Road Cycling · Public discussion

Quiet!! Omerta At Work

Started by B. Lafferty · · Last activity · 49 posts · 1,298 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

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

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
26 August 2005
Last activity
27 August 2005
Original author
B. Lafferty
Posts
49
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,298
Views / 30 days
0

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

Showing posts 1–20 of 49
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. From CyclingNews:

    CPA supports athletes' rights
    In the wake of the investigative reporting carried out by French newspaper
    L'Equipe that alleged Lance Armstrong had tested positive for EPO on six
    separate occasions during the 1999 Tour de France, the Association of
    Professional Cyclists (CPA) has issued a statement calling for more respect
    of athletes' rights:

    "With the intention of defending the general interests of its members, the
    CPA has been following, with a great deal of attention, the declarations,
    affirmations, and apparent reports in the press in the last few days
    concerning the revelations divulged by the newspaper L'Equipe on the subject
    of research carried out on the B samples of the '99 Tour de France.

    "From this perspective, the CPA deplores the fact that a leak of
    confidential information occurred in France, and the origin of a debate
    based on facts that should remain, exclusively, within the context of
    medical secrecy and of strict scientific research.

    "The riders and the CPA have always adhered to and continue to adhere to the
    fight against doping, but they cannot accept this type of situation that
    strikes a heavy blow to their interests, their credibility, as well as the
    image of cycling in general. As soon as the situation is clearly defined,
    they reserve the right to commence possible actions with the aim of having
    their integrity recognised.

    "In future, the riders and the CPA will continue will continue to
    collaborate for the progression of the antidoping fight with complete
    understanding with the UCI, without all the polemic and external intrusion.

    "For the time being, the riders and the CPA are feeling abused, wait for the
    responsibilities to be officially and clearly defined to ask the UCI to put
    in place and apply the measures of reinforcement of medical secrecy in
    anti-doping controls."

  2. B. Lafferty said:

    From CyclingNews:

    CPA supports athletes' rights
    In the wake of the investigative reporting carried out by French newspaper
    L'Equipe that alleged Lance Armstrong had tested positive for EPO on six
    separate occasions during the 1999 Tour de France, the Association of
    Professional Cyclists (CPA) has issued a statement calling for more respect
    of athletes' rights:

    "With the intention of defending the general interests of its members, the
    CPA has been following, with a great deal of attention, the declarations,
    affirmations, and apparent reports in the press in the last few days
    concerning the revelations divulged by the newspaper L'Equipe on the subject
    of research carried out on the B samples of the '99 Tour de France.

    "From this perspective, the CPA deplores the fact that a leak of
    confidential information occurred in France, and the origin of a debate
    based on facts that should remain, exclusively, within the context of
    medical secrecy and of strict scientific research.

    "The riders and the CPA have always adhered to and continue to adhere to the
    fight against doping, but they cannot accept this type of situation that
    strikes a heavy blow to their interests, their credibility, as well as the
    image of cycling in general. As soon as the situation is clearly defined,
    they reserve the right to commence possible actions with the aim of having
    their integrity recognised.

    "In future, the riders and the CPA will continue will continue to
    collaborate for the progression of the antidoping fight with complete
    understanding with the UCI, without all the polemic and external intrusion.

    "For the time being, the riders and the CPA are feeling abused, wait for the
    responsibilities to be officially and clearly defined to ask the UCI to put
    in place and apply the measures of reinforcement of medical secrecy in
    anti-doping controls."


    That's a really weak response from what's supposed to be a pro sports
    union. Any sports union in the US would have be on strike because of
    massive failures on the part of the sport's leadership.
    For someone who is so far left, a man of the people, and a defender of
    those who've been run over by the system, it really amazes me how far
    you are willing to go in allowing the law to be broken, medical
    confidentiality to be violated, [censored] poor science and horrible
    accountability procedures to get Lance.
    If any PD in the states did anything approaching this you'd be
    screaming for their heads and calling for massive protests against the
    illegal fascist assault on due process, and you'd be right. IMO you've
    thrown away all the good things you believe in, in this case to get
    Armstrong. I've been staying out of this because I really like you and
    think you're a good person, but this vendetta against Lance is really
    twisting you.
    You'd fight this kind of [censored] with your last breath in a criminal case
    if the system was this broken.
    Bill C

  3. "Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    B. Lafferty said:

    From CyclingNews:

    CPA supports athletes' rights
    In the wake of the investigative reporting carried out by French
    newspaper
    L'Equipe that alleged Lance Armstrong had tested positive for EPO on six
    separate occasions during the 1999 Tour de France, the Association of
    Professional Cyclists (CPA) has issued a statement calling for more
    respect
    of athletes' rights:

    "With the intention of defending the general interests of its members,
    the
    CPA has been following, with a great deal of attention, the declarations,
    affirmations, and apparent reports in the press in the last few days
    concerning the revelations divulged by the newspaper L'Equipe on the
    subject
    of research carried out on the B samples of the '99 Tour de France.

    "From this perspective, the CPA deplores the fact that a leak of
    confidential information occurred in France, and the origin of a debate
    based on facts that should remain, exclusively, within the context of
    medical secrecy and of strict scientific research.

    "The riders and the CPA have always adhered to and continue to adhere to
    the
    fight against doping, but they cannot accept this type of situation that
    strikes a heavy blow to their interests, their credibility, as well as
    the
    image of cycling in general. As soon as the situation is clearly defined,
    they reserve the right to commence possible actions with the aim of
    having
    their integrity recognised.

    "In future, the riders and the CPA will continue will continue to
    collaborate for the progression of the antidoping fight with complete
    understanding with the UCI, without all the polemic and external
    intrusion.

    "For the time being, the riders and the CPA are feeling abused, wait for
    the
    responsibilities to be officially and clearly defined to ask the UCI to
    put
    in place and apply the measures of reinforcement of medical secrecy in
    anti-doping controls."


    That's a really weak response from what's supposed to be a pro sports
    union. Any sports union in the US would have be on strike because of
    massive failures on the part of the sport's leadership.
    For someone who is so far left, a man of the people, and a defender of
    those who've been run over by the system, it really amazes me how far
    you are willing to go in allowing the law to be broken, medical
    confidentiality to be violated, [censored] poor science and horrible
    accountability procedures to get Lance.
    If any PD in the states did anything approaching this you'd be
    screaming for their heads and calling for massive protests against the
    illegal fascist assault on due process, and you'd be right. IMO you've
    thrown away all the good things you believe in, in this case to get
    Armstrong. I've been staying out of this because I really like you and
    think you're a good person, but this vendetta against Lance is really
    twisting you.
    You'd fight this kind of [censored] with your last breath in a criminal case
    if the system was this broken.
    Bill C

    We'll just have to disagree. Investigative journalism often times breaches
    confidentiality to get at the truth. The people who get [censored] the most are
    the ones who are either uncomfortable about seeing a particular truth come
    to light or would rather uphold a rule at all costs even if it means
    continuing a lie. All the crying about ethics and confidentiality only
    obscures what is an apparent fact--that Armstrong and several others as yet
    to be named had EPO in their systems during the 1999 Tour. If the test is
    invalid or the chain of custody was broken, that's a different story.

    I have absolutely no sympathy for the pro riders association. They have in
    great measure helped to create this problem and done virtually nothing to
    clean their house. If their union were as strong as baseball's they'd be
    getting two week suspensions for doping.

  4. On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 02:34:12 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    We'll just have to disagree. Investigative journalism often times breaches
    confidentiality to get at the truth. The people who get [censored] the most are
    the ones who are either uncomfortable about seeing a particular truth come
    to light or would rather uphold a rule at all costs even if it means
    continuing a lie. All the crying about ethics and confidentiality only
    obscures what is an apparent fact--that Armstrong and several others as yet
    to be named had EPO in their systems during the 1999 Tour. If the test is
    invalid or the chain of custody was broken, that's a different story.

    I have absolutely no sympathy for the pro riders association. They have in
    great measure helped to create this problem and done virtually nothing to
    clean their house. If their union were as strong as baseball's they'd be
    getting two week suspensions for doping.

    You have to ask yourself, why was there to be anonymity?

    Because there is no way for the accused to defend themselves with a
    second sample. And because the rider is guaranteed that anonymity if
    they give specific permission(which is required) to allow their B
    samples to be used for testing like this. Again, because strict
    protocols are likely to be compramised and nothing can be confirmed
    with a second test.

    It's almost impossible for me to believe that you are an attorney.

  5. "D. Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 02:34:12 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>
    wrote:

    It's almost impossible for me to believe that you are an attorney.

    Why? It is not about justice, it's about winning case. Attorney's would
    take EPO to win if it worked that way. Justice has gone over the hill, it's
    a fairytale for the naive. That is what attorneys are about.

    Ken

  6. Bill C said:

    For someone who is so far left, a man of the people, and a defender of
    those who've been run over by the system, it really amazes me how far
    you are willing to go in allowing the law to be broken, medical
    confidentiality to be violated, [censored] poor science and horrible
    accountability procedures to get Lance.

    In the name of ethics and morality, there will always be people who
    accept unethical behavior and immorality.

  7. Tim Lines said:
    Bill C said:

    For someone who is so far left, a man of the people, and a defender of
    those who've been run over by the system, it really amazes me how far
    you are willing to go in allowing the law to be broken, medical
    confidentiality to be violated, [censored] poor science and horrible
    accountability procedures to get Lance.

    In the name of ethics and morality, there will always be people who
    accept unethical behavior and immorality.

    Oh, you mean religion.

    R

  8. These are the words of a lawyer? Cheering on skoflaws? Dismissing
    ethics? Trashing confidentiality?

    Does your bar association know who are? What you do?

  9. RicodJour said:
    Tim Lines said:
    Bill C said:

    For someone who is so far left, a man of the people, and a defender of
    those who've been run over by the system, it really amazes me how far
    you are willing to go in allowing the law to be broken, medical
    confidentiality to be violated, [censored] poor science and horrible
    accountability procedures to get Lance.

    In the name of ethics and morality, there will always be people who
    accept unethical behavior and immorality.

    Oh, you mean religion.


    I have no reason to believe that atheists are any better. Have you ever
    read anything by Alexandre Solzhenitsyn? The Soviet Union was run by
    self-avowed atheists.

    Incidently, I qualify as agnostic. We're the same.

  10. IMKen said:


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

    Quoted message said:

    On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 02:34:12 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>
    wrote:

    It's almost impossible for me to believe that you are an attorney.

    Why? It is not about justice, it's about winning case. Attorney's would
    take EPO to win if it worked that way. Justice has gone over the hill, it's
    a fairytale for the naive. That is what attorneys are about.

    Ken

    But even a [censored] attorney knows about the importance of protocols. I
    guess Lafferty is just using one of his attorney tools... selective
    memory.

  11. "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
    [email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


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

    Quoted message said:

    On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 04:26:23 GMT, "IMKen" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    There's as yet no indication that the samples of any of the riders at
    issue were handled improperly or that the chain of custody was broken as
    to any of the samples. While some scientists have questioned whether or
    not EPO can be stable in urine frozen over a period of years, virtually
    all the scientists who have commented thus far have not attacked the
    validity of the three methodologies used in the Paris Lab's research as
    requested by WADA.

    Goody. More lawyer games-

    There's as yet no indication that the samples of any of the riders at issue
    were handled properly or that the chain of custody was intact as to any of
    the samples.

    There is only one way that these two statements by experts in the field can
    both be true.

    1) EPO was found in the samples
    2) EPO can not be detected after 3 months, let alone 6 years

    And that is of course if the EPO was placed in the samples some time after
    they were acquired, but shortly before they were tested.

    There is as yet no indication that this is not the case.

  12. trg said:

    There is only one way that these two statements by experts in the field can
    both be true.

    1) EPO was found in the samples
    2) EPO can not be detected after 3 months, let alone 6 years

    Or one of them could be untrue. See <[email hidden]>.

    --
    E. Dronkert

  13. "Ewoud Dronkert" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
    news: [email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    trg said:

    There is only one way that these two statements by experts in the field
    can
    both be true.

    1) EPO was found in the samples
    2) EPO can not be detected after 3 months, let alone 6 years

    Or one of them could be untrue. See <[email hidden]>.

    --

    Ewoud- Your link is an email address. I need a url please.

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

    Quoted message said:

    "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
    [email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


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

    Quoted message said:

    On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 04:26:23 GMT, "IMKen" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    There's as yet no indication that the samples of any of the riders at
    issue were handled improperly or that the chain of custody was broken as
    to any of the samples. While some scientists have questioned whether or
    not EPO can be stable in urine frozen over a period of years, virtually
    all the scientists who have commented thus far have not attacked the
    validity of the three methodologies used in the Paris Lab's research as
    requested by WADA.

    Goody. More lawyer games-

    There's as yet no indication that the samples of any of the riders at
    issue were handled properly or that the chain of custody was intact as to
    any of the samples.

    There is only one way that these two statements by experts in the field
    can both be true.

    1) EPO was found in the samples
    2) EPO can not be detected after 3 months, let alone 6 years

    And that is of course if the EPO was placed in the samples some time after
    they were acquired, but shortly before they were tested.

    There is as yet no indication that this is not the case.

    ROTFL

  15. trg said:
    Quoted message said:

    Or one of them could be untrue. See <[email hidden]>.

    Ewoud- Your link is an email address. I need a url please.

    No it isn't, it's a message-id. If your news client can't handle it, try
    feeding it to google groups advanced search, in the message-id box.

    --
    E. Dronkert

  16. trg said:

    "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
    [email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


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

    Quoted message said:

    On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 04:26:23 GMT, "IMKen" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    There's as yet no indication that the samples of any of the riders at
    issue were handled improperly or that the chain of custody was broken as
    to any of the samples. While some scientists have questioned whether or
    not EPO can be stable in urine frozen over a period of years, virtually
    all the scientists who have commented thus far have not attacked the
    validity of the three methodologies used in the Paris Lab's research as
    requested by WADA.

    Goody. More lawyer games-

    There's as yet no indication that the samples of any of the riders at issue
    were handled properly or that the chain of custody was intact as to any of
    the samples.

    There is only one way that these two statements by experts in the field can
    both be true.

    1) EPO was found in the samples
    2) EPO can not be detected after 3 months, let alone 6 years

    And that is of course if the EPO was placed in the samples some time after
    they were acquired, but shortly before they were tested.

    There is as yet no indication that this is not the case.

    You'll get your experts. I'll get my experts. yada yada yada what
    about WADA.

    It's about like to the Michael Jackson case. The prosecution is more
    shady than the defense. The only thing harder to believe than the idea
    that Armstrong never doped would be that the French wouldn't falisify
    tests to prove it.

    The whole thing, from not getting rider permission to test B samples,
    to accidentally letting the ID numbers be leaked smells fishy. Where
    does the smell stop?

    Nobody will ever know.

    The people who thought he was guilty before will think he's guilty
    now. The people who thought he was innocent before will think he's
    innocent now. The people who weren't sure then aren't sure now. And
    the people who didn't give a [censored] then certainly won't give a [censored]
    now.

  17. "Ewoud Dronkert" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
    news: [email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    trg said:
    Quoted message said:

    Or one of them could be untrue. See <[email hidden]>.

    Ewoud- Your link is an email address. I need a url please.

    No it isn't, it's a message-id. If your news client can't handle it, try
    feeding it to google groups advanced search, in the message-id box.

    --
    E. Dronkert

    Thanks, today wasn't a total waste, I learned something thanks to Ewoud!

    As to the content, when it comes to questions about the viability of EPO
    testing in frozen urine samples, I think I'll hold off on betting my kids on
    the opinion R.B.R's Kyle Legate (no slur meant to Kyle) rather than the
    director of Canada's WADA approved anti-doping lab.

  18. trg said:

    And that is of course if the EPO was placed in the samples some time after
    they were acquired, but shortly before they were tested.

    Quoted message said:

    There is as yet no indication that this is not the case.

    Spiking the sample with EPO would not produce a positive since
    that's not what the test measures.

    If you were going to do that it'd be easier to just report a
    false result.

    Bob Schwartz
    [email hidden]

  19. trg said:

    As to the content, when it comes to questions about the viability of EPO
    testing in frozen urine samples, I think I'll hold off on betting my kids
    on the opinion R.B.R's Kyle Legate

    You might be right to do that, for he is only a mousekeeper. On the other
    hand, he seems to be our resident blood specialist.
    http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=blood&as_ugroup=rec.bicycles.racing&as_uauthors=legate

    --
    E. Dronkert

  20. "Ewoud Dronkert" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
    news: [email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    trg said:

    As to the content, when it comes to questions about the viability of EPO
    testing in frozen urine samples, I think I'll hold off on betting my kids
    on the opinion R.B.R's Kyle Legate

    You might be right to do that, for he is only a mousekeeper. On the other
    hand, he seems to be our resident blood specialist.
    http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=blood&as_ugroup=rec.bicycles.racing&as_uauthors=legate

    --
    E. Dronkert

    I'd certainly take his opinion on molecular biology over my own (or anyone
    else who contributes to RBR for that matter.) But still, I'm thinking Madame
    Ayotte might just have a leg up in this particular case.

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.