• 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 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Visit site
galaxy1 said:
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.
Well try reading the quote again. You'll then see that MA was not saying that 99 was cleaner, rather that he heard anecdotal remarks to that effect.
 
Oldman said:
... 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?
In order to get his code number for the test they need the UCI. That's the problem.

Another solution is asking George for a permission to get his code number from the UCI in order to do a newspaper article on how George Hincapie is the most tested athlete on the planet.:D
 
Jan 19, 2010
214
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
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 30. 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?

Uhm, yes I have been paying attention. The fisrts few comments were talking about Bordry giving samples to Novitsky for testing. That is the only investigation that I am commenting on. That is the only one where LA could face criminal charges (note I have talked about chain of custody and evidence rules for US Courts - not WADA/USADA/etc.). You must be thinking of someone else when you suggesting I am confusing the multiple investigations. Please go back ans show me where I commented on WADA/USADA/ Belgium, etc.

So, no, I am not trying to confuse the discussion, I have focused each comment on this thread on the Novitsky led investigation.

And when I talk about lax security at the lab (the hacking), I'll give you an example of how spiking could possibly occur in 3 easy steps (I'm not saying it did, mind you).

1) Hacker goes into computer files and finds LA sample numbers (from journalist/LA computer/etc).
2) Hacker goes into AFLD computers and finds lab storage locations for LA samples.
3) Hacker pays AFLD employee to find said samples, thaw them, remove 200 microliters of uring, add 200 microliters of urine from a person that took synthetic epo 2 hrs before providing urine, mix the urine, replace sample in freezer.

There, in 3 easy steps LA urine samples are selectively spiked and will show up on urine analysis as positive with the proper breakdown products.

That scenario covers all possibilities that Ashenden said would have to happen.

Didn't Landis' trial cover a Tech at AFLD doing things that were not to code?
 
Jun 4, 2010
79
0
0
Visit site
What we will learn

This investigation will lead to the discovery that cutting the amount of nuts you have in half makes you a better rider. Soon, riders everywhere will be reducing nut amounts
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
:rolleyes:
Squares said:
Uhm, yes I have been paying attention. The fisrts few comments were talking about Bordry giving samples to Novitsky for testing. That is the only investigation that I am commenting on. That is the only one where LA could face criminal charges (note I have talked about chain of custody and evidence rules for US Courts - not WADA/USADA/etc.). You must be thinking of someone else when you suggesting I am confusing the multiple investigations. Please go back ans show me where I commented on WADA/USADA/ Belgium, etc.

So, no, I am not trying to confuse the discussion, I have focused each comment on this thread on the Novitsky led investigation.

And when I talk about lax security at the lab (the hacking), I'll give you an example of how spiking could possibly occur in 3 easy steps (I'm not saying it did, mind you).

1) Hacker goes into computer files and finds LA sample numbers (from journalist/LA computer/etc).
2) Hacker goes into AFLD computers and finds lab storage locations for LA samples.
3) Hacker pays AFLD employee to find said samples, thaw them, remove 200 microliters of uring, add 200 microliters of urine from a person that took synthetic epo 2 hrs before providing urine, mix the urine, replace sample in freezer.

There, in 3 easy steps LA urine samples are selectively spiked and will show up on urine analysis as positive with the proper breakdown products.

That scenario covers all possibilities that Ashenden said would have to happen.

Didn't Landis' trial cover a Tech at AFLD doing things that were not to code?

:rolleyes:

You forgot the space Aliens and Nazi Frogmen
 
Squares said:
Uhm, yes I have been paying attention. The fisrts few comments were talking about Bordry giving samples to Novitsky for testing. That is the only investigation that I am commenting on. That is the only one where LA could face criminal charges (note I have talked about chain of custody and evidence rules for US Courts - not WADA/USADA/etc.). You must be thinking of someone else when you suggesting I am confusing the multiple investigations. Please go back ans show me where I commented on WADA/USADA/ Belgium, etc.

So, no, I am not trying to confuse the discussion, I have focused each comment on this thread on the Novitsky led investigation.

And when I talk about lax security at the lab (the hacking), I'll give you an example of how spiking could possibly occur in 3 easy steps (I'm not saying it did, mind you).

1) Hacker goes into computer files and finds LA sample numbers (from journalist/LA computer/etc).
2) Hacker goes into AFLD computers and finds lab storage locations for LA samples.
3) Hacker pays AFLD employee to find said samples, thaw them, remove 200 microliters of uring, add 200 microliters of urine from a person that took synthetic epo 2 hrs before providing urine, mix the urine, replace sample in freezer.

There, in 3 easy steps LA urine samples are selectively spiked and will show up on urine analysis as positive with the proper breakdown products.

That scenario covers all possibilities that Ashenden said would have to happen.

Didn't Landis' trial cover a Tech at AFLD doing things that were not to code?

Actually I think your on to something.
 
Squares said:
Uhm, yes I have been paying attention. The fisrts few comments were talking about Bordry giving samples to Novitsky for testing. That is the only investigation that I am commenting on. That is the only one where LA could face criminal charges (note I have talked about chain of custody and evidence rules for US Courts - not WADA/USADA/etc.). You must be thinking of someone else when you suggesting I am confusing the multiple investigations. Please go back ans show me where I commented on WADA/USADA/ Belgium, etc.

So, no, I am not trying to confuse the discussion, I have focused each comment on this thread on the Novitsky led investigation.

And when I talk about lax security at the lab (the hacking), I'll give you an example of how spiking could possibly occur in 3 easy steps (I'm not saying it did, mind you).

1) Hacker goes into computer files and finds LA sample numbers (from journalist/LA computer/etc).
2) Hacker goes into AFLD computers and finds lab storage locations for LA samples.
3) Hacker pays AFLD employee to find said samples, thaw them, remove 200 microliters of uring, add 200 microliters of urine from a person that took synthetic epo 2 hrs before providing urine, mix the urine, replace sample in freezer.

There, in 3 easy steps LA urine samples are selectively spiked and will show up on urine analysis as positive with the proper breakdown products.

That scenario covers all possibilities that Ashenden said would have to happen.

Didn't Landis' trial cover a Tech at AFLD doing things that were not to code?

previously in the thread someone mentioned (perhaps speculatively) that the samples would be tested for both PEDs and DNA... I'm not a scientist, doctor or lab tech but wouldn't this proposed urine cocktail yield dual DNA signatures? Perhaps someone with more expertise than Squares or I, could weigh in?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
TubularBills said:
previously in the thread someone mentioned (perhaps speculatively) that the samples would be tested for both PEDs and DNA... I'm not a scientist, doctor or lab tech but wouldn't this proposed urine cocktail yield dual DNA signatures? Perhaps someone with more expertise than Squares or I, could weigh in?

correct !! i did mentioned it in one of the first posts in the thread that there is enough urine left to run both the latest, most up-to-date epo test (this is significant b/c spinners criticized the 'research' test criteria) and the dna test.

but no amount of emphasis or information available will convince those who's intention is to throw doubt and regurgitate old tired arguments.

armstrong refused, read again refused flatly to re-test the samples under his own conditions because he knows these are his samples, this can be proven and that there was epo in them.
 
Jul 4, 2009
340
0
0
Visit site
Squares said:
Uhm, yes I have been paying attention. The fisrts few comments were talking about Bordry giving samples to Novitsky for testing. That is the only investigation that I am commenting on. That is the only one where LA could face criminal charges (note I have talked about chain of custody and evidence rules for US Courts - not WADA/USADA/etc.). You must be thinking of someone else when you suggesting I am confusing the multiple investigations. Please go back ans show me where I commented on WADA/USADA/ Belgium, etc.

So, no, I am not trying to confuse the discussion, I have focused each comment on this thread on the Novitsky led investigation.

And when I talk about lax security at the lab (the hacking), I'll give you an example of how spiking could possibly occur in 3 easy steps (I'm not saying it did, mind you).

1) Hacker goes into computer files and finds LA sample numbers (from journalist/LA computer/etc).
2) Hacker goes into AFLD computers and finds lab storage locations for LA samples.
3) Hacker pays AFLD employee to find said samples, thaw them, remove 200 microliters of uring, add 200 microliters of urine from a person that took synthetic epo 2 hrs before providing urine, mix the urine, replace sample in freezer.

There, in 3 easy steps LA urine samples are selectively spiked and will show up on urine analysis as positive with the proper breakdown products.

That scenario covers all possibilities that Ashenden said would have to happen.

Didn't Landis' trial cover a Tech at AFLD doing things that were not to code?

I think the one you are missing is that the Urine from the 6 samples would show the same percentage values of synthetic EPO.

MA: I honestly can't conceive how you could possibly do that. I don't understand how you could inject enough EPO so that the percentage was slightly lower on the next day, it just beggars belief that you could adjust the amount of EPO you put in a sample by such a miniscule amount. And to be quite frank, it doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, it's a fantastic claim in the literal sense of the word, it's not backed up by a shred of evidence at all, and I think it needs to be taken on that merit.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

You forgot the space Aliens and Nazi Frogmen

You don't realize that Lance drinks thousands of gallons of water from municipal sources which is known to be contaminated by pharmaceuticals. Heck, I just flushed my stash last week.

BTW, would anyone object if I posted a recent love poem I composed to Lance?
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Visit site
I dont know if any one on this thread has actualy given a test sample for medical control?
I have and and though its a long time ago I doupt much has changed.
IIRC this was the procedure.

Firstly several empty containers are offered for the rider to select two from for A@ B samples. The samples are then put into seperate padded soft containers that are zipped up and sealed with a tamper proof tag.
The rider again can select the tag from several offered. Each tag has a unique number and seals the zip in a manner that the container can only be opened by breaking the tab. Each tab has a unique number on it that is recorded on a form that the rider then signs to the efect that he / she is happy with the manner in which the samples is taken is correct.
Everything is done in the presence of the athlete.
Only if sample A records a possitive test is sample b container ever opened and the rider is entitled to be present and check the tag number against those recorded on the adminstration form that he has signed and remain present during the testing of that sample to ensure all is done correctly.
There may be slight variation to that procedure these days but I see no way at all that sample be can be tampered with.
While undoubtly degredation of an incorrectly stored sample might possible the important point is that NOTHING can be added to the sample.
If EPO or anything else that shouldnt be there is found it can only be there when the sample was originaly taken.
Having been present when a sample was given in a police station I can vouch that police procedure was all but identical.
In other words good enough for the British Home Office to approve and be admissible in UK courts.
Its possible that I`ve missed somthing in this description , it`s been a long time but I think you can get the picture.
If anything much has changed in the intervening years since my days of taking medical controls I would imagine it`s to ensure even less possibility of tampering with samples than the procedure I`ve descibed.
Other than the possibility that samples have not been stored correctly ( but the emphasis is that NOTHING could have been added ) then Armstrongs B samples contain exactly what they contained the day they were taken.
Hope this helps a few peeps realise that sample are not screw top jars with sticky labals stored in a fridge.:rolleyes:
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Inspector Bordry is such a joke. I mean that in a good way. Entertaining:)

But such an "Attention Seeker" as always.

"Me...Me....I want to be part of the Witch Hunt too...Look at meeee"
Hilarious sure, but kind of sad - and creepy too. 11 year old peepee yikes.

And does anyone seriously think for one minute that the Inspector would give up possession of his precious Lance peepee? No way.

Sure, Bordry will carry it himself on a flight from France. And fellow passengers will notice him fumbling the vials in his pocketsess and mumblimg to himself.

But when it comes to handing it over to the Feds?
Good luck prying the peepee from Bordry's clenched fist lol.
 
Jan 19, 2010
214
0
0
Visit site
L29205 said:
I think the one you are missing is that the Urine from the 6 samples would show the same percentage values of synthetic EPO.

Keep in mind that there is natural EPO in urine. So, with spiking of other urine, the total in the sample is the total of the synthetic + the total of the natural. So, adding a fixed amount of synthetic to each sample would not give the same amount for each day, because of the varying natural levels. (DNA tests would pick up the DNA of the donor urine if there was not DNAse added.)

Then look at the numbers, there was not a pattern of the values going on a steady decrease throughout the tour. On the prologue it was 100% and on stage 1 it was 89.7 and then on stage 9 it was 96.6. The total amount of epo in the urine also changed for each sample.

It does surprise me that the prologue could have 100% synthetic and no natural...

And, to those that criticized the scenario for hacking to get epo in urine, I didn't say it happened. There was a challenge to demonstrate how it COULD happen.

So, can you tell me that the scenario I proposed COULD NOT happen? Are all lab techs at all labs infallible people that could not be corrupted?

Again, I am not saying it did happen, I am saying that it is a scenario that could have happened.
 
Polish said:
Inspector Bordry is such a joke. I mean that in a good way. Entertaining:)

But such an "Attention Seeker" as always.

"Me...Me....I want to be part of the Witch Hunt too...Look at meeee"
Hilarious sure, but kind of sad - and creepy too. 11 year old peepee yikes.

And does anyone seriously think for one minute that the Inspector would give up possession of his precious Lance peepee? No way.

Sure, Bordry will carry it himself on a flight from France. And fellow passengers will notice him fumbling the vials in his pocketsess and mumblimg to himself.

But when it comes to handing it over to the Feds?
Good luck prying the peepee from Bordry's clenched fist lol.

Interpol

http://www.interpol.int/Public/Drugs/default.asp
 
Feb 12, 2010
66
0
0
Visit site
Ok a couple of questions, and really not trying to confuse or cloud the discussion.

1) Have the B samples ever been opened for testing? If not, great, because there is no way EPO could suddenly appear. And the DNA testing would be a slam dunk.

2) Most test procedures due in fact involve spiking the sample with a known amount of the constituent being tested for. This makes sure you get a % recovery in the appropriate range and shows the test is capable of finding what indeed you are looking for. If in fact the B samples have been opened, I will find it hard to believe they would be any use to anyone.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Visit site
Wolves-Lower said:
Ok a couple of questions, and really not trying to confuse or cloud the discussion.

1) Have the B samples ever been opened for testing? If not, great, because there is no way EPO could suddenly appear. And the DNA testing would be a slam dunk.

2) Most test procedures due in fact involve spiking the sample with a known amount of the constituent being tested for. This makes sure you get a % recovery in the appropriate range and shows the test is capable of finding what indeed you are looking for. If in fact the B samples have been opened, I will find it hard to believe they would be any use to anyone.


If I understand correctly if B samples have ever been opened and are not in there tamper proof containers then there of no use whatsoever.
My guess is there as pristine as the day they were sealed up.;)
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Escarabajo said:
In order to get his code number for the test they need the UCI. That's the problem.

Another solution is asking George for a permission to get his code number from the UCI in order to do a newspaper article on how George Hincapie is the most tested athlete on the planet.:D

I would wager that information already exists. Whoever researched Lance's code to identify his samples no doubt covered the entire Tour roster and knows more.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
Squares said:
DNA tests would pick up the DNA of the donor urine if there was not DNAse added.)
are you intentionally obtuse ?

dna testing and matching is one of the most reliable and well developed procedures the forensic science performed by the thousand and sending people to gallows.

if your 'simple 3-step' conspiracy was executed by adding someone dna to armstrong's sample, armstrong's dna is not going to disappear from the sample and would be easily matched to his hair or blood derived dna.

is it so complicated because you're bent on obfuscation ?
 
Feb 12, 2010
66
0
0
Visit site
Darryl Webster said:
If I understand correctly if B samples have ever been opened and are not in there tamper proof containers then there of no use whatsoever.
My guess is there as pristine as the day they were sealed up.;)

Then that would be a slam dunk!
 
Jan 19, 2010
214
0
0
Visit site
Darryl Webster said:
Only if sample A records a possitive test is sample b container ever opened and the rider is entitled to be present and check the tag number against those recorded on the adminstration form that he has signed and remain present during the testing of that sample to ensure all is done correctly.

They DID open B-samples, without notifying the riders and without a positive A-sample. Under your statement, they could never have run the test on LA's samples without him present.

How did they not break the seal on the B-samples when they were doing the "Research" testing?

Once a seal is broken, how can you tell how many times it has been accessed?

I am playing devil's advocate here, because unfortunately, the world is not black and white. His samples were accessed outside of the doping rules that you stated. People need to see the gray areas, and opening these samples the first time made them gray because it was not done according to the anti-doping rules that require a positive A-test prior to breaking the seal on the B-sample.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
Oldman said:
I would wager that information already exists. Whoever researched Lance's code to identify his samples no doubt covered the entire Tour roster and knows more.
to obtain the sample code numbers is not a big deal even if the uci refused to cooperate. recall, from vrijman we know that the french ministry for sport was another entity we the copies went.

the key as i said many times is that it can proved beyond any shadow of a doubt by more than one method that either the samples were owned by armstrong or there was a well covered conspiracy. in either case his urine retentate is plentifull - about 30 mL at least - to run all the tests that are needed.
 
Jan 19, 2010
214
0
0
Visit site
python said:
are you intentionally obtuse ?

dna testing and matching is one of the most reliable and well developed procedures the forensic science performed by the thousand and sending people to gallows.

if your 'simple 3-step' conspiracy was executed by adding someone dna to armstrong's sample, armstrong's dna is not going to disappear from the sample and would be easily matched to his hair or blood derived dna.

is it so complicated because you're bent on obfuscation ?

I'm not saying Lance's DNA wouldn't show up. I am saying that you could eliminate the DNA in the EPO positive donor uriine by adding DNAse (which is added to protein samples being prepared for Gel electrophoresis all the time).

I agree that DNA testing is close to the best developed scientific test on the planet. I am just showing a way that a spiking could have happened in a way that would get around all the statements Ashenden made and only show LA's DNA in the urine.

I am not bent on obfuscation. I am simply playing devils advocate to people who say it can't have happened.

If Ashenden (and anyone else for that matter) is going to be an expert witness against LA, he had better be prepared to answer at least the arguments that I am making because I guarantee that LA's lawyers are going to have much better scientists coming up with scenarios/methods that would undermine the analysis. Wouldn't you agree?
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Squares said:
They DID open B-samples, without notifying the riders and without a positive A-sample. Under your statement, they could never have run the test on LA's samples without him present.

How did they not break the seal on the B-samples when they were doing the "Research" testing?

Once a seal is broken, how can you tell how many times it has been accessed?

I am playing devil's advocate here, because unfortunately, the world is not black and white. His samples were accessed outside of the doping rules that you stated. People need to see the gray areas, and opening these samples the first time made them gray because it was not done according to the anti-doping rules that require a positive A-test prior to breaking the seal on the B-sample.

See Python's response: dna testing and matching is one of the most reliable and well developed procedures the forensic science performed by the thousand and sending people to gallows.

Again; USADA could care less about stripping Lance of his Tour titles. They want to apply pressure to anyone and everyone involved. As part of the cooperation AFLD could give up all the Tour samples. If they test them and find more that weren't reported by the UCI; who would be in the hot seat then?