"What If Floyd Landis Were Innocent?"

[MMan]

Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/16/opinion/edeustice.php

 

[Mark]

MMan wrote:

> Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously:
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/16/opinion/edeustice.php

Thanks, a good summary by John Eustice of the points in Floyd's favor
(which I'm afraid I think are rather few).

If Floyd cannot successfully attack as untrustworthy either the
exogenous testosterone test (which he failed), or the lab/process that
administered it, he's got little to fall back on.

Eustice's question "So where was it [testosterone] in all the other
tests?" neatly ducks the concern that riders are using low (under 4:1)
levels of testosterone for recovery on a regular basis.

Now if Floyd were willing to have his "non-positive" (under 4:1) B
samples tested for exogenous T, and they came back negative, that would
be a major point in his favor - but given concerns about the lab and the
process, no lawyer would allow it.

Mark J.

 

"Mark" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message
de news: [email protected]...
> MMan wrote:
>
>> Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously:
>>
>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/16/opinion/edeustice.php
>
> Thanks, a good summary by John Eustice of the points in Floyd's favor
> (which I'm afraid I think are rather few).
>
> If Floyd cannot successfully attack as untrustworthy either the exogenous
> testosterone test (which he failed), or the lab/process that administered
> it, he's got little to fall back on.
>
> Eustice's question "So where was it [testosterone] in all the other
> tests?" neatly ducks the concern that riders are using low (under 4:1)
> levels of testosterone for recovery on a regular basis.
>
> Now if Floyd were willing to have his "non-positive" (under 4:1) B samples
> tested for exogenous T, and they came back negative, that would be a major
> point in his favor - but given concerns about the lab and the process, no
> lawyer would allow it.
>
> Mark J.
>

 

"Mark" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message
de news: [email protected]...
> MMan wrote:
>
>> Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously:
>>
>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/16/opinion/edeustice.php
>
> Thanks, a good summary by John Eustice of the points in Floyd's favor
> (which I'm afraid I think are rather few).
>
> If Floyd cannot successfully attack as untrustworthy either the exogenous
> testosterone test (which he failed), or the lab/process that administered
> it, he's got little to fall back on.
>
> Eustice's question "So where was it [testosterone] in all the other
> tests?" neatly ducks the concern that riders are using low (under 4:1)
> levels of testosterone for recovery on a regular basis.
>
> Now if Floyd were willing to have his "non-positive" (under 4:1) B samples
> tested for exogenous T, and they came back negative, that would be a major
> point in his favor - but given concerns about the lab and the process,

As the Lab is one of the most advanced Lab in the fight against dopping, no
chance.




no lawyer would allow it.
>
> Mark J.
>

 

[Colin Campbell]

Montesquiou wrote:
> "Mark" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message
> de news: [email protected]...
>
>> MMan wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously:
>>>
>>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/16/opinion/edeustice.php
>>>
>> Thanks, a good summary by John Eustice of the points in Floyd's favor
>> (which I'm afraid I think are rather few).
>>
>> If Floyd cannot successfully attack as untrustworthy either the exogenous
>> testosterone test (which he failed), or the lab/process that administered
>> it, he's got little to fall back on.
>>
>> Eustice's question "So where was it [testosterone] in all the other
>> tests?" neatly ducks the concern that riders are using low (under 4:1)
>> levels of testosterone for recovery on a regular basis.
>>
>> Now if Floyd were willing to have his "non-positive" (under 4:1) B samples
>> tested for exogenous T, and they came back negative, that would be a major
>> point in his favor - but given concerns about the lab and the process,
>>
>
> As the Lab is one of the most advanced Lab in the fight against dopping, no
> chance.
>
>
>
>
> no lawyer would allow it.
>
>> Mark J.
>>
>>
>
>
>
And the lab has a reputation with Pat McQuaid of the UCI as one of the
leakiest in the world, too.

So why do they get to test anything related to bicyclists?

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Mark
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Now if Floyd were willing to have his "non-positive" (under 4:1) B
> samples tested for exogenous T, and they came back negative, that would
> be a major point in his favor - but given concerns about the lab and
> the process, no lawyer would allow it.

He could ask to have it tested by a different WADA accredited lab - for
example, one in the US. If he even asked for it to be done it would be a
point in his favour.

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

;; Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
;; do it from  religious conviction."          -- Pascal

 

[didier Meurgues]

Colin Campbell a écrit :

> Montesquiou wrote:
> > "Mark" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message
> > de news: [email protected]...
> >
> >> MMan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/16/opinion/edeustice.php
> >>>
> >> Thanks, a good summary by John Eustice of the points in Floyd's favor
> >> (which I'm afraid I think are rather few).
> >>
> >> If Floyd cannot successfully attack as untrustworthy either the exogenous
> >> testosterone test (which he failed), or the lab/process that administered
> >> it, he's got little to fall back on.
> >>
> >> Eustice's question "So where was it [testosterone] in all the other
> >> tests?" neatly ducks the concern that riders are using low (under 4:1)
> >> levels of testosterone for recovery on a regular basis.
> >>
> >> Now if Floyd were willing to have his "non-positive" (under 4:1) B samples
> >> tested for exogenous T, and they came back negative, that would be a major
> >> point in his favor - but given concerns about the lab and the process,
> >>
> >
> > As the Lab is one of the most advanced Lab in the fight against dopping, no
> > chance.
> >

This was posted in rec.auto.sport few days ago :

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

> >> "The results reported by the LNDD that found their way into the L'Equipe
> >> article are not what they have been represented to be. They did not
> >> involve proper testing of urine samples, as explained in detail in this
> >> report."

> > Have you read that report - in full?

> Yes.

> > It doesn't criticise the the laboratory or lab's testing procedures.

> You obviously have not read it. It specifically criticizes just about
> every aspect of the lab's activities, including procedures, methodologies,
> ethics, and communications. I could cite specific examples of each of
> these, but you'll find them easily if you read it.

To wich I reply :

I'm REALLY FED UP to ear again this propaganda against the LNDD.

That's not the opinion of its many european equivalent labs including
the national austrian for ex
If the french national lab is so "unreliable", "according to" US
medias, why is it still acredited by the WADA ? Why both tests,
including the last one, were still done there in presence of american
lawyers and (national lab?) scientists, with no prior or later protests
from the last ones as far as I've heard ?

It's funny to see the... World Anti Doping Agency being judged by the
UCI on antidoping matters ? Shouldn't it be the contrary ?
The LNDD lab says clearly that those tests were made for EPO scientific
RESEARCH according to a special procedure "accelerated measurement
procedure" made of 3 different (and apparently new ?) technical tests
settled by this lab (which invented, should I REMIND it, the EPO
test...), and which differs from the antidoping control procedure,
since they were NOT placing themselves in a situation of anti doping
CONTROL but in one of :
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
Should I remind it as well to this UCI "independent expert".
The lab didn't expect AT ALL the names to be revealed. And since it was
not an official antidoping control it didn't made (or needed to do) the
second test check neither, apparently : only its 3 own new tests.
BUT because of the repeated INSISTENCE of the WADA, this antidoping
agency obtained from the LNDD lab (after consultation of the french
sport ministry which finally didn't opposed to it) the most-demanded
"additional information" document, with the names under the codes of
urine samples...
Nevertheless, under the (perhaps legal?) IMPERATIVE CONDITION that the
names should remain CONFIDENTIAL, until... the WADA finally leaked the
info to the L'Equipe journalist !
This "independent expert" (even if, as the french national lab
rightfully noticed, independent experts in France are only nominated
by... courts) tries by all means to convince that the "Helsinki
declaration" concerning testing (I repeat DECLARATION !) has a full
legal application in France, which I doubt, that the part of the french
civil code concerning "research on human subjects" concerns... urine
samples (that one makes me laugh :+), furthermore only french courts
can interpret code civil definitions), and that the WADA approved
"ISO/IEC 17025 international standard" (what is its legal status in
France?) must be applied to ALL scientific researches made by a
national laboratory, on the single pretext that it is, for the SOLE
purpose of antidoping CONTROL, acredited by the WADA. Even so, for its
OWN purely personal scientific researches, including when they had
originally nothing to do with a particular antidoping control (but with
futur ones)..., when on the other hand he deliberately ignores the
french procedure concerning the communication of administrative
documents (search law n°78-753 at
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/RechercheSimpleTexte.jsp :
according to the combination of art. 1 and 6, the most-demanded and
full "additional information" documents should have been communicated
to him, AS LONG AS they don't violate scientific copyrights (secret
commercial) and privacy (names?), IF ONLY... he had respected the
rather simple procedure with the CADA... (http://www.cada.fr ! : the
search engine with "recherche" or "secret", for ex. was momentaneously
out of order few minutes ago).
The WADA could AS WELL... have produced this document, which certainly
exists and could certainly have been given, in order to see that the
codes on the no less than six samples correspond very probably to the
names. But when you understand at the end that the UCI target is the
WADA president..., no need to see why the WADA didn't gave it neither
to this UCI "independent expert".

Funny as well, to see the expert diatribe against the freedom of the
press, and his desire to not see accusations made there before full
inquiry is completed, when you compare, for example..., with the
incredible mediatic campaign made against the alleged infamous french
ice-skating judge Mme Le Gougne during the 2002 SLC olympic games,
thanks to the "declarations" of Miss Stapelford, MM. Pfenning and
Jackson, made even BEFORE the end of the games competitions contrarily
to IOC rules... :

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/...


I forgot to say that you shouldn't be afraid AT ALL.
According to what I've read above, the final UCI report declaring
solemnly that the last tests here concerned are "as usual" totally
irrelevant and the de-acreditation of this (too curious indeed) french
lab urgent, is probably already written. :+))

didier Meurgues

> > no lawyer would allow it.
> >
> >> Mark J.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> And the lab has a reputation with Pat McQuaid of the UCI as one of the
> leakiest in the world, too.
>
> So why do they get to test anything related to bicyclists?

 

"didier Meurgues" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...

Colin Campbell a écrit :

> Montesquiou wrote:
> > "Mark" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le
> > message
> > de news: [email protected]...
> >
> >> MMan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/16/opinion/edeustice.php
> >>>
> >> Thanks, a good summary by John Eustice of the points in Floyd's favor
> >> (which I'm afraid I think are rather few).
> >>
> >> If Floyd cannot successfully attack as untrustworthy either the
> >> exogenous
> >> testosterone test (which he failed), or the lab/process that
> >> administered
> >> it, he's got little to fall back on.
> >>
> >> Eustice's question "So where was it [testosterone] in all the other
> >> tests?" neatly ducks the concern that riders are using low (under 4:1)
> >> levels of testosterone for recovery on a regular basis.
> >>
> >> Now if Floyd were willing to have his "non-positive" (under 4:1) B
> >> samples
> >> tested for exogenous T, and they came back negative, that would be a
> >> major
> >> point in his favor - but given concerns about the lab and the process,
> >>
> >
> > As the Lab is one of the most advanced Lab in the fight against dopping,
> > no
> > chance.
> >

This was posted in rec.auto.sport few days ago :

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

> >> "The results reported by the LNDD that found their way into the
> >> L'Equipe
> >> article are not what they have been represented to be. They did not
> >> involve proper testing of urine samples, as explained in detail in this
> >> report."

> > Have you read that report - in full?

> Yes.

> > It doesn't criticise the the laboratory or lab's testing procedures.

> You obviously have not read it. It specifically criticizes just about
> every aspect of the lab's activities, including procedures, methodologies,
> ethics, and communications. I could cite specific examples of each of
> these, but you'll find them easily if you read it.

To wich I reply :

I'm REALLY FED UP to ear again this propaganda against the LNDD.

That's not the opinion of its many european equivalent labs including
the national austrian for ex
If the french national lab is so "unreliable", "according to" US
medias, why is it still acredited by the WADA ? Why both tests,
including the last one, were still done there in presence of american
lawyers and (national lab?) scientists, with no prior or later protests
from the last ones as far as I've heard ?

It's funny to see the... World Anti Doping Agency being judged by the
UCI on antidoping matters ? Shouldn't it be the contrary ?
The LNDD lab says clearly that those tests were made for EPO scientific
RESEARCH according to a special procedure "accelerated measurement
procedure" made of 3 different (and apparently new ?) technical tests
settled by this lab (which invented, should I REMIND it, the EPO
test...), and which differs from the antidoping control procedure,
since they were NOT placing themselves in a situation of anti doping
CONTROL but in one of :
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
Should I remind it as well to this UCI "independent expert".
The lab didn't expect AT ALL the names to be revealed. And since it was
not an official antidoping control it didn't made (or needed to do) the
second test check neither, apparently : only its 3 own new tests.
BUT because of the repeated INSISTENCE of the WADA, this antidoping
agency obtained from the LNDD lab (after consultation of the french
sport ministry which finally didn't opposed to it) the most-demanded
"additional information" document, with the names under the codes of
urine samples...
Nevertheless, under the (perhaps legal?) IMPERATIVE CONDITION that the
names should remain CONFIDENTIAL, until... the WADA finally leaked the
info to the L'Equipe journalist !
This "independent expert" (even if, as the french national lab
rightfully noticed, independent experts in France are only nominated
by... courts) tries by all means to convince that the "Helsinki
declaration" concerning testing (I repeat DECLARATION !) has a full
legal application in France, which I doubt, that the part of the french
civil code concerning "research on human subjects" concerns... urine
samples (that one makes me laugh :+), furthermore only french courts
can interpret code civil definitions), and that the WADA approved
"ISO/IEC 17025 international standard" (what is its legal status in
France?) must be applied to ALL scientific researches made by a
national laboratory, on the single pretext that it is, for the SOLE
purpose of antidoping CONTROL, acredited by the WADA. Even so, for its
OWN purely personal scientific researches, including when they had
originally nothing to do with a particular antidoping control (but with
futur ones)..., when on the other hand he deliberately ignores the
french procedure concerning the communication of administrative
documents (search law n°78-753 at
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/RechercheSimpleTexte.jsp :
according to the combination of art. 1 and 6, the most-demanded and
full "additional information" documents should have been communicated
to him, AS LONG AS they don't violate scientific copyrights (secret
commercial) and privacy (names?), IF ONLY... he had respected the
rather simple procedure with the CADA... (http://www.cada.fr ! : the
search engine with "recherche" or "secret", for ex. was momentaneously
out of order few minutes ago).
The WADA could AS WELL... have produced this document, which certainly
exists and could certainly have been given, in order to see that the
codes on the no less than six samples correspond very probably to the
names. But when you understand at the end that the UCI target is the
WADA president..., no need to see why the WADA didn't gave it neither
to this UCI "independent expert".

Funny as well, to see the expert diatribe against the freedom of the
press, and his desire to not see accusations made there before full
inquiry is completed, when you compare, for example..., with the
incredible mediatic campaign made against the alleged infamous french
ice-skating judge Mme Le Gougne during the 2002 SLC olympic games,
thanks to the "declarations" of Miss Stapelford, MM. Pfenning and
Jackson, made even BEFORE the end of the games competitions contrarily
to IOC rules... :

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/...


I forgot to say that you shouldn't be afraid AT ALL.
According to what I've read above, the final UCI report declaring
solemnly that the last tests here concerned are "as usual" totally
irrelevant and the de-acreditation of this (too curious indeed) french
lab urgent, is probably already written. :+))

didier Meurgues

*****
It will be funny to see the report on the material seized by the Police in
Sweden.

Some said it can be vitamins and health medication, for some it can be used
for blood manipulation, but this material labelled in Russian and found in
the Russian Hotel seem to point finger to . ?



I wonder why Denis Oswald and Sergei Bubka, IOC athlete's and former
Russian pole vault record-holder so vociferously asked for the ban of this
highly capable Lab past year.

Afraid ?



> > no lawyer would allow it.
> >
> >> Mark J.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> And the lab has a reputation with Pat McQuaid of the UCI as one of the
> leakiest in the world, too.
>
> So why do they get to test anything related to bicyclists?

 

[didier Meurgues]

Montesquiou a écrit :

> "didier Meurgues" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
> [email protected]...
>
> Colin Campbell a écrit :
>
> > Montesquiou wrote:
> > > "Mark" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le
> > > message
> > > de news: [email protected]...
> > >
> > >> MMan wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously:
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/16/opinion/edeustice.php
> > >>>
> > >> Thanks, a good summary by John Eustice of the points in Floyd's favor
> > >> (which I'm afraid I think are rather few).
> > >>
> > >> If Floyd cannot successfully attack as untrustworthy either the
> > >> exogenous
> > >> testosterone test (which he failed), or the lab/process that
> > >> administered
> > >> it, he's got little to fall back on.
> > >>
> > >> Eustice's question "So where was it [testosterone] in all the other
> > >> tests?" neatly ducks the concern that riders are using low (under 4:1)
> > >> levels of testosterone for recovery on a regular basis.
> > >>
> > >> Now if Floyd were willing to have his "non-positive" (under 4:1) B
> > >> samples
> > >> tested for exogenous T, and they came back negative, that would be a
> > >> major
> > >> point in his favor - but given concerns about the lab and the process,
> > >>
> > >
> > > As the Lab is one of the most advanced Lab in the fight against dopping,
> > > no
> > > chance.
> > >
>
> This was posted in rec.auto.sport few days ago :
>
> http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport HR zonder.pdf
>
> > >> "The results reported by the LNDD that found their way into the
> > >> L'Equipe
> > >> article are not what they have been represented to be. They did not
> > >> involve proper testing of urine samples, as explained in detail in this
> > >> report."
>
> > > Have you read that report - in full?
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > It doesn't criticise the the laboratory or lab's testing procedures.
>
> > You obviously have not read it. It specifically criticizes just about
> > every aspect of the lab's activities, including procedures, methodologies,
> > ethics, and communications. I could cite specific examples of each of
> > these, but you'll find them easily if you read it.
>
> To wich I reply :
>
> I'm REALLY FED UP to ear again this propaganda against the LNDD.
>
> That's not the opinion of its many european equivalent labs including
> the national austrian for ex
> If the french national lab is so "unreliable", "according to" US
> medias, why is it still acredited by the WADA ? Why both tests,
> including the last one, were still done there in presence of american
> lawyers and (national lab?) scientists, with no prior or later protests
> from the last ones as far as I've heard ?
>
> It's funny to see the... World Anti Doping Agency being judged by the
> UCI on antidoping matters ? Shouldn't it be the contrary ?

> The LNDD lab says clearly
I meant of course in the UCI report above about 1999 samples

that those tests were made for EPO scientific
> RESEARCH according to a special procedure "accelerated measurement
> procedure" made of 3 different (and apparently new ?) technical tests
> settled by this lab (which invented, should I REMIND it, the EPO
> test...), and which differs from the antidoping control procedure,
> since they were NOT placing themselves in a situation of anti doping
> CONTROL but in one of :
> SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
> Should I remind it as well to this UCI "independent expert".
> The lab didn't expect AT ALL the names to be revealed. And since it was
> not an official antidoping control it didn't made (or needed to do) the
> second test check neither, apparently : only its 3 own new tests.
> BUT because of the repeated INSISTENCE of the WADA, this antidoping
> agency obtained from the LNDD lab (after consultation of the french
> sport ministry which finally didn't opposed to it) the most-demanded
> "additional information" document, with the names under the codes of
> urine samples...
> Nevertheless, under the (perhaps legal?) IMPERATIVE CONDITION that the
> names should remain CONFIDENTIAL, until... the WADA finally leaked the
> info to the L'Equipe journalist !
> This "independent expert" (even if, as the french national lab
> rightfully noticed, independent experts in France are only nominated
> by... courts) tries by all means to convince that the "Helsinki
> declaration" concerning testing (I repeat DECLARATION !) has a full
> legal application in France, which I doubt, that the part of the french
> civil code concerning "research on human subjects" concerns... urine
> samples (that one makes me laugh :+), furthermore only french courts
> can interpret code civil definitions), and that the WADA approved
> "ISO/IEC 17025 international standard" (what is its legal status in
> France?) must be applied to ALL scientific researches made by a
> national laboratory, on the single pretext that it is, for the SOLE
> purpose of antidoping CONTROL, acredited by the WADA. Even so, for its
> OWN purely personal scientific researches, including when they had
> originally nothing to do with a particular antidoping control (but with
> futur ones)..., when on the other hand he deliberately ignores the
> french procedure concerning the communication of administrative
> documents (search law n°78-753 at
> http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/RechercheSimpleTexte.jsp :
> according to the combination of art. 1 and 6, the most-demanded and
> full "additional information" documents should have been communicated
> to him, AS LONG AS they don't violate scientific copyrights (secret
> commercial) and privacy (names?), IF ONLY... he had respected the
> rather simple procedure with the CADA... (http://www.cada.fr ! : the
> search engine with "recherche" or "secret", for ex. was momentaneously
> out of order few minutes ago).
> The WADA could AS WELL... have produced this document, which certainly
> exists and could certainly have been given, in order to see that the
> codes on the no less than six samples correspond very probably to the
> names. But when you understand at the end that the UCI target is the
> WADA president..., no need to see why the WADA didn't gave it neither
> to this UCI "independent expert".
>
> Funny as well, to see the expert diatribe against the freedom of the
> press, and his desire to not see accusations made there before full
> inquiry is completed, when you compare, for example..., with the
> incredible mediatic campaign made against the alleged infamous french
> ice-skating judge Mme Le Gougne during the 2002 SLC olympic games,
> thanks to the "declarations" of Miss Stapelford, MM. Pfenning and
> Jackson, made even BEFORE the end of the games competitions contrarily
> to IOC rules... :
>
> http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/...
>
>
> I forgot to say that you shouldn't be afraid AT ALL.
> According to what I've read above, the final UCI report declaring
> solemnly that the last tests here concerned are "as usual" totally
> irrelevant and the de-acreditation of this (too curious indeed) french
> lab urgent, is probably already written. :+))
>
> didier Meurgues
>
> *****
> It will be funny to see the report on the material seized by the Police in
> Sweden.
>
> Some said it can be vitamins and health medication, for some it can be used
> for blood manipulation, but this material labelled in Russian and found in
> the Russian Hotel seem to point finger to . ?
>
>
>
> I wonder why Denis Oswald and Sergei Bubka, IOC athlete's and former
> Russian pole vault record-holder so vociferously asked for the ban of this
> highly capable Lab past year.
>
> Afraid ?
>
>
>
> > > no lawyer would allow it.
> > >
> > >> Mark J.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > And the lab has a reputation with Pat McQuaid of the UCI as one of the
> > leakiest in the world, too.
> >
> > So why do they get to test anything related to bicyclists?

 

[Tom Kunich]

Didier my friend, here is a passage from that report that answers your
question:

"The fact that WADA President **** Pound and the LNDD's Professor De
Ceaurriz were willing to discuss the research project and its results in
great detail with the media, while they at the same time were unwilling to
cooperate with a proper investigation by the organization with jurisdiction
over this matter, raises substantial questions regarding their reasons for
doing so and makes one wonder as to what complete cooperation would
disclose."
In short, there really is an elephant under the bed.

 

[[email protected]]

MMan wrote:
> Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously:
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/16/opinion/edeustice.php

I think the zinc oxide that he smeared all over his face at USPRO in
1983 must still be on his face (and is now covering his eyes). Oh
Johnny Useless. Wake the hell up.

 

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

[email protected] wrote:

> MMan wrote:
>
>>Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously:
>>
>>http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/16/opinion/edeustice.php
>
>
> I think the zinc oxide that he smeared all over his face at USPRO in
> 1983 must still be on his face (and is now covering his eyes). Oh
> Johnny Useless. Wake the hell up.
>


Wow--you remember that too? I wonder how many psychic scars that
warpaint inflicted.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

 

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Montesquiou wrote:
>
>
> To wich I reply :
>
> I'm REALLY FED UP to ear again this propaganda against the LNDD.


"I am SO mad at Farah Fawcett-Majors!!"

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/77/77amono.phtml


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

 

[[email protected]]

Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > MMan wrote:
> >
> >>Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously:
> >>
> >>http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/16/opinion/edeustice.php
> >
> >
> > I think the zinc oxide that he smeared all over his face at USPRO in
> > 1983 must still be on his face (and is now covering his eyes). Oh
> > Johnny Useless. Wake the hell up.
> >
>
>
> Wow--you remember that too? I wonder how many psychic scars that
> warpaint inflicted.
>
> Steve
>
> --
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> http://www.dentaltwins.com
> Brooklyn, NY
> 718-258-5001

I remember seeing the photos of the event in Winning magazine, and his
being on the podium for the stars and stripes (after taking 15th
place). I saw the massive amount of zinc oxide and wondered "who the
hell is this fred?". Only years later did I learn that he's had a bad
cycling accident and he needed to wear the stuff to protect his scars
from UV rays.

 

[Linda Lou]

[email protected] wrote:
> MMan wrote:
> > Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously:
> >
> > http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/16/opinion/edeustice.php
>
> I think the zinc oxide that he smeared all over his face at USPRO in
> 1983 must still be on his face (and is now covering his eyes). Oh
> Johnny Useless. Wake the hell up.

While we're on the Eustice stories, my husband, Mike, had the
misfortune of watching John take a privileged leak on the start line of
a race they both rode in Florida in 1987. Needless to say, Mike doesn't
think much of the man or the rider.

 

[Dan Connelly]

MMan wrote:
> Written before news of his father-in-law's death, obviously:
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/16/opinion/edeustice.php
>

A flaw in the logic of the power numbers, is average power on such mountainous routes
is reduced by the descents -- essentially zero power on the coasting intervals cannot
be compensated with super-sustainable power on the long climbs. The sustainable power
on interval efforts changed by only approximately 5% per doubling time of the effort.

So this could still represent close to his maximal level of performance from
training. Which if one assumes he was compensating for otherwise natural losses
of whatever juice tends to be depleted 2.5 weeks into a race of this intensity,
he would not be able to exceed, but only match.

Dan