Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Anonymous]

Therein lies the rub. It equally as hard to prove that it did happen, as that it didn't. See, this could be done with out generating any type of paper trail. I could, with malice and forethought, do this without anyone being able to discover it. If I had people colluding with me, it wouldn’t even take forethought.

Incorrect, and this particular sentence shows that you are not here to offer genuine discourse, but obfuscation as you should know, in this instance, that it is not possible to prove something DIDN'T happen. Therefore you are charged to prove that it did. In this case, you cannot provide a single shred of evidence to you assertions regardless of how many words you use, or how many studies you post. I don't care if you are currently sitting at a lab table diluting something as we speak, you cannot in any way prove that means the samples were spiked. You have NOTHING, NADA, BUPKIS. Now, you claim you have no stake in this and I find that to be more than disingenuous considering the effort you are expending.

Nice try fanboy.

 

[BikeCentric]

Incorrect, and this particular sentence shows that you are not here to offer genuine discourse, but obfuscation as you should know, in this instance, that it is not possible to prove something DIDN'T happen. Therefore you are charged to prove that it did. In this case, you cannot provide a single shred of evidence to you assertions regardless of how many words you use, or how many studies you post. I don't care if you are currently sitting at a lab table diluting something as we speak, you cannot in any way prove that means the samples were spiked. You have NOTHING, NADA, BUPKIS. Now, you claim you have no stake in this and I find that to be more than disingenuous considering the effort you are expending.

Nice try fanboy.

McFadden exemplifies the old proverb of "talking much but saying little."

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

So, even if it is scientifically possible to spike the samples, do the odds of 480 to 1 mean anything to you?

RTMcF is clear that the chance of randomly spiking the samples to get 6 positives is much less than 300 or 500 to one. It's so unlikely that the idea the samples were randomly spiked it's simply not worth considering.

I think you might have missed the point - unlikely that the samples were spiked - if they were, it was intentional - if intentional the odds really do not count.

Precisely, and I think we can all agree that while malicious acts do happen, we are discussing a somewhat unlikely, but not impossible, scenario. The scenario is even less likely if there are substantial technical difficulties.

How did they figure out which samples were Armstrong's?

Do you know if each athlete get assigned a random number for every test, or do they use the same random number to identify all the tests on one athlete? If it's the latter, all you would need to do is look how many times each athlete got tested.....then pick on 'the most tested one'.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

How did they figure out which samples were Armstrong's?

They opened the fridge and .....voila!
The Armstrong 6 pack.

 

[python]

centralalibiker, you gained my respect during you exchange with TFF; you completely lost it when you went into your protective legal bubble. C’on man this is the internet if you believe armstrong doped at some point use your common sense and tell us the why he’d neglect the winning elixir during his other victories?
u appear smart but a hypocrite or to tell you the truth I think an inferior legal mind if you condition your opinions on your place of living. Answer me. I,m all ears. i don't mean being combative or argumentative...

 

[Race Radio]

Do you know if each athlete get assigned a random number for every test, or do they use the same random number to identify all the tests on one athlete? If it's the latter, all you would need to do is look how many times each athlete got tested.....then pick on 'the most tested one'.

They are assigned a random number for each test. it is printed on the form that the athlete signs.

The process back in 1999 was the athlete keeps one copy, another copy goes to the UCI, and a sticker with the number is placed over the sample. The form also has a section where the athlete lists any TUE's they might have. There is Zero chance that the lab knew which samples were Armstrong's, the same chance that the lab spiked the samples or figured out which were Armstrong's via DNA.

The willingness of the Armstrong groupies to completely embarrass them self and spout such ridiculous conspiracy theories is impressive.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I'm not suggesting that the samples were spiked in a varying pattern....

Thanks for your detailed reply. Most of what you said I was aware of or had surmised, although there a few points we could chat about later. I actually think we are talking at cross purposes a bit. You might not be saying that if the samples were spiked, they were spiked in a varying pattern, but I am! (Along with Ashenden, Dr Mas, and many others on this thread). The rEPO levels vary in a way that would be expected if someone had a shot about every 4 days. So the technical issues of spiking have to be considered in that context.

As far as spiking the retentate goes, that would require an accuracy in the order of 10 pL (maybe - I haven't checked the numbers carefully - if you disagree I might engage my brain and do so - but it seems pretty pointless without being sure the numbers Ashenden is quoted as giving are correct.) From speaking to some chemistry types, I understand this level of precision can be difficult, especially if whatever you are diluting doesn't mix evenly through the solution. But if you assert that it is regularly done in pharmacology situations I will probably believe you.

As far as spiking the whole pot of p1ss goes, one would need to know the initial concentration of uEPO in order to get the ratios right. What I'm really asking is how easy that is to figure out from the results of the test (I used the word isoforms when I should have said uPEO though, sorry). Anyway, that's what the 'is the fraction that gets lost in filtering known' question was all about........or can they just do a different test for total EPO concentration that doesn't distinguish between the two sorts, and figure out the spiking rate from there?

 

[RTMcFadden]

Thanks for your detailed reply. Most of what you said I was aware of or had surmised, although there a few points we could chat about later. I actually think we are talking at cross purposes a bit. You might not be saying that if the samples were spiked, they were spiked in a varying pattern, but I am! (Along with Ashenden, Dr Mas, and many others on this thread). The rEPO levels vary in a way that would be expected if someone had a shot about every 4 days. So the technical issues of spiking have to be considered in that context.

No, I think we’re looking at it the same way. I attribute the overall variance (+/- 13%) to the method. The pattern of the results between samples is a considerably more troubling issue, and we are in agreement. As a result, this is where I would particularly like to see the underlying data. The results for the rEPO (isoforms) are reported as IU/L, but the nEPO is not reported as a concentration. This information could actually tell an interesting story. Unfortunately, the results are probably not revealed over personal privacy concerns, possibly even HIPPA issues.

 

[RTMcFadden]

As far as spiking the whole pot of p1ss goes, one would need to know the initial concentration of uEPO in order to get the ratios right. What I'm really asking is how easy that is to figure out from the results of the test (I used the word isoforms when I should have said uPEO though, sorry). Anyway, that's what the 'is the fraction that gets lost in filtering known' question was all about........or can they just do a different test for total EPO concentration that doesn't distinguish between the two sorts, and figure out the spiking rate from there?

It couldn't be done without taking an aliquot and testing it, unless you know that the value is 0.

 

[RTMcFadden]

As far as spiking the retentate goes, that would require an accuracy in the order of 10 pL (maybe - I haven't checked the numbers carefully - if you disagree I might engage my brain and do so - but it seems pretty pointless without being sure the numbers Ashenden is quoted as giving are correct.) From speaking to some chemistry types, I understand this level of precision can be difficult, especially if whatever you are diluting doesn't mix evenly through the solution. But if you assert that it is regularly done in pharmacology situations I will probably believe you.

You may be correct. However, if you look at the Letter to the Editor that was just discussed (http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrar...ull/108/5/1778), mention is made of the use of positive an negative urine control samples, so they may actually be working in that range on a normal basis. Unfortunately, I'm don't know how to find out how those standards are derived. Interesting question though.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

.. You might not be saying that if the samples were spiked, they were spiked in a varying pattern, but I am! (Along with Ashenden, Dr Mas, and many others on this thread)...

To clarify - before Dr. Ashenden starts litigation against CN for having his name associated with mine - I have no medical qualification - I have stated that before, but just in case some new posters think I have.. (the picture on my Avatar is not me either...sorry)

I see Pat McPrat has stated that Astana didn't receive preferential treatment and that any lack of rigour in the application of the rules regarding the team were just human failings.

May I ask where Pat said this - as it would be interesting to see his comments.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

They are assigned a random number for each test. it is printed on the form that the athlete signs.

Thanks for the information.

The willingness of the Armstrong groupies to completely embarrass them self and spout such ridiculous conspiracy theories is impressive.

Cut back on the bitching. Try to distinguish between a simple request for info that could absolutely rule out a possible loophole for LA, and an attempt to generate loopholes. You might find it a bit easier on your blood pressure

 

[python]

It couldn't be done without taking an aliquot and testing it, unless you know that the value is 0.

explain how

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thanks for the information...

A little moreinformation on how the journalist got all the doping control forms.

"The UCI said at the time the L'equipe article appeared in August 2005 that, with Armstrong's permission, the journalist had only been given a copy of one doping control form.

However, after being shown copies of 15 forms signed by Armstrong, the UCI launched an internal investigation.

(UCI Doctor) Zorzoli said he must have provided all the forms but only so the journalist could write an article "proving that Mr. Armstrong never asked for an authorization to use any drugs after he successfully fought his cancer."

 

[RTMcFadden]

explain how

I already did. Look at my exchange with I Watch Cycling In July. Ashenden indicated that LA's original samples were about 125 ml, which is on the small side. I guess TdF cyclings don't urinate a lot, outside of the race itself.

 

[Race Radio]

Cut back on the bitching. Try to distinguish between a simple request for info that could absolutely rule out a possible loophole for LA, and an attempt to generate loopholes. You might find it a bit easier on your blood pressure

That part of my post was not directed toward you, sorry for the confusion.

 

[Race Radio]

I already did. Look at my exchange with I Watch Cycling In July. Ashenden indicated that LA's original samples were about 125 ml, which is on the small side. I guess TdF cyclings don't urinate a lot, outside of the race itself.

Given what you have posted so far it is not surprising you do not know the sample collection process.

The athlete gives a sample, he/she then pours some in one tube and some in another. he/she then seals the tube and discards the rest of the sample. Ashenden said there was plenty to run the tests with.

Then, in the middle of the night, Nazi frogmen bust into LNDD, run hundreds of tests to find which have Armstrong's DNA. They then spike these samples via an impossible method (unless you believe in miracles), they then return the samples and sit on the results for a year. They gamble on the UCI giving all the paperwork to a reporter so he can publish the results AFTER ARMSTRONG HAD RETIRED.

to believe such a theory requires ample hallucinogenic drugs

 

[Anonymous]

Given what you have posted so far it is not surprising you do not know the sample collection process.

The athlete gives a sample, he/she then pours some in one tube and some in another. he/she then seals the tube and discards the rest of the sample. Ashenden said there was plenty to run the tests with.

Then, in the middle of the night, Nazi frogmen bust into LNDD, run hundreds of tests to find which have Armstrong's DNA. They then spike these samples via an impossible method (unless you believe in miracles), they then return the samples and sit on the results for a year. They gamble on the UCI giving all the paperwork to a reporter so he can publish the results AFTER ARMSTRONG HAD RETIRED.

to believe such a theory requires ample hallucinogenic drugs

I freaking KNEW IT!!!!!

 

[scribe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sbqIyeed4g

 

[Ferminal]

I did and you missed the point. Which is "That's not how these systemsare suppose to operate." Research is supposed to be peer reviewed before it is published and rebuttals are suppose to come in the form of studies, that are themselves peer reviewed.

Yeh just like Coyle's great peer-reviewed work

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Given what you have posted so far it is not surprising you do not know the sample collection process.

The athlete gives a sample, he/she then pours some in one tube and some in another. he/she then seals the tube and discards the rest of the sample. Ashenden said there was plenty to run the tests with.

Then, in the middle of the night, Nazi frogmen bust into LNDD, run hundreds of tests to find which have Armstrong's DNA. They then spike these samples via an impossible method (unless you believe in miracles), they then return the samples and sit on the results for a year. They gamble on the UCI giving all the paperwork to a reporter so he can publish the results AFTER ARMSTRONG HAD RETIRED.

to believe such a theory requires ample hallucinogenic drugs

For the millionth time, stop exaggerating

 

[CentralCaliBike]

centralalibiker, you gained my respect during you exchange with TFF; you completely lost it when you went into your protective legal bubble. C’on man this is the internet if you believe armstrong doped at some point use your common sense and tell us the why he’d neglect the winning elixir during his other victories?
u appear smart but a hypocrite or to tell you the truth I think an inferior legal mind if you condition your opinions on your place of living. Answer me. I,m all ears. i don't mean being combative or argumentative...

I have not said that I do not believe he was clean from 2000 and on - I have stated I do not know and neither does anyone else since there are no positive samples. As for why he might not have continued to use PEDs - 1) there was a test out for EPO in 2000; 2) his team had gotten stronger; 3) he started focusing a lot more time in targeting the Tour with a lot of equipment and bike position testing; and, 4) he had fully recovered his strength after cancer.

 

[rata de sentina]

I did and you missed the point. Which is "That's not how these systemsare suppose to operate." Research is supposed to be peer reviewed before it is published and rebuttals are suppose to come in the form of studies, that are themselves peer reviewed.

Actually, you are incorrect. Firstly, "rebuttal" is too strong a word to describe the response of Caitlin and his colleagues to the article. Secondly, "rebuttal" in the form of further experimental evidence is not required where the issue is the interpretation of the data not the data itself. Insofar as I can see the authors of the study do not dispute the validity of the data merely the original authors interpretation. The original authors interpretated an anomalous electrophoretic pattern as "false positive" while the respondents indicate that under the criteria for the test the anomaly would not be classified as postive. They also correctly point out that the anomaly may be indicative of pathology and should be further investigated.

This is in fact how the "system" as you call it is supposed to operate and is the function of letters to learned journals. You have a rather narrow view of this which indicates less than complete familiarity.

 

[red_flanders]

I have not said that I do not believe he was clean from 2000 and on - I have stated I do not know and neither does anyone else since there are no positive samples. As for why he might not have continued to use PEDs - 1) there was a test out for EPO in 2000; 2) his team had gotten stronger; 3) he started focusing a lot more time in targeting the Tour with a lot of equipment and bike position testing; and, 4) he had fully recovered his strength after cancer.

I have the 8-hour VHS of the 2000 tour if you want to borrow it. It's a good watch.

 

[Ferminal]

I have not said that I do not believe he was clean from 2000 and on - I have stated I do not know and neither does anyone else since there are no positive samples. As for why he might not have continued to use PEDs - 1) there was a test out for EPO in 2000; 2) his team had gotten stronger; 3) he started focusing a lot more time in targeting the Tour with a lot of equipment and bike position testing; and, 4) he had fully recovered his strength after cancer.

What about the rest of the peloton? They weren't turned away from PEDs through such reasoning?