>>need re work. I no longer trust WADA or Lance.
>>
>>Ken
>
>So whom do you like, Ken
>
>a definitely evil Corporation which would harm hundreds of riders without
>just cause, which definitely harmed accused athletes who turned out to be
>innocent and did not make them whole afterwards.
>
>-or-
>
>a possibly untruthful individual who could potentially cheat three other
>potentially cheating riders out of their placings in a bicycle race?
>
>I kid in that there's no good justification for immoral behavior. The
>irony, however, is ...
>
>-jet
I'm sorta with Ken on this one. It's not a matter of "like". It's a
matter of trust.
The "Testing for EPO" thread I started yesterday brought Robert Chung
linking the EPO testing procedure outline at:
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/td2004epo_en.pdf
After reading it I pretty much don't trust any labs either. There is
WAY too much room for not only error but sabatoge.
It wouldn't change anything for me to find out he did "play the game".
But then again I'm a big Pantani fan so my expectations are probably
lower than most.
D
Donald Munro
Guest
IMKen wrote:
> This entire doping thing has demonstrated that the system is screwed up and
> need re work. I no longer trust WADA or Lance.
It seems that WADA was great while those dirty French riders tested
positive, but their testing methods have suddenly become much more suspect
now that Hamilton and Armstrong are in trouble.
> This entire doping thing has demonstrated that the system is screwed up and
> need re work. I no longer trust WADA or Lance.
It seems that WADA was great while those dirty French riders tested
positive, but their testing methods have suddenly become much more suspect
now that Hamilton and Armstrong are in trouble.
M
MagillaGorilla
Guest
Alvin Ryder wrote:
> IMKen wrote:
>
<snip>
> Also that lab did not follow the proper protocol and procedures, they
> are suppose to obtain the permission of atheletes to test the B
> samples. They should then report the results to the appropriate
> governing bodies not to the tabloids! This behavior is no small breach
> of conduct, its a major deviation of the correct medico-legal
> procedures.
>
> And I would have thought the WADA should get their pathology results
> directly from the lab, not via the newspapers.
>
> Anyway the bottom line for me is would you guys let someone chop your
> kidney's out based on tests done on frozen 1999 urine samples? Nope
> didn't think so.
>
> Cheers.
>
Hey Chipmunk,
The lab did follow the correct procedure for doing RESEARCH. It was the
newspaper who made the link between the RESEARCH result and the athlete,
not the WADA lab. And the WADA lab doesn't need the permission of the
athlete to test the B sample. Once they have the sample, the athlete
already gave consent to test it.
Magilla
> IMKen wrote:
>
<snip>
> Also that lab did not follow the proper protocol and procedures, they
> are suppose to obtain the permission of atheletes to test the B
> samples. They should then report the results to the appropriate
> governing bodies not to the tabloids! This behavior is no small breach
> of conduct, its a major deviation of the correct medico-legal
> procedures.
>
> And I would have thought the WADA should get their pathology results
> directly from the lab, not via the newspapers.
>
> Anyway the bottom line for me is would you guys let someone chop your
> kidney's out based on tests done on frozen 1999 urine samples? Nope
> didn't think so.
>
> Cheers.
>
Hey Chipmunk,
The lab did follow the correct procedure for doing RESEARCH. It was the
newspaper who made the link between the RESEARCH result and the athlete,
not the WADA lab. And the WADA lab doesn't need the permission of the
athlete to test the B sample. Once they have the sample, the athlete
already gave consent to test it.
Magilla
T
Tom Kunich
Guest
T
Tom Kunich
Guest
I wonder why no one finds it curious that out of five days of testing
the first two are positive and the last two are positive and right
smack in the middle is a negative test.
the first two are positive and the last two are positive and right
smack in the middle is a negative test.
T
Tom Kunich
Guest
Just out of curiosity - didn't those "dirty" French riders confess to
doping? And hasn't Lance and Tyler both ADAMENTLY denied it?
Oh, wait, the French are famous for their honesty and truthfulness
whereas those damned Americans are known liars.
doping? And hasn't Lance and Tyler both ADAMENTLY denied it?
Oh, wait, the French are famous for their honesty and truthfulness
whereas those damned Americans are known liars.
D
Donald Munro
Guest
Tom Kunich wrote:
> Just out of curiosity - didn't those "dirty" French riders confess to
> doping? And hasn't Lance and Tyler both ADAMENTLY denied it?
>
> Oh, wait, the French are famous for their honesty and truthfulness
> whereas those damned Americans are known liars.
If the (dutch) cap fits, wear it.
> Just out of curiosity - didn't those "dirty" French riders confess to
> doping? And hasn't Lance and Tyler both ADAMENTLY denied it?
>
> Oh, wait, the French are famous for their honesty and truthfulness
> whereas those damned Americans are known liars.
If the (dutch) cap fits, wear it.
C
Curtis L. Russell
Guest
On 29 Aug 2005 08:02:10 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I wonder why no one finds it curious that out of five days of testing
>the first two are positive and the last two are positive and right
>smack in the middle is a negative test.
Modified Bell curve?
wrote:
>I wonder why no one finds it curious that out of five days of testing
>the first two are positive and the last two are positive and right
>smack in the middle is a negative test.
Modified Bell curve?
D
D. Ferguson
Guest
On 29 Aug 2005 07:56:31 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>So, Dave, what was it you do for a living again?
I'm a professional bicycle racer. So far I've made exactly $0 at it.
I moonlight as a chiropractor between races.
wrote:
>So, Dave, what was it you do for a living again?
I'm a professional bicycle racer. So far I've made exactly $0 at it.
I moonlight as a chiropractor between races.
D
D. Ferguson
Guest
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:27:43 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 29 Aug 2005 08:02:10 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>I wonder why no one finds it curious that out of five days of testing
>>the first two are positive and the last two are positive and right
>>smack in the middle is a negative test.
>
>Modified Bell curve?
Inverted nipple effect? Sign of cancer.
This is becoming a circular discussion.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 29 Aug 2005 08:02:10 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>I wonder why no one finds it curious that out of five days of testing
>>the first two are positive and the last two are positive and right
>>smack in the middle is a negative test.
>
>Modified Bell curve?
Inverted nipple effect? Sign of cancer.
This is becoming a circular discussion.
J
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
Guest
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I wonder why no one finds it curious that out of five days of testing
> the first two are positive and the last two are positive and right
> smack in the middle is a negative test.
Unless it was one of the 'unsure' cases.
news:[email protected]...
>I wonder why no one finds it curious that out of five days of testing
> the first two are positive and the last two are positive and right
> smack in the middle is a negative test.
Unless it was one of the 'unsure' cases.
R
Robert Chung
Guest
Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I wonder why no one finds it curious that out of five days of testing
>> the first two are positive and the last two are positive and right
>> smack in the middle is a negative test.
>
> Unless it was one of the 'unsure' cases.
There are two "unsure" cases (out of five samples) on what appears to be
stage 2: flasks 186585 and 186586.
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/equipe23aug05.jpg
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I wonder why no one finds it curious that out of five days of testing
>> the first two are positive and the last two are positive and right
>> smack in the middle is a negative test.
>
> Unless it was one of the 'unsure' cases.
There are two "unsure" cases (out of five samples) on what appears to be
stage 2: flasks 186585 and 186586.
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/equipe23aug05.jpg
M
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Guest
D. Ferguson wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2005 07:56:31 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>So, Dave, what was it you do for a living again?
>
>
>
> I'm a professional bicycle racer. So far I've made exactly $0 at it.
>
> I moonlight as a chiropractor between races.
>
>
Just remember that if you show no profit from your cycling in 3 years,
you can't deduct your equipment expenses.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
> On 29 Aug 2005 07:56:31 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>So, Dave, what was it you do for a living again?
>
>
>
> I'm a professional bicycle racer. So far I've made exactly $0 at it.
>
> I moonlight as a chiropractor between races.
>
>
Just remember that if you show no profit from your cycling in 3 years,
you can't deduct your equipment expenses.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
C
Curtis L. Russell
Guest
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:15:46 -0500, D. Ferguson
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I moonlight as a chiropractor between races.
Odd practice hours...
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I moonlight as a chiropractor between races.
Odd practice hours...
C
Curtis L. Russell
Guest
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:10:21 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Just remember that if you show no profit from your cycling in 3 years,
>you can't deduct your equipment expenses.
>
>Steve
Not exactly. Making the occasional profit certainly helps your case,
but if you can show that you were operating to make a profit during
the period, even if you were unsuccessful, you can continue to take
deductions. You just might have to go downtown to prove it.
The trick is to show the difference between a pro that spends a lot of
money on bikes, kit and entry fees and makes no money and your typical
USCF rider that spends a lot on bikes, kit and entry fees and makes no
money.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Just remember that if you show no profit from your cycling in 3 years,
>you can't deduct your equipment expenses.
>
>Steve
Not exactly. Making the occasional profit certainly helps your case,
but if you can show that you were operating to make a profit during
the period, even if you were unsuccessful, you can continue to take
deductions. You just might have to go downtown to prove it.
The trick is to show the difference between a pro that spends a lot of
money on bikes, kit and entry fees and makes no money and your typical
USCF rider that spends a lot on bikes, kit and entry fees and makes no
money.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
M
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Guest
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:10:21 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Just remember that if you show no profit from your cycling in 3 years,
>>you can't deduct your equipment expenses.
>>
>>Steve
>
>
> Not exactly. Making the occasional profit certainly helps your case,
> but if you can show that you were operating to make a profit during
> the period, even if you were unsuccessful, you can continue to take
> deductions. You just might have to go downtown to prove it.
>
> The trick is to show the difference between a pro that spends a lot of
> money on bikes, kit and entry fees and makes no money and your typical
> USCF rider that spends a lot on bikes, kit and entry fees and makes no
> money.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...
I hate those trips downtown.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:10:21 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Just remember that if you show no profit from your cycling in 3 years,
>>you can't deduct your equipment expenses.
>>
>>Steve
>
>
> Not exactly. Making the occasional profit certainly helps your case,
> but if you can show that you were operating to make a profit during
> the period, even if you were unsuccessful, you can continue to take
> deductions. You just might have to go downtown to prove it.
>
> The trick is to show the difference between a pro that spends a lot of
> money on bikes, kit and entry fees and makes no money and your typical
> USCF rider that spends a lot on bikes, kit and entry fees and makes no
> money.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...
I hate those trips downtown.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
K
Kyle Legate
Guest
Alvin Ryder wrote:
>
> Armstrong has passed over 300 tests but apparently fails one based on
> 1999 samples, this makes that lab look extremely dodgy.
>
The lab tested the 1999 samples using more sensitive technology than was
available at the time. He passed the test because he managed to squeak
under the detection threshold.
By the way, he didn't fail one test, he failed SIX.
>
> Armstrong has passed over 300 tests but apparently fails one based on
> 1999 samples, this makes that lab look extremely dodgy.
>
The lab tested the 1999 samples using more sensitive technology than was
available at the time. He passed the test because he managed to squeak
under the detection threshold.
By the way, he didn't fail one test, he failed SIX.
M
Merovingian
Guest
Similar threads
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 722
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 465
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 474
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 929
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 1K
