> According the text, the UCI asked for the test of the sample B on Monday (I suppose this Monday - today) because the Lab did not recieved ANY OFFICIAL REQUEST from the Floyd's lawyer. I read the publication " July 31 - 9 PM 13 ( it is less than a hour ago).
The U.S. business magazine Forbes is reporting that Landis' lawyer did in fact request a test for sample B:
"saki" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news: [email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
<Montesquiou> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>> According the text, the UCI asked for the test of the sample B on > Monday (I suppose this Monday - today) because the Lab did not > recieved ANY OFFICIAL REQUEST from the Floyd's lawyer. > I read the publication " July 31 - 9 PM 13 ( it is less than a hour > ago).
The U.S. business magazine Forbes is reporting that Landis' lawyer did in fact request a test for sample B:
I would like to congratulate the French Lab, Floyd, the UCI and the Lawyer. I don't remember a post-TDF so exciting ! Do you remember something similar, Benjo ?
<Montesquiou> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"saki" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news: [email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
<Montesquiou> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
Quoted message said:
>>> According the text, the UCI asked for the test of the sample B on >> Monday (I suppose this Monday - today) because the Lab did not >> recieved ANY OFFICIAL REQUEST from the Floyd's lawyer. >> I read the publication " July 31 - 9 PM 13 ( it is less than a hour >> ago).
The U.S. business magazine Forbes is reporting that Landis' lawyer did in fact request a test for sample B:
I would like to congratulate the French Lab, Floyd, the UCI and the Lawyer. I don't remember a post-TDF so exciting ! Do you remember something similar, Benjo ?
Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four month of deliberation to disqualify the first four?
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
If that's the case don't you think that they'd want to find a lab they trusted? I sure as hell wouldn't trust a lab that leaked the information on the A Sample. It's my guess that the sample was tampered with.
If it's tampered, it doesn't matter which lab they use, it'll laways show up positive. But that's my guess, too. I think in 99.9% of all positive doping cases it was a tampered probe. We need to trust the athletes and if they say they are innocent then they are, period. That would save a lot of money on all the dope tests, too. We also need to extend that policy to the criminal system.
"jc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
benjo maso said:
Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four month of deliberation to disqualify the first four?
Benjo
Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-)
Will you tell the story? Please?
Of course, in the first years there was hardly a serious supervision of the riders and most of them were immediately accused of fraud. They should covered many miles with the assistance of friendly car drivers, who motorpaced them, allowed them to have been used cars, to motorpace the, to allow them to clung to them or even to hide , which transported them used cars which pulled or motorpaced them, or even allowed them to hide in the cars. The should have taken short cuts, changed numbers with friendly riders to dodge checkpoints, etc., etc. In short: they had done about everthing - legal or not legal - to win. Tour director Desgranges knew quite well what was going on, but tried to hide it as much as possible. Unfortunately the UVF was incensed and investigated it as thouroughly as possible. The results was that the four main culprits were disqualified and suspended for several years (one of them even for life) with the result that the unknown, only 19 year old Henri Cornet was declared winner.
"jc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
benjo maso said:
Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four month of deliberation to disqualify the first four?
Benjo
Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-)
Will you tell the story? Please?
Of course, in the first years there was hardly a serious supervision of the riders and most of them were immediately accused of fraud. They should covered many miles with the assistance of friendly car drivers, who motorpaced them, allowed them to have been used cars, to motorpace the, to allow them to clung to them or even to hide , which transported them used cars which pulled or motorpaced them, or even allowed them to hide in the cars. The should have taken short cuts, changed numbers with friendly riders to dodge checkpoints, etc., etc. In short: they had done about everthing - legal or not legal - to win. Tour director Desgranges knew quite well what was going on, but tried to hide it as much as possible. Unfortunately the UVF was incensed and investigated it as thouroughly as possible. The results was that the four main culprits were disqualified and suspended for several years (one of them even for life) with the result that the unknown, only 19 year old Henri Cornet was declared winner.
Benjo
Thanks! :-)
If I could ask one more question?
Are there any other cases in which the winner of the Tour was disqualified afterwards?
"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news: [email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"jc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
benjo maso said:
Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four month of deliberation to disqualify the first four?
Benjo
Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-)
Will you tell the story? Please?
Of course, in the first years there was hardly a serious supervision of the riders and most of them were immediately accused of fraud. They should covered many miles with the assistance of friendly car drivers, who motorpaced them, allowed them to have been used cars, to motorpace the, to allow them to clung to them or even to hide , which transported them used cars which pulled or motorpaced them, or even allowed them to hide in the cars. The should have taken short cuts, changed numbers with friendly riders to dodge checkpoints, etc., etc. In short: they had done about everthing - legal or not legal - to win. Tour director Desgranges knew quite well what was going on, but tried to hide it as much as possible. Unfortunately the UVF was incensed and investigated it as thouroughly as possible. The results was that the four main culprits were disqualified and suspended for several years (one of them even for life) with the result that the unknown, only 19 year old Henri Cornet was declared winner.
Benjo
Happy days ! The supreme authority was called "Union Vélocipédique de France " LOL ! Imagine McQuaid president of the IVU " Intenational Velocipedic Union " and Desgranges telling to the commissaires : " next year we have to follow them. Each one take his bike "
"jc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
If I could ask one more question?
Are there any other cases in which the winner of the Tour was disqualified afterwards?
Not that I know of, but in 1988 Pedro Delgado was found to be using a masking agent (e.g. stuff that would make the real drugs undetectable in a control). It was banned by the IOC(or some other org?), but not by the UCI, so they couldn't do anything. It ended up on the UCI doping list a few weeks after the Tour...
"jc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
benjo maso said:
"jc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
benjo maso wrote:
>Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four >month of deliberation to disqualify the first four? > >Benjo
Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-)
Will you tell the story? Please?
Of course, in the first years there was hardly a serious supervision of the riders and most of them were immediately accused of fraud. They should covered many miles with the assistance of friendly car drivers, who motorpaced them, allowed them to have been used cars, to motorpace the, to allow them to clung to them or even to hide , which transported them used cars which pulled or motorpaced them, or even allowed them to hide in the cars. The should have taken short cuts, changed numbers with friendly riders to dodge checkpoints, etc., etc. In short: they had done about everthing - legal or not legal - to win. Tour director Desgranges knew quite well what was going on, but tried to hide it as much as possible. Unfortunately the UVF was incensed and investigated it as thouroughly as possible. The results was that the four main culprits were disqualified and suspended for several years (one of them even for life) with the result that the unknown, only 19 year old Henri Cornet was declared winner.
Benjo
Thanks! :-)
If I could ask one more question?
Are there any other cases in which the winner of the Tour was disqualified afterwards?
"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news: [email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"jc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
benjo maso said:
"jc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
>benjo maso wrote: > > >>Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four >>month of deliberation to disqualify the first four? >> >>Benjo > >Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-) > >Will you tell the story? Please?
Of course, in the first years there was hardly a serious supervision of the riders and most of them were immediately accused of fraud. They should covered many miles with the assistance of friendly car drivers, who motorpaced them, allowed them to have been used cars, to motorpace the, to allow them to clung to them or even to hide , which transported them used cars which pulled or motorpaced them, or even allowed them to hide in the cars. The should have taken short cuts, changed numbers with friendly riders to dodge checkpoints, etc., etc. In short: they had done about everthing - legal or not legal - to win. Tour director Desgranges knew quite well what was going on, but tried to hide it as much as possible. Unfortunately the UVF was incensed and investigated it as thouroughly as possible. The results was that the four main culprits were disqualified and suspended for several years (one of them even for life) with the result that the unknown, only 19 year old Henri Cornet was declared winner.
Benjo
Thanks! :-)
If I could ask one more question?
Are there any other cases in which the winner of the Tour was disqualified afterwards?
No, never.
Benjo
Come on Benjo ; )
As I know my fellow citizen nor some Bourgogne, Ricard, Cognac doping case ?
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
If that's the case don't you think that they'd want to find a lab they trusted? I sure as hell wouldn't trust a lab that leaked the information on the A Sample. It's my guess that the sample was tampered with.
If it's tampered, it doesn't matter which lab they use, it'll laways show up positive. But that's my guess, too. I think in 99.9% of all positive doping cases it was a tampered probe. We need to trust the athletes and if they say they are innocent then they are, period. That would save a lot of money on all the dope tests, too. We also need to extend that policy to the criminal system.
I agree so completely. And think of the wonderful effect this would have on all the young riders. The idea that a little patch of T could mean eight minutes would forever be blown away from their young impressionable minds my the breeze of truth nNever to be seen or heard again. And the WADA witch will forever be locked away by the rays of sunlite justice.
If the lawyer wants to attack the reliability of the test, then stretching out the interval between the A and B samples tests is a good way to go. That's why in the Hamilton case, as it turned out, all the continuances were on Tyler's side. For those testosterone positives, most of the successful appeals have been on technicalities/procedural grounds.
<Montesquiou> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news: [email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"jc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
benjo maso wrote: > "jc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>benjo maso wrote: >> >> >>>Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after >>>four month of deliberation to disqualify the first four? >>> >>>Benjo >> >>Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-) >> >>Will you tell the story? Please? > > > > Of course, in the first years there was hardly a serious supervision of > the riders and most of them were immediately accused of fraud. They > should covered many miles with the assistance of friendly car drivers, > who motorpaced them, allowed them to have been used cars, to motorpace > the, to allow them to clung to them or even to hide , which > transported them used cars which pulled or motorpaced them, or even > allowed them to hide in the cars. The should have taken short cuts, > changed numbers with friendly riders to dodge checkpoints, etc., etc. > In short: they had done about everthing - legal or not legal - to win. > Tour director Desgranges knew quite well what was going on, but tried > to hide it as much as possible. Unfortunately the UVF was incensed and > investigated it as thouroughly as possible. The results was that the > four main culprits were disqualified and suspended for several years > (one of them even for life) with the result that the unknown, only 19 > year old Henri Cornet was declared winner. > > Benjo
Thanks! :-)
If I could ask one more question?
Are there any other cases in which the winner of the Tour was disqualified afterwards?
No, never.
Benjo
Come on Benjo ; )
As I know my fellow citizen nor some Bourgogne, Ricard, Cognac doping case ?
<[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news: [email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Mark said:
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
If that's the case don't you think that they'd want to find a lab they trusted? I sure as hell wouldn't trust a lab that leaked the information on the A Sample. It's my guess that the sample was tampered with.
If it's tampered, it doesn't matter which lab they use, it'll laways show up positive. But that's my guess, too. I think in 99.9% of all positive doping cases it was a tampered probe. We need to trust the athletes and if they say they are innocent then they are, period. That would save a lot of money on all the dope tests, too. We also need to extend that policy to the criminal system.
I agree so completely. And think of the wonderful effect this would have on all the young riders. The idea that a little patch of T could mean eight minutes would forever be blown away from their young impressionable minds my the breeze of truth nNever to be seen or heard again. And the WADA witch will forever be locked away by the rays of sunlite justice.
It is heartwarming to see that we are numerous to share the same opinion.
