Amgen press conference forgot to mention this....

[MagillaGorilla]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-OLY-USADA-Sued.html


Magilla

[OMC]

On Jan 24, 8:44 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-OLY-USADA-Sued.html
>
> Magilla

Again, changing the rules as they go.
I'm sure this guy was on the USAC/USADA hit list. Bad tats and wrong
team.

[Ted van de Weteringe]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-OLY-USADA-Sued.html

Disturbing closing sentence: "[The former director of the doping lab]
said he wasn't familiar enough with the intricacies of the code to
know if the practice of testing a 'B' after a negative 'A' violated
any rules."

One could only hope that is one of the reasons he is /former/
director.

[ST]

On 1/24/08 7:44 PM, in article fnblv2$b2o$1@aioe.org, "MagillaGorilla"
<magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-OLY-USADA-Sued.html
>
>
> Magilla


Ape**** Boy,

http://wheelsuckers.com/2008/01/13/rumors-part-2/

[Tom Kunich]

"OMC" <mcreed53@msn.com> wrote in message
news:e2a4cc1a-d1d4-4a3c-9eeb-44f6a7262858@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 24, 8:44 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-OLY-USADA-Sued.html
>>
>> Magilla
>
> Again, changing the rules as they go.
> I'm sure this guy was on the USAC/USADA hit list. Bad tats and wrong
> team.

Here's the problem Mike - there is an unknown but significant false positive
testing frequency. If you test enough you WILL get a positive and the USADA
wants to use these false positives as a hit list.

Sooner or later they will use this against Michael. As I was pointing out
and you were arguing against - if you give anyone enough power they will use
it against you. It is morally wrong to dope but should we resort to the sort
of tactics that are being used to prevent it?

Better for sponsors to withdraw if drugs are the result of sponsorship.

[anonymofo@yahoo.com]

On Jan 24, 8:02*pm, OMC <mcree...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 8:44 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-OLY-USADA-Sued.html
>
> > Magilla
>
> Again, changing the rules as they go.
> I'm sure this guy was on the USAC/USADA *hit list. Bad tats and wrong
> team.

OMC: I don't see how this rider can continue to move forward with all
that stuff swirling around him... positive A tests followed by
negative Bs... FBI bust for steroid distribution... and now negative A
test followed by a B test. What is the word from camp on this, since
we know you know.

[OMC]

On Jan 24, 9:33 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "OMC" <mcree...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e2a4cc1a-d1d4-4a3c-9eeb-44f6a7262858@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 24, 8:44 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-OLY-USADA-Sued.html
>
> >> Magilla
>
> > Again, changing the rules as they go.
> > I'm sure this guy was on the USAC/USADA hit list. Bad tats and wrong
> > team.
>
> Here's the problem Mike - there is an unknown but significant false positive
> testing frequency. If you test enough you WILL get a positive and the USADA
> wants to use these false positives as a hit list.
>
> Sooner or later they will use this against Michael. As I was pointing out
> and you were arguing against - if you give anyone enough power they will use
> it against you. It is morally wrong to dope but should we resort to the sort
> of tactics that are being used to prevent it?
>
> Better for sponsors to withdraw if drugs are the result of sponsorship.

They do not follow the protocol they established, plain and simple.
They abuse their ****ing power to make examples of those that speak
out against them.
Explain your last sentence if you will, or did you read it off of some
USADA fortune cookie ?

[amit.ghosh@gmail.com]

On Jan 24, 11:33 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "OMC" <mcree...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e2a4cc1a-d1d4-4a3c-9eeb-44f6a7262858@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 24, 8:44 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-OLY-USADA-Sued.html
>
> >> Magilla
>
> > Again, changing the rules as they go.
> > I'm sure this guy was on the USAC/USADA hit list. Bad tats and wrong
> > team.
>
> Here's the problem Mike - there is an unknown but significant false positive
> testing frequency.

dumbass,

is that "the problem" ?

i thought the problem would be that if the a sample is negative, even
if the b sample is an adverse analytical finding, there isn't a c
sample to decide if the athlete is positive.

[MagillaGorilla]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "OMC" <mcreed53@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:e2a4cc1a-d1d4-4a3c-9eeb-44f6a7262858@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Jan 24, 8:44 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-OLY-USADA-Sued.html
>>>
>>> Magilla
>>
>>
>> Again, changing the rules as they go.
>> I'm sure this guy was on the USAC/USADA hit list. Bad tats and wrong
>> team.
>
>
> Here's the problem Mike - there is an unknown but significant false
> positive testing frequency. If you test enough you WILL get a positive
> and the USADA wants to use these false positives as a hit list.


If the false positive frequency is "unknown" how can you claim to know
it is "significant?"

Thanks,

Magilla

[Tom Kunich]

"OMC" <mcreed53@msn.com> wrote in message
news:fcc4f5d6-a8be-4c65-8894-4404476526ea@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 24, 9:33 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> Better for sponsors to withdraw if drugs are the result of sponsorship.
>
> They do not follow the protocol they established, plain and simple.
> They abuse their ****ing power to make examples of those that speak
> out against them.
> Explain your last sentence if you will, or did you read it off of some
> USADA fortune cookie ?

Do you honestly think that somehow it is the USCF's business to regulate the
drug use of it's members? If good but not perfect drug testing doesn't
prevent widespread doping then the sponsors should withdraw and that should
be the end of professional sports of all kinds.

[Donald Munro]

Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Better for sponsors to withdraw if drugs are the result of sponsorship.

OMC wrote:
> Explain your last sentence if you will, or did you read it off of some
> USADA fortune cookie ?

Kunich is into Dutch fortune cookies.

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Jan 24, 11:55*pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 24, 11:33 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "OMC" <mcree...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > > On Jan 24, 8:44 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> > >>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-OLY-USADA-Sued.html
>
> > >> Magilla
>
> > > Again, changing the rules as they go.
> > > I'm sure this guy was on the USAC/USADA *hit list. Bad tats and wrong
> > > team.
>
> > Here's the problem Mike - there is an unknown but significant false positive
> > testing frequency.
>
> dumbass,
>
> is that "the problem" ?
>
> i thought the problem would be that if the a sample is negative, even
> if the b sample is an adverse analytical finding, there isn't a c
> sample to decide if the athlete is positive.

There already was. It's called the A sample.

If the A was negative (I'm waiting for USADA to start
calling that "non-positive") then if the B is positive,
the situation is at best the same as positive A, negative B,
and there can be no sanction. Some reasons USADA
might want to test a B sample:

-- ****ing with the athlete/team, hanging a cloud of
investigation over them, causing loss of salary so the
athlete can't defend himself.

-- The A sample was on a borderline, so if the B sample
comes back positive they can prosecute the case and
argue the criteria need to be redefined - cf Adam Bergman,
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/8297405bd607f59f

-- They think the person is dirty and they'll bust them
eventually, and then use this B test as part of the evidence
against them.

-- They don't give a **** anymore. Dopers suck. So if you
aren't with them, you're against them.

Ben

[MagillaGorilla]

ST wrote:
> On 1/24/08 7:44 PM, in article fnblv2$b2o$1@aioe.org, "MagillaGorilla"
> <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-OLY-USADA-Sued.html
>>
>>
>>Magilla
>
>
>
> Ape**** Boy,
>
> http://wheelsuckers.com/2008/01/13/rumors-part-2/
>


OK...so Medcroft copied it from the NYTimes. What's your point of
posting this link?

Magilla

[ST]

On 1/25/08 7:12 PM, in article fne8fr$u7v$1@aioe.org, "MagillaGorilla"
<magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

> ST wrote:
>> On 1/24/08 7:44 PM, in article fnblv2$b2o$1@aioe.org, "MagillaGorilla"
>> <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-OLY-USADA-Sued.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Magilla
>>
>>
>>
>> Ape**** Boy,
>>
>> http://wheelsuckers.com/2008/01/13/rumors-part-2/
>>
>
>
> OK...so Medcroft copied it from the NYTimes. What's your point of
> posting this link?
>
> Magilla

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DBuk91phkI