An Exchange With USACycling

Wow! You have serious issues my friend...

Serious...

Tom

A fan spinning in a vacuum creates no breeze.

I hereby bestow upon you the '05 RBR Fan In Vacuum Award.

(What is the speed of sound in a vacuum?)

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

Quoted message said:

Thank you for your reply. Allow me to point out several factually incorrect
statements and fallacies.

While I understand that you and Mr. Armstrong would like a "B" sample to
test, that does not mean that the tests performed by the French WADA
laboratory are without validity for non-UCI sanctioning purposes; that is,
letting the truth be known. As a retired trial attorney, I can assure you
that the lab results in question will be admissible in a civil court, and
probably criminal court, proceeding with a sufficient evidentiary
foundation.

Mr. Johnson, nothing in life is 100% certain. However, you are in all
probability about to see these test results and the testimony of Mr.
Armstrong's former employees and associates used to establish by a fair
preponderance of the evidence, in arbitration in Texas and in the Sunday
Times libel action, that Mr. Armstrong used illegal performance enhancing
products.

For your information, L'Equipe is not a tabloid. It is a daily broadsheet
sporting newspaper that is well respected internationally. Calling it a
tabloid as you and Mr. Armstrong have done, is mere hyperbole designed to
distract from the revelation of the results uncovered by L'Equipe's
investigative journalism. Like it or not, this is how the truth often
emerges in our world.

I can assure you that I am grasping for nothing but the truth. Sadly, it is
quite apparent that the UCI and USAC are not driven by the desire to
discover the truth of doping in our sport. Permit me a cynical, but I think
realistic, conclusion, to wit, that you are more motivated by money than
truth. Those who control cycling internationally and domestically have mush
to lose should the truth be revealed. With that in mind, how's the Greg
Strock case going?

Regards,

Brian Lafferty

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Johnson, Steve [[email hidden]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 9:22 AM
To: [email hidden]
Cc: Bisceglia, Gerard; Petty, Sean
Subject: RE: The Significance of L'Equipe's Investigative Journalism

Mr. Lafferty,

For your information, there is an established international protocol for
managing, testing, and adjudicating doping cases. This protocol was created
to insure the reliability and validity of the testing AND to protect the
rights of innocent athletes. Once you step outside that protocol, NOTHING
is "100% likely," and the rights of the innocent go out the window. In this
case, the protocol was violated, the laboratory broke a fundamental rule of
managing data from human subjects, and supposedly "scientific findings" were
published in a tabloid newspaper. This is not how science strives for the
truth, in fact, it is an affront to the scientific method. Perhaps you
should read your concluding quote again, and ask yourself if you aren't
simply grasping for something to validate a preconceived notion.

All the best,

Steve Johnson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Brian Lafferty [[email hidden]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 6:24 AM
To: Johnson, Steve
Subject: The Significance of L'Equipe's Investigative Journalism

Your recent comments about the significance of the L'Equipe article are off
base. While there has technically not be a positive test in the sense of
possible sanctions, there has be a finding of EPO in Armstrong's and others
urine taken from the 1999 Tour. This is not about the French. This is
about the top US rider. While his life is more than cycling, his ability to
do fund raising for cancer research is predicated on his Tour wins.

It now appears clearly that all the reports of Armstrong's drug use by
former employees and associates were right on the money. Assuming the tests
did find EPO in his urine (and that is nearly 100% likely), Mr. Armstrong is
a liar, a cheat and a fraud. Your public response does nothing to address
the problem of doping in cycling. It does nothing to assure parents of
young cyclists that you are adequately acknowledging and dealing with the
problem.

Take your head out of the sand, acknowledge that Mr. Armstrong has created a
major problem and deal with it.

Brian Lafferty

License #B91977

In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving
for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.
Buddha

I think it was pretty ballsy for you to right that. While I agree with
many of your points, I am concerned about the way all this came out and
I'm a little skeptical about the samples in question actually being
LA's. This is not to say I do not think he doped, but rather that the
integrity of the test is in question when only his name is released. I
think this could have and should have been handled differently, and if
it had we wouldn't have everyone taking sides.

Steve is right about the need for anonymity in science, however. If I
were publish the names of any subjects I have tested I would breech our
agreement. Again, I think everyone is too quick to jump to either side
of the fence.

Last point, though, I also agree that USAC's whole hearted support of
Lance has more to do with money than science, but good luck getting
anyone ot admit that.

CH

B. Lafferty said:

I can assure you that I am grasping for nothing but the truth.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Permit me a cynical, but I think realistic, conclusion, to wit, that
you are more motivated by money than truth.

Crusade on, Brotha. Crusade for Truth. And make sure to call out the
people whose motivations aren't as pure as yours.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving
for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.
Buddha

Your hypocrisy is breathtaking. I guess it just goes to show, "even
Lafferty can quote the Buddha."

Thanks,
-Smurf

Heck, the rules are the rules. No one can go back and re-write the
rules as far as Lance getting credit for his wins (officially). But I
have absolutely no problem with the public knowing that he tested
positive. Our right to know outweighs his right to confidentiality.
Kudos to the lab worker(s) who helped put the dots together.

Torched Smurf said:

B. Lafferty said:

I can assure you that I am grasping for nothing but the truth.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Permit me a cynical, but I think realistic, conclusion, to wit, that
you are more motivated by money than truth.

Crusade on, Brotha. Crusade for Truth. And make sure to call out the
people whose motivations aren't as pure as yours.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving
for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.
Buddha

Your hypocrisy is breathtaking. I guess it just goes to show, "even
Lafferty can quote the Buddha."

I think you're being unduly harsh on Laffatme. Hypocrisy can have a
couple of definitions:
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one
does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

There is no doubt that he really believes the stuff he spouts. In
other posts I referred to his inability to see his own bias as a blind
spot, and thus dubbed him Blind Spot. Just as you would not think
about pointing out a handicapped person's shortcomings, you should feel
pity for someone's self-imposed mental handicaps and make allowances.
Now if we can only get some funding for him or have a telethon on his
behalf, there will be some hope for a cure. Until then, pat him on the
head and send him on his way.

R

Quoted message said:

Heck, the rules are the rules. No one can go back and re-write the
rules as far as Lance getting credit for his wins (officially). But I
have absolutely no problem with the public knowing that he tested
positive. Our right to know outweighs his right to confidentiality.
Kudos to the lab worker(s) who helped put the dots together.

Or is that _made_ the dots? We don't know. I do commend your
shoot-now-ask-questions-later mentality. Maybe you could help patrol
the London Underground...?

R

You claim that even if these test results are not to the UCI's
protocol, that we should readily accept them as valid for proving that
Armstrong is a liar and a doper. Yet you continue to ignore facts that
prevent any non-biased observer of this case to hold such judgement in
reserve:

What proof do you have that these samples that are supposedly positive
for EPO are the same samples that were taken from Lance Armstrong in
1999? None. All you have is a photograph in L'Equipe claiming that the
control numbers match. There has been no independent verification of
this claim. There has been no verification that these documents are
indeed genuine and are not forgeries.

What proof do you have that the samples in question were properly
handled over the past years? None. Not even the lab in question has
produced any such proof.

What proof do you have that even if the samples were properly handled,
that the test for EPO would still be valid on the aged samples? None.
All you have is the word of the lab, there is no scientific
verification. For such verification to exist, there would need to be
samples that were measured at the time they were taken, tested again X
years later, then the results compared for validity and deviations, and
proof produced that the degree of variation was low enough to consider
the test valid (note that this would require both negative and positive
samples at the time of original testing to be a complete study). Such a
verification has not been attempted, even on samples that were
originally measured in 2001. Since the test didn't exist in 1999, such
"scientific verification" isn't even possible.

How do you explain that despite the fact that EPO remains detectable
for periods long enough to cover the full set of samples that are
attributed to Armstrong, that only a subset of the samples show
positive results?

There is more than sufficient doubt to reserve judgement on this case
until a more complete investigation by the UCI and WADA is conducted.
Anyone who has already jumped to the position of judging Armstrong as
either guilty or innocent, based on the evidence as it is currently
presented is doing so either out of bias, malice, or plain ignorance.

CP

Actually, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I've seen
no obvious motivation for a lab worker(s) to manipulate the samples or
the results. There will be no movie deal, no "Tell-all" book, no TV
series for whomever leaked this. Whoever leaked this stands to gain
pretty much zero. But Lance has many fans and friends now, plus some
serious cash...and he also has so much more to lose now. That
difference helps me figure out who to grant some initial credibility
to. Right now, I'm leaning towards "Zee French"

We've given Lance this benefit (some more than others) for the past 7
years, so hold your horses on the lab workers, ok?

And I've got plenty of questions. The SdTDF, the lab, WADA and the UCI
should now release all of the codes and get this all out in the air.

RicodJour said:

Torched Smurf said:

B. Lafferty said:

I can assure you that I am grasping for nothing but the truth.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Permit me a cynical, but I think realistic, conclusion, to wit, that
you are more motivated by money than truth.

Crusade on, Brotha. Crusade for Truth. And make sure to call out the
people whose motivations aren't as pure as yours.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving
for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.
Buddha

Your hypocrisy is breathtaking. I guess it just goes to show, "even
Lafferty can quote the Buddha."

I think you're being unduly harsh on Laffatme. Hypocrisy can have a
couple of definitions:
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one
does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

There is no doubt that he really believes the stuff he spouts. In
other posts I referred to his inability to see his own bias as a blind
spot, and thus dubbed him Blind Spot. Just as you would not think
about pointing out a handicapped person's shortcomings, you should feel
pity for someone's self-imposed mental handicaps and make allowances.
Now if we can only get some funding for him or have a telethon on his
behalf, there will be some hope for a cure. Until then, pat him on the
head and send him on his way.

R

Since when did having an opinion on an issue constitute a "bias"?

Steve

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

RicodJour said:

I think you're being unduly harsh on Laffatme. Hypocrisy can have a
couple of definitions:
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one
does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

There is no doubt that he really believes the stuff he spouts. In
other posts I referred to his inability to see his own bias as a blind
spot, and thus dubbed him Blind Spot. Just as you would not think
about pointing out a handicapped person's shortcomings, you should feel
pity for someone's self-imposed mental handicaps and make allowances.
Now if we can only get some funding for him or have a telethon on his
behalf, there will be some hope for a cure. Until then, pat him on the
head and send him on his way.

R

Read the Buddha quote Lafferty supplied again. Now read your definition
again. Think about it for a while.

I don't doubt that Lafferty believes the stuff he spouts. In fact, it's
pretty obvious he believes it to the exclusion of all else. No matter
what happens in this case, even if it was proved that L'Equipe
orchestrated the whole thing and framed LANCE (not that I think this is
likely), Lafferty's version of the "truth" is immutable and impervious
to external influences. Which is what makes it especially ludicrous
when he delivers high-handed sermons about "searching for the truth"
and quotes the Buddha like he is some kind of serene, disinterested zen
master. If this isn't a textbook example of hypocrisy, I don't know
what is.

-Smurf

Ironically, the lab will not comment because they still consider the
study to be ongoing, and to comment would violate the protocol.

-p

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

Quoted message said:

What proof do you have [snip]

Wait 9 more days for the UCI report, which promises answers. Save what you
wrote, then, after reading the whole report, let us know how smart you words
were. Entertaining exercise.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Why did you write this? What were you trying to accomplish?

I'm not expecting much. The rules were already clear on this.

The UCI has only one choice right now. Either dump their beloved hero,
or comdemn the lab / L'Equipe. They can always find another lab, but
what about another hero?

My money is on the UCI making a very deliberate stand condemning the
lab (and L'Equipe) and backing up Armstrong. If their world is going
to come tumbling down, then for damn sure it's going to be within the
structure they originally layed-out.

BUT: I'd be willing to bet they change a few of the rules as a result
of this.

sex with lance's ex.

RVD

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

What proof do you have [snip]

Wait 9 more days for the UCI report, which promises answers. Save
what you wrote, then, after reading the whole report, let us know how
smart you words were. Entertaining exercise.

Hindsight will be 20/20 and his words are appropriate given the lack of
information. Like I've said before, I hope any ruling is based on
scientific consideration and not an emotional/political/personal one.

Phil H

Sandy said:

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

Quoted message said:

What proof do you have [snip]

Wait 9 more days for the UCI report, which promises answers. Save what you
wrote, then, after reading the whole report, let us know how smart you words
were. Entertaining exercise.

Everyone who is informed on this issue is aware of the UCI's recent
promise of a report. Isn't waiting for more information before passing
judgement exactly what I suggested? Perhaps you have a reading
comprehension problem.

CP

Thanks for posting, Brian. Allow me to consider your email and point out a
few fallacies of your own.

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Allow me to point out several factually
incorrect statements and fallacies.

(Note the redundancy.)

Quoted message said:

While I understand that you and Mr. Armstrong would like a "B" sample to
test, that does not mean that the tests performed by the French WADA
laboratory are without validity for non-UCI sanctioning purposes; that is,
letting the truth be known.

Note Brian presumes to tell the boys how to do their job. BTW, truth (see
below)?

Quoted message said:

As a retired trial attorney, I can assure you

In logic, we call this an appeal to authority, in this case, Brian is
playing the "I'm a lawyer"
card. He's appealing to his own authority.

Quoted message said:

that the lab results in question will be admissible in a civil court, and
probably criminal court, proceeding with a sufficient evidentiary
foundation.

Acceptance in one court does not per se establish acceptance more
universally, or in this case, another.

Quoted message said:

Mr. Johnson, nothing in life is 100% certain.

Brian states an absolute to say there can be no absolutes.

Quoted message said:

For your information,

Note the patronizing tone.

Quoted message said:

Calling it a
_mere_ hyperbole [emphasis added]

Note the attempt to minimize the "hyperbole."

designed to

Quoted message said:

distract from the revelation of the results uncovered by L'Equipe's
investigative journalism. Like it or not, this is how the truth often
emerges in our world.

Truth? I thought nothing is 100% certain. Note Brian wants to have it both
ways.
He can assert the truth, but no one else can (unless they agree with him).

Quoted message said:

I can assure you that I am grasping for nothing but the truth.

We all believe that here in rbr, Brian. Really, we do.

Quoted message said:

Sadly, it

Note the irony. Sadness is one thing you haven't conveyed, Bri.

Quoted message said:

is quite apparent

Note the elitism. Did you "sniff" with your nose in the air when you penned
this? BTW, stylistically, "quite" weakens "apparent."

Quoted message said:

that the UCI and USAC are not driven by the desire to
discover the truth of doping in our sport.

Note Brian's confident assertion of the UCI and USAC's motives. Anyone in
conciliation will tell you you don't presume to know the other person's
motives. Why'd you even write to them, Brian?

Quoted message said:

Permit me a cynical, but I

Note the truth! You are nothing if not cynical, Brian, at least on this
one.

Quoted message said:

think realistic, conclusion, to wit, that you are more motivated by money
than truth. Those who control cycling internationally and domestically
have mush to lose should the truth be revealed. With that in mind, how's
the Greg Strock case going?

Note the cheap shot.

The evidence is clear. Of thirteen samples, there at at least six samples
of this email that test positive for bad logic.

JF