Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[BroDeal]

You make a valid point. Although, blinds can be broken, it's not really that easy.

I would like to hear an explanation of how the LNDD could have identified all six of Armstrong's samples, an explanation that does not involve Nazi frogmen.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

I fully agree. Those that use these unreliable tests as hard proof are not basing this on any type of fair judgment.

Oh it's hard proof, just not replicatable. Does it need to be replicated? Depends on the burden of proof.

 

[RTMcFadden]

However, your EPO would be different because it was not metabolized by the body. Dang, you were so close. See, the body actually USES EPO meaning that there is a chemical reaction that affects all of the components involved and inherently changes them. Meaning that pure EPO is not present, but the markers of its usage that are present.

I've been trying to determine what the analyte is. As far as I can tell, it's actually rEPO, not a metabolite. Though, from a method validation perspective, it makes no difference. You spike with the same analyte that would be found in a positive sample.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm not a scientist and doubtless there are many views about this, but these things have to go through proper procedures. We can't have Dr Maserrati and his mates on the internet deciding what constitutes a positive test and what does degrade and what does not.

And why not - this is an internet forum not a court of law. You have not been able to offer any credible evidence to say how rEPo got in to Armstrongs sample - so my view is he took rEPO and cheated.

I dont have any "mates' on this forum - but there are others who appear to agree with some of my conclusions - I dont have to have several sockpuppets to help backup my claims.

 

[Digger]

Interesting read - as mentioned earlier I have had doubts about the 1999 samples since the testing results were published however this article brings some questions to mind that I was not aware of previously:

a) It seems the analyst is working as a Freelance researcher (this would suggest he needs to do something of note to continue getting paid) - before someone jumps in and says I am calling his statement a lie, I am not, he may be correct and the samples could be as he described but the fact he is working freelance and apparently continues to get paid based presumably on the name he made with this case does raise a few questions.

b) Ashenden states that "it was realistic, they realized that the most likely samples where they would find EPO were samples collected before the EPO test was introduced. And that was the '99 Tour de France." He goes on to claim the basis for the relatively low number of positives (13 out of 87 tested) was likely a result of the change in the mentality of the peloton from the 1998 Tour caused most riders to avoid EPO. If that was the case and they were attempting to pick a tour with a high number of EPO results to insure their research into an EPO test was accurate, why not go straight to the 1998 Tour and test those samples instead?

c) The claim the lab did not know the individuals they were testing is reasonable, however, I do not see any reason they could not have obtained information in the manner that the reporter mentioned did - if all it took was a phone call.

Again, the article was interesting but did raise questions that I was not aware of previously - I would be more interested in reading the actual report from the lab that reviewed the blood samples. Since I have suspected a possibility that LA took EPO in 1999, this does not actually change my opinion (but it does not make it any stronger either).

Probably the one thing I consider that tends to favor EPO use from time to time is a statement by LA he had not used performing enhancing drugs during his tour wins (or something along those lines) - if memory serves he was asked if he ever used performing enhancers and the response evaded the question asked. He could be accurate with the statement and still have used during training prior to the 1999 TdF > of course he may also have used then and now, but other than these test results, I have not heard of any other positives.

Cortisone from 1999, for which he post dated a TUE.

 

[RTMcFadden]

I would like to hear an explanation of how the LNDD could have identified all six of Armstrong's samples, an explanation that does not involve Nazi frogmen.

Don't know enough of their specific internal operations and controls to speculate. However, since these were fairly old samples, the records associated with the samples may have been compromised. I look more the fact that these results were suppose to be kept confidential and were deliberately leaked, to raise a gerneal doubt about integrity.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

Basso was suspended because his blood was found in a fridge in Madrid. That blood bag was transfered from the GC, to the Spanish Judiciary, to the Italian Judiciary, to CONI. Armstrong's samples were stored correctly in a WADA accredited lab and tested by the same lab that helped invent the test for EPO and CERA.

I think we can all agree that Armstrong is allowed a higher level of evidence and chain of custody then Basso

Yup, Basso knew what was coming, and made a cute admission. How convenient.

Would you want to meet Armstrong in a court without a B sample?

 

[Race Radio]

Don't know enough of their specific internal operations and controls to speculate.

But speculation is all you have been doing?

You might want to try the Nazi Frogman theory as it is more likely then anything else you have posted.

 

[BikeCentric]

Don't know enough of their specific internal operations and controls to speculate. However, since these were fairly old samples, the records associated with the samples may have been compromised. I look more the fact that these results were suppose to be kept confidential and were deliberately leaked, to raise a gerneal doubt about integrity.

The results weren't deliberately leaked. A reporter requested the results from the lab in the still anonymous format, then obtained Armstrongs UCI ID number from the UCI after obtaining Armstrong's permission, then matched the samples to Amrstrong that way.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about and you aren't up on the facts.

 

[franciep10]

The simple fact is that LA tested positive for EPO 6 times, not once not twice but 6 times. Somebody could argue that maybe one or two samples could be tainted but all six that's almost impossible. BPC sprocket whoever you are I would vote for the mods to let you stay because you certainly bring some drama to the forum even if you are a twit.

 

[BikeCentric]

The problem is that he spent a great deal of effort explaining how "impossible" it would be to put a tiny amount of EPO into a sample, but his explanation is flat out wrong, and it does not make him look good. He seems to have forgotten about the simple concept of dilution.

I have not read anything to disprove Ashendon's claims about the impossibility of spiking the samples - if you have links Bro please share.

His argument is that the samples being stored in such a small size are impossible to spike with a proportionately tiny dose of EPO without diluting the whole sample and it seems quite credible. If this argument is wrong I would like to read up on it, thanks.

 

[Race Radio]

Yup, Basso knew what was coming, and made a cute admission. How convenient.

Would you want to meet Armstrong in a court without a B sample?

Armstrong choses to lie instead fess up like Basso

Court? Absolutely. Do you need a B sample of fingerprints or DNA in court? Do you need a video tape from two angles? Nope.

There are multiple confessions, multiple positives, Dumped dope, best friend and most of his co-workers are users/dealers.

Slam dunk.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Oh it's hard proof, just not replicatable. Does it need to be replicated? Depends on the burden of proof.

Yes, that's why you have A and B Samples. Statistically, when using a method that is not full-proof, by repeating the test on a second sample, you significantly reduce the inacurracy in the method. However, you do nothing to reduce the inaccuracy within the sample.

 

[RTMcFadden]

For that to be even possible one would need to be 100% precise - by adding that amount of rEPO would literally drown or saturate the sample with rEPO making the test impossible to read.

This was not the case with Armstrongs rEPO samples.

Again, incorrect. You could pre-dilute the rEPO to the ppb level prior to spiking the sample.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

Armstrong choses to lie instead fess up like Basso

Court? Absolutely. Do you need a B sample of fingerprints or DNA in court? Do you need a video tape from two angles? Nope.

There are multiple confessions, multiple positives, Dumped dope, best friend and most of his co-workers are users/dealers.

Slam dunk.

Cool. CNN could use the ratings boost.

 

[Race Radio]

Again, incorrect. You could pre-dilute the rEPO to the ppb level prior to spiking the sample.

I will listen to Ashenden.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Again, incorrect. You could pre-dilute the rEPO to the ppb level prior to spiking the sample.

Harry Houdini might.

If you read the article I posted it demonstrates the scale that would be involved in identifying the correct samples, in order and keeping the amount of rEPO identified within the samples within limits.

I'm sorry but I don't believe in miracles.

 

[RTMcFadden]

I have not read anything to disprove Ashendon's claims about the impossibility of spiking the samples - if you have links Bro please share.

His argument is that the samples being stored in such a small size are impossible to spike with a proportionately tiny dose of EPO without diluting the whole sample and it seems quite credible. If this argument is wrong I would like to read up on it, thanks.

And that's exactly the point. By diluting you could do this all day.

 

[Mellow Velo]

The odds of being able to spike the correct 6 samples are astronomical.
I said the magical spiking theory would be next out of the hat and here it is.....
.....again.

 

[Race Radio]

The odds of being able to spike the correct 6 samples are astronomical.
I said the magical spiking theory would be next out of the hat and here it is.....
.....again.

Correct,

next up the Virjimen report

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And that's exactly the point. By diluting you could do this all day.

But this theory would mean that the sample presented would show 100% rEPO - this was not the case with Armstrongs samples except the prologue, his concentration of rEPO went from 87.7% to 100%.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Cortisone from 1999, for which he post dated a TUE.

Still 1999 and a TUE by your post.

 

[Sprocket01]

No, address my point first. Does EPO appear in these circumstances?

We all have natural EPO as I understand it. That's why for many years they couldn't get a reliable test for it.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

Wouldn't it just make more sense for an ambitious dude, with a lot to prove, to do what everyone else is doing anyway - and actually have a shot at winning?

Think of the headlines? CANCER SURVIVOR WINS TOUR DE FRANCE!

That could give a lot of hope to people. And if they do come up with a test for EPO in the future, well all they have is a C sample, and they can't do a proper counter analysis on that.

Jeez, it almost becomes a moral obligation.

 

[BroDeal]

I have not read anything to disprove Ashendon's claims about the impossibility of spiking the samples - if you have links Bro please share.

His argument is that the samples being stored in such a small size are impossible to spike with a proportionately tiny dose of EPO without diluting the whole sample and it seems quite credible. If this argument is wrong I would like to read up on it, thanks.

Ashenden's argument about the small amount of EPO that would be required to spike the sample falls apart because it is very simple to dilute something down to whatever small fraction you want. It is trivial to do with the crudest of equipment. Take a five gallon bucket and an eye dropper. Fill the five gallon bucket with water, put in one drop of X, mix and pull out one drop. You now have a fluid that contains one drop per five gallons. Repeat as much as you want. Do six iterations and the resulting drop has a concentration of one drop of X per 15,000 gallons of water. Add small portion of the drop to the whole sample, and no meaningful dilution of sample.

The spiking issue is a red herring. For it to talke place there has to be means, motive, and opportunity. Since there was no way to tell which samples belonged to Armstrong, there was no opportunity.