Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla

[Amit Ghosh]

On Mar 21, 8:07 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

> A reminder, nonetheless: all the riders are presumed not to violate the
> rules. Presumed to be non guilty. Well, yes, that's how the rules read.
> But the practice is the opposite.

that's what you keep saying, but what backs this up ?

you claim that the system is biased towards finding athletes guilty. i
know what you will say about how the CAS panel is composed, but can
you show me any data or any inkling of evidence that guility athletes
are being improperly suspended ?

the athletes that are being implicated in doping scandals are guility.
a small percentage admit to it and accept a penalty and a large
fraction deny it and cast doubt on the doping control system and
perhaps years later admit they were doping (virenque, jeanson).

this van impe incident was the first of it's kind out of the thousands
of OOC tests that get administered, but i don't think it justifies
changing the rules to create opportunities for athletes to subvert the
system.

like i said if privacy is to trump OOC testing it might as well be
scrapped.

in fact since autologous blood doping isn't detectable all testing
should be scrapped, since tests will only catch dumb riders and low
level riders who can't afford the test doping schemes.

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:fd885e54-378e-4c0b-b293-649ecba55d77@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
Amit Ghosh <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> you claim that the system is biased towards finding athletes guilty. i
> know what you will say about how the CAS panel is composed, but can
> you show me any data or any inkling of evidence that guility athletes
> are being improperly suspended ?

I have often had to be patient with shoe sized IQ's, so I will extend that
courtesy to you and your simian brethren.

One (a rather large portion of mankind, excluding you, et alii) does not go
about life presuming everyone around is violating the social contract.
Remember 5th grade (perhaps last year)? Kids take a lot of tests, and they
are designed to diagnose, not to inculpate. Let's say in a class of 20
bright students, 18 get all answers right to a test of 50 questions. Under
your scenario, 17 were cheating by receiving, and 1 one cheating by giving
correct answers sub rosa.

I don't think anyone here expects that cheating never occurs under such
circumstances, but few will come to the conclusion that all were cheating.
Most will believe that talented students get right answers most of the time.
But under your and UCI's and WADA's operating principles, all 18 are
presumed to have cheated, will be suspended indefinitely, will have prior
exams re-examined, will have their overall veracity impugned, and the two
less talented will be honored as the "true champions."

Funny how it is just as likely that the weaker students were the ones
cheating, especially if they got the same answers wrong. But in
your/UCI/WADA scenario, they are less suspect, even if tested. We will all
take a few minutes to see if that lightbulb suddenly switches on over your
head .................. How did that feel?
>
> the athletes that are being implicated in doping scandals are guility.

I suggest you read and re-read that sentence several times over in order to
capture the illogic presented. Go ahead. Another few minutes ..........

Come back for refresher lessons when needed.

--
Sandy

Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
Je veux seulement ne pas être là
quand elle arrivera.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Amit Ghosh wrote:
>> you claim that the system is biased towards finding athletes guilty. i
>> know what you will say about how the CAS panel is composed, but can
>> you show me any data or any inkling of evidence that guility athletes
>> are being improperly suspended ?
>>
>> the athletes that are being implicated in doping scandals are guility.
>> a small percentage admit to it and accept a penalty and a large
>> fraction deny it and cast doubt on the doping control system and
>> perhaps years later admit they were doping (virenque, jeanson).
>
> There have been multiple documented incidents of athletes suspended
> because of false positive EPO tests. A test that WADA knew had
> problems.
>
> Once that happened it was up to the athlete to provide evidence of
> the false positive. This is not cheap. A few did it. How many
> evaluated the value of a 12k dreamer career as a professional
> athlete and just walked away? But these are people that no one
> cares about, so no one gives a ****.

Well certainly no one claiming to be a Liberal and employed as a college
professor or other civil service who is guaranteed employment after he
reaches tenure may teach anything he likes including treason without
hindrance of college rules.

Strange that these same sort of people despise working people who would
prefer to have a say in their own treatment.

 

[Amit Ghosh]

On Mar 23, 6:45 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

> To properly permit a police officer to select a person to test for this
> violation, there is to be a minimal, be it slim, preliminary observation by
> the cop that a driver is likely impaired, usually the inept conduct of the
> vehicle.

dumbass,

in some places (like my city) there can be spot checks and every
driver passing through that point is stopped and checked for
impairment.

that isn't the same thing as ever driver is presumed guilty. only
those that fail an impairment test are are charged and have to appear
in court.

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> Amit Ghosh wrote:
>
>> you claim that the system is biased towards finding athletes guilty. i
>> know what you will say about how the CAS panel is composed, but can
>> you show me any data or any inkling of evidence that guility athletes
>> are being improperly suspended ?
>>
>> the athletes that are being implicated in doping scandals are guility.
>> a small percentage admit to it and accept a penalty and a large
>> fraction deny it and cast doubt on the doping control system and
>> perhaps years later admit they were doping (virenque, jeanson).
>
>
> There have been multiple documented incidents of athletes suspended
> because of false positive EPO tests. A test that WADA knew had
> problems.
>
>
> Bob Schwartz



Thanks for listing all the examples of those athletes who were suspended
because of a "false positive" for EPO.....

Magilla

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> Amit Ghosh wrote:
>
>> you claim that the system is biased towards finding athletes guilty. i
>> know what you will say about how the CAS panel is composed, but can
>> you show me any data or any inkling of evidence that guility athletes
>> are being improperly suspended ?
>>
>> the athletes that are being implicated in doping scandals are guility.
>> a small percentage admit to it and accept a penalty and a large
>> fraction deny it and cast doubt on the doping control system and
>> perhaps years later admit they were doping (virenque, jeanson).
>
>
> There have been multiple documented incidents of athletes suspended
> because of false positive EPO tests. A test that WADA knew had
> problems.
>
> Once that happened it was up to the athlete to provide evidence of
> the false positive. This is not cheap. A few did it. How many
> evaluated the value of a 12k dreamer career as a professional
> athlete and just walked away? But these are people that no one
> cares about, so no one gives a ****.
>
> In order to convict Bergman they had to change the standards after
> the offense but before the hearing. WTF is up with that? But he
> did it so no one gives a ****.
>
> When Muehlegg and Luzutina lost their Olympic skiing medals it was
> because of a series of events that would have been thrown out in a
> criminal court as entrapment. Would they have committed the offense
> if WADA had been honest about developing the test? Does anyone care?
>
> Bob Schwartz


I am familiar with both of those athletes cases. You are a lunatic.
They were both guilty as sin.

Muehlegg actually tested positive for Aranesp, which has special marker
tags that cannot even be confused with endogenous EPO!

I can't take you people seriously anymore.

Magilla

 

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

On Mar 23, 4:37 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I can't take you people seriously anymore.


ottenga perso

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:50c77559-0241-424c-b318-fd83a4381c3b@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
Amit Ghosh <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Mar 23, 6:45 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> To properly permit a police officer to select a person to test for
>> this violation, there is to be a minimal, be it slim, preliminary
>> observation by the cop that a driver is likely impaired, usually the
>> inept conduct of the vehicle.
>
> dumbass,
>
> in some places (like my city) there can be spot checks and every
> driver passing through that point is stopped and checked for
> impairment.
>
> that isn't the same thing as ever driver is presumed guilty. only
> those that fail an impairment test are are charged and have to appear
> in court.

You get points for reading; next, try for comprehension.

Spot checks are designed to allow police to OBSERVE something that indicates
they should administer a TEST. Just as they OBSERVE traffic generally to
isolate the incompetent driver, be he drunk or just clumsy.

Keep going - we're having fun already.

 

[Bob Schwartz]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> I am familiar with both of those athletes cases. You are a lunatic.
> They were both guilty as sin.
>
> Muehlegg actually tested positive for Aranesp, which has special marker
> tags that cannot even be confused with endogenous EPO!
>
> I can't take you people seriously anymore.

That wasn't my point. But you knew that.

Bob Schwartz

 

[Bob Schwartz]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Thanks for listing all the examples of those athletes who were suspended
> because of a "false positive" for EPO.....

The names are easily googled. But you knew that.

Bob Schwartz

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

> "Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Amit Ghosh wrote:
> >> you claim that the system is biased towards finding athletes guilty. i
> >> know what you will say about how the CAS panel is composed, but can
> >> you show me any data or any inkling of evidence that guility athletes
> >> are being improperly suspended ?
> >>
> >> the athletes that are being implicated in doping scandals are guility.
> >> a small percentage admit to it and accept a penalty and a large
> >> fraction deny it and cast doubt on the doping control system and
> >> perhaps years later admit they were doping (virenque, jeanson).
> >
> > There have been multiple documented incidents of athletes suspended
> > because of false positive EPO tests. A test that WADA knew had
> > problems.
> >
> > Once that happened it was up to the athlete to provide evidence of
> > the false positive. This is not cheap. A few did it. How many
> > evaluated the value of a 12k dreamer career as a professional
> > athlete and just walked away? But these are people that no one
> > cares about, so no one gives a ****.
>
> Well certainly no one claiming to be a Liberal and employed as a college
> professor or other civil service who is guaranteed employment after he
> reaches tenure may teach anything he likes including treason without
> hindrance of college rules.
>
> Strange that these same sort of people despise working people who would
> prefer to have a say in their own treatment.

ENGLISH, PLEASE!

Seriously, Bob, the Tombot is starting to get wacky and even more unstable than
usual. I suppose it's because the election is approaching and "his side" is looking
to be in pretty bad shape.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Kyle Legate]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Kyle Legate wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, a failed A test only is presumed guilty and the B test is
>> only a formality, available for repeated testing if need be until the
>> result agrees with the A test.
>>
>> Just ask Iban Mayo.
>
>
> The B-sample doesn't have to be tested in order to sustain a guilty
> finding against an athlete.
>

Thanks for restating essentially what I was saying. I guess now it has
credibility?

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Howard Kveck wrote:
> Seriously, Bob, the Tombot is starting to get wacky and even more unstable than
> usual. I suppose it's because the election is approaching and "his side" is looking
> to be in pretty bad shape.

I wrote him to thrive on cognitive dissonance so elections are a real
source of energy. And as much as I might like to re-write the US
elections process, that one is beyond me.

Bob Schwartz

 

[William Asher]

Bob Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Howard Kveck wrote:
>> Seriously, Bob, the Tombot is starting to get wacky and even more
>> unstable than
>> usual. I suppose it's because the election is approaching and "his
>> side" is looking to be in pretty bad shape.
>
> I wrote him to thrive on cognitive dissonance so elections are a real
> source of energy. And as much as I might like to re-write the US
> elections process, that one is beyond me.

He's sort of like an intellectual Andromeda Strain. We detonated the
self-destruct warhead and now the world will never be rid of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK8sVlN3cmc

--
Bill Asher

 

[A R:nen]

"Sandy" <[email protected]> writes:

> Spot checks are designed to allow police to OBSERVE something that indicates
> they should administer a TEST. Just as they OBSERVE traffic generally to
> isolate the incompetent driver, be he drunk or just clumsy.

If what they OBSERVE is what exhaled air does to a breathalyzer (no
preselection, except that I have never been stopped when riding past a
spot check site, but then again the standard is different for cyclists),
I'd call that a TEST. In this jurisdiction, a subsequent blood TEST
used to be mandatory, but that is no longer the case.

As for doping tests, isn't there a reason why the out-of-competition
tests are called random?

 

[Donald Munro]

William Asher wrote:
> He's sort of like an intellectual Andromeda Strain.

Is Schwartz posting from the Andromeda galaxy ? Magilla
would probably claim the laws of physics as applied to velodromes
are different there.

 

[Donald Munro]

Kyle Legate wrote:
> Thanks for restating essentially what I was saying. I guess now it has
> credibility?

On the planet of the apes.

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Thanks for listing all the examples of those athletes who were
>> suspended because of a "false positive" for EPO.....
>
>
> The names are easily googled. But you knew that.
>
> Bob Schwartz


List two. (What would I Google under anyway? Do you think that just
because an article alleges it was a false positive that means it was?)

List two examples of an EPO false positive. No Google. You list them.

Magilla

 

[Bob Schwartz]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for listing all the examples of those athletes who were
>>> suspended because of a "false positive" for EPO.....
>>
>>
>> The names are easily googled. But you knew that.
>>
>> Bob Schwartz
>
>
> List two. (What would I Google under anyway? Do you think that just
> because an article alleges it was a false positive that means it was?)
>
> List two examples of an EPO false positive. No Google. You list them.

Since when am I your search engine? Start with 'beke epo'.
it should be simple enough to discern the others, including
the lengths of their suspensions. Once you get a false
positive it will take you close to the length of the
suspension plus lots of cash to overturn it. Not that
anyone cares.

And don't ask me to wipe your ass for you after taking a
dump. Do your own damn searches and wipe your own ass.

Bob Schwartz

 

[Tom Kunich]

"MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for listing all the examples of those athletes who were suspended
>>> because of a "false positive" for EPO.....
>>
>>
>> The names are easily googled. But you knew that.
>>
>> Bob Schwartz
>
>
> List two. (What would I Google under anyway? Do you think that just
> because an article alleges it was a false positive that means it was?)
>
> List two examples of an EPO false positive. No Google. You list them.

Just so we're clear - the EPO test results are AMBIGUOUS in some 80% of the
cases and are INTERPRETTED by the person performing the test. That's why the
French Lab seems to be finding a great many positives and no one else is.