J'accuse !

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

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

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

Pistols, swords or a TT.

Hilly time trial. :-)

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
RonSonic <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

It's weird science, illegally obtained, with no trustworthy custody,
an unproven methodology

You should be proud of yourself. You made that up all on your own !! Good
to know you have inside knowledge, a law degree, and appropriate scientific
credentials.

His credentials are at least as good as the bozo from L'Equipe making the
accusations. They both have the same credibility.
-------------
Alex

Yet another reason for the director of the Chatenay Malabry lab to be
upset by the L'Equipe article: The results
from these samples can no longer be used for research, since their
anonymity has been compromised.

-ilan

Quoted message said:

The results from these samples can no longer be used for research,
since their anonymity has been compromised.

Only after the results were available. Also, what's up then with all that
physiology research where "the subject is a male in his early thirties,
multiple winner of the Tour de France", and the like.

--
E. Dronkert

Ewoud Dronkert a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The results from these samples can no longer be used for research,
since their anonymity has been compromised.

Only after the results were available. Also, what's up then with all that
physiology research where "the subject is a male in his early thirties,
multiple winner of the Tour de France", and the like.

In such research, the athlete in question has given his approval. I
don't believe that your body can be used for research without it.
In this case, the athletes gave samples for drug testing, and
the athletes agreed that the samples could be used after that
on the condition that anonymity be preserved. Since this
anonymity was violated, the research findings can no longer be used.

-ilan

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
[email hidden] <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

Ewoud Dronkert a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The results from these samples can no longer be used for research,
since their anonymity has been compromised.

Only after the results were available. Also, what's up then with all
that physiology research where "the subject is a male in his early
thirties, multiple winner of the Tour de France", and the like.

In such research, the athlete in question has given his approval. I
don't believe that your body can be used for research without it.
In this case, the athletes gave samples for drug testing, and
the athletes agreed that the samples could be used after that
on the condition that anonymity be preserved. Since this
anonymity was violated, the research findings can no longer be used.

-ilan

Evidently, you missed reading this, late last week :

From current UCI regs :

Property of Samples

167. The Samples collected under these Anti-Doping Rules shall become the
property of the UCI upon collection.

and ...

292. Persons carrying out a task in Doping Control are required to observe
strict confidentiality regarding any information concerning individual cases
which is not required to be reported under these Anti-Doping Rules.

The athlete does not have any remaining property rights in his [censored] after
submitting it, so consent is not an issue.

The athlete is NOT protected from having condifential information disclosed,
when the case IS repoted under the rules.

The athlete has NO particular right to be present when a "B" sample is
tested, except when in connection with a potential disciplinary action.

You have no idea of what research may be, so you ? Of course you do - you
are a gym teacher, or is that arithmetic ?

Sandy said:

Evidently, you missed reading this, late last week :

From current UCI regs :

Property of Samples

167. The Samples collected under these Anti-Doping Rules shall become the
property of the UCI upon collection.

and ...

292. Persons carrying out a task in Doping Control are required to observe
strict confidentiality regarding any information concerning individual cases
which is not required to be reported under these Anti-Doping Rules.

And ...

"180. Subject to articles 168 and 169, no Sample may be used for any
purpose other than the detection of substances (or classes of
substances) or methods on the Prohibited List, or as otherwise
identified by WADA pursuant to its Monitoring Program, without the
Rider's written consent."

So your conclusion ...

Quoted message said:

The athlete does not have any remaining property rights in his [censored] after
submitting it, so consent is not an issue.

.... may not be correct.

Jenko

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

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

Evidently, you missed reading this, late last week :

From current UCI regs :

Property of Samples

167. The Samples collected under these Anti-Doping Rules shall become the
property of the UCI upon collection.

and ...

292. Persons carrying out a task in Doping Control are required to
observe
strict confidentiality regarding any information concerning individual
cases
which is not required to be reported under these Anti-Doping Rules.

And ...

"180. Subject to articles 168 and 169, no Sample may be used for any
purpose other than the detection of substances (or classes of
substances) or methods on the Prohibited List, or as otherwise
identified by WADA pursuant to its Monitoring Program, without the
Rider's written consent."

So your conclusion ...

Quoted message said:

The athlete does not have any remaining property rights in his [censored] after
submitting it, so consent is not an issue.

... may not be correct.

Jenko

Section 180 appears to say the opposite. They can use them to detect
prohibited substances or methods but for no other purpose. Clearly, as Sandy
has pointed out, the [censored] no longer belongs to the pissor.

B. Lafferty said:

Section 180 appears to say the opposite. They can use them to detect
prohibited substances or methods but for no other purpose.

But the purpose here was not detection, but research on detection
methods, which is a different thing to me, but I ain't a lawyer.

Jenko

Jenko said:

B. Lafferty said:

Section 180 appears to say the opposite. They can use them to detect
prohibited substances or methods but for no other purpose.

But the purpose here was not detection, but research on detection
methods, which is a different thing to me, but I ain't a lawyer.

Some lawyers aren't much of a lawyer so you're ahead of the game. And
your point has validity.

R

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Section 180 appears to say the opposite. They can use them to detect
prohibited substances or methods but for no other purpose.

But the purpose here was not detection, but research on detection
methods, which is a different thing to me, but I ain't a lawyer.

Jenko

I think you can argue that research on testing methods for a specific
substance is permissible. Of course, the lab has an obligation to maintain
confidentiality to protect the doping rider(s) from emotional turmoil and
financial harm. ;-)

In article <[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

Sandy wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"180. Subject to articles 168 and 169, no Sample may be used for any
purpose other than the detection of substances (or classes of
substances) or methods on the Prohibited List, or as otherwise
identified by WADA pursuant to its Monitoring Program, without the
Rider's written consent."

So your conclusion ...

Quoted message said:

The athlete does not have any remaining property rights in his [censored] after
submitting it, so consent is not an issue.

... may not be correct.

Jenko

Section 180 appears to say the opposite. They can use them to detect
prohibited substances or methods but for no other purpose. Clearly, as Sandy
has pointed out, the [censored] no longer belongs to the pissor.

Well, Brian, article 180 also states that those samples cannot be used for
such purposes "without the Rider's written consent". Or am I misreading that?

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Section 180 appears to say the opposite. They can use them to detect
prohibited substances or methods but for no other purpose.

But the purpose here was not detection, but research on detection
methods, which is a different thing to me, but I ain't a lawyer.

Jenko

I think you can argue that research on testing methods for a specific
substance is permissible. Of course, the lab has an obligation to maintain

Why do you say that J. can argue thusly? He is arguing
otherwise. _You_ are arguing that Section 180 does not say
what it quite clearly does say.

Quoted message said:

confidentiality to protect the doping rider(s) from emotional turmoil and
financial harm. ;-)

--
Michael Press