Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...

1…3940424445…64

Comments

  • Robb0
    Robb0 Posts: 90
    A request to Dennis and others: perhaps you could avoid quoting almost the entire preceding conversation each time? It forces us to scroll through huge swathes of junk to get to your point (or to ignore it). Just quote the last quote if you’re going to quote. I’ve no problem with people posting contrary views, but to read what has been said before, including some very informative links, before you post, is just common sense.

    I’ve got a couple of questions about that interesting article by Bonnie Ford.

    “the drug disperses more quickly in the bloodstream and thus becomes undetectable sooner -- especially if riders dilute their blood with an intravenous drip of saline solution or simply by drinking a lot of water after injecting it.”
    How does diluting your blood make the drug undetectable? I understand it will reduce your hematocrit, as that is just the concentration of red blood cells, and if you water down the blood that will go down. But if the drug is present in the blood in however many parts per million, diluting it by say 500mL would only reduce its concentration by about 10 percent.

    Also does drinking water really dilute your blood? I imagine if you are really dehydrated, drinking water will restore your blood to a normal concentration. But if you are adequately hydrated won’t any excess water you drink just be peed out?

    Are urine tests for EPO still valid? I read in some interview that you can mask it, so I thought only blood tests were valid.

    Another thing that I want to understand is, is the blood’s oxygen-carrying ability and hence aerobic performance related to the concentration of RBC/haemoglobin or to the total amount of RBC/haemoglobin? I imagine it’s the former, i.e. how much oxygen is delivered to the muscles per volume of blood i.e. by each heartbeat. So diluting your blood would negate any benefit of EPO or transfused extra RBCs? And would only be done if necessary, i.e. there was an imminent test?
  • turkeytickler
    turkeytickler Posts: 640
    mididoctors wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    when or if LA is convicted, who gets his TDF wins...Big Jan? :lol: what a farce it could turn into

    already is a farce
    if it went down far enough it could be filippo simeoni - that would be poetic justice 8)
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,651
    jimmythecuckoo wrote:
    This thread is on target to be the longest ever... bigger than girls in lycra.

    Keep going :)

    There's a girls in lycra thread? Where? Why did no one tell me?
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    There's a girls in lycra thread? Where? Why did no one tell me?
    http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12544013

    :wink:
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,651
    Robb0 wrote:
    Another thing that I want to understand is, is the blood’s oxygen-carrying ability and hence aerobic performance related to the concentration of RBC/haemoglobin or to the total amount of RBC/haemoglobin? I imagine it’s the former, i.e. how much oxygen is delivered to the muscles per volume of blood i.e. by each heartbeat. So diluting your blood would negate any benefit of EPO or transfused extra RBCs? And would only be done if necessary, i.e. there was an imminent test?

    Well I'm Not A Doctor (would have been my handle if I didn't have six thumbs when it came to typing, but Not ta Doctor seemed to fit this doping thread I signed up to comment on anyway...) but....

    If your blood is too thick then your heart has to do more work getting it to your muscles, so when you dilute blood you might be able to deliver a higher volume per heart beat, even though the red blood cells per volume is lower.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • Bakunin
    Bakunin Posts: 868
    dennisn wrote:
    O.K. I will admit to not having read all the posts in this, or to having read all the articles that have been referenced, or to even following this whole affair very closely. More of an outsider trying to look at the big picture and overwhelmed by all the possible details.

    Straight from Dennis' keyboard -- and that is the problem. No reason to take him seriously. He doesn't move the discussion forward. In fact, he does a good job of killing it.

    Dave, Rich, and MG have things to say. When they respond/post, there is always something to think about (especially when I don't agree). No one knows where this will go. Dennis, on the other hand, rants like a waster with some post-modern sensibility.

    And his discussion about being under oath was silly.

    I'm all for Dennis posting, but I just cannot read it.
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,651
    BikingBernie wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    There's a girls in lycra thread? Where? Why did no one tell me?
    http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12544013

    :wink:

    Cheers. Think I might make it an early bedtiome for the kids to give me time to pay that the attention it so clearly deserves :-)
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • thomasmc
    thomasmc Posts: 814
    frenchfighter wrote:
    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/94814334.html

    Definitely one of the sadder & forgotten aspects of this whole sordid affair! How one man’s name & reputation can be dragged through the gutter! :cry:
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    jimmythecuckoo wrote:
    This thread is on target to be the longest ever... bigger than girls in lycra.

    Keep going :)

    There's a girls in lycra thread? Where? Why did no one tell me?

    :lol::lol::lol::lol:
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    jimmythecuckoo wrote:
    This thread is on target to be the longest ever... bigger than girls in lycra.

    Keep going :)

    I disagree. You guys are much more interested, in the long run, with butts and boobs
    than you'll ever be with LA, FL, and for that matter any male cyclist.
    Well, most of you.
  • jimmythecuckoo
    jimmythecuckoo Posts: 4,718
    Hi Dennis,

    In the main you are right.

    Scandal is only interesting to a point. Then its dull.
    http://fendrieneu.home.blog
    My blog and pod...
    Beers of Belgium Cycling Club UK
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Dave_1 wrote:
    SpaceJunk wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Think people should go easy on Dennis N. His points about this under oath and perjury stuff I found enlightening...people won't automatically tell the truth and the judge and jury will decide...we all hope they will tell the truth but it will be very easy for those who lance has contacted months ago about a possible Federal investigation (he's not as dumb as we'd like to think) to say "I don't remember that", "it's 8 years ago, I can't remember the details" or "no I didn't do that"....and who can prove them wrong? Who do you send to jail?

    I agree re: Dennis N.

    I don't necessarily agree with all that he posts; but he has as much right to be on this forum as I or anyone else.

    I suggest if people are annoy with his repetitive arguments, then just ignore them (no offense Dennis :wink: )

    And Dennis does from time to time make some interesting observations.

    I don't live in the USA nor do that many regulars on here I think so I am quite willing to accept Dennis's observations regarding the US judiciary and esp his views on how people there treat the under oath part of the process.

    LAs legal team will put together a powerful case portraying Landis as blackmailer-they'll shred this guy and every aspect of how he's lived since 2006. LA will have had private investigators on Landis for years, as soon as those threats were made. Who would just let someone threaten your life like that?

    A murder trial I was on had everyone "under oath", the usual process. At no point were we told, by the judge, that we must believe anything that anyone said while under oath.
    In the end it came down to a very simple - did we 12 jurors ALL believe that the defendant
    broke the law(AS IT WAS WRITTEN) that he was accused of breaking. We were instructed to put all emotions aside(yeah, right) and not to base our decision on whether we felt the law was right or wrong. Did he do it, according to what the law said, as written? Nothing more.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    So in other words you were asked to judge if you believed the evidence was true. And in this case, that's exactly what will happen.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    O.K. I will admit to not having read all the posts in this, or to having read all the articles.........

    What Landis stands to lose = nothing.
    What Landis stands to gain = peace of mind and revenge.

    I'll go along with peace of mind, revenge, and maybe a few other things. Although I'm not sure revenge is the greatest of ideas(or tends to really gain you very much). It tends to cloud your mind, but I do understand why people want it.

    As for nothing(left) to lose? I don't know. Having your life filled with lawyers and investigators isn't exactly my idea of "nothing to lose". At least it won't be boring.
  • rockmount
    rockmount Posts: 761
    iainf72 wrote:
    So in other words you were asked to judge if you believed the evidence was true. And in this case, that's exactly what will happen.
    And then ... will it be over ?? Some how I doubt it !
    .. who said that, internet forum people ?
  • Bronzie
    Bronzie Posts: 4,927
    Don't know if it's already been posted (like Dennis, I haven't read the whole thread) but this article touches on some of the legal ramifications and posibilities:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/w ... index.html

    The only certainty is that some lawyers are going to get very rich off all of this before the dust settles. :roll:
    It's a Lifestyle! -+-+- Coggan Training Levels
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    iainf72 wrote:
    So in other words you were asked to judge if you believed the evidence was true. And in this case, that's exactly what will happen.

    Well, there was evidence presented that he didn't do it, but, quoting the judge "...the preponderance of evidence..." swayed the jury that this evidence of his innocence, was, at best, not good at all. It was a pretty cut and dried case. He was there, he did it.
    So I guess I'm saying, not all evidence is true. Even though lawyers present it as so.
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    For anyone out there who may be interested in a rational, non-hysterical discussion of the situation, the latest sports scientists blog is interesting reading:

    http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/05 ... oping.html
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • SunWuKong
    SunWuKong Posts: 364
    Here's a good take on it from a good blog http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/05/denials-acceptance-and-anti-doping.html

    The bit by Steve is well worth a read (yes that includes you too Dennis :wink: )
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    Bronzie wrote:
    Don't know if it's already been posted (like Dennis, I haven't read the whole thread) but this article touches on some of the legal ramifications and posibilities:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/w ... index.html

    The only certainty is that some lawyers are going to get very rich off all of this before the dust settles. :roll:

    LAs ex wife has already denied what landis said. My reading of the article is there is as much chance of there not being a Federal investigation as there of one being held.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Another good one with a few more bits in it

    http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_ ... tml?page=0
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Bronzie wrote:
    Don't know if it's already been posted (like Dennis, I haven't read the whole thread) but this article touches on some of the legal ramifications and posibilities:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/w ... index.html

    The only certainty is that some lawyers are going to get very rich off all of this before the dust settles. :roll:

    LAs ex wife has already denied what landis said. My reading of the article is there is as much chance of there not being a Federal investigation as there of one being held.

    I would guess that the "powers that be(federal investigators)" first have to WANT to pursue this matter and secondly have at least some feeling that they have a case that is
    winnable. Or thirdly, they have bigger fish to fry and not enough man power to do the job. What with terrorists and the like taking up just a bit of their time. In reality they might feel that an LA vs FL cat fight is nothing worthwhile.
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    Dave_1 wrote:
    LAs ex wife has already denied what landis said. My reading of the article is there is as much chance of there not being a Federal investigation as there of one being held.
    Have you a reference for that? I thought that she had simply said that she 'couldn't remember'.
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    edited May 2010
    dennisn wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Bronzie wrote:
    Don't know if it's already been posted (like Dennis, I haven't read the whole thread) but this article touches on some of the legal ramifications and posibilities:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/w ... index.html

    The only certainty is that some lawyers are going to get very rich off all of this before the dust settles. :roll:

    LAs ex wife has already denied what landis said. My reading of the article is there is as much chance of there not being a Federal investigation as there of one being held.

    I would guess that the "powers that be(federal investigators)" first have to WANT to pursue this matter and secondly have at least some feeling that they have a case that is
    winnable. Or thirdly, they have bigger fish to fry and not enough man power to do the job. What with terrorists and the like taking up just a bit of their time. In reality they might feel that an LA vs FL cat fight is nothing worthwhile.


    they will back off if they can't see a chance of a winnable case and there is no evidence it seems...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • skavanagh.bikeradar
    skavanagh.bikeradar Posts: 1,097
    Yes, link please as I'd like to know that too. And who asked her and under what circumstances. The latest linked article from Iain above was another excellent read.
  • rapid_uphill
    rapid_uphill Posts: 841
    Thanks for the post iainf72
    If Frankie Andreu backs up Floyds story, its hook, line and sinker.
    iainf72 wrote:
    Another good one with a few more bits in it

    http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_ ... tml?page=0
  • skavanagh.bikeradar
    skavanagh.bikeradar Posts: 1,097
    As has been said elsewhere on this thread it's a waiting game for everyone involved to see if people come forward and speak to USADA and or the Feds. However, at the very least Landis is letting the anti doping agencies know where to look and what to look for in future.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Dave_1 wrote:
    they will back off if they can't see a chance of a winnable case and there is no evidence it seems...

    There is - There are eye witness statements which are evidence. It depends on how many other step up.

    It's not going to be quick, but they'll go after the money trail and you can be sure a lot of people will roll over when faced with ruin.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    rapid_uphill wrote:
    This thread is about Landis not dennisn. get back on subject or stfu. I dont have time to read drivel.

    This thread has drifted all over the place and who are you to demand it gets back on track anyway ?
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    iainf72 wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    they will back off if they can't see a chance of a winnable case and there is no evidence it seems...

    There is - There are eye witness statements which are evidence. It depends on how many other step up.

    It's not going to be quick, but they'll go after the money trail and you can be sure a lot of people will roll over when faced with ruin.


    You're right there. The more people who step up and say the same thing, the better the chance of whomever makes whatever decision to believe that evidence.

    Personally, I think if this thing goes where Landis is trying to push it that he will get torn apart and spit out by some really high end lawyers.

Categories