With all the accusations going on with all these different riders, not only in the TDF but the other races that are supposedly failing drug test that are carried out in "independent labs", I just wonder how "independent" they really are and who pays them for doing the tests?
I would assume that if one had a sample taken in France it would be tested in another couhtry to assure "independence""
Sorry but I just do not trust the testing agencies at all, too many riders come under suspicion too easily for there to be no collusion between the testing agencies and the UCI, WADA or whoever thay are.
In no other legal process is one considered guilty until proven innocent and the lab test seems to be all that is needed to prove guilt, without any protocols in place to ensure the test results are in fact correct.
If any test was false, which lab would put their hands up to a mistake, or foul play??
It just seems too coincidental with "positive tests" to me.
Just my opinion, which of course is worth not much at best.
Ro.
Road Cycling · Public discussion
"Independant labs tests???
This thread is locked and is currently read-only.
Thread navigation
Jump through the discussion
Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.
Thread details
What we know about this thread
- Original section
- Road Cycling
- Published
- 29 July 2006
- Last activity
- 30 July 2006
- Original author
- Ro
- Posts
- 17
- Discussion status
- Public discussion
- Total views
- 483
- Views / 30 days
- 0
The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.
-
-
Ro said:
I would assume that if one had a sample taken in France it would be tested in another couhtry to assure "independence""
A typically American knee-jerk bias against the French. Why would
another country's labs be "more independent" than those in France? What
do the French have to gain by falsely accusing an American? There were
no French in contention for the overall win, unless they disqualified
the first six riders. -
Is it remotely possible to taint a sample. Could the right price buy an
addition to someones sample? I have no idea how a sample is handled after
being submitted.<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Ro said:
I would assume that if one had a sample taken in France it would be
tested in another couhtry to assure "independence""A typically American knee-jerk bias against the French. Why would
another country's labs be "more independent" than those in France? What
do the French have to gain by falsely accusing an American? There were
no French in contention for the overall win, unless they disqualified
the first six riders. -
"Ro" <[email hidden]> solemnly wrote in news:[email hidden]:
Quoted message said:
With all the accusations going on with all these different riders, not
only in the TDF but the other races that are supposedly failing drug
test that are carried out in "independent labs", I just wonder how
"independent" they really are and who pays them for doing the tests?
I would assume that if one had a sample taken in France it would be
tested in another couhtry to assure "independence"" Sorry but I just
do not trust the testing agencies at all, too many riders come under
suspicion too easily for there to be no collusion between the testing
agencies and the UCI, WADA or whoever thay are. In no other legal
process is one considered guilty until proven innocent and the lab
test seems to be all that is needed to prove guilt, without any
protocols in place to ensure the test results are in fact correct. If
any test was false, which lab would put their hands up to a mistake,
or foul play?? It just seems too coincidental with "positive tests" to
me. Just my opinion, which of course is worth not much at best.
Ro.There is a strictly enforced protocol, from the time the racer gives the
urine sample at the end of the stage to the time the sample arrives at the
lab. The lab does not know the identity of the owner of the sample,
everything is coded by a serial number only known by the cycling
authorities.The lab simply makes a first round of tests to detect 200 to 300
substances, then when something is abnormal (for ex, a high ration T/E), it
performs a second round of more precise tests (like the isotrop test). Then
it gives the test results to the relevant authorities which then search for
the name of the racer in its database. -
Ro said:
With all the accusations going on with all these different riders, not only in the TDF but the other races that are supposedly failing drug test that are carried out in "independent labs", I just wonder how "independent" they really are and who pays them for doing the tests?
I would assume that if one had a sample taken in France it would be tested in another couhtry to assure "independence""
Sorry but I just do not trust the testing agencies at all, too many riders come under suspicion too easily for there to be no collusion between the testing agencies and the UCI, WADA or whoever thay are.
In no other legal process is one considered guilty until proven innocent and the lab test seems to be all that is needed to prove guilt, without any protocols in place to ensure the test results are in fact correct.
If any test was false, which lab would put their hands up to a mistake, or foul play??
It just seems too coincidental with "positive tests" to me.
Just my opinion, which of course is worth not much at best.
Ro.Ah yes... because they didn't go to Iraq and didn't like Lance they
took it out on Floyd, not caring about what happened to the TdF.It's also almost proven that the French shot JFK, support Al Quaida,
boycot every American product, all in all, do anything to spite the
Americans. -
It all comes back to the California wines winning all of the recent
awards.
Best,
Bill BlackTuschinski said:
Ro said:
With all the accusations going on with all these different riders, not only in the TDF but the other races that are supposedly failing drug test that are carried out in "independent labs", I just wonder how "independent" they really are and who pays them for doing the tests?
I would assume that if one had a sample taken in France it would be tested in another couhtry to assure "independence""
Sorry but I just do not trust the testing agencies at all, too many riders come under suspicion too easily for there to be no collusion between the testing agencies and the UCI, WADA or whoever thay are.
In no other legal process is one considered guilty until proven innocent and the lab test seems to be all that is needed to prove guilt, without any protocols in place to ensure the test results are in fact correct.
If any test was false, which lab would put their hands up to a mistake, or foul play??
It just seems too coincidental with "positive tests" to me.
Just my opinion, which of course is worth not much at best.
Ro.Ah yes... because they didn't go to Iraq and didn't like Lance they
took it out on Floyd, not caring about what happened to the TdF.It's also almost proven that the French shot JFK, support Al Quaida,
boycot every American product, all in all, do anything to spite the
Americans. -
Quoted message said:
Ro said:
I would assume that if one had a sample taken in France it would be tested in another couhtry to assure "independence""
A typically American knee-jerk bias against the French. Why would
another country's labs be "more independent" than those in France?Because we know from the purported 1999 tests that French labs violate procedure
in the service of l'Equippe.We KNOW from the pages of that paper that this particular lab does not follow
the rules when it suits them or the people at the newspaper who bribe or
otherwise manipulate them.Quoted message said:
What
do the French have to gain by falsely accusing an American?l'Equippe has millions in sales to consider.
Ron
-
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Ro said:
I would assume that if one had a sample taken in France it would be
tested in another couhtry to assure "independence""A typically American knee-jerk bias against the French. Why would
another country's labs be "more independent" than those in France?Because we know from the purported 1999 tests that French labs violate
procedure
in the service of l'Equippe.Don't try to spin the facts
Not only the Lab never violate anything, but it had the approval of UCI !
Quoted message said:
We KNOW from the pages of that paper that this particular lab does not
follow
the rules when it suits them or the people at the newspaper who bribe or
otherwise manipulate them.Quoted message said:
What
do the French have to gain by falsely accusing an American?l'Equippe has millions in sales to consider.
Ron
-
Montesquiou said:
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Ro wrote:> I would assume that if one had a sample taken in France it would be
> tested in another couhtry to assure "independence""A typically American knee-jerk bias against the French. Why would
another country's labs be "more independent" than those in France?Because we know from the purported 1999 tests that French labs violate
procedure
in the service of l'Equippe.Don't try to spin the facts
Not only the Lab never violate anything, but it had the approval of UCI !
UCI did not authorize the release of test results.
If someone tells you a thing that he is bound by honor and profession to not
tell - is he also bound to tell you the truth?That lab is dirty.
Ron
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
We KNOW from the pages of that paper that this particular lab does not
follow
the rules when it suits them or the people at the newspaper who bribe or
otherwise manipulate them.Quoted message said:
What
do the French have to gain by falsely accusing an American?l'Equippe has millions in sales to consider.
Ron
-
RonSonic said:
Montesquiou said:
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
On 28 Jul 2006 22:58:55 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:
>
>Ro wrote:
>
>> I would assume that if one had a sample taken in France it would be
>> tested in another couhtry to assure "independence""
>
>A typically American knee-jerk bias against the French. Why would
>another country's labs be "more independent" than those in France?Because we know from the purported 1999 tests that French labs violate
procedure in the service of l'Equipe.Don't try to spin the facts
Not only the Lab never violate anything, but it had the approval of UCI !
UCI did not authorize the release of test results.
If someone tells you a thing that he is bound by honor and profession to not
tell - is he also bound to tell you the truth?Read section 1.14 - 25 for the basics. That lab is dirty. It's relationship with
l'Equipe is inappropriate and we are right to distrust it.http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport%20HR%20zonder.pdf
Ron
-
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Montesquiou said:
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
On 28 Jul 2006 22:58:55 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:
>
>Ro wrote:
>
>> I would assume that if one had a sample taken in France it would be
>> tested in another couhtry to assure "independence""
>
>A typically American knee-jerk bias against the French. Why would
>another country's labs be "more independent" than those in France?Because we know from the purported 1999 tests that French labs violate
procedure
in the service of l'Equippe.Don't try to spin the facts
Not only the Lab never violate anything, but it had the approval of UCI !
UCI did not authorize the release of test results.
But the Lab never released the result.
Quoted message said:
If someone tells you a thing that he is bound by honor and profession to
not
tell - is he also bound to tell you the truth?That lab is dirty.
Ron
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
We KNOW from the pages of that paper that this particular lab does not
follow
the rules when it suits them or the people at the newspaper who bribe or
otherwise manipulate them.>What
>do the French have to gain by falsely accusing an American?l'Equippe has millions in sales to consider.
Ron
-
Montesquiou said:
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Montesquiou said:
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
> On 28 Jul 2006 22:58:55 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:
>
>>
>>Ro wrote:
>>
>>> I would assume that if one had a sample taken in France it would be
>>> tested in another couhtry to assure "independence""
>>
>>A typically American knee-jerk bias against the French. Why would
>>another country's labs be "more independent" than those in France?
>
> Because we know from the purported 1999 tests that French labs violate
> procedure
> in the service of l'Equippe.
>Don't try to spin the facts
Not only the Lab never violate anything, but it had the approval of UCI !
UCI did not authorize the release of test results.
But the Lab never released the result.
That was an LNDD test and LNDD refused to cooperate with the investigation. They
are dirty.http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport%20HR%20zonder.pdf
The report documents an ongoing pattern of information leaks from LNDD to
l'Equipe. The lab is untrustworthy.Ron
-
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Montesquiou said:
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:45:31 +0200, <Montesquiou> wrote:
>
>"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
>[email hidden]...
>> On 28 Jul 2006 22:58:55 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Ro wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would assume that if one had a sample taken in France it would be
>>>> tested in another couhtry to assure "independence""
>>>
>>>A typically American knee-jerk bias against the French. Why would
>>>another country's labs be "more independent" than those in France?
>>
>> Because we know from the purported 1999 tests that French labs violate
>> procedure
>> in the service of l'Equippe.
>>
>
>Don't try to spin the facts
>
>Not only the Lab never violate anything, but it had the approval of UCI
>!UCI did not authorize the release of test results.
But the Lab never released the result.
Wrong again !
Please read the Sandi's message in "Same Lab ?"
Quote "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" end quoteQuoted message said:
That was an LNDD test and LNDD refused to cooperate with the
investigation. They
are dirty.http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport%20HR%20zonder.pdf
The report documents an ongoing pattern of information leaks from LNDD to
l'Equipe. The lab is untrustworthy.Ron
-
Montesquiou said:
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Montesquiou said:
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:45:31 +0200, <Montesquiou> wrote:
>
>>
>>"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
>>[email hidden]...
>>> On 28 Jul 2006 22:58:55 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would assume that if one had a sample taken in France it would be
>>>>> tested in another couhtry to assure "independence""
>>>>
>>>>A typically American knee-jerk bias against the French. Why would
>>>>another country's labs be "more independent" than those in France?
>>>
>>> Because we know from the purported 1999 tests that French labs violate
>>> procedure
>>> in the service of l'Equippe.
>>>
>>
>>Don't try to spin the facts
>>
>>Not only the Lab never violate anything, but it had the approval of UCI
>>!
>
> UCI did not authorize the release of test results.
>But the Lab never released the result.
Wrong again !
Please read the Sandi's message in "Same Lab ?"
Quote "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" end quoteAnd I suppose that the reporter from l'Equipe has the proper requirements to
obtain information from a government laboratory?The lab, or at least one of its people are dirty and they do nothing about it.
Ron
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
That was an LNDD test and LNDD refused to cooperate with the
investigation. They
are dirty.http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport%20HR%20zonder.pdf
The report documents an ongoing pattern of information leaks from LNDD to
l'Equipe. The lab is untrustworthy.Ron
-
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Montesquiou said:
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:11:28 +0200, <Montesquiou> wrote:
>
>"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
>[email hidden]...
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:45:31 +0200, <Montesquiou> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
>>>[email hidden]...
>>>> On 28 Jul 2006 22:58:55 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would assume that if one had a sample taken in France it would
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> tested in another couhtry to assure "independence""
>>>>>
>>>>>A typically American knee-jerk bias against the French. Why would
>>>>>another country's labs be "more independent" than those in France?
>>>>
>>>> Because we know from the purported 1999 tests that French labs
>>>> violate
>>>> procedure
>>>> in the service of l'Equippe.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Don't try to spin the facts
>>>
>>>Not only the Lab never violate anything, but it had the approval of
>>>UCI
>>>!
>>
>> UCI did not authorize the release of test results.
>>
>
>But the Lab never released the result.Wrong again !
Please read the Sandi's message in "Same Lab ?"
Quote "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" end quoteAnd I suppose that the reporter from l'Equipe has the proper requirements
to
obtain information from a government laboratory?The lab, or at least one of its people are dirty and they do nothing about
it.Now it is different. From you original message "the purported 1999 tests
that French labs violate procedure in the service of l'Equippe." to you
question now : "at least one of its people are dirty" there is a difference.All the reporters and their source are dirty, my friend : The Wash Post was
dirty, deep throat was dirty, all the "under condition of anonymity" are
dirty.Quoted message said:
Ron
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
That was an LNDD test and LNDD refused to cooperate with the
investigation. They
are dirty.http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport%20HR%20zonder.pdf
The report documents an ongoing pattern of information leaks from LNDD
to
l'Equipe. The lab is untrustworthy.Ron
-
Montesquiou said:
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Montesquiou said:
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:11:28 +0200, <Montesquiou> wrote:
>
>>
>>"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
>>[email hidden]...
>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:45:31 +0200, <Montesquiou> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
>>>>[email hidden]...
>>>>> On 28 Jul 2006 22:58:55 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ro wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would assume that if one had a sample taken in France it would
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> tested in another couhtry to assure "independence""
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A typically American knee-jerk bias against the French. Why would
>>>>>>another country's labs be "more independent" than those in France?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because we know from the purported 1999 tests that French labs
>>>>> violate
>>>>> procedure
>>>>> in the service of l'Equippe.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Don't try to spin the facts
>>>>
>>>>Not only the Lab never violate anything, but it had the approval of
>>>>UCI
>>>>!
>>>
>>> UCI did not authorize the release of test results.
>>>
>>
>>But the Lab never released the result.Wrong again !
Please read the Sandi's message in "Same Lab ?"
Quote "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" end quoteAnd I suppose that the reporter from l'Equipe has the proper requirements
to
obtain information from a government laboratory?The lab, or at least one of its people are dirty and they do nothing about
it.Now it is different. From you original message "the purported 1999 tests
that French labs violate procedure in the service of l'Equippe." to you
question now : "at least one of its people are dirty" there is a difference.Not much. You know, I know, they know that someone in LNDD is dirty and
violating procedure in service of l'Equipe. They do nothing about it. That is
about the same thing.Quoted message said:
All the reporters and their source are dirty, my friend : The Wash Post was
dirty, deep throat was dirty, all the "under condition of anonymity" are
dirty.We seem to accept that the papers will do what they can to get a story. But I do
not think that an agency like WADA or a laboratory, especially a government
facility like LNDD is entitled to any such tolerance. We are not trusting a
newspaper to govern or regulate or exercise power.Ron
-
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>A typically American knee-jerk bias against the French. Why would
>>>another country's labs be "more independent" than those in France?Ro FROM NEW ZEALAND Not AMERICA, AUSTRALIA or any other Knee-jerk place in this universe..Am I bias against the FRENCH, maybe, but at least it is a home grown bias and not one imported from America.
I ever been to America, so my re-action is not anything like a knee jerk re-action. It is just an observations of some very dodgy press releases that seem to be authorised by nobody that always pre-empt any sort of judicial system.
Thia always seems to come out of FRANCE not America.
Now for yet another question concerning the tests.
If the results of the first (a) test are made public before the second(b) test is done, how on earth can anybody claim the second test is not started with a bias towards the results of the first, unless all thelab technicians are in some sort of time warp.
Ro
Active in the last 60 minutes
Active in this thread
0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total
No signed-in users are active right now.
No known search crawlers active right now.