UCI Acknowledges Validity of Armstrong Positives

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by B. Lafferty, Mar 2, 2006.

  1. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    At least second hand as reported by VeloNews:

    The UCI has told The Daily Telegraph that it did not dispute the test
    results published last year in the French newspaper L'Equipe

    "The UCI does not deny the validity of the six forms printed in L'Equipe,"
    said UCI president Pat McQuaid. "The six tests which were printed in
    L'Equipe were among the 15 given out by (Dr. Mario) Zorzoli." ........



    Does anyone have a link to the Telegraph story? I can't find it on their
    site.
     
    Tags:


  2. Dan Connelly

    Dan Connelly Guest

    B. Lafferty wrote:
    > At least second hand as reported by VeloNews:
    >
    > The UCI has told The Daily Telegraph that it did not dispute the test
    > results published last year in the French newspaper L'Equipe
    >
    > "The UCI does not deny the validity of the six forms printed in L'Equipe,"
    > said UCI president Pat McQuaid. "The six tests which were printed in
    > L'Equipe were among the 15 given out by (Dr. Mario) Zorzoli." ........
    >
    >
    >
    > Does anyone have a link to the Telegraph story? I can't find it on their
    > site.
    >
    >


    You fail basic logic. They didn't deny, they didn't confirm.

    Dan
     
  3. "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> writes:

    > At least second hand as reported by VeloNews:
    >
    > The UCI has told The Daily Telegraph that it did not dispute the test
    > results published last year in the French newspaper L'Equipe
    >
    > "The UCI does not deny the validity of the six forms printed in L'Equipe,"
    > said UCI president Pat McQuaid. "The six tests which were printed in
    > L'Equipe were among the 15 given out by (Dr. Mario) Zorzoli." ........
    >
    >
    >
    > Does anyone have a link to the Telegraph story? I can't find it on their
    > site.
    >
    >


    There was nothing in the Daily Telegraph [UK] newsfeeds the last
    couple of days

    The Fox story you are quoting from probably refers to the Australian
    Daily Telegraph which I don't think has a newsfeed

    http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18326785-23218,00.html


    --
    Le Vent à Dos, Davey Crockett
    Libérez Ingrid Betancourt, Clara Rojas et les autres
    http://www.ingridbetancourt-idf.com/base/
    Free Ernst Zundel http://www.zundelsite.org/gallery/donations/index.html
     
  4. Dan Connelly wrote:
    > B. Lafferty wrote:
    > > At least second hand as reported by VeloNews:
    > >
    > > The UCI has told The Daily Telegraph that it did not dispute the test
    > > results published last year in the French newspaper L'Equipe
    > >
    > > "The UCI does not deny the validity of the six forms printed in L'Equipe,"
    > > said UCI president Pat McQuaid. "The six tests which were printed in
    > > L'Equipe were among the 15 given out by (Dr. Mario) Zorzoli." ........
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Does anyone have a link to the Telegraph story? I can't find it on their
    > > site.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > You fail basic logic. They didn't deny, they didn't confirm.
    >
    > Dan


    No, he doesn't.
    Either X is equal to Y or it is not (or it is not not equal.) Basic
    logic does not allow for "kinda" although venns do, kinda. What has
    failed here (and it is on the UCI's part), is editorial forthrightness.
    But what do you expect? It's a political body and, almost by
    definition, oily.
     
  5. Dan Connelly wrote:
    > B. Lafferty wrote:
    > > At least second hand as reported by VeloNews:
    > >
    > > The UCI has told The Daily Telegraph that it did not dispute the test
    > > results published last year in the French newspaper L'Equipe
    > >
    > > "The UCI does not deny the validity of the six forms printed in L'Equipe,"
    > > said UCI president Pat McQuaid. "The six tests which were printed in
    > > L'Equipe were among the 15 given out by (Dr. Mario) Zorzoli." ........
    > >
    > > Does anyone have a link to the Telegraph story? I can't find it on their
    > > site.

    >
    > You fail basic logic. They didn't deny, they didn't confirm.


    It seems what the UCI is not-denying is the provenance of the
    forms with the sample numbers. They're not not-denying the
    positive tests associated with those sample numbers; the UCI didn't
    conduct the tests and is presumably not in a position to not-deny
    them.

    Anyway, who cares? The guy is yesterday's news; he isn't even
    noted bike-racing fan Sheryl Crow's boyfriend anymore.
     
  6. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Dan Connelly" <[email protected]_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > B. Lafferty wrote:
    >> At least second hand as reported by VeloNews:
    >>
    >> The UCI has told The Daily Telegraph that it did not dispute the test
    >> results published last year in the French newspaper L'Equipe
    >>
    >> "The UCI does not deny the validity of the six forms printed in
    >> L'Equipe," said UCI president Pat McQuaid. "The six tests which were
    >> printed in L'Equipe were among the 15 given out by (Dr. Mario) Zorzoli."
    >> ........
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Does anyone have a link to the Telegraph story? I can't find it on their
    >> site.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > You fail basic logic. They didn't deny, they didn't confirm.
    >
    > Dan


    From Fox as linked by Davey:
    The Union Cycliste Internationale yesterday told The Daily Telegraph that it
    backed the validity of the test results published in the French newspaper
    L'Equipe last year - even with one of their own being suspended for leaking
    the information.

    My question is what does this mean. Is the who positive finding as reported
    in L'Equuipe being accepted by the UCI or just that the results reported and
    claimed to be linked to Armstrong are n fact his. I'd like to see the
    original comment My McQ.
     
  7. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Davey Crockett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >> At least second hand as reported by VeloNews:
    >>
    >> The UCI has told The Daily Telegraph that it did not dispute the test
    >> results published last year in the French newspaper L'Equipe
    >>
    >> "The UCI does not deny the validity of the six forms printed in
    >> L'Equipe,"
    >> said UCI president Pat McQuaid. "The six tests which were printed in
    >> L'Equipe were among the 15 given out by (Dr. Mario) Zorzoli." ........
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Does anyone have a link to the Telegraph story? I can't find it on their
    >> site.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > There was nothing in the Daily Telegraph [UK] newsfeeds the last
    > couple of days
    >
    > The Fox story you are quoting from probably refers to the Australian
    > Daily Telegraph which I don't think has a newsfeed
    >
    > http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18326785-23218,00.html
    >
    >
    > --
    > Le Vent à Dos, Davey Crockett
    > Libérez Ingrid Betancourt, Clara Rojas et les autres
    > http://www.ingridbetancourt-idf.com/base/
    > Free Ernst Zundel http://www.zundelsite.org/gallery/donations/index.html


    Thanks.
     
  8. Jim Flom

    Jim Flom Guest

    "Dan Connelly" <[email protected]_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote ...
    >
    > You fail basic logic.


    That is one finding that has been well established.
     
  9. RicodJour

    RicodJour Guest

    B. Lafferty wrote:
    > > B. Lafferty wrote:
    > >> At least second hand as reported by VeloNews:
    > >>
    > >> The UCI has told The Daily Telegraph that it did not dispute the test
    > >> results published last year in the French newspaper L'Equipe
    > >>
    > >> "The UCI does not deny the validity of the six forms printed in
    > >> L'Equipe," said UCI president Pat McQuaid. "The six tests which were
    > >> printed in L'Equipe were among the 15 given out by (Dr. Mario) Zorzoli."
    > >> ........

    >
    > From Fox as linked by Davey:
    > The Union Cycliste Internationale yesterday told The Daily Telegraph that it
    > backed the validity of the test results published in the French newspaper
    > L'Equipe last year - even with one of their own being suspended for leaking
    > the information.
    >
    > My question is what does this mean. Is the who positive finding as reported
    > in L'Equuipe being accepted by the UCI or just that the results reported and
    > claimed to be linked to Armstrong are n fact his. I'd like to see the
    > original comment My McQ.


    Refer to your original post, thoughtfully quoted above by you, to find
    the answer to your question that you've already answered to your
    satisfaction.

    I believe, in your vernacular, that is called leading the
    witless...err, sorry...witness.

    R
     
  10. Donald Munro

    Donald Munro Guest

    Dan Connelly wrote:
    >> You fail basic logic. They didn't deny, they didn't confirm.


    rloef wrote:
    > No, he doesn't.
    > Either X is equal to Y or it is not (or it is not not equal.) Basic
    > logic does not allow for "kinda" although venns do, kinda. What has
    > failed here (and it is on the UCI's part), is editorial forthrightness.
    > But what do you expect? It's a political body and, almost by
    > definition, oily.


    The UCI always were good at fuzzy logic.
     
  11. Jeff Jones

    Jeff Jones Guest

    B. Lafferty wrote:

    >
    > My question is what does this mean. Is the who positive finding as reported
    > in L'Equuipe being accepted by the UCI or just that the results reported and
    > claimed to be linked to Armstrong are n fact his. I'd like to see the
    > original comment My McQ.


    As BJW said, the UCI is "not denying" that the doping control forms
    published by L'Equipe are Lance Armstrong's that they gave Ressiot. But
    AFAIK, no-one has disputed this anyway.

    The doping control forms don't have the test results on them, but they
    provide the key to linking a rider with a test result. However, if you
    read further down, the UCI essentially denies the validity of the test
    results anyway.

    Jeff
     
  12. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Jeff Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > B. Lafferty wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> My question is what does this mean. Is the who positive finding as
    >> reported
    >> in L'Equuipe being accepted by the UCI or just that the results reported
    >> and
    >> claimed to be linked to Armstrong are n fact his. I'd like to see the
    >> original comment My McQ.

    >
    > As BJW said, the UCI is "not denying" that the doping control forms
    > published by L'Equipe are Lance Armstrong's that they gave Ressiot. But
    > AFAIK, no-one has disputed this anyway.
    >
    > The doping control forms don't have the test results on them, but they
    > provide the key to linking a rider with a test result. However, if you
    > read further down, the UCI essentially denies the validity of the test
    > results anyway.
    >
    > Jeff


    Deny in the sense that they can't/won't use them to impose a retroactive
    sanction or that the EPO test provided inaccurate results? The former, I
    think. The big question is what the UCI will do/say if their Dutch lawyer
    concludes that the test was valid, that EPO was found in A's urine, but that
    no sanction can be imposed under the present rules.
     
  13. Jeff Jones

    Jeff Jones Guest

    B. Lafferty wrote:
    >
    > Deny in the sense that they can't/won't use them to impose a retroactive
    > sanction or that the EPO test provided inaccurate results? The former, I
    > think. The big question is what the UCI will do/say if their Dutch lawyer
    > concludes that the test was valid, that EPO was found in A's urine, but that
    > no sanction can be imposed under the present rules.


    Certainly deny in the sense that they can't/won't use them to impose a
    retroactive sanction, but I think this quote: "There was no protocol so
    the results cannot be proven nor accepted as proven" implies that the
    UCI will not admit the results as being valid at all. This doesn't mean
    that they are disputing the validity of the EPO test as a whole, but
    they do dispute its validity as applied to these particular samples,
    because anti-doping protocol wasn't followed.

    On the other side of the coin, you have anti-doping experts saying that
    "if Jacques de Ceaurriz says he found EPO in these samples, then I
    believe him" and "EPO can't be created de novo in frozen urine."

    As usual in these cases, unless you have an admission of guilt from the
    athlete, it's up to you who you want to believe.

    I also don't know what the independent investigation will conclude. I
    doubt whether it will say that Armstrong should be sanctioned, because
    of the technical reasons. But I don't know if it will go so far as
    disproving the results of Prof de Ceaurriz. We'll see.

    Jeff
     
  14. Sandy

    Sandy Guest

    Dans le message de
    news:[email protected],
    Jeff Jones <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
    > B. Lafferty wrote:
    >>
    >> Deny in the sense that they can't/won't use them to impose a
    >> retroactive sanction or that the EPO test provided inaccurate
    >> results? The former, I think. The big question is what the UCI
    >> will do/say if their Dutch lawyer concludes that the test was valid,
    >> that EPO was found in A's urine, but that no sanction can be imposed
    >> under the present rules.

    >
    > Certainly deny in the sense that they can't/won't use them to impose a
    > retroactive sanction, but I think this quote: "There was no protocol
    > so the results cannot be proven nor accepted as proven" implies that
    > the UCI will not admit the results as being valid at all. This
    > doesn't mean that they are disputing the validity of the EPO test as
    > a whole, but they do dispute its validity as applied to these
    > particular samples, because anti-doping protocol wasn't followed.
    >

    I believe that the issue touches the framework of the racer's notification
    and inspection of the procedure, not the results. Protocols were not
    pertinent to the research. There is no issue being taken with the results
    as reported within that newly developed testing format.

    > On the other side of the coin, you have anti-doping experts saying
    > that "if Jacques de Ceaurriz says he found EPO in these samples, then
    > I believe him" and "EPO can't be created de novo in frozen urine."


    Experts don't stand a chance of making future money if they don't take an
    impetuous stand on facts they are not aware of. Imagine an expert saying :
    "Gee, I don't know for sure." And his income stream after that .....

    > As usual in these cases, unless you have an admission of guilt from
    > the athlete, it's up to you who you want to believe.


    It is in _any_ case ! For those who adore authoritarian rule and severe
    punishments, they will believe one thing. For those heavily emotionally or
    financially invested in a viewpoint, they will believe anyway. For those
    who aren't shy about using MaryJane, they won't see why the fuss. For the
    beerkeg-drinker, he can't get the facts straight or see what would improve
    his own performances. For the lawyer (no shame here), he sees a need for
    advocates being hired all around the place.

    > I also don't know what the independent investigation will conclude. I
    > doubt whether it will say that Armstrong should be sanctioned, because
    > of the technical reasons. But I don't know if it will go so far as
    > disproving the results of Prof de Ceaurriz. We'll see.


    Frankly, I think the guy is super, and I expect with a European (civil law)
    approach to setting forth facts, arriving at conclusions, this will not be a
    tame report.
    --
    Bonne route !

    Sandy
    Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
     
  15. In article
    <[email protected]>,
    "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Jeff Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > B. Lafferty wrote:
    > >
    > >>
    > >> My question is what does this mean. Is the who positive finding as
    > >> reported
    > >> in L'Equuipe being accepted by the UCI or just that the results reported
    > >> and
    > >> claimed to be linked to Armstrong are n fact his. I'd like to see the
    > >> original comment My McQ.

    > >
    > > As BJW said, the UCI is "not denying" that the doping control forms
    > > published by L'Equipe are Lance Armstrong's that they gave Ressiot. But
    > > AFAIK, no-one has disputed this anyway.
    > >
    > > The doping control forms don't have the test results on them, but they
    > > provide the key to linking a rider with a test result. However, if you
    > > read further down, the UCI essentially denies the validity of the test
    > > results anyway.
    > >
    > > Jeff

    >
    > Deny in the sense that they can't/won't use them to impose a retroactive
    > sanction or that the EPO test provided inaccurate results? The former, I
    > think. The big question is what the UCI will do/say if their Dutch lawyer
    > concludes that the test was valid,


    That is funny. A lawyer deciding if a laboratory report is valid.

    > that EPO was found in A's urine, but that
    > no sanction can be imposed under the present rules.


    --
    Michael Press
     
  16. Just a Idea

    Just a Idea Guest

    "Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article
    > <[email protected]>,
    > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> "Jeff Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >> >
    >> > B. Lafferty wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> My question is what does this mean. Is the who positive finding as
    >> >> reported
    >> >> in L'Equuipe being accepted by the UCI or just that the results
    >> >> reported
    >> >> and
    >> >> claimed to be linked to Armstrong are n fact his. I'd like to see the
    >> >> original comment My McQ.
    >> >
    >> > As BJW said, the UCI is "not denying" that the doping control forms
    >> > published by L'Equipe are Lance Armstrong's that they gave Ressiot. But
    >> > AFAIK, no-one has disputed this anyway.
    >> >
    >> > The doping control forms don't have the test results on them, but they
    >> > provide the key to linking a rider with a test result. However, if you
    >> > read further down, the UCI essentially denies the validity of the test
    >> > results anyway.
    >> >
    >> > Jeff

    >>
    >> Deny in the sense that they can't/won't use them to impose a retroactive
    >> sanction or that the EPO test provided inaccurate results? The former, I
    >> think. The big question is what the UCI will do/say if their Dutch
    >> lawyer
    >> concludes that the test was valid,

    >
    > That is funny. A lawyer deciding if a laboratory report is valid.


    Unfortunetly....a lot of things are decided that way. I see everyday in
    Court....it's pretty sick if you ask me.
    >
    >> that EPO was found in A's urine, but that
    >> no sanction can be imposed under the present rules.

    >
    > --
    > Michael Press
     
  17. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article
    > <[email protected]>,
    > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> "Jeff Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]googlegroups.com...
    >> >
    >> > B. Lafferty wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> My question is what does this mean. Is the who positive finding as
    >> >> reported
    >> >> in L'Equuipe being accepted by the UCI or just that the results
    >> >> reported
    >> >> and
    >> >> claimed to be linked to Armstrong are n fact his. I'd like to see the
    >> >> original comment My McQ.
    >> >
    >> > As BJW said, the UCI is "not denying" that the doping control forms
    >> > published by L'Equipe are Lance Armstrong's that they gave Ressiot. But
    >> > AFAIK, no-one has disputed this anyway.
    >> >
    >> > The doping control forms don't have the test results on them, but they
    >> > provide the key to linking a rider with a test result. However, if you
    >> > read further down, the UCI essentially denies the validity of the test
    >> > results anyway.
    >> >
    >> > Jeff

    >>
    >> Deny in the sense that they can't/won't use them to impose a retroactive
    >> sanction or that the EPO test provided inaccurate results? The former, I
    >> think. The big question is what the UCI will do/say if their Dutch
    >> lawyer
    >> concludes that the test was valid,

    >
    > That is funny. A lawyer deciding if a laboratory report is valid.


    Judges, who are most often lawyers, make such decisions every day. Jurors
    do also. That why experts testify and/or provide information--to guide the
    person who must draw a conclusion of fact and law.

    > Michael Press
     
  18. Jeff Jones wrote:
    > I also don't know what the independent investigation will conclude.


    Good :)

    --
    E. Dronkert
     
  19. Donald Munro

    Donald Munro Guest

    Jeff Jones wrote:
    >> I also don't know what the independent investigation will conclude.


    Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
    > Good :)


    Australians don't have crystal balls (not even one).
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - Acknowledges Validity Armstrong
  1. Bob Edberry
    Replies:
    55
    Views:
    6,987
Loading...