Interesting article on Landis currently

Cal Thomas said:

Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
sides of Floyd.

He could always raze barns.

Kyle Legate said:

Cal Thomas said:

Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
sides of Floyd.

He could always raze barns.

Raise or raze? Two very different things.

R

Guy sure drinks a lot...

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

Quoted message said:

Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in their
sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human sides of
Floyd.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd.html

Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
interesting reading and learning.

NW Age group, middle of the packer

RicodJour said:

Kyle Legate said:

Cal Thomas said:

Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
sides of Floyd.

He could always raze barns.

Raise or raze? Two very different things.

R

I think the Mennonites usually raze a barn before they raise another.

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

Quoted message said:

Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in their
sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human sides of
Floyd.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd.html

Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
interesting reading and learning.

NW Age group, middle of the packer

Great article. Thanks for the pointer.

Cal Thomas said:

Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
sides of Floyd.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd....

Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
interesting reading and learning.

The most important fact and one generally left out is that Landis'
testosterone levels weren't high. His epitestosterone levels were
low.

What's more, the FIRST test showed 4.5:1 and the second test of the
same sample showed 11:1 demonstrating either that there was a
contaminant, probably an epitestosterone eating bacteria, an
incompetent lab or outright crookedness.

You take your pick but I'm guessing "All of the above" since IF the
levels change that radically for the first and second tests they're
supposed to throw the sample out as contaminated. So.... why didn't
they? And then why didn't the UCI call them on it? And why hasn't WADA
said anything? This entire business smacks of corruption on a high
level.

Quoted message said:

Cal Thomas said:

Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
sides of Floyd.

Quoted message said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd....

Quoted message said:

Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
interesting reading and learning.

The most important fact and one generally left out is that Landis'
testosterone levels weren't high. His epitestosterone levels were
low.

dumbass,

holy [censored]! it's so simple and landis is wasting all his money on a
legal team when all he had to do was read rbr.

On Aug 23, 12:52 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Aug 20, 8:49 am, Cal Thomas <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
sides of Floyd.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
interesting reading and learning.

Quoted message said:

The most important fact and one generally left out is that Landis'
testosterone levels weren't high. His epitestosterone levels were
low.

dumbass,

holy [censored]! it's so simple and landis is wasting all his money on a
legal team when all he had to do was read rbr.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

yeah. ask the guy what else could Landis do with his money? hide it in
Switzerland?

Quoted message said:

Cal Thomas said:

Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
sides of Floyd.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd....

Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
interesting reading and learning.

The most important fact and one generally left out is that Landis'
testosterone levels weren't high. His epitestosterone levels were
low.

What's more, the FIRST test showed 4.5:1 and the second test of the
same sample showed 11:1 demonstrating either that there was a
contaminant, probably an epitestosterone eating bacteria, an
incompetent lab or outright crookedness.

You take your pick but I'm guessing "All of the above" since IF the
levels change that radically for the first and second tests they're
supposed to throw the sample out as contaminated. So.... why didn't
they? And then why didn't the UCI call them on it? And why hasn't WADA
said anything? This entire business smacks of corruption on a high
level.

All my riding buddies are convinced.

"Conspiracy Theory?

Cal Thomas said:

Quoted message said:

Cal Thomas said:

Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
sides of Floyd.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd....

Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
interesting reading and learning.

The most important fact and one generally left out is that Landis'
testosterone levels weren't high. His epitestosterone levels were
low.

What's more, the FIRST test showed 4.5:1 and the second test of the
same sample showed 11:1 demonstrating either that there was a
contaminant, probably an epitestosterone eating bacteria, an
incompetent lab or outright crookedness.

You take your pick but I'm guessing "All of the above" since IF the
levels change that radically for the first and second tests they're
supposed to throw the sample out as contaminated. So.... why didn't
they? And then why didn't the UCI call them on it? And why hasn't WADA
said anything? This entire business smacks of corruption on a high
level.

All my riding buddies are convinced.

"Conspiracy Theory?

"Epitestosterone eating bacteria?

In article <[email hidden]>, Kyle Legate <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Cal Thomas said:

Quoted message said:

On Aug 20, 8:49 am, Cal Thomas <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
> currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
> their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
> sides of Floyd.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd....
>
> Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
> interesting reading and learning.

The most important fact and one generally left out is that Landis'
testosterone levels weren't high. His epitestosterone levels were
low.

What's more, the FIRST test showed 4.5:1 and the second test of the
same sample showed 11:1 demonstrating either that there was a
contaminant, probably an epitestosterone eating bacteria, an
incompetent lab or outright crookedness.

You take your pick but I'm guessing "All of the above" since IF the
levels change that radically for the first and second tests they're
supposed to throw the sample out as contaminated. So.... why didn't
they? And then why didn't the UCI call them on it? And why hasn't WADA
said anything? This entire business smacks of corruption on a high
level.

All my riding buddies are convinced.

"Conspiracy Theory?

"Epitestosterone eating bacteria?

Doesn't rbr count as a Peer Reviewed publication?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck said:

Doesn't rbr count as a Peer Reviewed publication?

With peers like that who needs enemies.

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:00:57 -0700, Howard Kveck <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Kyle Legate <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Cal Thomas said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> On Aug 20, 8:49 am, Cal Thomas <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
>> currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
>> their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
>> sides of Floyd.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd....
>>
>> Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
>> interesting reading and learning.
>
> The most important fact and one generally left out is that Landis'
> testosterone levels weren't high. His epitestosterone levels were
> low.
>
> What's more, the FIRST test showed 4.5:1 and the second test of the
> same sample showed 11:1 demonstrating either that there was a
> contaminant, probably an epitestosterone eating bacteria, an
> incompetent lab or outright crookedness.
>
> You take your pick but I'm guessing "All of the above" since IF the
> levels change that radically for the first and second tests they're
> supposed to throw the sample out as contaminated. So.... why didn't
> they? And then why didn't the UCI call them on it? And why hasn't WADA
> said anything? This entire business smacks of corruption on a high
> level.
>

All my riding buddies are convinced.

"Conspiracy Theory?

"Epitestosterone eating bacteria?

Doesn't rbr count as a Peer Reviewed publication?

Only if the turd flinging on monkey island is recognized as scholarly debate.

Ron

RonSonic said:

Only if the turd flinging on monkey island is recognized as scholarly debate.

Sounds quite mild compared to some academic debates.

In article <[email hidden]>,

RonSonic said:

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:00:57 -0700, Howard Kveck <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Doesn't rbr count as a Peer Reviewed publication?

Only if the turd flinging on monkey island is recognized as scholarly debate.

Well, there is someone around these parts who likes to think his chest beating
will convince everyone that he's the group's mighty silverback, when it really comes
across more like the turd flinging resident of monkey island.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:56:21 -0700, Howard Kveck <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

RonSonic said:

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:00:57 -0700, Howard Kveck <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Doesn't rbr count as a Peer Reviewed publication?

Only if the turd flinging on monkey island is recognized as scholarly debate.

Well, there is someone around these parts who likes to think his chest beating
will convince everyone that he's the group's mighty silverback, when it really comes
across more like the turd flinging resident of monkey island.

Sometimes one becomes disappointed in the forces of evolution, all these years
for what?

Ron