Dopin in 2008 Giro

[Escarabajo]

ricco's urine was tested 6 or 7 times during the tour before they were able to nail him. recall he was boasting immediately after the tour that the test is unreliable etc etc. kidney just does not pass enough of the huge molecules of cera carrier (that makes it long lasting in the circulation). blood cera test was not yet ready during 2008 tour and if you recall kohl and schumi were popped after the tour with blood cera test.

I see. Thanks for the info.

 

[RTMcFadden]

i don’t think there will be any new names revealed except confirming the already popped riders. here is why and it’s not political nor is there a case of corruption. (btw, did anyone mention rebellin? oops screaming first was first )

this was retrospective testing - rome wada lab analyzed 82 'b' urine samples for epo because 'a' samples are typically discarded as soon as they are screened and found negative (we know there were no positives in 2008 giro) the result: 6 or 7 'b' samples came up with suspicious pherrograms. iow, they could not be conclusively identified even using the 2009 version of wada standard. urine is just not a very good matrix for cera detection.
now they asked lausanne lab to test blood samples for cera because rome is not yet accredited to test blood for cera. unless these blood samples were specifically collected for retro testing (which i very much doubt, separate subject) these blood samples in lausanne are also 'b' samples or health check samples (a different procedure that does not require drawing 'b' sample).

So what we most likely have is a bunch of 'b' samples w/o the necessary (for a positive charge) 'a' samples. i'd call it the 'armstrong-lndd 1999 syndrome' - positive but can not be proven.

no new cases can be brought forward except confirming - they call it corroborating evidence - that ricco, rebellin, sella etc were cera-ed in the giro. Which we already knew anyway..

Can't say I agree. This is not a UCI investigation, it's a police investigation. The police are not bound by the codes or agreements of the UCI. So, even if only the "B" sample exists, they are free to proceed with prosecution. Ultimately, the UCI may not be able to suspend them, but it would be difficult for them to ride from a jail cell.

 

[issoisso]

i don’t think there will be any new names revealed except confirming the already popped riders. here is why and it’s not political nor is there a case of corruption. (btw, did anyone mention rebellin? oops screaming first was first )

this was retrospective testing - rome wada lab analyzed 82 'b' urine samples for epo because 'a' samples are typically discarded as soon as they are screened and found negative (we know there were no positives in 2008 giro) the result: 6 or 7 'b' samples came up with suspicious pherrograms. iow, they could not be conclusively identified even using the 2009 version of wada standard. urine is just not a very good matrix for cera detection.
now they asked lausanne lab to test blood samples for cera because rome is not yet accredited to test blood for cera. unless these blood samples were specifically collected for retro testing (which i very much doubt, separate subject) these blood samples in lausanne are also 'b' samples or health check samples (a different procedure that does not require drawing 'b' sample).

So what we most likely have is a bunch of 'b' samples w/o the necessary (for a positive charge) 'a' samples. i'd call it the 'armstrong-lndd 1999 syndrome' - positive but can not be proven.

no new cases can be brought forward except confirming - they call it corroborating evidence - that ricco, rebellin, sella etc were cera-ed in the giro. Which we already knew anyway..

A sample can be divided into two if there is enough urine for it. It's extremely common. However, permission has to be asked of the riders. No one's ever refused, as that's equal to a confession.

 

[python]

Can't say I agree. This is not a UCI investigation, it's a police investigation. The police are not bound by the codes or agreements of the UCI. So, even if only the "B" sample exists, they are free to proceed with prosecution. Ultimately, the UCI may not be able to suspend them, but it would be difficult for them to ride from a jail cell.

you are not making sense because we were talking about a typical/normal doping charge under wada regulations. if the italian police wants to lock them up and torture them till they admit doping i could care less.

cas will not accept a doping case unless it is an admission by an athlete or a properly conducted adverse analytical finding. rcs may decide to reshuffle the podium etc but it will still not make it case unless there was an admission or a b sample. so you can send your disagreement to the italian police and they may listen.

 

[python]

A sample can be divided into two if there is enough urine for it. It's extremely common. However, permission has to be asked of the riders. No one's ever refused, as that's equal to a confession.

read the latest wada regulations. b sample in 2009 is different from b sample in 2008 and epo test takes 7 times the volume of a regular non-epo test. theoretically it can be divided but rarely practically. again read wada standard for labs. it used to be 70 ml minimum now they require 90ml minimum with b sample only 30 ml and an a sample 60 ml. blood b samples can not be divided unless they were collected as b. your extremely common is pure ignorance.

 

[350Watts]

Sella named Priamo, and Priamo won a stage so he was no doubt tested.

So, Priamo, Riccò, Sella and Bruseghin (rides for a team that recently had 4 doping cases in about a year, plus had by a huge margin the best ride of his career, never doing anywhere near as well neither before, nor after) I think are dead certs.

As for the others, Bosisio, Di Luca seem good bets.

Piepoli rode that Giro too. Simoni, maybe. Maybe Savoldelli.

Contador and Menchov, I doubt they were on CERA. Something else, sure. But not CERA.

Surely not Simoni, he protested with such righteous indignation at the Extraterrestrial performances of others.

 

[issoisso]

read the latest wada regulations. b sample in 2009 is different from b sample in 2008 and epo test takes 7 times the volume of a regular non-epo test. theoretically it can be divided but rarely practically. again read wada standard for labs. it used to be 70 ml minimum now they require 90ml minimum with b sample only 30 ml and an a sample 60 ml. blood b samples can not be divided unless they were collected as b. your extremely common is pure ignorance.

Don't call me ignorant. Especially when you're in the wrong.

Just a few weeks ago this was done to retest the 2008 Tour samples. The whole reason that re-testing started so late instead of the originally planned August was that they were still collecting authorisations to divide samples.

It's extremely common.

Stop constantly lashing out at people on this forum. You keep doing it every day and it's annoying. If you think I'm wrong, post facts. Don't call people ignorant.

 

[python]

Don't call me ignorant when you're in the wrong.

Just a few weeks ago this was done to retest the 2008 Tour samples. The whole reason that re-testing started so late instead of the originally planned August was that they were still collecting authorisations to divide samples.

It's extremely common.

i have the evidence to call you ignorant. the rest of the forum will have to make their own opinion.

 

[skidmark]

EDIT: So, in December, Riccò and Sella will come back positive, it'll be a second offence and they'll be gone for life. buh-bye.

I thought it didn't count as a second offence if it occurred before the first offence (or if it occurred after the first offence's date, but before the first offence was detected). Am I just remembering incorrectly? As much as I'd never like to see Ricco again, I don't know if that's possible...

 

[issoisso]

i have the evidence to call you ignorant. the rest of the forum will have to make their own opinion.

As far as I'm aware, "because I say so" isn't evidence. Dividing the samples is a common practice, and if you disagree, argue like a normal person.

Because I'm not getting dragged into a p***ing match with a troll such as you (which not only this, but also your previous posts clearly show you are), I'm leaving this subject

 

[issoisso]

I thought it didn't count as a second offence if it occurred before the first offence (or if it occurred after the first offence's date, but before the first offence was detected). Am I just remembering incorrectly? As much as I'd never like to see Ricco again, I don't know if that's possible...

It depends on the prosecution. If they choose to consider this a separate offence, they'll have to prove that the CERA detected at the Tour couldn't have been the same one detected at the Giro, therefore proving he couldn't have injected just once and tested positive twice from it

 

[python]

As far as I'm aware, "because I say so" isn't evidence. It's a common practice, and if you disagree, argue like a normal person.

Because I'm not getting dragged into a p***ing match with a troll such as you (which not only this, but also your previous posts clearly show you are), I'm leaving this subject

and the faster you do it the better it is for you because you'll avoid more embarrassment. all the evidence was provided in my post above. you do need to read though. retrospective tests are a special procedure and the 2008 tour samples tested this year were tested because afld was free to collect a and b samples specifically destined for later testing. they were likely never open. retrospective testing is a very hot subject and wada only recently started to add regulations that would make it legally defensible. that is how to handle b samples, degradation issues etc....

 

[Escarabajo]

It depends on the prosecution. If they choose to consider this a separate offence, they'll have to prove that the CERA detected at the Tour couldn't have been the same one detected at the Giro, therefore proving he couldn't have injected just once and tested positive twice from it

Because of this reason I believe they don't get punish again. It looks like a hard thing to do technically speaking (IMHO). That was one of the reasons why CERA was created for. It stays long time in the system.

 

[Psalmon]

I hope not.
The Donkey man is a prime candidate.
Otherwise, I'd guess a LPR/CSF dominated bunch.

Any chance they might nab the "Freiburg Phantom"?

I also hope Simoni is clear of this. I've always had the feeling he's clean since his highly public "extraterrestrial" comment, which was right on.

If so, talk about a guy who's been cheated out of numerous achievements:
- Could have won Giro in 2006?
- Maybe 3rd or 2nd in 2007?
- Others? (still looked human in '05, '04 - Did anyone think Cunego would never come close again after that rookie performance?)

In any case, it's hateful having to wait 2 years to find out who really won a race, to see what was illusion and what was dedication.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Ah yes, Baliani. shouldn't have forgotten him, already. Up the road at every opportunity. Maybe he'll be known as Unfortunato, from now on.

It all comes back, now.
CSF and LPR were all over this race, like a bad rash.

Besides, we all Know that second tier riders make good PR fodder, in the ongoing "Fight Against Terror......sorry,... Doping".

 

[RTMcFadden]

you are not making sense because we were talking about a typical/normal doping charge under wada regulations. if the italian police wants to lock them up and torture them till they admit doping i could care less.

cas will not accept a doping case unless it is an admission by an athlete or a properly conducted adverse analytical finding. rcs may decide to reshuffle the podium etc but it will still not make it case unless there was an admission or a b sample. so you can send your disagreement to the italian police and they may listen.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/2008-giro-six-to-seven-possible-cera-positives

"Padua public prosecutor Benedetto Roberti ordered 82 samples to be analysed at the anti-doping laboratory of the Italian Olympic Committee's “Acqua Acetosa” training centre, which is accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)."

The reason I'm not making any sense is because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Stop being a punk.

 

[350Watts]

I also hope Simoni is clear of this. I've always had the feeling he's clean since his highly public "extraterrestrial" comment, which was right on.

If so, talk about a guy who's been cheated out of numerous achievements:
- Could have won Giro in 2006?
- Maybe 3rd or 2nd in 2007?
- Others? (still looked human in '05, '04 - Did anyone think Cunego would never come close again after that rookie performance?)

In any case, it's hateful having to wait 2 years to find out who really won a race, to see what was illusion and what was dedication.

Considering some of Simoni's climbing numbers in 2007 are very suspect I'm not shedding any tears for him being "cheated". He was in the middle of a doping sandwich in 2006, pretty much the same in 2007.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Because of this reason I believe they don't get punish again. It looks like a hard thing to do technically speaking (IMHO). That was one of the reasons why CERA was created for. It stays long time in the system.

Maybe not. It would certainly have to involve Roche and a review of their clinical data. As part of their normal clinical study, they would evaluate the washout period. As such, they should know with relative certainty how long the CERA (EPO-PEG) would remain in the system, or at least how long it would remain detectable in the system.

 

[python]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/2008-giro-six-to-seven-possible-cera-positives

"Padua public prosecutor Benedetto Roberti ordered 82 samples to be analysed at the anti-doping laboratory of the Italian Olympic Committee's “Acqua Acetosa” training centre, which is accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)."

The reason I'm not making any sense is because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Stop being a punk.

you are making just as much sense as your transparent attempts to obfuscate armstrong's positive samples by first "scientifying' it as the french conspiracy and when i called it you switched to innocent 'human error' you which still did not explain.

your quote added nothing because the issue of the public prosecutor asking for a retest in the wada accredited lab is not the subject here. misdirection though is obvious.

 

[RTMcFadden]

you are making just as much sense as your transparent attempts to obfuscate armstrong's positive samples by first "scientifying' it as the french conspiracy and when i called it you switched to innocent 'human error' you which still did not explain.

your quote added nothing because the issue of the public prosecutor asking for a retest in the wada accredited lab is not the subject here. misdirection though is obvious.

LMAO. Obfuscate - to confuse the issue with facts. I get accused of this about once a month. Usually, by someone with their last gasp before I hand them their ***. As such, I take it as a compliment. As for the rest, the record stands on it's own.

As for the quote, the positive test results were as a result of the request by Padua prosecutor. As such, there are material to this conversation. Although, I'm sure they're not relavent to your issue.

 

[Escarabajo]

Maybe not. It would certainly have to involve Roche and a review of their clinical data. As part of their normal clinical study, they would evaluate the washout period. As such, they should know with relative certainty how long the CERA (EPO-PEG) would remain in the system, or at least how long it would remain detectable in the system.

I agree with you if it was a "life/death" matter. I am just not certain that UCI/WADA wants to go to the trouble of investing money and time to pursue some riders which were already busted for the same substance. Otherwise, I think you are correct. It could be proved if the proper energy is allocated into the matter.

 

[RTMcFadden]

I agree with you if it was a "life/death" matter. I am just not certain that UCI/WADA wants to go to the trouble of investing money and time to pursue some riders which were already busted for the same substance. Otherwise, I think you are correct. It could be proved if the proper energy is allocated into the matter.

Normally, I would agree, but remember that they collaberated with Roche to develope the test method. So they may already have those relationships in place. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think the Padua Prosecutor has some agenda here that may supercede anything that WADA/UCI may wish to do (or not do).

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Jeez, people, cool it with the personal attacks! How often do we have to say this?

Susan

 

[python]

LMAO. Obfuscate - to confuse the issue with facts. I get accused of this about once a month. Usually, by someone with their last gasp before I hand them their ***.

everyone can go back and review who got his ass handed to him in armstrong conspiracy theory thread you advanced.

As for the rest, the record stands on it's own.

yes the record says armstrong's urine contained epo. it stands on its own. you attempted to advance scientific theories and mislead the members of this forum as the french conspiracy. you don't know the epo testing procedure they used, you did not provide any plausible scenario by which they can spike his urine, you dodged all hard questions by immersing into useless theories.

As for the quote, the positive test results were as a result of the request by Padua prosecutor. As such, there are material to this conversation. Althougheel, I'm sure they're not relavent to your issue.

they are material to the conversation except there is nothing new there and no one questioned them. you did not explain how are they material to the opinion i expressed that the typical doping case would require complience with the wada procedures. the fact the the lab is wada certified is not enough.

 

[Anonymous]

So can they bring back positive results or not?

With pythRHon and RTMcFadden going off on each other it is hard to tell who has the facts.

I think RTMcFadden has it right.