Impey cleared of doping - free to race

[Parker]

No. You have an opinion that cross contamination is very likely. Others do not share your opinion.

No. I have no real opinion on the case - although cross contamination seems far more likely than the convoluted theories some have put forward. I am quite happy to let the experts who know far more than anyone on this forum make their decision. I'm not arrogant enough to think that my assessment has more validity than theirs.

What is my opinion is that in doping cases many of the Clinic are far more interested in having their own initial verdict (always guilty) confirmed than seeing justice done. Their opposition to the verdict is, largely, a reaction to their desire for a doping scandal being denied rather than anything to do with Impey's actual guilt or innocence.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I am quite happy to let the experts who know far more than anyone on this forum make their decision. I'm not arrogant enough to think that my assessment has more validity than theirs.

Golf clap...

Ahh, yes, the "evidence" argument wrapped in a personal attack.

#1: The only acceptable evidence comes from the decision makers.
Because we know those decision makers are totally impartial only protecting the integrity of the sport. At every turn the UCI's federations have exercised impartiality to protect the integrity of the sport. Uh huh.

#2 What do a bunch of anonymous bone idle w@nkers know about anti-doping? They are conspiracy nuts with complex theories about aliens and stonehenge.

I'll give someone, somewhere credit for opening the positive on Impey though.

 

[hrotha]

What about Menchov? Nothing about that case has been made public. So where is your outcry for transparency.

Are you kidding? The reaction to the Menchov case was all about crying out for transparency.

 

[Benotti69]

...
.......
.....

Where is you demand to see the evidence in the Menchov case?

Have you checked the Menchov thread? This is the Impey thread.

 

[Parker]

Are you kidding? The reaction to the Menchov case was all about crying out for transparency.

And none of that crying out for transparency related to the details of the case. We thought he was guilty, the verdict agreed, so there was no need to see the details. The crying out was all due to the fact that the decision had not been publicised by the UCI. The anger was nothing to due with whether justice was served - it was about those people being denied their public scandal.

Which supports my point. For many of the self proclaimed anti-doping internet community, it is the scandal and the validation of their cynicism that is paramount, not justice or a desire for clean cycling.

 

[Benotti69]

And none of that crying out for transparency related to the details of the case. We thought he was guilty, the verdict agreed, so there was no need to see the details. The crying out was all due to the fact that the decision had not been publicised by the UCI. The anger was nothing to due with whether justice was served - it was about those people being denied their public scandal.

Which supports my point. For many of the self proclaimed anti-doping internet community, it is the scandal and the validation of their cynicism that is paramount, not justice or a desire for clean cycling.

Which begs the question why are you not in the Menchov thread holding posters to account?

You want posters to be consistent, where is yours?

 

[Parker]

Which begs the question why are you not in the Menchov thread holding posters to account?

You want posters to be consistent, where is yours?

For what am I meant to hold them to account?

Am I expected to criticise someone for not doing something that I don't think they should do?

My point with Menchov is that people whom demanded all the evidence to validate the contrary Impey verdict, asked for no evidence to validate the conducive Menchov decision. The validity of the decision seemed to hang on the pre-disposition of the poster.

 

[Benotti69]

For what am I meant to hold them to account?

Am I expected to criticise someone for not doing something that I don't think they should do?

My point with Menchov is that people whom demanded all the evidence to validate the contrary Impey verdict, asked for no evidence to validate the conducive Menchov decision. The validity of the decision seemed to hang on the pre-disposition of the poster.

With Menchov, he was a 10 on UCI's suspicion list!

If Impey wants people to believe him, then he should do everything in his power to be transparent. Release the original reciepts to a credible journalist.

The fans who want full transparency deserve it. That is beyond question. Fans have been lied to for too long. Time the sport did everything possible to prove that they are innocent. Federations are not to be trusted, we know this.

Impey wants fans trust, well he has to earn it with transparency.

IMO Impey dont give a fig about fans, he has been cleared, that is all that matters to him, his team and his Fed.

Sorry but for me that is not enough. The excuse is risible.

 

[Parker]

With Menchov, he was a 10 on UCI's suspicion list!

If Impey wants people to believe him, then he should do everything in his power to be transparent. Release the original reciepts to a credible journalist.

The fans who want full transparency deserve it. That is beyond question. Fans have been lied to for too long. Time the sport did everything possible to prove that they are innocent. Federations are not to be trusted, we know this.

Impey wants fans trust, well he has to earn it with transparency.

IMO Impey dont give a fig about fans, he has been cleared, that is all that matters to him, his team and his Fed.

Sorry but for me that is not enough. The excuse is risible.

Which again reinforces my point. It's not about justice. It's about people's opinions being reinforced. (And those people are generally those that think all accused are dopers).

Menchov. People think he's guilty. He's found guilty. No-one asks for the evidence. The system works.

Impey. People think he's guilty. He's cleared. People question everything. The system is at fault.

It's not justice that matters, it's correlation with pre-disposed opinion. The only valid decision is that of the forum (always guilty). Only decisions that demur are scrutinised.


This is the hypocrisy. If you want to debate the innocent verdicts because you have not seen enough evidence, then also debate the guilty ones for the same reason.

 

[TailWindHome]

And none of that crying out for transparency related to the details of the case. We thought he was guilty, the verdict agreed, so there was no need to see the details. The crying out was all due to the fact that the decision had not been publicised by the UCI. The anger was nothing to due with whether justice was served - it was about those people being denied their public scandal.

Which supports my point. For many of the self proclaimed anti-doping internet community, it is the scandal and the validation of their cynicism that is paramount, not justice or a desire for clean cycling.

This

An a measure of embarrassment that they didn't know cyclists were using Bicarbonate of Soda

 

[Tonton]

And none of that crying out for transparency related to the details of the case. We thought he was guilty, the verdict agreed, so there was no need to see the details. The crying out was all due to the fact that the decision had not been publicised by the UCI. The anger was nothing to due with whether justice was served - it was about those people being denied their public scandal.

Which supports my point. For many of the self proclaimed anti-doping internet community, it is the scandal and the validation of their cynicism that is paramount, not justice or a desire for clean cycling.

I don't think that there's a lynch mob here. Instead, I take all the cynicism as a sign of frustration coming from true fans of cycling who yearn for a change in the sport. We are force fed with slogans such as "cycling is cleaner than ever", yet the world of cycling doesn't change. Same faces, mafia-style organization, with its omerta, and zero transparency. And we keep being fooled. Virenque fan? Fooled. LA '99 cancer survivor fairy tale? Fooled. Landis' solo attack? Fooled...

In this case, Impey is reinstated on the grounds that his cross-contamination claim is "possible". We don't know how thoroughly facts and actors (pharmacist and other customer) were investigated. Instead of coming forward and giving explanations, Impey keeps silent. Parker, if it happened to me, I'd be blowing horns, banging drums, and tell my version (ma verite ) of the story. Among other things, I would explain why I'm buying capsules to make my own pills instead of purchasing bicarbonate of soda like everyone else. For those like me who have been burned before, in the absence of transparency, it always sounds familiar. And I wonder: is it a remastered version of the '67 Trocke-Linares tune?

When you write "no need to see the details" about anything related to our sport, I respectfully yet completely disagree. Trusting cycling and anti-doping governing bodies blindly is how we get fooled over and over again. Hence the threads about changes needed. Most members talk about problems, but also offer solutions, or at least show interest in changing cycling. Bashing riders is only the consequence of years of lies and denial...

 

[Merckx index]

Which again reinforces my point. It's not about justice. It's about people's opinions being reinforced. (And those people are generally those that think all accused are dopers).

Menchov. People think he's guilty. He's found guilty. No-one asks for the evidence. The system works.

Impey. People think he's guilty. He's cleared. People question everything. The system is at fault.

It's not justice that matters, it's correlation with pre-disposed opinion. The only valid decision is that of the forum (always guilty). Only decisions that demur are scrutinised.


This is the hypocrisy. If you want to debate the innocent verdicts because you have not seen enough evidence, then also debate the guilty ones for the same reason.

Are you aware of the % of doping positives that get overturned? It's very small. When you ask why people don't clamor for the Menchov evidence, you're presuming that every time a rider tests positive or is sanctioned that there is a 50/50 chance he's really innocent. In fact, the odds that he's innocent are more like 1/100. So of course most of us don't need to see the evidence. The anti-doping criteria are highly biassed in favor of the athlete, in order to minimize false positives, so when despite this a rider tests positive or it's announced there is other evidence against him, it's overwhelmingly likely that he's guilty.

Likewise, when Impey's positive was first announced, it was entirely reasonable to believe that he was very likely guilty of doping. Now that he's been cleared by SAIDS, some of us wonder how good the evidence was to clear him. You say you're content to believe that SAIDS got it right. But national ADA decisions can get overturned. When FRS cleared Contador, a lot of us challenged the evidence, and as it turned out, he lost on appeal. FRS bought the contaminated meat theory, but on closer examination, the possibility of his meat being contaminated was quite low. For all we know, SAIDS has overestimated the possibility of contaminated capsules. We won't know until we see the evidence.

I hope and think that UCI and/or WADA will appeal this decision. Again, the Contador case is relevant. When they appealed the FRS decision, it wasn't necessarily because they thought Contador doped, and should be sanctioned. McQ, I think it was, said at the time that the consequences of the case were so far-reaching that they needed to be validated at the highest level. It's the same here. If contamination via a pill counter is a real possibility, this needs to be confirmed at CAS. If Impey's decision is upheld, no question that athletes will take advantage of this, and even honest ones may have cases of contamination, too. The sport needs to look at this possibility very carefully.

By the way, though you claim to have an impartial view of doping cases, you, like del and fmk, read the JTL decision as showing that it proved that he took EPO 10-14 days prior to the Worlds, when in fact all it said was his passport was consistent with this. Sure looks like biassed interpretation to me. And this is another example of why we like to see the evidence. In this case, JTL was determined guilty, and he didn't appeal, but if the time course of doping were relevant to the decision, you better believe that this 10-14 day window would have been challenged on appeal.

 

[Parker]

I don't think that there's a lynch mob here. Instead, I take all the cynicism as a sign of frustration coming from true fans of cycling who yearn for a change in the sport. We are force fed with slogans such as "cycling is cleaner than ever", yet the world of cycling doesn't change. Same faces, mafia-style organization, with its omerta, and zero transparency. And we keep being fooled. Virenque fan? Fooled. LA '99 cancer survivor fairy tale? Fooled. Landis' solo attack? Fooled...

In this case, Impey is reinstated on the grounds that his cross-contamination claim is "possible". We don't know how thoroughly facts and actors (pharmacist and other customer) were investigated. Instead of coming forward and giving explanations, Impey keeps silent. Parker, if it happened to me, I'd be blowing horns, banging drums, and tell my version (ma verite ) of the story. Among other things, I would explain why I'm buying capsules to make my own pills instead of purchasing bicarbonate of soda like everyone else. For those like me who have been burned before, in the absence of transparency, it always sounds familiar. And I wonder: is it a remastered version of the '67 Trocke-Linares tune?

When you write "no need to see the details" about anything related to our sport, I respectfully yet completely disagree. Trusting cycling and anti-doping governing bodies blindly is how we get fooled over and over again. Hence the threads about changes needed. Most members talk about problems, but also offer solutions, or at least show interest in changing cycling. Bashing riders is only the consequence of years of lies and denial...

So you're just adding to my perceptions.

All are presumed guilty.

Those that are then found guilty - sound decision. That's trusted. No question

Those that are found innocent - well let's have a look. Maybe there's corruption. Maybe the experts don't know as much as I do. Surely, something must be wrong.

Why the dicotomy?

It appears to me that verdicts are assessed solely on their correlation to pre-disposed opinion and nothing else.

 

[sniper]

Are you aware of the % of doping positives that get overturned? It's very small. When you ask why people don't clamor for the Menchov evidence, you're presuming that every time a rider tests positive or is sanctioned that there is a 50/50 chance he's really innocent. In fact, the odds that he's innocent are more like 1/100. So of course most of us don't need to see the evidence. The anti-doping criteria are highly biassed in favor of the athlete, in order to minimize false positives, so when despite this a rider tests positive or it's announced there is other evidence against him, it's overwhelmingly likely that he's guilty.

this, obviously.
pretty basic, and sad to have trolls in here pretending they don't understand this. (i hope for them they are trolls, it would be even sadder if they really don't understand it)

 

[Parker]

Are you aware of the % of doping positives that get overturned? It's very small. When you ask why people don't clamor for the Menchov evidence, you're presuming that every time a rider tests positive or is sanctioned that there is a 50/50 chance he's really innocent. In fact, the odds that he's innocent are more like 1/100. So of course most of us don't need to see the evidence. The anti-doping criteria are highly biassed in favor of the athlete, in order to minimize false positives, so when despite this a rider tests positive or it's announced there is other evidence against him, it's overwhelmingly likely that he's guilty.

Likewise, when Impey's positive was first announced, it was entirely reasonable to believe that he was very likely guilty of doping. Now that he's been cleared by SAIDS, some of us wonder how good the evidence was to clear him. You say you're content to believe that SAIDS got it right. But national ADA decisions can get overturned. When FRS cleared Contador, a lot of us challenged the evidence, and as it turned out, he lost on appeal. FRS bought the contaminated meat theory, but on closer examination, the possibility of his meat being contaminated was quite low. For all we know, SAIDS has overestimated the possibility of contaminated capsules. We won't know until we see the evidence.

I hope and think that UCI and/or WADA will appeal this decision. Again, the Contador case is relevant. When they appealed the FRS decision, it wasn't necessarily because they thought Contador doped, and should be sanctioned. McQ, I think it was, said at the time that the consequences of the case were so far-reaching that they needed to be validated at the highest level. It's the same here. If contamination via a pill counter is a real possibility, this needs to be confirmed at CAS. If Impey's decision is upheld, no question that athletes will take advantage of this, and even honest ones may have cases of contamination, too. The sport needs to look at this possibility very carefully.

By the way, though you claim to have an impartial view of doping cases, you, like del and fmk, read the JTL decision as showing that it proved that he took EPO 10-14 days prior to the Worlds, when in fact all it said was his passport was consistent with this. Sure looks like biassed interpretation to me. And this is another example of why we like to see the evidence. In this case, JTL was determined guilty, and he didn't appeal, but if the time course of doping were relevant to the decision, you better believe that this 10-14 day window would have been challenged on appeal.

Too long, didn't read. Try bullet points. Otherwise you bore everyone. It's a terrible way to put across a point.

Whether or not someone is guilty isn't my issue. My point is that when there is a verdict that doesn't tally with the poster's initial reaction (always guilty), then there is a demand for open evidence and a suspicion of the process. Without full evidence the verdict is invalid.

When the verdict is guilty, then there is never any such clamour. No-one needs to see the evidence.

Which leads me to my point that, in general, the Clinic has no interest in justice - just scandal and the reinforcement of their cynicism.

See how much shorter my post was. Get to the point.

 

[Tonton]

So you're just adding to my perceptions.

All are presumed guilty.

Those that are then found guilty - sound decision. That's trusted. No question

Those that are found innocent - well let's have a look. Maybe there's corruption. Maybe the experts don't know as much as I do. Surely, something must be wrong.

Why the dicotomy?

It appears to me that verdicts are assessed solely on their correlation to pre-disposed opinion and nothing else.

That is so not what I'm saying! Guilty verdict or not, I want to know how we got to the verdict. I want to know that no stone was left unturned. Guilty or not, "trust us" is not enough. Don't twist my posts to fit your point.

 

[Tonton]

Are you aware of the % of doping positives that get overturned? It's very small. When you ask why people don't clamor for the Menchov evidence, you're presuming that every time a rider tests positive or is sanctioned that there is a 50/50 chance he's really innocent. In fact, the odds that he's innocent are more like 1/100. So of course most of us don't need to see the evidence. The anti-doping criteria are highly biassed in favor of the athlete, in order to minimize false positives, so when despite this a rider tests positive or it's announced there is other evidence against him, it's overwhelmingly likely that he's guilty.

Likewise, when Impey's positive was first announced, it was entirely reasonable to believe that he was very likely guilty of doping. Now that he's been cleared by SAIDS, some of us wonder how good the evidence was to clear him. You say you're content to believe that SAIDS got it right. But national ADA decisions can get overturned. When FRS cleared Contador, a lot of us challenged the evidence, and as it turned out, he lost on appeal. FRS bought the contaminated meat theory, but on closer examination, the possibility of his meat being contaminated was quite low. For all we know, SAIDS has overestimated the possibility of contaminated capsules. We won't know until we see the evidence.

I hope and think that UCI and/or WADA will appeal this decision. Again, the Contador case is relevant. When they appealed the FRS decision, it wasn't necessarily because they thought Contador doped, and should be sanctioned. McQ, I think it was, said at the time that the consequences of the case were so far-reaching that they needed to be validated at the highest level. It's the same here. If contamination via a pill counter is a real possibility, this needs to be confirmed at CAS. If Impey's decision is upheld, no question that athletes will take advantage of this, and even honest ones may have cases of contamination, too. The sport needs to look at this possibility very carefully.

By the way, though you claim to have an impartial view of doping cases, you, like del and fmk, read the JTL decision as showing that it proved that he took EPO 10-14 days prior to the Worlds, when in fact all it said was his passport was consistent with this. Sure looks like biassed interpretation to me. And this is another example of why we like to see the evidence. In this case, JTL was determined guilty, and he didn't appeal, but if the time course of doping were relevant to the decision, you better believe that this 10-14 day window would have been challenged on appeal.

Excellent point actually.

 

[BYOP88]

Too long, didn't read. Try bullet points. Otherwise you bore everyone. It's a terrible way to put across a point.

Whether or not someone is guilty isn't my issue. My point is that when there is a verdict that doesn't tally with the poster's initial reaction (always guilty), then there is a demand for open evidence and a suspicion of the process. Without full evidence the verdict is invalid.

When the verdict is guilty, then there is never any such clamour. No-one needs to see the evidence.

Which leads me to my point that, in general, the Clinic has no interest in justice - just scandal and the reinforcement of their cynicism.

See how much shorter my post was. Get to the point.

If you didn't read it how do you know it bored everyone.

 

[Granville57]

Menchov. People think he's guilty. He's found guilty. No-one asks for the evidence. The system works.

LOL. I see you're unfamiliar with Menchov's career.

I am quite happy to let the experts who know far more than anyone on this forum make their decision. I'm not arrogant enough to think that my assessment has more validity than theirs.

What a world to live in. Always trust the "experts" and those in power. That should work out just fine.

Too long, didn't read.

Very constructive.

Now I'm off to add to my ever-growing Ignore List.

 

[Parker]

That is so not what I'm saying! Guilty verdict or not, I want to know how we got to the verdict. I want to know that no stone was left unturned. Guilty or not, "trust us" is not enough. Don't twist my posts to fit your point.

So where is the clamour for verdict reports on the guilty.

That's my point. With Impey everyone wants to know every detail so they can make their own verdict (I bet it's the same as their original guilty one). But no-one cares about the guilty verdicts. Why was no-one asking for the evidence of Menchov before endorsing the verdict.

My point is, and always has been, is that the people that judge these cases have more knowledge than all of us and have seen all the evidence. So why are only the verdicts that oppose predetermined verdicts (always guilty) questioned due to the evidence not being presented? If you demand transparency and access to all evidence, then do it on the ones that go your way, not the ones that don't.

Otherwise I may just think you're in this for the thrill of the scandal.

 

[Parker]

LOL. I see you're unfamiliar with Menchov's career.

I think he was a doper. But what is the evidence from his case. The verdict has been accepted by those that expect it for an innocent verdict.

What a world to live in. Always trust the "experts" and those in power. That should work out just fine.

And trusting the opinions of anonymous people on the internet is so much better. It's best to judge a persons opinions not on their credentials or experience, but whether they agree with you.

Very constructive.

Now I'm off to add to my ever-growing Ignore List.

That's wise. Because the biggest threat to the ignorant and dogmatic is dissenting opinions. Block out those and you'll always be right. If you have to ignore those opinions rather than address them, it's a confirmation that you're wrong.

 

[Merckx index]

Too long, didn't read. Try bullet points. Otherwise you bore everyone. It's a terrible way to put across a point.

It was about 450 words long. The sum of your posts just today, all of which repeat the same point ad nauseum, is more than 1130 words. You could have read my post in the time it took you to make the same point for the fourth, fifth and sixth time.

Some of us can make our points in one post, and don't have to post again and again and again. Frankly, I find this repetition far more boring than one long post. And if you can't hold your attention long enough to read one long post, it tells me all I need to know about how serious you are about acquiring information that might challenge or modify your views. Certainly your misinterpretation of the JTL decision now makes sense.

And trusting the opinions of anonymous people on the internet is so much better. It's best to judge a persons opinions not on their credentials or experience, but whether they agree with you.

No, it's best to judge a person's opinions on their merit, certainly not on their credentials or experience. No scientist would ever ask people to believe his findings based on his credentials or experience.

the biggest threat to the ignorant and dogmatic is dissenting opinions. Block out those and you'll always be right. If you have to ignore those opinions rather than address them, it's a confirmation that you're wrong.

Or maybe opinions that are too long for their very short attention span.

Again, you, del and fmk all ignored it when your misinterpretation of the JTL decision was pointed out. Don't ask me what the misinterpretation was, because my answer might be too long for you. Same with the Menchov point. Fmk can't even remember his own posts, it seems.

 

[Parker]

It was about 450 words long. The sum of your posts just today, all of which repeat the same point ad nauseum, is more than 1130 words. You could have read my post in the time it took you to make the same point for the fourth, fifth and sixth time.

Some of us can make our points in one post, and don't have to post again and again and again. Frankly, I find this repetition far more boring than one long post. And if you can't hold your attention long enough to read one long post, it tells me all I need to know about how serious you are about acquiring information that might challenge or modify your views. Certainly your misinterpretation of the JTL decision now makes sense.

No, it's best to judge a person's opinions on their merit, certainly not on their credentials or experience. No scientist would ever ask people to believe his findings based on his credentials or experience.

Or maybe opinions that are too long for their very short attention span.

Again, you, del and fmk all ignored it when you're misinterpretation of the JTL decision was pointed out. Fmk can't even remember his own posts, it seems.

Again you're using too many words. I may have overstated my case so here it is in bite size form.

Every time a rider is pulled up on a doping charge, a large section of the Clinic proclaims them a doper, without seeing any evidence.

If that rider is then found guilty then nobody doubts it. No-one asks for the details of the case. The experts have seen that justice has been done. Who are we to doubt the experts?

If that rider is cleared of being a doper, then the evidence and process must be scritinised. Because how could we be wrong? Experts? Let's see the evidence. We'll be the experts not them.

Verdicts are viewed within the context of prior opinion.

Validation of opinion is paramount, not justice.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Again you're using too many words. I may have overstated my case so here it is in bite size form.

Every time a rider is pulled up on a doping charge, a large section of the Clinic proclaims them a doper, without seeing any evidence.

If that rider is then found guilty then nobody doubts it. No-one asks for the details of the case. The experts have seen that justice has been done. Who are we to doubt the experts?

If that rider is cleared of being a doper, then the evidence and process must be scritinised. Because how could we be wrong? Experts? Let's see the evidence. We'll be the experts not them.

Verdicts are viewed within the context of prior opinion.

Validation of opinion is paramount, not justice.

And like a number of other things you have claimed over the past 12 months or so, you are wrong.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

In Menchov's case, it was a BP violation, right?

So the panel look at his values and say - looks like doping to me.
* Menchov takes some EPO or similar
* Menchov removes some blood
* Menchov adds some blood

Impossible to prove these, but the evidence is simple - the BP. Asking for one of those as evidence is never going to happen. Even JV is scared to release a clean domestique rider's Giro based BP as evidence to support his alleged clean rider's GT win.

However, I would love this evidence - be great to have. Even asked for it. But there's an element of personal privacy too yeah?

In this case, with Impey, they have accepted that
* the chemist had a customer's order before doing Daryl's
* the chemist wore no gloves or if he did, he did not change them
* the chemist's order creation protocol does not include washing his hands between orders, or even rinsing them or wiping them on his jeans or a towel
* the order of the preceding customer was probenecid
* the chemist had to physically construct the order, rather than grabbing a bottle of pills off the shelf
* the chemist then had to physically construct Impey's order, stick a few capsules into a bottle or something
* that there was sufficient dust on his hands, that made it into these capsules, Impey used the capsules and did not think it strange there was already dust on them

Now, as well as all this, they are asking us to either
1. accept the chemist's version of events - like his memory is photographic and flawless OR
2. they have some sort of paper trail proving at least the timeline as a possibility

There are also privacy issues - noone wants to broadcast to the world that they have gout or similar, perhaps.

But the evidence that proves the points above is going to be receipts, and they are easily photographable and postable on the web.

Right?

I mean there's nothing simpler. Happens all the time (taking photos of things and posting them to the web) and there is no interpretation required - unlike BP readings.

Here's the thing:
Menchov doping seems really believable.
The chemist story, with the capsules and the dust and what not? Good grief.

If you can't see one looks fanciful and one looks believable, particularly given the results Menchov had, and the era he raced, then there is no point in furthering the discussion.