No DNA test for Ullrich!

ST <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/tour06/news/?id=/news/2006/jul06/j
ul18n ews2

Ullrich says he is "innocent until proven guilty"
By Susan Westemeyer

Strohband also confirmed that the attorneys had advised Ullrich not to
have a DNA test.

I can understand that; it can only prove his guilt. If the blood doesn't
match with his, it still won't be proven he *hasn't* doped and the rest of
the evidence is pretty heavy regardless. Ullrich has nothing to gain with a
DNA test, although it might look good for the public should he decide to
take it.

Quoted message said:

I can understand that; it can only prove his guilt. If the blood doesn't
match with his, it still won't be proven he *hasn't* doped and the rest of
the evidence is pretty heavy regardless. Ullrich has nothing to gain with a
DNA test, although it might look good for the public should he decide to
take it.

Ullrich's advisors are idiots. My feeling is that if any rider is
innocent, a DNA test is the best way to clear their names. Nothing to
hide? Then agree to do one.

If they refuse, I agree with the Swiss anti-doping official who says
that he will presume a DNA test refusal is an admission of guilt. DNA
testing is accurate enough to have been used in countless criminal
cases; this is no different.

I will go out on a limb now and say: Adios, Jan... You are gone.

"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
| ST <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
|
| > http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/tour06/news/?id=/news/2006/jul06/j
| > ul18n ews2
| >
| > Ullrich says he is "innocent until proven guilty"
| > By Susan Westemeyer
| >
| >
| >
| > Strohband also confirmed that the attorneys had advised Ullrich not to
| > have a DNA test.
| >
|
| I can understand that; it can only prove his guilt. If the blood doesn't
| match with his, it still won't be proven he *hasn't* doped and the rest of
| the evidence is pretty heavy regardless. Ullrich has nothing to gain with
a
| DNA test, although it might look good for the public should he decide to
| take it.

If the blood doesn't match, then it throws into doubt the validity of all
the other evidence and the methods used to obtain them. It's his best move
IF he's innocent.

"need more sun" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can understand that; it can only prove his guilt. If the blood
doesn't match with his, it still won't be proven he *hasn't* doped
and the rest of the evidence is pretty heavy regardless. Ullrich has
nothing to gain with a DNA test, although it might look good for the
public should he decide to take it.

Ullrich's advisors are idiots. My feeling is that if any rider is
innocent, a DNA test is the best way to clear their names.

Then your feeling is wrong; if the blood in the bags with Ullrich's
(code)name doesn't match his DNA, his name won't be cleared because it
won't erase the other evidence against him. If that other evidence is
convincing enough, he's still guilty.

Why would Ullrich cooperate with something that cannot help him?

Quoted message said:

Nothing to
hide? Then agree to do one.

If they refuse, I agree with the Swiss anti-doping official who says
that he will presume a DNA test refusal is an admission of guilt.

It probably is, but at the same time one must admit that even an innocent
Ullrich doesn't have much to gain with such a test.

Quoted message said:

DNA
testing is accurate enough to have been used in countless criminal
cases; this is no different.

I will go out on a limb now and say: Adios, Jan... You are gone.

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
news: [email hidden]...
| ST <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
|
| > http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/tour06/news/?id=/news/2006/jul0
| > 6/j ul18n ews2
| >
| > Ullrich says he is "innocent until proven guilty"
| > By Susan Westemeyer
| >
| >
| >
| > Strohband also confirmed that the attorneys had advised Ullrich not
| > to have a DNA test.
| >
|
| I can understand that; it can only prove his guilt. If the blood
| doesn't match with his, it still won't be proven he *hasn't* doped
| and the rest of the evidence is pretty heavy regardless. Ullrich has
| nothing to gain with
a
| DNA test, although it might look good for the public should he decide
| to take it.

If the blood doesn't match, then it throws into doubt the validity of
all the other evidence and the methods used to obtain them. It's his
best move IF he's innocent.

If he has been filmed going into Fuentes' office and there is paperwork
describing what drugs were given to him for which days, like for the
first day "the hormone HZ was listed, the second day insulin I-3, the
hormone TGN and cortisone, the third day TGN and PCH (a testosterone
shot), on the fourth day HMG, a hormone mixture,... the sixth day insulin
I-3," then a DNA test would not erase any evidence that Ullrich took
these drugs or had them in his possession for the tour. Fans of Ullrich
are deluding themselves if they think a DNA test can clear his name; at
best it can be part of a number of arguments in his defense.

Ullrich's name has not come up because of a DNA test. After all, the
police do not know if there is a match. His best bet would be to explain
the evidence that actually did lead to his name being mentioned in
connection to Fuentes. For some reason, the police were certain enough to
suspect Ullrich of doping without a DNA test. It must be concluded that
such evidence is not essential for them. Ullrich would be better off
explaining the evidence that actually was essential.

"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
| "trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in
| news:[email hidden]:
|
| >
| > "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
| > news: [email hidden]...
| >| ST <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
| >|
| >| > http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/tour06/news/?id=/news/2006/jul0
| >| > 6/j ul18n ews2
| >| >
| >| > Ullrich says he is "innocent until proven guilty"
| >| > By Susan Westemeyer
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >
| >| > Strohband also confirmed that the attorneys had advised Ullrich not
| >| > to have a DNA test.
| >| >
| >|
| >| I can understand that; it can only prove his guilt. If the blood
| >| doesn't match with his, it still won't be proven he *hasn't* doped
| >| and the rest of the evidence is pretty heavy regardless. Ullrich has
| >| nothing to gain with
| > a
| >| DNA test, although it might look good for the public should he decide
| >| to take it.
| >
| > If the blood doesn't match, then it throws into doubt the validity of
| > all the other evidence and the methods used to obtain them. It's his
| > best move IF he's innocent.
|
| If he has been filmed going into Fuentes' office and there is paperwork
| describing what drugs were given to him for which days, like for the
| first day "the hormone HZ was listed, the second day insulin I-3, the
| hormone TGN and cortisone, the third day TGN and PCH (a testosterone
| shot), on the fourth day HMG, a hormone mixture,... the sixth day insulin
| I-3," then a DNA test would not erase any evidence that Ullrich took
| these drugs or had them in his possession for the tour. Fans of Ullrich
| are deluding themselves if they think a DNA test can clear his name; at
| best it can be part of a number of arguments in his defense.
|
| Ullrich's name has not come up because of a DNA test. After all, the
| police do not know if there is a match. His best bet would be to explain
| the evidence that actually did lead to his name being mentioned in
| connection to Fuentes. For some reason, the police were certain enough to
| suspect Ullrich of doping without a DNA test. It must be concluded that
| such evidence is not essential for them. Ullrich would be better off
| explaining the evidence that actually was essential.

If he's guilty and the evidence proves it, then even the Pope saying he's
innocent won't help him. But if the same paperwork that says he took HZ the
first day, insulin the second, etc, also says that bag number 67 belongs to
that same person, and the DNA of the blood in that bag doesn't match
Ullrich, then the rest of the paperwork is suspect as well.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ullrich's advisors are idiots. My feeling is that if any rider is
innocent, a DNA test is the best way to clear their names.

Then your feeling is wrong; if the blood in the bags with Ullrich's
(code)name doesn't match his DNA, his name won't be cleared because it
won't erase the other evidence against him. If that other evidence is
convincing enough, he's still guilty.

Why would Ullrich cooperate with something that cannot help him?

Quoted message said:

Nothing to
hide? Then agree to do one.

If they refuse, I agree with the Swiss anti-doping official who says
that he will presume a DNA test refusal is an admission of guilt.

It probably is, but at the same time one must admit that even an innocent
Ullrich doesn't have much to gain with such a test.

On the other hand at this point, I don't see what he has to lose by
taking one, it's his last chance to survive.

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:09:23 +0200, "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"need more sun" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can understand that; it can only prove his guilt. If the blood
doesn't match with his, it still won't be proven he *hasn't* doped
and the rest of the evidence is pretty heavy regardless. Ullrich has
nothing to gain with a DNA test, although it might look good for the
public should he decide to take it.

Ullrich's advisors are idiots. My feeling is that if any rider is
innocent, a DNA test is the best way to clear their names.

Then your feeling is wrong; if the blood in the bags with Ullrich's
(code)name doesn't match his DNA, his name won't be cleared because it
won't erase the other evidence against him. If that other evidence is
convincing enough, he's still guilty.

Why would Ullrich cooperate with something that cannot help him?

Wouldn't it be up to his lawyers to negotiate that into a form that could?

Of course if it's his blood and he would know, then that wouldn't be possible.

Ron

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nothing to
hide? Then agree to do one.

If they refuse, I agree with the Swiss anti-doping official who says
that he will presume a DNA test refusal is an admission of guilt.

It probably is, but at the same time one must admit that even an innocent
Ullrich doesn't have much to gain with such a test.

Quoted message said:

DNA
testing is accurate enough to have been used in countless criminal
cases; this is no different.

I will go out on a limb now and say: Adios, Jan... You are gone.

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:21:30 +0200, "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
news: [email hidden]...
| ST <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
|
| > http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/tour06/news/?id=/news/2006/jul0
| > 6/j ul18n ews2
| >
| > Ullrich says he is "innocent until proven guilty"
| > By Susan Westemeyer
| >
| >
| >
| > Strohband also confirmed that the attorneys had advised Ullrich not
| > to have a DNA test.
| >
|
| I can understand that; it can only prove his guilt. If the blood
| doesn't match with his, it still won't be proven he *hasn't* doped
| and the rest of the evidence is pretty heavy regardless. Ullrich has
| nothing to gain with
a
| DNA test, although it might look good for the public should he decide
| to take it.

If the blood doesn't match, then it throws into doubt the validity of
all the other evidence and the methods used to obtain them. It's his
best move IF he's innocent.

If he has been filmed going into Fuentes' office and there is paperwork
describing what drugs were given to him for which days, like for the
first day "the hormone HZ was listed, the second day insulin I-3, the
hormone TGN and cortisone, the third day TGN and PCH (a testosterone
shot), on the fourth day HMG, a hormone mixture,... the sixth day insulin
I-3," then a DNA test would not erase any evidence that Ullrich took
these drugs or had them in his possession for the tour. Fans of Ullrich
are deluding themselves if they think a DNA test can clear his name; at
best it can be part of a number of arguments in his defense.

OTOH, if the code name at the top of the chart listing those drugs is the same
as the code on a blood bag that does not match Jan, then the chart and the code
name go out the window.

Quoted message said:

Ullrich's name has not come up because of a DNA test. After all, the
police do not know if there is a match. His best bet would be to explain
the evidence that actually did lead to his name being mentioned in
connection to Fuentes. For some reason, the police were certain enough to
suspect Ullrich of doping without a DNA test. It must be concluded that
such evidence is not essential for them. Ullrich would be better off
explaining the evidence that actually was essential.

Or having a very quiet meeting with the chif inspector, announcing retirement
and confining his doping to clubs.

Ron

Keith said:

On the other hand at this point, I don't see what he has to lose by
taking one, it's his last chance to survive.

Why would he jump at a chance to sink his ass for certain?
That makes no sense.

The blood in the fridge means he's toast. Time to move on.

Bob Schwartz

Quoted message said:

That makes no sense.

Bob Schwartz said:

The blood in the fridge means he's toast. Time to move on.

Blood on toast. Yummy.

"need more sun" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If they refuse, I agree with the Swiss anti-doping official who says
that he will presume a DNA test refusal is an admission of guilt.

You would have made a good commissar.

need more sun said:

Quoted message said:

I can understand that; it can only prove his guilt. If the blood doesn't
match with his, it still won't be proven he *hasn't* doped and the rest of
the evidence is pretty heavy regardless. Ullrich has nothing to gain with a
DNA test, although it might look good for the public should he decide to
take it.

Ullrich's advisors are idiots. My feeling is that if any rider is
innocent, a DNA test is the best way to clear their names. Nothing to
hide? Then agree to do one.

don't have to? then don't.
attempted to be forced by authorities to make statement not under oath?
don't
in fact don't communicate with any authority other than through legal
representative.

don't dilute your legal rights by releasing information under a lower
legal standard than in court, under oath.