More flawed testing exposed

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

WTF are you talking about?! This [censored] is graven in stone, tested to
death 100% no failure possible reliable! You are a POS for daring to
question this! They are all doping so anything that says they aren't
are lies!

You will burn in hell you evil twin! Talk about flames! You want flames???
I'll flame you! Turn or burn, sucka! ;-)

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jim Flom said:

"This shows on the one hand the athletes' innocence, and on the other

hand

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the lack of reliability of the test for detection of urinary EPO," added

Dr.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mujika.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep14news

WTF are you talking about?! This [censored] is graven in stone, tested to
death 100% no failure possible reliable! You are a POS for daring to
question this! They are all doping so anything that says they aren't
are lies!

No, no, anything that says they are not doping must be getting paid by Lance
Armstrong.

In article <mpLVe.273309$on1.123011@clgrps13>,

Jim Flom said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

WTF are you talking about?! This [censored] is graven in stone, tested to
death 100% no failure possible reliable! You are a POS for daring to
question this! They are all doping so anything that says they aren't
are lies!

You will burn in hell you evil twin! Talk about flames! You want flames???
I'll flame you! Turn or burn, sucka! ;-)

But don't turn until there is some good caramelization happening, or you'll
stick to the grill.

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Jim Flom " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:P0LVe.273301$on1.214061@clgrps13...

Quoted message said:

"This shows on the one hand the athletes' innocence, and on the other hand
the lack of reliability of the test for detection of urinary EPO," added
Dr. Mujika.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep14news

This statement from the athlete's doctor is not quite accurate. First, the
chain of custody was shown to be flawed. That in and of itself is reason to
invalidate the test in this instance.

Secondly, while there is a problem of false positives with the initial test,
due to WADA changing the positive criteria in mid-course in this case leads
to a technical (their words-Spanish tri federation) flaw requiring
dismissal. The physician here, as a representative of one side, is doing
his job well but his characterization of his clients being found innocent
isn't accurate. Think of it as a criminal case in which the search warrant
was found to be defective and the case is then dismissed on a technicality.

Also that this is the reason that the French WADA lab in Paris was
conducting research using three methodologies in an attempt to clarify the
rate of false positives with the current test and make more certain any
positive finding.

Also in today's CyclingNews, Chris Sheppard of Canada has been suspended
for two years for EPO use.

B. Lafferty said:

"Jim Flom " <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep14news

The physician here, as a representative of one side, is doing
his job well but his characterization of his clients being found innocent
isn't accurate. Think of it as a criminal case in which the search warrant
was found to be defective and the case is then dismissed on a technicality.

That was only part of the argument. The other was that the body's abnormal
levels of certain proteins invalidated the test. This is quite different from
a defective warrant.

Quoted message said:

Also in today's CyclingNews, Chris Sheppard of Canada has been suspended
for two years for EPO use.

This obviously has no relevence on the validity of the test.

Dan

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"Jim Flom " <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep14news

The physician here, as a representative of one side, is doing
his job well but his characterization of his clients being found innocent
isn't accurate. Think of it as a criminal case in which the search
warrant was found to be defective and the case is then dismissed on a
technicality.

That was only part of the argument. The other was that the body's
abnormal
levels of certain proteins invalidated the test. This is quite different
from
a defective warrant.

Defective warrant or defective test resulting in a dismissal are not
findings of innocense.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also in today's CyclingNews, Chris Sheppard of Canada has been
suspended
for two years for EPO use.

This obviously has no relevence on the validity of the test.

Except that he's been found guilty with the same test. It may be that if an
athlete can show that their protein level normally is high enough, they may
have an exemption from a positive finding--sort of like proving that you
have a natural hematocrit above 50%. In any event, this is why WADA has its
labs conducting additional research.

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

Quoted message said:

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"Jim Flom " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>
>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep14news
The physician here, as a representative of one side, is doing
his job well but his characterization of his clients being found
innocent isn't accurate. Think of it as a criminal case in which the
search warrant was found to be defective and the case is then dismissed
on a technicality.

That was only part of the argument. The other was that the body's
abnormal
levels of certain proteins invalidated the test. This is quite different
from
a defective warrant.

Defective warrant or defective test resulting in a dismissal are not
findings of innocense.

True, so what? It's not possible to PROVE innocence. How can anyone prove
that they didn't take a substance? (I could show that I naturally produce
massive amounts of proteins that mess up the test, but I still haven't
proved innocence. I might have taken EPO anyway.) Innocence is assumed. They
have to prove guilt. And for proofs you need solid evidence and solid train
of deduction (and/or chain of custody). Obviously one or more of those
things is missing here.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also in today's CyclingNews, Chris Sheppard of Canada has been
suspended
for two years for EPO use.

This obviously has no relevence on the validity of the test.

Except that he's been found guilty with the same test. It may be that if
an athlete can show that their protein level normally is high enough, they
may have an exemption from a positive finding--sort of like proving that
you have a natural hematocrit above 50%. In any event, this is why WADA
has its labs conducting additional research.

In addition, as I understand the Beke case, there was another factor-
contamination of the sample can cause a negative result to be interpreted as
positive. So the chain of custody is critical to prove there was no
contamination. There appears to be a broke chain.

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "Jim Flom " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>
>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep14news
> The physician here, as a representative of one side, is doing
> his job well but his characterization of his clients being found
> innocent isn't accurate. Think of it as a criminal case in which the
> search warrant was found to be defective and the case is then dismissed
> on a technicality.
>

That was only part of the argument. The other was that the body's
abnormal
levels of certain proteins invalidated the test. This is quite
different from
a defective warrant.

Defective warrant or defective test resulting in a dismissal are not
findings of innocense.

True, so what? It's not possible to PROVE innocence. How can anyone prove
that they didn't take a substance? (I could show that I naturally produce
massive amounts of proteins that mess up the test, but I still haven't
proved innocence. I might have taken EPO anyway.)

The only thing a not guilty verdict, for whatever reason, says is that the
charging party did not meet its burden of proof. The "so what" here has to
do with the statement of the triathletes' doctor who said that it does prove
his clients' innocence.

Quoted message said:

Innocence is assumed. They have to prove guilt.

I assume here that you are referring to the presumption of innocence. The p
of i is a rule of evidence only. It is the rule that requires the charging
party to prove their case either by a preponderance of the evidence or
beyond an reasonable doubt. It does not mean one is innocent---I guess we
could ask OJ about this.

Quoted message said:

And for proofs you need solid evidence and solid train of deduction
(and/or chain of custody). Obviously one or more of those things is
missing here.

A train of deduction---interesting. As I pointed out in my post, there is a
broken chain of custody as to the samples which makes the case go away.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Also in today's CyclingNews, Chris Sheppard of Canada has been
> suspended
> for two years for EPO use.

This obviously has no relevence on the validity of the test.

Except that he's been found guilty with the same test. It may be that if
an athlete can show that their protein level normally is high enough,
they may have an exemption from a positive finding--sort of like proving
that you have a natural hematocrit above 50%. In any event, this is why
WADA has its labs conducting additional research.

In addition, as I understand the Beke case, there was another factor-
contamination of the sample can cause a negative result to be interpreted
as positive. So the chain of custody is critical to prove there was no
contamination. There appears to be a broke chain.

B. Lafferty said:

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"Jim Flom " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>
>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep14news
The physician here, as a representative of one side, is doing
his job well but his characterization of his clients being found innocent
isn't accurate. Think of it as a criminal case in which the search
warrant was found to be defective and the case is then dismissed on a
technicality.

That was only part of the argument. The other was that the body's
abnormal
levels of certain proteins invalidated the test. This is quite different
from
a defective warrant.

Defective warrant or defective test resulting in a dismissal are not
findings of innocense.

Nor guilt. Circular reasoning leading to nothing. What a surprise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also in today's CyclingNews, Chris Sheppard of Canada has been
suspended
for two years for EPO use.

This obviously has no relevence on the validity of the test.

Except that he's been found guilty with the same test. It may be that if an
athlete can show that their protein level normally is high enough, they may
have an exemption from a positive finding--sort of like proving that you
have a natural hematocrit above 50%. In any event, this is why WADA has its
labs conducting additional research.

Is that really necessary? Since you have psychic powers and can tell
if someone is guilty (never heard you say someone was innocent, so it
probably only works one way), why don't you offer your services? You
could walk down the line waving your dowsing rods over the riders
pelvic regions and divine the truth. Save a lot of money, and it would
give you an outlet for your Salem Witch Trial tendencies. And would
probably titillate some of your other tendencies as well.

You could call your company The Dead Above the Neck Zone.

R

Great. Now even the loser Canadians are doping. If that's happening,
then the masters fatties must be doped to the gills right now.

"RicodJour" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "Jim Flom " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>
>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep14news
> The physician here, as a representative of one side, is doing
> his job well but his characterization of his clients being found
> innocent
> isn't accurate. Think of it as a criminal case in which the search
> warrant was found to be defective and the case is then dismissed on a
> technicality.
>

That was only part of the argument. The other was that the body's
abnormal
levels of certain proteins invalidated the test. This is quite
different
from
a defective warrant.

Defective warrant or defective test resulting in a dismissal are not
findings of innocense.

Nor guilt. Circular reasoning leading to nothing. What a surprise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Also in today's CyclingNews, Chris Sheppard of Canada has been
> suspended
> for two years for EPO use.

This obviously has no relevence on the validity of the test.

Except that he's been found guilty with the same test. It may be that if
an
athlete can show that their protein level normally is high enough, they
may
have an exemption from a positive finding--sort of like proving that you
have a natural hematocrit above 50%. In any event, this is why WADA has
its
labs conducting additional research.

Is that really necessary? Since you have psychic powers and can tell
if someone is guilty (never heard you say someone was innocent, so it
probably only works one way), why don't you offer your services? You
could walk down the line waving your dowsing rods over the riders
pelvic regions and divine the truth. Save a lot of money, and it would
give you an outlet for your Salem Witch Trial tendencies. And would
probably titillate some of your other tendencies as well.

You could call your company The Dead Above the Neck Zone.

R

Have a great day!

B. Lafferty said:

Have a great day!

Aren't they all?

R

"RicodJour" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Have a great day!

Aren't they all?

R

Mine are. Hope yours are, too.

"Gabe Brovedani" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

the choice quote by a gene doping researcher:

"Sweeney, who has shared his concerns with anti-doping officials, says
he's alarmed because he's already been approached some seeking to misuse
his research. "I had one coach who wanted me to treat his entire football
team," says Sweeney."

To characterize Lee Sweeney as a "gene doping researcher" does a serious
disservice not only to his actual scientific contributions, but also to his
ethics.

Andy Coggan

photoshoppper said:

Great. Now even the loser Canadians are doping. If that's happening,
then the masters fatties must be doped to the gills right now.

Dumbass,
That was Ryan's gin.

trg said:

True, so what? It's not possible to PROVE innocence. How can anyone prove
that they didn't take a substance?

I wonder if Saddam was an EPO user.

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

Quoted message said:

trg said:

True, so what? It's not possible to PROVE innocence. How can anyone prove
that they didn't take a substance?

I wonder if Saddam was an EPO user.

Nah, remember, there were no WMDs- Weapons of Mass Doping.

RicodJour said:

B. Lafferty said:

Have a great day!

Aren't they all?

Better than the alternative.

In article <[email hidden]>,

trg said:

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

Quoted message said:

trg said:

True, so what? It's not possible to PROVE innocence. How can anyone prove
that they didn't take a substance?

I wonder if Saddam was an EPO user.

Nah, remember, there were no WMDs- Weapons of Mass Doping.

Then what would you call Fox News?

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?