Basso to join Discovery team

Well whistlers, there's POSITIVE PROOF of Landis' post-stage 16 IV use, BECAUSE HE ADMITTED IT IN A PUBLISHED MEDIA INTERVIEW -- IN HIS OWN WORDS. And there's POSITIVE PROOF that the Prohibited Methods provision of UCI's Prohibited List generally bans IV infusions.

SO WHERE'S LANDIS' PROOF THAT HIS IV USE WAS LEGITIMATE "MEDICAL TREATMENT", AS SOME HERE TRY TO CLAIM, AND WHERE'S LANDIS' PROOF THAT HE OFFICIALLY DISCLOSED IT, AS HE'S REQUIRED TO DO? ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT LANDIS IS ENTITLED TO UNDERGO "UNDISCLOSED" MEDICAL TREATMENT; IF SO, WHAT ENTITLES HIM TO DO THIS?

Will wrote:

Well whistlers, there's POSITIVE PROOF of Landis' post-stage 16 IV use, BECAUSE HE ADMITTED IT IN A PUBLISHED MEDIA INTERVIEW -- IN HIS OWN WORDS. And there's POSITIVE PROOF that the Prohibited Methods provision of UCI's Prohibited List generally bans IV infusions.
SO WHERE'S LANDIS' PROOF THAT HIS IV USE WAS LEGITIMATE "MEDICAL TREATMENT", AS SOME HERE TRY TO CLAIM, AND WHERE'S LANDIS' PROOF THAT HE OFFICIALLY DISCLOSED IT, AS HE'S REQUIRED TO DO? ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT LANDIS IS ENTITLED TO UNDERGO "UNDISCLOSED" MEDICAL TREATMENT; IF SO, WHAT ENTITLES HIM TO DO THIS?

I call you on Off-Topic here because you've been pestering 2 dozen topics with the same irrelevant case you're trying to make here. How about you explain your accusations about Dr. Kay being a "dope-doctor". I doubt you have one bit of anything that supports your assault on Dr. Kay's reputation.

nevrflw wrote:

<quoted text>
I call you on Off-Topic here because you've been pestering 2 dozen topics with the same irrelevant case you're trying to make here. How about you explain your accusations about Dr. Kay being a "dope-doctor". I doubt you have one bit of anything that supports your assault on Dr. Kay's reputation.

I'm not rising to the bait that you and TalkingpointsBlurVerity throw down BY PUTTING YOUR WORDS INTO MY MOUTH AND THEN HAVING ME DEFEND "YOUR WORDS".

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO QUOTE OF ME SAYING:"Dr. Kay being a "dope-doctor".

YOU AND TalkingpointsBlurVerity ADD YOUR SPIN TO COME WITH THIS PHONY QUOTE TO USE IN YOUR PHONY ARGUMENT AGAINST ME, BUT THE PROOF OF YOUR LIE IS THAT THE QUOTE YOU REFER TO FROM ME NEVER EVEN MENTIONS DR. KAY'S NAME.

And nothing can be MORE "on-topic" than the issue of LANDIS' CREDIBILITY WHEN HE CLAIMS THAT HE DIDN'T DOPE FOR THE TdF.

At the hearing, Landis will CERTAINLY be examined about whether he doped, as well as whether he had the MOTIVE, MEANS AND OPPORTUNITY to dope.

We all can guess at Landis' MOTIVE to dope -- actually SEVERAL come to mind.

The banned IV use certainly provided a MEANS to dope as well as an OPPORTUNITY to dope.

Thus, Landis' post-stage 16 IV use is HIGHLY RELEVANT to the issue of whether he doped for the TdF, AND WILL REMAIN HIGHLY RELEVANT WHETHER OR NOT LANDIS FACES A SEPARATE DISCIPLINARY CHARGE FOR THE IV USE.

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not rising to the bait that you and TalkingpointsBlurVerity throw down BY PUTTING YOUR WORDS INTO MY MOUTH AND THEN HAVING ME DEFEND "YOUR WORDS".
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO QUOTE OF ME SAYING:"Dr. Kay being a "dope-doctor".
YOU AND TalkingpointsBlurVerity ADD YOUR SPIN TO COME WITH THIS PHONY QUOTE TO USE IN YOUR PHONY ARGUMENT AGAINST ME, BUT THE PROOF OF YOUR LIE IS THAT THE QUOTE YOU REFER TO FROM ME NEVER EVEN MENTIONS DR. KAY'S NAME.
And nothing can be MORE "on-topic" than the issue of LANDIS' CREDIBILITY WHEN HE CLAIMS THAT HE DIDN'T DOPE FOR THE TdF.
At the hearing, Landis will CERTAINLY be examined about whether he doped, as well as whether he had the MOTIVE, MEANS AND OPPORTUNITY to dope.
We all can guess at Landis' MOTIVE to dope -- actually SEVERAL come to mind.
The banned IV use certainly provided a MEANS to dope as well as an OPPORTUNITY to dope.
Thus, Landis' post-stage 16 IV use is HIGHLY RELEVANT to the issue of whether he doped for the TdF, AND WILL REMAIN HIGHLY RELEVANT WHETHER OR NOT LANDIS FACES A SEPARATE DISCIPLINARY CHARGE FOR THE IV USE.

Thanks for reminding me! You said, and I quote,
[QUOTE who=will]
Does ANYBODY think for one moment that Landis' rehab does NOT include a DRUG REGIMEN of PERFORMANCE-ENHANCERS? And I have no doubt that he's on MASKING AGENTS too, lest he be tapped for out-of-competition testing. Face it -- his dope doctors KNOW that Landis is being watched, so they'll be DOUBLY-SURE not to srew up his masking regimen.
[/QUOTE]
And you have never specifically responded to the queries about this allegation that you have floated and then run away from?
Are you willing to provide a name and address for yourself so you can receive a cease and desist letter for your libelous statements above? It certainly appears to contain statements made with a reckless disregard for the truth, made with actual malice, and without any attempt to qualify the statements with "in my opinion".
How would you argue back if Dr. Kay decided you were calling him a doping doctor, since he is supervising the recovery? Are you going to say that Dr. Kay isn't the doping doctor you meant? Are you saying that Dr. Kay doesn't know what medications Landis is or isn't taking? Isn't that impugning Dr. Kay's professional reputation?
So, you are now saying the Dr Kay is NOT the doping doctor you meant, and that he doesn't know what his patient is taking? Does that not impugn his reputation?
TBV

Spin away. Talk about "strawman"...LOL.

Here is what is writing about IV use in UCI's Prohibitive list: "Intervenous infusions are prohibited, except as a legitimate acute medical treatment."

As I had stated earlier, IV is a legal and an acute medical treatment for dehydration. But, than any doctor or nuse and most people already know that as a fact. Will either misunderstood this simple sentence or just cannot understand simple English. Of course he could have just turned it around to his way of thinking.

One thing that I forgot to include with the above explanation about the IV useage. It would be the cycling team's and or their medical doctor's responsibility to file the report about the IV use here to the UCI and WADA.

Talking with my cousin who's a doctor and cycling fan, he stated that if Floyd Landis hadn't used the IV treatment, that he would have had to drop out of the race. Reason is that level of dehydration often leaves any person medically incapable of recovery for 2-3 days. He also remembered that IV has been used on various occassions in past TDF's. He could not remeber the names of the cyclists.

MOEP, when Landis is asked at his hearing about whether he doped for the TdF, do you expect him to deny doping?

And when Landis is asked about the IV INFUSION that he had right after stage 16, which apparently was UNDISCLOSED and NOT PROPERLY DOCUMENTED, do you expect him to deny it?

Why wouldn't a reasonable arbitrator conclude that A POST-STAGE 16 IV INFUSION PROVIDES THE MEANS AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR AN ATHLETE TO DOPE, especially if the IV infusion was NOT properly-disclosed and NOT properly-documented?

Hi everyone,

Haven't been a regular but what does Will's comments about IVs have to do with Basso joining discovery?

Will's comments about IVs has to do with "Floyd Landis" -- non-regulars should check the title of the forums to assure that they are in the "Ivan Basso" forum, NOT the "Floyd Landis" forum. However, non-regulars will soon discover that some of the Topix.net forum postings are DUPLICATED onto other forums.

Non-regulars will also quickly learn the bullish, selective fact finding, absurd methods that Will uses to highjack this forum.

Non-regulars will soon enough learn the denial that characterizes the Landis supporters, who so much WANT a favorable outcome for Landis that they're willing to COMPROMISE TRUTH for it.

Yet none of their vehement denials and refusals to acknowledge the obvious change a single "fact on the ground" -- the scientific, circumstantial and credibility evidence all support the conclusion that Landis doped for the TdF and will probably be disciplined for it.

Will wrote:

Non-regulars will soon enough learn the denial that characterizes the Landis supporters, who so much WANT a favorable outcome for Landis that they're willing to COMPROMISE TRUTH for it.
Yet none of their vehement denials and refusals to acknowledge the obvious change a single "fact on the ground" -- the scientific, circumstantial and credibility evidence all support the conclusion that Landis doped for the TdF and will probably be disciplined for it.

Tell me, what has this to do with the topic "Basso to join Discovery team" ?

Phillip wrote:

Non-regulars will also quickly learn the bullish, selective fact finding, absurd methods that Will uses to highjack this forum.

To say that I "highjack this forum" suggests that I somehow am TAKING the forum FROM ITS RIGHTFUL OWNERS.

Regardless what THEY may think, LANDISTAS DON'T OWN THIS FORUM, PHILLIP.

"MOEP, when Landis is asked at his hearing about whether he doped for the TdF, do you expect him to deny doping?"

As Floyd Landis has continued stating that he hasn't used illegal drugs, than I can only guess that he will do the same at his public hearing.

"And when Landis is asked about the IV INFUSION that he had right after stage 16, which apparently was UNDISCLOSED and NOT PROPERLY DOCUMENTED, do you expect him to deny it?"

Again, I can only guess that he would deny using illegal drugs. As for the IV treatment not being properly documented and was undisclosed, I haven't read anything that has supported that information.

Of course if you have read where it stated that the IV treatment was not properly documented and that it was undisclosed, maybe you could post that information in this forum.

"Why wouldn't a reasonable arbitrator conclude that A POST-STAGE 16 IV INFUSION PROVIDES THE MEANS AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR AN ATHLETE TO DOPE, especially if the IV infusion was NOT properly-disclosed and NOT properly-documented?"

A competent arbitrator could also conclude that the IV treatment was just the normal medical treatment that is normally provided for anyone who was badley dehydrated.

The banned IV use certainly provided a MEANS to dope as well as an OPPORTUNITY to dope.

Thyank you for providing the web site for this information. As everyone can read what I had copied from that web site and posted here, your statement of "Banned IV Use" was some what misleading.

"Thus, Landis' post-stage 16 IV use is HIGHLY RELEVANT to the issue of whether he doped for the TdF, AND WILL REMAIN HIGHLY RELEVANT WHETHER OR NOT LANDIS FACES A SEPARATE DISCIPLINARY CHARGE FOR THE IV USE."

The IV medical treatment may or may not be relevent in determining whether or not Floyd Landis used illegal drugs as there is no proof there. The officials have none of the medical equipment (IV bag, sergical tubing and siringe) that was used for that treatment for evidence in proving that Floyd Landis cheated.

I forgot one other point to the last question in my post above.

Without the proof or evidence (IV bag, Sergical tubing and Siringe) to determine and test for any drug residue, I doubt that USADA, UCI or WADA could provide a seperate charge for the IV use!

"There is NO EVIDENCE that Landis disclosed or documented the IV infusion OFFICIALLY to the TdF, to the Doping Control Officer or to ANYBODY ELSE, for that matter."

I think that I just answered my own question about proof of whether or not that the IV treatment was undisclosed and undocumented.

Will stated in his above qouted statement that there is was no evidence that Floyd Landis disclosed or documented the IV use. Than that can also show that there is no evidence that he didn't disclose and document the IV use as well.

Again as I shared a while ago, the documention and disclosing of the IV use would have been handled by the cycling tean and their medical doctor/staff. It would not have been done by the cyclist.

MOEP is blissful because he is obviously unaware of the Tim Montgomery arbitration case as it relates to the rule that admissions may serve as proof of a doping violation. Perhaps MOEP needs to review the recent threads for a posting by Jon of Salt Lake City, UT which noted the implications of the Tim Montgomery case -- I suspect, however, that the point of Jon's observations would be lost on MOEP.

Will wrote:

MOEP is blissful because he is obviously unaware of the Tim Montgomery arbitration case as it relates to the rule that admissions may serve as proof of a doping violation. Perhaps MOEP needs to review the recent threads for a posting by Jon of Salt Lake City, UT which noted the implications of the Tim Montgomery case -- I suspect, however, that the point of Jon's observations would be lost on MOEP.

Smoke screen !

Unless I missed Floyd admitting a doping violation.

Just another tangent and more whistle blowing by Will.

Where is a case of sanction for IV use?

Where is a charge against Landis?

There is nothing to this argument. It's smoke and mirrors.

TBV