Biological Passport - Another Act of Fraud by the Sport

[MagillaGorilla]

The reason why this whole biological passport thing is fraudulent is
because under UCI rules only a positive doping test along with a
confirmation of the B test can be used to find an athlete guilty of
doping. There are no provisions in the WADA Protocol that allow for a
biological passport to be used to bring a case against an athlete.

When you charge an athlete with a doping violation under WADA rules (and
the UCI is strictly constrained to abide by WADA rules according to
their charter with riders), you have to charge him or her with taking a
specific banned substance on the WADA banned list, and not just that his
or her "passport numbers don't add up."

Either you fail a ****ing test or you don't. There's no in between.

Well, WADA already has the tests and cutoffs, and they have nothing to
do with a biological passport.

So the Wonton soup take-home message for all you Bukkake Party Boys to
remember is that absent a positive A and B piss test, no athlete will
ever be suspended, sanctioned, fined, or prevented from starting a race
because of numbers on their "biological passport."

So if you are required to get a biological passport, feel free to use it
as a drink coaster in the Super 8.


----------------------

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

The real purpose of the biological passport is so teams and the UCI can
send riders who they think might be dipping into the hot sauce an
advanced warning telegram to their hotel room in the Canary Islands that
tips them off to be more careful and micro-dose their EPO because they
want to keep the sponsor money flowing.

Otherwise, a biological passport has NOTHING to do with prosecuting
dopers or even stopping them,although the UCI wants the public and
sponsors to think othertwise. All a BP does is save the athlete the
expense of running their own blood tests to send Ferarri so he can help
fine-tune their Epogen dosage to stay below the radar of the LNDD's
ELISA test.


That is all,

Magilla

[amit.ghosh@gmail.com]

On Dec 10, 2:17 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> The reason why this whole biological passport thing is fraudulent is
> because under UCI rules only a positive doping test along with a
> confirmation of the B test can be used to find an athlete guilty of
> doping.

dumbass,


the same goes for a DNA test.

a DNA test is not part of the WADA protocol and it can't be used to
detect doping so i don't know why bettini was so paranoid about it.

it is also not against the WADA protocol to store bags of your blood
in a freezer in madrid.

[Michael Press]

In article <fjk3c1$nve$1@aioe.org>,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

> The reason why this whole biological passport thing is fraudulent is
> because under UCI rules only a positive doping test along with a
> confirmation of the B test can be used to find an athlete guilty of
> doping. There are no provisions in the WADA Protocol that allow for a
> biological passport to be used to bring a case against an athlete.
>
> When you charge an athlete with a doping violation under WADA rules (and
> the UCI is strictly constrained to abide by WADA rules according to
> their charter with riders), you have to charge him or her with taking a
> specific banned substance on the WADA banned list, and not just that his
> or her "passport numbers don't add up."
>
> Either you fail a ****ing test or you don't. There's no in between.
>
> Well, WADA already has the tests and cutoffs, and they have nothing to
> do with a biological passport.
>
> So the Wonton soup take-home message for all you Bukkake Party Boys to
> remember is that absent a positive A and B piss test, no athlete will
> ever be suspended, sanctioned, fined, or prevented from starting a race
> because of numbers on their "biological passport."
>
> So if you are required to get a biological passport, feel free to use it
> as a drink coaster in the Super 8.
>
>
> ----------------------
>
> FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
>
> The real purpose of the biological passport is so teams and the UCI can
> send riders who they think might be dipping into the hot sauce an
> advanced warning telegram to their hotel room in the Canary Islands that
> tips them off to be more careful and micro-dose their EPO because they
> want to keep the sponsor money flowing.
>
> Otherwise, a biological passport has NOTHING to do with prosecuting
> dopers or even stopping them,although the UCI wants the public and
> sponsors to think othertwise. All a BP does is save the athlete the
> expense of running their own blood tests to send Ferarri so he can help
> fine-tune their Epogen dosage to stay below the radar of the LNDD's
> ELISA test.

In other words it is win-win-win-win-win situation all around.

--
Michael Press

[MagillaGorilla]

amit.ghosh@gmail.com wrote:

> On Dec 10, 2:17 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The reason why this whole biological passport thing is fraudulent is
>>because under UCI rules only a positive doping test along with a
>>confirmation of the B test can be used to find an athlete guilty of
>>doping.
>
>
> dumbass,
>
>
> the same goes for a DNA test.
>
> a DNA test is not part of the WADA protocol and it can't be used to
> detect doping so i don't know why bettini was so paranoid about it.
>
> it is also not against the WADA protocol to store bags of your blood
> in a freezer in madrid.
>


Any WADA lab is free to run a DNA test on any rider's blood. They don't
need anyone's permission. They only reason they don't run DNA is
because there's no use for it (exept to compare to blood bags) and you
can't get DNA from piss (WADA doesn't collect blood).


Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

Michael Press wrote:

> In article <fjk3c1$nve$1@aioe.org>,
> MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The reason why this whole biological passport thing is fraudulent is
>>because under UCI rules only a positive doping test along with a
>>confirmation of the B test can be used to find an athlete guilty of
>>doping. There are no provisions in the WADA Protocol that allow for a
>>biological passport to be used to bring a case against an athlete.
>>
>>When you charge an athlete with a doping violation under WADA rules (and
>>the UCI is strictly constrained to abide by WADA rules according to
>>their charter with riders), you have to charge him or her with taking a
>>specific banned substance on the WADA banned list, and not just that his
>>or her "passport numbers don't add up."
>>
>>Either you fail a ****ing test or you don't. There's no in between.
>>
>>Well, WADA already has the tests and cutoffs, and they have nothing to
>>do with a biological passport.
>>
>>So the Wonton soup take-home message for all you Bukkake Party Boys to
>>remember is that absent a positive A and B piss test, no athlete will
>>ever be suspended, sanctioned, fined, or prevented from starting a race
>>because of numbers on their "biological passport."
>>
>>So if you are required to get a biological passport, feel free to use it
>>as a drink coaster in the Super 8.
>>
>>
>>----------------------
>>
>>FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
>>
>>The real purpose of the biological passport is so teams and the UCI can
>>send riders who they think might be dipping into the hot sauce an
>>advanced warning telegram to their hotel room in the Canary Islands that
>>tips them off to be more careful and micro-dose their EPO because they
>>want to keep the sponsor money flowing.
>>
>>Otherwise, a biological passport has NOTHING to do with prosecuting
>>dopers or even stopping them,although the UCI wants the public and
>>sponsors to think othertwise. All a BP does is save the athlete the
>>expense of running their own blood tests to send Ferarri so he can help
>>fine-tune their Epogen dosage to stay below the radar of the LNDD's
>>ELISA test.
>
>
> In other words it is win-win-win-win-win situation all around.
>


It's gay as an Argyle kit because it's a big waste of money that could
be better spent towards rider salaries and room upgrades at the Super 8.
In a sport with limited cash, pissing away what, $350,000/year for
some Danny Pate chastity belt, is the biggest act of self-jerking I have
ever heard of. Especially when the guy holding these do-gooder press
conference was quoted in USA Today laughing about dabbling in the hot
sauce and implicating Floyd as part of the Omerta.

You don't see hedge fund managers on Wall Street telling the world
they're spending half a million of their own cash on some queer-eye
ethics watchdog group to make sure they don't trade on insider information.

Only in cycling do people break out the pump bottle of Curel and just
start stroking themselves on a public park bench.

Cycling needs to treat doping like the secret act of incest it is in
every other sport. Put some cheerleaders on the sidelines to keep the
fans and press shut-up.

When I go to a Giants game, I want to see Bonds mash the ball so ****ing
far out of the park, that it knocks the teeth out of some guy in a kayak.

And when I go to a bike race, I want to see the guys in the lead group
crush the hill so fast that Morton Thiokol tries to get NASA to stop the
race.

Magilla

[Kyle Legate]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> you
> can't get DNA from piss (WADA doesn't collect blood).
>
You can get DNA from urine.

[MagillaGorilla]

Kyle Legate wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>
>> you
>> can't get DNA from piss (WADA doesn't collect blood).
>>
> You can get DNA from urine.

Okay, but it's not a standard DNA test. And when WADA wants to find DNA
from a cyclist to match to the Puerto blood bags, they either have to
take a buccal swab or blood.

The UCI already has urine from everyone. Why would they need Bettini's
signature if they could get it from his urine?


Magilla

[Kyle Legate]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Kyle Legate wrote:
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> you
>>> can't get DNA from piss (WADA doesn't collect blood).
>>>
>> You can get DNA from urine.
>
> Okay, but

You lost me after this part.

[MagillaGorilla]

Kyle Legate wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Kyle Legate wrote:
>>
>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> you
>>>> can't get DNA from piss (WADA doesn't collect blood).
>>>>
>>> You can get DNA from urine.
>>
>>
>> Okay, but
>
>
> You lost me after this part.


Alright, post the whole report next time, George Bush. I'm gonna go
easy on you because I know you're just running a stick across the bars
on my cage. But for the edification of everyone else in here who still
thinks Bettini's refusal to sign the UCI DNA agreement was based on a
deep belief in the human rights clause of the European constitution and
not because he's worried a certain gynecologist didn't flsh his blood
down the toilet before the Guardia Civil kicked in his front door with a
search warrant....

My point was that whatever lab the UCI uses to test for DNA requires
blood and not urine. The fact that some cutting edge lab can extract
DNA from piss doesn't mean that it can be done from a practical (or
cost-effective) standpoint.

Also, when your main goal is to compare DNA markers to BLOOD BAGS used
for autologous transfusions found in a ***** doctor's office, I
seriously doubt you'd be able to get the same genetic markers from piss
vs. blood, even if you use PCR. And even if you did, you'd have to run
two different techniques to make the comparison

Using urine for DNA comparsion to blood would be like riding the Tour de
France on a tricycle. It can be done, but...

You're like the smart mouth doctor who use to nonchalantly give me 1 cc
red-top with hemolyzed blood and lipid deposits the size of sticks of
butter and asks me to run a full CBC. You know the machine's just gonna
spit it out, so why not just ask the fat lady to come back for a
re-draw, and this time tell her not to inhale an entire box of Dunkin
Donuts before she comes.

Magilla

-----

Kyle Legate wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>
>> you
>> can't get DNA from piss (WADA doesn't collect blood).
>>
> You can get DNA from urine.


Okay, but it's not a standard DNA test. And when WADA wants to find DNA
from a cyclist to match to the Puerto blood bags, they either have to
take a buccal swab or blood.

The UCI already has urine from everyone. Why would they need Bettini's
signature if they could get it from his urine?


Magilla

[Kyle Legate]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>
> My point was that whatever lab the UCI uses to test for DNA requires
> blood and not urine. The fact that some cutting edge lab can extract
> DNA from piss doesn't mean that it can be done from a practical (or
> cost-effective) standpoint.
>
Retrieving DNA from urine should be routine for even the LNDD. Cutting
edge labs can obtain enough DNA to do FISH or bladder cells, which is
much more than you need for PCR. I'm not arguing whether you can use
markers in urine to positively ID a blood sample, maybe you can and
maybe you can't, I was trying to keep you somewhat honest when you
asserted that you can't get DNA from urine.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17922047&ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://snurl.com/1vbdf