Anti doping world: not possible to cover up positive

[gree0232]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Race Radio]

bere is an easy verifiable source for you: Wikipedia. I have gone further, but I figured I would give you the ons that aare easiest to read first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Anti-Doping_Agency

"It was set up on November 10, 1999 in Lausanne, Switzerland" Hmmmm..... 1999 - and a positive test in 2001.

As per the earlier UCI press release, all adverse findings are reported to the UCI, WADA, and the IOC. The WADA accredited lab (which apparently accredidation includes facilitating bribes) does not know who tests positive and simply passes on the findings, who are matched to the code --- by other agencies.

So please tell me which lab is analyzing the tests from the ToS and fiding a positive for someone they don't know and then passing it along ..... and not say, "Wait a minute here!" Now.

You do realize that the UCI did not sign the WADA code until August 2001, right? they were the last Fed to do so.

Until the UCI signed the code WADA had nothing to do with testing of professional riders.

What is your goal? Are you here just to show that Armstrong's groupies know nothing about the sport?

 

[Anonymous]

You do realize that the UCI did not sign the WADA code until August 2001, right? they were the last Fed to do so.

Until the UCI signed the code WADA had nothing to do with testing of professional riders.

What is your goal? Are you here just to show that Armstrong's groupies know nothing about the sport?

See, I told him he didn't know what he was talking about, but he just had to google WADA. Walked right into it. Now, all he has to do is google when the ToS was that year, and BINGO!

Swiftness is not one of his attributes.

 

[Anonymous]

bere is an easy verifiable source for you: Wikipedia. I have gone further, but I figured I would give you the ons that aare easiest to read first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Anti-Doping_Agency

"It was set up on November 10, 1999 in Lausanne, Switzerland" Hmmmm..... 1999 - and a positive test in 2001.

As per the earlier UCI press release, all adverse findings are reported to the UCI, WADA, and the IOC. The WADA accredited lab (which apparently accredidation includes facilitating bribes) does not know who tests positive and simply passes on the findings, who are matched to the code --- by other agencies.

So please tell me which lab is analyzing the tests from the ToS and fiding a positive for someone they don't know and then passing it along ..... and not say, "Wait a minute here!" Now.

I realize that you must feel stupid now that RR pointed out what I already knew, and you obviously didn't. See, that line about me knowing their history, I already knew it.

But don't think of your realization that you are stupid as a bad thing, think of it as self actualization.

Toodles!

 

[utktrivol]

source

bere is an easy verifiable source for you: Wikipedia. I have gone further, but I figured I would give you the ons that aare easiest to read first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Anti-Doping_Agency

"It was set up on November 10, 1999 in Lausanne, Switzerland" Hmmmm..... 1999 - and a positive test in 2001.

As per the earlier UCI press release, all adverse findings are reported to the UCI, WADA, and the IOC. The WADA accredited lab (which apparently accredidation includes facilitating bribes) does not know who tests positive and simply passes on the findings, who are matched to the code --- by other agencies.

So please tell me which lab is analyzing the tests from the ToS and fiding a positive for someone they don't know and then passing it along ..... and not say, "Wait a minute here!" Now.

So fyi, wikipedia is an incredibly improper site to be used as a primary source, let alone any source. The main reason for this being that people can change information within the page, no matter the level of falsehood. Evidence of such can be seen by the great Tosh Episode in which the comedian's page received so many changes that it was frozen by the administrators. Please use a scholarly site next time.

 

[Anonymous]

*** edited by mod ***

But I will do something that you are incapable of doing and admit my error. I did say he was head of IOC and he was just a member. So I was in error.

Now, you go on ignore because you are only here to troll. Honest discourse is not part of your game.

Toodles!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Gree.... I see you have been busy.

This was a post you addressed to me:

I am not asking you to sanction.

I am asking you to make a case that does not rely on one set of evidence and ignore the rebuttal evidence.

I am asking you to make a case that relies on some sort of objectivity, as opposed to the, "my opponent in a ***" model.

Saying Verbruggen was the UCI President in 2001, WOW, does not show us the feasibility of how someone would make a bribe that would cause a positive test to completely disappear.

"Well, we don't need standards! (But the retards you disagree with us do)", is not much a discussion.

And a simple fact from dealing with anti-corruption issues, the more people involved, the more agencies involved, the less likely it is for corruption to make something just go away.

Corruption works best when there is a single approving official, like a licensing office in government or a judge in a single case. It rarely, if ever, worls when multiple agencies are involved.

Quite frankly, of all the charges Flyod made, this one is the least likely to be true.

To the highlighted above, at no point have I called you a ***.

To the underlined above at no point did I say that. You are the one calling for "evidence" and calling on what is or is not admissable.

This is a forum, the 'standard' is judged on what you post - and how one came to that conclusion.

To address all your post is quite simple:
As you claim that Pound was the leak to the 99 EPO - when it was the UCI - shows you have not read and have little knowledge about the report.

As has been pointed out to you WADA had no business with the UCI until after Suisse 2001.

No-one is suggesting it is a vast conspiracy except you - in 2001 the UCI & IOC got the results - both the IOC & UCI were based in Lausanne.

You cannot name who was in the Hospital room when Lance admitted his PED use, and yet you say a Doctor who was not there is a 'credible witness'.

Ultimatley - it is impossible to refute your minor points when the points that you base them on are wrong.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Any more outbursts like that and suspensions will be handed out.

Susan

 

[Oldman]

OK, how does that equate to being able to quash a soping positive?

WADA, under **** Pound, releases positives in 2005, but having an actual positive they won't? Because everyone is corrupt.

Let me show you something slick, as someone who has been to those places like Afghanistan, you may want to check out the corruption index.

http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/gcb/2009

You may want to check out page 7 of the first link to see how the EU rates verses the places you compare it to.

Now lets be clear, I have worked with Italian Carabineri, French Gendarmie, German Police, and I have had to have a functional relationship with many of the EU's judicial systems as we have partnered to bring a system to places like .... Afghanistan!!! :clap:

So, in 1999 the French realize that doping is happening in a big way after the Festina Affair and have been making steady progress toward combating it. And two years later, Lance tests positive in a race just days before the TdF and the whole system is so corrupt that the entire thing is swept under the rug? You do see the French police out there arresting riders and busting up doping rings right?
And this is of course after Marco Pantani bust the hemo. level, and this massive corrupt system nailed Marco to the wall .... but not Lance. Why?
What is wrong with this?

" Between 2001 and 2003, only the Paris, Lausanne, Cologne, Barcelona and Madrid laboratories, commissioned by the UCI, detected the presence of EPO in the samples that had been entrusted to them for analysis. During this period, the first laboratory carried out three positive analyses for EPO, the second 18 and the three last laboratories one each. None of the samples concerned had been taken at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland.

The International Olympic Committee received a copy of all the reports for the positive analyses mentioned above. Furthermore, in 2001, all the analysis reports carried out at the Tour of Switzerland were sent to Swiss Olympic.

Since 1st January 2004, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) receives a copy of any analysis reports which show an abnormal result. WADA has not reported any abnormal analyses from any of its accredited laboratories that have not been duly dealt with by the UCI."

Please tell me how that system allows for six positives that year, but manages to misplace one?

Make a case that does not rely on speculative conspiracy and broad but undefinied corruption please.

Please explain to us all why we should put more stock in generally undefined claims of corruption then I should in the UCI information release, and the other agencies easy ability to dispute that information?

You tipped the meters on both gibberish, missplaced personal comparisons and convaluted logic on this one. Let's start with ASO/AFLD being a French combine that desparately needs to maintain the credibility of the Tour for marketing purposes. No Tour, no purpose for either organization.
Enter the UCI, the organization that appears to be similar to the IOC; an organized tollbooth for patronage and extortion from promoters, local governments or anyone else they think of value. What are each organizations tools of control? Let's start with race accreditation, course approval fees, official fees, marshal fees, tester fees, tester venue charges (think trailers, vials, toilets, etc), official transportation of sample to lab fees, lab monitoring fees, Public information administration. All of those italicized activities can be controlled by one administrator so, if you think of your standart Public Works construction project; do you think it would be difficult to control the information that comes out of those specific activities? fu*ck no.
As for the police busting anyone...who feeds them the condemning information? The same sources, slick.
Get some sleep and learn how to spell or use a keyboard you can see. Then put me on IGNORE.