• 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 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
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.
You appear to be deliberately confusing the issue.

The samples were used to validate a test - which all athletes consent to by signing the anti-doping form.
To do the test a small amount of urine is required - and AFLD has stated there is enough left for further analysis.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
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.

do you mind if i say either you don't know what the hack you're talking about or your job is to create confusion.

there were no gray areas in opening his samples for research. no one but vrijman and the uci claimed it was a doping control situation. you repeat old tired discredited drivel.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Squares said:
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?

Who is a better scientist in anti-doping than Ashenden?
The only person I can think of is Don Catlin - and I doubt he will show up on LA's defense team.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Visit site
python said:
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.

The sealing tag numbers are recorded on the forms the rider signs to say hes happy with the testing procedure is conducted correctly. The rider is given a cop of the carbon copy..its in triplicate if i remeber correctly.
Lance will have his copy.

To squares: Lance has refused testing of B samples.
If theyve tested a B sample for research purposes then that sample...and only that sample is likely to be unadmissible.
But the rest are most likely still correctly sealed.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Darryl Webster said:
The sealing tag numbers are recorded on the forms the rider signs to say hes happy with the testing procedure is conducted correctly. The rider is given a cop of the carbon copy..its in triplicate if i remeber correctly.
Lance will have his copy.

To squares: Lance has refused testing of B samples.
If theyve tested a B sample for research purposes then that sample...and only that sample is likely to be unadmissible.
But the rest are most likely still correctly sealed.


And to prove USPS had systematic doping you would check the other team members...and Lance's attorneys will be dealing with oral testimony from those teammates in a hurry. The point is; there are too many people involved and too much possible information to defend against for this to be a "witch hunt".
 
Jan 19, 2010
214
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
You appear to be deliberately confusing the issue.

The samples were used to validate a test - which all athletes consent to by signing the anti-doping form.
To do the test a small amount of urine is required - and AFLD has stated there is enough left for further analysis.

Thanks for the feedback, but I am not confusing the issue. People here are saying that the results of the research to "validate a test" show that he used epo. They also say that there is NO scenario in which any EPO in the samples of the test could have gotten there without LA injecting it into his body.

I am simply stating that, based on a number of issues (like broken seal on the B-sample and no A-sample for confirmation) that the possibility does in fact exist that the epo in those samples did not arrive there by being injected into LA's body.

The standard in a US court is that it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that LA was injecting epo for it to be used as a basis for his guilt. Remeber O.J. Simpson and "if the glove dosen't fit, you must acquit!"

That is what the prosecutors are up against in this case. Personally, I think Lance and the rest of the professional peloton are doped to the gills, probably by genetic doping now, and they will continue to find ways to stay ahead of the testing.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
Squares said:
I'm not saying Lance's DNA wouldn't show up. I am saying that you could eliminate the DNA...

actually by saying this you're showing your true purpose because you totally ignored what i repeated so many times in just this one thread - by agreeing to the retesting lance could prove that there was messing with his sample if some dna got skewed or eliminated. in fact, if we are to follow some of the early critics of the epo test, who said there was elevated excretion of proteins in the urine due to hard racing effort, any protein presence/absence under the latest wada standard would instantly raise suspicions of conspiracy. you failed to play devil's advocate.
 
Darryl Webster said:
...
To squares: Lance has refused testing of B samples.
If theyve tested a B sample for research purposes then that sample...and only that sample is likely to be unadmissible.
But the rest are most likely still correctly sealed.
Let me get this correctly. So two tests have been done with the A-Samples. And there is still enough to do a third test?:confused:

So we still have the B samples intact and Lance does not want to test them? that would look really bad on his defense.
 
Jan 19, 2010
214
0
0
Visit site
python said:
actually by saying this you're showing your true purpose because you totally ignored what i repeated so many times in just this one thread - by agreeing to the retesting lance could prove that there was messing with his sample if some dna got skewed or eliminated. in fact, if we are to follow some of the early critics of the epo test, who said there was elevated excretion of proteins in the urine due to hard racing effort, any protein presence/absence under the latest wada standard would instantly raise suspicions of conspiracy. you failed to play devil's advocate.

No, Python, I didn't address it because I forgot.

You are absolutely 100% correct that LA could answer critics by allowing retesting of his samples.

As I said to Dr. Maserati, I think Lance and was doped to the gills and I wouldn't put genetic doping out of the question. He could have easily have had a lab make DNA expression vectors that he could shoot up that would raise his natural epo levels in a way that the synthetic epo tests could not detect.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Visit site
Escarabajo said:
Let me get this correctly. So two tests have been done with the A-Samples. And there is still enough to do a third test?:confused:

So we still have the B samples intact and Lance does not want to test them? that would look really bad on his defense.


Its old news that Lance has refused testing on B samples.

As has been pointed out many, many times, if he allowed that...and they came back clean the case is over.
That he does not speeks volumes eh?:rolleyes:
 
Darryl Webster said:
Its old news that Lance has refused testing on B samples.

As has been pointed out many, many times, if he allowed that...and they came back clean the case is over.
That he does not speeks volumes eh?:rolleyes:

Are you in favour of retroactive testing?
Yes. They give you the option when you are tested – can we use your specimen in the future for experiments? I always check ‘yes’.

But you didn’t want the AFLD to open up your samples from more recent Tours They only offered 1999. The others have been tested.

And would you be OK with them being tested again?
They’ve already been tested.

But tested again.
What do you want me to do? Keep testing? The first time they came back clean. That’s not enough? They offered 1999.

But the point is that if new tests are developed, it’s important to go back and test old samples.
That’s the point of storing samples.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/345599/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview.html
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
Escarabajo said:
Let me get this correctly. So two tests have been done with the A-Samples. And there is still enough to do a third test?:confused:

So we still have the B samples intact and Lance does not want to test them? that would look really bad on his defense.

NO !

There is just the non intact B samples left. The rests of the retested B sample.
No A samples.
 
alanshearer said:
Can AFLD simply turn these samples over to the feds?

yes, they can

alanshearer said:
Who owns the samples?

AFLD

alanshearer said:
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)

Interpol sounds familiar to you? they're also involved in the case...

alanshearer said:
would AFLD have to get Armstrong's permission before turning over the samples?

LA's permission is only limited to matters concern to the sport.
the investigation is beyond it.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
Escarabajo said:
?? Heh. Please explain.

@ Webster. Thanks for the info.

They only had the frozen B samples left, after A samples were tested negative in 1999 and destroyed. These Bs were tested in this "study" in 2005.
SO, they must have been opened, mhhhh ? ---> not intact

Explained good enough ? I like to keep it short - so that the people don't get confused. ;)
 
Squares said:
I am simply stating that, based on a number of issues (like broken seal on the B-sample and no A-sample for confirmation) that the possibility does in fact exist that the epo in those samples did not arrive there by being injected into LA's body.

But why would the seal on the B be broken?

In 1999, the A was tested and came back negative (actually no EPO test , but negative for anything else). No seals broken on B samples in 1999 because no A positives.

2005 comes along and B samples are opened for the first time (no prior need, no AAF, nothing) and new EPO test is administered. Those B samples should have been pristine.
 
Squares said:
You are absolutely 100% correct that LA could answer critics by allowing retesting of his samples.

Hallelujah, I'm glad you didn't say... the more common, "silence his critics" because I'm sure there would be a loud and boisterous vindication celebration amongst Clinic contributors and followers following confirmation of the original retest results.
 
Feb 12, 2010
61
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Hmm, I thought we were told by the Public Strategies interns that the hospital room,. the 99 Samples, etc, did not matter. They would never stand in a court of law.....were they lying to us or just stupid?

Don't get caught up in the statue of limitation. It is very easy and common to waive this. A good example is when Strock sued Rene, Chris, and USA Cycling.


2njfudu.jpg

There is no statute of limitations for introduction of evidence. However, I think that the SOL on the specific instance of fraud proven by the 99 sample has already tolled (ie, fraud dating back over 10 years would not be subject to prosecution). This could almost certainly be addressed by Novitsky by using the 99 sample and subsequent doping denials to illustrate an ongoing pattern of fraud up through the terminus of the USPS sponsorship.
 
There should be some pristinely sealed USPS B-samples from 1999 left? Lance was not the only rider on EPO, that's the whole idea, team doping, right?
Would the retesting of, what, 150 samples, have included samples of all 9 USPS riders? Were those 6 samples all Lance ever deposited in the 1999 TdF?

Does anyone have a good guess for how long the team was on EPO, and when they switched to blood bags? Or is it all worse, did thye use the blood from early on, and just had to be more careful with the EPO?
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,086
1
0
Visit site
Squares said:
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?

Adding DNase directly to urine wouldn't do anything - there is a lot of stuff between that and the DNA (ie. the cells that contain the DNA, and the DNA would be wound up in chromatin that would protect it). Also, how would you get rid of the DNase after treatment in order to both protect Lance's added DNA and get around the obvious problem of having a bunch of DNase I from a cow in a human urine sample?
 
Jan 10, 2010
37
0
0
Visit site
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.”

Got a link for that quote? We need to work on your academic citations.
 
turnkey303 said:
Got a link for that quote? We need to work on your academic citations.

WADA calls Vrijman report farcical

“The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical,” Pound said. “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.”
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
Cloxxki said:
when they switched to blood bags? Or is it all worse, did thye use the blood from early on, and just had to be more careful with the EPO?
if you are really interested in the knowledge vs. the internet posing prowess (and I don’t mean it a derogatory way) google ‘zorzolli report’. it’s been discussed and answered over and over and the same questions keep popping up. So, nothing will help your curiosity to take a finite turn more than some self -education. a hint: the epo test introduction in 2001 forced the old and forgotten blood transfusion procedure back into front lines b/c there was no test for it.

_yngve_ said:
<snip> denials to illustrate an ongoing pattern of fraud up through the terminus of the USPS sponsorship.
i agree and as i pointed out at least 3 times in this thread alone the significance of the 1999 samples retesting would be in the potential for drawing the big picture of consistent fraud by armstrong on the usps team and the other la teams. nothing to do with the sport’s sanctioning but everything to do with a junkie doper's big picture going back to his pre-cancer days.