Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[CentralCaliBike]

this is a cheap red herring mister. for some one pandering about justice and never picking up a single factual argument despite the multiple opportunities it's actually a low blow. you deliberately misinterpreted a rather simple statement. that makes you in my book bs artist. you continue to disregard the evidence and instead of discussing it you essentially obfuscating the issue.

You are entitled to your opinion - I just think that others might also be entitled to theirs.

 

[Race Radio]

You are entitled to your opinion - I just think that others might also be entitled to theirs.

I keep trying to tell my wife this, but she doesn't believe the space aliens misplaced the car keys. I am convinced they did.

I will try your approach to see if if she is open to alternative ways of thinking, no matter how ridiculous they are.

 

[python]

You are entitled to your opinion - I just think that others might also be entitled to theirs.

i don't have a problem with different opinions a have a problem with deliberate intellectual obfuscation you seem to practice. you give lectures on equal justice yet decline ingaging in evaluating evidence. you keep thumping you chest about being a legal professional yet intentionally misrepresenting legal standard applicable in sports. i pointed it out to you several times.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So, since you looked at both sides and have decided on one - any others coming in should not bother?

I have been on this forum since June - when I joined my view was that LA "probably had" doped - however I was expecting this view to be challenged and I was prepared to look at any new information objectively.

Since then nothing new has been introduced to change my view - in fact many points that I had reservations about were explained; as an example the affidavit signed by LAs Doctor stating he had not heard LA admitting PED abuse in the hospital room - it turns out that Doctor wasn't even in the room!

There is a massive difference from introducing facts or pertinent information to grand conspiracy theories.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

i don't have a problem with different opinions a have a problem with deliberate intellectual obfuscation you seem to practice. you give lectures on equal justice yet decline ingaging in evaluating evidence. you keep thumping you chest about being a legal professional yet intentionally misrepresenting legal standard applicable in sports. i pointed it out to you several times.

You seem to enjoy typing the word obfuscation (and it's derivations). That is what jumped out at me when going back through your posts to see when you pointed out the legal standard for sports. BTW - never did see when you posted the actual legal standard - perhaps you just thought about typing it but found yourself typing some form of the word obfuscation instead.

VeloNews (http://velonews.com/article/10679) - the UCI has the burden of proving that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred - the CAS has stated that a higher standard than in civil trials is required to impose sanctions (http://www.usantidoping.org/files/a.../arbitration_ruling_5_22_2002_Blackwelder.pdf - see page 8) and that standard is: The standard of proof shall be whether the UCI or its National Federation has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. >>> talk about obfuscation...

You certainly are entitled to the apparent opinion that LA used PEDs in every race since 1999 - but that is an opinion. Others here have posted that in their opinion he did not - I believe they are entitled to their opinions as well since there is not positive tests to state otherwise.

Because the UCI has not chosen to prosecute a case, no one here knows if LA could be found to consistently be using PEDs by this amorphous standard.

Of course I mention the legal standard I work with on a daily basis and have been comfortable proving cases with for a few years - not sure why that seems to offend you though.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I have been on this forum since June - when I joined my view was that LA "probably had" doped - however I was expecting this view to be challenged and I was prepared to look at any new information objectively.

Since then nothing new has been introduced to change my view - in fact many points that I had reservations about were explained; as an example the affidavit signed by LAs Doctor stating he had not heard LA admitting PED abuse in the hospital room - it turns out that Doctor wasn't even in the room!

There is a massive difference from introducing facts or pertinent information to grand conspiracy theories.

Facts should be introduced - I had heard about the doctor not being in the room a long time before joining this forum myself. I certainly would encourage those types of facts to be presented, just as I would expect others to ask for a reference to check it for themselves (please don't tell them to read back through the posts if you or others know where it is - there is a tremendous amount of threads and information on this cite to sift through). But, though I do not personally adhere to the conspiracy theory (unless some actual evidence was presented), I see no reason to berate someone for expressing how it could have been done, if there were a conspiracy.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Going for the longest post ever prize here......

For simplicities sake, if you want to continue this discussion, let’s agree on some terminology. Let’s equate signal strength with absorbance, and refer to “spiked” and “unspiked” as reference or control samples (positive and negative). Also, instead of the term ”tester,” let’s call the people who collect the samples “collectors” and the people to run the analytical tests “analysts.”

+1....and can we add "athlete sample" for a sample that is being tested for rEPO, on the basis of the criteria established by analyzing the control and reference samples... this is where the wires are crossed this time...(last time it was because I misunderstood 'adjusting the sample' to mean adjusting the original (e.g.120ml) sample, when you actually meant adjusting the sample of retentate).

So, explaining slowly to avoid further mix-ups, and hopefully facilitate short answers, here goes:

I don’t know exactly how they obtain their positive and negative reference samples (external standards).

I wasn't asking about how the reference standards are obtained (the Vrijman report indicates there were several methods, one of which involves control and reference samples.) I was asking about what happens to athletes' samples in routine doping analysis. The links explaining the standard process of analyzing athletes samples indicate this is done without adding any rEPO analyte directly to that athletes sample. Instead, analysis steps 1 - 4 are performed on the sample and the results compared with the results of control and reference samples. Is this correct?

Clearly, adding different amounts of analyte to a sample and performing the sample analysis after each addition would allow for a more accurate measure of absolute concentrations.....but the risk of stuff-ups is serious. I just want to confirm that you don't think this type of process is involved in analyzing the athletes' samples, because from one of your previous posts I wondered if you did....and I would hate for us to be talking at cross purposes

I would think it's either because it would wash out the detector or because the band would be so big as to run (bleed) into other bands.

OK, we are both talking about some kind of sample adjustment to improve visualization. So that answers the central question about whether, in your view, rEPO analyte formed any part of that adjustment.

Here’s what I have a problem with. In the discussion regarding the probability of correctly selecting LA’s samples, it was noted by somebody that the testing took place over 20 days.....it’s entirely possible that one person could have performed all of this testing....

Collection took place over 20 days, i.e. 20 stages of the TDF. I have never seen any information about how many days the actual analysis took. Information about how many people were involved in analyzing the samples, and how much uninterrupted lab time they had to mess around with anything might be interesting. As a way of investigating how likely it is the samples were deliberately spiked, that information would be more useful than exploring the technical possibilities. As a way of learning more about the testing process, pondering the technical issues is more useful............ Of course, any discussion about malicious spiking is in the context that it's unlikely someone, with unknown motive, managed to break the study blind. So there's no need for the audience to get quite so excited!

What bothers me is when the results are 100%, was there no nEPO, was it below the detection limit, what’s going on. This is why I’m more interested in the concentration.

I would certainly buy the human error explanation for that single result; and agree that info on the concentration of nEPO would help clarify the matter. I don't buy the idea of six incidents of human error all happening randomly to one athlete - but then who would?

Comparison? ...The data indicates that the lower LoQ is 125 UI/L and that the upper LoQ is less than 1470 UI/L but more than 906 UI/L for rEPO.

Not sure which of my comments you are responding to here, but that paragraph did confirm what I was thinking about the IEF process, so I appreciate you taking the time. I really think those data above are tEPO not rEPO. That's how Ashenden describes them in the text associated with the table that I quoted previously.

Some information regarding the relationship between nEPO and rEPO can be found .....Ashenden indicated that a paradigm exists “which holds that endogenous erythropoietin production is suppressed when the red cell mass has been increased beyond the homeostatic set point.” .....So, the addition of rEPO would raise Hb concentration, thereby decreasing nEPO concentration, which makes physiological sense.

That makes sense to me too. It's one of the reasons why I think the 'positive test' criteria include the ratio of rEPO to nEPO....even though rEPO is expressed as a fraction of tEPO. From Ashenden's data and some stuff I read about altitude effects, I suspect there is quite high natural variability in both rEPO and nEPO. Such variability would make these data difficult to interpret with sufficient certainty to impose sanctions, and the rEPO:tEPO criterion would be more useful. I was actually not asking about fluctuations in rEPO and nEPO within the body. What I want to know is whether the different forms of EPO are affected differently by any of steps 1 - 4 of the analysis. My very obscure signal processing point is relevant to the EPO analysis procedure, if and only if the answer to that question is NO.

Here's the signal processing point in gory detail:
Lets consider a sample containing differing amounts of A, B and C...and express it as SAMPLE = xA + yB +zC + solution. Then we filter and blot the sample and are left with whatever doesn't get lost in processing...lets call that FINAL = f1xA + f2yB + f3zC (where f1, f2 and f3 are the fraction of A, B and C which survive steps 1 - 4.) If A, B and C are quite similar, then it seems likely that f1 = f2 = f3 (approximately). If one can accurately measure the ratios, then one can accurately state A, as a percentage of SAMPLE, without knowing anything about the absolute value of SAMPLE......so if the answer to the above question is NO, it might be possible to know 'the %' more accurately than the absolute concentrations, which are limited by the error in f123 (+/- 6%?).

So that would be another good reasons to include the ratio of rEPO to nEPO in the 'positive test' criteria.......and it would make it pretty tricky to calculate the absolute quantity of rEPO required to maliciously spike a sample.

 

[Race Radio]

You certainly are entitled to the apparent opinion that LA used PEDs in every race since 1999 - but that is an opinion. Others here have posted that in their opinion he did not - I believe they are entitled to their opinions as well since there is not positive tests to state otherwise.

There are 7 positives tests.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

There are 7 positives tests.

Since 1999 (meaning after) - That was the context.

 

[python]

You seem to enjoy typing the word obfuscation (and it's derivations).

again, the word 'obfuscation' seems the most appropriate. sorry if it irritates you. you had increased my believe in its correctness when applying to your multiple posts. at first i hinted that you could do better by actually discussing the evidence in stead of pandering and spewing general legal phrases. you have not responded. you continued to refer to incorrect standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt that armstrong doped (your posts are still there for all to see). if as you insist you are a legal professional and particularly because you were giving public lectures here you need to do better than that. you need to either investigate the proper standard or keep your trap shut until you do so.

criminal law standard of proof beyond the reasonable doubt does not apply to sports law. you ought to know this. the sports standard of proof is in between the civil and criminal standards (a different issue)

if you did not know that it would be understandable. than get off your high preaching stool and admit it. in stead you continued to generate the same incorrect position when trying to argue a point

this makes me believe that you were obfuscating - that is, intentionally misleading. your low blow in response to red flanders post above was in the same misleading style style. be careful, this forum is read by many professionals.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

again, the word 'obfuscation' seems the most appropriate. sorry if it irritates you. you had increased my believe in its correctness when applying to your multiple posts. at first i hinted that you could do better by actually discussing the evidence in stead of pandering and spewing general legal phrases. you have not responded. you continued to refer to incorrect standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt that armstrong doped (your posts are still there for all to see). if as you insist you are a legal professional and particularly because you were giving public lectures here you need to do better than that. you need to either investigate the proper standard or keep your trap shut until you do so.

criminal law standard of proof beyond the reasonable doubt does not apply to sports law. you ought to know this. the sports standard of proof is in between the legal and criminal standards (a different issue)

if you did not know that it would be understandable. than get off your high preaching stool and admit it. in stead you continued to generate the same incorrect position when trying to argue a point

this makes me believe that you were obfuscating - that is, intentionally misleading. your low blow in response to red flanders post above was in the same misleading style style. be careful, this forum is read by many professionals.

I went back and looked again at what I wrote re: red flaunders - if I offended him I apologize - but, the point I was attempting to make is that other people should be entitled to challenge the majority opinion on this site and, after looking at the evidence, reach a different conclusion without the name calling (or being told that others have thoroughly researched the matter and they should be persuaded on that fact alone).

Obviously your using a word over and over again with those you disagree with is your style it just seemed a little overused to me. As for the reasonable doubt standard - it has worked well for a couple of hundred years in determining whether someone should lose their liberty - it is based in reason. From many who post here I seem to get the feeling they believe there is no reasonable doubt about LA's use of PEDs for his entire career, if they thought there was a reasonable doubt they would not go after the people who are not that sure - or even disagree.

As far as the professionals reading this forum, I figure some agree with me on the subject that others are entitled to a differing opinion without being subject to personal attacks (and, in my opinion the attacks tend to go both ways).

Which brings me to the last point - I also figure that I was a little harsh on your use of the term obfuscation. If you like it you are entitled to use it without comment by me.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Facts should be introduced - I had heard about the doctor not being in the room a long time before joining this forum myself. I certainly would encourage those types of facts to be presented, just as I would expect others to ask for a reference to check it for themselves (please don't tell them to read back through the posts if you or others know where it is - there is a tremendous amount of threads and information on this cite to sift through). But, though I do not personally adhere to the conspiracy theory (unless some actual evidence was presented), I see no reason to berate someone for expressing how it could have been done, if there were a conspiracy.

I have only been asked by three posters for references to check for themselves - if I offer something new to a debate I will provide the link.

I have no problem if someone questions what I write - however that rarely happens as for a few posters their only intention is to disrupt the thread imo.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I have only been asked by three posters for references to check for themselves - if I offer something new to a debate I will provide the link.

I have no problem if someone questions what I write - however that rarely happens as for a few posters their only intention is to disrupt the thread imo.

I actually was not suggesting you personally do not give references - I just remember several posts where someone would ask for a reference and was told that it was covered extensively in prior threads.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I actually was not suggesting you personally do not give references - I just remember several posts where someone would ask for a reference and was told that it was covered extensively in prior threads.

Yet this is the difficulty - all the subjects surrounding LA have been covered extensively on the proper threads and all sides have given their information, references and opinions.

Posters are then able to form their opinions on the relevant topic. However often what happens on a new or different thread is someone offers their view and it is contested, if the same arguments and rebuttals are aired again then the new thread usually descends in to the same tired arguements.

There are very good search functions at the top of each thread and forum.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

...

Posters are then able to form their opinions on the relevant topic. However often what happens on a new or different thread is someone offers their view and it is contested, if the same arguments and rebuttals are aired again then the new thread usually descends in to the same tired arguements.

There are very good search functions at the top of each thread and forum.

I have used the search engine but it seems a little hard to narrow down for detail.

I expect the arguments will never change but some people seem to add interesting information to the forum from what seems to be a higher level of personal scientific knowledge (RTMcFadden for example). I found his discussion of how the samples could be spiked (or whatever the scientific name for it is) interesting - I also like to see people challenge what he had to say and the responses to those challenges. I just do not see the need to attack him for giving a scenario that could occur if there was a conspiracy - especially since he seemed very clear that he did not think the lab (or anyone else) actually "spiked" the samples.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have used the search engine but it seems a little hard to narrow down for detail.

I expect the arguments will never change but some people seem to add interesting information to the forum from what seems to be a higher level of personal scientific knowledge (RTMcFadden for example). I found his discussion of how the samples could be spiked (or whatever the scientific name for it is) interesting - I also like to see people challenge what he had to say and the responses to those challenges. I just do not see the need to attack him for giving a scenario that could occur if there was a conspiracy - especially since he seemed very clear that he did not think the lab (or anyone else) actually "spiked" the samples.

I too am interested in the discussion to be able to see how plausible it would be to 'spike' a test. In fact it probably deserves its own thread - as there are many posters who could contribute as many have scientific or medical backgrounds and indeed I even suspect one poster of working for an anti-doping lab.

I agree the debate is "interesting" - however there is little scientific information in the Vrijman report and one of the few other sources of information is Dr. Ashenden which is often dismissed to explore new avenues which appears to be very speculative.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Collection took place over 20 days.

Ok, maybe I misunderstood the underlying facts here. However, I would find this information interesting. In my field, we adhere to a rule that fraud is much less likely to take place if it involves two people. This is a topic better discussed with CCB.

Human error…

Agreed, just remember that there is inherent variability with all methods that is not attributable to human error.

What I want to know is whether the different forms of EPO are affected differently by any of steps 1 - 4 of the analysis.

Yes. That difference is electric charge, which is exploited in the gel. That’s why you get two different bands, because they migrate across the gel at different rates. The goal of the analytical method is that this would be the only difference.

The gory details.

The concentration portion of your discussion is what a Recovery study would be looking at. This is important to know.

 

[Anonymous]

The only thing I wonder about when I see something like this is it seems like there is only value is giving information that would conclude LA is, and has always doped, any information that disagrees with that position seems to have no value on this forum to a majority of the posters. The only problem with that is science and law tend to want to look at both sides and not be stuck with one. While I personally doubt the 1999 samples were spiked it is interesting to see how it could be done and that has some value to me (even if it is not a likely scenario).

Absolutely not the case. I wrote that precisely because his point is not to inform. To slather the forum with hypothetical theories that have absolutely NO facts to back them up is not "giving information." If his desire was to inform, then his posts would not have just contained the information on one single method of spiking that is possible. To have continued this ad nauseum is just obfuscation when he neglects to back up his assertion with ANY factual evidence in this specific case. See, my assertion is backed by the fact that there are 6 samples that clearly had synthetic EPO in them, and 2 more that were close to the threshold of positive. Unlike you, he is unwilling to offer any caveat except "You cannot prove it didn't happen." Do you truly not see the difference?

Propaganda is effective when you ignore any real question of your "information," never directly accuse, and continue to promote your "side" without alteration of message. Clearly spiking is possible, and his information has convinced me of that. The problem is that was never his point for posting. His point is to shed doubt on something with a claim that has not one shred of proof. There is a clear difference in propaganda and "informing" anyone of anything and you know it. The effectiveness is that, because he never directly accuses anyone, he and you can always slide by with the disingenuous assertion that there is nothing in your words but and intent to "educate." You can deny you farted all you want, but the noxious odor says differently.

 

[red_flanders]

So, since you looked at both sides and have decided on one - any others coming in should not bother?

Clearly I did not say that. I responded to a quote from you about "a majority of posters" and in particular the passage I put in bold. The passage in bold above are your words, not mine. The answer is no.

Here is the post I responded to.

any information that disagrees with that position seems to have no value on this forum to a majority of the posters. The only problem with that is science and law tend to want to look at both sides and not be stuck with one.

My response to that stands.

 

[python]

You can deny you farted all you want, but the noxious odor says differently.

if it did not smell, i'd make this phrase my forum signature

as i posted several times. there is one fundamental telling trait in fadden’s postings history on the issue of sample spiking. like with the bio passport one needs to carefully examine the entire trend to see through it.

he invested considerable effort into first seriously raising the possibility of conspiracy then after facing hard questions he reverted to the possibility of “honest error by a human scientist” to now “entertaining knowledge and education”. all in the same vain - keeping the door for spiking potential open.

anti doping science is part of the broader forensic discipline. at the end of the day it deals with all available evidence and assigns finite probabilities to various options. Options with very low probabilities of occurring are swept aside. this is the standard all over the world. the only difference is the numeric value or the prevailing standard of proof.

implying but never actually voicing some improbable options has become a favorite tool of all sorts of spinners and obfuscators. for example they are theoretically correct when they say “spiking can not be proved or disproved”. they just intentionally don’t mention to their usually unprepared or naive listeners that the probability of one chance in one thousand makes it forensically improbable.

when someone like fadden - claiming spiking can’t be proved or disproved - is fully aware of the incredibly low chances (as evidenced by his record) and yet continuing the ‘discussion,’ it smells in my view.

additionally, everything we know from the vrijman report about this specific case and from the general way all ad labs do their business, any positive control samples (spiked samples - in layman’s terms) - if they at all were used in this case - are prepared by the third parties. particularly the epo samples. these control samples will not have 89%, 87%, 97% etc basic isoforms like armstrong's. they will be 100% positive 100% basic isoforms each and every time. because they are used for a comparison with the unknown athlete's sample.

and here's the final nail - according to vrijman it is unlikely any positive control samples were involved.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Instead, analysis steps 1 - 4 are performed on the sample and the results compared with the results of control and reference samples. Is this correct?

Rule #1 is that you need at least two points to create a curve. The curve I’m referring to is absorbance v concentration. Now, normally for spectrophotometric methods those points are 0 and 100% (in simple terms). The zero is obtained by reading a blank or negative control. The 100% is obtained by running a positive control. This would represent a range of concentration in which a linear relationship exists between the concentration of the analyte and the absorbance. Above, or below this range, the relationship may not be linear. I use the term “may not” because I may choose not to investigate beyond the range I’ve chosen. However, at some point, this relationship will break down. These boundaries are the limits of quantitation. To reliably perform quantitative analysis, I need to operation at or within the limits of this range.

Now, where I have a problem is that the data provided indicates that the LLoQ is 125, not 0. This puts the LLoQ inside of the calibration curve that would be generated from the identified control samples, which is an analytical No No. This is why I believe that the positive and negative controls run on the gel are for band identification, not to create the calibration curve. It’s possible that external solutions are used to create the curve and then the samples are analyzed. It’s also possible that they are uses, and their just being ultra-conservative in their interpretation (reporting) of the results. I can’t possible know the answer to this question and can only say that I believe something more is going on that we haven’t been told.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Absolutely not the case. I wrote that precisely because his point is not to inform. To slather the forum with hypothetical theories that have absolutely NO facts to back them up is not "giving information." If his desire was to inform, then his posts would not have just contained the information on one single method of spiking that is possible. To have continued this ad nauseum is just obfuscation when he neglects to back up his assertion with ANY factual evidence in this specific case. See, my assertion is backed by the fact that there are 6 samples that clearly had synthetic EPO in them, and 2 more that were close to the threshold of positive. Unlike you, he is unwilling to offer any caveat except "You cannot prove it didn't happen." Do you truly not see the difference?

Propaganda is effective when you ignore any real question of your "information," never directly accuse, and continue to promote your "side" without alteration of message. Clearly spiking is possible, and his information has convinced me of that. The problem is that was never his point for posting. His point is to shed doubt on something with a claim that has not one shred of proof. There is a clear difference in propaganda and "informing" anyone of anything and you know it. The effectiveness is that, because he never directly accuses anyone, he and you can always slide by with the disingenuous assertion that there is nothing in your words but and intent to "educate." You can deny you farted all you want, but the noxious odor says differently.

Actually, I remember him stating more than once he did not believe the samples were spiked, just that he felt is was scientifically possible to do it, which resulted in a lot of posts questioning that belief and his response to those posts.

 

[python]

it is scientifically possible that you are mutant between sprocket and BPC but i don't believe it.

 

[Anonymous]

Actually, I remember him stating more than once he did not believe the samples were spiked, just that he felt is was scientifically possible to do it, which resulted in a lot of posts questioning that belief and his response to those posts.

No he didn't. Again, you miss the forest for the trees, and I am starting to believe there is a specific reason for that...

 

[RTMcFadden]

Stuff-ups and Precision

.....but the risk of stuff-ups is serious.

I don’t know what you mean by serious. The “Risk” is constant and normally referred to as variation. It comes from several sources, known as the 6M’s (Man, Machine, Material, Method, Measurement, & Mother Nature). There are two types of variation, expected and unexpected. Expected variation is random and represent the limits of precision for the test method. Unexpected variation is abnormal and non-random. The key is that you identify (assign cause) and eliminate it. If your interested in understanding this subject, google Six Sigma.

The key to understanding expected variation is to understand the limits of precision in the equipment and techniques that are used. Using an example from earlier, if you used a 1 ml Class A volumetric pipette, with a precession tolerance of 0.6% and you made serial dilutions, the schema would look like this. (Presume all other volumes are perfect to keep things simple)

Aliquot Final volume Final Concentration Precision
1 ml (2,000 IU /ml) 1000 ml 2 IU/ml (1.988 to 2.012)
1 ml (2.0 IU /ml) 1000 ml 0.002 IU/ml = 2 mIU (1.976072 to 2.024072)

This is normal variation that you just can’t get away from. The good news is that the errors in precision tend to straddle the mean. That is to say, you make as many to the + as you do to the -, so they kind of cancel each other out. Nevertheless, this question is the basis for what is called a Precision Study that would be performed as part of method development and validation.

The key to controlling unexpected variation in a Lab is addressed through training and instructions (defined test methods)