Floyd Nails It

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/13939.0.html

"For example, let's look at Tyler Hamilton. You can think what you want
about Tyler. But it's irrelevant at this point. He's served his suspension.
People who are released from prison because of armed robbery after three
years are not prevented from ever living as a human being again. They've
served their time; let's give them a chance, right? I'm not saying he is
guilty or innocent, I don't know."

Far as I can tell those like Chung, Amit, Munro and several others would
rather have lifetime bans.

My guess is that when you're incapable of riding yourself your jealousy can
really get out of hand.

Maybe that's why Landis said the Olympics are worthless in that Velo
News interview.

-ilan

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/13939.0.html

"For example, let's look at Tyler Hamilton. You can think what you want
about Tyler. But it's irrelevant at this point. He's served his suspension.
People who are released from prison because of armed robbery after three
years are not prevented from ever living as a human being again. They've
served their time; let's give them a chance, right? I'm not saying he is
guilty or innocent, I don't know."

Far as I can tell those like Chung, Amit, Munro and several others would
rather have lifetime bans.

My guess is that when you're incapable of riding yourself your jealousy can
really get out of hand.

dumbass,

floyd also needs to familiarize himself with the moninger case.

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/arbitration_ruling_4_3_2003_Moninger.pdf

see page 3-4

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

Quoted message said:

On Jan 21, 7:10 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

i don't think that at all.

So you just write to see people arguing with you?

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

Quoted message said:

floyd also needs to familiarize himself with the moninger case.

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/arbitration_ruling_4_3_2003_Moninger.pdf

see page 3-4

On page 4 you apparently overlooked item 14. By the way, of course you
simply overlooked item 15 which said that there was no evidence that the
capsules in any of the bottles had been tampered. What that means is that
the unknown item that appears to be androgens was inserted at the factory.

For the uninitiated, many small companies make all sorts of drugs and it
isn't at all unusual for them to not clean the equipment rigorously between
mixtures which is as nasty as it sounds.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

floyd also needs to familiarize himself with the moninger case.

Quoted message said:

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/arbitrat...

Quoted message said:

see page 3-4

On page 4 you apparently overlooked item 14. By the way, of course you
simply overlooked item 15 which said that there was no evidence that the
capsules in any of the bottles had been tampered. What that means is that
the unknown item that appears to be androgens was inserted at the factory.

For the uninitiated, many small companies make all sorts of drugs and it
isn't at all unusual for them to not clean the equipment rigorously between
mixtures which is as nasty as it sounds.

okay, so in your opinion the evidence proves that moniger took
contaminated supplements ?

way back in graduate school, one of my assignments was to assess the
channels of distribution of a supplement company. They used a cement mixer
to mix product. When they were finished mixing one product, their version of
cleaning the mixer was to spray it with water from a garden hose, then in
goes the next product to be mixed.

John
www.MyReader.net

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

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

floyd also needs to familiarize himself with the moninger case.

Quoted message said:

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/arbitrat...

Quoted message said:

see page 3-4

On page 4 you apparently overlooked item 14. By the way, of course you
simply overlooked item 15 which said that there was no evidence that the
capsules in any of the bottles had been tampered. What that means is that
the unknown item that appears to be androgens was inserted at the
factory.

For the uninitiated, many small companies make all sorts of drugs and it
isn't at all unusual for them to not clean the equipment rigorously
between
mixtures which is as nasty as it sounds.

okay, so in your opinion the evidence proves that moniger took
contaminated supplements ?

xzzy said:

way back in graduate school, one of my assignments was to assess the
channels of distribution of a supplement company. They used a cement mixer
to mix product. When they were finished mixing one product, their version of
cleaning the mixer was to spray it with water from a garden hose, then in
goes the next product to be mixed.

dumbass,

we all know that OTC supplements can be contaminated. instead why
don't you comment on the CAS ruling ?

from the open bottle moninger's lab found not nandrolone but it's
metabolite and at a level 28000% the typical contaminant level found
in IOC studies.

the UCLA (independent) lab found some very low level contamination in
the open bottle and no contamination in the sealed bottles.

how convinced are you of moninger's argument ?

is that a pattern of contamination what you would expect from simply
lousy manufacturing practice ?

xzzy said:

No, everyone does not understand that the supplements industry is not
regulated, let alone to which the standard that the pharmaceutical is
required to comply.

there have been mainstream articles about this and it's addressed in
the regulations (see pg12 from the link below), so a professional
athlete that gets tested should be aware of that possibility.

Quoted message said:

instead why

Quoted message said:

don't you comment on the CAS ruling ?

i'm talking about the CAS ruling on the moninger case. contaminated
supplements were not brought up in the landis defense.

it's here, only 22 pages:

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/arbitration_ruling_4_3_2003_Moninger.pdf

Quoted message said:

Dumb or Dumber,
- I do not know the particular's of Moninger's suspension, but I do
believe that if I had 28,000% of a steroid in me that, that amount would
kill me.

the opened bottle moninger provided to his lab had a nandralone
metabolite level of 28000% compared to observed contamination levels
(28mg),
see page 6 and pg. 18 of the ruling. this can't be admissible
evidence, but it could be used to verify the findings of an
independent lab.

but, the independent lab didn't find the same thing in the opened
bottle, and didn't find the sealed bottles to be contaminated.

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

Quoted message said:

okay, so in your opinion the evidence proves that moniger took
contaminated supplements ?

I know that someone like you would prefer to hang someone that to actually
know what the hell went on. But the fact is that Moninger used to take
vitamins and other supplements like about 2/3rds of the people here. He
couldn't get his normal supplements in one place so he bought another brand
and that's when he tested positive.

Or we can go with your theory that everyone cheats because its so thrilling.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

okay, so in your opinion the evidence proves that moniger took
contaminated supplements ?

I know that someone like you would prefer to hang someone that to actually
know what the hell went on. But the fact is that Moninger used to take
vitamins and other supplements like about 2/3rds of the people here. He
couldn't get his normal supplements in one place so he bought another brand
and that's when he tested positive.

Or we can go with your theory that everyone cheats because its so thrilling.

i'm amused how eagerly everyone buys his story.

if his positive test was a result of a contaminated supplement he
took, his evidence doesn't show that.

the opened bottle didn't have the expected contamination and the
sealed bottles were not contaminated.

Quoted message said:

i'm amused how eagerly everyone buys his story.

Contaminated Kool-Aid.

Bob Schwartz

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

okay, so in your opinion the evidence proves that moniger took
contaminated supplements ?

I know that someone like you would prefer to hang someone that to actually
know what the hell went on. But the fact is that Moninger used to take
vitamins and other supplements like about 2/3rds of the people here. He
couldn't get his normal supplements in one place so he bought another brand
and that's when he tested positive.

Or we can go with your theory that everyone cheats because its so thrilling.

i'm amused how eagerly everyone buys his story.

if his positive test was a result of a contaminated supplement he
took, his evidence doesn't show that.

the opened bottle didn't have the expected contamination and the
sealed bottles were not contaminated.

The reason why I believe Moninger is because 19-norandrosterone is not
something cyclists would generally take intentionally. If you believe
that Moninger and Neben were taking a hardcore anabolic steroid, then
that means they are on everything (EPO, HgH, blood doping).

It would be strange to get caught for 19-nor and never get caught for
the oher things as 19-nor would give you the least benefit in an
endurance event.

Plus, 19-nor is the main contaminant they find when they do studies of
supplement contamination.

The USADA lab did in fact find traces of substances with "steroidal
properties" in Moninger's supplement jar. I think Moninger's lab simply
mis-read the mass spec graphs and they did not bother to include them in
the case, so nobody really knows how they got those numbers.

But all of this is irrelevant in a strict liability system anyway so I'm
not susre why people thhink it matters. What matters is whether or not
the substance was in his body. And it was.

Magilla

Quoted message said:

MagillaGorilla said:

But all of this is irrelevant in a strict liability system anyway so I'm
not susre why people thhink it matters. What matters is whether or not
the substance was in his body. And it was.

it doesn't, but the panel was charmed enough by him to cut his
suspension to 1-yr citing some of the other provisions in the rules.

but this is floyd's quote:

"If a guy like Scott Moninger races for 18 f--king years, and he's
tested hundreds of times, and one time it happens that he takes a
supplement by accident, and it's clear and demonstrable, and in fact
agreed upon by the arbitrators that it was an accident, then why is he
getting punished?"

he'd oblivious to the strict liability rule, but he also has it in his
head that moninger had good evidence that the supplements he took were
contaminated (he did not) and convinced the panel (he did not) but
they punished him anyways (they gave him 1 yr instead of two).

Nope. Moninger got 1 year because that was the MAX suspension a UCI
rider could get at that time for a first time offense. They since
raised it to 2 years.

Remember, USADA doesn't determine the length of the ban. This is
dictated by UCI rules. USADA/CAS merely enforce the UCI rules in place
at the time.

Magilla

MagillaGorilla said:

Nope. Moninger got 1 year because that was the MAX suspension a UCI
rider could get at that time for a first time offense. They since
raised it to 2 years.

Eh? You made that up! The first time offenders that got two
years in 2003 would be surprised to hear this.

And WADA (not UCI) handed them out.

Bob Schwartz

MagillaGorilla said:

Quoted message said:

On Jan 22, 11:47 am, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But all of this is irrelevant in a strict liability system anyway so I'm
not susre why people thhink it matters. What matters is whether or not
the substance was in his body. And it was.

Quoted message said:

it doesn't, but the panel was charmed enough by him to cut his
suspension to 1-yr citing some of the other provisions in the rules.

Quoted message said:

but this is floyd's quote:

Quoted message said:

"If a guy like Scott Moninger races for 18 f--king years, and he's
tested hundreds of times, and one time it happens that he takes a
supplement by accident, and it's clear and demonstrable, and in fact
agreed upon by the arbitrators that it was an accident, then why is he
getting punished?"

Quoted message said:

he'd oblivious to the strict liability rule, but he also has it in his
head that moninger had good evidence that the supplements he took were
contaminated (he did not) and convinced the panel (he did not) but
they punished him anyways (they gave him 1 yr instead of two).

Nope. Moninger got 1 year because that was the MAX suspension a UCI
rider could get at that time for a first time offense. They since
raised it to 2 years.

read the report.

the decision starts on page 16 and the relevant parts are on page
17-19 :

items: 5.4, 5.7, 5.8, 5.10

Bob Schwartz said:

MagillaGorilla said:

Nope. Moninger got 1 year because that was the MAX suspension a UCI
rider could get at that time for a first time offense. They since
raised it to 2 years.

Eh? You made that up! The first time offenders that got two
years in 2003 would be surprised to hear this.

And WADA (not UCI) handed them out.

Bob Schwartz

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/arbitration_ruling_4_3_2003_Moninger.pdf

Page 20-21, 5.13-5.19

These excerpts show that Moninger got the max suspension for a first
time doper based on precedent (called the doctrine of proportionality
based on UCI Article 124). This suspension was dictated by UCI rules
and the arbitrators go to great lengths to cite the pertinent UCI rules.

And no, WADA doesn't have the authority to hand out suspensions or
suspend riders despite 90% of your dumbasses in here thinking they do.
Only USAC, the UCI, or a panel of independent arbitrators do. And in
Moninger's case, the arbitrators decided the sanction and USA Cycling
enforced it. WADA/USADA had nothing to do with "handing out"
Moninger's suspension. WADA (or USADA) has no authority to suspend any
rider.

If Moninger were caught today for the very same offense, he would get 2
years.

Thanks,

Magilla

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

Quoted message said:

i'm amused how eagerly everyone buys his story.

Not nearly as amused as I am after having actually met Moninger and seeing
what a nice self effacing straight up guy he is. But then your view from
absolutely nowhere is so much more accurate.

Quoted message said:

the opened bottle didn't have the expected contamination and the
sealed bottles were not contaminated.

What do you know about testing these things?

MagillaGorilla said:

Bob Schwartz said:

MagillaGorilla said:

Nope. Moninger got 1 year because that was the MAX suspension a UCI
rider could get at that time for a first time offense. They since
raised it to 2 years.

Eh? You made that up! The first time offenders that got two
years in 2003 would be surprised to hear this.

And WADA (not UCI) handed them out.

Bob Schwartz

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/arbitration_ruling_4_3_2003_Moninger.pdf

Page 20-21, 5.13-5.19

These excerpts show that Moninger got the max suspension for a first
time doper based on precedent (called the doctrine of proportionality
based on UCI Article 124). This suspension was dictated by UCI rules
and the arbitrators go to great lengths to cite the pertinent UCI rules.

Yep, you made it up. Enough.

Bob Schwartz

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

Quoted message said:

At any rate, 19-norandrosterone is a metabolite of Nandralone.

As well as several other LEGAL (at least at that time) suppliments such as
androstenedione and several other things that aren't suspected of having any
doping functions.

The strangest thing is that in the 90's it was normal for riders to be
taking all sorts of "supplements" like vitamins, minerals and all sorts of
weird things such as are presently used in, say, E-Caps, which absolutely do
give at least older riders a lot more endurance and power.

Because every Jack and Jill was getting into the business if they had the
slightest chemistry expertise there was a whole lot of badly made
supplements and most of these manufacturers really didn't have any idea what
the contaminants from their processes were.

Just to give you another point to ponder - I've had a bad reaction to normal
OTC vitamin tablets and it's taken more than a month since I discontinued it
and I'm still having problems from them.