Road Cycling · Public discussion

Meeting Floyd

Started by Mark Hickey · · Last activity · 17 posts · 999 views

← Back to Road Cycling

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postMeeting FloydMark Hickey · 15 Apr 2007 02 / This pagePosts 1–17Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #17Patrick Lamb · 19 Apr 2007

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
15 April 2007
Last activity
19 April 2007
Original author
Mark Hickey
Posts
17
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
999
Views / 30 days
0
Topics
CampagnoloTitanium frames

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–17 of 17
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Original post
    Mark Hickey
    Archived post
    #1

    Last night was a blast.

    Floyd Landis is in the process of touring the country raising money
    and support in his effort to fight the doping charges that have
    (termporarily...) stripped him of his '06 Tour de France yellow
    jersey. Last night, he came to the Phoenix east valley, and I
    attended the presentation.

    The venue was a fairly small one - only 60-70 people attending, which
    I can only attribute to lack of publicity. I spent a several hours
    last night sitting about 10 feet (3m) from Floyd and his doctor
    (Arnie Baker) and his PR guy Michael Henson.

    The presentation has changed a bit from what is on Floyd's "Fairness
    Fund" website, and according to Dr. Baker (a very confidence-inspiring
    speaker, BTW), they're only presenting "about 10%" of the problems
    with the testing that was done, since they've already seen the French
    lab trying to cover their tracks by releasing updated "original"
    documents that "fix" some of the glaring errors in the "original
    originals".

    Without going into a litany of details, there are SO many questions
    raised by Dr. Baker's examination of the evidence that I have no doubt
    at all that Floyd will prevail when the hearing occurs in mid-May.
    Essentially, there are clearly-documented problems with chain of
    custody, testing blindness, protocol, equipment malfunction, sample
    contamination beyond testable standards, standards definition, not to
    mention the common sense aspect of the fact that Floyd tested negative
    two days prior and two days after (and tested WELL under the limits
    for testosterone even after stage 17). Dr. Baker explained the
    science of testosterone, and how clinical studies have shown that
    there is no measureable performance gain even with 10x the allowed
    testosterone level present on that day's effort (that is, it's not a
    "one day drug"😉. There's simply no reason anyone would WANT to play
    around with epitestosterone on a given stage... nothing to be gained.

    Floyd's presentation was alternatively informative, spontaneous, and
    humourous. He spent a good bit of the evening "talking racing" and
    the personal glimpse into the politics of the peleton was fascinating.
    He (and Dr. Baker) pointed out that although Floyd's stage 17
    performance was a very, very good one, the real reason he gained so
    much time was the infighting among teams in the peleton (each waiting
    for the other teams to do the heavy lifting). As amazing as it was,
    he really wasn't doing anything superhuman, but clearly something
    unexpectedly audacious. His superior descending skills didn't hurt
    either.

    For those of you in Dallas, Austin or Atlanta - he's coming your way
    soon - I suggest you do NOT miss the event. It's the best $35 I've
    spent in a long, long time (though I also broke down and bought a $25
    Floyd Fairness Fund T-shirt, which he autographed for me). There were
    other fund-raising efforts, including auctioning off a replica yellow
    jersey autographed by Floyd (which went for $3,300, so don't figure
    it's a cheap way to cover a stain on your wall). ;-) Floyd spent
    about half an hour signing autographs and was happy to pose for photos
    with anyone who wanted one (making forgetting my camera a very dumb
    thing to do).

    I'd recommend that anyone who's genuinely concerned with the fairness
    of the current drug testing processes should read the powerpoint
    presentation that Dr. Baker put together - it's a fairly big download,
    but fascinating reading (even without the good doctor's running
    commentary on the details). It can be found at:

    http://www.floydfairnessfund.org/resources/Wiki%20Denfense%20Slide.pdf

    There's also a webcast on Floyd's site that I haven't previewed, but
    suspect it contains the same information I saw last night.

    My prediction is that the WADA (World Anti Doping Agency) and the
    French lab that was involved will have to admit that there are FAR too
    many problems with the handling of the samples, the testing of the
    samples, and the results of the testing for the results to stand. I
    appreciate the work Floyd is doing to take on these powerful
    organizations (that are, BTW, doing everything in their power to keep
    the details from leaking out - funny since they seem to relish the
    opporutnity to leak details about certain riders' test results, even
    before the UCI officials hear about it). Dr. Baker has also compiled
    a number of documents that show the same lab was making errors on
    other (non-cycling) athletes at the same time that Floyd's sample was
    being tested (where the lab admits getting samples crossed or causing
    contamination that resulted in a false positives).

    Please support this effort - I think after you read the presentation
    you'll begin to understand what a travesty this whole thing has been.
    I look forward to the day when Floyd's name appears without an asterix
    in the record books.

    Go get 'em Floyd!

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycles
    http://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $795 ti frame

    Report
  2. Ted
    Archived post
    #2

    Too bad he isn't coming this far north.

    Go Floyd!
    Ted.

    Report
  3. Mike Kruger
    Archived post
    #3
    Mark Hickey said:

    Last night was a blast.

    Floyd Landis is in the process of touring the country

    I attended one of these in February, although this was more silent auction
    and fund raising than the detailed discussion of the facts you encountered.
    I found it quite interesting, even though I don't race.

    At this point, the argument involves technical details of test accuracy,
    chain of custody, possibility of tampering, etc. The issue of whether Floyd
    is "guilty" doesn't come up. It's important to consider that this is the
    nature of an appeals process. If you are in prison you can't contend you
    should be let out because you are innocent -- you have to contend your trial
    was somehow flawed.

    Doping seems pretty common in professional sports, and I think it's a naive
    to think that Americans are immune to temptation. But the drug testing
    itself seems oddly uncontrolled. I'll pick the most obvious example: they
    send the A and B samples to the same lab. This makes absolutely no sense,
    since there can be various problems occurring in any lab. Send the A samples
    to one lab, and the B samples to another lab. It's not a matter of cost,
    because the B sample testing is done later and so the shipments can be
    bunched. It's just a matter of sloppiness. Although I don't know much of
    anything about drug testing, I do know a lot about basic research hygiene,
    and this just doesn't cut it at a basic level.

    In this case, some of the same people were involved in both the A sample and
    the B sample testing, which is wrong because it creates the temptation to
    force a result.

    It's almost as if they aren't serious about the testing, just serious about
    seeming to be serious. Sort of like drug testing in American football,
    which looks fearsome until you realize how much bigger all the linesmen are
    now than they were 20 years ago. I guess they are just training harder 😉

    Report
  4. Mark Hickey
    Archived post
    #4
    Mike Kruger said:
    Mark Hickey said:

    Last night was a blast.

    Floyd Landis is in the process of touring the country

    I attended one of these in February, although this was more silent auction
    and fund raising than the detailed discussion of the facts you encountered.
    I found it quite interesting, even though I don't race.

    At this point, the argument involves technical details of test accuracy,
    chain of custody, possibility of tampering, etc. The issue of whether Floyd
    is "guilty" doesn't come up.

    It certainly came up on Saturday. In many ways, forms, and manners.
    He categorically denied taking anything, and gave plenty of well
    thought out reasons why what he's accused of taking wouldn't have
    helped his performance anyway (including the results of that clinical
    study showing a 10x boost in testosterone made no discernable
    difference to test subjects).

    Quoted message said:

    It's important to consider that this is the
    nature of an appeals process. If you are in prison you can't contend you
    should be let out because you are innocent -- you have to contend your trial
    was somehow flawed.

    No one would be locked up if the case against them had the problems
    the case against Floyd does. A lot of discussion revolved around the
    principle of "guilty until proven innocent, and we'll do everything in
    our power to keep you from being able to prove your innocence"
    approach of WADA and the French lab.

    Quoted message said:

    Doping seems pretty common in professional sports, and I think it's a naive
    to think that Americans are immune to temptation. But the drug testing
    itself seems oddly uncontrolled. I'll pick the most obvious example: they
    send the A and B samples to the same lab. This makes absolutely no sense,
    since there can be various problems occurring in any lab.

    Worse yet, the SAME TECH tested both of Floyd's samples! Although
    this is strictly against the rules, the lab management claims "hey, we
    were busy and understaffed". Probably explains a lot of the other
    mix-ups and false positives they produced during the same period in
    other testing. Uh oh....

    Quoted message said:

    Send the A samples
    to one lab, and the B samples to another lab. It's not a matter of cost,
    because the B sample testing is done later and so the shipments can be
    bunched. It's just a matter of sloppiness. Although I don't know much of
    anything about drug testing, I do know a lot about basic research hygiene,
    and this just doesn't cut it at a basic level.

    There were many other handling and custody issues. I'd suggest
    reading the slideshow at the link I provided in the previous post.
    Amazing stuff.

    Quoted message said:

    In this case, some of the same people were involved in both the A sample and
    the B sample testing, which is wrong because it creates the temptation to
    force a result.

    And let's not forget that the same staff put the "results" out to the
    press before even the UCI knew about it. Objectivity? Doesn't sound
    like it.

    Quoted message said:

    It's almost as if they aren't serious about the testing, just serious about
    seeming to be serious. Sort of like drug testing in American football,
    which looks fearsome until you realize how much bigger all the linesmen are
    now than they were 20 years ago. I guess they are just training harder 😉

    Heh. The really sad thing is that with all the problem and sloppiness
    that was documented in Floyd's case, it's clear that they're not going
    to be able to do a credible job finding those who ARE abusing drugs.

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycles
    http://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $795 ti frame

    Report
  5. Qui si parla Campagnolo
    Archived post
    #5
    Mark Hickey said:
    Mike Kruger said:
    Mark Hickey said:

    Last night was a blast.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Floyd Landis is in the process of touring the country

    Quoted message said:

    I attended one of these in February, although this was more silent auction
    and fund raising than the detailed discussion of the facts you encountered.
    I found it quite interesting, even though I don't race.

    Quoted message said:

    At this point, the argument involves technical details of test accuracy,
    chain of custody, possibility of tampering, etc. The issue of whether Floyd
    is "guilty" doesn't come up.

    It certainly came up on Saturday. In many ways, forms, and manners.
    He categorically denied taking anything, and gave plenty of well
    thought out reasons why what he's accused of taking wouldn't have
    helped his performance anyway (including the results of that clinical
    study showing a 10x boost in testosterone made no discernable
    difference to test subjects).

    Quoted message said:

    It's important to consider that this is the
    nature of an appeals process. If you are in prison you can't contend you
    should be let out because you are innocent -- you have to contend your trial
    was somehow flawed.

    No one would be locked up if the case against them had the problems
    the case against Floyd does. A lot of discussion revolved around the
    principle of "guilty until proven innocent, and we'll do everything in
    our power to keep you from being able to prove your innocence"
    approach of WADA and the French lab.

    Quoted message said:

    Doping seems pretty common in professional sports, and I think it's a naive
    to think that Americans are immune to temptation. But the drug testing
    itself seems oddly uncontrolled. I'll pick the most obvious example: they
    send the A and B samples to the same lab. This makes absolutely no sense,
    since there can be various problems occurring in any lab.

    Worse yet, the SAME TECH tested both of Floyd's samples! Although
    this is strictly against the rules, the lab management claims "hey, we
    were busy and understaffed". Probably explains a lot of the other
    mix-ups and false positives they produced during the same period in
    other testing. Uh oh....

    Quoted message said:

    Send the A samples
    to one lab, and the B samples to another lab. It's not a matter of cost,
    because the B sample testing is done later and so the shipments can be
    bunched. It's just a matter of sloppiness. Although I don't know much of
    anything about drug testing, I do know a lot about basic research hygiene,
    and this just doesn't cut it at a basic level.

    There were many other handling and custody issues. I'd suggest
    reading the slideshow at the link I provided in the previous post.
    Amazing stuff.

    Quoted message said:

    In this case, some of the same people were involved in both the A sample and
    the B sample testing, which is wrong because it creates the temptation to
    force a result.

    And let's not forget that the same staff put the "results" out to the
    press before even the UCI knew about it. Objectivity? Doesn't sound
    like it.

    Quoted message said:

    It's almost as if they aren't serious about the testing, just serious about
    seeming to be serious. Sort of like drug testing in American football,
    which looks fearsome until you realize how much bigger all the linesmen are
    now than they were 20 years ago. I guess they are just training harder 😉

    Heh. The really sad thing is that with all the problem and sloppiness
    that was documented in Floyd's case, it's clear that they're not going
    to be able to do a credible job finding those who ARE abusing drugs.

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycleshttp://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $795 ti frame

    I agree with lots of what you say Mark, but in the end, he may be
    exonerated because of flaws in the testing process, flaws in the chain
    of custody, rather than finding/having samples that were found to be
    clean.

    I guess I gotta ask, were the samples tested tampered with? Was
    artificial testosterone placed in his samples?
    Were his samples clean and they just mucked up the test, false
    positive? Is this a conspiracy or just sloppy work?

    Report
  6. Mark Hickey
    Archived post
    #6
    Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

    I agree with lots of what you say Mark, but in the end, he may be
    exonerated because of flaws in the testing process, flaws in the chain
    of custody, rather than finding/having samples that were found to be
    clean.

    I guess I gotta ask, were the samples tested tampered with? Was
    artificial testosterone placed in his samples?
    Were his samples clean and they just mucked up the test, false
    positive? Is this a conspiracy or just sloppy work?

    Good questions all... Floyd (and his doctor) stopped short of claiming
    outright "framing", but from the evidence that was presented it's hard
    to tell whether the biggest problem is sloppy work or intentional
    effort to produce a positive test. The fact that the same test in the
    same lab produced results that varied by (IIRC) 161%, it's hard to
    say.

    I think from a common sense perspective, there's no real reason to
    suspect that Floyd's sample WAS positive, if for no other reason than
    there's no reason for him to have even taken what they've claimed he
    took.

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycles
    http://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $795 ti frame

    Report
  7. Qui si parla Campagnolo
    Archived post
    #7
    Mark Hickey said:
    Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

    I agree with lots of what you say Mark, but in the end, he may be
    exonerated because of flaws in the testing process, flaws in the chain
    of custody, rather than finding/having samples that were found to be
    clean.

    Quoted message said:

    I guess I gotta ask, were the samples tested tampered with? Was
    artificial testosterone placed in his samples?
    Were his samples clean and they just mucked up the test, false
    positive? Is this a conspiracy or just sloppy work?

    Good questions all... Floyd (and his doctor) stopped short of claiming
    outright "framing", but from the evidence that was presented it's hard
    to tell whether the biggest problem is sloppy work or intentional
    effort to produce a positive test. The fact that the same test in the
    same lab produced results that varied by (IIRC) 161%, it's hard to
    say.

    I think from a common sense perspective, there's no real reason to
    suspect that Floyd's sample WAS positive, if for no other reason than
    there's no reason for him to have even taken what they've claimed he
    took.

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycleshttp://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $795 ti frame

    BUT, if the B sample is positive, then the stuff is in the sample,
    good idea or not. Claiming that there is no good reason to take
    testosterone isn't a defense. It's on the 'list', therefore illegal. I
    personally think he's screwed. Like Tyler, he didn't dispute the fact
    that there was evidence but that the evidence was trumped up or in
    error. Unless Floyd can produce a clean sample, impossible, he is
    screwed.

    Report
  8. Pat
    Archived post
    #8


    Quoted message said:


    BUT, if the B sample is positive, then the stuff is in the sample,
    good idea or not. Claiming that there is no good reason to take
    testosterone isn't a defense. It's on the 'list', therefore illegal. I
    personally think he's screwed. Like Tyler, he didn't dispute the fact
    that there was evidence but that the evidence was trumped up or in
    error. Unless Floyd can produce a clean sample, impossible, he is
    screwed.

    What you might be missing is the next day's sample. If it and subsequent
    days are free of the substance, Floyd could medically prove that the
    substance wouldn't clear out of the body so rapidly. I am sure his lawyer
    has thought of that angle. After all, doctors have said that it would be in
    his body for days thereafter...

    Pat in TX

    Quoted message said:
    Report
  9. Qui si parla Campagnolo
    Archived post
    #9
    Pat said:
    Quoted message said:

    BUT, if the B sample is positive, then the stuff is in the sample,
    good idea or not. Claiming that there is no good reason to take
    testosterone isn't a defense. It's on the 'list', therefore illegal. I
    personally think he's screwed. Like Tyler, he didn't dispute the fact
    that there was evidence but that the evidence was trumped up or in
    error. Unless Floyd can produce a clean sample, impossible, he is
    screwed.

    What you might be missing is the next day's sample. If it and subsequent
    days are free of the substance, Floyd could medically prove that the
    substance wouldn't clear out of the body so rapidly. I am sure his lawyer
    has thought of that angle. After all, doctors have said that it would be in
    his body for days thereafter...

    Quoted message said:


    Pat in TX

    Maybe but even so, if it is in his sample, he is guilty, even if it
    wasn't the next day and it 'couldn't' leave his sytem that fast...

    Report
  10. Bill Sornson
    Archived post
    #10
    Qui si parla Campagnolo said:
    Pat said:
    Quoted message said:

    BUT, if the B sample is positive, then the stuff is in the sample,
    good idea or not. Claiming that there is no good reason to take
    testosterone isn't a defense. It's on the 'list', therefore
    illegal. I personally think he's screwed. Like Tyler, he didn't
    dispute the fact that there was evidence but that the evidence was
    trumped up or in error. Unless Floyd can produce a clean sample,
    impossible, he is screwed.

    What you might be missing is the next day's sample. If it and
    subsequent days are free of the substance, Floyd could medically
    prove that the substance wouldn't clear out of the body so rapidly.
    I am sure his lawyer has thought of that angle. After all, doctors
    have said that it would be in his body for days thereafter...

    Quoted message said:


    Pat in TX

    Maybe but even so, if it is in his sample, he is guilty, even if it
    wasn't the next day and it 'couldn't' leave his sytem that fast...

    ....in France.

    Report
  11. Mark Hickey
    Archived post
    #11
    Bill Sornson said:
    Qui si parla Campagnolo said:
    Pat said:

    > BUT, if the B sample is positive, then the stuff is in the sample,
    > good idea or not. Claiming that there is no good reason to take
    > testosterone isn't a defense. It's on the 'list', therefore
    > illegal. I personally think he's screwed. Like Tyler, he didn't
    > dispute the fact that there was evidence but that the evidence was
    > trumped up or in error. Unless Floyd can produce a clean sample,
    > impossible, he is screwed.

    What you might be missing is the next day's sample. If it and
    subsequent days are free of the substance, Floyd could medically
    prove that the substance wouldn't clear out of the body so rapidly.
    I am sure his lawyer has thought of that angle. After all, doctors
    have said that it would be in his body for days thereafter...

    Pat in TX

    Maybe but even so, if it is in his sample, he is guilty, even if it
    wasn't the next day and it 'couldn't' leave his sytem that fast...

    ...in France.

    Precisely. And let's keep in mind that the testing that the lab did
    on the A sample had wildly different results - turns out my memory was
    conservative (pun intended)... the error on testosterone measurement
    was 181%, and on epitestosterone was 238%. Not exactly
    confidence-inducing, is it? What will it be NEXT time (keep in mind
    that the lab is going to look really, really bad if the B sample
    happens to test negative, and draw your own conclusions). The very
    fact that the USADA and WADA refuse to use another lab to test the B
    samples should tell you everything you really need to know about how
    interested the lab, USADA and WADA are in getting to the truth, and
    how interested they are in continuing to cover up either very sloppy
    work or outright tampering.

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycles
    http://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $795 ti frame

    Report
  12. Dennis P. Harris
    Archived post
    #12

    On 17 Apr 2007 17:29:57 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, Qui si parla

    Campagnolo said:

    Maybe but even so, if it is in his sample, he is guilty, even if it
    wasn't the next day and it 'couldn't' leave his sytem that fast...


    you don't get it, do you? PLONK.

    Report
  13. Qui si parla Campagnolo
    Archived post
    #13
    Bill Sornson said:
    Qui si parla Campagnolo said:
    Pat said:

    > BUT, if the B sample is positive, then the stuff is in the sample,
    > good idea or not. Claiming that there is no good reason to take
    > testosterone isn't a defense. It's on the 'list', therefore
    > illegal. I personally think he's screwed. Like Tyler, he didn't
    > dispute the fact that there was evidence but that the evidence was
    > trumped up or in error. Unless Floyd can produce a clean sample,
    > impossible, he is screwed.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    What you might be missing is the next day's sample. If it and
    subsequent days are free of the substance, Floyd could medically
    prove that the substance wouldn't clear out of the body so rapidly.
    I am sure his lawyer has thought of that angle. After all, doctors
    have said that it would be in his body for days thereafter...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Pat in TX

    Quoted message said:

    Maybe but even so, if it is in his sample, he is guilty, even if it
    wasn't the next day and it 'couldn't' leave his sytem that fast...

    ...in France.

    No argument there. I think everybody needs to remember it is a bunch
    of US lawyers and Docs taking on the huge, state sponsored, TdF
    endorsed, testing lab in France. We all here in the US 'assume'
    legality, fair sportsmanship, no outright debauchery, but in France,
    fergetabouit.

    Report
  14. Tom Grosman
    Archived post
    #14

    "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
    news: [email hidden]...
    | On Apr 17, 6:50 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
    | > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
    | >
    | >
    | >
    | > > On Apr 17, 5:12 pm, "Pat" <[email hidden]> wrote:
    | > >>> BUT, if the B sample is positive, then the stuff is in the sample,
    | > >>> good idea or not. Claiming that there is no good reason to take
    | > >>> testosterone isn't a defense. It's on the 'list', therefore
    | > >>> illegal. I personally think he's screwed. Like Tyler, he didn't
    | > >>> dispute the fact that there was evidence but that the evidence was
    | > >>> trumped up or in error. Unless Floyd can produce a clean sample,
    | > >>> impossible, he is screwed.
    | >
    | > >> What you might be missing is the next day's sample. If it and
    | > >> subsequent days are free of the substance, Floyd could medically
    | > >> prove that the substance wouldn't clear out of the body so rapidly.
    | > >> I am sure his lawyer has thought of that angle. After all, doctors
    | > >> have said that it would be in his body for days thereafter...
    | >
    | > >> Pat in TX
    | >
    | > > Maybe but even so, if it is in his sample, he is guilty, even if it
    | > > wasn't the next day and it 'couldn't' leave his sytem that fast...
    | >
    | > ...in France.
    |
    | No argument there. I think everybody needs to remember it is a bunch
    | of US lawyers and Docs taking on the huge, state sponsored, TdF
    | endorsed, testing lab in France. We all here in the US 'assume'
    | legality, fair sportsmanship, no outright debauchery, but in France,
    | fergetabouit.
    |

    No, it's some US lawyers taking on a WADA and IOC approved and accredited
    lab. At least that's how it will be seen by the rest of the world who aren't
    anti-French the way a lot of Americans are.

    Report
  15. Pat
    Archived post
    #15


    Quoted message said:

    |

    No, it's some US lawyers taking on a WADA and IOC approved and accredited
    lab. At least that's how it will be seen by the rest of the world who
    aren't
    anti-French the way a lot of Americans are.

    I don't understand. Are you saying that "guilty until proven innocent" or
    "guilty if the lab says you are" or are you saying an accused person
    shouldn't have a lawyer and that the rest of the world understands that and
    Americans are just being "anti-French" because they insist on fairness and
    scrutiny of the law as well as its methods?
    Pat in TX

    Quoted message said:


    Report
  16. Mark Hickey
    Archived post
    #16
    Tom Grosman said:

    "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
    news: [email hidden]...
    | On Apr 17, 6:50 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
    | > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
    | > > On Apr 17, 5:12 pm, "Pat" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    | > > Maybe but even so, if it is in his sample, he is guilty, even if it
    | > > wasn't the next day and it 'couldn't' leave his sytem that fast...
    | >
    | > ...in France.
    |
    | No argument there. I think everybody needs to remember it is a bunch
    | of US lawyers and Docs taking on the huge, state sponsored, TdF
    | endorsed, testing lab in France. We all here in the US 'assume'
    | legality, fair sportsmanship, no outright debauchery, but in France,
    | fergetabouit.

    No, it's some US lawyers taking on a WADA and IOC approved and accredited
    lab. At least that's how it will be seen by the rest of the world who aren't
    anti-French the way a lot of Americans are.

    You spelled "anti-corruption" wrong. Whether the lab's "French
    status" had anything to do with them releasing the results of Floyd's
    test to the press before they even bothered to give it to the UCI,
    we'll have to wait and see....

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycles
    http://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $795 ti frame

    Report
  17. Patrick Lamb
    Archived post
    #17
    Qui si parla Campagnolo said:


    Maybe but even so, if it is in his sample, he is guilty, even if it
    wasn't the next day and it 'couldn't' leave his sytem that fast...

    Only if you consider it a technicality that there is no evidence to
    show artificial testosterone was ever in his system.

    Put it another way: [censored] Pound, WADA, and the French lab leaker
    (whoever that is) have yelled, "Cheat!" Now we're finding out there
    is nothing to substantiate that accusation. The evidence has fallen
    apart. To claim Floyd is guilty at this juncture is akin to asking,
    "Can you prove you've stopped beating your wife?"

    Pat

    Email address works as is.

    Report

Keep exploring

Browse the sectionRoad Cycling Return to CyclingForumsStart at the home page Search discussionsFind another thread

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.