Floyd can't be let off the hook because...

Joe King said:

... he totally wrecked the sport of bike racing.

You're "joking", right?
Its tough to take you seriously.
Was the phoenetic approximation intentional?

-bdbafh

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Joe King said:

... he totally wrecked the sport of bike racing.

You're "joking", right?
Its tough to take you seriously.
Was the phoenetic approximation intentional?

The BBC have a hard working radio producer of that name[1]; consequently
a remarkable number of British radio programmes end with the line 'the
producer was joking'. I keep looking forward to the day when the
announcer will say 'the producer was not joking'.

[1] Jo King, actually.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

IMHO, there aren't enough committed Christians, but that's care
in the community for you. -- Ben Evans

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Joe King said:

... he totally wrecked the sport of bike racing.

You're "joking", right?
Its tough to take you seriously.
Was the phoenetic approximation intentional?

The BBC have a hard working radio producer of that name[1]; consequently
a remarkable number of British radio programmes end with the line 'the
producer was joking'. I keep looking forward to the day when the
announcer will say 'the producer was not joking'.

[1] Jo King, actually.

So then, for some, the reason for the "Joe King" moniker may not be
obvious. Thanks for pointing that out. It hadn't occurred to me.

Recently, Joe King's name has been questioned sincerely enough that I've
been curiously awaiting the response to Hugh G. Rection's next post.

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[1] Jo King, actually.

So then, for some, the reason for the "Joe King" moniker may not be
obvious. Thanks for pointing that out. It hadn't occurred to me.

Recently, Joe King's name has been questioned sincerely enough that I've
been curiously awaiting the response to Hugh G. Rection's next post.

Or Sharon Peters.

Carl Sundquist said:

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[1] Jo King, actually.

So then, for some, the reason for the "Joe King" moniker may not be
obvious. Thanks for pointing that out. It hadn't occurred to me.

Recently, Joe King's name has been questioned sincerely enough that I've
been curiously awaiting the response to Hugh G. Rection's next post.

Or Sharon Peters.

One of my biker friends swears he used to have a girlfriend named Fonda
Peters.

Smokey

The UCI can't let him win as that would cast doubt on the whole testing
process, so expect a smear campaign to be launched both in the press and
behind the scenes as this will a fight for the life of the UCI and WADA,
which are bigger than Landis. At best, that is he is clean, he will be a
casualty of fixing the anti-doping (after the fact, that is) machine.

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

Quoted message said:

... he totally wrecked the sport of bike racing.

Smokey said:

Carl Sundquist said:

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

>
> [1] Jo King, actually.

So then, for some, the reason for the "Joe King" moniker may not be
obvious. Thanks for pointing that out. It hadn't occurred to me.

Recently, Joe King's name has been questioned sincerely enough that I've
been curiously awaiting the response to Hugh G. Rection's next post.

Or Sharon Peters.

One of my biker friends swears he used to have a girlfriend named Fonda
Peters.

And then there's the person who determines whether the test results are
in bounds:

Margie Noverror

[with credit to "Car Talk", although this joke maybe much older than
their use of it]

You mean the smearing can get worse than it has already been?

-dB

Chris said:

The UCI can't let him win as that would cast doubt on the whole testing
process, so expect a smear campaign to be launched both in the press and
behind the scenes as this will a fight for the life of the UCI and WADA,
which are bigger than Landis. At best, that is he is clean, he will be a
casualty of fixing the anti-doping (after the fact, that is) machine.

It's nothing compared to what it's going to be as the UCI and WADA boys will
be fighting for their livelihood and position in life; cause should some of
the issues with their machines be exposed, there will be a replacement of
those organizations with new and improved, which means new leaders and
staff. So in survival mode means everyone is expendable but Me; therefore
you elevate yourself by making sure everyone else looks worse than you do by
tearing the down. This works to galvinized a mob effect on the other guy.
The target here will be Landis as it was Hamilton before him. This is
rationalized as politics and for the long term good of the sport.

You can see hints already in that Landis recognizes this has started looking
for ways to loose gracefully, starting with his choice of attorneys; maybe I
ingested something in what I was given (Tonight Show), etc.

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

Quoted message said:

You mean the smearing can get worse than it has already been?

-dB

Chris said:

The UCI can't let him win as that would cast doubt on the whole testing
process, so expect a smear campaign to be launched both in the press and
behind the scenes as this will a fight for the life of the UCI and WADA,
which are bigger than Landis. At best, that is he is clean, he will be a
casualty of fixing the anti-doping (after the fact, that is) machine.

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Kyle Legate said:

Quoted message said:

It says a lot about American values when so many people here hope that
a confirmed cheater will get off on a technicality. Yes, confirmed
cheater, A and B tests. Before you all start whining on about
questions surrounding sample collection, confidentiality and problems
with the testing process itself, you create these issues to create the
technicalities. The dope testers are not amateurs. They know about
chain of custody, and they know how to perform the tests. I am one of
the "experts" that claims that the mass spec results are correct. The
experts claiming the opposite would have been right ten years ago, but
not today. There is a miniscule amount of wiggle room to squirm out
from under a positive mass spec result, and the fact that many people
are hoping to exploit that wiggle room to get Floyd off is shameful.

It equally says a lot that outlining what a legitimate defense would be
are dismissed as shameful attempts to exploit wriggle room. If the
tests are as good as claimed, and Landis is guilty, consider two other
questions.

Quoted message said:

(1) Was Floyd the only doper at this year's Tour?

Probably not.

Quoted message said:

(2) Why
didn't these great tests detect anybody else?

Because no-one else who was tested had a testosterone/epitestosterone
ration greater than 4:1, so no one else's sample was subjected to the
more sophisticated testing. Of course, that may merely mean that their
team doctors were competent. Of course, it would be interesting to see
what would be found if other riders' samples were subjected to this
testing.

Quoted message said:

In Floyd's case, the only points that are useful to address are the (a)
the accuracy of the test findings; (b) whether what they indicate is
proof of presence of illegal substances. I personally think that
chasing the chain of custody is a diversion, and only worth mentioning
for completeness.

Following the 'B' sample test we've had no word from the Landis team that
they were dissatisfied with the condition of the seal, nor with the
technical procedure of the test itself.

Consequently I think any discussion of these is also persiflage.

Quoted message said:

It's my opinion that it would be best for the sport (and the world) for
Floyd to be shown to be innocent in this way.

In my opinion it would be best for the sport for Floyd to 'fess up and
take his punishment with dignity. However, /if/ he is innocent, then
certainly we will need a clear explanation of how that is compatible
with the results that were reported - from a test his representatives
observed.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other
;; languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their
;; pockets for new vocabulary -- James D. Nicoll

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

questions.

Quoted message said:

(1) Was Floyd the only doper at this year's Tour?

Probably not.

Quoted message said:

(2) Why
didn't these great tests detect anybody else?

Because no-one else who was tested had a testosterone/epitestosterone
ration greater than 4:1, so no one else's sample was subjected to the
more sophisticated testing. Of course, that may merely mean that their
team doctors were competent. Of course, it would be interesting to see
what would be found if other riders' samples were subjected to this
testing.

Yes that's the trick here, stay below the 4:1 ratio and you don't get
tested for exogeneous testosterone, seems the test is expensive, did I
read $300, but they should really do some random checking as well.
Currently it's ok to cheat if you stay below the ratio.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In Floyd's case, the only points that are useful to address are the (a)
the accuracy of the test findings; (b) whether what they indicate is
proof of presence of illegal substances. I personally think that
chasing the chain of custody is a diversion, and only worth mentioning
for completeness.

Following the 'B' sample test we've had no word from the Landis team that
they were dissatisfied with the condition of the seal, nor with the
technical procedure of the test itself.

Consequently I think any discussion of these is also persiflage.

Quoted message said:

It's my opinion that it would be best for the sport (and the world) for
Floyd to be shown to be innocent in this way.

In my opinion it would be best for the sport for Floyd to 'fess up and
take his punishment with dignity.

Not going to happen, I saw an interview extract with his wife and it
was friggin' pathetic, I hope she dumps him when he finally has to
cough it up, [censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(2) Why
didn't these great tests detect anybody else?

Because no-one else who was tested had a testosterone/epitestosterone
ration greater than 4:1, so no one else's sample was subjected to the
more sophisticated testing. Of course, that may merely mean that their

Do you read the statements made by Pound and many others?
They talk about rampant cheating. The spanish authorities
have made allegations regarding over 50 cyclists. Why haven't
any of these guys tested positive?

MLB has preannouced testing, which seems to be a concession to
allow the players to continue their doping. They("players"😉 don't
seem to think that they can mask doping. How come bicyclists
are able to mask doping? I think the testing regime is a failure
and should be catching more persons given the wanton belief of universal
doping.

--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR

William O'Hara said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(2) Why
didn't these great tests detect anybody else?

Because no-one else who was tested had a testosterone/epitestosterone
ration greater than 4:1, so no one else's sample was subjected to the
more sophisticated testing. Of course, that may merely mean that their

Do you read the statements made by Pound and many others?
They talk about rampant cheating.

[censored] Pound attempts to make himself and his job sound more important by talking
like that. Ask Barney Fife about the rampant criminal activity they'd be having
in Mayberry without him.

Quoted message said:

The spanish authorities
have made allegations regarding over 50 cyclists. Why haven't
any of these guys tested positive?

MLB has preannouced testing, which seems to be a concession to
allow the players to continue their doping. They("players"😉 don't
seem to think that they can mask doping. How come bicyclists
are able to mask doping? I think the testing regime is a failure
and should be catching more persons given the wanton belief of universal
doping.

Okay, you notice a contradiction between A: what some people say and B: the
results of relatively scientific tests. Does that tell you the test is bad or
does it tell you that the people running their mouths are full of [censored]?

Ron

Keith said:

Currently it's ok to cheat if you stay below the ratio.

Dumbass,
If you're below the ratio then by definition you're not "cheating".

Donald Munro a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Keith said:

Currently it's ok to cheat if you stay below the ratio.

Dumbass,
If you're below the ratio then by definition you're not "cheating".

From - Mon

Actually, WADA gets its two bites of the apple. They can cry foul if
you are tested positive - also, they can rummage through your life and
get you without tests.

I think the riders should be able to have typical civil rights, even
with respect to out of competition testing. Legal hours for the
vampires to come, no dawn raids, etc. Hopeless ?

The war on hard drugs results in them being called "recreational". The
general population, however, is huge. Cyclists present an easy target.
It's [censored], no matter how you look at it.

Just wondering - if a competitor went out and get really drunk after a
big personal event, would it be sensible to test him at that moment ?
Certainly, it's not a performance enhancement, but it violates the rules.

And the gross response to this post is probably - Who cares ?

Keith said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Currently it's ok to cheat if you stay below the ratio.

Donald Munro wrote :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you're below the ratio then by definition you're not "cheating".

Sandy said:

Actually, WADA gets its two bites of the apple. They can cry foul if
you are tested positive - also, they can rummage through your life and
get you without tests.

However for testosterone if you are below the legal ratio then presumably
it doesn't matter if you took an "artificial" substance or not.

Donald Munro said:

Keith said:

Quoted message said:

> Currently it's ok to cheat if you stay below the ratio.

Donald Munro wrote :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you're below the ratio then by definition you're not "cheating".

Sandy said:

Actually, WADA gets its two bites of the apple. They can cry foul if
you are tested positive - also, they can rummage through your life and
get you without tests.

However for testosterone if you are below the legal ratio then presumably
it doesn't matter if you took an "artificial" substance or not.

But not per definition, only per implementation, sort of. If they had
decided to test for synt Tes directly without doing the ratio test first
before the TdF, I think they could have done so.
I thought before that the WADA definition defines doping (cheating)
merely by describing how you mustn't measure in some tests, but the WADA
definition is broader than that.
Having certain substances in your body is only one of IIRC 4 issues
which define doping. Each one is sufficient to qualify you as a doper.

Ernst Noch said:

Having certain substances in your body is only one of IIRC 4 issues
which define doping. Each one is sufficient to qualify you as a doper.

So by the WADA definitions Marlyn Manson was right, we're all stars now in
the dope show.

Joe King said:

... he totally wrecked the sport of bike racing.

According to Hemingway, bike races aren't sport. The only true sports
are mountaineering, bull fighting and auto racing. Everything else is
a game. LOL.

N.