• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

1999 TdF Samples: moving to the Feds?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Squares said:
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.

Do you really think that Novitsky will put any stock in "Report" done by the same guys who accepted a $500,000 payoff from Armstrong? A report that does not even attempt to address how EPO may have got in the samples?

Novitsky was called into this case by the US arm of WADA. Their opinion of the report?
“The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical,” “Were the matter not so serious and the allegations it contains so irresponsible, we would be inclined to give it the complete lack of attention it deserves.”
 
RdBiker said:
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.

I don't think there is such a requirement firmly established. The UCI has the A & B samples thing spelled out clearly so that there's no confusion as to what must take place for a sporting sanction to be handed down.

But in a federal court, I think the deciding factor will be whether or not the prosecutor can convince a judge that the sample is relevant/valid. This is just my understanding, based on no documents or precedents, but I think there are no definite rules on this--it will be handled on a case by case basis.

So if the judge believes that the sample presented is valid, then it will be treated as such; if not, then it will probably be ruled inadmissible. I imagine it'll come down to:

Against: The samples were mishandled/have degraded and are inadmissible.

For: The samples may have degraded, but still contain metabolized substances that could only have gotten there by being consumed by the testee.

So I think that--without a precedent--it comes down to the judge's discretion. Hope this *kinda* helps. I guess it's just more conjecture, but it seems logical.

I think.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
I always like this from the WADA response

WADA was astonished the UCI “would expect anyone to have the slightest confidence in the objectivity, methodology, analysis or conclusions of such a report.”

The report was widely viewed as a coverup. Add in the $500,000 payoff and there is little reason to think that Novitzky, or any other rational person, would put much stock in the obvious fraud.
 
Jan 19, 2010
214
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Do you really think that Novitsky will put any stock in "Report" done by the same guys who accepted a $500,000 payoff from Armstrong? A report that does not even attempt to address how EPO may have got in the samples?

Novitsky was called into this case by the US arm of WADA. Their opinion of the report?

Is this a WADA investigation or a US Government investigation?

If it WAS a WADA investigation, they copuld use their logic and standards and what they thought about the report.

However, this is actually a US Government investigation, with different standards of evidence and different standards for conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt).

And by the way, Michael Ashenden's expert opinion is only one expert opinion that would come out at trial. Ashenden says the odds of manipulation could be as low as 1 in 300. Add that to other questions about the AFLD (having an insecure IT nework that was hackable by FLandis) and 1 in 300 doesn't appear to be that great of number.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Do you really think that Novitsky will put any stock in "Report" done by the same guys who accepted a $500,000 payoff from Armstrong? A report that does not even attempt to address how EPO may have got in the samples?

Novitsky was called into this case by the US arm of WADA. Their opinion of the report?

Now we're getting somewhere. The investigation has always been about international illegal drug distribution IMO. A friend works in the anti-piracy division of Microsoft and she says they spend 100s of millions to lobby governments, trade organizations and conduct private investigations. To think the pharmaceutical industry isn't equally concerned about the flow of counterfeit drugs would be naive; this is about serious money. As the Hog pointed out this re-test could be used to typify long-standing behavior, sources and ultimately fraud. That fraud could expand to include the accessories: UCI, USACycling, Weisel's corporate cooperation, etc. Ultimately USADA will want to know how the PEDs are sourced, paid for and distributed. This would be consistent with recent developments in the Clemen's case including forwarding of evidence from Canada. Although the sampling may be old it's examination can lead to damaging testimony that would be beyond the statute of limitations and contribute to, as other astute forum members have noted: examination of samples also previously deemed "OK". This would allow for testing for PEDs not scrutinized in older UCI protocols and add to the pressure placed on all involved.
Consider the new emphasis placed on Joe P's network of user's, dealers and sources...this is beyond the US borders.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
Visit site
so 1 in 300 vs the odds that a TdF winner who never used to be able to climb for toffee might have used performance enhancing drugs.....probably 100%

Ashenden actually said that the only way epo got into Armstrong's samples eas because Lance Armstrong took EPO. He also said that not even in the cold war were samples spiked for ideological reasons.

And you can't get epo into a tube of p*ss by hacking into a computer server.

The Pentagon has been hacked into by a British man with Asperger's syndrome. Should we discredit everything they do?




Squares said:
Is this a WADA investigation or a US Government investigation?

If it WAS a WADA investigation, they copuld use their logic and standards and what they thought about the report.

However, this is actually a US Government investigation, with different standards of evidence and different standards for conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt).

And by the way, Michael Ashenden's expert opinion is only one expert opinion that would come out at trial. Ashenden says the odds of manipulation could be as low as 1 in 300. Add that to other questions about the AFLD (having an insecure IT nework that was hackable by FLandis) and 1 in 300 doesn't appear to be that great of number.
 
Mar 26, 2010
92
0
0
Visit site
Can AFLD simply turn these samples over to the feds? Who owns the samples? Without a court order (or something equivalent since a US Court or agency or grand jury may not have its own authority demand documents, etc., from someone in France), would AFLD have to get Armstrong's permission before turning over the samples?

It wouldn't surprise me if there aren't quite a few hoops to jump through before this can happen.

Seems the better approach would be to keep quite and work behind the scenes with the Feds to clear those hoops rather than a public announcement tipping Armstrong off about your plans/desires and giving him time and opportunity to do what he can to try and stop it.

My one problem with Bordry is his propensity to talk when keeping quite while working behind the scenes might be a more effective means of getting the job done. I can understand going public when other tactics aren't working. But I don't get the impression that that's the case here.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Mongol_Waaijer said:
so 1 in 300 vs the odds that a TdF winner who never used to be able to climb for toffee might have used performance enhancing drugs.....probably 100%

Ashenden actually said that the only way epo got into Armstrong's samples eas because Lance Armstrong took EPO. He also said that not even in the cold war were samples spiked for ideological reasons.

And you can't get epo into a tube of p*ss by hacking into a computer server.

The Pentagon has been hacked into by a British man with Asperger's syndrome. Should we discredit everything they do?

If the USADA retests it will be done by an unimpeachable laboratory. They may bypass EPO in the retests, anyway. They may have some newer PEDs as the target and that would allow for testing other samples judged "clean" in other races. AFLD is probably sitting on a stockpile of race results they hoped the UCI would test.
I bet the incinerator at UCI is working overtime now.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Squares said:
Is this a WADA investigation or a US Government investigation?

If it WAS a WADA investigation, they copuld use their logic and standards and what they thought about the report.

However, this is actually a US Government investigation, with different standards of evidence and different standards for conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt).

And by the way, Michael Ashenden's expert opinion is only one expert opinion that would come out at trial. Ashenden says the odds of manipulation could be as low as 1 in 300. Add that to other questions about the AFLD (having an insecure IT nework that was hackable by FLandis) and 1 in 300 doesn't appear to be that great of number.

Have you been paying attention or are you intentionally trying to confuse the discussion?

There multiple investigations. There are two Federal investigations, a USDA/WADA investigation, French, Belgium, and Spanish Federal investigations as well as investigations by the named riders by their local WADA affiliate. Armstrong will be buried in legal for years.

Ashenden did not say that the odds of manipulation were 1 in 300. He said that the odds of the lab randomly selecting ONE sample to spike were 1 in 300. He then went into detail about how close to impossible it would be to spike the samples so that they produced the results of the test. Landis did not hack the lab, he paid a professional hacker to hack into it, not an uncommon occurrence for any major company or government agency. Please tell us how a sample is spiked via hacking a computer?
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
Squares said:
And by the way, Michael Ashenden's expert opinion is only one expert opinion that would come out at trial. Ashenden says the odds of manipulation could be as low as 1 in 300. Add that to other questions about the AFLD (having an insecure IT nework that was hackable by FLandis) and 1 in 300 doesn't appear to be that great of number.

Call me crazy, but 1 in 300 will always seem like a low ratio to me. Even in a criminal trial.
How does the security of an IT network cause synthetic epo to appear in a pee sample?
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
alpine_chav said:
Can see this getting thrown out on a technicality. Have you seen LA's legal team?

The sampling can be debated but new testing of the same samples will be tougher to debunk, especially if it reveals new drugs that are present in more current, undisputed sampling. Also; AFLD could provide samples of teammates that apparently had no issues but could under more specific examination. Say Hincapie's samples reveal something, do you think he'd be more motivated to talk?
 
Oldman said:
Now we're getting somewhere. The investigation has always been about international illegal drug distribution IMO. A friend works in the anti-piracy division of Microsoft and she says they spend 100s of millions to lobby governments, trade organizations and conduct private investigations. To think the pharmaceutical industry isn't equally concerned about the flow of counterfeit drugs would be naive; this is about serious money. As the Hog pointed out this re-test could be used to typify long-standing behavior, sources and ultimately fraud. That fraud could expand to include the accessories: UCI, USACycling, Weisel's corporate cooperation, etc. Ultimately USADA will want to know how the PEDs are sourced, paid for and distributed. This would be consistent with recent developments in the Clemen's case including forwarding of evidence from Canada. Although the sampling may be old it's examination can lead to damaging testimony that would be beyond the statute of limitations and contribute to, as other astute forum members have noted: examination of samples also previously deemed "OK". This would allow for testing for PEDs not scrutinized in older UCI protocols and add to the pressure placed on all involved.
Consider the new emphasis placed on Joe P's network of user's, dealers and sources...this is beyond the US borders.


Agreed. So many people are getting hung up on the “did he dope” or “did he not dope” in the sporting context. Its gone way beyond that point. Proving that Armstrong doped is just the a means to show how he purchased the drugs and trafficked them through Europe. It will also show the trail on how he used government money to purchase the narcotics and contravened employment laws in encouraging others to use. Serious stuff. Pushing drugs on your own employees that you purchased in the US and trafficked around Europe - A good 10 to 15 right there.
 
"MA: Yeah, it's an interesting observation, 'cause you cast back to the '98 Tour, obviously it was a debacle. And, I've heard anecdotal or off the cuff remarks, that '99 was a new beginning. It had gotten as bad as it could possibly get, or so we would've thought, and '99 was, "Ok, let's start again, we've really got to make an effort to be clean this year."

and therein lies the real crime... a turning point derailed by misguided personal ambition. Insecurity in the pro peloton, diminishes PED use, enabling a minority to dominate... leading a return in confidence that violations can go undetected, reestablishing the status quo.

It's unfortunate that, as a result, we missed an entire decade of clean racing. We can only hope that the fallout from this investigation leads to more racing like the 2010 Giro.
 
Wolves-Lower said:
Not to be a bother but,

Was there Chain of Custody issues with the 99 samples?

Yes. The samples were all sent to me and I kept them in a closet next to my ONCE jerseys.

I opened a vial and splashed some of the urine on because it read "Eau de Lance" and I wanted to get lucky that night with a young lady who looked just like my mother.

Then I had to send them back to France when the new EPO test became available.

Other than that I see no chain-of-custody breech.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Berzin said:
Yes. The samples were all sent to me and I kept them in a closet next to my ONCE jerseys.

I opened a vial and splashed some of the urine on because it read "Eau de Lance" and I wanted to get lucky that night with a young lady who looked just like my mother.

Then I had to send them back to France when the new EPO test became available.

Other than that I see no chain-of-custody breech.

So, did you get lucky or did the vision of Oedipus-Tex fill your brain at the proper moment?
 
Hold On...

thehog said:
Pushing drugs on your own employees that you purchased in the US and trafficked around Europe - A good 10 to 15 right there.

I think purchase in the U.S. is a very unlikely assumption. Were controlled substances (PED's) shipped all over the world thereby generating a panoply of jurisdictional violations? Likely. If the Armstrong organization was that stupid, then they deserve everything coming their way.

Who gets actually gets prosecuted for the crimes is another can of worms entirely separate from the acts themselves. Armstrong is not a one man band. Weisel, Stapleton and others probably more well known to TheHog and Race Radio may be more likely to draw Prosecution's fire.
 
Mar 29, 2009
10
0
8,530
Visit site
but what about anonymity? I've been under illusion that the lab doesn't know who they are testing but now it seems that they know exactly who's pee they are testing. Confused.
 
Jan 27, 2010
168
0
0
Visit site
TubularBills said:
"MA: Yeah, it's an interesting observation, 'cause you cast back to the '98 Tour, obviously it was a debacle. And, I've heard anecdotal or off the cuff remarks, that '99 was a new beginning. It had gotten as bad as it could possibly get, or so we would've thought, and '99 was, "Ok, let's start again, we've really got to make an effort to be clean this year."
you have got to be joking - 1999 must be one of the dirtiest years ever in cycling, ignoring the tour de france. that "new beginning" and "clean start" came off the rails a long time before the TdF prologue (the main cycling thing i remember about '99 is not Armstrong's tour win, it is Pantani's emotional press conference after being booted from the Giro). repeating this idiocy actually casts doubt on MA's judgement.

theswordsman said:
I caught this story on Google News this morning. It's an AP story that's hitting all over the US, but I can't spot any non-English stories. I wonder who Bordry spoke to?
US doping stories like this aren't of any interest outside the US, and won't be until US authorities show an interest in admitting the guilt of US superstars. we have seen the hype and the bull before. it is about as interesting as hearing that italian authorities have opened an investigation into tax evasion.
 
Insider said:
but what about anonymity? I've been under illusion that the lab doesn't know who they are testing but now it seems that they know exactly who's pee they are testing. Confused.

Correct. The labs test 100’s of samples a day. The labs are regularly requested to test old samples. They will have no idea of the identity of whom they are testing or whether its research based testing or indeed it’s a request from the Feds. They don’t say to the lab “Could you go get Lance’s samples from the fridge and test them”. They are requested to test sample 03478343 and report findings.
 

TRENDING THREADS