1999 TdF Samples: moving to the Feds?

[RdBiker]

Is it enough if they only have the B-samples? I imagine the Armstrong side will call into question the storage and degrading of the samples. Isn't the reason for two samples (A and B) that testers can rule out possible false-positives?

 

[Race Radio]

Is it enough if they only have the B-samples? I imagine the Armstrong side will call into question the storage and degrading of the samples. Isn't the reason for two samples (A and B) that testers can rule out possible false-positives?

The samples were stored in a WADA accredited lab, not some dude's fridge. There is no method of storage that can make EPO magically appear in the samples.

As for the A&B samples, This is Federal court. Two samples are not needed.

 

[theswordsman]

Is it enough if they only have the B-samples? I imagine the Armstrong side will call into question the storage and degrading of the samples. Isn't the reason for two samples (A and B) that testers can rule out possible false-positives?

Please see the Bordry quote in my last post about storage of the samples. Oh - here it is:

"If we kept the old samples to a specified person (Armstrong) because there was litigation pending. There has been spent in legal proceedings that have been developed, which led or unsuccessful, but have there been in the lab requisition for a very long time. The result is that the laboratory was kept under certain conditions, under control of the judge, sealed samples, "recalls Bordry.

The A samples have already tested positive - that's why these particular samples are being offered - they know what's in them. But the statute of limitations on doping is eight years, so this isn't a case by an anti-doping agency. Confirmations of positives from 1999 shouldn't cause him to lose the TdF title, and wouldn't cause him to be banned now.

He was able to argue about the tested samples because they were used for something other than the normal process (even though Ashenden assured that everything would have been done correctly. But again, this offer isn't about a typical doping case by an agency involved in cycling.

 

[Stephen_M]

The Statute of Limitations isn't really the point - I imagine it's not going to be a doping conviction that the Feds are really chasing here, but something much bigger.

Any retrospective testing of LA and his USP teammates is going to be looking to corroborate FLs claims. I would imagine that there may well be other samples stored (from prior to the EPO test being developed) which will be of interest to investigators.

Frozen samples will no doubt be the next ‘issue’ to be flagged by camp Armstrong – whilst the freezing will crack cells (in the same way that any fluid put in your domestic freezer will expand it), it doesn’t seem to be very effective at adding chemical entities into your sample. Strange but true…..

 

[luckyboy]

He was able to argue about the tested samples because they were used for something other than the normal process (even though Ashenden assured that everything would have been done correctly. But again, this offer isn't about a typical doping case by an agency involved in cycling.

They were used to test out the new EPO test iirc, along with Hamburger, Beltran and Castelblanco.

 

[Ferminal]

Frozen samples will no doubt be the next ‘issue’ to be flagged by camp Armstrong – whilst the freezing will crack cells

Lance is no slouch when it comes to maintaining the integrity of biological samples. Perhaps he could show them how it's done.

 

[RdBiker]

The samples were stored in a WADA accredited lab, not some dude's fridge. There is no method of storage that can make EPO magically appear in the samples.

If there is no way something can go wrong in a sample from the moment the sample is given and it is tested, then why do they split it in two? Seems quite a hassle if it's totally unnecessary.

As for the A&B samples, This is Federal court. Two samples are not needed.

Do you have a source for this? (or an earlier court case regarding this)

 

[RdBiker]

Please see the Bordry quote in my last post about storage of the samples. Oh - here it is:



The A samples have already tested positive - that's why these particular samples are being offered - they know what's in them. But the statute of limitations on doping is eight years, so this isn't a case by an anti-doping agency. Confirmations of positives from 1999 shouldn't cause him to lose the TdF title, and wouldn't cause him to be banned now.

He was able to argue about the tested samples because they were used for something other than the normal process (even though Ashenden assured that everything would have been done correctly. But again, this offer isn't about a typical doping case by an agency involved in cycling.

I have problems understanding how that quote says they have both the A and B samples. English isn't my first language so that might play a role.

Anyway, I though the problem (in 2005) with the samples from 1999 was that they only had the B samples and so couldn't verify the positives. I may be misinformed but I'll have to check that.

 

[python]

Do you have a source for this? (or an earlier court case regarding this)

i am getting a little concerned that you don't understand the difference between the fedearl agency like fda and the international sporting body like wada.

are you trolling or just grossly ignorant ?

sorry if i come strong but this was covered one thousand times everywhere.

 

[Wolves-Lower]

Not to be a bother but,

Was there Chain of Custody issues with the 99 samples?

 

[theswordsman]

I have problems understanding how that quote says they have both the A and B samples. English isn't my first language so that might play a role.

The quote answered the question about storage of the samples Bordry is offering to Novitsky.

 

[Anonymous]

The French have been working with the Feds since prior to this years Tour. They are sharing information and look for them to file their own, expanded, charges shortly after the Feds file theirs in the next 3-4 months.

reminds me of the quotes from wada regarding testing at the tour de france. "we are sharing information with the afld, the uci do not have this information" etc etc.. seems everyone is in the loop except the uci

 

[RdBiker]

i am getting a little concerned that you don't understand the difference between the fedearl agency like fda and the international sporting body like wada.

are you trolling or just grossly ignorant ?

sorry if i come strong but this was covered one thousand times everywhere.

Apparently grossly ignorant. Do you have any links for threads etc. where I can get an answer? Or if you have a direct link (or answer) that would be much quicker...

The WADA has made rules for A and B samples for a reason. I don't study law or have knowledge of court cases concerning blood, urine, etc. samples so I don't know what can be upheld in court. So I wan't to know if one sample is enough for the US court and I would trust a credible source more than a single forum post.

 

[thehog]

Apparently grossly ignorant. Do you have any links for threads etc. where I can get an answer? Or if you have a direct link (or answer) that would be much quicker...

The WADA has made rules for A and B samples for a reason. I don't study law or have knowledge of court cases concerning blood, urine, etc. samples so I don't know what can be upheld in court. So I wan't to know if one sample is enough for the US court and I would trust a credible source more than a single forum post.

True. But if 6 individual independent B samples return a positive that rationale behind needing A & B to prove a positive goes away. I could understand saying 1 sample if you only have B then there is grounds to say you need an A. But 6 samples taken on different days at the Tour then one would think that the man was using PED’s.

 

[Anonymous]

He will get a T.U.E.

The EPO was clearly remnants left over from his cancer treatment.

 

[RdBiker]

True. But if 6 individual independent B samples return a positive that rationale behind needing A & B to prove a positive goes away. I could understand saying 1 sample if you only have B then there is grounds to say you need an A. But 6 samples taken on different days at the Tour then one would think that the man was using PED’s.

When I think about it this way it might very well be so. I have no problem believing the samples contain EPO (I've had no doubt Armstrong doped since 2004) I'm just interested if anyone has knowledge if it's enough for the US court.

However if the contents of one sample could've reacted in a way that produces a false-positive (during handling&storing) then one could argue that all the samples could've gone through the same transformations.

 

[Race Radio]

Apparently grossly ignorant. Do you have any links for threads etc. where I can get an answer? Or if you have a direct link (or answer) that would be much quicker...

The WADA has made rules for A and B samples for a reason. I don't study law or have knowledge of court cases concerning blood, urine, etc. samples so I don't know what can be upheld in court. So I wan't to know if one sample is enough for the US court and I would trust a credible source more than a single forum post.

This is not WADA, this is the Feds.

 

[Anonymous]

This is not WADA, this is the Feds.

If the afld are sharing information with the feds, and the afld are sharing information with wada, you can be sure its a three way triangular thing.

 

[Black-Balled]

...It seems (could be wrong) like he's floated the offer to Novitsky via the media,...

He is 'reaching out' for sure. cancer lover!!

 

[Stephen_M]

This is not WADA, this is the Feds.

Indeed - this is criminal law, not some civil suit where WADA (or an other body) are seeking to sanction a rider.

The handling issues are only of importance if you're a Public Strategies intern populating any web fora you can, or one of the key players in LA's defence team... I'm sure they'll be doing their damndest to make sure it's mentioned at every turn! However, 'handling issues' tend to lead to degradation of samples (just ask Tyler - not his twin this time...), not the addition of metabolised chemicals.

 

[RdBiker]

Let me help you highlight the right part:

The WADA has made rules for A and B samples for a reason. I don't study law or have knowledge of court cases concerning blood, urine, etc. samples so I don't know what can be upheld in court. So I wan't to know if one sample is enough for the US court and I would trust a credible source more than a single forum post.

This is not WADA, this is the Feds.

I asked a simple question. I got an answer to it. Now I would like to see proof on what the require from a sample to be considered 100% valid evidence.

 

[Black-Balled]

...However if the contents of one sample could've reacted in a way that produces a false-positive (during handling&storing) then one could argue that all the samples could've gone through the same transformations.

You love cancer too!

YOu are correct and mildly observant. That is the path:
cheat
lie
caught
play dumb
proved cheat
testing procedure challenge
report chimera
get new job

 

[Squares]

This is not WADA, this is the Feds.

You are right, and the US Government, has very strict rules on handling of evidence and the admissibility of evidence.

There was a report that indicated that the samples and data from retesting those 1999 samples was mishandled. That was the basis for the UCI not taking any action.

The standards of admissibility of evidence are even greater in US Courts. In order for evidence to be allowed, there can be no question as to the custody of the samples and all data collected for them.

It seems to me that this is Bordry trying to insert himself into the mix and to push his narrative. However, the Novitsky and the prosecutors running the grand jury have no doubt read the report dismissing the claims of AFLD and their l'Equipe leaked data.

I don't think Novitsky will touch it because there is already reasonable doubt about those samples.

 

[TubularBills]

The French have been working with the Feds since prior to this years Tour. They are sharing information and look for them to file their own, expanded, charges shortly after the Feds file theirs in the next 3-4 months.

Parallel Investigations? This is getting exciting in the same way as those old World War II movies - as the sub suffers more and more leaks, the sheer volume and depth of charges becomes overwhelming - it has two choices, sink or surface, both options reveal the truth...

 

[Stephen_M]

I don't think Novitsky will touch it because there is already reasonable doubt about those samples.[/QUOTE]

Err yeah, sure...
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
That doesn't look like either reasonable, or doubt to me...