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

Armstrong positive in 1999?

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 16, 2010
16,254
0
0
Barrus said:
Okay than, other questions:
Do you believe Basso doped, Valverde, Pantani or Fränk Schleck, to name but a few?
None of them had any legal positive tests, if I am correct. Are you just as sceptical to them?
Didn't Pantani test positive in the Giro?
 
Jul 24, 2009
14
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 ****.
Scientists commenting on the interview and scientists I know in my personal life all said it would be pretty simple to dilute EPO down to an appropriate level before putting it in the sample.

On this point, Ashenden clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's purposely being obtuse to make the case more convincing.
 
SilasCL said:
Scientists commenting on the interview and scientists I know in my personal life all said it would be pretty simple to dilute EPO down to an appropriate level before putting it in the sample.

On this point, Ashenden clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's purposely being obtuse to make the case more convincing.
Please provide us with some links or tecnical information from your scientist friends.

Thanks
 
Aug 4, 2010
185
0
0
Barrus said:
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
Barrus, I never meant to put any blame on you as to how it got started other than to tell the" not this again people" how it got started. It was in another thread and morfed into its own topic in a seperate thread. I didn't mean anything by what I said about it got started, being so new I knew a topic even related to the 1999 test would bring out strong feeling from both sides. I hope this clears up how and what happened to get this started.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
SilasCL said:
Scientists commenting on the interview and scientists I know in my personal life all said it would be pretty simple to dilute EPO down to an appropriate level before putting it in the sample.

On this point, Ashenden clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's purposely being obtuse to make the case more convincing.
Gee, every scientist I know points out that even if it were possible to "spike" the samples in a way that they tested positive for rEPO (hint, just dropping a little Cera or Epogen in wouldn't do it) they still wouldn't know which samples were Armstrong's, and they didn't even when they finished the tests.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
SilasCL said:
Scientists commenting on the interview and scientists I know in my personal life all said it would be pretty simple to dilute EPO down to an appropriate level before putting it in the sample.

On this point, Ashenden clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's purposely being obtuse to make the case more convincing.
Scientists I know tell me it would be close to impossible.

Of course this is a silly topic as there was no way for them to know which samples were Armstrong so the dilution/spiking theory is about as believable as the space alien/Nazi Frogmen one
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Race Radio said:
Of course this is a silly topic as there was no way for them to know which samples were Armstrong so the dilution/spiking theory is about as believable as the space alien/Nazi Frogmen one
Yes, everybody keeps forgetting this. Only reporters can learn info like that after LA allows them to. This was discussed earlier in the thread so no need to keep pointing it out, RR.
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,827
0
0
Maybe Lance's samples were spiked by mistake?

Maybe they thought they were spiking someone else's samples?
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
ChrisE said:
Yes, everybody keeps forgetting this. Only reporters can learn info like that after LA allows them to. This was discussed earlier in the thread so no need to keep pointing it out, RR.
Wouldn't the fact that people keep forgetting it be enough reason to keep pointing it out?
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Polish said:
Maybe Lance's samples were spiked by mistake?

Maybe they thought they were spiking someone else's samples?
I was going to respond simply with an emoticon, come to find out this forum doesn't have a cross-eyed emoticon.
 
Jul 24, 2009
14
0
0
Escarabajo said:
Please provide us with some links or tecnical information from your scientist friends.

Thanks
There are some pretty good quotes in the comments section of this article. Read the two describing serial dilution methods. It also got posted by myself and another member at RBRwhen this interview came out. Once again, to assume this happened is to assume that someone had the codes, had the motive to frame Armstrong, and had the means to do all this in the lab without anyone noticing. Not really possible, in my opinion.

On reading the comments more carefully, I'm going to have to take back what I said about Ashenden though. My whole point in this post was to show that Ashenden might not be the god of science that everyone thinks he is, by missing this obvious lab technique. That is incorrect, as Andy, the interviewer in this piece, adds these comments:

Believe it or not, one of MA's follow up emails mentioned the possibility of diluting, but I didn't include it as I thought I was already going too far afield.
I wasn't cautious enough while writing this. Ashenden in the message above and subsequent follow up emails was more careful, I should've followed his example.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Wouldn't the fact that people keep forgetting it be enough reason to keep pointing it out?
I see your point. I had a senior moment in that post.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,463
0
0
uspostal said:
I hope the if he doped isn't in commection to the 1999 TDF test that was done by" Laboratoire Nationale De Dépistage Du Dopage’. As this Independent Investigation shows it was full of holes and conducted horrably at best


. Advocaten. Archived from the original on 2007-12-01. http://web.archive.org/web/20071201220747/http://www.velonews.com/media/report1999.pdf. Retrieved 2008-01-09
Are you sitting on your couch watching Fight Club wearing a Creed t-shirt get a grip man. You should debate which super mario brother is the best lover or something important to history. Blur had a good record in 1999 so did Cher
 
Mar 12, 2009
348
0
0
uspostal said:
Not sure but I don't think the 1999 result is held in any hearts other than LA bashers who really had hoped the test would of held up in a court of law and not your worped sence of justice. AGAIN no A & B positive no positive test. At least thats the way I read the rules, am I wrong. A contaminated test, shoddy lab handling of the specimans, open and closed the opened again who really knows what happened in the French lab. Show me the LEGAL test result and I'll concider you position.
Can't Public Strategies at least give their pathetic little mouthpieces spelling and grammar lessons? This is painful to read.
 
SilasCL said:
Scientists commenting on the interview and scientists I know in my personal life all said it would be pretty simple to dilute EPO down to an appropriate level before putting it in the sample.

On this point, Ashenden clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's purposely being obtuse to make the case more convincing.
Yes, it would be possible to do this using serial dilutions, but it would have to be someone who understood the test very well, and planned the contamination carefully. But why did only some of LA’s samples test positive (6/17, and according to Ashenden, a couple of others were in the gray area, almost certainly positive, but technically would have been classified as non-positive)? If someone knew the identity of LA’s samples, never mind how, why were only some contaminated?

Some of the samples from other riders were also positive, so it might be argued that someone randomly contaminated the samples, assuming some would turn out to be LA’s. Never mind how this person knew that Ressiott would later expose these results. The problem is that a much higher % of LA’s samples tested positive (35%) than the remaining samples (10-15%, IIRC). So a random selection of samples to be contaminated would be unlikely to produce the results.

Someone, I think it was USPostal, claimed there was evidence that an enzyme in urine could convert endogenous EPO into a substance running on electrophoresis like exogenous EPO. I believe you are referring to a couple of athletes who initially tested positive, but later got off by successfully arguing that this is what happened. It has nothing to do with frozen storage (which inhibits enzyme activity, but can occur in the urine sample as soon as it is given, or even in the body. But this kind of physiology is apparently quite rare, found in only a few individuals. If LA were one of these rare individuals, why hasn’t this problem cropped up before, i.e., why hasn’t he tested positive for EPO in sanctionable circumstances? Why in fact wouldn’t the A samples from ’99 test positive?

The claim by someone that the positive samples showed just the right % of certain isoforms over time during the TDF is BS. There is no relationship between the amount of exogenous EPO in the urine and the % of the isoforms which indicate a positive. One can have a huge amount of exogenous EPO present and barely test positive, and conversely, one can have a barely detectable amount of EPO present and have a very clear positive by isoform proportion. There has to be a minimum amount of EPO present in the urine to proceed to the electrophoretic stage, but at that point, any result is possible.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Merckx index said:
Yes, it would be possible to do this using serial dilutions, but it would have to be someone who understood the test very well, and planned the contamination carefully. But why did only some of LA’s samples test positive (6/17, and according to Ashenden, a couple of others were in the gray area, almost certainly positive, but technically would have been classified as non-positive)? If someone knew the identity of LA’s samples, never mind how, why were only some contaminated?

Some of the samples from other riders were also positive, so it might be argued that someone randomly contaminated the samples, assuming some would turn out to be LA’s. Never mind how this person knew that Ressiott would later expose these results. The problem is that a much higher % of LA’s samples tested positive (35%) than the remaining samples (10-15%, IIRC). So a random selection of samples to be contaminated would be unlikely to produce the results.

Someone, I think it was USPostal, claimed there was evidence that an enzyme in urine could convert endogenous EPO into a substance running on electrophoresis like exogenous EPO. I believe you are referring to a couple of athletes who initially tested positive, but later got off by successfully arguing that this is what happened. It has nothing to do with frozen storage (which inhibits enzyme activity, but can occur in the urine sample as soon as it is given, or even in the body. But this kind of physiology is apparently quite rare, found in only a few individuals. If LA were one of these rare individuals, why hasn’t this problem cropped up before, i.e., why hasn’t he tested positive for EPO in sanctionable circumstances? Why in fact wouldn’t the A samples from ’99 test positive?

The claim by someone that the positive samples showed just the right % of certain isoforms over time during the TDF is BS. There is no relationship between the amount of exogenous EPO in the urine and the % of the isoforms which indicate a positive. One can have a huge amount of exogenous EPO present and barely test positive, and conversely, one can have a barely detectable amount of EPO present and have a very clear positive by isoform proportion. There has to be a minimum amount of EPO present in the urine to proceed to the electrophoretic stage, but at that point, any result is possible.
Stop making sense, you will cause a crack in the fanboy/denial continuum. It could end life as we know it.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,045
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Stop making sense, you will cause a crack in the fanboy/denial continuum. It could end life as we know it.
Aren't the fan boys going to jump all over "Why in fact wouldn’t the A samples from ’99 test positive?"

There was no test for EPO in 1999, so the A samples wouldn't test positive then no matter what, right? As the A samples were then destroyed, leaving just B samples for retroactive (research) testing, even in 2005 there could be no A "positive"...

Just trying to stay ahead of the mob.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS