The latest Astana affair

[CentralCaliBike]

you can joke with tff not me, a notoriously poor recipient of lawyers humor. regarding the rest of your post, you are good at asking a lot of question and poor at reading because some have been answered already. btw it was in english not french so again you pants are down mister for all to see you're naked.

to spell it out for you, allegedly the investigation lacked information because the uci refused to allow examination of blood samples.

The article I have been reading was referenced by another poster (http://www.cyclisme-dopage.com/actualite/2000-uspostal-produits.htm) and it is not answering the questions. I guess I missed the one you are citing.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

you can joke with tff not me...

I was actually joking with Bianchigirl - and the group that have been talking about the deranged thought of persons claiming that LA raced clean.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The investigation couldn't proceed as further samples that were requested were withheld. These were requested in light of the 'too clean' samples mentioned above.

Can't provide links as, like many stories uncomplimentary to Armstrong, they have disappeared

I have noticed that too!

 

[python]

The article I have been reading was referenced by another poster (http://www.cyclisme-dopage.com/actualite/2000-uspostal-produits.htm) and it is not answering the questions. I guess I missed the one you are citing.

once again if you missed it it is entirely your fault or an intentional, sorry to repeat myself, act of obfuscation. the link is above as in ^^^^. get your ass in gear and read. a legal professional should be able to page up. right?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

once again if you missed it it is entirely your fault or an intentional, sorry to repeat myself, act of obfuscation. the link is above as in ^^^^. get your ass in gear and read. a legal professional should be able to page up. right?

If you know where it is hidden, post it again and I will read it.

 

[python]

If you know where it is hidden, post it again and I will read it.

no i count on your self-professed legal prowess and intellectual abilities that should imply an ability to read and to search the thread you're currently in. if you're still joking or need help you are, sorry to say that a joke of a lawyer.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

no i count on your self-professed legal prowess and intellectual abilities that should imply an ability to read and to search the thread you're currently in. if you're still joking or need help you are, sorry to say that a joke of a lawyer.

I take this means you cannot find the link either.

 

[python]

I take this means you cannot find the link either.

no. i let you read it and find it. this thread. it was in english. plain english.
i take it to state you're not only an obfuscating character with suspicious intents but, let me say it for the first time - a pernicious troll just like several other with an amazingly similar style to yours.

you had been caught publicly with your pants down. by several posters in fact. a professional with a genuine intent reacts differently to criticisms.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

no. i let you read it and find it. this thread. it was in english. plain english.
i take it to state you're not only an obfuscating character with suspicious intents but, let me say it for the first time - a pernicious troll just like several other with an amazingly similar style to yours.

you had been caught publicly with your pants down. by several posters in fact. a professional with a genuine intent reacts differently to criticisms.

From the small letter I will guess that you are using a blackberry or similar so may not be in a position to quickly find the article link you keep claiming was posted previously - which is why I am not going to make the claim that you made it up.

Dr. Maserati posted a link to the article regarding the 1999 samples - I read the article. Someone posted the cycling news article of the 2000 investigation and I read that as well, it left me with questions. I did a google search myself and found a second cyclingnews article on the subject, which I posted the link to. It caused me to ask more questions. You claim there is another article hidden in this thread that I have not found. It seems you are unwilling (or unable) to repost the link which is frustrating to me since I would like to read it as well.

 

[python]

From the small letter I will guess that you are using a blackberry or similar so may not be in a position to quickly find the article link you keep claiming was posted previously - which is why I am not going to make the claim that you made it up.

Dr. Maserati posted a link to the article regarding the 1999 samples - I read the article. Someone posted the cycling news article of the 2000 investigation and I read that as well, it left me with questions. I did a google search myself and found a second cyclingnews article on the subject, which I posted the link to. It caused me to ask more questions. You claim there is another article hidden in this thread that I have not found. It seems you are unwilling (or unable) to repost the link which is frustrating to me since I would like to read it as well.

the problem is - your problem - that i don't trust your frustration is genuine because i just read this link again a link in this thread. how many more clueless a clues lawyer would need?

this thread this tread this thread

about the uci withholding blood samples from the french investigators
about the uci withholding blood samples from the french investigators
about the uci withholding blood samples from the french investigators

is this enough search material for a simple search?

reminds me an earlier trouble RR had with someone.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

the problem is - your problem - that i don't trust your frustration is genuine because i just read this link again a link in this thread. how many more clueless a clues lawyer would need?

this thread this tread this thread

about the uci withholding blood samples from the french investigators
about the uci withholding blood samples from the french investigators
about the uci withholding blood samples from the french investigators

is this enough search material for a simple search?

reminds me an earlier trouble RR had with someone.

The search function comes up with the following message with your search material:

"The following words are either very common, too long, or too short and were not included in your search: about, the, uci, from"

 

[python]

The search function comes up with the following message with your search material:

"The following words are either very common, too long, or too short and were not included in your search: about, the, uci, from"

it means that you're an incompetent professional who should have never been allowed to practice law because he's incapable of reading and searching for evidence.

and most importantly because he's disingenuous and inclined to being fluffy.

i rest my case sir.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dr. Maserati posted a link to the article regarding the 1999 samples - I read the article. Someone posted the cycling news article of the 2000 investigation and I read that as well.....

Please get your facts correct - I was the one who posted both the opening and closing CN pieces - these had nothing to do with the 99 samples and were part of the USPS investigation Sherer & Poupou added further links.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

"We were surprised by the quantity: there were wrappings from different authorised medicines, lots of syringes, but nothing illegal. We were very surprised." said the TV3 reporter in this article.

"The "medical waste" consisted of some wrappers and cotton swabs and empty boxes, nothing more" as said by LA in his book 'Every Second Counts" Page 73.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Please get your facts correct - I was the one who posted both the opening and closing CN pieces - these had nothing to do with the 99 samples and were part of the USPS investigation Sherer & Poupou added further links.

I thought it was you that posted the 1999 piece, could not remember who posted the 2000 cyclingnews article (thank you), and did not know you posted the second - I apparently found it on my own by accident since I cannot find the article that Python is referring.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

"We were surprised by the quantity: there were wrappings from different authorised medicines, lots of syringes, but nothing illegal. We were very surprised." said the TV3 reporter in this article.

"The "medical waste" consisted of some wrappers and cotton swabs and empty boxes, nothing more" as said by LA in his book 'Every Second Counts" Page 73.

Thanks - I appreciate the link:

While reading it I wonder what happened to the urine samples? I found it interesting to read that Actovegin (the one substance that there apparently were trace residue found) was around for 20 years and used for "the healing of wounds and tissue damage". I also noted that Verbruggen indicated they would release the blood samples (were they released or not, the article did not say). It was interesting that "Mark Gorski, who runs the US Postal team, also declared himself baffled. "We authorized the release of the blood samples"

It was also interesting that the judge who leaked (the article's terminology) the information in the first place refused to comment after the statements of Verbruggen and Gorski.

As a follow up I would be interested in reading what Judge Chateau discovered, or stated at the conclusion of the investigation.

I almost forgot that I was looking for exactly what evidence was located and analyzed. The article makes it clear something was being analyzed but I do not see a reference to "bags of dope, insulin, and the 160 syringes" - all of which would not favor a claim that a single member of a team needed it for diabetes (other than the insulin and enough needles to use for a single person).

Rather than state what was found the article stated, "two people got out and deposited some bags in a bin.
"And they were doing it in a discreet way," said Huet, who subsequently retrieved the stash. "We were surprised
by the quantity: there were wrappings from different authorised medicines, lots of syringes, but nothing illegal. We
were very surprised."

I would like to know what medicine and how many syringes?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thanks - I appreciate the link:

While reading it I wonder what happened to the urine samples? I found it interesting to read that Actovegin (the one substance that there apparently were trace residue found) was around for 20 years and used for "the healing of wounds and tissue damage". I also noted that Verbruggen indicated they would release the blood samples (were they released or not, the article did not say). It was interesting that "Mark Gorski, who runs the US Postal team, also declared himself baffled. "We authorized the release of the blood samples"

It was also interesting that the judge who leaked (the article's terminology) the information in the first place refused to comment after the statements of Verbruggen and Gorski.

As a follow up I would be interested in reading what Judge Chateau discovered, or stated at the conclusion of the investigation.

Certainly the UCI released some samples - from memory some of these samples came back "too clean". That is there was no EPO - natural or synthtic - in the samples with the implictaion that the samples were spoiled when taken. I believe that is why the investigation dragged on so long.

I also read that the investigators wanted to do there own tests on the riders - but the request was refused.

 

[poupou]

Thanks - I appreciate the link:

While reading it I wonder what happened to the urine samples? I found it interesting to read that Actovegin (the one substance that there apparently were trace residue found) was around for 20 years and used for "the healing of wounds and tissue damage". I also noted that Verbruggen indicated they would release the blood samples (were they released or not, the article did not say). It was interesting that "Mark Gorski, who runs the US Postal team, also declared himself baffled. "We authorized the release of the blood samples"

It was also interesting that the judge who leaked (the article's terminology) the information in the first place refused to comment after the statements of Verbruggen and Gorski.

As a follow up I would be interested in reading what Judge Chateau discovered, or stated at the conclusion of the investigation.

UCI never wanted to release blood samples. UCI by Verbruggen requested LNDD to destroy urine samples, in the same time (or 1 or 2 days before), they had sent a letter claiming their cooperation.
But as LNDD linked with french government, they didn't act and warned french authorities who put urines samples under seals (october 2000). Later they were retested and no hEPO was found, so we can conlude that masking agent was used by all US Postal riders who had been tested.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

UCI never wanted to release blood samples. UCI by Verbruggen requested LNDD to destroy urine samples, in the same time (or 1 or 2 days before), they had sent a letter claiming their cooperation.
But as LNDD linked with french government, they didn't act and warned french authorities who put urines samples under seals (october 2000). Later they were retested and no hEPO was found, so we can conlude that masking agent was used by all US Postal riders who had been tested.

I did not know that about the UCI - although I did find this piece, so now it makes sence.

 

[Anonymous]

Certainly the UCI released some samples - from memory some of these samples came back "too clean". That is there was no EPO - natural or synthtic - in the samples with the implictaion that the samples were spoiled when taken. I believe that is why the investigation dragged on so long.

I also read that the investigators wanted to do there own tests on the riders - but the request was refused.

Yea, I remember that. I will see if I can dig that up. I have put that troll on ignore, but for fun, I would still like to see that stuff once again. Of course, any cycling fan who is more than just a Uniballer fan will remember that, but I guess we have to hold the hands of the newbies from time to time.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

....LA in his book 'Every Second Counts" ...

Wow. Is every 3rd counts coming out soon?

 

[python]

UCI never wanted to release blood samples.

pou with this statement you confirmed what was stated in the earlier the telegraph link posted by sherer. amazingly the link from this very thread our legal professional ccb had trouble locating.

judge Chateau made one of her occasional leaks to the press, complaining that the International Cycling Union would not release the blood samples from where they are held at their headquarters in Lausanne

the significance of lacking the blood samples - i mean the significance for the french investigators continuing probes into postal - is in the fact that these were the early days of urine epo test. it was not yet fully developed and was proposed by the ioc to be used in conjunction with the blood screening test.

in other words, if the urine test was inconclusive (which it was) due to masking or whatever any suspicious variations in hemoglobin and reticulocytes would indicate blood doping on us postal.

the uci essentially torpedoed the investigation into postal by blocking the blood samples.

 

[Cerberus]

I'm curious, is there any reason you couldn't ban people for using a masking agent, that is having no natural epo in the samples? That would cut out that loophole pretty effeiciently. Assuming it can't happen by accident of cause.

 

[python]

I'm curious, is there any reason you couldn't ban people for using a masking agent, that is having no natural epo in the samples? That would cut out that loophole pretty effeiciently. Assuming it can't happen by accident of cause.

i trust currently there is a test for masking epo. if the evidence of masking is found it's just another violation and a rider will be banned. in 2000 it did not exist.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm curious, is there any reason you couldn't ban people for using a masking agent, that is having no natural epo in the samples? That would cut out that loophole pretty effeiciently. Assuming it can't happen by accident of cause.

Yes - the UCI can give a 2 year ban* for tampering - but I dont know when that was introduced - HV was in charge at the time, so its a moot point.

Not sure about the French Judicary - as it was an investigation on "medical items" recovered I doubt their intent was to identify doping but to establish if the waste was connected to the USPS team.

*The UCI Anti-Doping. Chapter X. Sanctions and Consequences. 294 (1)when this was introduced I am not sure.
294. The period of Ineligibility for a first anti-doping rule violation other than as provided in article 293 shall be
as follows:
1. For violations under article 21.3 (evading Sample collection, refusing or failing to submit to Sample
collection) or article 21.5 (Tampering or Attempted Tampering with Doping Control), the Ineligibility
period shall be two (2) years unless the conditions for eliminating or reducing the period of
Ineligibility as provided in articles 296 to 304 or the conditions for increasing the period of
Ineligibility as provided in article 305 are met.