• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Armstrong positive in 1999?

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 4, 2010
185
0
0
Barrus said:
Allright everyone get back on-topic, or I'll close this thread.

On-topic Uspostal, how come you haven't answered any question put forth to you, nor have reacted in any way to posts that point out flaws in your argument, you only reacted to posts that were beneficial to your line of reasoning
I can post a link to the Independent Investigation into the Analysis Samples from the 1999 Tour de France. That should answer the questions that people have. Was this doctor Michael Ashenden there when the testing took place, or did he use the paperwork provided by the lab to come to the conclusions he did. Can anybody again prove that UCI was paid to be quiet or just another assumption by the LA haters. Connecting dots is easy in the court of public opinion but thats why we have courts to seperate fact from fiction, proof from he said she said.

Barrus, as far as the quilt of others if they say they did then they did. I would like to see proof before nailing someone to the cross. Once the word gets out you cannot take it back. Thats why we're having this duscusion now. There's no court admitable evidence against LA but people here still think he's guilty. If he comes out and say" I did it I used PED " then he's guilty. If a court of law finds him guilty of using said PED then he's guilty.

I've seen the good DR. Michael Ashenden report, but if the procedure was flawed then so was the results. Why has nobody given me the hows and whys of this accelerated measurement procedure. What are the rates of the false postives and what are the false negatives. Is this process even sciencetificaly accepted. Burrus I'm answering as fast as possible but haven't recieved anything other than links to the Dr's magazine Q&A.
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Anyway, T minus 5 days and counting until school starts. A couple of months ago, I thought I would miss all this...now, not so much.
Come on, you'll still be here right, at least in the road race forum otherwise, if not in the clinic


But anyway are any more samples from 1999 tested, from any rider (I mean samples from other races than the tour) Or from any other earlier year, it would be quite interesting to see how many people were on Epo, prior to the Epo-test being available. Even if it would not be admissable anymore, it would give a lot more insight to the racing in the 90s

@ USPostal: So neither Basso nor Pantani doped, allright got it.
About the "independent" investigation, have you read the Ashenden interview, or the WADA link provided for earlier in this topic?
About possible false positives, do you have any idea how statistically improbable (or rather almost inpossible) it would be to get 6 false positives?
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
uspostal said:
I can post a link to the Independent Investigation into the Analysis Samples from the 1999 Tour de France. That should answer the questions that people have. Was this doctor Michael Ashenden there when the testing took place, or did he use the paperwork provided by the lab to come to the conclusions he did. Can anybody again prove that UCI was paid to be quiet or just another assumption by the LA haters. Connecting dots is easy in the court of public opinion but thats why we have courts to seperate fact from fiction, proof from he said she said.

Barrus, as far as the quilt of others if they say they did then they did. I would like to see proof before nailing someone to the cross. Once the word gets out you cannot take it back. Thats why we're having this duscusion now. There's no court admitable evidence against LA but people here still think he's guilty. If he comes out and say" I did it I used PED " then he's guilty. If a court of law finds him guilty of using said PED then he's guilty.

I've seen the good DR. Michael Ashenden report, but if the procedure was flawed then so was the results. Why has nobody given me the hows and whys of this accelerated measurement procedure. What are the rates of the false postives and what are the false negatives. Is this process even sciencetificaly accepted. Burrus I'm answering as fast as possible but haven't recieved anything other than links to the Dr's magazine Q&A.
Again - how did EPO appear in Lances wee wee?
 
Aug 4, 2010
185
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Again - how did EPO appear in Lances wee wee?
Maybe it was set next to one that did and the highly respected person got then mixed up ??? maybe they used the same equiptment on more than one sample ??? - urine integrity testing.The general requirements regarding “urine integrity testing” are few. Other than the obligation to have a written policy establishing the procedures and criteria or sample integrity tests, the laboratory is only required to test the urine samplefor the pH and specific gravity and in general to determine and, if necessary,subsequently report, whether the urine is in an unusual condition or not258. This is important in the matter at hand, as the urine samples used have been kept storedfor either five (5) or six (6) years, much longer than what usually is the case withurine samples analysed for doping control purposes, and especially now that itwas only recently discovered that “enzymatic activity”, or other agents in the urine, can cause a change in endogenous EPO molecules, as a result of which these endogenous EPO molecules suddenly appear to be exogenous, falsely suggesting that the Prohibited Substance r-EPO might have been used.

That taken with the following ,Failure to produce the mandatory “internal chain of custody” for each of the urine samples from the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France analysed. Urine testing, Failure to follow any of the mandatory requirements regarding the three urinetesting procedures, i.e. “urine integrity testing”, “urine screening testing” and“urine confirmation testing”. Urine integrity testing Both Prof. De Ceaurriz and Dr. Lasne informed the investigator that sample integrity had been verified only to the extent that a visual check had taken place on enzymatic activity, which may impair the results of the measurements

as the LNDD has stated
that the analysis of urine samples from patients having received r-EPO for medical reasons, as well as urine samples “spiked” with r-EPO, were part of the same research project. Given the absence of an “internal laboratory chain of custody”,the possibility that urine samples of the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France might have been contaminated can not be ruled out.
 
Aug 4, 2010
185
0
0
editedbymod said:
So based on this theory why not spike A samples from a race? Why waist time with the research samples? Would be much easier to join the dots on rider identity from the A sample from say a stage win. Bigger fall-out. Bigger story. Being the most tested athlete in the world there would have been more samples to spike. Why not before? and why again after the story? Why waste time on this retro testing which has no sanction.

I'm with you they only decided to spike 6 samples from the 1999 Tour and never again. It was a one off 6 sample spike. It never happened again. The tester got bored and thought let's spike these random 6 and they all turned out to belong to one athlete.
Trying to spike the A sample because its done in front of the rider, I think LA would see someone put something in it if he's standing right there.
 
Aug 4, 2010
185
0
0
A side note

As to how this thread got started it. It has started in another thread and the Mods started a new thead with the title. I wasn't going to jump to a new thread because I'm new here.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
uspostal said:
Maybe it was set next to one that did and the highly respected person got then mixed up ??? maybe they used the same equiptment on more than one sample ??? - urine integrity testing.The general requirements regarding “urine integrity testing” are few. Other than the obligation to have a written policy establishing the procedures and criteria or sample integrity tests, the laboratory is only required to test the urine samplefor the pH and specific gravity and in general to determine and, if necessary,subsequently report, whether the urine is in an unusual condition or not258. This is important in the matter at hand, as the urine samples used have been kept storedfor either five (5) or six (6) years, much longer than what usually is the case withurine samples analysed for doping control purposes, and especially now that itwas only recently discovered that “enzymatic activity”, or other agents in the urine, can cause a change in endogenous EPO molecules, as a result of which these endogenous EPO molecules suddenly appear to be exogenous, falsely suggesting that the Prohibited Substance r-EPO might have been used.

That taken with the following ,Failure to produce the mandatory “internal chain of custody” for each of the urine samples from the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France analysed. Urine testing, Failure to follow any of the mandatory requirements regarding the three urinetesting procedures, i.e. “urine integrity testing”, “urine screening testing” and“urine confirmation testing”. Urine integrity testing Both Prof. De Ceaurriz and Dr. Lasne informed the investigator that sample integrity had been verified only to the extent that a visual check had taken place on enzymatic activity, which may impair the results of the measurements

as the LNDD has stated
that the analysis of urine samples from patients having received r-EPO for medical reasons, as well as urine samples “spiked” with r-EPO, were part of the same research project. Given the absence of an “internal laboratory chain of custody”,the possibility that urine samples of the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France might have been contaminated can not be ruled out.
Ok, so they mixed up Lances clean wee with someone else-sounds completely plausible, though you'd think they would put a code on it or something, but.....


Can you explain how EPO appeared in the other 5 samples Lance had?
 
Aug 4, 2010
185
0
0
Adamastor said:
So you admit he might be guilty. You're stating that legally he can't be charged. Well, good news for you, he never was charged and never will be charged because of these samples, according to UCI regulation (I repeat, according to UCI regulation).

If, according to law, you can only be convicted for murder, when a body is discovered, then you'll be innocent, as long nobody finds a cadaver, even if 20 witnesses saw you shoot the guy. Here, it's exactly the same thing. It took the Vrijman report 140 pages to explain what I put in this paragraph.

The labs might be messy with their sample handling, but they never were after LA in this case. It's simply a smart (some will say ruthless) reporter, who made a fantastic investigative work to match the samples with names, that brought up the whole story. Without this type of investigators, a watergate would never been uncovered.

Ressiot was clearly after LA, and he nailed him. But read the famous L'Equipe article "Armstrong: le mensonge" (Armstrong: the lie), and he clearly states this:
"Were LA's samples tainted with EPO? Answer, yes. Will he be charged for this? NO!"

I let you big boys continue your discussions. For me this particular thread is useless and dead, as it does not bring any news in what happened.
maybe, adverb
1. perhaps; possibly:
–noun
2. a possibility or uncertainty

3. Do not confuse maybe with may be: "Maybe that's true", but "That may be true"
 
Aug 4, 2010
185
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Ok, so they mixed up Lances clean wee with someone else-sounds completely plausible, though you'd think they would put a code on it or something, but.....


Can you explain how EPO appeared in the other 5 samples Lance had?
Its my understanding that they were all tested at the same time, I maybe wrong about that.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
uspostal said:
Its my understanding that they were all tested at the same time, I maybe wrong about that.
Again sounds perfectly plausible - its not like they are rocket scientists or something.

When they mixed up Lances sample over and over and over and over and over again and over again - could it be that they actually ended up with Lances sample again?
 
Jul 23, 2009
19
0
0
When they mixed up Lances sample over and over and over and over and over again and over again - could it be that they actually ended up with Lances sample again?
You mean pouring a Tours worth of wee in a big jar and take a scoop?

To me that seems an excellent methodology to validate a new test protocol!
Because that was what they were doing at the lab at the time, wasn't it?

Happy to help flogging this dead horse :)
Bart
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
uspostal said:
As to how this thread got started it. It has started in another thread and the Mods started a new thead with the title. I wasn't going to jump to a new thread because I'm new here.
Please also state with that, that this topic had nothing to do with the topic on hand in that thread and you started out with this off-topic reasoning and really disrupted that thread due to it
 
Oct 25, 2009
556
0
0
uspostal said:
Trying to spike the A sample because its done in front of the rider, I think LA would see someone put something in it if he's standing right there.
You people are beyond stupid. Has anyone even read the interview with Ashenden? Spiking is not as simple as having an eye dropper full of EPO ready to dump into someone's ****.
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
Tom T. said:
You people are beyond stupid. Has anyone even read the interview with Ashenden? Spiking is not as simple as having an eye dropper full of EPO ready to dump into someone's ****.
We said time and time again he should read that, he appears to either not want to read it, or he doesn't believe Ashenden, or he is staying wilfully ignorant
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,827
0
0
Barrus said:
We said time and time again he should read that, he appears to either not want to read it, or he doesn't believe Ashenden, or he is staying wilfully ignorant

Mr Barrus, let me get this straight...

As a Super Moderator you created a new thread with a trollish title "Armstrong positive in 1999?"

Then you attached a new forum members name to the thread?

And then proceed to join in and gang up on the new member?


What am I missing here?

Maybe you are friends with Ashenden?
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Polish said:
Mr Barrus, let me get this straight...

As a Super Moderator you created a new thread with a trollish title "Armstrong positive in 1999?"

Then you attached a new forum members name to the thread?

And then proceed to join in and gang up on the new member?


What am I missing here?

Maybe you are friends with Ashenden?
Sounds like Polish is jealous of all the attention uspostal is getting
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
Polish said:
Mr Barrus, let me get this straight...

As a Super Moderator you created a new thread with a trollish title "Armstrong positive in 1999?"

Then you attached a new forum members name to the thread?

And then proceed to join in and gang up on the new member?


What am I missing here?

Maybe you are friends with Ashenden?
My dear Polish, this started in another thread, where it had nothing to do with the topic of thath thread. I could have deleted all the posts, but decided that this discussion would otherwise resurface, almost immediately.
Why he was attached? He started with this line of reasoning and brought up the subject. The thread title was so construed as to be the least trollish available, and most in line with the reasoning of the poster. And I am not ganging up on him, but have provided with a link, which he probably did not read and with some other reasoning.
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,827
0
0
Barrus said:
My dear Polish, this started in another thread, where it had nothing to do with the topic of thath thread. I could have deleted all the posts, but decided that this discussion would otherwise resurface, almost immediately.
Why he was attached? He started with this line of reasoning and brought up the subject. The thread title was so construed as to be the least trollish available, and most in line with the reasoning of the poster. And I am not ganging up on him, but have provided with a link, which he probably did not read and with some other reasoning.
Dearest Barrus, maybe a better and less trollish title would have been "Lance's 1999 samples"?

And why this as the first response in the thread?:
Barrus said:
Oh sweet Lord, not this discussion again:

USpostal, read this:

Ashenden interview

This is also one of the people now in charge of the blood passport.
C'mon, that same article has been linked sooo many times. SADD.

But seriously, do you know Ashenden personally?
Yikes, maybe you ARE Ashenden omg!
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
polish can you take your pissing elsewhere, will you ?

pm the mod or something...

i want to understand why TEXAS was NOT positive in 1999.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
python said:
i want to understand why TEXAS was NOT positive in 1999.
No, you're trolling. You know damn well why he wasn't sanctioned, which is what is important here vs "positive". This is not rocket science.
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
sock poppetry and trolling is why you were banned multiple times and are currently on a short leash:D so spare me trolling.

i did not say adverse analytical finding but positive


l'equippe head line was armstrong positive.

tell us why your idol was not positive ?
 
Aug 4, 2010
185
0
0
python said:
sock poppetry and trolling is why you were banned multiple times and are currently on a short leash:D so spare me trolling.

i did not say adverse analytical finding but positive


l'equippe head line was armstrong positive.

tell us why your idol was not positive ?
- “A” sample confirmation
According to art. 5.2.4.3.1.1, the presumptive identification from a screening
procedure of Prohibited Substance(s), their “Metabolites”, or “Markers” of the
use of a Prohibited Substance or Method a Presumptive Analytical Finding must be confirmed using a second Aliquot(s) taken from the original “A” sample. After the “A” sample confirmation has been completed, a WADA-accredited doping control laboratory is required to subsequently report its “A” sample test resultswithin a certain number of days to the relevant “Testing Authority”

- “B” sample confirmation
In addition to the aforementioned “A” sample confirmation -meant to confirm
the screening result of the “A” sample only- the “B” sample analysis is intended to subsequently confirm the “A” sample identification for the “Adverse Analytical Finding”. In other words, in order to determine whether an “Adverse Analytical Finding” is valid, the result from the “B” sample confirmation needs to confirm that of the “A” sample identification. If the “B” sample confirmation however, does not provide analytical findings that confirm the “A” sample result, the sample shall be considered “negative” and the “Testing Authority” shall be notified of the new analytical finding
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
uspostal said:
- “A” sample confirmation
According to art. 5.2.4.3.1.1, the presumptive identification from a screening
procedure of Prohibited Substance(s), their “Metabolites”, or “Markers” of the
use of a Prohibited Substance or Method a Presumptive Analytical Finding must be confirmed using a second Aliquot(s) taken from the original “A” sample. After the “A” sample confirmation has been completed, a WADA-accredited doping control laboratory is required to subsequently report its “A” sample test resultswithin a certain number of days to the relevant “Testing Authority”

- “B” sample confirmation
In addition to the aforementioned “A” sample confirmation -meant to confirm
the screening result of the “A” sample only- the “B” sample analysis is intended to subsequently confirm the “A” sample identification for the “Adverse Analytical Finding”. In other words, in order to determine whether an “Adverse Analytical Finding” is valid, the result from the “B” sample confirmation needs to confirm that of the “A” sample identification. If the “B” sample confirmation however, does not provide analytical findings that confirm the “A” sample result, the sample shall be considered “negative” and the “Testing Authority” shall be notified of the new analytical finding
you wasted your time and posted total carp, non is applicable never was.

no one insisted it was a testing where in competition code kicks in.

it was a research project that found 6 samples positive for EPO. The owner was texas.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
python said:
sock poppetry and trolling is why you were banned multiple times and are currently on a short leash:D so spare me trolling.

i did not say adverse analytical finding but positive


l'equippe head line was armstrong positive.

tell us why your idol was not positive ?
I never said there was no EPO in that pis. If you think you can find something where I wrote that then good luck.

I have always been on the same side as you my friend on whether or not we think he used PED's. Does that make him my idol? I respect his accomplishments and know how good of a rider he was on an even playing field. I judge him just as a bike racer and don't get caught up in the character. If that makes him my idol then sobeit.

I have pointed out many times he was not sanctioned due to lack of formal protocol on how the 99 samples were tested, meant to be tested, chain of command, rider recourse, sanctioning guidelines, etc. according to any established regulations at the time. Nobody in their right mind, including you, would tolerate working or living in a system like that.

That is where my whole argument stops and I don't care to get into positives, AAFs, or whatever because I draw the line at procedures of a governing body vs the rights of an individual. Talk to me when he comes up formally AAF and you and I can agree and bury this hatchet you chase me around the internet with. :rolleyes:

So, I didn't answer your "positive" question but you will have to live with that. :cool: Anything else?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS