J'accuse !

Torched Smurf said:

Idiot,

WTF are you talking about? What does PC have to do with anything? Did
you wander into this thread from the lobotomy ward?

Thanks,
-Smurf

That would have made more sense attached to the second post in the
thread. Now I have to go to my sensitivity training - they're going to
explain why you shouldn't pull the legs off of flies, but its OK to do
it to the spiders.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Philip Holman said:

The credibility of the Chatenay Malabrys lab is shot. They have severely
compromised ethics. No self respecting scientist should ignore what has
gone without questioning the result. Trusting you urine sample to
Jacques de Ceaurriz of the Anti Doping laboratory is like boarding your
dog at the taxidermist. Sure,............ you'll get it back.

Phil H

Its possible. OTOH I'm not sure that the confidentiality violation
originated with the lab.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

I was willing to listen up to this point i.e. the point where you
demonstrate the critical thinking skills of a Neanderthal; the
treatment
is less damaging than the disease.

I assume your are referring to this part of my post:

Next Mr. Vardi glaringly contradicts himself by stating that Armstrong
would be putting his life in danger by using EPO. It is well known
that EPO is used to treat very ill patients and futhermore that
Armstrong has said that EPO was instrumental in his recovery from
cancer. Therefore, if EPO usage is inherently dangerous then why is it
used on extremely sick patients?

It is obvious that you have no scientific background because of your
vague assertion that the 'treatment is less damaging than the disease'.
You are assuming that EPO is a noxious susbstance that in and of itself
it will cause a certain amount of damage, albeit less damage than the
disease itself. You are totally and completely incorrect. If we were
discussing a chemotherapeutic drug such as cisplatin then you would
have a point, but unfortunately for you we are not. EPO is a
therapeutic drug and is not known to cause any pathologies other than
secondary polycythemia (extremely elevated red blood cell mass) and
that of course can be controlled with either dosing or dilutional
strategies. EPO does not fall into the category of steroids or growth
hormone, two substances that can cause dysplasia, because you are not
running a huge risk just by using it. Saying that just the mere usage
of EPO is somehow harmful is akin to saying that the mere usage of
insulin is harmful. Of course if you use too much then you will have
problems but the controlled utilization of it is not, in and of itself,
harmful. Please educate yourself and form an informed opinion before
resorting to name calling.

Point well made.

ray

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

I admit that I am a DUMASS when it comes to handling lab samples. You
mush have knowledge that provides you with the confidence that tampering
is impossible, no matter the payoff.

Ken

Nowhere have I stated that tampering is impossible. And that goes for any
lab doing drug testing. I think you know that. That's why you examine
procedures, chain of custody and question the people who conducted and
supervised the test. To charge that there is a French conspiracy at work
with utterly no evidence to back that up is sophistry.

And to declare him guilty when the procedures and chain of custody haven't
been examined and the people (including the one who broke confidentiality)
haven't been questioned is a lynching.

trg says...

Quoted message said:

And to declare him guilty when the procedures and chain of custody haven't
been examined and the people (including the one who broke confidentiality)
haven't been questioned is a lynching.

Brian's just jealous he wasn't allowed to be part of the mob.

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

J'accuse!

Quoted message said:

After beating cancer and making cancer research and recovery his
number one goal in life, it would be ridiculous to once again put his
health in danger.

EPO is no more dangerous than OJ. 🙂

Touché!

You're acknowledging a 'touch' upon you?

[In fencing, a touch of a sword on the opponent's body is worth a point.
Thus, touché has come to mean a score or a point, often used figuratively
in verbal fencing and spoken by the person against whom the point was
scored]

LOL

-jet

Quoted message said:

The accusations brought against Lance Armstrong in L'Equipe
on August 23, 2005, have no scientific or legal merit.

No-one disputes the fact that it doesn't have legal (or sports sanction
related) merit, I think, except maybe that insurance firm. It's just
sensational news. About the scientific side of things, I think you're
overreacting. In my opinion, the test and test results can still be
evaluated in spite of the fact that some findings have been brought out
ahead of official publication of any article (if indeed that was ever
planned).

I'll give you this, there's something fishy going on between this lab and
and l'Equipe. I'll even help your cause by relaying a few other incidents:

- August 2001: l'Equipe reports that EPO has been found in a urine sample
by Russian athlete Olga Yegorova. A row ensues over the legitimacy or
legality of the research by the doping lab concerned, Chatenay Malabry.

- August 2003: l'Equipe reports that modafinil has been found in a urine
sample by American athlete Kelli White after her 100m at Worlds. The paper
obtained the results of her A-sample from doping lab Chatenay Malabry.

Are l'Equipe and the lab lunching at the same boulangerie?

--
E. Dronkert

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

Quoted message said:

I was willing to listen up to this point i.e. the point where you
demonstrate the critical thinking skills of a Neanderthal; the
treatment
is less damaging than the disease.

I assume your are referring to this part of my post:

Next Mr. Vardi glaringly contradicts himself by stating that Armstrong
would be putting his life in danger by using EPO. It is well known
that EPO is used to treat very ill patients and futhermore that
Armstrong has said that EPO was instrumental in his recovery from
cancer. Therefore, if EPO usage is inherently dangerous then why is it
used on extremely sick patients?

Quoted message said:

It is obvious that you have no scientific background

Those critical thinking skills again.

..>because of your

Quoted message said:

vague assertion that the 'treatment is less damaging than the
disease'.

The assertion was made in a general sense but there are inherent risks
with EPO. It makes sense to assume the lesser. Raised blood viscosity
and the development of EPO antibodies leading to anemia are two.

Quoted message said:

You are assuming that EPO is a noxious susbstance that in and of
itself
it will cause a certain amount of damage, albeit less damage than the
disease itself.

You can assume all you want, I never said that.

Quoted message said:

You are totally and completely incorrect.

You mean that your assumption is totally and completely incorrect.

snip

Quoted message said:

Please educate yourself and form an informed opinion before
resorting to name calling.

Please let me know what level of education is required to see if I
qualify.

Phil H

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The accusations brought against Lance Armstrong in L'Equipe
on August 23, 2005, have no scientific or legal merit.

No-one disputes the fact that it doesn't have legal (or sports sanction
related) merit, I think, except maybe that insurance firm. It's just
sensational news. About the scientific side of things, I think you're
overreacting. In my opinion, the test and test results can still be
evaluated in spite of the fact that some findings have been brought out
ahead of official publication of any article (if indeed that was ever
planned).

I agree. These accussations and the data to support them look subtantial
enough to start an investigation. For the moment there is no ground to talk
about sanctions...

But the fact that a cyclist career is over and he did not get caught should
not be enough to free him permanently from resposibility. And this is
particularly applicable after 1998, because the french public has been
willing to sacrificy their own professional road cyling (that has become a
dwarf) on the expectation that it would be clean. I am sure they all think
Indurain and other past heros doped, but they decided to start on a clean
page after the Festina affair. The TdF and the french politicians have
promissed them a clean competion and a real winner, but L'equipe article is
quite an indication they may have been cheated just one (or 7 ) more times.
So they have every right to demand more info.

Quoted message said:

I'll give you this, there's something fishy going on between this lab and
and l'Equipe. I'll even help your cause by relaying a few other incidents:

- August 2001: l'Equipe reports that EPO has been found in a urine sample
by Russian athlete Olga Yegorova. A row ensues over the legitimacy or
legality of the research by the doping lab concerned, Chatenay Malabry.

- August 2003: l'Equipe reports that modafinil has been found in a urine
sample by American athlete Kelli White after her 100m at Worlds. The paper
obtained the results of her A-sample from doping lab Chatenay Malabry.

Are l'Equipe and the lab lunching at the same boulangerie?

--
E. Dronkert

On the other hand if this Lab is such a source of corruption and Ceanurriz
is a [censored] that knew which samples were Lance's, why did they just not
organize a study on these samples in 2000 using the original EPO test ready
in 2000 and stop Armstrong on the starting blocks? According to some in this
group something like that would have made this lab director a national hero
in France adn rich. Right?

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

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

I admit that I am a DUMASS when it comes to handling lab samples. You
mush have knowledge that provides you with the confidence that tampering
is impossible, no matter the payoff.

Ken

Nowhere have I stated that tampering is impossible. And that goes for
any lab doing drug testing. I think you know that. That's why you examine
procedures, chain of custody and question the people who conducted and
supervised the test. To charge that there is a French conspiracy at work
with utterly no evidence to back that up is sophistry.

And to declare him guilty when the procedures and chain of custody haven't
been examined and the people (including the one who broke confidentiality)
haven't been questioned is a lynching.

[censored].

I have written up my article on my website:
http://cf.geocities.com/ilanpi/jaccuseE.html

and translated it into French:
http://cf.geocities.com/ilanpi/jaccuse.html

which I intend to submit to a French newspaper.

-ilan

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

And to declare him guilty when the procedures and chain of custody haven't
been examined and the people (including the one who broke confidentiality)
haven't been questioned is a lynching.

Yes, and so is dismissing the accusation out of hand as a French conspiracy,
bad science, sleazy journalism, etc .

Still, none of this looks good for LA.

<[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have written up my article on my website:
http://cf.geocities.com/ilanpi/jaccuseE.html

and translated it into French:
http://cf.geocities.com/ilanpi/jaccuse.html

which I intend to submit to a French newspaper.

-ilan

Zola,
first correct the "Amstrong" in the french version. It is Armstrong, I
believe.

Montesquiou a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Zola,
first correct the "Amstrong" in the french version. It is Armstrong, I
believe.

Danke schoen,

-ilan

<[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Montesquiou a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Zola,
first correct the "Amstrong" in the french version. It is Armstrong, I
believe.

Danke schoen,

-ilan

De nada. Quando quizer ajuda, e so me chamar.

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

Quoted message said:

On the other hand if this Lab is such a source of corruption and Ceanurriz
is a [censored] that knew which samples were Lance's, why did they just not
organize a study on these samples in 2000 using the original EPO test
ready in 2000 and stop Armstrong on the starting blocks? >

in 2000 they had not been stomped 7 times. Let's say that all the tests
were done correctly and did truthfully identify the possibility of EPO
usage, It still is very clear that they were specifically on a witch hunt
to get Armstrong and got lucky. I would pray that is not their purpose or
intent.

Ken

"Bob" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

And to declare him guilty when the procedures and chain of custody
haven't
been examined and the people (including the one who broke
confidentiality)
haven't been questioned is a lynching.

Yes, and so is dismissing the accusation out of hand as a French
conspiracy,
bad science, sleazy journalism, etc .

Still, none of this looks good for LA.

Also true.

Bill C said:

You called me out Brian and I'm going to defend my point now.

Pistols, swords or a TT.

Bill C said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe Ilan wasn't PC sensitive, but PC is censorship. So tough [censored].

Torched Smurf said:

WTF are you talking about? What does PC have to do with anything? Did
you wander into this thread from the lobotomy ward?

This isn't the lobotomy ward ?