# Landis keeping yellow jersey



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

<i>"I know the truth. I know I won the Tour clean. I know I raced by the rules,' he told ESPN, adding that the yellow jersey is "at my house & I'm going to keep it. I know what happened and I'm proud of it."

</i>
from an <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2541883&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines">interview </a> posted on espn.com.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

Great for Floyd to go on the offensive. He is 100% correct in saying that those that are supposed to be the caretakers of the rules are breaking them and if they are capable of that, what else are they doing! The idea about synthetic testosterone has not been officially addressed by WADA or the UCI. I want to know why!


----------



## almccm (May 3, 2003)

I agree with Floyd. I believe they need to change the rules for testing. They need to have multiple labs involved; not test both the A and B samples in the same lab. They also need to assure the lab does not know whose sample is being tested. I believe this is the case when the A sample is tested. I don't know that it's the case when the B sample is tested. They also need to make more information available when their announcements are made. They should not be discussing results reported in a "text message".


----------



## Mark16q (Oct 19, 2004)

Just watched his interview with CNN and he puts it all quite well. Procedure wasn't followed and there is strong evidence of an agenda. 

Guilty or not, the way this has been handled puts "reasonable doubt" on the lab and their results. Glad he's speaking out and defending himself, and hope he's telling the truth.

Mark


----------



## Route 66 Domestiques (Jun 15, 2006)

*Robin Roberts, the ABC info-babe; not the star Phillies pitcher*



blackhat said:


> <i>"I know the truth. I know I won the Tour clean. I know I raced by the rules,' he told ESPN, adding that the yellow jersey is "at my house & I'm going to keep it. I know what happened and I'm proud of it."
> 
> </i>
> from an <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2541883&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines">interview </a> posted on espn.com.


Step aside Bojangles; Ben Vereen and Buddy Ebsen. The newly crowned tap dancer is Floyd Landis. Either Landis is trying to explain something that he knows little about or
he is twisting in the breeze. Robin Roberts walked through a number of Landis' remarks that were 180 degrees from his previous statements. Sounded alot like a former president who wanted to know what "is is."

And now German television has stated that it will not televise future TdF until adequate
doping testing is guaranteed. They are looking at airing Hogan's Heroes episodes in the race's place until further notice (a quote from Sgt. Schultz impersonating Floyd Landis:
"I know nothing!."


----------



## EpicX (Mar 11, 2002)

*uhhh ok*

now im not big on conspiracy theories, but lets consider a few points.

1. The lab in question has a history of violating both its own policies and guidelines as well as those of the UCI and WADA.

2. The lab in question has been proven to leak information to L'Equipe

3. L'Equipe has been central in the endless 'nail lance for doping' allegations.

4. Yet again France comes up short in the TdF at the hands (legs?) of an American that rides some of the best in the world off his wheel.

So, given that French national pride has taken another blow, and that both the lab and l'equipe have a relationship that is at best questionable and at worst completely unethical, is it really so far beyond the realm of possibility that the samples were deliberately contaminated? 

you can say floyd is tap dancing and being evasive, but what, exactly, would YOU say in his position. Why don't i come to your house sometime with a news crew and accuse you of something you KNOW you did not do but that you can't PROVE you didn't do. What do you say to an accusation like that? I would suspect most people would react the same. obviously surprised and kind of grasping at straws because all you can really say is "trust me, please, i didn't do it." it's a little hard to defend yourself when you've been thoroughly railroaded. 

anyway, i wouldn't put it past some of the witchhunters involved in cycling these days to go this far.


----------



## Route 66 Domestiques (Jun 15, 2006)

*Maybe it's best to say nothing*



EpicX said:


> now im not big on conspiracy theories, but lets consider a few points.
> 
> 1. The lab in question has a history of violating both its own policies and guidelines as well as those of the UCI and WADA.
> 
> ...


I'm not saying that Landis is guilty of anything; he just doesn't represent himself in the best light on television. Today, on Good Morning America (and I'm no fan of that show--the only reason I caught it this morning was a Landis promo on the lead in show)
he came across foolish-confused-and the deer in headlights. Could this be an example 
of "How you going to keep them down on the farm after they've seen Par-ree?" Landis 
is a cyclist--not Regis Philbin. He should hire a person that is comfortable in front of
the television cameras. He would be seen in a better light.


----------



## cocoboots (Apr 13, 2006)

blackhat said:


> <i>"I know the truth. I know I won the Tour clean. I know I raced by the rules,' he told ESPN, adding that the yellow jersey is "at my house & I'm going to keep it. I know what happened and I'm proud of it."
> 
> </i>
> from an <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2541883&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines">interview </a> posted on espn.com.



Pereiro should hop on his bike and ride it over to the dopers house, kick in the door, and rip the jersey off his mantle. Same goes for Viacheslav Ekimov and Hamiltons gold medal.


----------



## Alpedhuez55 (Jun 29, 2005)

Mark16q said:


> Just watched his interview with CNN and he puts it all quite well. Procedure wasn't followed and there is strong evidence of an agenda.
> 
> Guilty or not, the way this has been handled puts "reasonable doubt" on the lab and their results. Glad he's speaking out and defending himself, and hope he's telling the truth.
> 
> Mark


Reasonable doubt does not applyu here. He wishes this wa a criminal trial in the US. But it is not. THe burdon of proof is on him. ANyone can claim the lab is corrupt, there were leaks to the press, ect. But that is a smoke screne to draw attention from the test results.

If that is his plan of attack, it is going to fail.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

Please explain how the leaks are not of concern and are irrelevant? I keep hearing this, but I don't understand it. If rules are rules, shouldn't those that set the rules follow them too? Why couldn't they wait to get this info out and why didn't they do it through normal channels in a timely manner?


----------



## Shockee (Feb 12, 2004)

Now he can get down to proving his innocence - mebbe get some tips from OJ Simpson? Trouble is, he wil not have to just prove a 'reasonable doubt' - he is being judged in the court of public opinion, and his defence has to be better than the accusers'. The honorable thing would be to give up the TDF title for the good of the sport, then push for a neutral investigation for the truth. Not just some 'reasonable doubt' based on uncovered procedural errors, but the irrefutable proof that he did NOT knowingly dope-up.


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Route 66 Domestiques said:


> And now German television has stated that it will not televise future TdF until adequate
> doping testing is guaranteed. They are looking at airing Hogan's Heroes episodes in the race's place until further notice (a quote from Sgt. Schultz impersonating Floyd Landis:
> "I know nothing!."


Since when do the Germans know anything about investigation? They didn't even know Kinch had a radio in the coffee pot!


----------



## Route 66 Domestiques (Jun 15, 2006)

*If it weren't for Hogans Heroes*



JohnHemlock said:


> Since when do the Germans know anything about investigation? They didn't even know Kinch had a radio in the coffee pot!


where would Family Feud be today? OK what production company is responsible for
Hogans Heroes? Maybe Landis could apply for a PA slot there. He can stand in line
behind the 5,000 souls that lost their job at AOL and the crowd at CBS who is newly
on the beach. Who is head of HR at Phonak?


----------



## racerXX (Oct 18, 2005)

*Poor public speaker*

I have to agree. Landis is a poor public speaker. He does not represent himself well. There is no logic stream to his comments and his sentences are poorly put together.


----------



## Route 66 Domestiques (Jun 15, 2006)

*The Bigs*



racerXX said:


> I have to agree. Landis is a poor public speaker. He does not represent himself well. There is no logic stream to his comments and his sentences are poorly put together.


That's how I see it. Landis is in the batter's box at Yankee Stadium for the first time
when the sum of his experience is from playing t-ball in Farmersville.


----------



## The The (Sep 9, 2002)

We've heard it all before -- blame the lab, blame a pharmaceutical, blame the UCI, blame a vanishing twin or a spiked drink. Blame that pint of lager because it might have been dodgey. Right.

And the Landis supporters are right behind him, arguing that it's all a conspiracy coming from the Tour oganisers, the UCI and the lab. But why no criticism of Landis, who may in fact be totally guilty? All of his tests were negative to date, so why did this one turn out positive? I think the odds of this being a false positive are too low to justify dismissing the test's validity. Perhaps he did some blood doping with blood that just happened to contain this exogenous testosterone?


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Don't you know...*



The The said:


> We've heard it all before -- blame the lab, blame a pharmaceutical, blame the UCI, blame a vanishing twin or a spiked drink. Blame that pint of lager because it might have been dodgey. Right.
> 
> And the Landis supporters are right behind him, arguing that it's all a conspiracy coming from the Tour oganisers, the UCI and the lab. But why no criticism of Landis, who may in fact be totally guilty? All of his tests were negative to date, so why did this one turn out positive? I think the odds of this being a false positive are too low to justify dismissing the test's validity. Perhaps he did some blood doping with blood that just happened to contain this exogenous testosterone?


Don't you know already? The tests are fine, until your favorite rider gets busted with one, and then all of a sudden, it's a conspiracy, the tests are flawed, and so on and so forth. All just more exuses for doping cheaters really.  

So to the people who think the information leaks are relevant. How are they? The leaked information was true. The original revelation that someone tested positive did not include a name of a rider. Phonak and Floyd offered that up, the UCI said someone failed a test. The tests are conducted by a lab technician who gets a numbered sample, and that number is probably not connected with the lab, and the lab probably does not know whose sample they are testing. The UCI holds the number of what test is being conducted and on who. The only "leaked" information, once again, turned out to true. How is that relevant? It does nothing to impact the proof and the evidence, and there have been no claims of tampering with the sample. If someone at the lab tampered with the sample, the entire lab would most likely lose their certification, and their business. I'm not sure even someone "with an agenda" would do that. 

How about for once, we blame the riders who test positive, and have been proven to have tested positive. Right now, Landis looks pretty damn guilty, considering, as the previous poster has said, the tap dancing he's been doing. The excuses doled out (there have been many), but I am willing to say that the preponderance of evidence is right now going against him, and it does not look good as aforementioned, but I am willing to wait to call him a cheater and a doper until his appeals have run out. Which, there is a good chance, he'll never win on appeal. We'll see, but not much of a chance really. In my opinion.


----------



## Alpedhuez55 (Jun 29, 2005)

Live Steam said:


> Please explain how the leaks are not of concern and are irrelevant? I keep hearing this, but I don't understand it. If rules are rules, shouldn't those that set the rules follow them too? Why couldn't they wait to get this info out and why didn't they do it through normal channels in a timely manner?


Leaks are of concern and the UCI should close them out or find another lab. THe media pressure is huge on this story. But are there any indications that the leaks are false? So far no. They feed the people who want there to be a conspiracy theory. 

But are the leaks enough to throw out the results of the test? No.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

I think the labs leaks are relevent, but not just to the Landis case. I am all for burning Landins in hell when he is proven guilty, but right after the ashes cool, time to take the torch to the lab.

Being dissapointed in the integrity of Lab and wanted that fixed does not make some a "Phrench Phramed Phloyd" phollower.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*How?*



desmo13 said:


> I think the labs leaks are relevent, but not just to the Landis case. I am all for burning Landins in hell when he is proven guilty, but right after the ashes cool, time to take the torch to the lab.
> 
> Being dissapointed in the integrity of Lab and wanted that fixed does not make some a "Phrench Phramed Phloyd" phollower.


You guys keep saying that the leaks are relevant, but how? Explain to me how. Nobody has done that yet, they just keep saying that the leaks were bad and hurt his case? How? By releasing information that was going to be released anyway? I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the leaks are "bad". It's sort of like how you guys keep saying that the tests are flawed, but you can't say how, you just "know" that they are. Well, that and 2 dollars might get you a soda somewhere.


----------



## Route 66 Domestiques (Jun 15, 2006)

*all the precincts haven't reported*



magnolialover said:


> Don't you know already? The tests are fine, until your favorite rider gets busted with one, and then all of a sudden, it's a conspiracy, the tests are flawed, and so on and so forth. All just more exuses for doping cheaters really.
> 
> So to the people who think the information leaks are relevant. How are they? The leaked information was true. The original revelation that someone tested positive did not include a name of a rider. Phonak and Floyd offered that up, the UCI said someone failed a test. The tests are conducted by a lab technician who gets a numbered sample, and that number is probably not connected with the lab, and the lab probably does not know whose sample they are testing. The UCI holds the number of what test is being conducted and on who. The only "leaked" information, once again, turned out to true. How is that relevant? It does nothing to impact the proof and the evidence, and there have been no claims of tampering with the sample. If someone at the lab tampered with the sample, the entire lab would most likely lose their certification, and their business. I'm not sure even someone "with an agenda" would do that.
> 
> How about for once, we blame the riders who test positive, and have been proven to have tested positive. Right now, Landis looks pretty damn guilty, considering, as the previous poster has said, the tap dancing he's been doing. The excuses doled out (there have been many), but I am willing to say that the preponderance of evidence is right now going against him, and it does not look good as aforementioned, but I am willing to wait to call him a cheater and a doper until his appeals have run out. Which, there is a good chance, he'll never win on appeal. We'll see, but not much of a chance really. In my opinion.


but, the exit polls suggest that it isn't too early to announce a winner. TdF goes to someone else. I may be naive; but, I'm no dope.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

magnolialover said:


> Don't you know already? The tests are fine, until your favorite rider gets busted with one, and then all of a sudden, it's a conspiracy, the tests are flawed, and so on and so forth. All just more exuses for doping cheaters really.
> 
> So to the people who think the information leaks are relevant. How are they? The leaked information was true. The original revelation that someone tested positive did not include a name of a rider. Phonak and Floyd offered that up, the UCI said someone failed a test. The tests are conducted by a lab technician who gets a numbered sample, and that number is probably not connected with the lab, and the lab probably does not know whose sample they are testing. The UCI holds the number of what test is being conducted and on who. The only "leaked" information, once again, turned out to true. How is that relevant? It does nothing to impact the proof and the evidence, and there have been no claims of tampering with the sample. If someone at the lab tampered with the sample, the entire lab would most likely lose their certification, and their business. I'm not sure even someone "with an agenda" would do that.
> 
> How about for once, we blame the riders who test positive, and have been proven to have tested positive. Right now, Landis looks pretty damn guilty, considering, as the previous poster has said, the tap dancing he's been doing. The excuses doled out (there have been many), but I am willing to say that the preponderance of evidence is right now going against him, and it does not look good as aforementioned, but I am willing to wait to call him a cheater and a doper until his appeals have run out. Which, there is a good chance, he'll never win on appeal. We'll see, but not much of a chance really. In my opinion.


word. excellent post. I don't see a lot of discussion about whether Basso is really Brillo and if text messages to Ullrich and his boss were created by someone to "frame" them. If Pereiro tested positive for testosterone or anything else there would be no discussion. 

At least with Hamilton people who wanted to believe him argued some medical facts about blood types and chimerism. With Landis there's not even much to argue, and so blame the lab and the mysterious sabotageur! But it really is silly. It's like if police call you at work telling you they got your neighbour breaking into your apartment trying to carry the TV out and with your jewlery in his pockets. But he claims police are out to frame him and he wasn't even in your apartment, but if he was, it was because he thought there was a fire inside, and he wanted to take the TV out because he thought you might be moving soon, and the jewlery was planted by police, but HONESTLY, he is innocent!!!

Now, if you ARE innocent and just happen to be caught holding your neighbour TV's and his jewlery in your pockets, but you ARE innocent, what would you do? It's a stupid question, if you ask me. The best answer is - make sure you don't have sleepwalking or multiple personality disorder. 

Oh, no, wait a second!! Maybe that's it! Maybe Landis is sleepwalking - he walked over to the doctor's office, asked for some testosterone patch, walked back and he doesn't even remember it, cause it was in HIS SLEEP! Or maybe he is schitzofrenic!!! Evil Landis is a doper, but the kind nice-guy Landis has no idea what evil Landis is up to.


----------



## 633 (Feb 10, 2004)

magnolialover said:


> You guys keep saying that the leaks are relevant, but how? Explain to me how. Nobody has done that yet, they just keep saying that the leaks were bad and hurt his case? How? By releasing information that was going to be released anyway? I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the leaks are "bad". It's sort of like how you guys keep saying that the tests are flawed, but you can't say how, you just "know" that they are. Well, that and 2 dollars might get you a soda somewhere.


If a person or organization conducts itself with integrity in smaller things, you can feel pretty confident that they'll conduct themselves with integrity in greater things. If they violate ethical standards in one area, you know they're open to violating it in another area. If there's someone at the lab willing to violate ethical standards on confidentiality and disclosure, whether it's because they like feeling important to a flattering reporter, or it's for fine dinners, or for money, or for some other reason....well, then that person (or those people) is open to violating the rules in other areas, too - it just might take a greater price.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Finally...*



633 said:


> If a person or organization conducts itself with integrity in smaller things, you can feel pretty confident that they'll conduct themselves with integrity in greater things. If they violate ethical standards in one area, you know they're open to violating it in another area. If there's someone at the lab willing to violate ethical standards on confidentiality and disclosure, whether it's because they like feeling important to a flattering reporter, or it's for fine dinners, or for money, or for some other reason....well, then that person (or those people) is open to violating the rules in other areas, too - it just might take a greater price.


Finally, someone who could say how this matters.

But again, the UCI broke the news, not the lab.

Phonak broke who the person was along with Landis.

Folks keep forgetting these facts of the case.


----------



## 633 (Feb 10, 2004)

magnolialover said:


> Finally, someone who could say how this matters.
> 
> But again, the UCI broke the news, not the lab.
> 
> ...


If I recall right, the original report that someone had tested positive was leaked before UCI broke the news. Landis and Phonak confirmed it because of rampant speculation started by the leak. 

And again if I recall right, the news that exogenous testosterone had been found in the A sample was leaked to the news several days before any official comment (and, I think, still hasn't been confirmed by any official source except an official saying in an interview that he'd gotten a text message from the lab confirming it). 

It's possible that I am not recalling that right. There's been a lot to keep up with here.


----------



## FattyCBR (Aug 26, 2005)

I think reason Landis supports bring up the leaks from the lab and UCI breaking its own rules is that if you (the cycling fan) and the UCI expect pros to behave ethically than the UCI needs to behave ethically. 

So far they haven't done that, they released information about a positive before a B test was completed and they have gone back to a lab with a past history of problems whose motivation and QC is reproachable.


----------



## Route 66 Domestiques (Jun 15, 2006)

*but, I was driving to my office*



55x11 said:


> word. excellent post. I don't see a lot of discussion about whether Basso is really Brillo and if text messages to Ullrich and his boss were created by someone to "frame" them. If Pereiro tested positive for testosterone or anything else there would be no discussion.
> 
> At least with Hamilton people who wanted to believe him argued some medical facts about blood types and chimerism. With Landis there's not even much to argue, and so blame the lab and the mysterious sabotageur! But it really is silly. It's like if police call you at work telling you they got your neighbour breaking into your apartment trying to carry the TV out and with your jewlery in his pockets. But he claims police are out to frame him and he wasn't even in your apartment, but if he was, it was because he thought there was a fire inside, and he wanted to take the TV out because he thought you might be moving soon, and the jewlery was planted by police, but HONESTLY, he is innocent!!!
> 
> ...


Landis is using the, what's the congressman's name, Patrick Kennedy, who was pulled over a couple months ago for drunk driving; and, his defense was that at 3 in the morning he was driving to his office where he thought there was a floor vote scheduled.
Landis marry a Kennedy. It could prove your position.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

I like the tie-in to politics here in the racing forum. Makes me feel at home


----------



## CrashDang (Nov 25, 2005)

I've yet to see how this lab is evil, other than possibly leaking info to a respected newspaper. And I would imagine the source to be someone higher up who has access to whose specimen is whose. The lab tech doing the actual handling and testing wouldn't know anything. You think ESPN or Sports Illustrated don't have "sources" for certain information on some sports that are not available to other agencies?

They did it for France because Moreau or Voekler didn't win? But disqualifying Floyd doesn't give the French a victor. What, they just wanted a Euro champ? Then why did they DQ Jan and Ivan and NO Americans before the Tour started? According to some, this year's Tour was custom-made for Jan; but I heard that the last seven years. The organizers want Jan to win, not poor Lance, the eternal victim in some eyes.

Why didn't they taint any of Lance' samples the last SEVEN years? Isn't Lance the poor American target of these evil French conspirators? But when they couldn't nail him, they decided to nail Floyd? Why didn't they frame Lance the same way they're supposedly framing Floyd? Why couldn't they?

From the articles that I have read that had interviews with medical experts who deal with this lab, they say that this is an excellent lab. And L'Equipe is an unreliable and sensational rag? What about ESPN, Fox Sports, and SI?

So many conspiracies from the French; you know, THEM, THEY, the one evil entity. I could have sworn they liked Floyd and propped him up as the anti-Lance.


----------



## Route 66 Domestiques (Jun 15, 2006)

*Stiffle*



blackhat said:


> <i>"I know the truth. I know I won the Tour clean. I know I raced by the rules,' he told ESPN, adding that the yellow jersey is "at my house & I'm going to keep it. I know what happened and I'm proud of it."
> 
> </i>
> from an <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2541883&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines">interview </a> posted on espn.com.


John Rocker, formerly of the Atlanta Braves, should have said nothing.
Jimmy The Greek Snyder should have said nothing.
Mel Gibson should have said nothing.
Floyd Landis should have learned something from the three above.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Mark16q said:


> Just watched his interview with CNN and he puts it all quite well. Procedure wasn't followed and there is strong evidence of an agenda.
> 
> Guilty or not, the way this has been handled puts "reasonable doubt" on the lab and their results. Glad he's speaking out and defending himself, and hope he's telling the truth.
> 
> Mark


What agenda?

Not the nasty ungrateful French scheming to rob an American of the Tour? Not a plot to get a Frenchie on the podium 'cos they can't do it any other way? I know, it's the Christophe Moreau Fan Club. With Fidel Castro's help they've infiltrated WADA, the UCI and the labs to ensure a non-American win!

Get a grip of reality, on the balance of probabilities, Landis doped.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*wrong.*



Route 66 Domestiques said:


> John Rocker, formerly of the Atlanta Braves, should have said nothing.
> Jimmy The Greek Snyder should have said nothing.
> Mel Gibson should have said nothing.
> Floyd Landis should have learned something from the three above.


you'll recall he was pilloried for his initial silence and public escape, it would have only gotten worse had he "said nothing". your implied equivalency is insane too. landis looks like a goof that doped and lacks the cunning to explain it, the other 3 are sociopathic racists and/or holicaust deniers, not comparable.


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Route 66 Domestiques said:


> John Rocker, formerly of the Atlanta Braves, should have said nothing.
> Jimmy The Greek Snyder should have said nothing.
> Mel Gibson should have said nothing.
> Floyd Landis should have learned something from the three above.


I think Floyd should've combined all of their rants and said something like, "Bowhunters were bred to be stronger and faster than everyone else, which is why they are responsible for the majority of all the wars in the world!"

Then, instead of screaming "I own Malibu!" he could've screamed, "I own the Champs Elysees!"


----------



## Route 66 Domestiques (Jun 15, 2006)

*What did he say?*



JohnHemlock said:


> I think Floyd should've combined all of their rants and said something like, "Bowhunters were bred to be stronger and faster than everyone else, which is why they are responsible for the majority of all the wars in the world!"
> 
> Then, instead of screaming "I own Malibu!" he could've screamed, "I own the Champs Elysees!"


Just what did Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder say at Duke Ziebert's that wasn't historically
correct (pre-revisionist)?


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

magnolialover said:


> You guys keep saying that the leaks are relevant, but how? Explain to me how. Nobody has done that yet, they just keep saying that the leaks were bad and hurt his case? How? By releasing information that was going to be released anyway? I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the leaks are "bad". It's sort of like how you guys keep saying that the tests are flawed, but you can't say how, you just "know" that they are. Well, that and 2 dollars might get you a soda somewhere.



The leaks are bad bacause its shows that the test protocol, of having the testers not know whos sample they are testing is not being followed. The idea that is being put forth here is that the lab knows exactly who sample is being tested. Now Floyd may be guilty as all hell but it makes it very hard to lend credibility to the testing process when they don't stay on the high ground and follow the damn rules they themselves set forth - it makes the lab look less credibility no matter well they are running the test.

This one is not full proof there is a lot grey area with this test because you are testing for a substance that naturally occurs in the body. As far as the osotope test for synthetic testoseron the ranges they give are very close to naturaly occuring testoseron that you can't say that you can not get false positives with that test either. The French scientist that is claiming that this is a fool proof test is full of sh!t no test is. Once agine WADA/UCI has gone out of its way to make its self look less than credible. A perfect example of their lask of credibility in the past was their - perfect, can't produce false positives - EPO test, right up until Roger Beke showed up and proved it could. They still haven't adressed that issue and still keep using the test, lack of credibility.


----------



## Mdeth1313 (Nov 1, 2001)

Live Steam said:


> Please explain how the leaks are not of concern and are irrelevant? I keep hearing this, but I don't understand it. If rules are rules, shouldn't those that set the rules follow them too? Why couldn't they wait to get this info out and why didn't they do it through normal channels in a timely manner?



remember, you're dealing w/ the uci here. they really dont know their asses from their elbows.


----------

