No B Sample Needed For Tyler

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

Quoted message said:

It appears that some people are quite certain that the new blood doping

test

Quoted message said:

is relaible. More and more, it looks like Tyler and his attorney are
blowing a lot of smoke.

Susie Soap Opera --

Go find some real news, like in the National Enquirer or something.

JF

"Jim Flom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:WGJmd.164132$df2.111701@edtnps89...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

It appears that some people are quite certain that the new blood doping

test

Quoted message said:

is relaible. More and more, it looks like Tyler and his attorney are
blowing a lot of smoke.

Susie Soap Opera --

Go find some real news, like in the National Enquirer or something.

JF

You mean like God Is Dead and We Have Killed Him, Rev.? Or, God Is Within
You? I'll pass your comment on to CyclingNEWS.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:05:33 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Our in-house counsel, Simon Rofe,
has been speaking to medical experts to understand the scientific basis of
the test and if the B sample is actually necessary."

I thought the regs REQUIRED two tests, one to confirm. After all, it
isn't just the test itself that is being confirmed, but possible
issues with controls or contamination or singular events at the lab
(it was a pretty standard test at the hospital lab in Baltimore that
got messed up, over and over for a year, with lives on the line, so it
isn't just how reliably the test CAN be done - it is how well it WAS
done).

If the rules require it, then it is required, and thus necessary. What
is particularly hard about that?

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

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:05:33 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Our in-house counsel, Simon Rofe,
has been speaking to medical experts to understand the scientific basis of
the test and if the B sample is actually necessary."

I thought the regs REQUIRED two tests, one to confirm. After all, it
isn't just the test itself that is being confirmed, but possible
issues with controls or contamination or singular events at the lab
(it was a pretty standard test at the hospital lab in Baltimore that
got messed up, over and over for a year, with lives on the line, so it
isn't just how reliably the test CAN be done - it is how well it WAS
done).

If the rules require it, then it is required, and thus necessary. What
is particularly hard about that?

Curtis L. Russell

A fair and excellent point, Curtis ; the rules restrict the rider AND the
tester. UCI and WADA can simply read the regs, and follow them.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

B. Lafferty said:

It appears that some people are quite certain that the new blood doping test
is relaible.

It appears that some people believe the earth is flat and aliens abduct
humans in spacecraft too.

What a great legal premise, Brian.

Magilla

B. Lafferty said:

It appears that some people are quite certain that the new blood doping test
is relaible. More and more, it looks like Tyler and his attorney are
blowing a lot of smoke. From CyclingNews today:

However, it may be that the Russian and Australian case won't rely on such a
precedent. "We are going to argue on different grounds," AOC media relations
manager Mike Tancred told Cyclingnews. "Our in-house counsel, Simon Rofe,
has been speaking to medical experts to understand the scientific basis of
the test and if the B sample is actually necessary."

ASDA's Winnette, while stressing that he was speculating, said that it may
be that there is no need for a B sample in the blood doping test. "With
urine [tests], an A and B sample is good to have because there can be
degradation that leads to a false positive," said Winnette. "But this new
test may only need one sample." Another historical reason for the use of two
samples is to prevent cases of mistaken identity, but a blood sample can be
DNA-tested to establish its bona fides, so again the need for a B sample to
establish a doping case may be lessened.

Goddamn are you stupid. The B sample matters because it's in the rules.
End of argument. It doesn't [censored] matter what the scientists say or
attorneys say. You can't change the rules even if the rule is bad or
stupid or even wrong.

The Aussie and Russian feds will lose this case and waste hundreds of
thousands of Euros in legal fees.

By the way the case is filed as Aussie/Russian federation v. IOC. Even
the IOC sides with Tyler on this frivolous lawsuit.

Why does Jeff Jones not question the ridiculous legal argument that have
no chance whatsoever of prevailing?

Magilla

Jim Flom said:

Quoted message said:

Susie Soap Opera --

Go find some real news, like in the National Enquirer or something.

B. Lafferty said:

You mean like God Is Dead and We Have Killed Him, Rev.?

Nietzsche writes for National Enquirer ?

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

Quoted message said:

Jim Flom said:

Quoted message said:

Susie Soap Opera --

Go find some real news, like in the National Enquirer or something.

B. Lafferty said:

You mean like God Is Dead and We Have Killed Him, Rev.?

Nietzsche writes for National Enquirer ?

Buddha, too.

And some idiots think despite the fact that someone said "I didn't do it"
that they actually didn't.

Tyler is blowing smoke, 2x he has tested positive, separate tests, separate
samples yet you still think he is being framed. He is guilty -- he did it,
the stakes are high and he figured no one would be looking for someone to
blood dope when there are so many drugs available. He assumed (wrongly)
that there was no way that they'd find out about him injecting someone elses
blood into him.

Look at the facts -- 2x being positive, 2 members of the same team positive,
0 positives from anyone else, any other team.

This isn't a legal argument, its a factual one, just because you're obsessed
with loopholes and blowing smoke doesn't add any validity to your argument.

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

It appears that some people are quite certain that the new blood doping
test is relaible.

It appears that some people believe the earth is flat and aliens abduct
humans in spacecraft too.

What a great legal premise, Brian.

Magilla

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: 11/11/2004

I never said he was framed, loser. I said the test produces false
postives with his blood for whatever reason.

It's a scientific matter now - let's see what Hamilton's legal defense is.

What loophole are you talking about that I used? BTW, a loophole is
also known as an act that is in 100% compliance with the rules. You
appear to have a problem with the rules. I suggest you take that up with
the IOC and WADA.

Magilla from Manilla

JayofMontreal said:

And some idiots think despite the fact that someone said "I didn't do it"
that they actually didn't.

Tyler is blowing smoke, 2x he has tested positive, separate tests, separate
samples yet you still think he is being framed. He is guilty -- he did it,
the stakes are high and he figured no one would be looking for someone to
blood dope when there are so many drugs available. He assumed (wrongly)
that there was no way that they'd find out about him injecting someone elses
blood into him.

Look at the facts -- 2x being positive, 2 members of the same team positive,
0 positives from anyone else, any other team.

This isn't a legal argument, its a factual one, just because you're obsessed
with loopholes and blowing smoke doesn't add any validity to your argument.

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

It appears that some people are quite certain that the new blood doping
test is relaible.

It appears that some people believe the earth is flat and aliens abduct
humans in spacecraft too.

What a great legal premise, Brian.

Magilla

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: 11/11/2004

Curtis L. Russell said:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:05:33 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Our in-house counsel, Simon Rofe,
has been speaking to medical experts to understand the scientific basis of
the test and if the B sample is actually necessary."

I thought the regs REQUIRED two tests, one to confirm. After all, it
isn't just the test itself that is being confirmed, but possible
issues with controls or contamination or singular events at the lab
(it was a pretty standard test at the hospital lab in Baltimore that
got messed up, over and over for a year, with lives on the line, so it
isn't just how reliably the test CAN be done - it is how well it WAS
done).

If the rules require it, then it is required, and thus necessary. What
is particularly hard about that?

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

The cyclingnews piece indicates that the Russians and the Aussie's are
going to argue "an intent" to cheat and use the A sample and some other
facts (?) to prove thier case in front of the CAS. It's moved up a
level from the UCI and WADA as I read it.