Re: Dopey Hein Doesn't Know Enough

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
B. Lafferty <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> to make a decision as to Armstrong's use of EPO. Interestingly, he
> does not attack the validity of the test itself and he appears to be
> accusing WADA of leaking the test results. Circle the wagons boys and
> get out the Omerta duck tape.

Leave it to me to look at it differently -

Premises :
- the new tests of samples B were done in 2004
- l'Équipe obtained the results sheet four months ago
- the report (not just lab records) was forwarded to UCI

Questions :

- Did the UCI receive this report _after_ l'Équipe ?
- Has any person actually evaluated the specific new testing method, and
found it faulty ?
- If the UCI had the report when l'Équipe did, did they read it ?
- If the UCI read the report, who made the decision to sit on it during the
2005 TdF ?
- If the UCI has the ID slips and the report, why does it not deny that
Armstrong tests positive under the new test ?
- If Armstrong has the records of his tests, why not give the public the ID
numbers ?
- When will we all grow up ? (Most in need, perhaps UCI, ADA and advocacy
press)

Leaks are bound to happen in all spheres, and I can't think of one that was
not properly resolved, but feel free to educate me. If the test is
meaningless, we can just drop it, as should the parties involved. If it is
accurate, if it was accurately reported, it can be recorded in a small book
somewhere and referred to, should that be interesting.

Seems I heard once before : "What did he know, and when did he know it ?"
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[Jet]

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 19:40:34 +0200, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dans le message de
>news:[email protected],
>B. Lafferty <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> to make a decision as to Armstrong's use of EPO. Interestingly, he
>> does not attack the validity of the test itself and he appears to be
>> accusing WADA of leaking the test results. Circle the wagons boys and
>> get out the Omerta duck tape.
>
>Leave it to me to look at it differently -
>
>Premises :
>- the new tests of samples B were done in 2004
>- l'Équipe obtained the results sheet four months ago
>- the report (not just lab records) was forwarded to UCI
>
>Questions :
>
>- Did the UCI receive this report _after_ l'Équipe ?
>- Has any person actually evaluated the specific new testing method, and
>found it faulty ?
>- If the UCI had the report when l'Équipe did, did they read it ?
>- If the UCI read the report, who made the decision to sit on it during the
>2005 TdF ?
>- If the UCI has the ID slips and the report, why does it not deny that
>Armstrong tests positive under the new test ?
>- If Armstrong has the records of his tests, why not give the public the ID
>numbers ?
>- When will we all grow up ? (Most in need, perhaps UCI, ADA and advocacy
>press)
>
>Leaks are bound to happen in all spheres, and I can't think of one that was
>not properly resolved, but feel free to educate me. If the test is
>meaningless, we can just drop it, as should the parties involved.

Ask any lab tech. If they ran a test without standards and reported it out
they'd be severely sanctioned, possibly fired.

If they ran a test on a celebrity(*) and leaked the results the fallout
would be severe, and the head of the lab would most likely be fired.

-jet
(*) actually if they leaked on anyone the same could happen, but obviously
there's no motivation to leak info on a 70ylo. farmer from the sticks. ;-)


> If it is
>accurate, if it was accurately reported, it can be recorded in a small book
>somewhere and referred to, should that be interesting.



>Seems I heard once before : "What did he know, and when did he know it ?"

 

[[email protected]]

These are fantastic questions, and they need to be answered. Very
little light has been shed regarding who has known what, and for how
long.

Who contracted the lab to do the study of the 1999 samples? WADA
(likely)? UCI (doubtful)? The French cycling federation (possibly)?

When completed back in 2004, what did the lab do with the results? Did
they inform anyone? Issue a report? Revise test proceedures? Notify
the affected athletes?

It really pisses me off, because L'Equipe told a very incomplete story
by refusing to put it into any kind of perspective (at least no
prespective that has survived translation and found its way into an
English language news story. If the journalists can find out that the
samples belong to Armstrong, then they probably have the background on
things to tell the complete story.

Anyone who has actually read the original French version of the
L'Equipe story, feel free to shed some light here.

 

[Milliano]

Has anyone here uploaded the original article? I have it on PDF but I
cannot read French. Would be great if someone took the time to
translate it.

 

[Carl Sundquist]

Milliano wrote:
> Has anyone here uploaded the original article? I have it on PDF but I
> cannot read French. Would be great if someone took the time to
> translate it.

Already posted on another thread.

http://www.uci.ch/modello.asp?1stlevelid=Q&level1=0&level2=0&idnews=3731

 

[Milliano]

Ohh, I was replying to photoshopp about the l'Equipe article, rather
than the UCI statement.
Pardon me using google's posting which doesn't seem to have a proper >
> > reply format.

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

Milliano wrote:
> Pardon me using google's posting which doesn't seem to have a proper >
> > > reply format.

It does, but hidden. Click 'show options' above the message, 'reply' from
there (not 'reply' from below the message).

--
http://groups-beta.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=features
Vote for 'Default quoting of previous message in replies'