# Blame it on the French! Expert: No reason to doubt lab



## unchained (May 8, 2002)

http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/cycling/articles/2005/08/26/expert_no_reason_to_doubt_lab/


----------



## unchained (May 8, 2002)

Live Steam said:


> The simple fact that 'anonymity' was not protected, indicates there wer severe flaws in the process. With this in mind, how can anyone be sure the tests as well, were not?


The lab did not leak his name. Their tests results included sample no's. It was the newspaper which managed to tie the sample nos. to Armstrong through their investigation.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

> Both Ashenden and Dick Pound, the Canadian chairman of the World-Anti-Doping Agency, which approved the research, insisted that any WADA-accredited lab follows strict protocols and that anonymity was protected.


 The simple fact that 'anonymity' was not protected, indicates there wer severe flaws in the process. With this in mind, how can anyone be sure the tests as well, were not?


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Wrong*



unchained said:


> The lab did not leak his name. Their tests results included sample no's. It was the newspaper which managed to tie the sample nos. to Armstrong through their investigation.


The lab's responsibility was to turn the results over to a newspaper???


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

The names that matched the results had to come from somewhere. How do you know the lab, or a person in the lab, didn't want to make a little money in this? If L'Equipe could figure out the names, and we still don't know if they did it accurately, than certainly a lab tech could. Maybe he figured he would contact L'Equipe and tell them that for some Euros, they could have LA on a silver platter. This is a dirty and tainted test and no matter how you look at it.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*WTF was a newspaper doing with results and riders personal health information?*



unchained said:


> The lab did not leak his name. Their tests results included sample no's. It was the newspaper which managed to tie the sample nos. to Armstrong through their investigation.


They aren't in charge of doping controls for cycling are they?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Live Steam said:


> The simple fact that 'anonymity' was not protected, indicates there wer severe flaws in the process. With this in mind, how can anyone be sure the tests as well, were not?


Yeah and OJ didn't kill Nicole because Mark Furman was a racist. You would have made a great OJ juror if only your biases laid in the right direction


----------



## ivanthetrble (Jul 7, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Yeah and OJ didn't kill Nicole because Mark Furman was a racist. You would have made a great OJ juror if only your biases laid in the right direction


As your biases lead you in a different direction, but that doesn't mean you are right Dwayne!  It is pretty well known that the French have been after LA since his first win because he simply couldn't have won their precious race after beating cancer. It just isn't possible according to them. The had a huge investigation a few years ago that was dropped because of lack of evidence, but still they keep at it cause there was no way LA could have won their precious race without dope. Now we have a "leak' from a lab that breaks all sorts of WADA rules with no change of a confirming test? Information gets leaked to L'Equipe who sells a ton of papers to people whe desperately want to believe LA doped without any chance of confirming the test result with another sample. So tell me who is making $$ of this? I don't know if LA doped and neither does anyone else on this discussion board. I'm trying to keep an open mind about it and so far the whole thing stinks IMHO.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

I thought OJ was innocent because Columbian drug lords killed her 

You have to admit that the way this came out was not proper. You also have to admit that LA has every right to be upset as does everyone in the peloton.


----------



## unchained (May 8, 2002)

Live Steam said:


> The names that matched the results had to come from somewhere. How do you know the lab, or a person in the lab, didn't want to make a little money in this? If L'Equipe could figure out the names, and we still don't know if they did it accurately, than certainly a lab tech could. Maybe he figured he would contact L'Equipe and tell them that for some Euros, they could have LA on a silver platter. This is a dirty and tainted test and no matter how you look at it.


Apparently the rider names and sample no's were matched from the previously (1999)published tests results.


----------



## unchained (May 8, 2002)

dagger said:


> The lab's responsibility was to turn the results over to a newspaper???




The lab turned over the results to the WADA, I doubt if they did their own press release, not sure though:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug23news3


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Live Steam said:



> If L'Equipe could figure out the names, and we still don't know if they did it accurately ...


There may be reasonable objections to the tests or the story but this certainly isn't one of them. Since L'Equipe published pictures of the documents showing the sample numbers and Armstrong's signature, anyone can confirm the accuracy of the match between the numbers on the recent test samples and the samples signed for by Armstrong. The fact is I haven't seen any real data that would bring into question the results of the testing lab. All I see is speculation, inuendo, and outright misinformation like the above comment.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

I didn't see the original article in L'Equipe. I didn't know about the pic of the names, etc. We are questioning the results because the original premise of the test was not followed - anonymity. So how can we be sure the whole thing was on the up and up? Who gave L'Equipe the list of names and the numbers for the samples? How did they know the lab was performing these tests on these particular samples? Something is rotten in Denmark - well in this case, France!


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Live Steam said:


> I didn't see the original article in L'Equipe. I didn't know about the pic of the names, etc. We are questioning the results because the original premise of the test was not followed - anonymity. So how can we be sure the whole thing was on the up and up? Who gave L'Equipe the list of names and the numbers for the samples? How did they know the lab was performing these tests on these particular samples? Something is rotten in Denmark - well in this case, France!


So you made up your mind that L"Equipe's methodology in matching sample numbers to names was questionable without ever knowing what that methodology was? How about looking at the facts BEFORE posting your conclusions.

Same with the anonymity question. The testing lab had to maintain anonymity of the samples for the simple reason that they never had names to match against sample numbers. The lab only received the samples with ID numbers and never the corresponding rider names. Again, a little reading would have shown you this.

Third, (boy this gets tiresome) no one provided L'Equipe the list of names and sample numbers. L'Equipe had the names and numbers on file from the '99 Tour when they reported on the negative test results at the time. 

So in effect, all your arguments are really based on an incomplete understanding of the facts as reported and agreed to by all parties involved. Now if you have a substantive argument to make, go ahead, but so far all I see is you don't believe the results because you don't like the French.


----------



## unchained (May 8, 2002)

asgelle said:


> So you made up your mind that L"Equipe's methodology in matching sample numbers to names was questionable without ever knowing what that methodology was? How about looking at the facts BEFORE posting your conclusions.
> 
> Same with the anonymity question. The testing lab had to maintain anonymity of the samples for the simple reason that they never had names to match against sample numbers. The lab only received the samples with ID numbers and never the corresponding rider names. Again, a little reading would have shown you this.
> 
> ...


Just to add:

Yes, apparently they were blind tests. The lab did not know whose samples were being tested.

The purpose of the tests wasn't to get any specific rider, but to test samples from a year where riders knew they could use EPO without being tested for it. 

The lab simply wanted to test samples where they were likely to find positives, as part of their research.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61120-2004Aug12.html


The Difficulty of Watching Pound Throw His Weight Around

By Sally Jenkins
Friday, August 13, 2004; Page D10

ATHENS

That phony careerist and human necktie Dick Pound should promptly remove himself from public life and quit trying to enlarge his reputation by wrecking the reputations of others. But unfortunately it appears we will have to shove him forcibly from the Olympic stage while he is still grabbing at the free shrimp from the VIP buffet.

For all those who haven't heard his officious and highly prejudiced bellowing, Pound is the head of the World Anti-Doping Agency. He's the guy who's supposed to oversee a body devoted to the ethical competition of the Olympics. And yet Pound commits an ethical violation almost every time he opens his mouth, and expresses another self-serving, sorehead and headline-seeking opinion. He's the biggest scandal here.

Dick Pound, the head of the World Anti-Doping Agency, is rarely at a loss for words -- even during ongoing investigations. (Darron Cummings -- Aocciated Press)

It is plainly unethical and prejudicial for a head of WADA to make pronouncements about an ongoing and supposedly confidential investigation such as BALCO, and the guilt or innocence of those involved. And yet there was Pound on the eve of the Opening Ceremonies, accusing USA Track and Field of being "largely responsible" for doping and again attacking Marion Jones by name.

Jones has been his favorite punching bag for months, despite the fact that evidence against her is less than persuasive and she has not been formally accused of anything. "If she's innocent, she comes here and that's fine," Pound said Thursday. "And if she's not and comes here and has made all those statements, it's going to be a dark and deep hole into which she goes. It would be a shame."

Pound loves to suggest that Jones is guilty until proven guilty, because she hangs around with the wrong people, meaning her husbands and boyfriends. Now, that's funny coming from him. Dick Pound has spent his entire adult life hanging around with one of the dirtiest and most corrupt organizations on the earth: the International Olympic Committee.

Who exactly is Dick Pound? He was an Olympic swimmer for Canada in 1960 and he has been a relentless ladder climber ever since. For many years he was the right hand of that man beloved of Generalissimo Francisco Franco, former IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch. He helped deliver the Olympics to NBC for an entire generation, and he was Samaranch's handpicked successor. But he became increasingly unpopular in the IOC because of his role as an ethics officer, and Jacques Rogge instead replaced Samaranch. In other words, Pound is a permanently marginalized (and possibly embittered) guy who was passed up.

Ever since then, Pound has been trying to become important in the Olympics again, and his chief way of doing this is to style himself the savior of purity in the Games, by accusing anyone and everyone of doping and corruption, whether there is proper evidence or not. Pound's attack on the USATF was the sort of baseless and distorted crack that has become typical of him, issued to satisfy his craving for attention. There's no doubt that USATF has had its problems. But USATF has nothing to do with drug testing or enforcement. That is the job of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, as Pound well knows, since he oversees USADA as head of WADA. "Mr. Pound is well known for his colorful remarks," USATF spokeswoman Jill Greer said in response to his remarks. "I would hope that as head of the World Anti-Doping Agency he would not prejudge any athlete." But that's all Pound does -- judge.

Pound has become known as the bullying head of an organization of controversial legal standards. The family of banned Australian cyclist Mark French has complained that even Saddam Hussein received better legal treatment. Among Pound's remarks and insinuations: Anyone who takes exception to his methods or those of WADA is either a guilty athlete, or part of their team. "Everyone else thinks we're doing exactly the right thing," Pound told the Canadian Press.

No, actually, they don't. Jon Drummond said during the U.S. trials, "Find out about Dick Pound and why he's coming down so hard on the United States. He's the WADA chair, he's the big man on campus. The athletes are doing what they're supposed to do. Dick sits in his office and passes out accusations."

Why is Pound beating up on the U.S. track federation, when it doesn't even control American drug testing? Why is he screaming?

Pound was vice president of the IOC and a representative of the Canadian delegation in 1988 when his countryman, Ben Johnson, was stripped of his gold medal for testing positive for steroid use. Pound was a public defender of Johnson's, arguing that he was essentially innocent, had been manipulated into taking an illegal drug unwittingly. "I'm certain he didn't know," Pound said. "I don't think he has the faintest idea what it's all about." He also said that Johnson had a "guilty body" but not the guilty intent that would have convicted him in a court of law. Johnson later confessed he had used steroids since 1981.

God forbid an American should defend a U.S. track athlete to WADA in such terms. As it happens, the United States has made strides against doping in track. The Olympic lab under the direction of the devoted and hard-working Don Catlin has made critical progress in identifying several designer drugs. What has Dick Pound ever done, except excuse Ben Johnson? As far as I can tell, Pound has committed exactly one act of any substance as the head of WADA: He moved the organization to Montreal, conveniently for him and, perhaps, his business pals. Is that an unfair accusation? Well.

Pound is also an author. He has a book out, called "Inside the Olympics." More properly, it should be entitled, "Big Events in Small Minds." Quill and Quire, a Canadian review of books, had this to say about Pound and his book: "Readers looking for the definitive exposé of Olympic greed, avarice, and scandal will be disappointed. . . .Pound occasionally comes across as supercilious and hypocritical. He pontificates about the scourge of fixed judging in figure skating and the injustice of hopped-up athletes who win medals, but fails to connect those scandals to the same morally bankrupt, win-at-all-costs attitudes that had infected the bidding process leading up to the Salt Lake scandal."

I detest Pound on principle as a hypocrite who attacks the easiest and most vulnerable targets he can find for the sake of his own advancement. He should be summarily dislodged from his job for betraying his chief responsibility as the head of WADA, to be measured and fair. Personally, I find him utterly devoid of any real Olympic spirit or spirit of justice. The Romans believed that the enforcement of an absolutely just law, without any regard for possible exceptions, resulted in absolute injustice. Or as Martin Luther King put it, "an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere."

We should all question, rightly, what's going on in Olympic sports and how best to make the Games fair, untainted and equitable for all competitors. But there is one person we most assuredly should not listen to, Dick Pound. He is neither fair, nor equitable, nor untainted.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

Where did L'Equipe get the list of numbers for the samples that were tested? Who would supply it to them and for what purpose? Obviously if the numbers correspond to names, the test is not anonymous. Why were the samples simply not renumbered, since knowing the riders name was not part of the basis for the test? Something seems a bit off.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

dagger said:


> They aren't in charge of doping controls for cycling are they?


Agreed, the whole thing stinks.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*Wrong, actually.*



ivanthetrble said:


> I don't know if LA doped and neither does anyone else on this discussion board. I'm trying to keep an open mind about it and so far the whole thing stinks IMHO.


We know for a fact that Armstrong took lots of doses of EPO as part of his cancer treatment-so he was quite familiar with the stuff, what it does and how he reacts to it. For him to say that he would not put something into himself that might threaten his health doesn't mean he includes EPO in that category.

Still the bottom line in this whole thing is that there is no acceptable/legally admitable proof that he used EPO in the 1999 tour.

Or as you said "The whole thing stinks."


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

He's probably still pi$$ed about the Ben Johnson ruling


----------



## ispoke (Feb 28, 2005)

*call me naive*

What an embarrassment for WADA and the Tour. Guys like Pound and LeBlanc demand an explanation from Lance, then turn around and say "I haven't seen the documents myself" (Pound quoted in today's AP). It's too bad that the investigation into the L'Equipe story is begun with a public castigation of a sports figure.

While the press will always have their hullabaloo, the professionals should have more integrity. Here in the US the "authorities" generally are disciplined enough to state that they are looking into matters but cannot cast blame or draw conclusions until the facts are thoroughly reviewed.

I don't hate the French. We had a great time roadside at the Tour in 2003. But really, the egos of Pound and LeBlanc are overstepping their professional bounds. I admire Pounds' core belief in a clean sports system, but clearly he relishes taking down big name athletes before all the facts are in...


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

> clearly he (Dick Pound - man I would be upset at having to go through life with that name) relishes taking down big name athletes before all the facts are in...


 He never seems objective, and as a leader of an organization that must operate with objectivity, this is truly a misfortune. He needs to go!


----------



## surftel (Apr 18, 2005)

*Well said*

It has amazed me to see yelling about this without having review the facts of the case. The American media has been so slanted on this it makes them look stupid. This whole thing about Lance being hated in France is BS. I have been in France for 3 of Lances 7. The French love him, the Germans on the other hand....His books are bestsellers in France, remember there are many people who have been touched by cancer then care about cycling

-The lab performed the last year, they had no idea who the samples came from and tested them using 3 seperate tests. You would have to fail all 3 tests to be positive. Lance failed all 3 test on 6 samples and was close on others. Since the agreement by the lab insured that no rider would be sanctioned the positive results sat for months without anyone doing anything about it 

-L'Equipe did not pay anyone for the results, there was no underhanding dealing. Testing in France, just like the US, is performed by a govenmental agency. L'Equipe, along with a number of other news agency's went to the courts and demanded that the original files be turned over. We here in the States have the same ablity, it is called the "Freedom of Information Act" if the government does it then we have the right to know about it.

-Lance said last night on Larry King that he had just heard about this on Monday, this is one of many lies he has told. He has know this was coming for months as have many others in the cycling media. It was much of the motiviation behind his post TDF speech/Preemptive strike.

What about the other riders? So far Bo Hamburger, Manuel Beltran and Joaquim Castelblanco have been named.....what about Zulle? It would shock me if he did no also be added to the list.....ever wonder why Zulle suddenly "retired" a few years back? Could it have been that in house test he supposedly failed?

Sorry Lance, I do not belive in Miracles......or the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, or the tooth fairy but I do belive in science.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

So you believe in science that constantly has to be revised because it returns false positives? Wasn't that the basis for reinventing the test and conducting this study - because the original test was flawed?


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

ivanthetrble said:


> It is pretty well known that the French have been after LA since his first win because he simply couldn't have won their precious race after beating cancer.
> 
> Now we have a "leak' from a lab that breaks all sorts of WADA rules with no change of a confirming test? Information gets leaked to L'Equipe who sells a ton of papers to people whe desperately want to believe LA doped without any chance of confirming the test result with another sample.


The real reason why the French press have been after Armstrong is more than likely because he came to France, to their race as an arrogant, pushy, and testy young man. In an old world country where politeness is paramount, this is not the way to act. His relations with the French press have never been great because of his inherently b!tchy personality. 

It's not a France vs. US thing. I mean look at how the French press adored LeMond. The guy always had a big smile on his face and he clearly had a lot of enthusiasm not only for the Tour but for bike racing in general. And the French had a lot more reason to hate LeMond than LA. I mean hey, he was going head to head up against Bernard Hinault - in essence preventing him from winning his 6th Tour. Then he famously pulled the plug on their next great hope, Fignon. And when it comes to miraculous comebacks he took the cake (at the time) winning the Tour after he got shot. Did the French bash him "because he simply couldn't have won their precious race" after getting shot? No. They loved him all the more because of it. 

Armstrong made a lot of enemies because of his testy, gunslinging George W. Bush-like arrogance. True in the last couple of years he has tried to make up for this, but first impressions linger. He has won 7 Tours. I don't know if he was clean or not but his enemies will in all likelihood dog him the rest of his days to make him pay for the missteps of his youth. 

Oh and about "leaks to the press". Ever hear of the word "whistleblower"?


----------



## ivanthetrble (Jul 7, 2004)

il sogno said:


> ..........Ever hear of the word "whistleblower"?



Yes.......over and over from the French media. Every hear of the boy who cried wolf?


----------



## coldplay (Jul 25, 2004)

il sogno said:


> The real reason why the French press have been after Armstrong is more than likely because he came to France, to their race as an arrogant, pushy, and testy young man. In an old world country where politeness is paramount, this is not the way to act. His relations with the French press have never been great because of his inherently b!tchy personality.
> 
> It's not a France vs. US thing. I mean look at how the French press adored LeMond. The guy always had a big smile on his face and he clearly had a lot of enthusiasm not only for the Tour but for bike racing in general. And the French had a lot more reason to hate LeMond than LA. I mean hey, he was going head to head up against Bernard Hinault - in essence preventing him from winning his 6th Tour. Then he famously pulled the plug on their next great hope, Fignon. And when it comes to miraculous comebacks he took the cake (at the time) winning the Tour after he got shot. Did the French bash him "because he simply couldn't have won their precious race" after getting shot? No. They loved him all the more because of it.
> 
> ...


I don't hate the French, but to say that the French are polite???? WOW, that's news to me. I was in the military for 7 years, and I can tell you that there is MUCHO hatred for Americans in general and especially for LA. Also your shot at GW shows just where you stand... so I guess I'm not too surprised by your statement.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

Well let's give him a little French humor 

An American is having breakfast one morning (coffee, croissants, bread, butter and jam) when a Frenchman, chewing bubble-gum, sits down next to him. The American ignores the Frenchman who, nevertheless, starts a conversation.

* Frenchman:* "You American folk eat the whole bread??"

* American (in a bad mood):* "Of course."

* Frenchman:* (after blowing a huge bubble) "We don't. In France, we only eat what's inside. The crusts we collect in a container, recycle it, transform them into croissants and sell them to the states." The Frenchman has a smirk on his face.

The American listens in silence.

* The Frenchman persists:* "Do you eat jelly with the bread??"

American: "Of Course."

* Frenchman:* (cracking his bubble-gum between his teeth and chukling).

"We don't. In France we eat fresh fruit for breakfast, then we put all the peels, seeds, and leftovers in containers, recycle them, transform them into jam and sell the jam to the states"

After a moment of silence, The American then asks: "Do you have sex in France?"

* Frenchman:* "Why of course we do", he says with a big smirk.

* American:* "And what do you do with the condoms once you've used them?"

* Frenchman:* "We throw them away, of course."

* American:* "We don't. In America, we put them in a container, recycle them, melt them down into bubble-gum and sell them to France."<o></o>


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

coldplay said:


> I don't hate the French, but to say that the French are polite???? WOW, that's news to me. I was in the military for 7 years, and I can tell you that there is MUCHO hatred for Americans in general and especially for LA. Also your shot at GW shows just where you stand... so I guess I'm not too surprised by your statement.


Dear Cold, 

Yes, the French very much value politeness. 

Love, 
sogno


----------



## Fredrik2 (Jun 3, 2005)

*Could go either way?*

I do not agree with the way the information was released. Lance 1 - 0 L'Equipe

I can not dispute the published documents. Lance 1 - 1 L'Equipe

I have worked in the pharmaceutical and medical diagnostic field since 1993 The results may show EPO. However, my understanding of Quality Control tells me that the samples and the labs practices are at the best questionable. The results should be discarded. Lance 2 - 1 L'Equipe

I' not saying that Lance is or isn't guilty. Unfortunately, it seems that the court of public opinion is where this will be played out. Several high profile "administrators" have spoken out in public and put the onus on Lance to clear his name. I say innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

Good points, all! This was a dirty way to pretty much slander Armstrong. The way this all came about, it is very difficult to place any credibility in the test results. I truly believe that L'Equipe and the French press achieved the results they desired just by tarnishing Armstrong's achievement of seven straight victories. The French press could care less if the test results were accurate. It was only about hurting LA!

The best payback I could think of is for Armstrong to come back next year and whip some a$$!


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

asgelle said:


> So you made up your mind that L"Equipe's methodology in matching sample numbers to names was questionable without ever knowing what that methodology was? How about looking at the facts BEFORE posting your conclusions.
> 
> Same with the anonymity question. The testing lab had to maintain anonymity of the samples for the simple reason that they never had names to match against sample numbers. The lab only received the samples with ID numbers and never the corresponding rider names. Again, a little reading would have shown you this.


Exactly, back at you. How about looking at the facts BEFORE posting your conclusions?

The testing lab had to maintain anonymity regarding the samples and from who they came for the simple reason that they are required under the WADA code to do so. You might want to get the facts on the code of ethics and stadards of protocol BEFORE posting your conclusions.

Another fact you missed BEFORE posting your conclusions: WADA, No lab or sports ministry can test or have tested an athletes urine when there is only an A sample or a B sample unless they have the signed release from the athlete the urine came from. Them's the facts. A little reading would have shown you that .PERIOD.





asgelle said:


> Third, (boy this gets tiresome) no one provided L'Equipe the list of names and sample numbers. L'Equipe had the names and numbers on file from the '99 Tour when they reported on the negative test results at the time.
> 
> So in effect, all your arguments are really based on an incomplete understanding of the facts as reported and agreed to by all parties involved. Now if you have a substantive argument to make, go ahead, but so far all I see is you don't believe the results because you don't like the French.


Yes the ID numbers from the '99 control number are available to anyone who wishes to get a copy. The UCI is just one place where one can source that information.

But wait... there are two parts to this issue.

However, HOWEVER, (boy this really is gets tiresome) the list of ID numbers that LNDD had for the results of the '99 B samples are NOT available to the public. Under the WADA code of protocol and ethics this information is confidential and not for the public or the media. Yet somehow L'Equipe was able to get a photo copy of the results with the ID numbers next to them. 

So in effect, all YOUR arguments are really based on an incomplete understanding of the facts as reported.

Now if you have a substantive argument regarding why the rules, the protocol or the standard of ethics should just go out the window then I'd love to hear that one. Perhaps the ends justify the means?


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

il sogno said:


> The real reason why the French press have been after Armstrong is more than likely because he came to France, to their race as an arrogant, pushy, and testy young man. In an old world country where politeness is paramount, this is not the way to act. His relations with the French press have never been great because of his inherently b!tchy personality.
> 
> It's not a France vs. US thing. I mean look at how the French press adored LeMond. The guy always had a big smile on his face and he clearly had a lot of enthusiasm not only for the Tour but for bike racing in general. And the French had a lot more reason to hate LeMond than LA. I mean hey, he was going head to head up against Bernard Hinault - in essence preventing him from winning his 6th Tour. Then he famously pulled the plug on their next great hope, Fignon. And when it comes to miraculous comebacks he took the cake (at the time) winning the Tour after he got shot. Did the French bash him "because he simply couldn't have won their precious race" after getting shot? No. They loved him all the more because of it.
> 
> ...


Truth be told Hinault was once an arrogant, pushy, and testy young man to.

Do you consider someone who is obligated and perhaps has even been sworn to uphold the standards of the WADA code of ethics to be a pure whistleblower when they violate those standards?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

rocco said:


> Exactly, back at you. How about looking at the facts BEFORE posting your conclusions?
> 
> The testing lab had to maintain anonymity regarding the samples and from who they came for the simple reason that they are required under the WADA code to do so. You might want to get the facts on the code of ethics and stadards of protocol BEFORE posting your conclusions.


I'm totally at a loss. What are you saying here? The lab never had the riders identities so what possible relevance does the code of ethics on maintaining anonymity have? How do you follow a code for treating information when you never had the information? Total red herring.



rocco said:


> Another fact you missed BEFORE posting your conclusions: WADA, No lab or sports ministry can test or have tested an athletes urine when there is only an A sample or a B sample unless they have the signed release from the athlete the urine came from. Them's the facts. A little reading would have shown you that .PERIOD.


So you say, my facts say different. What is your source? From cyclingnew.com,"The usual protocol for cycling medical control is that when an "A" sample comes back as negative, the "B" sample can either be destroyed or retained by the testing facility for further scientific testing. ... This is due to the French national anti-doping law adopted in 1989 by the former Minister of Youth and Sport, Roger Bambuck" 



rocco said:


> Yes the ID numbers from the '99 control number are available to anyone who wishes to get a copy. The UCI is just one place where one can source that information.
> 
> But wait... there are two parts to this issue.
> 
> However, HOWEVER, (boy this really is gets tiresome) the list of ID numbers that LNDD had for the results of the '99 B samples are NOT available to the public. Under the WADA code of protocol and ethics this information is confidential and not for the public or the media. Yet somehow L'Equipe was able to get a photo copy of the results with the ID numbers next to them.


Simply not true. LNDD reported their results to WADA with the anonymous sample numbers on them. When that report was released the sample numbers were made public in the belief that they couldn't be matched to individual riders. Once L'Equipe received the LNDD report to WADA, they had the sample numbers.



rocco said:


> So in effect, all YOUR arguments are really based on an incomplete understanding of the facts as reported.
> 
> Now if you have a substantive argument regarding why the rules, the protocol or the standard of ethics should just go out the window then I'd love to hear that one. Perhaps the ends justify the means?


Everything you refer to is tangential to the issues at hand, what you call my "incomplete understanding" is just not addressing the irrelevant points you choose to introduce here. You haven't shown anything that would indicate anything improper on the part of the testing lab.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

surftel said:


> The lab performed the last year, they had no idea who the samples came from and tested them using 3 seperate tests.


How would the lab have then gone about getting LA's release to test just the B sample as required under the WADA code if they don't have names? 




surftel said:


> You would have to fail all 3 tests to be positive. Lance failed all 3 test on 6 samples and was close on others.


You know that the others were close? Is that a valid standard of evidence now? 




surftel said:


> Since the agreement by the lab insured that no rider would be sanctioned the positive results sat for months without anyone doing anything about it.


It was an experiment or research. What was anyone supposed to do about it if there should be nothing to report beyond the general results of experiment overall?




surftel said:


> L'Equipe did not pay anyone for the results, there was no underhanding dealing.


How on earth could you know that? Violating the WADA code of ethics is somewhat underhanded.




surftel said:


> Testing in France, just like the US, is performed by a govenmental agency.
> 
> L'Equipe, along with a number of other news agency's went to the courts and demanded that the original files be turned over. We here in the States have the same ablity, it is called the "Freedom of Information Act" if the government does it then we have the right to know about it.


Good point had not considered this. The news agency's really demanded the results of the experiment be handed over? 

Of course the lab should have never done the experiment in the first place because they should have known they couldn't even honor the WADA codes ultimately. Not to mention they should never had done them in the first place because they didn't have LA's required signed release. 

I guess the WADA code really is pointless then. Apparently France's transparency laws trump the indivuals privacy in this case then. I'd like to hear from a scholar of French law about whether this would have held up under the judgement of the French Supreme Court under these particular circmstances. That is if the request had been challenged on time.

By the way, how did L'Equipe even know about this round of research in the first place so as to give them to a reason to pull the freedom of information lever? Even if the research was conducted properly it would still have been confidential.

Nothing has been done in good faith here from the start. It adds up to an underhanded trap.




surftel said:


> Lance said last night on Larry King that he had just heard about this on Monday, this is one of many lies he has told. He has know this was coming for months as have many others in the cycling media. It was much of the motiviation behind his post TDF speech/Preemptive strike.


How do you know this?




surftel said:


> What about the other riders? So far Bo Hamburger, Manuel Beltran and Joaquim Castelblanco have been named.....


Yah what about them? They are supposed to be get the same treatment under the WADA code also.




surftel said:


> what about Zulle? It would shock me if he did no also be added to the list.....ever wonder why Zulle suddenly "retired" a few years back? Could it have been that in house test he supposedly failed?


Isn't that speculation on your part?




surftel said:


> Sorry Lance, I do not belive in Miracles......or the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, or the tooth fairy but I do belive in science.


Apparently you don't believe in rules of evidence, ethics codes, proper protocol, due process.... little things like that either.


----------



## djg (Nov 27, 2001)

asgelle said:


> So you made up your mind that L"Equipe's methodology in matching sample numbers to names was questionable without ever knowing what that methodology was? How about looking at the facts BEFORE posting your conclusions.
> 
> Same with the anonymity question. The testing lab had to maintain anonymity of the samples for the simple reason that they never had names to match against sample numbers. The lab only received the samples with ID numbers and never the corresponding rider names. Again, a little reading would have shown you this.
> 
> ...


Gee, I'm an American and I've lived in France and happen to like the place and quite a few of its citizens. I nonetheless think this is a rotten and messy business from all sorts of angles.

I honestly don't know what L'Equipe did, save for the matching of a photographic record containing sample number IDs from one source with correspoding numbers (graphically corresponding, that is) from another source. I do know that even the most rudimentary means of protecting research subject or patient identification should exceed the mere removal of the subject's name from the sample (while leaving a trivial means of reconnecting that name and other identifiers). What or whether any of this happened is unclear here, as we've seen no published account of the lab's protocols (or procedures) for identifying samples throughout the test OR (and this is different) identifying the provenance of each sample on an individual basis (sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't, important to have a key that would enable SOMEONE to make the match).

These particular experimental methods are not my field, but we've already seen numerous questions raised that should be accessible to anyone with a basic science background. I'll not rehearse them here.

I dunno if Armstrong did it or not, but it's clear that something funny is going on at WADA, AT LEAST--that's more clear to me than the photos of the slides of the gels, and it's got nothing to do with my hating (I don't) or even disliking (I don't) the French people. It's also got nothing to do with any rock-solid faith I have in "the real Lance deep inside," because I don't know the guy and I don't imagine or fantasize otherwise.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

asgelle said:


> I'm totally at a loss. What are you saying here? The lab never had the riders identities so what possible relevance does the code of ethics on maintaining anonymity have? How do you follow a code for treating information when you never had the information? Total red herring.


In order to maintain the WADA madated anonymity they can't even disclose the ID code #s that are attacted to the samples they have in their possession.




asgelle said:


> So you say, my facts say different. What is your source? From cyclingnew.com,"The usual protocol for cycling medical control is that when an "A" sample comes back as negative, the "B" sample can either be destroyed or retained by the testing facility for further scientific testing. ... This is due to the French national anti-doping law adopted in 1989 by the former Minister of Youth and Sport, Roger Bambuck"


Just one small ellipses there.

...however the scientific testing can not proceed without the signed release of the athlete from which the negative A sample and untested sample came from. 




asgelle said:


> Simply not true. LNDD reported their results to WADA with the anonymous sample numbers on them. When that report was released the sample numbers were made public in the belief that they couldn't be matched to individual riders. Once L'Equipe received the LNDD report to WADA, they had the sample numbers.


WADA code stipulates that WADA can't release the anonymous ID code #s. Only the original control numbers from the original '99 medical certificate can be released. 




asgelle said:


> Everything you refer to is tangential to the issues at hand, what you call my "incomplete understanding" is just not addressing the irrelevant points you choose to introduce here. You haven't shown anything that would indicate anything improper on the part of the testing lab.


They violated the WADA code of ethics! Due process is not a tangential issue? The points I choose to make here are not irrelevant just because you think they are.

Furthermore, there are ample statements by experts on many established media sources that raise what could be or are significant questions regarding the technical aspects of the experiment that LNDD ran. 

None of us will ever know what really happened in that lab and that is why the issue of due process trumps everything else. 

Believe what you want. 

I can't waste anymore time debating the pertinent issuses with people who've already made their conclusions. I''ve to go ride now.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

djg said:


> I do know that even the most rudimentary means of protecting research subject or patient identification should exceed the mere removal of the subject's name from the sample (while leaving a trivial means of reconnecting that name and other identifiers).


Like what for example? In this case the testing organization was given a set of blind samples identified only by number and the documentation connecting identity with sample number was maintained by a separate organization in a physically removed location. That sounds pretty good to me. The mistake was not recognizing that documentation conncting sample number to identity had been released (5 years) previously. Yes it was an error, but given what I've seen of organizational memory, understandable.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

I wrote: " From cyclingnew.com,'The usual protocol for cycling medical control is that when an "A" sample comes back as negative, the "B" sample can either be destroyed or retained by the testing facility for further scientific testing. ... This is due to the French national anti-doping law adopted in 1989 by the former Minister of Youth and Sport, Roger Bambuck' "
To which rocco replied,


rocco said:


> Just one small ellipses there.
> 
> ...however the scientific testing can not proceed without the signed release of the athlete from which the negative A sample and untested sample came from.


 Just so readers can asses rocco's honesty, here is the full quote without the ellipses,
"The usual protocol for cycling medical control is that when an "A" sample comes back as negative, the "B" sample can either be destroyed or retained by the testing facility for further scientific testing. The paperwork that links the "B" sample to the "A" sample is retained by the UCI, the testing lab and, in France, by the national federation. This is due to the French national anti-doping law adopted in 1989 by the former Minister of Youth and Sport, Roger Bambuck."

There is nothing in what I left out about getting a signed release. Apparently rocco is not beyond making something up and posting it as fact hoping readers will take him at his word. Based on this, I would suspect everything written about various WADA code's and such was similarly fabricated just to suite his needs.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

Well gee good enough then. No need to maybe reshuffle the ID #s or change them completely in order to gaurantee confidentiality. Who needs a tight ship anyway?

I wonder if she works at that US military DNA lab where that yahoo was creating fraudualent results?

I love the "good enough" additude. 

Bob the cop: "Let's kick a little planted evidence into crime scene." 

Bob's partner: "Hey look what I found over here"

Bob the cop: "Sounds pretty good to me... good enough" "Let's book this punk"


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

asgelle said:


> I wrote: " From cyclingnew.com,'The usual protocol for cycling medical control is that when an "A" sample comes back as negative, the "B" sample can either be destroyed or retained by the testing facility for further scientific testing. ... This is due to the French national anti-doping law adopted in 1989 by the former Minister of Youth and Sport, Roger Bambuck' "
> To which rocco replied,
> 
> Just so readers can asses rocco's honesty, here is the full quote without the ellipses,
> ...



I don't need anything nor have I fabricated anything. Please. 

The quote pasted from cyclingnews.com is a 100% true general statement of the facts.
However, I it specifically omits the fact that the use of the remaining B sample can not be used for scientific experiment or for any other prupose without the signed release of the athlete from which the negative A sample and untested sample came from.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

rocco said:


> Well gee good enough then. No need to maybe reshuffle the ID #s or change them completely in order to gaurantee confidentiality. Who needs a tight ship anyway?


Yeah, they should have assigned new IDs. They didn't. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity (or laziness). Complaining about how the tie was made to Armstrong is ludicrous.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

Utah CragHopper said:


> Yeah, they should have assigned new IDs. They didn't. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity (or laziness). Complaining about how the tie was made to Armstrong is ludicrous.


You nor me nor anyone else here really knows what happened. The reason could have been malice, greed, incompetence, stupidity or laziness. Diminishing any of these causes as anything worth complaining about or questioning is preposterous and intractable posturing.


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

Live Steam said:


> Good points, all! This was a dirty way to pretty much slander Armstrong. The way this all came about, it is very difficult to place any credibility in the test results. I truly believe that L'Equipe and the French press achieved the results they desired just by tarnishing Armstrong's achievement of seven straight victories. The French press could care less if the test results were accurate. It was only about hurting LA!
> 
> The best payback I could think of is for Armstrong to come back next year and whip some a$$!


I agree with you totally. This is all about PR and legacy. While I am not a big fan of his, I too would like to see Armstrong at next year's Tour simply because we would all be guaranteed top rate Tour coverage once again on OLN.


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

rocco said:


> Do you consider someone who is obligated and perhaps has even been sworn to uphold the standards of the WADA code of ethics to be a pure whistleblower when they violate those standards?


Yes rocco, I do. Making ethical decisions and acting upon them are what whistleblowers do.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Sally Jenkins, she'll be impartial then....


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

Bianchigirl said:


> Sally Jenkins, she'll be impartial then....


Yeah, I read her article the other day. Sheesh!


----------



## Cerddwyr (Jul 26, 2004)

ispoke said:


> While the press will always have their hullabaloo, the professionals should have more integrity. Here in the US the "authorities" generally are disciplined enough to state that they are looking into matters but cannot cast blame or draw conclusions until the facts are thoroughly reviewed.


And if it is baseball, it would take them 40 years to "review" anything. Then again, we also produce media frenzies based on "anonymous" information. Just look at the supposedly private grand jury testimony regarding steroids in baseball. This is a far from a French media thing. Simple truth, when sport is about money, then the lowest of lowlifes get involved, as competitors, as fans, as officials, as media. All pretty pathetic, and all par for the course.

Gordon


----------



## surftel (Apr 18, 2005)

Rocco

I am not sure if you realize what a fool you look like babbling on about conspiracy, the WADA code, and payoffs.

The "WADA code" does not apply to these samples as WADA was not in existance in 1999 when these samples were taken


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

> It has amazed me to see yelling about this without having review the facts of the case. The American media has been so slanted on this it makes them look stupid. This whole thing about Lance being hated in France is BS.
> 
> -L'Equipe did not pay anyone for the results, there was no underhanding dealing. Testing in France, just like the US, is performed by a govenmental agency. L'Equipe, along with a number of other news agency's went to the courts and demanded that the original files be turned over. We here in the States have the same ablity, it is called the "Freedom of Information Act" if the government does it then we have the right to know about it.


 I knew someone here had professed to know the full story and wrote that L'Equipe obtained the results through legitimate means. It was said with such indignation, yet it is obviously a lie.

_Quote in Velonews from a doctor at an associated lab_


> [size=-1]"It isn't the lab that has the critical bit of information - the link between the code on the sample and the name of the athlete," she noted. "We only get a code at these WADA labs. Someone else must have supplied the paper with the names and their respective codes. So, to me, this whole thing raises a number of questions. [/size]


 Source for quote
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

livestream, there were 4 copies of the relevant paperwork that Equipe printed. Their copy was numbered 1. Of the other 3 copies:

Copy 4 went to the Ministry of Sport in France and has been destroyed

Copy 3 went to the French Cycling Federation

Copies 1 & 2 went to...the UCI

So, it was the sport's governing body that supplied the documents in question....


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

That is not what the person, whom I quoted, said. Also, was it the UCI doing it or a rogue individual who leaked it? It appears to be the latter.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Live Steam said:


> That is not what the person, whom I quoted, said.


You quoted nothing. You summarized a statement. A statement from an anonymous source by the way. Something you've objected to so strongly before when the press uses it. So given your track record of fabrication, do you want to admit right now that you made this up or wait until someone tracks it down and posts it here. On the other hand, you could try posting the original quote with attribution if you believe so strongly in it.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

It's a direct quote from the linked post. Read it for yourself.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?postid=368715#post368715


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Live Steam said:


> It's a direct quote from the linked post. Read it for yourself.
> 
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?postid=368715#post368715


I did readit and here's your post, As far as I can see no quote, no links. 


Live Steam said:


> I knew someone here had professed to know the full story and wrote that L'Equipe obtained the results through legitimate means. It was said with such indignation, yet it is obviously a lie.


I do, however, see you did add a link to the Velonews quote, but that isn't the one under discussion. Now we know you will try to muddy the waters not only by making up quotes and facts, but also by altering the record when you're challenged to make it appear that the challenge has no basis. What a piece of work.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

You must be dense or something. Probably French. This link _http://forums.roadbikereview.com/sh...8715#post368715
takes you to the original post where I got the quote from.

_


> surftel <script type="text/javascript"> vbmenu_register("postmenu_368715", true); </script>
> RoadBikeReview Member
> Join Date: Apr 2005
> Posts: 7
> ...


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Live Steam said:


> You must be dense or something. Probably French. This link _http://forums.roadbikereview.com/sh...8715#post368715
> takes you to the original post where I got the quote from.
> 
> _


Not dense, just lacking your time travel skills. The link you include appeared about 30 minutes ago, the post where you summarize the source without attribution showed up 2 hours ago. My future time travel belt is in the shop so I wasn't able to jump ahead to see the link when you first posted. Maybe you can edit your first post and pretend the quote or llink was there all along.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

surftel said:


> Rocco
> 
> I am not sure if you realize what a fool you look like babbling on about conspiracy, the WADA code, and payoffs.
> 
> The "WADA code" does not apply to these samples as WADA was not in existance in 1999 when these samples were taken



A "fool"? "babbling"?

I love that techinque.  Do you really think I give a rats ass what you think I look like?

The Doped Believers aren't projecting, speculating, throwing around inuendo and talking consiracy? Cracker please!

You assume I've made up my mind either way in the first place.

I want facts. I question the validity of assumptions, inuendo and all the curcumstantal evidence that Doped Believers keep plying on. My central concern is that there are rules and a process that must be painstakingly followed. "Good enough for me" and Mulligans don't count over here.

If a Doped Believer denies any possible motivation for someone on the enforcement side I question how they know this and suggest a possability. Of cource it's an assumption too but that's much of what of Doped Believers are dealing in. The Doped Believer assume that infallible automatons run the anti-doping enforcement system. Sorry to break it to everyone but they're human beings too.

You make a true point about WADA not exsisting not existing in '99 but why would that mean they don't have to follow the protocol now? If what you are implying is true why would the results from LNDD research experiment be reported to WADA? What were the rules on how this would have been handled before WADA? Surely there was some kind of rules. Do you really think that sans the WADA code they could whatever they wanted?

I withdrew from this spectacle days ago because it's a total waste of time. There are people now who are assuming and stating that they must have known that LA was already clean because all the A sample were used up and yeilded no postive test for EPO. They assume the A samples were tested for EPO when most likely they were not.

Then there are Doped Believers who think that the remainder of the B samples can legitimately be tested in lieu of the exausted A samples assuming there are even any B samples left to test. Gee whiz lets just throw out all the rules then. People step away from the ergot rye bread. Now that's really getting into witch hunt territory.

...and so that's were I sign off an let you folks waste your time. Who's really the fool?

A little of you people go a long way.

Have a nice ride! ...oh silly me, you have no time to ride now.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

Which link and quote are you talking about. All of the quotes either came from this forum or Velonews, which was an article that was linked here by someone else. I just recently included the link in my 'old' post because you have very limited skills of following a thread. My post, which you claimed had a quote I fabricated, was linked to the original post which stated emphatically that L'Equipe obtained the data and info via some French version of the FoIA. I posted that was BS and quoted the source from the Velonews story that said she did not know where L'Equipe got the info and was concerned about that fact.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

surftel said:


> Rocco
> 
> I am not sure if you realize what a fool you look like babbling on about conspiracy, the WADA code, and payoffs.
> 
> The "WADA code" does not apply to these samples as WADA was not in existance in 1999 when these samples were taken



A "fool"? 

"babbling"?

I love that techinque.  Do you really think I give a rat's ass what you think I look like?

The Doped Believers aren't projecting, speculating, throwing around inuendo and talking consiracy? Cracker please!

You assume I've made up my mind either way in the first place.

I want facts. I question the validity of assumptions, inuendo and all the curcumstantal evidence that Doped Believers keep plying on. My central concern is that there are rules and a process that must be painstakingly followed. "Good enough for me" and Mulligans don't count over here.

If a Doped Believer denies any possible motivation for someone on the enforcement side I question how they know this and suggest a possability. Of cource it's an assumption too but that's much of what of Doped Believers are dealing in. The Doped Believer assume that infallible automatons run the anti-doping enforcement system. Sorry to break it to everyone but they're human beings too.

You make a true point about WADA not exsisting not existing in '99 but why would that mean they don't have to follow the protocol now? If what you are implying is true why would the results from LNDD research experiment be reported to WADA? What were the rules on how this would have been handled before WADA? Surely there was some kind of rules. Do you really think that sans the WADA code they could whatever they wanted?

I withdrew from this spectacle days ago because it's a total waste of time. There are people now who are assuming and stating that they must have known that LA was already clean because all the A sample were used up and yeilded no postive test for EPO. They assume the A samples were tested for EPO when most likely they were not.

Then there are Doped Believers who think that the remainder of the B samples can legitimately be tested in lieu of the exausted A samples assuming there are even any B samples left to test. Gee whiz lets just throw out all the rules then. People step away from the ergot rye bread. Now that's really getting into witch hunt territory.

...and so that's were I sign off an let you folks waste your time. Who's really the fool?

A little of you people go a long way.

Have a nice ride! ...oh silly me, you have no time to ride now.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

rocco, just one point - it has been stated quite clearly that they haven't used all the B sample and there is still suffiecient for retesting/DNA testing - I'm quite surprised that Armstrong hasn't immediately asked for this. Additionally, there are also his 11 untested samples that could perhapsd be used to clarify the matter.

Good point about the A sample not being tested for EPO anyway.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

Bianchigirl said:


> rocco, just one point - it has been stated quite clearly that they haven't used all the B sample and there is still suffiecient for retesting/DNA testing - I'm quite surprised that Armstrong hasn't immediately asked for this. Additionally, there are also his 11 untested samples that could perhapsd be used to clarify the matter.
> 
> Good point about the A sample not being tested for EPO anyway.


OK... Apparently it's been clearly stated somewhere that not all of the B sample has been used. I haven't seen that yet.

Perhaps a portion of the balance of B samples could be used for DNA testing. The B sample could be tested at another lab but using the balance of the B in lieu an A defies all the established protocol. Just because the established protocol has been circumvented thus far doesn't make any more right to do another wrong. 

I'm not surprised that Armstrong hasn't immediately asked because the burden of proof falls on the accuser not the accused. This is one of those small details that does not seem to register with the Doped Believers. Who would do the test? Could all the parties come to agree on the ad hoc protocol? If a lawyer advised him to do so he or she could be considered incompetent.

Doped Belivers have become so hysterical they've taken leave of all sense of what due process is all about and why it's so important. I'm sometimes bothered by the over application of the term "witch trial" but many of the Doped Belivers exhibit the text book characteristics of witch trial thinking.

I don't think I have anything else to say nor am I much interested in allocating anymore of my time because this unending debate is superfluous and frivolous.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

rocco said:


> Doped Belivers have become so hysterical they've taken leave of all sense of what due process is all about and why it's so important.


The only hysterical people I've seen in this debate are a few who seem to think they can create facts merely by stating something could be true. It seems this works in american politics and maybe it also works on the Politics Only forum--I wouldn't know, reading posts of people promoting unprovoked wars and the inevitable deaths of innocent people makes me sick to my stomach. Buthopefully that sort of thing will not fly here. What I do find revealing is that the true believers here are the ones who have the worst grasp of the facts. You yourself didn't even know about Stephen Swart's allegations.



rocco said:


> I don't think I have anything else to say nor am I much interested in allocating anymore of my time because this unending debate is superfluous and frivolous.


In other words, "Screw you guys, I'm going home."


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

Utah CragHopper said:


> The only hysterical people I've seen in this debate are a few who seem to think they can create facts merely by stating something could be true.



Yes this jacket seems to fit you just right.




Utah CragHopper said:


> It seems this works in american politics and maybe it also works on the Politics Only forum--I wouldn't know, reading posts of people promoting unprovoked wars and the inevitable deaths of innocent people makes me sick to my stomach.



Hey Jackass,

You're so far off base you can't be more wrong... If you think for one second that you can count me in with the pro-neocon, pro-Bush, pro-war crowd you're on some serious drugs or you're simlpy nuts. Maybe you need a drug test. Get a clue.




Utah CragHopper said:


> Buthopefully that sort of thing will not fly here. What I do find revealing is that the true believers here are the ones who have the worst grasp of the facts. You yourself didn't even know about Stephen Swart's allegations.



I'm not intersted in allegations. Allegations are not facts.




Utah CragHopper said:


> In other words, "Screw you guys, I'm going home."



That's right... Screw you, I've more important things to do. I just found out my aunt had a massive stroke. Now there's something that's actually important.

You're sick, get help.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

sorry to hear that, rocco


----------

