Fess up, LIAR!

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=8955

clean PRO

His self-delusion, or is it deliberate deception, is pitiful.

How can anyone ruminate on such while knowing that somewhere there is a
Spotted Owl in pain/distress?

Those people who believe that the only way anyone can EVER win is by
doping are pretty funnyu. crit poo who figures that since he rides
really hard and everyone else is faster than him they must be using
something (aside from better genetics, more training and a better
attitude that is.)

Brian is just a joke. His whole life has turned into a test to try and
prove cyclists as dopers. I suspect it has something to do with his
mirror. He lost a Cat 5 race to some guy who he saw later smoking a
joint.

crit PRO said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=8955

B. Lafferty said:

His self-delusion, or is it deliberate deception, is pitiful.

Regardless of whether he is guily or not he does make some good points
about the process in particular the process for test acceptance:
"
1. USADA provides a funding grant to SIAB in Australia to develop the HBTT
2. SIAB subcontracts lab technicians from Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney to write a paper on the potential method
3. The method is published in a small Australian medical journal and peer reviewed by 1 expert
4. WADA acknowledges the peer reviewed publication of the method and authorizes two labs to collaborate on the validation
5. Validation of the test is overseen by the authors of the test method (SAIB, PAH)
6. Vague positivity criteria for the HBTT is dictated by USADA to limit potential challenges from athletes
7. The labs decide the test is validated and inform WADA they are ready to proceed
8. One lab is allowed to roll out the test under “flexible accreditation” although that accreditation is later dropped by the lab director and the test is performed as a pilot project, meaning it is no longer officially an anti doping test at that lab
9. Two weeks later the test rolls out in the WADA lab and is used on athlete samples
10. The WADA lab declares a positive
11. The international federation (UCI) accepts the positive and does not question the validation even though the test is new
12. The athlete is charged
13. USADA is assigned as the prosecutor in this case on behalf of USA Cycling. This role also puts them in the position of defending the test they funded and wrote the positivity criteria for.

USADA should not be involved in funding the tests used against the athletes they face during the judicial phase. This is an obvious conflict of interest. They should be in one camp or the other but not both.
Also, the labs that stand to make money by some day running the new tests
should not be in charge of validating them. Independent sources should be
tapped (sic) without vested interests in determining if a test works.
"

Tom Kunich said:

Those people who believe that the only way anyone can EVER win is by
doping are pretty funnyu. crit poo who figures that since he rides
really hard and everyone else is faster than him they must be using
something (aside from better genetics, more training and a better
attitude that is.)

Hamilton only claims to have not doped heterogeneously. I believe him.
I still say, not judging him personally, the simplest explanation was
cross-contamination during a homogeneous transfusion. People argue this
would involve sure death. This is certainly not my understanding of blood
transfusions, especially when considering the contamination may have been
only partial.

Dan

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=8955

If the test and the entire process was better, then if he was guilty, he
probably would.
-------------
Alex

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

Quoted message said:

crit PRO said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=8955

B. Lafferty said:

His self-delusion, or is it deliberate deception, is pitiful.

Regardless of whether he is guily or not he does make some good points
about the process in particular the process for test acceptance:
"
1. USADA provides a funding grant to SIAB in Australia to develop the
HBTT
2. SIAB subcontracts lab technicians from Prince Alfred Hospital in
Sydney to write a paper on the potential method
3. The method is published in a small Australian medical journal and
peer reviewed by 1 expert
4. WADA acknowledges the peer reviewed publication of the method and
authorizes two labs to collaborate on the validation
5. Validation of the test is overseen by the authors of the test method
(SAIB, PAH)
6. Vague positivity criteria for the HBTT is dictated by USADA to limit
potential challenges from athletes
7. The labs decide the test is validated and inform WADA they are ready
to proceed
8. One lab is allowed to roll out the test under "flexible
accreditation" although that accreditation is later dropped by the lab
director and the test is performed as a pilot project, meaning it is no
longer officially an anti doping test at that lab
9. Two weeks later the test rolls out in the WADA lab and is used on
athlete samples
10. The WADA lab declares a positive
11. The international federation (UCI) accepts the positive and does not
question the validation even though the test is new
12. The athlete is charged
13. USADA is assigned as the prosecutor in this case on behalf of USA
Cycling. This role also puts them in the position of defending the test
they funded and wrote the positivity criteria for.

USADA should not be involved in funding the tests used against the
athletes they face during the judicial phase. This is an obvious conflict
of interest. They should be in one camp or the other but not both.
Also, the labs that stand to make money by some day running the new tests
should not be in charge of validating them. Independent sources should be
tapped (sic) without vested interests in determining if a test works.
"

All of this was presented to CAS on two occasions. CAS, cogently IMO,
rejected the claims. Perhaps Tyler will address the problems his earlier
2004 blood tests revealed and how Santi managed to also test positive.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

crit PRO said:

> http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=8955

B. Lafferty said:

His self-delusion, or is it deliberate deception, is pitiful.

Regardless of whether he is guily or not he does make some good points
about the process in particular the process for test acceptance:
"
1. USADA provides a funding grant to SIAB in Australia to develop the
HBTT
2. SIAB subcontracts lab technicians from Prince Alfred Hospital in
Sydney to write a paper on the potential method
3. The method is published in a small Australian medical journal and
peer reviewed by 1 expert
4. WADA acknowledges the peer reviewed publication of the method and
authorizes two labs to collaborate on the validation
5. Validation of the test is overseen by the authors of the test method
(SAIB, PAH)
6. Vague positivity criteria for the HBTT is dictated by USADA to limit
potential challenges from athletes
7. The labs decide the test is validated and inform WADA they are ready
to proceed
8. One lab is allowed to roll out the test under "flexible
accreditation" although that accreditation is later dropped by the lab
director and the test is performed as a pilot project, meaning it is no
longer officially an anti doping test at that lab
9. Two weeks later the test rolls out in the WADA lab and is used on
athlete samples
10. The WADA lab declares a positive
11. The international federation (UCI) accepts the positive and does not
question the validation even though the test is new
12. The athlete is charged
13. USADA is assigned as the prosecutor in this case on behalf of USA
Cycling. This role also puts them in the position of defending the test
they funded and wrote the positivity criteria for.

USADA should not be involved in funding the tests used against the
athletes they face during the judicial phase. This is an obvious conflict
of interest. They should be in one camp or the other but not both.
Also, the labs that stand to make money by some day running the new tests
should not be in charge of validating them. Independent sources should be
tapped (sic) without vested interests in determining if a test works.
"

All of this was presented to CAS on two occasions. CAS, cogently IMO,
rejected the claims. Perhaps Tyler will address the problems his earlier
2004 blood tests revealed and how Santi managed to also test positive.

I stipulate that Tyler Hamilton was doping at times in his
career. What do you infer from items 1-12? In particular,
is this due process?

--
Michael Press

Dan Connelly said:

Hamilton only claims to have not doped heterogeneously. I believe him.
I still say, not judging him personally, the simplest explanation was
cross-contamination during a homogeneous transfusion. People argue this
would involve sure death.

<snip>

Dumbass -

How would this be? People give blood all the time to blood banks for
the purposes of surgery, right?

No "sure death" there. If they do it right, isn't it semi-safe?

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Tom Kunich said:

Brian is just a joke. His whole life has turned into a test to try and
prove cyclists as dopers.

<snip>

Dumbass -

In the case of Hamilton, it's basically been proven.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Donald Munro quoted Tyler Hamilton:

Quoted message said:

"1. USADA provides a funding grant to SIAB in Australia to develop the HBTT
4. WADA acknowledges the peer reviewed publication of the method and
authorizes two labs to collaborate on the validation
5. Validation of the test is overseen by the authors of the test method (SAIB, PAH)
13. USADA is assigned as the prosecutor in this case on behalf of USA Cycling.
This role also puts them in the position of defending the test they funded and
wrote the positivity criteria for.

USADA should not be involved in funding the tests used against the athletes
they face during the judicial phase. This is an obvious conflict of interest.
They should be in one camp or the other but not both.
Also, the labs that stand to make money by some day running the new tests
should not be in charge of validating them. Independent sources should be
tapped (sic) without vested interests in determining if a test works."

I disagree that USADA/WADA should not fund the development of
new anti-doping tests. Who else would, or should? I do think it's
legitimate to ask that test methods be validated by an independent lab
that isn't largely dependent on a WADA funding stream. Not that
I think most labs would fix the results, but it would be nice if WADA
felt it was worthwhile to avoid the appearance of a conflict of
interest.

I also don't see how it would be possible to avoid having USADA,
as prosecutor, defend the legitimacy of the test. That's not a
conflict of interest. Potential conflicts of interest occur before the
adversarial proceeding, like if USADA doesn't get the test validated
properly or hushes up evidence that it doesn't work or something.
Or if the judging panel is not impartial.

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

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

crit PRO wrote:
>> http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=8955

B. Lafferty wrote:
> His self-delusion, or is it deliberate deception, is pitiful.

Regardless of whether he is guily or not he does make some good points
about the process in particular the process for test acceptance:
"
1. USADA provides a funding grant to SIAB in Australia to develop
the
HBTT
2. SIAB subcontracts lab technicians from Prince Alfred Hospital in
Sydney to write a paper on the potential method
3. The method is published in a small Australian medical journal and
peer reviewed by 1 expert
4. WADA acknowledges the peer reviewed publication of the method and
authorizes two labs to collaborate on the validation
5. Validation of the test is overseen by the authors of the test
method
(SAIB, PAH)
6. Vague positivity criteria for the HBTT is dictated by USADA to
limit
potential challenges from athletes
7. The labs decide the test is validated and inform WADA they are
ready
to proceed
8. One lab is allowed to roll out the test under "flexible
accreditation" although that accreditation is later dropped by the lab
director and the test is performed as a pilot project, meaning it is no
longer officially an anti doping test at that lab
9. Two weeks later the test rolls out in the WADA lab and is used on
athlete samples
10. The WADA lab declares a positive
11. The international federation (UCI) accepts the positive and does
not
question the validation even though the test is new
12. The athlete is charged
13. USADA is assigned as the prosecutor in this case on behalf of USA
Cycling. This role also puts them in the position of defending the
test
they funded and wrote the positivity criteria for.

USADA should not be involved in funding the tests used against the
athletes they face during the judicial phase. This is an obvious
conflict
of interest. They should be in one camp or the other but not both.
Also, the labs that stand to make money by some day running the new
tests
should not be in charge of validating them. Independent sources should
be
tapped (sic) without vested interests in determining if a test works.
"

All of this was presented to CAS on two occasions. CAS, cogently IMO,
rejected the claims. Perhaps Tyler will address the problems his earlier
2004 blood tests revealed and how Santi managed to also test positive.

I stipulate that Tyler Hamilton was doping at times in his
career. What do you infer from items 1-12? In particular,
is this due process?

Hamilton was represented by excellent counsel and had a full hearing at
which witnesses were called by both sides and cross examined under oath. He
appealed a guilty ruling from his first hearing and at a subsequent hearing
with counsel, presented to a CAS panel of arbitrators additional testimony
and other evidence which was considered by the tribunal. Yes, Hamilton had
his due process hearings. The verdict is guilty. Hamilton has been
adjudged a doper after a full and impartial hearing. (NOTE: Hamilton has not
questioned the impartiality of the arbitrators). GUILTY.

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Dumbass -

How would this be? People give blood all the time to blood banks for
the purposes of surgery, right?

No "sure death" there. If they do it right, isn't it semi-safe?

Dumbass,

There are universal donors (type O I think), universal recipients (AB --
only 3% of the pop), and variations in between. If Hamilton is a universal
recipient, or otherwise able to accept the blood type in question, it
needn't have been harmful. The other thing is that blood gets broken down
into its parts for wider applications -- coulda been a situation like that.

JF, blood donor

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

"Donald Munro" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> crit PRO wrote:
>>> http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=8955
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> His self-delusion, or is it deliberate deception, is pitiful.
>
> Regardless of whether he is guily or not he does make some good points
> about the process in particular the process for test acceptance:
> "
> 1. USADA provides a funding grant to SIAB in Australia to develop
> the
> HBTT
> 2. SIAB subcontracts lab technicians from Prince Alfred Hospital in
> Sydney to write a paper on the potential method
> 3. The method is published in a small Australian medical journal and
> peer reviewed by 1 expert
> 4. WADA acknowledges the peer reviewed publication of the method and
> authorizes two labs to collaborate on the validation
> 5. Validation of the test is overseen by the authors of the test
> method
> (SAIB, PAH)
> 6. Vague positivity criteria for the HBTT is dictated by USADA to
> limit
> potential challenges from athletes
> 7. The labs decide the test is validated and inform WADA they are
> ready
> to proceed
> 8. One lab is allowed to roll out the test under "flexible
> accreditation" although that accreditation is later dropped by the lab
> director and the test is performed as a pilot project, meaning it is no
> longer officially an anti doping test at that lab
> 9. Two weeks later the test rolls out in the WADA lab and is used on
> athlete samples
> 10. The WADA lab declares a positive
> 11. The international federation (UCI) accepts the positive and does
> not
> question the validation even though the test is new
> 12. The athlete is charged
> 13. USADA is assigned as the prosecutor in this case on behalf of USA
> Cycling. This role also puts them in the position of defending the
> test
> they funded and wrote the positivity criteria for.
>
> USADA should not be involved in funding the tests used against the
> athletes they face during the judicial phase. This is an obvious
> conflict
> of interest. They should be in one camp or the other but not both.
> Also, the labs that stand to make money by some day running the new
> tests
> should not be in charge of validating them. Independent sources should
> be
> tapped (sic) without vested interests in determining if a test works.
> "

All of this was presented to CAS on two occasions. CAS, cogently IMO,
rejected the claims. Perhaps Tyler will address the problems his earlier
2004 blood tests revealed and how Santi managed to also test positive.

I stipulate that Tyler Hamilton was doping at times in his
career. What do you infer from items 1-12? In particular,
is this due process?

Hamilton was represented by excellent counsel and had a full hearing at
which witnesses were called by both sides and cross examined under oath. He
appealed a guilty ruling from his first hearing and at a subsequent hearing
with counsel, presented to a CAS panel of arbitrators additional testimony
and other evidence which was considered by the tribunal. Yes, Hamilton had
his due process hearings. The verdict is guilty. Hamilton has been
adjudged a doper after a full and impartial hearing. (NOTE: Hamilton has not
questioned the impartiality of the arbitrators). GUILTY.

As I stipulated.

I ask you to critique items 1-12. Is that due process?

--
Michael Press

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
Michael Press <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> "Donald Munro" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> crit PRO wrote:
>>>> http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=8955
>>
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> His self-delusion, or is it deliberate deception, is pitiful.
>>
>> Regardless of whether he is guily or not he does make some good
>> points about the process in particular the process for test
>> acceptance: "
>> 1. USADA provides a funding grant to SIAB in Australia to
>> develop the
>> HBTT
>> 2. SIAB subcontracts lab technicians from Prince Alfred
>> Hospital in Sydney to write a paper on the potential method
>> 3. The method is published in a small Australian medical
>> journal and peer reviewed by 1 expert
>> 4. WADA acknowledges the peer reviewed publication of the
>> method and authorizes two labs to collaborate on the validation
>> 5. Validation of the test is overseen by the authors of the test
>> method
>> (SAIB, PAH)
>> 6. Vague positivity criteria for the HBTT is dictated by USADA
>> to limit
>> potential challenges from athletes
>> 7. The labs decide the test is validated and inform WADA they
>> are ready
>> to proceed
>> 8. One lab is allowed to roll out the test under "flexible
>> accreditation" although that accreditation is later dropped by
>> the lab director and the test is performed as a pilot project,
>> meaning it is no longer officially an anti doping test at that lab
>> 9. Two weeks later the test rolls out in the WADA lab and is
>> used on athlete samples
>> 10. The WADA lab declares a positive
>> 11. The international federation (UCI) accepts the positive and
>> does not
>> question the validation even though the test is new
>> 12. The athlete is charged
>> 13. USADA is assigned as the prosecutor in this case on behalf
>> of USA Cycling. This role also puts them in the position of
>> defending the test
>> they funded and wrote the positivity criteria for.
>>
>> USADA should not be involved in funding the tests used against the
>> athletes they face during the judicial phase. This is an obvious
>> conflict
>> of interest. They should be in one camp or the other but not both.
>> Also, the labs that stand to make money by some day running the
>> new tests
>> should not be in charge of validating them. Independent sources
>> should be
>> tapped (sic) without vested interests in determining if a test
>> works. "
>
> All of this was presented to CAS on two occasions. CAS, cogently
> IMO, rejected the claims. Perhaps Tyler will address the problems
> his earlier 2004 blood tests revealed and how Santi managed to
> also test positive.

I stipulate that Tyler Hamilton was doping at times in his
career. What do you infer from items 1-12? In particular,
is this due process?

Hamilton was represented by excellent counsel and had a full hearing
at which witnesses were called by both sides and cross examined
under oath. He appealed a guilty ruling from his first hearing and
at a subsequent hearing with counsel, presented to a CAS panel of
arbitrators additional testimony and other evidence which was
considered by the tribunal. Yes, Hamilton had his due process
hearings. The verdict is guilty. Hamilton has been adjudged a
doper after a full and impartial hearing. (NOTE: Hamilton has not
questioned the impartiality of the arbitrators). GUILTY.

As I stipulated.

I ask you to critique items 1-12. Is that due process?

Evidently, you don't understand what due process refers to. 12-13 are the
initial and final steps of process, with interior details not set out in
detail. In particular, when a person agrees to submit to a specified
process, and it takes place with conformity, why certainly that _is_ due
process.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sandy said:

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
Michael Press <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article
> <[email hidden]>,
> "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> "Donald Munro" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:[email hidden]...
>>> crit PRO wrote:
>>>>> http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=8955
>>>
>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>> His self-delusion, or is it deliberate deception, is pitiful.
>>>
>>> Regardless of whether he is guily or not he does make some good
>>> points about the process in particular the process for test
>>> acceptance: "
>>> 1. USADA provides a funding grant to SIAB in Australia to
>>> develop the
>>> HBTT
>>> 2. SIAB subcontracts lab technicians from Prince Alfred
>>> Hospital in Sydney to write a paper on the potential method
>>> 3. The method is published in a small Australian medical
>>> journal and peer reviewed by 1 expert
>>> 4. WADA acknowledges the peer reviewed publication of the
>>> method and authorizes two labs to collaborate on the validation
>>> 5. Validation of the test is overseen by the authors of the test
>>> method
>>> (SAIB, PAH)
>>> 6. Vague positivity criteria for the HBTT is dictated by USADA
>>> to limit
>>> potential challenges from athletes
>>> 7. The labs decide the test is validated and inform WADA they
>>> are ready
>>> to proceed
>>> 8. One lab is allowed to roll out the test under "flexible
>>> accreditation" although that accreditation is later dropped by
>>> the lab director and the test is performed as a pilot project,
>>> meaning it is no longer officially an anti doping test at that lab
>>> 9. Two weeks later the test rolls out in the WADA lab and is
>>> used on athlete samples
>>> 10. The WADA lab declares a positive
>>> 11. The international federation (UCI) accepts the positive and
>>> does not
>>> question the validation even though the test is new
>>> 12. The athlete is charged
>>> 13. USADA is assigned as the prosecutor in this case on behalf
>>> of USA Cycling. This role also puts them in the position of
>>> defending the test
>>> they funded and wrote the positivity criteria for.
>>>
>>> USADA should not be involved in funding the tests used against the
>>> athletes they face during the judicial phase. This is an obvious
>>> conflict
>>> of interest. They should be in one camp or the other but not both.
>>> Also, the labs that stand to make money by some day running the
>>> new tests
>>> should not be in charge of validating them. Independent sources
>>> should be
>>> tapped (sic) without vested interests in determining if a test
>>> works. "
>>
>> All of this was presented to CAS on two occasions. CAS, cogently
>> IMO, rejected the claims. Perhaps Tyler will address the problems
>> his earlier 2004 blood tests revealed and how Santi managed to
>> also test positive.
>
> I stipulate that Tyler Hamilton was doping at times in his
> career. What do you infer from items 1-12? In particular,
> is this due process?

Hamilton was represented by excellent counsel and had a full hearing
at which witnesses were called by both sides and cross examined
under oath. He appealed a guilty ruling from his first hearing and
at a subsequent hearing with counsel, presented to a CAS panel of
arbitrators additional testimony and other evidence which was
considered by the tribunal. Yes, Hamilton had his due process
hearings. The verdict is guilty. Hamilton has been adjudged a
doper after a full and impartial hearing. (NOTE: Hamilton has not
questioned the impartiality of the arbitrators). GUILTY.

As I stipulated.

I ask you to critique items 1-12. Is that due process?

Evidently, you don't understand what due process refers to. 12-13 are the
initial and final steps of process, with interior details not set out in
detail. In particular, when a person agrees to submit to a specified
process, and it takes place with conformity, why certainly that _is_ due
process.

OK.

--
Michael Press

"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:

Tom Kunich said:

Those people who believe that the only way anyone can EVER win is by
doping are pretty funnyu. crit poo who figures that since he rides
really hard and everyone else is faster than him they must be using
something (aside from better genetics, more training and a better
attitude that is.)

Hamilton only claims to have not doped heterogeneously. I believe him.
I still say, not judging him personally, the simplest explanation was
cross-contamination during a homogeneous transfusion. People argue this
would involve sure death. This is certainly not my understanding of blood
transfusions, especially when considering the contamination may have been
only partial.

I'll tell you Dan, I don't know what to think. The tests are turning up no
more positives and yet if rumors are true, everyone is running hematocrits
of 49.9%.

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

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

Brian is just a joke. His whole life has turned into a test to try and
prove cyclists as dopers.

Dumbass -

In the case of Hamilton, it's basically been proven.

Dumbass - the only thing that's been proven is that the UCI have the last
word. And that might change very rapidly in the near future as it becomes a
court case about them and several EPO positives including Lance.

Tom Kunich said:

I'll tell you Dan, I don't know what to think. The tests are turning up no
more positives and yet if rumors are true, everyone is running hematocrits
of 49.9%.

This is clearly evolution in action. Anyone with a natural hematocrit
over 50% is sent home in disgrace with poor mating prospects. Those
that approach 50% without exceeding the limit thrive.

On the other hand, it could be Intelligent Design. The Higher Powers
like to see a well contested TDF but know they have to respect the UCI
regulations. This would also explain away any time-line discrepancies.
The HP saw the UCI regulations coming.

Bret (unlike some people, knows what to think)