Yeah, it was obvious all along. I mean, c'mon, look at his hair. Plus that position. And he won the Tour of Spain three times for three different teams -- everyone knows what that means. And some years he won stages and other years he didn't. That's an obvious sign.
Yeah, I knew it all along.
JT
**************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************
hardly matters if they've got it wrong or not. He'll be skewered in the court of public (aka RBR) opinion regardless. No need to wait for the B sample results.
Looks like Menchov may have won his first Grand Tour, if he doesn't have a positive lurking around somewhere.
"Gary" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:EmSbf.41$mm5.35@dukeread03... I was just kidding when I suggested Brian was calling for an investigation of Heras since he had won three Vueltas. Gosh!
B. Lafferty wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
-- My email address ([email hidden]) is fake. Email sent to it will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
And once again it became public through leaks before the B sample had been tested. Once again we've got s preliminary result, a trial in the court of public opinion, and a damaged reputation and earning capacity. Not even going into the questions about the test itself, once again we have a confidentiality problem. Do I think they'll identify who leaked the info, not bloody likely. Does the athlete have any recourse, seems not, even if the B comes up clean there's significant damage caused by these leaks that NOONE seems to give a [censored] about, least of all Wada. Now we don't even know what organization the leak came from, but something needs to be done to protect the athlete's rights. The athlete's need to be allowed sue both the organization that employs the person who leaked the info, and the individual for damages due to these leaks. Bill C
No - no!!! Please no! If true, I will have lost all faith in pro cycling once and for all. Or, I'll just do like I always do and believe that it can't possibly be true. But, that's becoming harder and harder to do every year.
-- My email address ([email hidden]) is fake. Email sent to it will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
And once again it became public through leaks before the B sample had been tested. Once again we've got s preliminary result, a trial in the court of public opinion, and a damaged reputation and earning capacity. Not even going into the questions about the test itself, once again we have a confidentiality problem. Do I think they'll identify who leaked the info, not bloody likely. Does the athlete have any recourse, seems not, even if the B comes up clean there's significant damage caused by these leaks that NOONE seems to give a [censored] about, least of all Wada. Now we don't even know what organization the leak came from, but something needs to be done to protect the athlete's rights. The athlete's need to be allowed sue both the organization that employs the person who leaked the info, and the individual for damages due to these leaks. Bill C
IIRC, the testing lab does not know the identity of the rider whose sample they are testing. The positive is matched by the UCI who then notifies the rider's national federation and a copy of that may be sent to the rider and/or his team. The national federation must notify the rider of the positive finding within two days or receiving notification from the UCI of the positive.
So, assuming that there was a leak (we have only the team's word for that as nothing was in fact published until the press release from Roberto's team), the leak must have come from someone in the UCI, the Spanish cycling federation, Heras or his team.
I don't know if it's true, but there's an interesting point that's brought up on www.cyclocosm.com. Supposedly he couldn't have injected the EPO for more than 4 days prior to the test (or it wouldn't have shown up) and yet it wouldn't have taken effect for more than two weeks (which is after Heras' season would be over). Why the hell would he take a banned substance that would in no way help him?
Is there some sort of 'maintenance schedule' for EPO where his injection a few days prior to the end of the Vuelta make any sense at all?
"Scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Agreed.
I don't know if it's true, but there's an interesting point that's brought up on www.cyclocosm.com. Supposedly he couldn't have injected the EPO for more than 4 days prior to the test (or it wouldn't have shown up) and yet it wouldn't have taken effect for more than two weeks (which is after Heras' season would be over). Why the hell would he take a banned substance that would in no way help him?
IIRC, microdosing of EPO clears in 24 hours. You start well before the time you need the effect. Usually, they don't get caught.
``Detecting EPO used to be much easier - there was a five- or six-day window in which to act,'' said Francaise des Jeux team doctor Gerard Guillaume. ``But I think now because of different methods and micro-dosing the window of detection is only 24 hours. The cheats now have more chance of not getting caught than getting caught.'' http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Sports/GG26Dk09.html
1) We expect Lafferty to say "I told you so". 2) Heras was being tested EVERY DAY. Why would he use EPO at that time? 3) We expect Lafferty to say "It doesn't matter, a positive is a positive." 4) We have seen too many of these EPO tests demonstrating negative B samples. If Heras B sample tests negative (strange that so many test negative when a rider can have his own legal and scientific staff on had to observe eh?) then perhaps the test should be sidelined until it can be demonstrated to be reliable. 5) We expect Lafferty to say, "The test is perfect." 6) The leak of Heras A sample demonstrates a complete disregard for those being victimized by the press. 7) We expect Lafferty to say, "Tough luck."
"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
-- My email address ([email hidden]) is fake. Email sent to it will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
And once again it became public through leaks before the B sample had been tested. Once again we've got s preliminary result, a trial in the court of public opinion, and a damaged reputation and earning capacity. Not even going into the questions about the test itself, once again we have a confidentiality problem. Do I think they'll identify who leaked the info, not bloody likely. Does the athlete have any recourse, seems not, even if the B comes up clean there's significant damage caused by these leaks that NOONE seems to give a [censored] about, least of all Wada. Now we don't even know what organization the leak came from, but something needs to be done to protect the athlete's rights. The athlete's need to be allowed sue both the organization that employs the person who leaked the info, and the individual for damages due to these leaks. Bill C