Bob Schwartz wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pound only says something after a cyclist tests positive. Not sure
>>>> how that makes Pound relevant to any doping case involving any
>>>> athlete. Pound doesn't runt he lab tests or decide the case.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LANCE had a positive test. Pound didn't say ****. No one
>>> leaked the result which gave LANCE time to put his alibi
>>> in place.
>>>
>>> I don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be.
>>>
>>> Bob Schwartz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I take categorical exception to everything you said above. When did
>> Lance have a "positive" test?
>>
>> Magilla
>
>
> The search term is 'skin cream'.
>
> Bob Schwartz
Even if Lance didn't have a TUE for it, he was still below the
"positive" concentration limit set by the UCI. I am familiar with the
story of Lance then allegedly getting a back-dated prescription, but he
didn't have to do that because he was still below the illegal cutoff.
The only reason he and his people engaged in that back-dating thing is
for PR reasons.
Even WADA has cutoff limits for its banned substances. And of course
Pound wouldn't say anything about this LA incident since cycling wasn't
a part of WADA when it happened and **** Pound wasn't even its president.
Thank you, come again.
Magilla