Anti doping world: not possible to cover up positive

[Anonymous]

From: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-acknowledges-accepting-armstrong-donation-a-mistake

The part I really like is:


So, pretty much the only person he has not asked the national federations to look into is... Lance Armstrong.

Funny that... Well I guess since he did give that generous donation back in time, that surely is evidence he wouldn't dope anyway...

well no, because the american federations are already looking into lance, along with hincapie, dz etc.. theres no real need for mcquad to ask the us authorities to investigate the americans.

 

[Oldman]

McQuaid left out one critical element in his statement.

That is the role of the national federation. In 2001 it was the responsibility of the federation to report the positive to the athlete and deal with the process of informing the analysis etc. Armstrong would have been informed by the his federation of the A sample positive. The TDS wouldn’t have known if there were any positives or not. To their record there were none because the positive disappeared by the non-testing of the B sample. If the national federation was able to explain away the positive the B sample would not be tested and thus end result is a negative test. This is what occurred at the 1996 US Olympic trails with many of the US track team. The only paper trial here will be either at the lab that an 1 A sample tested positive or the national federation level that they received a letter of the control and that one its athletes had tested positive.

Wait...you mean USA Cycling actually could have "lost" a sample for one of their riders? They didn't usually "lose" them; they flushed them. I would love for some former Natz team riders help describe how the internal testing worked.

 

[El Imbatido]

this is a little off-topic but TFF what happened to your sig?? Did you do that or did Susan?

 

[BroDeal]

The delay between promising the "donation" and giving it looks like a ploy to avoid the appearance of a quid pro quo.

 

[thehog]

Wait...you mean USA Cycling actually could have "lost" a sample for one of their riders? They didn't usually "lose" them; they flushed them. I would love for some former Natz team riders help describe how the internal testing worked.

Be careful here. What I’m saying is that the control was conducted at the TDS. The lab would have tested the A sample without knowing who it belonged to. When it recorded a positive result on the A sample they by rules allowed to check the riders national federation but not the riders name. The lab informs the UCI and then the National federation of the positive control but its not recorded as a positive – as only the A sample has been tested. At this point it is to inform each body that an A sample has recorded a positive result and does the federation and/or rider want a B sample analysis conduction or are their any extenuating circumstances for the result. (This is generally how news leaks on positive results come out. By knowing the nationality of an athlete you can guess the individual). Therefore by this point only the UCI and national federation were informed of the result and no one else. At the time if the national federation or the UCI can explain the result – ie by TUE or some other reason the B sample is not tested. Meaning the result records a negative. This is way there is no record of a positive because there was no positive. Just an A sample positive but no B sample testing meaning the net result was a negative. A note here to Tyler Hamilton’s B sample being destroyed there a positive control could not be recorded

 

[luckyboy]

this is a little off-topic but TFF what happened to your sig?? Did you do that or did Susan?

Yeah, what were all the edits about earlier in the thread?

 

[Oldman]

Be careful here. What I’m saying is that the control was conducted at the TDS. The lab would have tested the A sample without knowing who it belonged to. When it recorded a positive result on the A sample they by rules allowed to check the riders national federation but not the riders name. The lab informs the UCI and then the National federation of the positive control but its not recorded as a positive – as only the A sample has been tested. At this point it is to inform each body that an A sample has recorded a positive result and does the federation and/or rider want a B sample analysis conduction or are their any extenuating circumstances for the result. (This is generally how news leaks on positive results come out. By knowing the nationality of an athlete you can guess the individual). Therefore by this point only the UCI and national federation were informed of the result and no one else. At the time if the national federation or the UCI can explain the result – ie by TUE or some other reason the B sample is not tested. Meaning the result records a negative. This is way there is no record of a positive because there was no positive. Just an A sample positive but no B sample testing meaning the net result was a negative. A note here to Tyler Hamilton’s B sample being destroyed there a positive control could not be recorded

I wasn't suggesting they actually had anything to do with this particular case. My comment was based on their (USA Cycling)in-house testing history and the expanding cast of involved parties related to the riders. After a time there are too many players and, like the wife/mistress analogy; someone can shed light on very old details and habits. It's not like knowledge of testing avoidance/positives was just invented.

 

[thehog]

“Lance and Johan (Bruyneel) were visiting the UCI headquarters in 2002 just after it opened. They got a guided tour of what we’re doing there, so in that context, Lance offered $100,000 to help in the aid and development of cycling. The UCI decided to use that money to buy a Sysmex machine, which we purchased some time afterward,” he said. “I don’t believe there is a conflict of interest. The machine still in use today and we test riders before the grand tours. If there is money left over, it is still in the UCI account.”

 

[Tubeless]

Be careful here. What I’m saying is that the control was conducted at the TDS. The lab would have tested the A sample without knowing who it belonged to. When it recorded a positive result on the A sample they by rules allowed to check the riders national federation but not the riders name. The lab informs the UCI and then the National federation of the positive control but its not recorded as a positive – as only the A sample has been tested. At this point it is to inform each body that an A sample has recorded a positive result and does the federation and/or rider want a B sample analysis conduction or are their any extenuating circumstances for the result. (This is generally how news leaks on positive results come out. By knowing the nationality of an athlete you can guess the individual). Therefore by this point only the UCI and national federation were informed of the result and no one else. At the time if the national federation or the UCI can explain the result – ie by TUE or some other reason the B sample is not tested. Meaning the result records a negative. This is way there is no record of a positive because there was no positive. Just an A sample positive but no B sample testing meaning the net result was a negative. A note here to Tyler Hamilton’s B sample being destroyed there a positive control could not be recorded

Tracing this backwards. Armstrong would have found about the positive A test from US Cycling. He then explains it away with his friends at the national federation and via a generous donation with UCI. So someone at UC Cycling would have to be part of this coverup - perhaps not surprising, given the times back then? What about the role of the IOC that McQuaid claims would also have been informed of a positive? Would IOC have known the nationality but not the name?

 

[thehog]

Tracing this backwards. Armstrong would have found about the positive A test from US Cycling. He then explains it away with his friends at the national federation and via a generous donation with UCI. So someone at UC Cycling would have to be part of this coverup - perhaps not surprising, given the times back then? What about the role of the IOC that McQuaid claims would also have been informed of a positive? Would IOC have known the nationality but not the name?

To my mind the IOC would not have been informed as there was never an actual official positive recorded.

Look at Valverde’s case. The UCI are asking the Spanish Federation to open a case against him because of the evidence in the Puerto documents. But they refuse to so Valverde rides. Same goes here.

 

[Tubeless]

To my mind the IOC would not have been informed as there was never an actual official positive recorded.

Look at Valverde’s case. The UCI are asking the Spanish Federation to open a case against him because of the evidence in the Puerto documents. But they refuse to so Valverde rides. Same goes here.

Do we know who at US Cycling would have received the message about the positive A test? Would they have any written record - or is this done via a courtesy phone call from the UCI or the lab (?) ahead of the official notification?

Does the timing fit here - Tour of Switzerland took place in June 2001, doping positive would have been found when? Per your note it's possible that US Cycling simply stalled, and UCI did not pursue aggressively, therefore months went by until the final deal to bury the case in April 2002?

I recall seeing many similar doping positives that are announced months after the actual event of the test - and who knows how many we'll never know about.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

The deleted posts: were rude and unnecessary. Both sides have been sanctioned.

The person who started this thread was permanently banned after the thread was going. I saw no reason to delete the thread or any of his relevant posts.

the sig: I had absolutely nothing to do with the change in his signature. I can only assume he was struck with the beauty and simplicity of my writing and decided to adopt it, to hold it up as standard which all hope to attain.



Susan

 

[TRDean]

I didn't know the UCI actually did testing...I thought tests were done by outside accredited laboratories? Am I wrong here? Unless they do everything for the biopassport?

I don't care how it is interpreted...when a competitor is donating anything to a person or organization in cotrol (doping, rules, or otherwise) it is wrong!! This is just plain the stupidest thing I have ever hear of!!

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

The UCI has issued another statement on the subject. It could not possibly have covered up an EPO positive because there were none:
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENe...=/Templates/UCI/UCI5/layout.asp?MenuID=MTYxNw

Susan

 

[thehog]

I didn't know the UCI actually did testing...I thought tests were done by outside accredited laboratories? Am I wrong here? Unless they do everything for the biopassport?

I don't care how it is interpreted...when a competitor is donating anything to a person or organization in cotrol (doping, rules, or otherwise) it is wrong!! This is just plain the stupidest thing I have ever hear of!!

No the UCI does not test. They have accredited labs who perform the “independent” testing. The lab does not announce the result they merely inform the international and national bodies of a result. The governing bodies do the rest. Including the cover-up

 

[TRDean]

No the UCI does not test. They have accredited labs who perform the “independent” testing. The lab does not announce the result they merely inform the international and national bodies of a result. The governing bodies do the rest. Including the cover-up

So why buy the equipment? I am missing something here...?

 

[Oldman]

No the UCI does not test. They have accredited labs who perform the “independent” testing. The lab does not announce the result they merely inform the international and national bodies of a result. The governing bodies do the rest. Including the cover-up

Tracing Susan's link on UCI's Tour of Swiz response the striking thing is not much seems to be discovered.

 

[drb716]

Um, yes it is. Hearsay is not a term related to general conversation as it is only applicable to court proceedings. It is not applicable anywhere else because it is only in the admittance of testimony that Hearsay rules are germane. People can talk about "hearsay" all they want, but until a court is involved, it has only a rhetorical meaning.

Sorry, you're still wrong on this. Check the OED.
Thanks

 

[ScienceIsCool]

I don't believe any of the story. I just cannot see Armstrong promising to pay $100K and then three years later someone at the UCI deciding that maybe it was a good time to remind Armstrong to pay up. Why the delay? This story is fishier than the UCI's original story.

Also was there not a post a while back where someone here posted the cost of the machine they bought and it was in the $30K range.

http://www.sysmex.co.jp/en/news/press/2005/050729.html

When I found that in December, i also looked up prices and they were ~$107,000. So I guess that fits. At least there's nothing in the press release that contradicts what McQuaid is claiming.

John Swanson

 

[Straßenrennen]

Pat said in the irish radio interview he did that the Machine cost 88,000 dollars. Now he said that on radio and he also said he didnt know what happened to the other 12,000 and that 12,000$ doesnt matter because its only small change to such a big federation like the UCI.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I am not too impressed with Roggues comments - as back in 2001 WADA had nothing to do with the UCI. All poitives went to the IOC & UCI, Verbruggen was President of the UCI and was a senior figure within the IOC and indeed he still is.

Schenk has spoken before about the 'special relationship' between Armstrong and the UCI. She raises a good point that the UCI need to show how much was paid by Armstrong and when.

You have made BINGO!!!

This will all come out in the wash.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

“Lance and Johan (Bruyneel) were visiting the UCI headquarters in 2002 just after it opened. They got a guided tour of what we’re doing there, so in that context, Lance offered $100,000 to help in the aid and development of cycling. The UCI decided to use that money to buy a Sysmex machine, which we purchased some time afterward,” he said. “I don’t believe there is a conflict of interest. The machine still in use today and we test riders before the grand tours. If there is money left over, it is still in the UCI account.”

Funny, IIRC I listened to the radio link for Off the Ball, and McQuaid says that they asked Armstrong for the money for the machine. Now the story changes radically.

Also, they have dropped the claim about what year it was 2001 or 2002.

Keep diggin Patty...

 

[Anonymous]

The deleted posts: were rude and unnecessary. Both sides have been sanctioned.

The person who started this thread was permanently banned after the thread was going. I saw no reason to delete the thread or any of his relevant posts.

the sig: I had absolutely nothing to do with the change in his signature. I can only assume he was struck with the beauty and simplicity of my writing and decided to adopt it, to hold it up as standard which all hope to attain.



Susan

I dedicate my sig to you Susan. TeamSkyFans came up with the idea, and I have to say that it is now my ode to the greatest woman on these forums. With love XOXOXOXOXOX

 

[Tubeless]

The UCI has issued another statement on the subject. It could not possibly have covered up an EPO positive because there were none:
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENe...=/Templates/UCI/UCI5/layout.asp?MenuID=MTYxNw

Susan

The question that this press release still leaves unclear is whether any A samples were found positive and whether a notification was sent to US Cycling in 2001.

As Thehog mentioned, the IOC would only be notified when a test accompanied the athletes name - which happens after the national federation agrees to name the athlete after an A positive, or once the B sample had been analysed when the UCI can do so.

WADA was not involved in 2001 and 2002. So this would appear to be a case handled by the UCI and national federation. Someone should ask the UCI to clarify whether any A samples were found positive at the Tour of Switzerland in 2001. This may be confidential information per the doping rules - to protect the "innocent" athlete that was able to explain the positive through a TUE or some other means.

You've gotta ask how else would Landis' story fit the timing given. How would Armstrong had found out about the positive A test? The delayed payment by Armstrong may have been a pre-arranged deal to allow enough time pass between the crime and the payoff.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry, you're still wrong on this. Check the OED.
Thanks

Sorry, you are looking at a colloquial usage of a legal term. Check Black's Law Dictionary.