Anti doping world: not possible to cover up positive

[python]

july, atm i'm only focusing on inconsistencies and gaps of mcquide's protestations and explanations. money trail and payments can change hands in one one thousand ways.

mcquaid left to much unexplained with huge gaps.

remember, this was the 1st year the uci introduced the epo test. the criteria was 80% bap. obviously, they'd apply it cautiously with a lot of concern for a false positive.

a scenario when a positivity criteria by one of armstrong's samples was met or almost met is very plausible. that lab's director picks up a phone to informs the uci way before any official papers and records are completed...'what should we do' ? the uci mole of armstrong informs him and the rest is according to floyd's story.

 

[Cloxxki]

Don't riders get to witness their cups being labeled, number and all, for their later check when found positive?
Just tell your guys at the various labs which number to look out for. Or your guy at the anti-dopage to mark the label with a yellow dot before sending it off to the lab. Lab can give you a call to negotiate the price to dilute the sample. You'd NOT be saved for later, more sensitive tests or testing margins, of course... Just saying, 1999.

I've never been honored enough to have to **** in a cup for anti-dopage, but would sure as heck want to see and record all I was allowed to. Don't want my cup to be mixed up with some other guy's.

 

[RTMcFadden]

"theInternational Cycling Union wishes to stress that none of the tests revealed the presence of EPO in the samples taken from riders at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. The UCI has all the documentation to prove this fact."

I read that as meaning none of the A or B sample tests were +ve.

This statement is technically not correct. The samples should have detected the presence of endogenous EPO. If I remember all the stuff I've read about EPO, the lack of any EPO is a result of the natural feedback mechanism and indicates the previous use of exogenous EPO. So, I'm confused.

 

[Cloxxki]

I'm thinking along the lines that I infer you imply by the above comments. I.E, a very senior UCI staff member having an ongoing arrangement with lab staff, so they get a call if an a sample goes +ve. Has to be senior staff because they have access to the rider/anonymous number info. Has to be direct arrangement otherwise too many people involved to be even remotely realistic....

Pondering the hypothetical scenario, in the absence of either useful data or an opinion on the likelihood of the corruption allegation having any substance, leads to the following thoughts....why wouldn't the UCI official pocket the bribe, instead of generously donating it to the UCI?....maybe the UCI accounts aren't the place to look for a deposit (I'd start with the lab staff personally)....maybe the donation was actually to influence some other decision...

Can't help noticing that Landis said Verbruggen was bribed, not the UCI was bribed..... 2nd hand conversation years ago tho, so who knows.....either way it's probably quite hard to prove even if it is true.

I agree, don't look in the UCI's account. It is bound to eventually fit the UCI/Armstrong version. If more donations from other riders/teams are found though...
But lab workers are probably kept out of the scope. French law, yada yada yada. Unless the French this time really want to get their man.

 

[Ferminal]

This statement is technically not correct. The samples should have detected the presence of endogenous EPO. If I remember all the stuff I've read about EPO, the lack of any EPO is a result of the natural feedback mechanism and indicates the previous use of exogenous EPO. So, I'm confused.

Isn't there a rumour about "clean samples" in the early 2000s where riders were slipping an agent into the urine which destroyed all EPO?

 

[bobbins]

Bleach on fingers would contaminate the sample as would ingesting loads of bicarb. Samples are have their pH level taken now and athletes have to wash their hands prior to giving the sample.

I'm interested to know that were there a positive test for EPO and the national federation didn't want it to be publicised, could they keep it quiet?

 

[RTMcFadden]

Isn't there a rumour about "clean samples" in the early 2000s where riders were slipping an agent into the urine which destroyed all EPO?

It's not a rumour. Stain fighting laundry deteregent usually contains amlyase and protease. Both of these enzymes can function to break down the EPO, since it is a glycosylated protein. Haven't looked into the specifics of it so, it may be that only one of them is effective, and my guess would be the protease. Nevertheless, this would also be an explaination of why there was no EPO. Thanks for catching that.

 

[Oldman]

It's not a rumour. Stain fighting laundry deteregent usually contains amlyase and protease. Both of these enzymes can function to break down the EPO, since it is a glycosylated protein. Haven't looked into the specifics of it so, it may be that only one of them is effective, and my guess would be the protease. Nevertheless, this would also be an explaination of why there was no EPO. Thanks for catching that.

You wonder if the UCI had the optional hand wash station right next to the sample bottles for some riders?

 

[blackcat]

Isn't there a rumour about "clean samples" in the early 2000s where riders were slipping an agent into the urine which destroyed all EPO?

protease...

 

[Hmmmmm]

It's always possible to cover something up. Maybe only temporarily, or maybe not very well. But it is possible. That's why it is called a cover up. Throw a blanket over it and hopefully everyone will tow the line and the underlying covered up thing will not be noticed for what it really is. For ages most people thought the world was flat! You were considered a nut if you thought otherwise!

 

[bobbins]

If I tested positive, only the national fed and myself would know. If they kept quiet and I kept quiet, who else could ever know?

 

[gree0232]

It's always possible to cover something up. Maybe only temporarily, or maybe not very well. But it is possible. That's why it is called a cover up. Throw a blanket over it and hopefully everyone will tow the line and the underlying covered up thing will not be noticed for what it really is. For ages most people thought the world was flat! You were considered a nut if you thought otherwise!

When takes a look at the logistics required to cover something up, then the reality is that it is just not feasible to cover up something to the extent that most people believe. This is particularly so when you have people actively digging around trying to dig up dirt on something, and even more so when you have multiple agencies involved in teh administration and the digging around.

Do you think given the polemics between the French Anti-doping guys, the UCI, WADA, etc. etc. that there would not be at least one person out there who would noty take the chance to descredit a rival?

WADA spent years trying to nail Armstrong and failed.

Now we have the same US agencies that nailed our track stars going after cycling.

So, if they 'finally' turn up the evidence to prove Lance, et al, doped, he's guilty right?

What if they don't?

What if they come out and say, "There is a lot of suspicion but we cannot find anything that will stick and we've looked at everything." Will that finally exonerate LA and company?

Or will the spectre of suspicion continue to sloat behind any rider that achieves success and then has to deal with the whisper campaign that follows success?

Will this finally bring credibility to the system if it 'fails' to nail Armstrong and JB?

 

[Tubeless]

UCI is based in Switzerland. Ditto for Tour of Suisse. Same for the lab that analyzed the samples. Cycling is a small circle of friends that depend on each other. EPO test was brand new in 2001.

Not hard to believe that a positive A sample was first discussed privately between the lab & a senior UCI official, allowing UCI to look up the name for possible consequences to the sport it governs - and allow them to persuade the lab with its experts that the test is not yet reliable enough to warrant a scandal of that magnitude. Let's start with smaller fish first, to ensure the "line" can hold the catch. Lance was already a 2-time TdF champion at that point.

Why risk the sport? Surely there's another way we can handle this matter? Promise by Lance not to do EPO again (i.e. switch to blood transfusions), and a commitment to fund some blood test equipment - shall we say three years from the incident to allow enough time to pass by? Everyone benefits. No one gets harmed. Lab agrees as the test was only 99% sure of a positive and is told to try to improve its metholodogy for the next time to be 100% sure.

 

[Hmmmmm]

When takes a look at the logistics required to cover something up, then the reality is that it is just not feasible to cover up something to the extent that most people believe. This is particularly so when you have people actively digging around trying to dig up dirt on something, and even more so when you have multiple agencies involved in teh administration and the digging around.

Do you think given the polemics between the French Anti-doping guys, the UCI, WADA, etc. etc. that there would not be at least one person out there who would noty take the chance to descredit a rival?

WADA spent years trying to nail Armstrong and failed.

Now we have the same US agencies that nailed our track stars going after cycling.

So, if they 'finally' turn up the evidence to prove Lance, et al, doped, he's guilty right?

What if they don't?

What if they come out and say, "There is a lot of suspicion but we cannot find anything that will stick and we've looked at everything." Will that finally exonerate LA and company?

Or will the spectre of suspicion continue to sloat behind any rider that achieves success and then has to deal with the whisper campaign that follows success?

Will this finally bring credibility to the system if it 'fails' to nail Armstrong and JB?

Oh, for the most part and applying common sense I agree with you. Wholeheartedly, in fact. I am always amazed though when I hear things in the news regarding scandals. Thinking about the lengths that human beings will go regarding success, money, and fame - history has shown that amazing and incredible things have occurred that seemed impossible until they were brought to light. If an investigation proves LA and his entourage to be innocent there will still be people who will doubt his success. If guilt were proved there would still be people who would not believe it and would fully support him and consider him being found guilty to be scandalous! It is all speculation on my/our part until the facts are shown.

 

[gree0232]

Oh, for the most part and applying common sense I agree with you. Wholeheartedly, in fact. I am always amazed though when I hear things in the news regarding scandals. Thinking about the lengths that human beings will go regarding success, money, and fame - history has shown that amazing and incredible things have occurred that seemed impossible until they were brought to light. If an investigation proves LA and his entourage to be innocent there will still be people who will doubt his success. If guilt were proved there would still be people who would not believe it and would fully support him and consider him being found guilty to be scandalous! It is all speculation on my/our part until the facts are shown.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-requests-investigations-into-landis-claims

Therein lies the critical point.

"It has also asked the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) to address claims relating to Lance Armstrong, George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, Jim Ochowicz and David Zabriskie.

All of the above men were named by Landis in several e-mail messages sent to USA Cycling and leaked to the media last week. Landis alleged that he and other riders used performances enhancing drugs and methods during his time at the US Postal Service and Phonak teams, and were assisted by Bruyneel and Ochowitz in the practice.

A UCI statement stated that the requests are "aimed at establishing, in an objective manner, whether or not events potentially constituting a breach of the Anti-Doping Rules occurred. This does not in any way imply that the UCI considers the allegations made by Mr Landis to have any basis."

And yet, as these agencies have mobilized to look into these accussations, which even Floyd admits have no evidence to support, we keep seeing people saying that the final cord is about to be sung. Why?

And if, as the UCI is indicating (not Armstrong), this results in no charges will we finally be free of accussation and its corrupting influence in cycling?

Or will the magnitide of the conspiracy and cover up continue to grow? And to what point?

 

[Race Radio]

WADA spent years trying to nail Armstrong and failed.

They did? WADA only was in charge of testing for 7 months of Armstrong pre-retirement career.

 

[Anonymous]

They did? WADA only was in charge of testing for 7 months of Armstrong pre-retirement career.

He never posts facts. His distortions and lies are becoming quite comedic.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So the guys that are taking all the accussations from Landis, and ignoring my last line entirely, are now accussing me of focusing solely on Lance Armstrong.

And I do love how the accussations just role.

WADA clearly leaked the results, and it was clearly WADA, **** Pound specifically, that lead the charge based on the positives. The end result was a cesure for **** Pound and for Lance .... nothing.

And the same thing for all the 'evidence' against Lance. For everything that has come out there has been a rebuttal and evidence presented in contrary. The Andreau's come out, and eight other people including Lance's doctor (and presemably the doctors records) say otherwise. What is a judge supposed to do? Go with his gut feeling rather than evidence?

ARE WE SUPPOSED TO PRETEND THAT ONLY ONE SIDE OF ISSUE IS VALID?

Should we accuse the UCI, WADA, the Swiss Cycling federation, JB, LA, and presumeably all the other US postal riders around Floyd and Lance during this race of a giant omerta and conspiracy without one shread of evidence based on an 'overheard conversation'?

Why is that reasonable?

Why is it reasonable to come in and post one comment after another about how LA is 'done', and then get cheekish when someone offers a rebuttal?

Again, I say the same thing, LA may be doped. However, I seriously doubt that GH, LL, Dace Z, and all the riders that Floyd accussed, plus the management of two teams (one with doping positives, one without) are all going to fall when there is not a shread of evidence to back up the claim. Maybe something will shake loose, but at this point, there is nothing.

And understand, as we pretend that the rest of the accussation simply did not happen and focus of Lance, what is the standard by which a rider is exonerated of a doping charge?

The system works, let is work. If Lance doped, he'll get nailed. If Floyd lied, he'll get nailed.

I hope you get paid by the word and not on facts.

Here is a nice headline for you........

McQuaid Confirms Zorzoli as UCI source.

The president of the International Cycling Union, Pat McQuaid, has confirmed the UCI's chief medical officer, Dr Mario Zorzoli, as the source of the 15 documents that provided evidence for French sports newspaper L'Equipe to allege Lance Armstrong used EPO in the 1999 Tour de France.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

When takes a look at the logistics required to cover something up...............

Rather than go through and address all your long posts (as they all suggest the same thing).

Here is another headline for you.

Kohl confirms manager bribed anti-doping labs.

Also you appear to be getting confused with WADA, UCI etc..... let me help.

The result of any positive test would have gone to the UCI first to identify the athlete, a copy is sent to the IOC.
Both the IOC & UCI were based in Lausanne at the time.

Here is a foto of the President of the UCI in 2001.

Here is a foto of a senior IOC member in 2001.

No, they are not twins.

 

[gree0232]

They did? WADA only was in charge of testing for 7 months of Armstrong pre-retirement career.

Yeah, and **** Pound wound up censred over those positives because WADA was busy doing nothing ....

 

[Race Radio]

Yeah, and **** Pound wound up censred over those positives because WADA was busy doing nothing ....

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[gree0232]

Rather than go through and address all your long posts (as they all suggest the same thing).

Here is another headline for you.

Kohl confirms manager bribed anti-doping labs.

Also you appear to be getting confused with WADA, UCI etc..... let me help.

The result of any positive test would have gone to the UCI first to identify the athlete, a copy is sent to the IOC.
Both the IOC & UCI were based in Lausanne at the time.

Here is a foto of the President of the UCI in 2001.

Here is a foto of a senior IOC member in 2001.

No, they are not twins.

Maybe you should read you own sources.

"Bernhard Kohl has confirmed reports that his former manager Stefan Matschiner bribed anti-doping laboratories to analyze samples in order to determine how best to avoid a positive doping control."

Notice there is nothing in there that indicates bribing to cover up a positive after the fact.

As for pointing out that Verbruggen was in charge of the UCI, that does not even address what would be required to cover up a positive. So we are now saying that Verbruggen can order a cover up and no one in his, or any other organization including the IOC, would break because of this one super powerful individual?????

Does Verbruggen have the ability to completely and retroactively change the paper trail on dope tests? I would love to see the 'evidence' of that.

OK, please and at least try and address the points being made, and it would be nice to see you at least assume the people taking the time to discuss something in the forum know something about cycling.

 

[Anonymous]

Part of Pound's departing statement: "Doping is organized, systematic, well-financed, well-researched cheating," Pound told the IOC annual meeting. "This is not going to go away by holding hands and having a zen thing and going ommmm."

Man, that guy is psychic or something.

As for obfuscation0232, he was reprimanded for his COMMENTS. Again, dishonesty is your native tongue.

 

[Beech Mtn]

If I tested positive, only the national fed and myself would know. If they kept quiet and I kept quiet, who else could ever know?

Good point. It would be even easier to cover up a positive test if such a thing occurred prior to widespread use of the internet, in a year like, say, 1996, for example. As long as it doesn't appear on Wikipedia, it never happened, right?

 

[Anonymous]

Maybe you should read you own sources.

"Bernhard Kohl has confirmed reports that his former manager Stefan Matschiner bribed anti-doping laboratories to analyze samples in order to determine how best to avoid a positive doping control."

Yea, because surely they would only take a bribe to help him dope...

Notice there is nothing in there that indicates bribing to cover up a positive after the fact.

As for pointing out that Verbruggen was in charge of the UCI, that does not even address what would be required to cover up a positive. So we are now saying that Verbruggen can order a cover up and no one in his, or any other organization including the IOC, would break because of this one super powerful individual?????

Does Verbruggen have the ability to completely and retroactively change the paper trail on dope tests? I would love to see the 'evidence' of that.

OK, please and at least try and address the points being made, and it would be nice to see you at least assume the people taking the time to discuss something in the forum know something about cycling.

Every time you write something, someone shows you where you have no idea what the facts are, yet we are supposed to pretend that you "know" something about cycling? First try making a statement that is not filled with distortion, inaccuracies, and/or lies, and maybe we will consider that you are anything more than an Armstrong doping apologist.