I know there is much debate about his initial 'win', but it is sounding more and more like the 1999 win WAS tainted after all. [censored] Pound, head of WADA - the anti-doping agency, has even gone so far to say that if 1 of the 6 samples taken had EPO that would be one thing but if all 6 of the 6 taken did then there would have to be some explaining done.
Do like they are talking about doing with Rafael Palmiero if they are going to do it to Raffy - put an asterisk besides his name - if in fact it is found that there is validity to the assertions of the French.
<[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news: [email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I know there is much debate about his initial 'win', but it is sounding more and more like the 1999 win WAS tainted after all. [censored] Pound, head of WADA - the anti-doping agency, has even gone so far to say that if 1 of the 6 samples taken had EPO that would be one thing but if all 6 of the 6 taken did then there would have to be some explaining done.
Do like they are talking about doing with Rafael Palmiero if they are going to do it to Raffy - put an asterisk besides his name - if in fact it is found that there is validity to the assertions of the French.
SQ
My friend,
The Lance's problem is not 1 or 2 or 6 TDF. His problem is that he has more judicial trial than TDF. Or do you believe he will now win all the millions against the Texan SCA ? Or against Simeoni ? Or against Emma O'Reilly ? Or against Mike Anderson ? Or, Or , or.....
I know there is much debate about his initial 'win', but it is sounding more and more like the 1999 win WAS tainted after all. [censored] Pound, head of WADA - the anti-doping agency, has even gone so far to say that if 1 of the 6 samples taken had EPO that would be one thing but if all 6 of the 6 taken did then there would have to be some explaining done.
Do like they are talking about doing with Rafael Palmiero if they are going to do it to Raffy - put an asterisk besides his name - if in fact it is found that there is validity to the assertions of the French.
SQ
It wasn't 6 of 6, it was 6 of 17. Armstrong gave 17 urine samples in '99. It's valid to ask why they weren't all positive.
Only a small percentage of all of the samples were clearly negative. A huge portion we're in the 'grey area' (the % was higher than any clean rider should have), and many more simply we're not able to be tested, for whatever reason (degraded sample?).
"Diablo Scott" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news: 1125097138.73f466b4278f5e9621920d3d009ad1c5@teranews...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I know there is much debate about his initial 'win', but it is sounding more and more like the 1999 win WAS tainted after all. [censored] Pound, head of WADA - the anti-doping agency, has even gone so far to say that if 1 of the 6 samples taken had EPO that would be one thing but if all 6 of the 6 taken did then there would have to be some explaining done.
Do like they are talking about doing with Rafael Palmiero if they are going to do it to Raffy - put an asterisk besides his name - if in fact it is found that there is validity to the assertions of the French.
SQ
It wasn't 6 of 6, it was 6 of 17. Armstrong gave 17 urine samples in '99. It's valid to ask why they weren't all positive.
I suspect you rever read l'Equipe, it is not ? If your answer is Yes, I did, so your French is very low If your answer is not, then read first
Why is anybody bothered about drug use in sport? (I write as one of those (rare?) people who doesn't give a toss about sport or drugs.) One reason why people might be bothered about drug use in sport is because it's cheating, but if the rules were changed to say "you may now use any substances you like including the ones previously proscribed", then it wouldn't be.
-- I don't know who you are Sir, or where you come from, but you've done me a power of good.
I believe the issue here is the deep resentment that the French feel towards winners.
Pastor Winter -- Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry http://www.apostolic.biz for Bible studies (text and audio) Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?
Why is anybody bothered about drug use in sport? (I write as one of those (rare?) people who doesn't give a toss about sport or drugs.) One reason why people might be bothered about drug use in sport is because it's cheating, but if the rules were changed to say "you may now use any substances you like including the ones previously proscribed", then it wouldn't be.
It would turn into "who is willing to risk their health the most".
The idea of competition in sport isn't "who has the best chemicals".
It would encourage kids to use these drugs and harm them.
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I know there is much debate about his initial 'win', but it is sounding more and more like the 1999 win WAS tainted after all. [censored] Pound, head of WADA - the anti-doping agency, has even gone so far to say that if 1 of the 6 samples taken had EPO that would be one thing but if all 6 of the 6 taken did then there would have to be some explaining done.
With tampering, the number is immaterial. Is it reasonable to believe that someone who would leak information in violation of the rules would also tamper with the samples? Declaring a positive without the recognized protocol of an A and B sample is an indication of either ignorance or bias.
Quoted message said:
Do like they are talking about doing with Rafael Palmiero if they are going to do it to Raffy - put an asterisk besides his name - if in fact it is found that there is validity to the assertions of the French.
I'm assuming rules and protocol were followed and Raffy was caught fair and square.
Why is anybody bothered about drug use in sport? (I write as one of those (rare?) people who doesn't give a toss about sport or drugs.) One reason why people might be bothered about drug use in sport is because it's cheating, but if the rules were changed to say "you may now use any substances you like including the ones previously proscribed", then it wouldn't be.
I don't give a damn about either as well. Which is why I think sports is foolish. Take car racing. The point of racing is to be the first around the track, but they only let your engine go so fast. Oh, yeah, they'll give me all that "technique" [censored]. Whatever.
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I know there is much debate about his initial 'win', but it is sounding more and more like the 1999 win WAS tainted after all. [censored] Pound, head of WADA - the anti-doping agency, has even gone so far to say that if 1 of the 6 samples taken had EPO that would be one thing but if all 6 of the 6 taken did then there would have to be some explaining done.
With tampering, the number is immaterial. Is it reasonable to believe that someone who would leak information in violation of the rules would also tamper with the samples? Declaring a positive without the recognized protocol of an A and B sample is an indication of either ignorance or bias.
As far as I understood, the laboratory wouldn't have been able to leak the identifying information, it was already in the archives of L'Equipe and leaked by someone else. OTOH, only the laboratory or people with access to it would be able to tamper with the the samples.
Concerning the A&B samples, the fact that this procedure isn't following regulations of sporting agencies has nothing to do with it's validity. I've never heard of field sobriety test mandating A&B samples in a similar way, for instance.
That said, independend on the doping issue, all this is a serious breach of privacy of an individual and should be investigated.
"Diablo Scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1125097138.73f466b4278f5e9621920d3d009ad1c5@teranews...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I know there is much debate about his initial 'win', but it is sounding more and more like the 1999 win WAS tainted after all. [censored] Pound, head of WADA - the anti-doping agency, has even gone so far to say that if 1 of the 6 samples taken had EPO that would be one thing but if all 6 of the 6 taken did then there would have to be some explaining done.
Do like they are talking about doing with Rafael Palmiero if they are going to do it to Raffy - put an asterisk besides his name - if in fact it is found that there is validity to the assertions of the French.
SQ
It wasn't 6 of 6, it was 6 of 17. Armstrong gave 17 urine samples in '99. It's valid to ask why they weren't all positive.
Because there are A tests and B tests. A tests are not kept, while the B tests are kept for later testing, if required. Armstrong failed on all the B tests.
I know there is much debate about his initial 'win', but it is sounding more and more like the 1999 win WAS tainted after all. [censored] Pound, head of WADA - the anti-doping agency, has even gone so far to say that if 1 of the 6 samples taken had EPO that would be one thing but if all 6 of the 6 taken did then there would have to be some explaining done.
Do like they are talking about doing with Rafael Palmiero if they are going to do it to Raffy - put an asterisk besides his name - if in fact it is found that there is validity to the assertions of the French.
SQ
It wasn't 6 of 6, it was 6 of 17. Armstrong gave 17 urine samples in
'99.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
It's valid to ask why they weren't all positive.
I suspect you rever read l'Equipe, it is not ? If your answer is Yes, I did, so your French is very low If your answer is not, then read first
Doesn't "l'Equipe" translate to "National Enquirer"? Oui?
I know there is much debate about his initial 'win', but it is sounding more and more like the 1999 win WAS tainted after all. [censored] Pound, head of WADA - the anti-doping agency, has even gone so far to say that if 1 of the 6 samples taken had EPO that would be one thing but if all 6 of the 6 taken did then there would have to be some explaining done.
Do like they are talking about doing with Rafael Palmiero if they are going to do it to Raffy - put an asterisk besides his name - if in fact it is found that there is validity to the assertions of the French.
SQ
It wasn't 6 of 6, it was 6 of 17. Armstrong gave 17 urine samples in '99. It's valid to ask why they weren't all positive.
[censored] Pound of WADA referred to 6 and that is what I was going on Diablo. And I think [censored] Pound might know quite a bit more about it than you little man.
> I know there is much debate about his initial 'win', but it is > sounding > more and more like the 1999 win WAS tainted after all. [censored] Pound, > head of WADA - the anti-doping agency, has even gone so far to say > that > if 1 of the 6 samples taken had EPO that would be one thing but if all > 6 of the 6 taken did then there would have to be some explaining done. > > > Do like they are talking about doing with Rafael Palmiero if they are > going to do it to Raffy - put an asterisk besides his name - if in > fact > it is found that there is validity to the assertions of the French. > > SQ >
It wasn't 6 of 6, it was 6 of 17. Armstrong gave 17 urine samples in
'99.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
It's valid to ask why they weren't all positive.
I suspect you rever read l'Equipe, it is not ? If your answer is Yes, I did, so your French is very low If your answer is not, then read first
Doesn't "l'Equipe" translate to "National Enquirer"? Oui?
No. Nor is the l'Equipe, nor the NYT, nor others prestigious News Papers are such tabloid.
It is far from to be perfect, but l'Equipe is traditional. It is indeed why the accusations are seriously considered and Lance seems to hesitate to fight against.
Of course the sportmen don't like the Equipe, because he is troubling and rather violent in his accusations and some reports.
As you know, it's a witch-hunt. Those of you who don't think so, consider that testing today is a lot more sophisticated than it was just 5 years ago. The French lab could have chosen any or all collections of samples from the last century to publicize: LeMonde's, etc. Of course, no protocols could be followed. So, what it amounts to is trying to destroy a reputation.
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 02:48:50 GMT, "N. Silver" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
As you know, it's a witch-hunt. Those of you who don't think so, consider that testing today is a lot more sophisticated than it was just 5 years ago. The French lab could have chosen any or all collections of samples from the last century to publicize: LeMonde's, etc. Of course, no protocols could be followed. So, what it amounts to is trying to destroy a reputation.
As you know, it's a witch-hunt. Those of you who don't think so, consider that testing today is a lot more sophisticated than it was just 5 years ago. The French lab could have chosen any or all collections of samples from the last century to publicize: LeMonde's, etc. Of course, no protocols could be followed. So, what it amounts to is trying to destroy a reputation.
