Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Digger]

And RTMCFadden, they choose to retest 1999 samples because there was strong evidence suggesting EPO was still in use on a large scale back then, because no tests were around then.
And Bo Hamburger was one of the other riders to have his sample 'spiked' from this year.

 

[poupou]

And RTMCFadden, they choose to retest 1999 samples because there was strong evidence suggesting EPO was still in use on a large scale back then, because no tests were around then.
And Bo Hamburger was one of the other riders to have his sample 'spiked' from this year.

Castelblanco is the third known! I believe the 3 riders tested of one stage were Lance, Hamburger and Castelblanco. They all became positive. So easy to know who did it!

 

[Anonymous]

RTMcFadden.
Please answer my reasonable question: Why would researchers use actual samples taken from cyclists during the TdF to spike when they could use samples from people they were sure had not already used EPO? Wouldn't it take an irresponsible, moronic scientist or lab assistant to use "live" samples instead of control samples if they were spiking them?

You don't have to answer though; I think we can all agree that you with all of your scientific mumbo jumbo cannot present a logical response to that question. I mean, certainly we can all agree on that point, right?

 

[Mellow Velo]

RTMcFadden.
Why would researchers use actual samples taken from cyclists during the TdF to spike when they could use samples from people they were sure had not already used EPO? Wouldn't it take an irresponsible, moronic scientist or lab assistant to use "live" samples instead of control samples if they were spiking them?

Isn't that the accepted definition of the French laboratory system, often quoted as evidence, by some?
480-1 is the correct figure. Thanks Digger.

 

[Anonymous]

Isn't that the accepted definition of the French laboratory system, often quoted as evidence, by some?
480-1 is the correct figure. Thanks Digger.

By "some," you mean "Lance Armstrong," "his attorneys," "Floyd Landis" and/or "his attorneys," and "others" who have no proof of such things. If you want to throw in your lot with them, feel free.

 

[red_flanders]

If by obfuscatory you mean I’m trying to pierce the veil that some hold that science is sacrosanct. Then yes I am. Scientists are people. People make mistakes. Therefore, Scientists make mistakes. Also, Scientists are fairly smart and are pretty good at figuring things out. Especially if they have 6 years or so to do it. In addition, I believe reasonable people can reasonably disagree.

I didn’t level the charge that there was a conspiracy, Armstrong did that himself. I’ve been trying to avoid casting dispersions regarding anyone’s motives. Because, fundamentally, I don’t really care if Armstrong doped or not.

People CAN do a great many things. If you posts went something like, "Here are all the possible ways that things could have gone wrong (then list them and explain them) but we should be clear that there is simply NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the samples have been tampered with or ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THIS HAPPENED", well then I'd have given your posts some credence.

That you seem to bring up all these edge case, suspect, and random theories and then not quantify their likelihood or offer an opinion on whether the things you so pointedly want to discuss are likely to have happened, well, it just seems that you want to create doubt about something were no (even remotely) plausible doubt exists. Why would you want to do that? You seem (please explain if this is incorrect) to have an agenda of creating doubt.

Are you just trying to look smart by finding some extreme cases which have no likelihood of having happened and no evidence that they could or have happened? Or are you just interested in planting doubt because for some reason you are predisposed to assert that "you don't know if Armstrong doped", which on it's face, to the informed observer, seems to defy all logic and evidence?

 

[RTMcFadden]

And that's without including the other 2 borderline samples - 8 samples spiked? All from one rider? Now, what are the odds?

Well, now you have your answer. It's 1 in 480 as calcualted by Digger and confirmed by MeloVelo.

 

[Anonymous]

People CAN do a great many things. If you posts went something like, "Here are all the possible ways that things could have gone wrong (then list them and explain them) but we should be clear that there is simply NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the samples have been tampered with or ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THIS HAPPENED", well then I'd have given your posts some credence.

That you seem to bring up all these edge case, suspect, and random theories and then not quantify their likelihood or offer an opinion on whether the things you so pointedly want to discuss, well, it just seems that you want to create doubt about something in which none exists. Why would you want to do that? You seem (please explain if this is incorrect) to have an agenda of creating doubt, where no plausible doubt exists.

Are you just trying to look smart by pointing out extreme cases which have no likelihood of having happened and no evidence that they could or have happened? Or are you just interested in planting doubt because for some reason you are predisposed to assert that "you don't know if Armstrong doped", which on it's face, to the informed observer, seems to fly in the face of all logic and evidence?

I think Hugh brought up Occam's Razor yesterday. The simplest answer here is that the samples DID in fact contain synthetic EPO taken by Mr Armstrong considering that they tested positive for synthetic EPO. To suggest otherwise is to do exactly as you say, and plant doubt for doping apologists.

 

[RTMcFadden]

RTMcFadden.
Please answer my reasonable question: Why would researchers use actual samples taken from cyclists during the TdF to spike when they could use samples from people they were sure had not already used EPO? Wouldn't it take an irresponsible, moronic scientist or lab assistant to use "live" samples instead of control samples if they were spiking them?

You don't have to answer though; I think we can all agree that you with all of your scientific mumbo jumbo cannot present a logical response to that question. I mean, certainly we can all agree on that point, right?

Because it was availabe.
Because it was already confirmed to be negative.
Because it was decided that the sample matrix should closely resembe the test population.
Because the analyst was a female.
Because the analyst was pregnant.
Because the analyst just came of a 3 day crack binge.
Because the analyst had a pre-existing condition that they didn't want their employer to discover.
The only people that would be able to answer that question are the ones involved.

Science as mumbo-jumbo. Yeah, it's magic.

 

[red_flanders]

Because it was availabe.
Because it was already confirmed to be negative.
Because it was decided that the sample matrix should closely resembe the test population.
Because the analyst was a female.
Because the analyst was pregnant.
Because the analyst just came of a 3 day crack binge.
Because the analyst had a pre-existing condition that they didn't want their employer to discover.
The only people that would be able to answer that question are the ones involved.

Science as mumbo-jumbo. Yeah, it's magic.

You have made a number of suggestions. Do you have evidence, no matter how slight, for any of them? If not, it's just misleading, obfuscating, slander and character assassination of un-named lab techs. Is that supposed to be compelling, or are you just of the "if I say something enough times it will be true" mindset?

Why are you making these assertions? Do you believe any of them to be true, likely, or even remotely plausible? Or are they just "possible" in the course of human events? Hint: Generally the latter is unconvincing and makes the person suggesting them look rather foolish.

Do you think any of this happened? Why?

Do you think the analysis of the samples strongly suggests:

1) EPO use
2) Tampering

Why do you believe one or the other?

 

[RTMcFadden]

Do you have evidence, no matter how slight, for any of them?
I have no evidence for or against. I was asked a question that I am not capable of knowing the answer to. So, my answer was absolutely speculative. I specifically addressed the issue of analyst involvement because ThoughtforFood asked about it.

I am pretty sure, and you can check me on this, but if they just needed urine to spike, they could have gotten those samples from anywhere including their own urine which they would have known DIDN'T contain synthetic EPO..

Do you believe any of them to be true, likely, or even remotely plausible? Yes, 1, 2 , & 3 are reasonable rationale.

Do you think any of this happened?
Since they were conducting research on the test method, it is not unreasonable to think that they incorporated validation methodologies.

Why? I remember reading some where that WADA claimed that the test methods they used were validated.

Do you think the analysis of the samples strongly suggests:
1) EPO use – using civil law standards (preponderance of the evidence) - yes. Using criminal law standards (beyond a reasonable doubt) – insufficient data.
2) Tampering – Possible, not probable.

 

[Mellow Velo]

What amazes me is, in 2005, July after the story broke, an ESPN (US) poll, 72 percent of more than 55,000 respondents sided with Armstrong.

So, doesn't that mean 72% of these 55,000 citizens believe in conpsiracy theories?
Well, providing they are supplied by the french, that is.

That's both a statistic and a fact, btw.

 

[Digger]

Do you have evidence, no matter how slight, for any of them?
I have no evidence for or against. I was asked a question that I am not capable of knowing the answer to. So, my answer was absolutely speculative. I specifically addressed the issue of analyst involvement because ThoughtforFood asked about it.

I am pretty sure, and you can check me on this, but if they just needed urine to spike, they could have gotten those samples from anywhere including their own urine which they would have known DIDN'T contain synthetic EPO..

Do you believe any of them to be true, likely, or even remotely plausible? Yes, 1, 2 , & 3 are reasonable rationale.

Do you think any of this happened?
Since they were conducting research on the test method, it is not unreasonable to think that they incorporated validation methodologies.

Why? I remember reading some where that WADA claimed that the test methods they used were validated.

Do you think the analysis of the samples strongly suggests:
1) EPO use – using civil law standards (preponderance of the evidence) - yes. Using criminal law standards (beyond a reasonable doubt) – insufficient data.
2) Tampering – Possible, not probable.

Witness statements, cortisone positives, EPO positives, Circumstantial evidence, Blood values irregular, working with a doping doctor, all his rivals doping, his admittance that he doped in the hospital room using EPO, his admittance to Greg Lemond, Emma and Mike Anderson, that 'everyone uses EPO'. Blood booster Activogen found in USP bins.
Beyond reasonable doubt to whom?

 

[RTMcFadden]

Witness statements – Hearsay. Otherwise, those made at trial were successfully discredited, as evidenced by the verdict(s).
Cortisone positives - The question is EPO, not germane.
EPO positives – Not enough information
Circumstantial evidence – Hearsay. Otherwise, those presented at trial were successfully discredited, as evidenced by the verdicts.
Blood values irregular – Not enough information, lack of expertise
Working with a doping doctor – Not a crime, at best speaks to credibility
All his rivals doping – Hearsay, lack of evidence
His admittance that he doped in the hospital room using EPO - Hearsay
His admittance to Greg Lemond, Emma and Mike Anderson, that 'everyone uses EPO'. – Hearsay, lack of evidence. Otherwise, those made at trial were successfully discredited, as evidenced by the verdict(s).
Blood booster Activogen found in USP bins – Circumstantial with no substantive links to accused.

Hearesay –statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement).

The bottom line is, I don’t know the whole story. And quite honestly, I don’t care enough to find out. For me, there is no profit in this knowledge.

 

[poupou]

@RTMcFadden,

A better conspiracy would be that Bruyneel (alias the Hog, because of his appetit for all kind of medicine when he was a rider) could have injected Armstrong with EPO.

That is more coherent than your own allegations.

 

[Digger]

Witness statements – Hearsay. Otherwise, those made at trial were successfully discredited, as evidenced by the verdict(s).
Cortisone positives - The question is EPO, not germane.
EPO positives – Not enough information
Circumstantial evidence – Hearsay. Otherwise, those presented at trial were successfully discredited, as evidenced by the verdicts.
Blood values irregular – Not enough information, lack of expertise
Working with a doping doctor – Not a crime, at best speaks to credibility
All his rivals doping – Hearsay, lack of evidence
His admittance that he doped in the hospital room using EPO - Hearsay
His admittance to Greg Lemond, Emma and Mike Anderson, that 'everyone uses EPO'. – Hearsay, lack of evidence. Otherwise, those made at trial were successfully discredited, as evidenced by the verdict(s).
Blood booster Activogen found in USP bins – Circumstantial with no substantive links to accused.

Hearesay –statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement).

The bottom line is, I don’t know the whole story. And quite honestly, I don’t care enough to find out. For me, there is no profit in this knowledge.

What trial are you talking about?
When was Lemond et al discredited?
Hearsay - are witness statements enough in a court of law?
Is circumstantial enough in a court of law?

 

[Digger]

Witness statements – Hearsay. Otherwise, those made at trial were successfully discredited, as evidenced by the verdict(s).
Cortisone positives - The question is EPO, not germane.
EPO positives – Not enough information
Circumstantial evidence – Hearsay. Otherwise, those presented at trial were successfully discredited, as evidenced by the verdicts.
Blood values irregular – Not enough information, lack of expertise
Working with a doping doctor – Not a crime, at best speaks to credibility
All his rivals doping – Hearsay, lack of evidence
His admittance that he doped in the hospital room using EPO - Hearsay
His admittance to Greg Lemond, Emma and Mike Anderson, that 'everyone uses EPO'. – Hearsay, lack of evidence. Otherwise, those made at trial were successfully discredited, as evidenced by the verdict(s).
Blood booster Activogen found in USP bins – Circumstantial with no substantive links to accused.

Hearesay –statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement).

The bottom line is, I don’t know the whole story. And quite honestly, I don’t care enough to find out. For me, there is no profit in this knowledge.

It doesn't stop you making posts as you do. Posts which continually disregard anything which does not support your preconceived hypothesis.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

What trial are you talking about?
When was Lemond et al discredited?
Hearsay - are witness statements enough in a court of law?
Is circumstantial enough in a court of law?

Hearsay is admissible in court under certain rules

Circumstantial evidence is considered equal to direct evidence (but you lose if this is the only evidence and there are two interpretations of equal reasonableness after a review of all the circumstantial evidence)

 

[Digger]

Hearsay is admissible in court under certain rules

Circumstantial evidence is considered equal to direct evidence (but you lose if this is the only evidence and there are two interpretations of equal reasonableness after a review of all the circumstantial evidence)

In this case, it isn't.

 

[BroDeal]

Hearsay - are witness statements enough in a court of law?

He is using the standard practice of Armstrong zealots: Labeling any evidence they don't like as hearsay, even when the evidence comes directly from those who were there first hand. He then falls back on the wave of the magic wand of "evidenced by verdicts" when there have been no verdicts that have ruled on the evidence, i.e. he makes shit up.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I had actually thought you were making a genuine attempt to show how a sample could be "spiked" - however given the post below shows your objectivity and more alarmingly your lack of knowledge to many of the events in particular the SCA case:

Witness statements – Hearsay. Otherwise, those made at trial were successfully discredited, as evidenced by the verdict(s).
Cortisone positives - The question is EPO, not germane.
EPO positives – Not enough information
Circumstantial evidence – Hearsay. Otherwise, those presented at trial were successfully discredited, as evidenced by the verdicts.
Blood values irregular – Not enough information, lack of expertise
Working with a doping doctor – Not a crime, at best speaks to credibility
All his rivals doping – Hearsay, lack of evidence
His admittance that he doped in the hospital room using EPO - Hearsay
His admittance to Greg Lemond, Emma and Mike Anderson, that 'everyone uses EPO'. – Hearsay, lack of evidence. Otherwise, those made at trial were successfully discredited, as evidenced by the verdict(s).
Blood booster Activogen found in USP bins – Circumstantial with no substantive links to accused.

Hearesay –statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement).

The bottom line is, I don’t know the whole story. And quite honestly, I don’t care enough to find out. For me, there is no profit in this knowledge.

If you want to find out about hearsay - then check the Betsy Andreu thread on this forum - it was a sworn deposition, recounting what she heard - that is not hearsay!

You are entitled to your opinion - but if you wish to make claims then at least check all the relevant threads that discuss these matters.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I had actually thought you were making a genuine attempt to show how a sample could be "spiked" - however given the post below shows your objectivity and more alarmingly your lack of knowledge to many of the events in particular the SCA case:

If you want to find out about hearsay - then check the Betsy Andreu thread on this forum - it was a sworn deposition, recounting what she heard - that is not hearsay!

You are entitled to your opinion - but if you wish to make claims then at least check all the relevant threads that discuss these matters.

Hearsay is an out of court statement made for the truth of the matter - hearsay is often considered less reliable but most do not know why, just as most think that circumstantial evidence is less reliable but do not know what it is.

Circumstantial evidence can best be described with the following:

A witness testifies, when I left the courtroom I saw people walking into the courthouse with raincoats that had water drops all over them.

Direct evidence would be the same witness testifying, when I left the courthouse I saw it raining outside.

Of course hearsay would be, when I left the courtroom someone told me that it was raining outside the courthouse.

 

[Digger]

Hearsay is an out of court statement made for the truth of the matter - hearsay is often considered less reliable but most do not know why, just as most think that circumstantial evidence is less reliable but do not know what it is.

Circumstantial evidence can best be described with the following:

A witness testifies, when I left the courtroom I saw people walking into the courthouse with raincoats that had water drops all over them.

Direct evidence would be the same witness testifying, when I left the courthouse I saw it raining outside.

Of course hearsay would be, when I left the courtroom someone told me that it was raining outside the courthouse.

Lol...could you possibly be more patronising?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hearsay is an out of court statement made for the truth of the matter - hearsay is often considered less reliable but most do not know why, just as most think that circumstantial evidence is less reliable but do not know what it is.

Circumstantial evidence can best be described with the following:

A witness testifies, when I left the courtroom I saw people walking into the courthouse with raincoats that had water drops all over them.

Direct evidence would be the same witness testifying, when I left the courthouse I saw it raining outside.

Of course hearsay would be, when I left the courtroom someone told me that it was raining outside the courthouse.

Exactly - or another way of putting it.

Betsy Andreu hears Lance admit to taking PED's - if her husband comes in and says he heard his wife say she heard Lance took PED's that would be hearsay.

However both Betsy and Frankie gave sworn depositions to hearing the admission - which of course is not hearsay.

 

[Anonymous]

Because it was availabe.

But there was so little of it...

Because it was already confirmed to be negative.

Not for EPO, they didn't have a test for that when first tested.

Because it was decided that the sample matrix should closely resembe the test population.

Why, I would test positive in the same way as you or the guy who picks up my garbage.

Because the analyst was a female.

Citation please.

Because the analyst was pregnant.

Citation please

Because the analyst just came of a 3 day crack binge.

Citation please

Because the analyst had a pre-existing condition that they didn't want their employer to discover.

Citation please.

The only people that would be able to answer that question are the ones involved.

Exactly, yet you feel qualified to do so, so please, prove your assertions with actual facts.

Science as mumbo-jumbo. Yeah, it's magic.

No, its not. See, protocol keeps the mumbo jumbo out of the equation as much as possible, and neither you nor any of your pseudo science can alter the fact that there was synthetic EPO in his samples, and that the logical conclusion is that he shot up EPO. Period. Anything else is just stupid.