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
