Same Lab?

<[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Kris said:

Yes, Why is everyone going berserk over the word of some French lab
tech who was so unethical that he released the so called positive test
to the news media? Doesn't anybody wonder what the guy was paid to
violate the rules? From what I heard yesterday, the B smple hasn't
even been tested yet. Does anybody know if the lab tech was
reprimanded or fired for his behavior?

Get fired? In France?

(Just kidding...)

Joseph

***
OK 😉

Now serious : As we know the guy came from UCI ( and not from the French
Lab - I suspect it was a typo Kris did)
and as the UCI stay in Swissland, to you believe the Swiss has been fired ?

Any information on his name, his nationality, his fate ?

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

Montesquiou said:

Well, according the Landis lawyer ( Jose Maria Buxeda) "we can't rely
upon
the french Lab.
They use the IRMS technic and, as we know, we can't rely upon this
technic,
at the point that all the labs abound the world gave up this technic."

Of course it is the same argumentation that Ben Johnson and Dennis
Michell
used.

Funy : Dennis Michel said he had drunk 5 beers and make love with his
wife 4
time the night before ( LOL !)

I suppose the Landis' wife were not with him on the night before the
stage
17, so we can imagine that Jack Daniels did the job instead of .....

Source : L'Equipe - Samedi 29 juillet 2006 - Page 3 in "Défense
fumeuse"

My point would be that there is a better test but it's more expensive,
so I have no problem using this one as an indicator, but when they get
a positive they should keep their mouths shut, not crucify people even
before the B is tested.
Both samples should then be tested using the more detailed test. Then
there would be NO legitimate question whether the testosterone was
natural, or was introduced.
Once again though we have a rider being hung out before they have
confirmation. I'm really amused that Astana is getting ready to race
after being slammed and excluded. OOpppsss. There's just too much in
the system that's screwed up, and the sad part is that it's mostly easy
to fix.
Bill C

ilan said:

Lance forgot to mention that the French laboratory is itself in danger
of being suspended by the IOC:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep24news2

-ilan

Thanks Ilan
I'd missed that too.
Bill C

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ilan said:

Lance forgot to mention that the French laboratory is itself in danger
of being suspended by the IOC:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep24news2

-ilan

Thanks Ilan
I'd missed that too.
Bill C

Are you telling the Lab was not fired despite the danger of suspension since
september 2005 ?

Quoted message said:

Montesquiou wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suppose the Landis' wife were not with him on the night before the stage
17, so we can imagine that Jack Daniels did the job instead of .....

Are you saying that Jack Daniels nailed Floyd's wife?

"Stu Fleming" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Montesquiou wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suppose the Landis' wife were not with him on the night before the
stage
17, so we can imagine that Jack Daniels did the job instead of .....

Are you saying that Jack Daniels nailed Floyd's wife?

It was not clear in the Floyd's message.
But he said something on Jack, I am quite sure ; )

Stu Fleming said:

Quoted message said:

Montesquiou wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suppose the Landis' wife were not with him on the night before the stage
17, so we can imagine that Jack Daniels did the job instead of .....

Are you saying that Jack Daniels nailed Floyd's wife?

No wonder he was acting aggressive.

Joseph

Bill C said:

I may have missed something, but Lance last night on Larry King said
that this testing was being done at the same lab involved in the mess
over his samples. Is this factual?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/28/lkl.01.html

Quoted message said:

From Lance:

The only other thing I will say and add to this that, you know, without
getting too -- too crazy or too much of a conspiracy theorist is that
keep it in mind the laboratory here that found this abnormal reading is
the same lab that I've been involved in with all the allegations over
in France.

And this is the same lab that through the independent investigation and
that process would not answer the simplest of questions to the
independent investigator about the ethics of what they did and who
conducted the testing and what conditions were -- they were done under.
You know I'm a little skeptical of this particular laboratory and the
report backs up that skepticism.

If they are using the same lab, then that, for me adds some doubt. I
don't think this case is anything deliberate, but I still have real
questions about the professionalism, quality of work, and integrity at
this lab.
That should all be put to rest though, with a monitored stesting of
the B sample. If that gets screwed up, then this lab needs to be
dropped from being used.
Landis, if he's innocent, needs to be pushing to have the more
comprehensive test done with neutral expert observers, at an
independent lab.
The idea that this is a "French" plot is ridiculous at best.

Hi Bill,

This is the lab. The same lab.

http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport%20HR%20zonder.pdf

Even if you just read the summary, it is damning.

Ron

Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:

Sandy said:

Bill C a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Montesquiou wrote:

> "Bill C" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
> [email hidden]...
>
>
>> I may have missed something, but Lance last night on Larry King said
>> that this testing was being done at the same lab involved in the mess
>> over his samples. Is this factual?
>>
>>
>
> The instructions given by the lawyers is the following " We don't
> like the
> message, shoot the messenger"
>
>

Agreed, but are you saying that there aren't legitimate questions
about this labs past efforts?
Bill C

If you are asking whether one can take Vrijman or CM with equal
seriousness, my answer is that the lab has no stake in making a
_particular_ individual appear culpable

How can we know this?

We know someone in there sells information to l'Equipe. Will he stoop a little
lower and sell a result?

Ron

Montesquiou said:

"Kris" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
Yes, Why is everyone going berserk over the word of some French lab
tech who was so unethical that he released the so called positive test
to the news media?
Doesn't anybody wonder what the guy was paid to
violate the rules? From what I heard yesterday, the B smple hasn't
even been tested yet. Does anybody know if the lab tech was
reprimanded or fired for his behavior?
*****
Yes !

According the barbaric French rules, he has been horribly tortured :
compeled to read all the work of Simone de Beauvoir .
Poor guy.

****

In keeping with newsgroup policy, he should have been compelled to read
the works of Alexandre Dumbass.

RonSonic a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

I may have missed something, but Lance last night on Larry King said
that this testing was being done at the same lab involved in the mess
over his samples. Is this factual?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/28/lkl.01.html

Quoted message said:

From Lance:

The only other thing I will say and add to this that, you know, without
getting too -- too crazy or too much of a conspiracy theorist is that
keep it in mind the laboratory here that found this abnormal reading is
the same lab that I've been involved in with all the allegations over
in France.

And this is the same lab that through the independent investigation and
that process would not answer the simplest of questions to the
independent investigator about the ethics of what they did and who
conducted the testing and what conditions were -- they were done under.
You know I'm a little skeptical of this particular laboratory and the
report backs up that skepticism.

If they are using the same lab, then that, for me adds some doubt. I
don't think this case is anything deliberate, but I still have real
questions about the professionalism, quality of work, and integrity at
this lab.
That should all be put to rest though, with a monitored stesting of
the B sample. If that gets screwed up, then this lab needs to be
dropped from being used.
Landis, if he's innocent, needs to be pushing to have the more
comprehensive test done with neutral expert observers, at an
independent lab.
The idea that this is a "French" plot is ridiculous at best.

Hi Bill,

This is the lab. The same lab.

http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport%20HR%20zonder.pdf

Even if you just read the summary, it is damning.

Ron

On the other hand, if you read it (it being the work of a legally
trained person), you will find that he (Vrijman) simply did not do a
good job of employing the law as it is required to obtain what he was
charged to get.

In addition, other than blowing lots of hubristic smoke about the
paragraphs, and having failed to meet his task of information gathering,
he simply argues by assertion that he will be the judge of the matter,
and that he thinks everything stinks.

Really, one must actually read the dense text (which is not really out
of the norm for the profession) in toto for it to be both understood and
appreciated for its actual value.

And your summary of what you think was a summary is unfortunately rather
empty. Not your fault - given what you were working with as a bible.

Sandy said:

RonSonic a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

I may have missed something, but Lance last night on Larry King said
that this testing was being done at the same lab involved in the mess
over his samples. Is this factual?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/28/lkl.01.html
>From Lance:

The only other thing I will say and add to this that, you know, without
getting too -- too crazy or too much of a conspiracy theorist is that
keep it in mind the laboratory here that found this abnormal reading is
the same lab that I've been involved in with all the allegations over
in France.

And this is the same lab that through the independent investigation and
that process would not answer the simplest of questions to the
independent investigator about the ethics of what they did and who
conducted the testing and what conditions were -- they were done under.
You know I'm a little skeptical of this particular laboratory and the
report backs up that skepticism.

If they are using the same lab, then that, for me adds some doubt. I
don't think this case is anything deliberate, but I still have real
questions about the professionalism, quality of work, and integrity at
this lab.
That should all be put to rest though, with a monitored stesting of
the B sample. If that gets screwed up, then this lab needs to be
dropped from being used.
Landis, if he's innocent, needs to be pushing to have the more
comprehensive test done with neutral expert observers, at an
independent lab.
The idea that this is a "French" plot is ridiculous at best.

Hi Bill,

This is the lab. The same lab.

http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport%20HR%20zonder.pdf

Even if you just read the summary, it is damning.

Ron

On the other hand, if you read it (it being the work of a legally
trained person), you will find that he (Vrijman) simply did not do a
good job of employing the law as it is required to obtain what he was
charged to get.

In addition, other than blowing lots of hubristic smoke about the
paragraphs, and having failed to meet his task of information gathering,
he simply argues by assertion that he will be the judge of the matter,
and that he thinks everything stinks.

Really, one must actually read the dense text (which is not really out
of the norm for the profession) in toto for it to be both understood and
appreciated for its actual value.

And your summary of what you think was a summary is unfortunately rather
empty. Not your fault - given what you were working with as a bible.

Are we agreed that l'Equipe gets reports from LNDD that nobody else gets? That
these are often materials that are covered under privacy rules? That alone is
improper and leads me to distrust the rest.

As to the investigation. He was not hired as a detective or prosecutor. His job
was to bring together the facts and obtain reports from the parties involved.
LNDD and WADA were uncooperative.

The lab should've taken steps to eliminate privacy violations and they didn't.

WADA is beyond category as an agency out of control.

Ron

in message <[email hidden]>, RonSonic

(') said:

Are we agreed that l'Equipe gets reports from LNDD that nobody else
gets?

It appears so, yes.

Quoted message said:

That these are often materials that are covered under privacy
rules?

It appears so, yes.

Quoted message said:

That alone is improper and leads me to distrust the rest.

Every government in pretty much every democracy leaks confidential
information all the time. The White House certainly does, and so does
Number Ten. Does this mean that Blair and Bush are engaging in improper
and untrus... OK, bad examples.

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

[ This .sig intentionally left blank ]

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, RonSonic

(') said:

Are we agreed that l'Equipe gets reports from LNDD that nobody else
gets?

It appears so, yes.

Quoted message said:

That these are often materials that are covered under privacy
rules?

It appears so, yes.

Quoted message said:

That alone is improper and leads me to distrust the rest.

Every government in pretty much every democracy leaks confidential
information all the time. The White House certainly does, and so does
Number Ten. Does this mean that Blair and Bush are engaging in improper
and untrus... OK, bad examples.

Particularly because they hold positions that have the authority to determine
what should and should not be released.

Nobody at LNDD was ever elected to a position with the authority to decide what
is and isn't private.

Ron

RonSonic said:

WADA is beyond category as an agency out of control.

Ron

You may be interested in reading this editorial from the Toronto Star
"apologiz[ing] for [censored] Pound and his unconscionable behavior."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1154123418001&call_pageid=970599119419