Doping Report

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Nice try but too many "ifs" to be a meaningful statement. In other words,
[censored].

Funny, I just heard someone cite you for the same conditional overload.
What are you going to post next, a snore?

JF

--
All men dream, but not equally.
Those who dream by night in the dusty
recesses of their minds
Awake to find that it was vanity;
But the dreamers of day are dangerous men,
That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible.
-- T. E. Lawrence

http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

If the test methodology is valid and the lab procedures in testing were
correctly done, and the numbers on the tested samples match Mr.
Armstrong, one can only conclude that Armstrong used EPO

But we now know that the EPO test isn't reliable - R. Beke's data proves
that.

Andy Coggan

Care to comment on the three test methodologies used by the French WADA
accredited lab and the fact that they only determined a positive if all
three methodologies indicated a positive finding. Feel free to consult with
your buddy Eddie the Apologist Coyle before responding.

Nap time, Laughing Boy.

--
Michael Press

"Jim Flom " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:KbFUe.167654$wr.73973@clgrps12...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Nice try but too many "ifs" to be a meaningful statement. In other
words, [censored].

Funny, I just heard someone cite you for the same conditional overload.
What are you going to post next, a snore?

JF

--
All men dream, but not equally.
Those who dream by night in the dusty
recesses of their minds
Awake to find that it was vanity;
But the dreamers of day are dangerous men,
That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible.
-- T. E. Lawrence

http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/

Snore.

B. Lafferty said:

Andy Coggan said:

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

Quoted message said:

If the test methodology is valid and the lab procedures in testing were
correctly done, and the numbers on the tested samples match Mr.
Armstrong, one can only conclude that Armstrong used EPO

But we now know that the EPO test isn't reliable - R. Beke's data proves
that.

Quoted message said:

Care to comment on the three test methodologies used by the French WADA
accredited lab and the fact that they only determined a positive if all
three methodologies indicated a positive finding. Feel free to consult with
your buddy Eddie the Apologist Coyle before responding.

Do you care to comment? I mean, can you explain how the
three test methodologies are different, or in any way
independent. Don't point me to an article in L'Equipe, I'm
just a dumb experimentalist who needs your own words to
explain it. Because I suspect they're three different ways
of evaluating the same chart from the electrophoresis.

The Beke case may be a very rare bird. I'm not going to
claim it exonerates Armstrong. I do think it illustrates the
unworkability of the UCI/WADA sanctioning riders with long-term
retroactive tests. Imagine if somebody had dug up a six year
old result on Beke, and he had had to attempt to reconstruct the
circumstances under which his body produces proteins after
heavy exercise that fool the electrophoresis test. After
such a long delay there's no hope of proving that somebody's
body chemistry is exactly the same. Forget the sanctions and
be content with the damage to LANCE's reputation.

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Andy Coggan said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote :
>
> If the test methodology is valid and the lab procedures in testing
> were
> correctly done, and the numbers on the tested samples match Mr.
> Armstrong, one can only conclude that Armstrong used EPO

But we now know that the EPO test isn't reliable - R. Beke's data
proves
that.

Quoted message said:

Care to comment on the three test methodologies used by the French WADA
accredited lab and the fact that they only determined a positive if all
three methodologies indicated a positive finding. Feel free to consult
with
your buddy Eddie the Apologist Coyle before responding.

Do you care to comment? I mean, can you explain how the
three test methodologies are different, or in any way
independent. Don't point me to an article in L'Equipe, I'm
just a dumb experimentalist who needs your own words to
explain it. Because I suspect they're three different ways
of evaluating the same chart from the electrophoresis.

The Beke case may be a very rare bird. I'm not going to
claim it exonerates Armstrong. I do think it illustrates the
unworkability of the UCI/WADA sanctioning riders with long-term
retroactive tests. Imagine if somebody had dug up a six year
old result on Beke, and he had had to attempt to reconstruct the
circumstances under which his body produces proteins after
heavy exercise that fool the electrophoresis test. After
such a long delay there's no hope of proving that somebody's
body chemistry is exactly the same. Forget the sanctions and
be content with the damage to LANCE's reputation.

Please note that I've stated here on more than one occasion that I don't
care if Armstrong is sanctioned or not.

B. Lafferty said:

Please note that I've stated here on more than one occasion that I don't
care if Armstrong is sanctioned or not.

Your claim of lack of interest is unconvincing, Counselor.
So you're writing to USA Cycling and moaning about the UCI
in rbr, not because you want them to do anything substantive,
but because you want them just to make a public statement
that they aren't best friends with LANCE anymore?
Because you can't be friends with anybody that's friends
with Lance.

Kurgan is right, this really is high school for you, isn't it?

What next, a fatwa that Lance isn't welcome to your Sweet
Sixteen, and you really wish he would return all your letters?

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Please note that I've stated here on more than one occasion that I don't
care if Armstrong is sanctioned or not.

So what are you really after here? Are you trying to prove something? Are
you just trying to bash a champion? At what point will you be at peace,
Brian, ready to move on from this lance obsession and obsess on something
new? Seriously. Inquiring minds want to know.

JF

--
All men dream, but not equally.
Those who dream by night in the dusty
recesses of their minds
Awake to find that it was vanity;
But the dreamers of day are dangerous men,
That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible.
-- T. E. Lawrence

http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Please note that I've stated here on more than one occasion that I don't
care if Armstrong is sanctioned or not.

Your claim of lack of interest is unconvincing, Counselor.

Sorry you feel that way but it really doesn't bother me in the least.

Quoted message said:

So you're writing to USA Cycling and moaning about the UCI
in rbr, not because you want them to do anything substantive,
but because you want them just to make a public statement
that they aren't best friends with LANCE anymore?

No, I expect them to no participate in the smoke and mirrors campaign to
distract from the central issue of the L'Equipe article, that six of
Armstrong's urine samples have tested positive for EPO.

Quoted message said:

Because you can't be friends with anybody that's friends
with Lance.

That's funny.

Quoted message said:

Kurgan is right, this really is high school for you, isn't it?

Oh dear no. High school was never as much fun as rbr.

Quoted message said:

What next, a fatwa that Lance isn't welcome to your Sweet
Sixteen, and you really wish he would return all your letters?

Ah you are the droll one, aren't you?

"Jim Flom " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:g%GUe.266156$on1.164976@clgrps13...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Please note that I've stated here on more than one occasion that I don't
care if Armstrong is sanctioned or not.

So what are you really after here? Are you trying to prove something? Are
you just trying to bash a champion? At what point will you be at peace,
Brian, ready to move on from this lance obsession and obsess on something
new? Seriously. Inquiring minds want to know.

Finding the truth is the motivation. I dislike [censored] and spin and those
who give it out to protect their monied interests. I dislike
representations of transparency followed by stonewalling and tactics to
silence critics and those who seek answers to legitimate questions.

Oh, BTW, I just love your blog. It's so.....so.....special, if you know
what I mean. But, no photos of you and the flock or in the pulpit.
Inquiring minds want to see you in action.

Quoted message said:

JF

--
All men dream, but not equally.
Those who dream by night in the dusty
recesses of their minds
Awake to find that it was vanity;
But the dreamers of day are dangerous men,
That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible.
-- T. E. Lawrence

I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.
-- R. W. Emerson

Quoted message said:

http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/

B. Lafferty said:

Finding the truth is the motivation. I dislike [censored] and spin and those
who give it out to protect their monied interests. I dislike
representations of transparency followed by stonewalling and tactics to
silence critics and those who seek answers to legitimate questions.

So why aren't you so fervently attacking the justice system with it's
institutionalized omerta known as attorney-client priviledge? Where an
attorney can not only know that their defendant has actually committed
a crime and still argue before the court that s/he is innocent, they
_encourage_ a defendant to tell them if and how they committed the
crime, as it will help them in the preparation of their case.

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Finding the truth is the motivation. I dislike [censored] and spin and
those who give it out to protect their monied interests. I dislike
representations of transparency followed by stonewalling and tactics to
silence critics and those who seek answers to legitimate questions.

.... waiting on your reply to Carl...

--
All men dream, but not equally.
Those who dream by night in the dusty
recesses of their minds
Awake to find that it was vanity;
But the dreamers of day are dangerous men,
That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible.
-- T. E. Lawrence

http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/

Andre said:

They're stripping Palmeiros' numbers. They'll also aventually strip
Lance's tainted victories. So we'll be back with Merckx, Indurain , and
Hinault as the record holders for winning 5 TDF. Un drole de monde.

Andre

If you want to go that route, I'd bet that you could dig up lots of
witnesses to Pot Belge, Amphetamines, blood transfusions etc...So throw
all the records out. I'll bet huge dollars that Merckx was taking a ton
of [censored] to deal with his back that would've been a positive today.
Benjo's already weighed in on this, and I'm not arrogant and stupid
enough to dispute his historical knowledge of cycling.
Bill C

If Merckx did take something in the 70's it wasn't considered illegal
then.

Andre said:

If Merckx did take something in the 70's it wasn't considered illegal
then.

Moron -

None of the record books will be changed.

thank you very much,

K. Gringioni.

Andre said:

If Merckx did take something in the 70's it wasn't considered illegal
then.

There were doping rules in the 70s, but to paraphrase something
Richard Nixon said to David Frost: when Eddy Merckx does it,
that means that it is not illegal.

"Jim Flom " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:InMUe.266463$on1.92205@clgrps13...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Finding the truth is the motivation. I dislike [censored] and spin and
those who give it out to protect their monied interests. I dislike
representations of transparency followed by stonewalling and tactics to
silence critics and those who seek answers to legitimate questions.

... waiting on your reply to Carl...

I wasn't aware that Armstrong is a client invoking a testimonial privilege
vis-a-vis Ferrari and/or the three Spanish doctors alleged to have followed
Postal in the famous green car or anyone else. As to the attorney/client
privilege:

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/freeform/attorneyclient?opendocument
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/legal/about/attorney_client.html
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/legal/atty.html
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~legal/privilege.html

And if you want to spend your money or head to a law library:
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/freeform/attorneyclient?opendocument

That is not to say that all legal systems recognize such a privilege.
Common law systems, adversarial in nature and focused on winning as opposed
to truth finding, require the privilege to function. Perhaps Sandy can
address the situation in non-common law systems where the emphasis is on
truth finding and, IIRC, the attorney has a duty to help the court find the
truth even if that truth hurts hi/her client's interests.

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

Quoted message said:

If Merckx did take something in the 70's it wasn't considered illegal
then.

Yes, it was. After all, Merckx tested three times positive in his career
(1969, 1973 and 1977) and consequently was suspended. Of course, that
doesn't mean that these are the only three times he was taking an illicit
product. Anti-doping tests mean almost nothing. If a rider is testing
positive, it usually means he is a sucker or his team doctor has made a
mistake. Of course, Merckx wasn't a sucker, but in 1969 his doctor assumed
that Merckx would get away with the product he had taken (he was wrong). In
1973 it was more or less the same and in 1977 it was because the laboratory
in Ghent had found a way to detect stimul, a very popular product in those
days, and had omitted to inform the UCI, so nobody could warn the riders to
be careful. A low-down trick of course and all tests turned out to be
positive. Jacques Goddet, director of the Tour between 1947 and 1984, who
knew everything what was going around, writes in his memoires, that he
deplores that Merckx, "who made an admirable career in conditions of honour
and loyalty" was using cortisone at the end of his career (cortisone
couldn't be detected).

Benjo

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>>
>> If the test methodology is valid and the lab procedures in testing
>> were correctly done, and the numbers on the tested samples match Mr.
>> Armstrong, one can only conclude that Armstrong used EPO
>
> But we now know that the EPO test isn't reliable - R. Beke's data
> proves that.
>
> Andy Coggan

Care to comment on the three test methodologies used by the French WADA
accredited lab and the fact that they only determined a positive if all
three methodologies indicated a positive finding.

Sure: if the body can produce compounds that co-migrate with exogenous
EPO, then it could very well produce them in sufficient quantities to
result in a false positive no matter how high you set the bar.
Alternatively, it could be that sample composition as examined in this
test has changed after 6 y in a freezer, resulting in the same thing.

Nice try but too many "ifs" to be a meaningful statement. In other words,
[censored].

Much like your conditional conclusion that Armstrong must be guilty, then.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Feel free to consult with your buddy Eddie the Apologist Coyle before
responding.

??

You know who your past co-author is.

Indeed I do - but I don't see how he'd qualify as an apologist for
Armstrong.

Andy Coggan

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote :
>>
>> If the test methodology is valid and the lab procedures in testing
>> were
>> correctly done, and the numbers on the tested samples match Mr.
>> Armstrong, one can only conclude that Armstrong used EPO
>
> But we now know that the EPO test isn't reliable - R. Beke's data
> proves
> that.

Quoted message said:

Care to comment on the three test methodologies used by the French WADA
accredited lab and the fact that they only determined a positive if all
three methodologies indicated a positive finding. Feel free to consult
with
your buddy Eddie the Apologist Coyle before responding.

Do you care to comment? I mean, can you explain how the
three test methodologies are different, or in any way
independent. Don't point me to an article in L'Equipe, I'm
just a dumb experimentalist who needs your own words to
explain it. Because I suspect they're three different ways
of evaluating the same chart from the electrophoresis.

The Beke case may be a very rare bird. I'm not going to
claim it exonerates Armstrong. I do think it illustrates the
unworkability of the UCI/WADA sanctioning riders with long-term
retroactive tests. Imagine if somebody had dug up a six year
old result on Beke, and he had had to attempt to reconstruct the
circumstances under which his body produces proteins after
heavy exercise that fool the electrophoresis test. After
such a long delay there's no hope of proving that somebody's
body chemistry is exactly the same. Forget the sanctions and
be content with the damage to LANCE's reputation.

Please note that I've stated here on more than one occasion that I don't
care if Armstrong is sanctioned or not.

Meaning that you're just out to smear somebody's reputation?

Andy Coggan

"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Meaning that you're just out to smear somebody's reputation?

I'm thinking continuing dialogue only feeds the animals and gives him a
soapbox. Maybe if enough people ignore him he'll find something else to
fixate on.

--
All men dream, but not equally.
Those who dream by night in the dusty
recesses of their minds
Awake to find that it was vanity;
But the dreamers of day are dangerous men,
That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible.
-- T. E. Lawrence

http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/