Verbruggen says, "6.6% are autologous"

[Tom Kunich]

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Patricio Carlos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> And if he gets off on a technicality, will anyone believe that he's
>> 'innocent'?
>
> He's tainted, innocent or not. What I find interesting is that the UCI is
> constantly tipping off riders and teams to blood boosting anomalies.
> First Phonak is told of blood irregularities, presumably regarding the
> homologous blood test, and now the UCI is warning the antilogous cheaters.
> Is this because the riders coming positive are big fish who would
> seriously embarrass the UCI and put the lie to Hein's constant blathering
> that the top pros are clean, clean, clean? The question is rhetorical.
> No need to respond, Tom.

Lafferty, on your best day you're a fvvking moron. UCI is developing a test
in which they believe that they might be able to tell autologous
transfusions. They don't have a database with which to test so they invent
one. They take the performance curves of riders and any one of them who
shows spikes or excessive outputs intermittently they call their team and
"warn" them. They then continue to monitor the blood and performance of
these riders to see if there's a change.

In other words they're shooting at the moon and you're not nearly smart
enough to understand the basics of the problem.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Patricio Carlos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> And if he gets off on a technicality, will anyone believe that he's
>> 'innocent'?
>
> He's tainted, innocent or not. What I find interesting is that the UCI is
> constantly tipping off riders and teams to blood boosting anomalies.
> First Phonak is told of blood irregularities, presumably regarding the
> homologous blood test, and now the UCI is warning the antilogous cheaters.
> Is this because the riders coming positive are big fish who would
> seriously embarrass the UCI and put the lie to Hein's constant blathering
> that the top pros are clean, clean, clean? The question is rhetorical.
> No need to respond, Tom.

Lafferty, on your best day you're a fvvking moron. UCI is developing a test
in which they believe that they might be able to tell autologous
transfusions. They don't have a database with which to test so they invent
one. They take the performance curves of riders and any one of them who
shows spikes or excessive outputs intermittently they call their team and
"warn" them. They then continue to monitor the blood and performance of
these riders to see if there's a change.

In other words they're shooting at the moon and you're not nearly smart
enough to understand the basics of the problem.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"gym gravity" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> Try reading http://www.cyclingnews.com/letters/?id=2005/03-18letters -
>> the letter from John Winnie, Jr "Blood testing issues and Hamilton" for a
>> good view from a knowledgeable writer.
>>
>> "gym gravity" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7753.0.html
>>>
>>>The Phonak "switched bag" theory is still the best explanation:
>>>
>>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2A3526CA
>
> I read it. He says the more antibodies used, the more likely they will
> come up with a (false) positive. What he doesn't know is how many
> antigenic differences were detected in Tyler and Perez's blood, and
> whether the percentages of the populations were consistent among the
> antigens.

But we DO know that the technicians who did the tests reported it
non-positive with some problems. What does that tell you? Oh, wait, of
course like Lafferty that tells you that Hamilton is guilty without a trial
and without anyone at UCI explaining the test or backing it up with
controlled testing.

Here's the long and the short of it. If they used a test like that for
medical purposes they would be sued into bankruptsy.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"gym gravity" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> Try reading http://www.cyclingnews.com/letters/?id=2005/03-18letters -
>> the letter from John Winnie, Jr "Blood testing issues and Hamilton" for a
>> good view from a knowledgeable writer.
>>
>> "gym gravity" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7753.0.html
>>>
>>>The Phonak "switched bag" theory is still the best explanation:
>>>
>>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2A3526CA
>
> I read it. He says the more antibodies used, the more likely they will
> come up with a (false) positive. What he doesn't know is how many
> antigenic differences were detected in Tyler and Perez's blood, and
> whether the percentages of the populations were consistent among the
> antigens.

But we DO know that the technicians who did the tests reported it
non-positive with some problems. What does that tell you? Oh, wait, of
course like Lafferty that tells you that Hamilton is guilty without a trial
and without anyone at UCI explaining the test or backing it up with
controlled testing.

Here's the long and the short of it. If they used a test like that for
medical purposes they would be sued into bankruptsy.

 

[laudien]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "laudien" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > So if CAS comes back with a sanction against Hamilton, you're
willing
> > to agree that he doped ?
>
> No, I'm willing to agree that he was found guilty by a group who have

> carefully hidden what they're doing. Probably your kind of justice.

Previously in this thread you used the CAS as you line in the sand and
now that's moved.

And this is my very point.

I don't know if Tyler is guilty or not guilty of doping. Mostly
anymore, I don't even care.

But for fans of the sport (and of Tyler) such as yourself, I get the
impression that there is no mountain of evidence that will convince you
of anyone's guilt.

 

[laudien]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "laudien" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > So if CAS comes back with a sanction against Hamilton, you're
willing
> > to agree that he doped ?
>
> No, I'm willing to agree that he was found guilty by a group who have

> carefully hidden what they're doing. Probably your kind of justice.

Previously in this thread you used the CAS as you line in the sand and
now that's moved.

And this is my very point.

I don't know if Tyler is guilty or not guilty of doping. Mostly
anymore, I don't even care.

But for fans of the sport (and of Tyler) such as yourself, I get the
impression that there is no mountain of evidence that will convince you
of anyone's guilt.

 

[Patricio Carlos]

Actually Haven, you silly little woman, science does involve a lot of
guessing even when there is substantial bodies of evidence. Every new
theory or test has to start with guess-work and then try to prove or
disprove it. The false positive rate of this test is not available to
you but if you have been to some recent haematology conferences, you
might have some more info. Based on the vast experience with this test
in other uses, it is certain that the true positive rate is magnitudes
higher than the false positive rate and so the odds are that your hubby
and his room-mate are guilty. If hubby gets off (and he sure wouldn't
be "getting off" with a permanently pre-menstrual wind bag like you),
he will still not be considered innocent.
Apparently going on the contraceptive pill might calm your PMS down,
why don't you try it?

 

[Patricio Carlos]

Actually Haven, you silly little woman, science does involve a lot of
guessing even when there is substantial bodies of evidence. Every new
theory or test has to start with guess-work and then try to prove or
disprove it. The false positive rate of this test is not available to
you but if you have been to some recent haematology conferences, you
might have some more info. Based on the vast experience with this test
in other uses, it is certain that the true positive rate is magnitudes
higher than the false positive rate and so the odds are that your hubby
and his room-mate are guilty. If hubby gets off (and he sure wouldn't
be "getting off" with a permanently pre-menstrual wind bag like you),
he will still not be considered innocent.
Apparently going on the contraceptive pill might calm your PMS down,
why don't you try it?

 

[Reggie]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Patricio Carlos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> And if he gets off on a technicality, will anyone believe that he's
>>> 'innocent'?
>>
>> He's tainted, innocent or not. What I find interesting is that the UCI
>> is constantly tipping off riders and teams to blood boosting anomalies.
>> First Phonak is told of blood irregularities, presumably regarding the
>> homologous blood test, and now the UCI is warning the antilogous
>> cheaters. Is this because the riders coming positive are big fish who
>> would seriously embarrass the UCI and put the lie to Hein's constant
>> blathering that the top pros are clean, clean, clean? The question is
>> rhetorical. No need to respond, Tom.
>
> Lafferty, on your best day you're a fvvking moron. UCI is developing a
> test in which they believe that they might be able to tell autologous
> transfusions. They don't have a database with which to test so they invent
> one. They take the performance curves of riders and any one of them who
> shows spikes or excessive outputs intermittently they call their team and
> "warn" them. They then continue to monitor the blood and performance of
> these riders to see if there's a change.
>
> In other words they're shooting at the moon and you're not nearly smart
> enough to understand the basics of the problem.

Clearly, your operative presumption is that any of these tests are not
valid. Rather biased, IMO. However, the issue raised is why the UCI is
tipping off the perps. It appears that they want to avoid scandal at all
costs, even if it means helping the cheaters not get caught.

BTW, we're all still waiting for your response to gg's post. Why is it that
you always fade away when someone with knowledge points out your
bullshitting? Here it is in case you missed it:

"I read it. He says the more antibodies used, the more likely they will
come up with a (false) positive. What he doesn't know is how many
antigenic differences were detected in Tyler and Perez's blood, and
whether the percentages of the populations were consistent among the
antigens.

What he said was true, that the more antibodies you try on a sample, the
more likely you are to find one that reacts non-specifically. Great,
but this is FACS and the point is that this red cell and that red cell
are different somehow. He makes it sound like the pool of cells glows
this color or that and doesn't realize the different cells are being
sorted and separated. If you have a crappy non-specific antibody, it
sticks to all the cells the same, and depending on where the gate is set
for the FACS, the whole pool ends up as antigenic negative or antigenic
positive, and doesn't look like a mixed population.

He also is assuming they were out to get Perez and shopped around for
more and more antibodies in order to catch him."

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Patricio Carlos wrote:
> Actually Haven, you silly little woman, science does involve a lot of
> guessing even when there is substantial bodies of evidence. Every new
> theory or test has to start with guess-work and then try to prove or
> disprove it. The false positive rate of this test is not available to
> you but if you have been to some recent haematology conferences, you
> might have some more info. Based on the vast experience with this test
> in other uses, it is certain that the true positive rate is magnitudes
> higher than the false positive rate and so the odds are that your hubby
> and his room-mate are guilty. If hubby gets off (and he sure wouldn't
> be "getting off" with a permanently pre-menstrual wind bag like you),
> he will still not be considered innocent.
> Apparently going on the contraceptive pill might calm your PMS down,
> why don't you try it?
>


Goddamn, you are one of the stupidest people in here.

Magilla

 

[MagillaGorilla]

laudien wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>>"laudien" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>So if CAS comes back with a sanction against Hamilton, you're
>
> willing
>
>>>to agree that he doped ?
>>
>>No, I'm willing to agree that he was found guilty by a group who have
>
>
>>carefully hidden what they're doing. Probably your kind of justice.
>
>
> Previously in this thread you used the CAS as you line in the sand and
> now that's moved.
>
> And this is my very point.
>
> I don't know if Tyler is guilty or not guilty of doping. Mostly
> anymore, I don't even care.
>
> But for fans of the sport (and of Tyler) such as yourself, I get the
> impression that there is no mountain of evidence that will convince you
> of anyone's guilt.
>

Most of the CAS cases in the U.S. dealt with contaminated supplements
(i.e. Moninger, Blackwelder, Neben), and not real cases of doping per se.

And when you say "mountain of evidence" - if there's so much evidence as
you imply, why not send it to USADA? Don't you people know their
toll-free number? Or is your mountain of evidence like Clara Hughes,
which basically means you lost the race and someone went faster than you?

Thanks,


Magilla

 

[Bob Schwartz]

MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> Moninger's case was a textbook case of supplemental contamination - I
> read the decision, did you? Well, I'm sure you read it, you just didn't
> understand it.

For the benefit of people that don't know you're just trolling...

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/a...ings/arbitration_ruling_4_3_2003_Moninger.pdf

Moninger submitted test results that showed the presence of the
metabolite in the supplement. So the question then becomes,
wtf is something usually found in the urine sample doing in
the capsule? And in huge quantity, "28,000% higher than any
IOC study of trace contaminates."

The PARENT SUBSTANCE is supposed to be in the capsule, not
the metabolite. Oops.

Bob Schwartz
[email protected]

 

[gym gravity]

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Moninger's case was a textbook case of supplemental contamination - I
>>read the decision, did you? Well, I'm sure you read it, you just didn't
>>understand it.
>
>
> For the benefit of people that don't know you're just trolling...
>
> http://www.usantidoping.org/files/a...ings/arbitration_ruling_4_3_2003_Moninger.pdf
>
> Moninger submitted test results that showed the presence of the
> metabolite in the supplement. So the question then becomes,
> wtf is something usually found in the urine sample doing in
> the capsule? And in huge quantity, "28,000% higher than any
> IOC study of trace contaminates."
>
> The PARENT SUBSTANCE is supposed to be in the capsule, not
> the metabolite. Oops.
>
> Bob Schwartz
> [email protected]

Isn't it strange that the 19-norandrosterone was only found in "Tyrosine
bottle 1", the unsealed bottle, and not in the sealed bottle 2 and 3?

 

[Stewart Fleming]

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> The PARENT SUBSTANCE is supposed to be in the capsule, not
> the metabolite. Oops.

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to bad personal hygiene.

 

[Tom Kunich]

Bill, I'm WILLING to accept the idea that CAS will do the best they can
under the circumstances. But the circumstances are poorly documented.
If they claim that UCI has priority in this decision so be it.

But that doesn't make Tyler guilty unless there is valid scientific
evidence to back up their testing procedures. And from what I've seen
there isn't.

Look, I worked for a company that developed a drug (actually they
isolated it from humans and then developed biotech means of
manufacturing it in quantity). The "news" about this drug was that when
applied to a persons with advanced melanoma that they recovered
completely. I heard this claim over and over again. Then I began seeing
it in the news. So I went and checked out the file and guess what? ONLY
ONE PERSON had that recovery and no one else even had a reaction.
Melanomas have been known to spontaneously disappear (as the body finds
the proper reaction). Rare indeed but it has been recorded on numerous
occasions.

That's the problem with this testing procedure. At least the initial
tests of it were totally unscientific and uncontrolled. And even then
it failed in two out of 24 times (or whatever the number is).

As I stated above in this string a good explanation is available from
cyclingnews.com written by John Winnie, Jr in the letters to the
editor for March 18th.

When thinking about Mr. Winnie's letter remember that the techician who
performed the test DID NOT mark it positive. In fact, it took the man
who developed the test to make a determination of "positive" because no
one else would say so.

Tyler may be hung, but if so all it proves is that the ends justified
the means.

 

[Tom Kunich]

No reggie, my presumption is that they don't know the accuracy of these
tests and are using clever methods of testing their results by seeing
the reaction of riders.

Let's say that they have some 10 riders whose performance and physical
profiles suggest that they're getting some sort of 'help'. If they warn
these rider's teams the team will warn the rider as desired. If half of
these riders continue on without change in their profiles, then it
suggests that either the team and rider are stupid or that they aren't
using artificial means so wouldn't know what to do to change their
profiles. Meanwhile the other half suddenly has a change in blood
related hormones and their performance profiles change.

That's why it seemed fishy to me that Tyler was found positive.
Especially when we found out that his team was warned twice about his
blood "testing funny".

 

[Richard]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill, I'm WILLING to accept the idea that CAS will do the best they can
> under the circumstances. But the circumstances are poorly documented.
> If they claim that UCI has priority in this decision so be it.
>
> But that doesn't make Tyler guilty unless there is valid scientific
> evidence to back up their testing procedures. And from what I've seen
> there isn't.
>
> Look, I worked for a company that developed a drug (actually they
> isolated it from humans and then developed biotech means of
> manufacturing it in quantity).

Are you currently working or are you out on disability?

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Stewart Fleming <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bob Schwartz wrote:

>> The PARENT SUBSTANCE is supposed to be in the capsule, not
>> the metabolite. Oops.

> Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to bad personal hygiene.

Given the scale of the contamination, any bad personal
hygiene would have to involve a large animal. Even
bigger than a sheep.

Bob Schwartz
[email protected]

 

[Reggie]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No reggie, my presumption is that they don't know the accuracy of these
> tests and are using clever methods of testing their results by seeing
> the reaction of riders.
>
>

No, the operative reality is that you're a bullshitter who constantly
attempts to change the nature of the debate when your ******** is called for
what it is.

 

[Patricio Carlos]

Solid scientific & statistical arguments from you again. It is very
clear how much you understand about these areas.