Same Lab?

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

Quoted message said:

I may have missed something, but Lance last night on Larry King said
that this testing was being done at the same lab involved in the mess
over his samples. Is this factual?

The instructions given by the lawyers is the following " We don't like the
message, shoot the messenger"

Quoted message said:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/28/lkl.01.html

Quoted message said:

From Lance:

The only other thing I will say and add to this that, you know, without
getting too -- too crazy or too much of a conspiracy theorist is that
keep it in mind the laboratory here that found this abnormal reading is
the same lab that I've been involved in with all the allegations over
in France.

And this is the same lab that through the independent investigation and
that process would not answer the simplest of questions to the
independent investigator about the ethics of what they did and who
conducted the testing and what conditions were -- they were done under.
You know I'm a little skeptical of this particular laboratory and the
report backs up that skepticism.

If they are using the same lab, then that, for me adds some doubt. I
don't think this case is anything deliberate, but I still have real
questions about the professionalism, quality of work, and integrity at
this lab.
That should all be put to rest though, with a monitored stesting of
the B sample. If that gets screwed up, then this lab needs to be
dropped from being used.
Landis, if he's innocent, needs to be pushing to have the more
comprehensive test done with neutral expert observers, at an
independent lab.
The idea that this is a "French" plot is ridiculous at best.
Bill C

Montesquiou said:

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

Quoted message said:

I may have missed something, but Lance last night on Larry King said
that this testing was being done at the same lab involved in the mess
over his samples. Is this factual?

The instructions given by the lawyers is the following " We don't like the
message, shoot the messenger"

Agreed, but are you saying that there aren't legitimate questions
about this labs past efforts?
Bill C

Bill C a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Montesquiou said:

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

Quoted message said:

I may have missed something, but Lance last night on Larry King said
that this testing was being done at the same lab involved in the mess
over his samples. Is this factual?

The instructions given by the lawyers is the following " We don't like the
message, shoot the messenger"

Agreed, but are you saying that there aren't legitimate questions
about this labs past efforts?
Bill C

If you are asking whether one can take Vrijman or CM with equal
seriousness, my answer is that the lab has no stake in making a
_particular_ individual appear culpable, so I'll take the lab. For those
unaware of it, there is a penal provision in French law, which
_prohibits_ testimony abroad, even with the newer EU conventions on
process.

Code Pénal - FR

Le fait de livrer ou de rendre accessibles à une puissance étrangère, à
une entreprise ou organisation étrangère ou sous contrôle étranger ou à
leurs agents des renseignements, procédés, objets, documents, données
informatisées ou fichiers dont l'exploitation, la divulgation ou la
réunion est de nature à porter atteinte aux intérêts fondamentaux de la
nation est puni de quinze ans de détention criminelle et de 225,000€
d'amende.

So while Vrijman may look good to lots of folks, he did not comply with
basic legal requirements to obtain information from a government
laboratory. It's really simple to get testimony ; it's a procedural act
that was needed ; he just didn't do it.

As to the testing, I recall clearly that the testing was on UCI owned
samples, that it was done for research, that UCI was the source of the
test results, that journalists are not expected to look the other way
when they have a story of interest, and that the greatest part of
experts on the testing and reputation of the lab have supported it.
With, of course, the exception of "guest experts" of RBR.

You can buy experts on either side of the issue, and predilections will
allow you to keep your original opinion, anyway.

FWIW, I am hoping that Landis succeeds in his appeal. It has zero to do
with the science, all to do with power.

--

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

--
Si les autres parties du monde ont des singes ; l'Europe a des Français.
Cela se compense.
[Arthur Schopenhauer]

Montesquiou said:

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

Quoted message said:

I may have missed something, but Lance last night on Larry King said
that this testing was being done at the same lab involved in the mess
over his samples. Is this factual?

The instructions given by the lawyers is the following " We don't like the
message, shoot the messenger"

Yes, pathetic,too bad LA got away with it, what an UberAssHole

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

Montesquiou said:

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

Quoted message said:

I may have missed something, but Lance last night on Larry King said
that this testing was being done at the same lab involved in the mess
over his samples. Is this factual?

The instructions given by the lawyers is the following " We don't like the
message, shoot the messenger"

Agreed, but are you saying that there aren't legitimate questions
about this labs past efforts?
Bill C
****
Well, according the Landis lawyer ( Jose Maria Buxeda) "we can't rely upon
the french Lab.
They use the IRMS technic and, as we know, we can't rely upon this technic,
at the point that all the labs abound the world gave up this technic."

Of course it is the same argumentation that Ben Johnson and Dennis Michell
used.

Funy : Dennis Michel said he had drunk 5 beers and make love with his wife 4
time the night before ( LOL !)

I suppose the Landis' wife were not with him on the night before the stage
17, so we can imagine that Jack Daniels did the job instead of .....

Source : L'Equipe - Samedi 29 juillet 2006 - Page 3 in "Défense fumeuse"

Sandy said:

Quoted message said:

If you are asking whether one can take Vrijman or CM with equal
seriousness, my answer is that the lab has no stake in making a
_particular_ individual appear culpable, so I'll take the lab. For those
unaware of it, there is a penal provision in French law, which
_prohibits_ testimony abroad, even with the newer EU conventions on
process.

Code Pénal - FR

Le fait de livrer ou de rendre accessibles à une puissance étrangère, à
une entreprise ou organisation étrangère ou sous contrôle étranger ou à
leurs agents des renseignements, procédés, objets, documents, données
informatisées ou fichiers dont l'exploitation, la divulgation ou la
réunion est de nature à porter atteinte aux intérêts fondamentauxde la
nation est puni de quinze ans de détention criminelle et de 225,000€
d'amende.

So while Vrijman may look good to lots of folks, he did not comply with
basic legal requirements to obtain information from a government
laboratory. It's really simple to get testimony ; it's a procedural act
that was needed ; he just didn't do it.

That's news to me I haven't seen that reported anywhere, though you
may have mentioned it in the past.

Quoted message said:

As to the testing, I recall clearly that the testing was on UCI owned
samples, that it was done for research, that UCI was the source of the
test results, that journalists are not expected to look the other way
when they have a story of interest, and that the greatest part of
experts on the testing and reputation of the lab have supported it.
With, of course, the exception of "guest experts" of RBR.

The problem is that with all the liars involved in this mess we have
no idea who were the unethical parties here. They are all pointing at
each other. Is this the lab that had the problem with Tyler's B sample
also?

Quoted message said:

You can buy experts on either side of the issue, and predilections will
allow you to keep your original opinion, anyway.

Yep, there's always someone who will testify to what you want for
money.

Quoted message said:

FWIW, I am hoping that Landis succeeds in his appeal. It has zero to do
with the science, all to do with power.

--

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

--
Si les autres parties du monde ont des singes ; l'Europe a des Français.
Cela se compense.
[Arthur Schopenhauer]

I can't agree on the last. The system is broken, but the way to fix the
system isn't turning definitively guilty people loose, anymore than
convicting the innocent either.
I do believe that the lab, under the current hysteria, is feeling
pressure to "deliver the goods" because "we all know they are all dirty
as hell and if they aren't being caught in bunches someones not doing
their job."
I'm not saying anything is intentionally being done, but people here
who are professionally familiar with most of these testing methods are
indicating that, discretion and judgement play a part in reading and
handling these tests.
I think it's criminal for a supposedly objective agency to be putting
incredible pressure on people to return guilty results.
The lab, like other entities is only human, and when under this kind
of pressure may very well feel they have to deliver the results, or
have the testing go somewhere else and their funding cut. That would be
typical for the political process here.
Bill C

Montesquiou said:

Well, according the Landis lawyer ( Jose Maria Buxeda) "we can't rely upon
the french Lab.
They use the IRMS technic and, as we know, we can't rely upon this technic,
at the point that all the labs abound the world gave up this technic."

Of course it is the same argumentation that Ben Johnson and Dennis Michell
used.

Funy : Dennis Michel said he had drunk 5 beers and make love with his wife 4
time the night before ( LOL !)

I suppose the Landis' wife were not with him on the night before the stage
17, so we can imagine that Jack Daniels did the job instead of .....

Source : L'Equipe - Samedi 29 juillet 2006 - Page 3 in "Défense fumeuse"

My point would be that there is a better test but it's more expensive,
so I have no problem using this one as an indicator, but when they get
a positive they should keep their mouths shut, not crucify people even
before the B is tested.
Both samples should then be tested using the more detailed test. Then
there would be NO legitimate question whether the testosterone was
natural, or was introduced.
Once again though we have a rider being hung out before they have
confirmation. I'm really amused that Astana is getting ready to race
after being slammed and excluded. OOpppsss. There's just too much in
the system that's screwed up, and the sad part is that it's mostly easy
to fix.
Bill C

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

Montesquiou said:

Well, according the Landis lawyer ( Jose Maria Buxeda) "we can't rely upon
the french Lab.
They use the IRMS technic and, as we know, we can't rely upon this
technic,
at the point that all the labs abound the world gave up this technic."

Of course it is the same argumentation that Ben Johnson and Dennis Michell
used.

Funy : Dennis Michel said he had drunk 5 beers and make love with his wife
4
time the night before ( LOL !)

I suppose the Landis' wife were not with him on the night before the stage
17, so we can imagine that Jack Daniels did the job instead of .....

Source : L'Equipe - Samedi 29 juillet 2006 - Page 3 in "Défense fumeuse"

My point would be that there is a better test but it's more expensive,
so I have no problem using this one as an indicator, but when they get
a positive they should keep their mouths shut, not crucify people even
before the B is tested.
***
Since your threat was " Same Lab", I suppose it is the Lab you are talking
about.

I am very surpise . How can you blame the Lab ?
For them the Sample A is just a number; If the name came out, blame the UCI
or whatever, but not the Lab.

If you believe that it is necessary to improve the test, more acurate even
more expensive, I am with you, and the Lab I am sure also is.

But the decision belong to the authority and not the Lab. They act according
the laws as the Police do in every country.

*************

Both samples should then be tested using the more detailed test. Then
there would be NO legitimate question whether the testosterone was
natural, or was introduced.
Once again though we have a rider being hung out before they have
confirmation. I'm really amused that Astana is getting ready to race
after being slammed and excluded. OOpppsss. There's just too much in
the system that's screwed up, and the sad part is that it's mostly easy
to fix.
Bill C

gnaw-forbet simplicity
not a french plot but a frenchman's plot
or maybe a thai works there
now the same lab gets to admit a mistake made by a - thai off course
whereas if a different lab...
or maybe
but the stuff doesn't do anything
ceptin' generate publicity
and hides a massive dose of epo+amphetimines

Montesquiou said:

***
Since your threat was " Same Lab", I suppose it is the Lab you are talking
about.

I am very surpise . How can you blame the Lab ?
For them the Sample A is just a number; If the name came out, blame the UCI
or whatever, but not the Lab.

If you believe that it is necessary to improve the test, more acurate even
more expensive, I am with you, and the Lab I am sure also is.

But the decision belong to the authority and not the Lab. They act according
the laws as the Police do in every country.

There's still a lot of accusations about just who linked Lance's name
to the old samples being tested. The UCI and Wada are seriously broken
and that puts the lab under pressure. L'Equipe isn't talking about
exactly who told them what, and the others are pointing at each other.
Sandy's made good points in the labs defense, and I think L'Equipe is
out to get Lance but that sells newspapers and I don't see where they
have done anything totally unethical. Biased and sleazy, yes, but
that's typical of most "news" outlets today.
As you said the big problem is with the "cops".
Bill C

Sandy said:

Bill C a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Montesquiou said:

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

> I may have missed something, but Lance last night on Larry King said
> that this testing was being done at the same lab involved in the mess
> over his samples. Is this factual?
>
>

The instructions given by the lawyers is the following " We don't
like the
message, shoot the messenger"

Agreed, but are you saying that there aren't legitimate questions
about this labs past efforts?
Bill C

If you are asking whether one can take Vrijman or CM with equal
seriousness, my answer is that the lab has no stake in making a
_particular_ individual appear culpable

How can we know this?

Steve

, so I'll take the lab. For those

Quoted message said:

unaware of it, there is a penal provision in French law, which
_prohibits_ testimony abroad, even with the newer EU conventions on
process.

Code Pénal - FR

Le fait de livrer ou de rendre accessibles à une puissance étrangère, à
une entreprise ou organisation étrangère ou sous contrôle étranger ou à
leurs agents des renseignements, procédés, objets, documents, données
informatisées ou fichiers dont l'exploitation, la divulgation ou la
réunion est de nature à porter atteinte aux intérêts fondamentaux de la
nation est puni de quinze ans de détention criminelle et de 225,000€
d'amende.

So while Vrijman may look good to lots of folks, he did not comply with
basic legal requirements to obtain information from a government
laboratory. It's really simple to get testimony ; it's a procedural act
that was needed ; he just didn't do it.

As to the testing, I recall clearly that the testing was on UCI owned
samples, that it was done for research, that UCI was the source of the
test results, that journalists are not expected to look the other way
when they have a story of interest, and that the greatest part of
experts on the testing and reputation of the lab have supported it.
With, of course, the exception of "guest experts" of RBR.

You can buy experts on either side of the issue, and predilections will
allow you to keep your original opinion, anyway.

FWIW, I am hoping that Landis succeeds in his appeal. It has zero to do
with the science, all to do with power.

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

Bill C a écrit :

Quoted message said:

I can't agree on the last. The system is broken, but the way to fix the
system isn't turning definitively guilty people loose, anymore than
convicting the innocent either.
I do believe that the lab, under the current hysteria, is feeling
pressure to "deliver the goods" because "we all know they are all dirty
as hell and if they aren't being caught in bunches someones not doing
their job."
I'm not saying anything is intentionally being done, but people here
who are professionally familiar with most of these testing methods are
indicating that, discretion and judgement play a part in reading and
handling these tests.
I think it's criminal for a supposedly objective agency to be putting
incredible pressure on people to return guilty results.
The lab, like other entities is only human, and when under this kind
of pressure may very well feel they have to deliver the results, or
have the testing go somewhere else and their funding cut. That would be
typical for the political process here.
Bill C

What surprises and troubles me is that there was a grand total of ONE
violation in lab results. That overwhelms me, just as to numbers, and
it numbs me as to the supposed violator. That will never settle well in
my opinion. Without the single result, and it being a BIG result, I
wonder what we would have remembered about the clean image of TdF 2006.

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

Quoted message said:

Montesquiou said:

***
Since your threat was " Same Lab", I suppose it is the Lab you are
talking
about.

I am very surpise . How can you blame the Lab ?
For them the Sample A is just a number; If the name came out, blame the
UCI
or whatever, but not the Lab.

If you believe that it is necessary to improve the test, more acurate
even
more expensive, I am with you, and the Lab I am sure also is.

But the decision belong to the authority and not the Lab. They act
according
the laws as the Police do in every country.

There's still a lot of accusations about just who linked Lance's name
to the old samples being tested. The UCI and Wada are seriously broken
and that puts the lab under pressure. L'Equipe isn't talking about
exactly who told them what, and the others are pointing at each other.

As we know the guy was someone from the UCI as the organisation said meekly
http://archquo.nouvelobs.com/cgi/articles?ad=sport/20060227.FAP0296.html&host=http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/

At least we have had our Deep Throat in less than a year.

But you insist in accusing the Lab.
Eventually, what's your point ?

Quoted message said:

Sandy's made good points in the labs defense, and I think L'Equipe is
out to get Lance but that sells newspapers and I don't see where they
have done anything totally unethical. Biased and sleazy, yes, but
that's typical of most "news" outlets today.
As you said the big problem is with the "cops".
Bill C

Yes, Why is everyone going berserk over the word of some French lab
tech who was so unethical that he released the so called positive test
to the news media? Doesn't anybody wonder what the guy was paid to
violate the rules? From what I heard yesterday, the B smple hasn't
even been tested yet. Does anybody know if the lab tech was
reprimanded or fired for his behavior?

Bill C said:

Montesquiou said:

Well, according the Landis lawyer ( Jose Maria Buxeda) "we can't rely upon
the french Lab.
They use the IRMS technic and, as we know, we can't rely upon this technic,
at the point that all the labs abound the world gave up this technic."

Of course it is the same argumentation that Ben Johnson and Dennis Michell
used.

Funy : Dennis Michel said he had drunk 5 beers and make love with his wife 4
time the night before ( LOL !)

I suppose the Landis' wife were not with him on the night before the stage
17, so we can imagine that Jack Daniels did the job instead of .....

Source : L'Equipe - Samedi 29 juillet 2006 - Page 3 in "Défense fumeuse"

My point would be that there is a better test but it's more expensive,
so I have no problem using this one as an indicator, but when they get
a positive they should keep their mouths shut, not crucify people even
before the B is tested.
Both samples should then be tested using the more detailed test. Then
there would be NO legitimate question whether the testosterone was
natural, or was introduced.
Once again though we have a rider being hung out before they have
confirmation. I'm really amused that Astana is getting ready to race
after being slammed and excluded. OOpppsss. There's just too much in
the system that's screwed up, and the sad part is that it's mostly easy
to fix.
Bill C

Kris a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Yes, Why is everyone going berserk over the word of some French lab
tech who was so unethical that he released the so called positive test
to the news media? Doesn't anybody wonder what the guy was paid to
violate the rules? From what I heard yesterday, the B smple hasn't
even been tested yet. Does anybody know if the lab tech was
reprimanded or fired for his behavior?

It is wise not to smoke the seeds, you know....

Lance forgot to mention that the French laboratory is itself in danger
of being suspended by the IOC:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep24news2

-ilan

Bill C said:

I may have missed something, but Lance last night on Larry King said
that this testing was being done at the same lab involved in the mess
over his samples. Is this factual?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/28/lkl.01.html

Quoted message said:

From Lance:

The only other thing I will say and add to this that, you know, without
getting too -- too crazy or too much of a conspiracy theorist is that
keep it in mind the laboratory here that found this abnormal reading is
the same lab that I've been involved in with all the allegations over
in France.

And this is the same lab that through the independent investigation and
that process would not answer the simplest of questions to the
independent investigator about the ethics of what they did and who
conducted the testing and what conditions were -- they were done under.
You know I'm a little skeptical of this particular laboratory and the
report backs up that skepticism.

If they are using the same lab, then that, for me adds some doubt. I
don't think this case is anything deliberate, but I still have real
questions about the professionalism, quality of work, and integrity at
this lab.
That should all be put to rest though, with a monitored stesting of
the B sample. If that gets screwed up, then this lab needs to be
dropped from being used.
Landis, if he's innocent, needs to be pushing to have the more
comprehensive test done with neutral expert observers, at an
independent lab.
The idea that this is a "French" plot is ridiculous at best.
Bill C

"Kris" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
Yes, Why is everyone going berserk over the word of some French lab
tech who was so unethical that he released the so called positive test
to the news media?
Doesn't anybody wonder what the guy was paid to
violate the rules? From what I heard yesterday, the B smple hasn't
even been tested yet. Does anybody know if the lab tech was
reprimanded or fired for his behavior?
*****
Yes !

According the barbaric French rules, he has been horribly tortured :
compeled to read all the work of Simone de Beauvoir .
Poor guy.

****

Bill C said:

Montesquiou said:

Well, according the Landis lawyer ( Jose Maria Buxeda) "we can't rely
upon
the french Lab.
They use the IRMS technic and, as we know, we can't rely upon this
technic,
at the point that all the labs abound the world gave up this technic."

Of course it is the same argumentation that Ben Johnson and Dennis
Michell
used.

Funy : Dennis Michel said he had drunk 5 beers and make love with his
wife 4
time the night before ( LOL !)

I suppose the Landis' wife were not with him on the night before the
stage
17, so we can imagine that Jack Daniels did the job instead of .....

Source : L'Equipe - Samedi 29 juillet 2006 - Page 3 in "Défense fumeuse"

My point would be that there is a better test but it's more expensive,
so I have no problem using this one as an indicator, but when they get
a positive they should keep their mouths shut, not crucify people even
before the B is tested.
Both samples should then be tested using the more detailed test. Then
there would be NO legitimate question whether the testosterone was
natural, or was introduced.
Once again though we have a rider being hung out before they have
confirmation. I'm really amused that Astana is getting ready to race
after being slammed and excluded. OOpppsss. There's just too much in
the system that's screwed up, and the sad part is that it's mostly easy
to fix.
Bill C

Sandy said:

What surprises and troubles me is that there was a grand total of ONE
violation in lab results. That overwhelms me, just as to numbers, and
it numbs me as to the supposed violator. That will never settle well in
my opinion. Without the single result, and it being a BIG result, I
wonder what we would have remembered about the clean image of TdF 2006.

The one result is curious, but IMO makes sense in that everyone KNEW
they were going to be all over the race. I'm really shocked there
wasn't a lot more police activity.
If it hadn't been for that one result this was exactly what ASO and
the UCI needed, but that would've contradicted everything Pound has
been screaming.
For a bit I had huge hope too.
Bill C

Kris said:

Yes, Why is everyone going berserk over the word of some French lab
tech who was so unethical that he released the so called positive test
to the news media? Doesn't anybody wonder what the guy was paid to
violate the rules? From what I heard yesterday, the B smple hasn't
even been tested yet. Does anybody know if the lab tech was
reprimanded or fired for his behavior?

Get fired? In France?

(Just kidding...)

Joseph

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

Montesquiou said:

Well, according the Landis lawyer ( Jose Maria Buxeda) "we can't relyupon
the french Lab.
They use the IRMS technic and, as we know, we can't rely upon this technic,
at the point that all the labs abound the world gave up this technic."

Of course it is the same argumentation that Ben Johnson and Dennis Michell
used.

Funy : Dennis Michel said he had drunk 5 beers and make love with hiswife 4
time the night before ( LOL !)

I suppose the Landis' wife were not with him on the night before the stage
17, so we can imagine that Jack Daniels did the job instead of .....

Source : L'Equipe - Samedi 29 juillet 2006 - Page 3 in "Défense fumeuse"

My point would be that there is a better test but it's more expensive,
so I have no problem using this one as an indicator, but when they get
a positive they should keep their mouths shut, not crucify people even
before the B is tested.
Both samples should then be tested using the more detailed test. Then
there would be NO legitimate question whether the testosterone was
natural, or was introduced.
Once again though we have a rider being hung out before they have
confirmation. I'm really amused that Astana is getting ready to race
after being slammed and excluded. OOpppsss. There's just too much in
the system that's screwed up, and the sad part is that it's mostly easy
to fix.
Bill C