Re: Mad Dog on science
- From: Michael Press <jack@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 04:17:58 GMT
"mtb Dad" <listerfarrar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Apparently we agree on both the absolutely invalid results from the
> > testing and the fact that what looks like a duck, smells like a duck
> > and quacks like a duck is likely to be a Lafferty.
> What's with the ridicule of one of the posters? I don't think BL has
> ever said the UCI should act to suspend on the test results, for a
> whole bunch of reasons, no b sample, no adoption of the new test by
> WADA, etc.
> He's just saying, and I am too, if a lab is doing research, and finds
> EPO, shouldn't cycling care about that? You critics of BL, and the UCI
> suggest that a highly reputable lab doing research has no credibility?
> What's with that?
"If they find EPO." Well, they have not found EPO. Now what?
> I think an approach like that is what hardens WADA against us, and
> ignores the doping issue. We should be saying, (apologies for repeating
> another post) let us know when the test is ready, and the lack of b
> sample issue is dealt with, and we will implement.
Not a clue what you are saying here.
- Prev by Date: Re: More Regarding L'Equipe's Blood Doping Story
- Next by Date: Re: More Regarding L'Equipe's Blood Doping Story
- Previous by thread: Re: Mad Dog on science
- Next by thread: Hour record attempt imminent