Comments on: Contador feels your pain

By: bikescag

bikescag — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 01:49:04 +0000

Jon
You must have been platered on Yuenglimg Lager…yes he is a snatch doctor. Guess there’s not much money lookin @ pussy in Spain.

By: John

John — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:13:12 +0000

Told ya.

By: hellbelly

hellbelly — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:25:23 +0000

To summarize:

If pussy + juice = Fuentes, than Floyd + Fuentes + UCI + American Lawyers = The Juice?

By: bikesgonewild

bikesgonewild — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:31:38 +0000

‘….if slick pulled off the trick, then you must acquit that hick’
-Johnny Cochrane

I personally don’t have proof either way, as to whether Floyd is guilty or not. Neither do you.

I do know that USACycling considered him guilty from the get go, which could affect the arbitration ruling.

USACycling has had its own agenda going on for years, supposedly ‘for the good of the sport’.

But, Hey, it’s life, where nothing is as up front or as above board as most of us would like to see.

By: GeWilli

GeWilli — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:27:12 +0000

bikepunk…

i’ll buy that, only with photographic evidence that Fuentes looks like Lance’s Mom…. (just like all the other “chicks” he’s banged)

By: bikepunk

bikepunk — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:01:03 +0000

I still say Fuentes is a pole-smoking semi-señorita who takes it up the chuff from the likes of Lance, Basso, and all the dopers as ‘payment’.

By: GeWilli

GeWilli — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:58:27 +0000

patrick tod patrick tod

will you two get an effin ROOM

;)

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:18:06 +0000

besides, it’d be cool to see Floyd perform once he knows every single eye is upon him. Sort of like Tyler’s “stellar” results in the spring (lol)

By: John

John — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:15:30 +0000

Floyd could be the new OJ; guilty as sin meets the Keystone Kops. The authorities have gotta have game if this mess is ever going to get cleaned up, and there’s no way that the greater good will be served by a conviction based on shoddy work. The standard in an arbitration is “a preponderance of the evidence” rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” so it could go either way.

Speaking of “got game,” whomever made that “French Labs” crack after the first dog crash still has me laughing a month later-that was great.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:59:02 +0000

And this will be an inherent problem for all future high-profile doping cases. The tests are complicated, and are not easily interpreted by laymen. I’ll bet that you could take an actual doper, administer a test, get a truly positive result and then hire Floyd’s defense team to poke a zillion holes in the results.

All that stuff about the overwritten test data? Turned out that it was as simple as the lab worker turning on the machine and making sure that it was working properly.

What I think will work against Floyd is the personal character stuff. This is a “preponderance of the evidence” stuff and not “beyond reasonable doubt”. Floyd and his buddy really fucked up by calling Lemond that night. Even if Floyd really had nothing to do with it.

By: Evil_Bumpkin

Evil_Bumpkin — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:53:29 +0000

The shit thing with Landis is that if he gets off it will be due to a “technicallity” not because he is really innocent…sigh…gotta love American lawyers.

By: Bush43

Bush43 — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:50:28 +0000

I think Floyd’s case is problematic. There is no doubt the French Lab, probably the same one that took down the rider, really screwed up the analysis.

Now, you can read through the really bad data and “see” that Floyd doped (as the esteemed Dr. Don Catlin did). Or, you can say, these analysis are technically poor and we can’t convict a guy on beyond a shadow of doubt if the data have been so screwed. (As the chief tech for the IRMS machine did).

So I think the arbitration committee is stuck between convicting Floyd based on bad data, or calling a “technicality” and letting him go.

My personal opinion is that 1) sure Floyd doped and 2) you can’t convict him on that analysis because the work was so sloppy. If you can’t do better lab work than that, then you can’t convict.

I think that is the reason the decision is so slow to come. The arbitrators are trying to look into the faulty analysis with the same understanding a scientist would. Of course, that’s probably wishful thinking on my part.