Heras confirmed positive

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

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

Until there is a way to force the UCI and Wada to provide complete and
totally transparent verification of it's methods and procedures I'm
going to keep [censored] about Kangaroo Courts. Bill C

The day that the methods and procedures become totally transparent will
also be the day the doctors and riders develop ways around the tests, thus
rendering the tests useless.

If you were bright enough to think for yourself you'd already have been
wondering - the claimed "test" compares the number of juvenile red blood
cells with mature red blood cells. They CLAIM that blood transfusions or EPO
change this ratio.

So, why would blood transfusions, autologous or homologous change the ratio
since they would necessarily have a normal ratio?

Duhhhh.

If I understood the article correctly they were also suggesting that EPO
caused a high ratio of mature to immature RBC's as well. If I understand the
actions of EPO correctly it causes the bone marrow to essentially go into
high gear throwing out lots of immature RBC's which rapidly die off instead
of maturing. So I would expect a HIGHER ratio of immature to mature RBC's.

So unless I'm mistaken it appears that the writer of the article certainly
didn't understand what he was talking about.

Which is the point that both Bill and I have been trying to make - some
article written by Jughead for a website, no matter how careful, is
nevertheless limited by the knowledge he has and the people he talks to.
WADA and the UCI are trying to make this look like a bullet proof testing
process and it most assuredly isn't. The ONLY difference between rhEPO and
naturally occurring EPO is the charge. The pictures representing the
"results" I saw looked like they came from Gel Electrophoresis. If that's
the case there are all sorts of problems to be accounted for before you can
tell differences as small as a charge difference in that media. Problems as
small as whether the gel is homogenous or not could make a load of
difference to the readings.

In my experience, separation science is only as good as the scientist using
the techniques and there are a lot of incompetents out there. Even some that
are running world class laboratories.

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty wrote:

Quoted message said:

Not at all. I'm talking about a due process administrative trial in which
witnesses can be subpoened to testify and be cross-examined. If you have
three guys who testify under oath that they provided and helped Rider X to
blood dope with a transfuion and they are credible, there should be no need
for a positive.

In that type of situation I'd be more willing to live with that
proceudure, but it would depend on the judge/jury being impartial in
the case. There have been plenty of convictions where the witnesses
have had real credibilty problems to say the least, and they still got
convictions.
Unfortunately we're beating the same old horse. I think the system is
screwed until it hits the level of CAS, and when it does you're in a
guilty until proven innocent situation, due to the major problems in
the main process, which is wrong.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Until there is a way to force the UCI and Wada to provide complete and
totally transparent verification of it's methods and procedures I'm
going to keep [censored] about Kangaroo Courts.

There is such a way and it's CAS.

I don't see CAS demanding them to open up all their methods to fair
and open revue. Now if CAS had any balls they'd stop upholding any
penalties until the questions around the testing that are being raised
by legitimate scientists and universities are dealt with, then I'd be
happy with CAS as a valid appeal.
Like you said we need a moratorium for more than one reason.
Tom I have no idea how the details of the testing work, and it's
pretty obvious that there is a lot of disagreement between the people
who do actually know how it works. When the general concensus from
scientists is that they've validated, or invalidated the testing, then
I'll be happy. Riders will still dig up some "expert" witnesses to keep
raising objections, but at that point they wouldn't have a lot of
credibility. Unfortunately they are trying so hard to keep the details
of the testing secret so that the dopers can't find a way around it
they are destroying any crediblity that THEY have also.
Benjo keeps on, rightly, pointing out that this is an unwinnable war.
I just want to see it fought with the least possible damage to justice
and the sport, and that's not even close to what's happening now.
Bill C

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bill C