Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Hugh Januss]

As usual you are trying to highjack a thread with your pretend persecution.

You have lied continually. You will continue to. You must have some pictures of one of the mods with a goat as there is no reason you should be here.

Wow, I never thought of that. Which mod do you suppose it is?

 

[Sprocket01]

Yet another attempt to troll.

The 99 samples were stored in a WADA approved lab the entire time. There were no issues with the storage and your attempt to compare them to the UCI tossing this years samples in the trunk of a car on a hot day is just another weak attempt to troll.

It may have been a WADA approved lab - many labs are - but nobody can account for what they were doing there for that length of time or what conditions they were kept under. That's why they were not accepted.

 

[Sprocket01]

Wow, I never thought of that. Which mod do you suppose it is?

I think the mods are intelligent enough to work out that RaceRadio hasn't been able to demonstrate a single lie or act of trolling by me.

If I went around with his aggressive attitude calling people liar I certainly would be banned.

Please lets not talk about this.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

Yet another attempt to troll.

The 99 samples were stored in a WADA approved lab the entire time. There were no issues with the storage and your attempt to compare them to the UCI tossing this years samples in the trunk of a car on a hot day is just another weak attempt to troll.

Is the big issue with the samples from '99 that there was no counter analysis? So they can't truly be called positive.... at best they can be called non-negative.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thanks, that's interesting. That's one person's view, but I'm sure other scientists would say the fact that the test has degraded would make the chance of confusing the synthetic cells with natural ones all the greater. That's why the test was not accepted.

Look it may well have shown EPO on the 1999 samples, but using these tests as proof doesn't sit well with the attacks on the UCI about fresh tests this year, I'm sure you'll agree.

Again your trolling is becoming sad and desperate.

The tests in 99 were on urine, the samples that were incorrectly stored this year (even though you earlier dismissed all that as some sort of "smear") were blood samples and would make getting any signs of manipulation very difficult.

EPO does not suddenly appear in samples!

I am no longer interested in your opinions as they change constantly - back up your claims with fact.

 

[Mellow Velo]

You might not want to assume that I believe the truth is relative - what I have a problem with with a high number of members on this forum is that they tend to believe that those who do not agree with their opinion of LA (doper or genetically superior cyclist) is there complete lack of civility to opposing views. I be less irritated at this if the subject was important, such as a matter that effects the personal lives of the people supporting either side of this subject, but here it just seems like the insults are passed on at a rate higher than on a fifth grade play ground.

A high number of the small number of posters who adhere to this opposing viewpoint, display the same, complete lack of civility.
The truth may not be relative, but it certainly appears to be subjective.

Could it be defending the underdog?

 

[Race Radio]

It may have been a WADA approved lab - many labs are - but nobody can account for what they were doing there for that length of time or what conditions they were kept under. That's why they were not accepted.

Wrong again. They were stored under normal WADA standards, there is zero evidence that they were stored any different. The tests were run in the correct manner and the results were accepted by experts as being correct. Their are a few reasons they were not used for a sanction. The technicality of lack of the B sample, the statue of limitations is up, and the UCI not wanting to purse Armstrong

 

[Mellow Velo]

Yes EPO has been known to appear magically, if urine is not stored properly.

Synthetic, at that.
First strawman argument knocked down.
Next, we have the "tampered with" samples, lottery draw argument.

 

[Race Radio]

I think the mods are intelligent enough to work out that RaceRadio hasn't been able to demonstrate a single lie or act of trolling by me.

If I went around with his aggressive attitude calling people liar I certainly would be banned.

Please lets not talk about this.

Another lie, it has been covered many times and you have been banned and your posts deleted many times. To pretend that this was for no reason is just another attempt to highjack the thread.

If you do not want to talk about it stop posting lies that only serve to bait others into responding. Your desire for attention is pathetic.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think the mods are intelligent enough to work out that RaceRadio hasn't been able to demonstrate a single lie or act of trolling by me.

If I went around with his aggressive attitude calling people liar I certainly would be banned.

Please lets not talk about this.

B y now you have totally outed yourself as a last word freak.

 

[luckyboy]

It may have been a WADA approved lab - many labs are - but nobody can account for what they were doing there for that length of time or what conditions they were kept under. That's why they were not accepted.

In the 70s, there were clinical trials where samples of EPO were preserved to see how long they'd be reliable. 1999-2005 is a lot shorter than 70s-now.

I think I'm right in saying that WADA scientists had no knowledge of which samples belonged to who, so its not like they could've sabotaged samples. Doing that would be near impossible anyway given the tiny amounts (of EPO) involved.

 

[Race Radio]

Is the big issue with the samples from '99 that there was no counter analysis? So they can't truly be called positive.... at best they can be called non-negative.

We have increasingly seen the fallacy of A/B samples being the only method to sanction dopers. Basso never had a B sample, in fact he never tested positive. Di Lucca's first suspension was for talking on the phone with his doctor. Kyle Leogrande was suspended and neither A or B sample tested positive. Marion Jones has never tested positive.

That some atempt to use this technicality as proof is willful ignorance.

 

[Sprocket01]

It's quite clever how RaceRadio baits. He slips in the word liar in order to get a response, then uses the fact that most people disagree with me to make it look like it's me causing the scene. He's very crafty. I won't be falling for this trolling tactic again.

 

[Sprocket01]

In the 70s, there were clinical trials where samples of EPO were preserved to see how long they'd be reliable. 1999-2005 is a lot shorter than 70s-now.

I think I'm right in saying that WADA scientists had no knowledge of which samples belonged to who, so its not like they could've sabotaged samples. Doing that would be near impossible anyway given the tiny amounts (of EPO) involved.

That's apparently right, but we don't know all the circustances because they were not done in the normal way. Nobody was checking to see what conditions they were kept under. All I'm saying is people can hardly complain about the UCI and then use this unofficial 1999 tests as proof that did not meet all the standards. That is a reasonable point.

 

[Hugh Januss]

It's quite clever how RaceRadio baits. He slips in the word liar in order to get a response, then uses the fact that most people disagree with me to make it look like it's me causing the scene. He's very crafty. I won't be falling for this trolling tactic again.

That is funny. It's got to be the 20th time at least that you have promised to not respond anymore to people who respond to your Trolling.

 

[Anonymous]

It's quite clever how RaceRadio baits. He slips in the word liar in order to get a response, then uses the fact that most people disagree with me to make it look like it's me causing the scene. He's very crafty. I won't be falling for this trolling tactic again.

Still having trouble staying on topic, are we?

 

[Rupert]

Hang in there

...a high number of members on this forum is that they tend to believe that those who do not agree with their opinion of LA (doper or genetically superior cyclist) is there complete lack of civility to opposing views. ...

Hang in there. Every so often the name-calling dies down and there is some really interesting discussion here. There are a handful of people here who seem well-informed and open minded and generate some really interesting exchanges. Liberal use of the "ignore" function helps with the rest...

 

[Sprocket01]

Again your trolling is becoming sad and desperate.

The tests in 99 were on urine, the samples that were incorrectly stored this year (even though you earlier dismissed all that as some sort of "smear") were blood samples and would make getting any signs of manipulation very difficult.

EPO does not suddenly appear in samples!

I am no longer interested in your opinions as they change constantly - back up your claims with fact.

What a confused post. Where have my opinions changed? I think you're being a hypocrite if you're claiming samples from this year were compromised but aren't willing to accept that the 1999 tests were unreliable. Blood and urine aren't precisely the same thing, but they still degrade and become unreliable, and we don't know the precise conditions. Where is you evidence that it's impossible to get a false positive from old samples?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's apparently right, but we don't know all the circustances because they were not done in the normal way. Nobody was checking to see what conditions they were kept under. All I'm saying is people can hardly complain about the UCI and then use this unofficial 1999 tests as proof that did not meet all the standards. That is a reasonable point.

Firstly - the reason RR can call you a liar is because you lied in earlier posts about him - as I am sure you agree this a reasonable point.

People can most certainly complain about the standards the UCI employed during the recent TdF.
The 1999 samples were not tested to sanction the riders - they were tested to improve the testing procedures for EPO and were therefore required to be stored correctly as testing a new procedure on degraded samples would be folly.

 

[Sprocket01]

Given what some posters are getting away with, they won't. If the parties one side of an argument don't have to abide by the same rules as others, it's not exactly going to be a first time on an internet forum. You're probably best to just harden up, or move on. It's not worth getting upset over it.

Yeah you always get politics on message boards. I understand it's always going to be harder for mods to ban people who hold the majority view on most things and have lots of buddies willing to stand up for them, so there is always going to be a type of mob rule in play and double standards. The rules are going to be a lot stricter for the likes of me than for others. One just has to accept that. If Astana can cope with it then so can I!

 

[workingclasshero]

Yeah you always get politics on message boards. I understand it's always going to be harder for mods to ban people who hold the majority view on most things and have lots of buddies willing to stand up for them, so there is always going to be a type of mob rule in play and double standards. The rules are going to be a lot stricter for the likes of me than for others. One just has to accept that. If Astana can cope with it then so can I!

why did you put that emoticon at the end? did you reckon what you said was so funny it was worth grinning for? strange one, as you bore the rest of us. ffs

 

[Sprocket01]

Firstly - the reason RR can call you a liar is because you lied in earlier posts about him - as I am sure you agree this a reasonable point.

It's not a reasonable point because it's untrue. You're simply playing semantics over whether he admitted to be banned or admitted to being banned for trolling, which is effectively the same thing - everybody understood the point. The fact that you refer to such a weak and petty issue is telling itself. I do not go around calling RR a liar for lying about TFF saying blood transfusions have gone down on the Logistics thread. It's silliness. Grow up.

People can most certainly complain about the standards the UCI employed during the recent TdF.The 1999 samples were not tested to sanction the riders - they were tested to improve the testing procedures for EPO and were therefore required to be stored correctly as testing a new procedure on degraded samples would be folly.

You make it sound as if there was a big plan to do this all along. They simply found some old files hanging around and decided to experiment on them to test their own test. It would not stand up under any other circumstance. We should be honest about this.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

They simply found some old files hanging around and decided to experiment on them to test their own test. It would not stand up under any other circumstance. We should be honest about this.

Honesty is not one of your strong points.

.....so they found some files hanging around? (they can test files?)
And then decided - for a laugh - to just test them?

I am sure they got quite a suprise when they found EPO in the samples.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Yes EPO has been known to appear magically, if urine is not stored properly.

Actually, you are correct. Aren't blinded studies wonderful.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/10...epo-urine-test-called-into-question-by-study/

 

[Mellow Velo]

What a confused post. Where have my opinions changed? I think you're being a hypocrite if you're claiming samples from this year were compromised but aren't willing to accept that the 1999 tests were unreliable. Blood and urine aren't precisely the same thing, but they still degrade and become unreliable, and we don't know the precise conditions. Where is you evidence that it's impossible to get a false positive from old samples?

How about the positives from the other 5 samples?
6 out of 6 sounds pretty damn reliable.
Had only one of the samples turned up with EPO, you'd at least have a semblance of an alternative theory.
They didn't and you haven't.