Floyd Landis and the sick freaks of rsa

Couldn't help but think of you freaks the other day, when it was revealed
that Floyd Landis's manager had threatened to expose the abuse history of
Greg Lemond.
The sick, despicable, vile freak manager impersonated the abuser and tried
to shame Lemond into silence.
Lemond told them to **** themselves and went public. My kind of guy: expose
the liars, tell the truth, stand tall.
You freaks tried the same thing: silence the truth with shame, threats, and
abuse.
Hey, did you notice how the freak was treated? Fired and universally
detested.
The same way the world detests you freaks. Every decent person left this
******** in disgust, and only the psychopaths, the vile, the freaks, and the
deranged are left.
You.
Your truly outrageous and amoral tactics didn't work, freaks. But then
again, none of you understand how healthy, honest people deal with such
transparent and dishonorable manipulations: threaten us and we stand up to
you with the weapon of truth.
You stupid, sick dumb****s. You've never figured out why I continue to ****
with you, bottom line.
I'd made the decision to get the **** out when Hobbs, Leonard, and Kerrison
started usinng my abuse history to try and harm me, to get their sick
jollies, to avoid dealing with their own issues.
I stood up. And I keep ****ing with you. Because.
Principle.
Now go **** yourself, freaks.

On May 25, 11:28 am, "Two Buddha" wrote:
Couldn't help but think of you freaks the other day, when it was revealed
that Floyd Landis's manager had threatened to expose the abuse history of
Greg Lemond.
The sick, despicable, vile freak manager impersonated the abuser and tried
to shame Lemond into silence.
Lemond told them to **** themselves and went public. My kind of guy: expose
the liars, tell the truth, stand tall.
You freaks tried the same thing: silence the truth with shame, threats, and
abuse.
Hey, did you notice how the freak was treated? Fired and universally
detested.
The same way the world detests you freaks. Every decent person left this
******** in disgust, and only the psychopaths, the vile, the freaks, and the
deranged are left.
You.
Your truly outrageous and amoral tactics didn't work, freaks. But then
again, none of you understand how healthy, honest people deal with such
transparent and dishonorable manipulations: threaten us and we stand up to
you with the weapon of truth.
You stupid, sick dumb****s. You've never figured out why I continue to ****
with you, bottom line.
I'd made the decision to get the **** out when Hobbs, Leonard, and Kerrison
started usinng my abuse history to try and harm me, to get their sick
jollies, to avoid dealing with their own issues.
I stood up. And I keep ****ing with you. Because.
Principle.
Now go **** yourself, freaks.

Clarencedarrow wrote:
On May 25, 11:28 am, "Two Buddha" wrote:

Couldn't help but think of you freaks the other day, when it was revealed
that Floyd Landis's manager had threatened to expose the abuse history of
Greg Lemond.

Is it true that Lemond rode without a saddle ?

The sick, despicable, vile freak manager impersonated the abuser and tried
to shame Lemond into silence.

Interesting story, thanks, just read it in the Intnl Herald Trib.:

"In the hearing, a lawyer for the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, Matt Barnett,
cited an Internet message board posting that LeMond said was the work of
Landis.

It said, in part, if LeMond "ever opens his mouth again and the word
Floyd comes out, I will tell you all some things that you will wish you
didn't know and unfortunately I will have entered the race to the bottom
which is now in progress."
"

I guess it's this "race to the bottom" that especially interests you eh
Scat ?


Lemond told them to **** themselves and went public. My kind of guy: expose
the liars, tell the truth, stand tall.

"
In another setback for his defense, the cross-examination of LeMond,
designed to explore his motives and impeach his credibility, was called
off because he refused to answer questions about Armstrong.
"
So, another truth-teller, standing tall, who won't answer embarrassing
questions...
just like you !

On May 26, 8:05 am, comadreja wrote:
In article ,

BrritSki wrote:
"
In another setback for his defense, the cross-examination of LeMond,
designed to explore his motives and impeach his credibility, was called
off because he refused to answer questions about Armstrong.
"
So, another truth-teller, standing tall, who won't answer embarrassing
questions..

Greg LeMond was correct in not answering questions about Lance
Armstrong at the hearing. Given that the hearing is being run by USADA,
and the focus is about how Floyd Landis got up to 11 to one ratio of
testosterone, some it synthetic, in his system, right after one of the
most remarkable comebacks from a previous stage, which he seemed burned
out.

It is obvious that Landis cheated, and all his whining and histronics
about messy lab work and conspiracy against him, won't change the fact
that he was caught red handed, and he refuses to acknowledge his
cheating. Trying to attack Greg LeMond, for being well, Greg LeMond,
who is a headstrong person in his own right is silly.

The only thing that links Armstrong to the hearing, is that he has a
battle of words for years with Dick Pound, head of the WADA.

Questioning LeMond about Armstrong is germane because Lemond has made
doping charges against Armstrong for years. IF he cannot be believed
about Armstrong, why should he be believed about Landis?

On May 26, 9:18 am, comadreja wrote:
In article .com,
Richard Henry wrote:





On May 26, 8:05 am, comadreja wrote:
In article ,

BrritSki wrote:
"
In another setback for his defense, the cross-examination of LeMond,
designed to explore his motives and impeach his credibility, was called
off because he refused to answer questions about Armstrong.
"
So, another truth-teller, standing tall, who won't answer embarrassing
questions..

Greg LeMond was correct in not answering questions about Lance
Armstrong at the hearing. Given that the hearing is being run by USADA,
and the focus is about how Floyd Landis got up to 11 to one ratio of
testosterone, some it synthetic, in his system, right after one of the
most remarkable comebacks from a previous stage, which he seemed burned
out.

It is obvious that Landis cheated, and all his whining and histronics
about messy lab work and conspiracy against him, won't change the fact
that he was caught red handed, and he refuses to acknowledge his
cheating. Trying to attack Greg LeMond, for being well, Greg LeMond,
who is a headstrong person in his own right is silly.

The only thing that links Armstrong to the hearing, is that he has a
battle of words for years with Dick Pound, head of the WADA.

Questioning LeMond about Armstrong is germane because Lemond has made
doping charges against Armstrong for years. IF he cannot be believed
about Armstrong, why should he be believed about Landis?

Because Landis was caught.

By LeMond?

Doping charges has been rampant rumors and allegations throughout the
years for many riders. Miguel Indurain is another TDF champion that
has allegations still follow him. Mainly it is EPO, that Bjarne Riis has
confess taking for his TDF win in 1997. Much like what got the entire
Festina team kicked off the tour in 1998.

There is strong suspicion that Armstrong has been doping and taking
drugs during his career in professional cycling, whether it is the
connection with Italian Doctor he saw, who was convicted in an Italian
Court, to a former bike mechanic/gofer lawsuit against Armstrong.

The purpose of a hearing such as the one we are discussing is to get
around the "strong suspicions" to see what the facts are.

That said, Armstrong never failed a drug test. LeMond is not the first
or last person to accuse Armstrong of cheating. Unless there is some
sort of strong direct evidence implicating Armstrong, than I will take
Lance's word that he wasn't cheating the system.

It isn't germane, because the hearing isn't about LeMond and Armstrong
public ****ing match, (or Armstrong's ****ing match with the WADA) it is
whether the urine sample that showed Floyd Landis took synthetic
testosterone was valid with sound laboratory protocol . It is also time
for Landis to stop this dog and pony show, and admit he took synthetic
testosterone as a gel or patch right after his really horrible stage
that he lost 7-8 minutes.

What does LeMond have to contribute to a discussion of lab analysis
techniques?

Nothing.

The reason he was being questioned at all was for statements he has
made about Landis based on nothing but his opinion. Since he has
expressed similar fact-free opinions about Armstrong, it is germane to
question him about those statements as part of impeaching his
(LeMond's) credibility.

On May 26, 10:16 am, comadreja wrote:
In article .com,
Richard Henry wrote:

On May 26, 9:18 am, comadreja wrote:
Questioning LeMond about Armstrong is germane because Lemond has made
doping charges against Armstrong for years. IF he cannot be believed
about Armstrong, why should he be believed about Landis?

Because Landis was caught.

By LeMond?

Don't be a smartass. Landis was caught by the French lab, LNDD, who
did the TDF drug testing. LeMond was called because he had a phone
conversation with Landis before his sample B was tested, after the first
sample was shown he had a 11 to 1 testosterone ratio.

The purpose of a hearing such as the one we are discussing is to get
around the "strong suspicions" to see what the facts are.

Now you are being disingenuous or playing coy. This is a
hearing/arbitration panel hearing follows the whole process after
someone is caught according to WADA protocol. This isn't about
suspicion, or the suspicion/rumours of other riders, but a hearing of
the scientific findings of his Floyd Landis's samples he took after his
stage win.

What does LeMond have to contribute to a discussion of lab analysis
techniques?

Nothing.

Have read anything why he was called to testify by USADA? It has to do
with a phone conversation he had with Landis after the sample A turned
out positive. Much like the USADA called up a banned cyclist Joe Papp,
who was caught cheating, to describe how easy to use the testosterone
gel.



The reason he was being questioned at all was for statements he has
made about Landis based on nothing but his opinion.

Obviously, you haven't been reading what has been going on at the
hearing, or the reason LeMond was asked to testify.

try this to get you up to speed..

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cyclin...ory?id=2873907

Since he has
expressed similar fact-free opinions about Armstrong, it is germane to
question him about those statements as part of impeaching his
(LeMond's) credibility.

I don't think LeMond's opinion are fact free, or sour grapes. Whether
Armstrong was drug free or not, isn't the focus of the hearings. Second
whatever LeMond has said in public about Armstrong, and vice versa of
Armstrong about LeMond. The statements are not under oath. As I wrote,
there will be always suspicions about Armstrong, but that doesn't mean
they are valid, or there is direct evidence to implicate him. The only
entity that has sour grapes for Armstrong is the French Media.

I think LeMond's focus is try to clean up cycling, given there has
been rampant drug use for years, and now that one of the top riders,
Ivan Basso has been caught, along with the retirement/banishment of Jan
Ullrich.

The only reason I chimed in on this thread was because of your
statement "Greg LeMond was correct in not answering questions about
Lance Armstrong at the hearing". LeMond should not be allowed to pick
and choose which questions he will answer. If the evidence he
presents is contradicted by Landis or his witnesses, then it is
appropriate to investigate LeMond's history of making critical
unproven statements about other American cyclists. If I were on the
hearing board, and LeMond refused to answer questions relating to his
credibility, I would throw out all of his testimony.

Getting to the real matter, the evidence against Landis consists of
laboratory fiindings not of testosterone in his blood (everyone has
some, and the levels of testosterone vary widely from indivivdual to
individual and for a single individual from day to day), but of
byproducts which are usually produced in the known process for making
testosterone outside the human body. These contaminants exist in
extremely dilute amounts and can only be detected by rigorous,
exacting lab work. Landis' people are correct to point out apparent
deficiencies in the lab work, errors in protocol or chain of
possession records and the like which may have led to an erroneous
result.

After all that, Landis may get a free pass (free except that he has
not competed for almost a year) because the Tour organizers publicized
his negative test results without waiting for the followup
confirmation tests.

BTW, There is nothing in your links that I haven't seen or heard
before. What it did get from them is that you apparently did not
understand everything that was written there.

comadreja wrote:

snip irrelevant rubbish

It isn't germane, because the hearing isn't about LeMond and Armstrong
public ****ing match, (or Armstrong's ****ing match with the WADA) it is
whether the urine sample that showed Floyd Landis took synthetic
testosterone was valid with sound laboratory protocol .

You don't really understand the way courts work do you ?

On May 26, 12:06 pm, comadreja wrote:
In article .com,
Richard Henry wrote:

If I were on the
hearing board, and LeMond refused to answer questions relating to his
credibility, I would throw out all of his testimony.

Which is why there is a very good chance that LeMond's testimony will
be thrown out.

Getting to the real matter, the evidence against Landis consists of
laboratory fiindings not of testosterone in his blood (everyone has
some, and the levels of testosterone vary widely from indivivdual to
individual and for a single individual from day to day), but of
byproducts which are usually produced in the known process for making
testosterone outside the human body. These contaminants exist in
extremely dilute amounts and can only be detected by rigorous,
exacting lab work. Landis' people are correct to point out apparent
deficiencies in the lab work, errors in protocol or chain of
possession records and the like which may have led to an erroneous
result.

Which is why the WADA has a list of certain products that shouldn't be
used by athletes in certain sports, and have the athletes and/or their
coaches use substitutes, or get a waiver for a certain medication.

I don't see what Landis and his legal team have shown that the lab work
was sloppy, or his urine samples was compromised or got some sort of
false positive reading. Were there problems with record keeping and
labelling? yes, but it shouldn't take away from the main focus, the
testing protocol and the results.

The "testing protocol" includes the lab procedures,

Even though Landis A sample should had been announced, I think that
is the problem when France's main sport newspaper runs the Tour De
France.

That's not a valid excuse for the revelation but it is a valid reason
for Landis to get off.

After all that, Landis may get a free pass (free except that he has
not competed for almost a year) because the Tour organizers publicized
his negative test results without waiting for the followup
confirmation tests.

BTW, There is nothing in your links that I haven't seen or heard
before. What it did get from them is that you apparently did not
understand everything that was written there.

If you have known seen or heard before, then why state that LeMond was
called to testify solely on his opinions?

Because he has no unimpeachable facts to add.

On May 26, 11:30 am, comadreja wrote:
In article ,

BrritSki wrote:
comadreja wrote:

snip irrelevant rubbish

It isn't germane, because the hearing isn't about LeMond and Armstrong
public ****ing match, (or Armstrong's ****ing match with the WADA) it is
whether the urine sample that showed Floyd Landis took synthetic
testosterone was valid with sound laboratory protocol .

You don't really understand the way courts work do you ?

It is not a court, it is an arbitration hearing.

You really don't understand the arbitration hearings function as a
substitute for courts, upon the agreement (usually prior agreement, as
in this case) between the contesting parties.

On May 26, 2:43 pm, comadreja wrote:
In article .com,
Richard Henry wrote:





On May 26, 11:30 am, comadreja wrote:
In article ,

BrritSki wrote:
comadreja wrote:

snip irrelevant rubbish

It isn't germane, because the hearing isn't about LeMond and Armstrong
public ****ing match, (or Armstrong's ****ing match with the WADA) it is
whether the urine sample that showed Floyd Landis took synthetic
testosterone was valid with sound laboratory protocol .

You don't really understand the way courts work do you ?

It is not a court, it is an arbitration hearing.

You really don't understand the arbitration hearings function as a
substitute for courts, upon the agreement (usually prior agreement, as
in this case) between the contesting parties.

The arbitration panel is not an agreement between the two parties, it
is part of procedure set up by WADA, and UCI (Union Cycliste
Internationale) abides by and USADA runs for WADA in the US for drug
testing violations. The guidelines that give the respondent's legal
team say, is in one of the selection of the WADA certified panelist,
USADA selects the other WADA panelist, and a final panelist is randomly
selected by a pool of arbiters approved by WADA. I believe it is all in
Article 8 of the WADA Code to NADO, National Anti-Doping Organizations.

The panel and procedure heavily favours the WADA, which is the
reason that USADA hasn't lost a case yet. The only other thing that
the respondent has any say about the hearing is whether to have it
opened or close to the public.

It is not a court, and the burden of proof rules and regulation are
too low for most nations' law courts. Which is why both sides used alot
of antics and chicanery during the LeMond testimony.

The two parties I was referring to that made the agreement to use the
arbitarion panel were WADA (representing the "establishment"and UCI
(representing hte cyclists, and presumably Landis). I agree the
arbitration panel is less rigorous and therefore less expensive and
time-consuming. However, if the panel exhibits bias or does not
follow its own rules, its results can be challenged in regular civil
courts.