But getting to your point about a "cancerous biopsy"- even those are checked out by more than one person. There's a lab tech who initially reports on the findings (the section on the slide), and then an oncologist who verifies it. As I've been through this thing twice (wife & father), I've got a pretty good handle on the procedure.
And you know for a fact that before WADA calls a test positive that they don't do the very same thing - i.e. get the supervisor and the most experienced tech to confirm? Of course they do.
And you know this how?
It's common knowledge, dude. Your failure to know this means you are out of the loop in dope testing. Why don't you ask Landis's attorney and see if he tells you the same thing.
And you know for a fact that before WADA calls a test positive that they don't do the very same thing - i.e. get the supervisor and the most experienced tech to confirm? Of course they do.
And you know this how?
It's common knowledge, dude. Your failure to know this means you are out of the loop in dope testing. Why don't you ask Landis's attorney and see if he tells you the same thing.
You're offering a standard of proof far below what you'd expect from anyone else. As you'd say, "prove it."
"MagillaGorilla" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Mike Jacoubowsky said:
Quoted message said:
>But getting to your point about a "cancerous biopsy"- even those are >checked out by more than one person. There's a lab tech who initially >reports on the findings (the section on the slide), and then an >oncologist who verifies it. As I've been through this thing twice (wife >& father), I've got a pretty good handle on the procedure.
And you know for a fact that before WADA calls a test positive that they don't do the very same thing - i.e. get the supervisor and the most experienced tech to confirm? Of course they do.
And you know this how?
It's common knowledge, dude. Your failure to know this means you are out of the loop in dope testing. Why don't you ask Landis's attorney and see if he tells you the same thing.
>And you know for a fact that before WADA calls a test positive that they >don't do the very same thing - i.e. get the supervisor and the most >experienced tech to confirm? Of course they do.
And you know this how?
It's common knowledge, dude. Your failure to know this means you are out of the loop in dope testing. Why don't you ask Landis's attorney and see if he tells you the same thing.
You're offering a standard of proof far below what you'd expect from anyone else. As you'd say, "prove it."
I don't have to prove it because all athletes are allowed to have their experts view the testing of the B-sample. And it's a fact that not a single expert has been able to come into a CAS hearing in the past 6 years and win a case under the claim the test was mishandled or sabotaged.
So you're asking for evidence that is neither here nor there in the whole scheme of things.
>>And you know for a fact that before WADA calls a test positive that they >>don't do the very same thing - i.e. get the supervisor and the most >>experienced tech to confirm? Of course they do. > > >And you know this how? >
It's common knowledge, dude. Your failure to know this means you are out of the loop in dope testing. Why don't you ask Landis's attorney and see if he tells you the same thing.
You're offering a standard of proof far below what you'd expect from anyone else. As you'd say, "prove it."
I don't have to prove it because all athletes are allowed to have their experts view the testing of the B-sample. And it's a fact that not a single expert has been able to come into a CAS hearing in the past 6 years and win a case under the claim the test was mishandled or sabotaged.
So you're asking for evidence that is neither here nor there in the whole scheme of things.
So let me see. CAS rulings are 100% for evidence of drug use. It's good to have something to depend upon in this life.
>>>And you know for a fact that before WADA calls a test positive that they >>>don't do the very same thing - i.e. get the supervisor and the most >>>experienced tech to confirm? Of course they do. >> >> >>And you know this how? >> > >It's common knowledge, dude. Your failure to know this means you are out >of the loop in dope testing. Why don't you ask Landis's attorney and see >if he tells you the same thing.
You're offering a standard of proof far below what you'd expect from anyone else. As you'd say, "prove it."
I don't have to prove it because all athletes are allowed to have their experts view the testing of the B-sample. And it's a fact that not a single expert has been able to come into a CAS hearing in the past 6 years and win a case under the claim the test was mishandled or sabotaged.
So you're asking for evidence that is neither here nor there in the whole scheme of things.
So let me see. CAS rulings are 100% for evidence of drug use. It's good to have something to depend upon in this life.
They're just as much "100% evidence" as a conviction in criminal court for murdering someone. Why - do you think a rider's vehement denial should be afforded greater weight?
"MagillaGorilla" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
So let me see. CAS rulings are 100% for evidence of drug use. It's good to have something to depend upon in this life.
They're just as much "100% evidence" as a conviction in criminal court for murdering someone. Why - do you think a rider's vehement denial should be afforded greater weight?
"MagillaGorilla" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
So let me see. CAS rulings are 100% for evidence of drug use. It's good to have something to depend upon in this life.
They're just as much "100% evidence" as a conviction in criminal court for murdering someone. Why - do you think a rider's vehement denial should be afforded greater weight?
"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."
Or in Landis's case, "If the patch ain't on the sack, you must not sack."
I like Carl, even though he lives in the Redneck Riviera.
>>>>And you know for a fact that before WADA calls a test positive that they >>>>don't do the very same thing - i.e. get the supervisor and the most >>>>experienced tech to confirm? Of course they do. >>> >>> >>>And you know this how? >>> >> >>It's common knowledge, dude. Your failure to know this means you are out >>of the loop in dope testing. Why don't you ask Landis's attorney and see >>if he tells you the same thing. > > >You're offering a standard of proof far below what you'd expect from anyone >else. As you'd say, "prove it." > >--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles >www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
I don't have to prove it because all athletes are allowed to have their experts view the testing of the B-sample. And it's a fact that not a single expert has been able to come into a CAS hearing in the past 6 years and win a case under the claim the test was mishandled or sabotaged.
So you're asking for evidence that is neither here nor there in the whole scheme of things.
So let me see. CAS rulings are 100% for evidence of drug use. It's good to have something to depend upon in this life.
They're just as much "100% evidence" as a conviction in criminal court for murdering someone. Why - do you think a rider's vehement denial should be afforded greater weight?
It is not that you are a gadfly; it is that you are a dishonest jerk.
