"There was no protocol so the results cannot be proven nor accepted as proven. Finally, the rider only allowed his samples to be kept by the 'lab' for research purposes.
First Tyler and now Lance. What comes of it ? Was there a medical reason for him to use something ? Did the doctors turn him into a modern day 6 million dollar man ?
Was there a medical reason for him to use something ? Did the doctors turn him into a modern day 6 million dollar man ?
There were other Americans staying where we were before the Alpe d'Huez stage in 2001, the one with 'The Look'. One of them was a CTS customer and a huge, huge fan of LANCE.
I remember expressing the opinion that the chances of a rider that was working with a guy that had become a millionaire designing doping programs for cyclists being clean seemed kind of remote.
I will never forget the look on that guy's face when I said that.
Was there a medical reason for him to use something ? Did the doctors turn him into a modern day 6 million dollar man ?
I think the following paragraph says it all:
"The procedure used for these samples was one used for research purposes and didn't follow the protocol for samples tested for possible disciplinary proceedings."
I'm really surprised Lance hasn't sued anyone yet. ----------------- Alex
Lance is a multimillionaire who has better things to do with his time. Do you think of a minute that he'd bother to even laugh at Brian Lafferty? That would be giving him more credit than he's worth.
If it came down to the UCI trying to remove one of his records now, you'd see the UCI becoming a vastly reduced engine of finance.
"The procedure used for these samples was one used for research purposes and didn't follow the protocol for samples tested for possible disciplinary proceedings."
Which basically means that witnesses were not present during the unsealing of the sample. The final result is still scientifically valid and correct.
I'm not. If there will be no sanction there will be no leg for him to stand on. If he forces the scientists to reveal their methods it will open the door to other scientists weighing in with their support. And it will take away the opportunity for the rbr pseudo-scientific monkeys to disregard the evidence based on poor science.
"The procedure used for these samples was one used for research purposes and didn't follow the protocol for samples tested for possible disciplinary proceedings."
Which basically means that witnesses were not present during the unsealing of the sample. The final result is still scientifically valid and correct.
For certain values of valid and correct. The laboratory procedure was carried out once. Not reproduced elsewhere. Not reproduced on clean and spiked samples that were stored five years. No journal article. No peer review.
I'm not. If there will be no sanction there will be no leg for him to stand on. If he forces the scientists to reveal their methods it will open the door to other scientists weighing in with their support. And it will take away the opportunity for the rbr pseudo-scientific monkeys to disregard the evidence based on poor science.
"Kyle Legate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Alex Rodriguez said:
I think the following paragraph says it all:
"The procedure used for these samples was one used for research purposes and didn't follow the protocol for samples tested for possible disciplinary proceedings."
Which basically means that witnesses were not present during the unsealing of the sample. The final result is still scientifically valid and correct.
"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Kyle Legate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Alex Rodriguez said:
I think the following paragraph says it all:
"The procedure used for these samples was one used for research purposes and didn't follow the protocol for samples tested for possible disciplinary proceedings."
Which basically means that witnesses were not present during the unsealing of the sample. The final result is still scientifically valid and correct.
Your perception of it maybe.
You know - valid and correct in the Kveck sort of way - where no procedures are followed but we're all supposed to believe that they REALLY REALLY knew what they were doing.
And that' completely without the latest knowledge that someone can show up positive simply with other proteins in their urine. Kveck will argue that someone that is just a year out of chemotherapy and radiation treatments has fully functional kidneys.