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

Armstrong positive in 1999?

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 4, 2010
185
0
0
marinoni said:
Can't Public Strategies at least give their pathetic little mouthpieces spelling and grammar lessons? This is painful to read.
Sorry Marinoni, I dont have your mad skilz at grammer or spelling (sp) not sure if its rite or not please check for me. I hope you have moore to said about the subject than an english class, thancs so much for da help with gramer.

kind regaurds

Robert 'Bobby' Boucher Jr. AKA the Waterboy
 
Jun 18, 2009
281
0
0
SilasCL said:
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:
This is where I have a problem. Given that WADA Technical Document TD2009EPO, version 2.0, effective Sept. 21, 2009, and TD2004EPO, effective Jan. 15, 2005 section 3.3 and page 5 Stability Criteria, respectively, specify the addition of BPR or NESP at 1.5x the concentration used in the reference lanes. (The NESP is identified in section 1 as Aranesp. BPR is identified as the rEPO standard.) Also, given that the research testing was performed in 2006 (possibly 2005, don't recall the exact timing) and the interview with Ashenden was given some time after that.

Why would Ashende fain not knowing it was possible to spike samples, when the analysts that performed the testing would, as a routine, have been trained on this technique prior to it becoming effective? Note that this knowledge would have been available to some of the individuals involved prior to the writing of the TD on Oct. 15, 2004.

As best I can tell, either he was not really involved , or he was being disingenuous. Either way, to me it calls into question his credibility. Beyond this, I do not find his expertise credible in the fields of analytical chemistry or statistics. I will defer to his credentials as an expert in exercise physiology, as I am not in expert in this field.
 
SilasCL said:
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:
Are you referring to the comments section of an article and not the article itself?:confused:

If that is true then there is no real scientific evidence of what you are saying is true. Need something better than that.
 
SilasCL said:
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:
Are you referring to a comment, about a comment, in the Comment section?

Do you have better evidence than that?

Thanks
 
Jul 24, 2009
14
0
0
Escarabajo said:
Are you referring to a comment, about a comment, in the Comment section?

Do you have better evidence than that?

Thanks
So the fact that Ashenden brought up the serial dilution method as well, and I basically took back my critique of his interview, does that mean anything to you?

Get a clue.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
SilasCL said:
So the fact that Ashenden brought up the serial dilution method as well, and I basically took back my critique of his interview, does that mean anything to you?

Get a clue.
I saw those other statements in the original blog yesterday,and when you posted your first (kind of) short sighted response I wanted to respond then, but I just didn't have the strength. Kudos to you for reading the rest of it and correcting yourself all of your own volition. That to me shows you know what you are talking about and are willing to admit when you misinterprete something.
The rest, go back and read the posts and then come say you are sorry.:p
 
MacRoadie said:
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.
Oops, wasn't thinking straight there. But the essential point remains, if LA had this rare physiology, one would think he would have tested positive for EPO on one of his A samples beginning in 2001 (not 1999), when the test was used.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS