Agency spent $1.3 million on Landis case

Spent, in order to prove Landis Guilty?

hell no...

Spent, in order to DISPROVE that WADA is guilty of negligent international agreeement drafting!

BIG story soon...

ZEN-WADAwatch

Good point ZENman. If the USADA and WADA were really secure in their beliefs here, they wouldn't have had to spend such an amount of money for proving those beliefs.

Guess the May 2007 ARB's hearing-decision may have backfired into the faces of the WADA and USADA.

Maybe they're a little worried on how the CAS will respond.

Cheers ZENman

Read my blog, I have an article on Fahey and his frigging 1.3 million. Could open some doors.
Cheers guys! Feeling a little depressed. Losing a bicycle sucks. Some a holes will steal anything.

Jon wrote:

Read my blog, I have an article on Fahey and his frigging 1.3 million. Could open some doors.
Cheers guys! Feeling a little depressed. Losing a bicycle sucks. Some a holes will steal anything.

Sorry about the bike being stolen Jon. But, glad you weren't physically hurt in that process.

Can you provided the web site for your blog Jon?

Cheers Jon

WADA... Dear John Letter:

http://wadawatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/wada-de...

Quoting my nearly bestest, most favorite all-time writer... heh heh:

But make no mistake about the hidden message therein:

WADA is bankrupting (In our opinion, at least morally, if not financially) itself, NOT to prove Landis doped.

It is draining its litigation account (the legality of which remains to be determined, as WADAwatch argued in its Revised Amicus Brief from early April) for one simple reason:

WADA is fighting to prove itself NOT GUILTY - in our neutral opinion, of permitting tortious laboratory malfeasance, of committing gross ethics violations by itself (through former president Dick Pound) and its French laboratory, and of submitting and enforcing: incredibly, poorly, Machiavellianly, its biased drafting (not once but twice) of the WADA CODE.

ENDquote

ZENdidit

Well they don't have anyone holding them accountable, so they are going to continue acting and behaving like the misfits they are.

Cheers

ZENmud wrote:

WADA... Dear John Letter:
http://wadawatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/wada-de...
Quoting my nearly bestest, most favorite all-time writer... heh heh:
But make no mistake about the hidden message therein:
WADA is bankrupting (In our opinion, at least morally, if not financially) itself, NOT to prove Landis doped.
It is draining its litigation account (the legality of which remains to be determined, as WADAwatch argued in its Revised Amicus Brief from early April) for one simple reason:
WADA is fighting to prove itself NOT GUILTY - in our neutral opinion, of permitting tortious laboratory malfeasance, of committing gross ethics violations by itself (through former president Dick Pound) and its French laboratory, and of submitting and enforcing: incredibly, poorly, Machiavellianly, its biased drafting (not once but twice) of the WADA CODE.
ENDquote
ZENdidit

It might be too much to ask the CAS to exonerate Floyd Landis, because in my opinion they are as corrupt as WADA. Petacchi! 365ng/ml over the limit, a humid day the man is suffering from asthma, the race was OVER. Yet, a year suspension. Poor Floyd spent two million to expose these people and yet the CAS gives Petacchi a year suspension anyway. With idiots like that WADA need not worry about the worthless code or the statements of someone like POUND.
Sheeeesh!
Jon

My Opinion_El Paso_TX wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry about the bike being stolen Jon. But, glad you weren't physically hurt in that process.
Can you provided the web site for your blog Jon?
Cheers Jon

Yes, MOEP. My articles can be found on TBV's website also. I assume you are reading TBV's website every day. If not you should be.

www.velovortmax.blogspot.com

these may be true Jon, but then the States are going to stop promoting a craven system that denies rights... Maybe there should NOT be 'private arbitration' of these cases, as long as WADA is moving towards Law enforcement status...?

Landis may survive, more than WADA's system, UNLESS immediate reforms are discussed and enacted: yesterday!

An 'earthquake' awaits WADA: I'd be on vacation from that Org when 'Landis' gets announced...

:-))

ZEN
PS: Were you rereading 'Lemond's Uncle's Bedtime stories' when you drafted your last article?(Cruel snickering here...)

NB: in typing 'States', I meant 'world gumm'ints', not 'USA'...

z--oops

ZENmud wrote:

PS: Were you rereading 'Lemond's Uncle's Bedtime stories' when you drafted your last article?(Cruel snickering here...)

Certainly not! What do you mean? LOL!
Jon

Jon wrote:

<quoted text>
It might be too much to ask the CAS to exonerate Floyd Landis, because in my opinion they are as corrupt as WADA. Petacchi! 365ng/ml over the limit, a humid day the man is suffering from asthma, the race was OVER. Yet, a year suspension. Poor Floyd spent two million to expose these people and yet the CAS gives Petacchi a year suspension anyway. With idiots like that WADA need not worry about the worthless code or the statements of someone like POUND.
Sheeeesh!
Jon

You make a good point here in relation to the CAS decision on Petacchi. It looks to be a "Damned If I Do, Damned If I Don't" situation for Petacchi.

It just shows that more research needs to be conducted in each individual rider for determining how medications actually effect the cyclists. Therefore being able to better fine tune the rules.

Jon wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, MOEP. My articles can be found on TBV's website also. I assume you are reading TBV's website every day. If not you should be.
www.velovortmax.blogspot.com

Thanks Jon.I take your scolding in earnest and I will read TBV every day. First I need to go sit in the corner for being naughty in not reading TBV lately.

Cheers Amigo

LOLx100

I***ST INC*** I*CE***NC*T I****TUOUS IN**ST...

:-)

Glad I didn't 'think' of that... bwaaaaaaaa-etc.

zenSUPPLEMENTS
nb: Replace * with I or N or C or E or S or T, respectively (to avoid ToOthPIX censors 'Please refrain from _________' notices...

Jon wrote:

<quoted text>
Certainly not! What do you mean? LOL!
Jon

We need a man with a 'wILL' on our side again... ooooops: meant 'site'...

ZENtoWork!