Landis will be lucky

Steve said:

In the best interest of the sport :

The B sample will come up negative for an unexplained reason.

The lab technicians will shrug their shoulders and wonder.
The TdF will go on it's merry way having avoided a scandal.
Sponsors will be less worried.
Landis will have learned a lesson, big time, if he had doped.
Landis will returned to his rightful glory if he was innocent.
Tyler will say "why not me".
Lance will say that the lab is corrupt.
Lemond will start questioning it since he will have to share his "clean"
mantle.

The reason is of course because the lab realized that the sport will be
irreparably harmed if the TdF winner were to go down and substituted
Millar's sample.

It's Paristown.

Quoted message said:

It's Paristown.

You said it, Jake.

Steve said:

In the best interest of the sport :
The B sample will come up negative for an unexplained reason.

Cynical, yet so true.

Bucky said:

Steve said:

In the best interest of the sport :
The B sample will come up negative for an unexplained reason.

Cynical, yet so true.

Cynicism is very French, even drunk and happy the French are cynical.

Best,
Bill Black

Steve said:

In the best interest of the sport :

The B sample will come up negative for an unexplained reason.

Tyler will say "why not me".

Interestingly cynical prediction. Will [censored] Pound's nose get sliced (a
la Jack Nicholson in Chinatown)?

Maybe it did happen to Tyler once. Recall his B sample after the
Olympics was mishandled so it was unusable. Maybe Tyler didn't get the
message, and in the Vuelta they saw a consistent pattern that meant he
wasn't going to stop until they suspended him.

If you look at the huge economic interests in having the B sample come
back negative, would a return of a positive test indicate that the
sport is truly cleaning up or just cutting off it's own nose?

I wonder.

Bob Dole said:

Steve said:

In the best interest of the sport :

The B sample will come up negative for an unexplained reason.

Tyler will say "why not me".

Interestingly cynical prediction. Will [censored] Pound's nose get sliced (a
la Jack Nicholson in Chinatown)?

Maybe it did happen to Tyler once. Recall his B sample after the
Olympics was mishandled so it was unusable. Maybe Tyler didn't get the
message, and in the Vuelta they saw a consistent pattern that meant he
wasn't going to stop until they suspended him.

"pete" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1154705489.329236.183210
@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

If you look at the huge economic interests in having the B sample come
back negative, would a return of a positive test indicate that the
sport is truly cleaning up or just cutting off it's own nose?

It would indicate that the chain of custody at the Chatenay-Malabry
laboratory can be trusted.

Steve said:

In the best interest of the sport :

The B sample will come up negative for an unexplained reason.

The lab technicians will shrug their shoulders and wonder.
The TdF will go on it's merry way having avoided a scandal.
Sponsors will be less worried.
Landis will have learned a lesson, big time, if he had doped.
Landis will returned to his rightful glory if he was innocent.
Tyler will say "why not me".
Lance will say that the lab is corrupt.
Lemond will start questioning it since he will have to share his "clean"
mantle.

The reason is of course because the lab realized that the sport will be
irreparably harmed if the TdF winner were to go down and substituted
Millar's sample.

Somewhat interesting. But if such a "conspiracy theory" were true, why
would the "A" sample have come up "positive" in the first place? The
conspiracy "logic" seems equally to dictate that a positive "A" would
be suppressed.

pete said:

If you look at the huge economic interests in having the B sample come
back negative, would a return of a positive test indicate that the
sport is truly cleaning up or just cutting off it's own nose?

IMAO, it's an unmitigated disaster either way.

Prospective sponsor thinking out loud: "so if I sponsor a team that cheats to
win, this happens - and if my team is squeeky clean, this same [censored] happens."

Ron

Quoted message said:

I wonder.

Bob Dole said:

Steve said:

In the best interest of the sport :

The B sample will come up negative for an unexplained reason.

Tyler will say "why not me".

Interestingly cynical prediction. Will [censored] Pound's nose get sliced (a
la Jack Nicholson in Chinatown)?

Maybe it did happen to Tyler once. Recall his B sample after the
Olympics was mishandled so it was unusable. Maybe Tyler didn't get the
message, and in the Vuelta they saw a consistent pattern that meant he
wasn't going to stop until they suspended him.

Grand Tours are not part of the Pro Tour and they could conceivably DQ
him if they feel like it, just like they prevented the big guns from
starting.

CH

Steve said:

In the best interest of the sport :

The B sample will come up negative for an unexplained reason.

The lab technicians will shrug their shoulders and wonder.
The TdF will go on it's merry way having avoided a scandal.
Sponsors will be less worried.
Landis will have learned a lesson, big time, if he had doped.
Landis will returned to his rightful glory if he was innocent.
Tyler will say "why not me".
Lance will say that the lab is corrupt.
Lemond will start questioning it since he will have to share his "clean"
mantle.

The reason is of course because the lab realized that the sport will be
irreparably harmed if the TdF winner were to go down and substituted
Millar's sample.

Dwayne said:

Somewhat interesting. But if such a "conspiracy theory" were true, why
would the "A" sample have come up "positive" in the first place? The
conspiracy "logic" seems equally to dictate that a positive "A" would
be suppressed.

Well, the conspiracy may not have formed until after the news leaked.
The lab didn't check with the officials, they just leaked it on their
own.

Bucky said:

Dwayne said:

Somewhat interesting. But if such a "conspiracy theory" were true, why
would the "A" sample have come up "positive" in the first place? The
conspiracy "logic" seems equally to dictate that a positive "A" would
be suppressed.

Well, the conspiracy may not have formed until after the news leaked.
The lab didn't check with the officials, they just leaked it on their
own.

Interesting, if true. Do you have a reference for that? According to
"Liberation" (which I consider a reliable french newspaper) the UCI
leaked the result fast to trash the TdF's image ahead of the Pro Tour.

Alan

PS I think the B sample will be positive, despite my natural cynicism

Quoted message said:

Interesting, if true. Do you have a reference for that? According to
"Liberation" (which I consider a reliable french newspaper) the UCI
leaked the result fast to trash the TdF's image ahead of the Pro Tour.

Sorry, I just made that up. No factual (or even fictional) evidence
whatsoever. =)

Bucky said:

Quoted message said:

Interesting, if true. Do you have a reference for that? According to
"Liberation" (which I consider a reliable french newspaper) the UCI
leaked the result fast to trash the TdF's image ahead of the Pro Tour.

Sorry, I just made that up. No factual (or even fictional) evidence
whatsoever. =)

You are now qualified to live in Paristown.

"Steve" <h90943@hotmaildotcom> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In the best interest of the sport :

The B sample will come up negative for an unexplained reason.

The lab technicians will shrug their shoulders and wonder.
The TdF will go on it's merry way having avoided a scandal.
Sponsors will be less worried.
Landis will have learned a lesson, big time, if he had doped.
Landis will returned to his rightful glory if he was innocent.
Tyler will say "why not me".
Lance will say that the lab is corrupt.
Lemond will start questioning it since he will have to share his "clean"
mantle.

The reason is of course because the lab realized that the sport will be
irreparably harmed if the TdF winner were to go down and substituted
Millar's sample.

Any more predictions?

Frank Drackman said:

Any more predictions?

They will find that Landis was framed!

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

Quoted message said:

Frank Drackman said:

Any more predictions?

They will find that Landis was framed!

Afer reading the research I think that Landis was simply a natural occurence
and that the French lab finding of exogenous testosterone was a piece of bad
testing.

As if they would want to shoot themselves in the foot?
Do you know how much damage have been done to cycling?

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Frank Drackman said:

Any more predictions?

They will find that Landis was framed!

Afer reading the research I think that Landis was simply a natural
occurence and that the French lab finding of exogenous testosterone was a
piece of bad testing.

Tom Kunich said:

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

Quoted message said:

Frank Drackman said:

Any more predictions?

They will find that Landis was framed!

Afer reading the research I think that Landis was simply a natural occurence
and that the French lab finding of exogenous testosterone was a piece of bad
testing.

Overall, Tom, I'm not at all sure I agree with you, but here's some
info on your side of the argument.

In some ways, Landis's case can be seen a similar to Mary Decker
Slaney's testosterone doping case (from 1996). This is summarized here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Landis

I recall reading Berry's paper on this issue in Chance (a refereed
journal of the American Statistical Association, although their least
technical one). This discusses several aspects of testing.

http://www.amstat.org/publications/chance/172.berry.pdf

The last section, where Berry summarizes, is relevant here:
"Conclusions about the likelihood of testosterone doping require
consideration of 3 components: specificity and sentivity of the testing
procedure, and the prior probability of use. As regards the T/E ratio,
anti-doping officials consider only specificity... Bayes rule shows
that it is impossible to draw conclusions about guilt on the basis of
specificity alone."

There are counterarguments that can be made about Berry's position, but
my lunch break is about over now 😉