Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[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.

I think we've moved beyond theorizing about the possibility. I think we've established that it's technically possible and even speculated that it may be done a routine basis (positive reference sample preparation).

Any suggestion is what is left up to each of us. I don't think anyone in this forum has the requisite information to defnitively prove this either way.

I will post this quote for you and let it hang out there like the big matzo ball that it is. To even bother to offer up the idea that he is being neutral is blindness sufficient to put you in the troll category. If you cannot be honest about obvious things, it is hard to trust anything you say.

I think that we can all agree that based on appearances, you and he both have an agenda and are not here to "inform."

 

[CentralCaliBike]

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...

Here is where he starts indicating he does not actually believe the samples were spiked:

RTMcFadden
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
***

In order to spike a sample, you would have to know which sample to spike. Since the lab had no knowledge of which samples were Armstrong's, the "spiking issue" is a non-issue. Ashenden, in his interview, should have stressed that the samples were anonymous rather than trying to come up with a very weak (and wrong) argument as to why they could not be spiked.
You make a valid point. Although, blinds can be broken, it's not really that easy.


Commenting on your post:

RTMcFadden
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoughtforfood View Post
***

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.

More specifically RTMcFadden wrote:

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.

RTMcFadden responding to one of my posts:

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.

On the other hand, if I were conducting research, specifically performing a recovery study, I could do this with everyone’s full knowledge and without malice. Once the results are generated, they’re generated. If someone inadvertently misinterpreted these “research result” for actual same results, they could be passed along without malice. Yes, I know this scenario is a stretch, but I use it to demonstrate that it could happen without a massive conspiracy. The easiest way to disprove this scenario, would be to ask the right person, which isn’t me. Absent a response to the affirmative, I don’t believe this could have been done without malicious intent. And I don’t know the scientists so I can’t vouch for their character. Nevertheless, I choose to believe people, especially scientists, to be honorable.

These are the statements I was referring to when I stated RTMcFadden had stated he did not think the samples were spiked but that it could be scientifically possible.

 

[Anonymous]

Here is where he starts indicating he does not actually believe the samples were spiked:

RTMcFadden
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
***

In order to spike a sample, you would have to know which sample to spike. Since the lab had no knowledge of which samples were Armstrong's, the "spiking issue" is a non-issue. Ashenden, in his interview, should have stressed that the samples were anonymous rather than trying to come up with a very weak (and wrong) argument as to why they could not be spiked.
You make a valid point. Although, blinds can be broken, it's not really that easy.


Commenting on your post:

RTMcFadden
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoughtforfood View Post
***

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.

More specifically RTMcFadden wrote:

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.

RTMcFadden responding to one of my posts:

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.

On the other hand, if I were conducting research, specifically performing a recovery study, I could do this with everyone’s full knowledge and without malice. Once the results are generated, they’re generated. If someone inadvertently misinterpreted these “research result” for actual same results, they could be passed along without malice. Yes, I know this scenario is a stretch, but I use it to demonstrate that it could happen without a massive conspiracy. The easiest way to disprove this scenario, would be to ask the right person, which isn’t me. Absent a response to the affirmative, I don’t believe this could have been done without malicious intent. And I don’t know the scientists so I can’t vouch for their character. Nevertheless, I choose to believe people, especially scientists, to be honorable.

These are the statements I was referring to when I stated RTMcFadden had stated he did not think the samples were spiked but that it could be scientifically possible.

I'm sorry, I don't see in there where he says what you assert? Where is the statement that says "I don't think it happened?" The closest he came was responding to DrM in saying that he thought the samples likely contained EPO, but read his posts carefully; he would obviously believe that because of the tampering hypothesis, no? I mean, I see several nebulous post in which he states that he doesn't know either way, but your contention is that he said he does not believe it happened, and that my friend is not found in any of the posts you so painstakingly quoted. Also note that the totality of posts by this particular person are geared almost exclusively to pointing out the possibility of tampering. Honesty is a rare quality in a person. You have shown little thus far.

Propaganda always has a nefarious intent, and you and he both are producing quite a bit.

Please allow me to quote this once more for you as it is his most recent post on the subject:

I think we've moved beyond theorizing about the possibility. I think we've established that it's technically possible and even speculated that it may be done a routine basis (positive reference sample preparation).

Any suggestion is what is left up to each of us. I don't think anyone in this forum has the requisite information to defnitively prove this either way.

What is it you were saying?

 

[RTMcFadden]

Here's the signal processing point in gory detail.

f1 = f2 = f3 - these analytes would be proportional to each other, not equal.

Yes, this could be a possible scenario, but would require a third marker. Also, we know from Ashenden that there is a roughly inversely proportional relationship between nEPO and rEPO. Moreever, Ashenden states “the value (rEPO) is quite variable, and does NOT correspond with the percentage of basic isoforms” which would make this scenario less likely. Again, this would require a lot more information and data than he has been willing to divulge.

Beyond that, this is where I have the most serious problem with this method. A doping violation for EPO is not equivalent to the Petacchi-salbutamol incident, in that there is no therapeutic limit associated rEPO. The presence of rEPO in the blood should be enough to warrant a sanction, regardless of concentration. So, when you run the gel, as Ashenden said, “there is no confusion when you see it on the gel, when there's synthetic EPO in the sample. It's simply in a different position to where the natural EPO occurs.” So, why go through the additional trouble?

 

[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.

This is your post, now find the post where he states he doesn't believe they were spiked. I have all day, and this is kind of fun for me. Please note, saying you "don't know" whether they were spiked is NOT saying they weren't.

 

[python]

tff what ccb is obviously doing to you is trying to catch you in the avalanche of barely relevant or irrelevant quotes all reminiscent of an attempt by a lawyer to catch an unsuspecting witness in some inconsistency during an aggressive cross examination. note how he upped the volume just like fadden.

while the solution is very very simple - find a relevant quote or wait for the subject - fadden himself - to state clearly his position on the probability of spiking.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

A) I didn’t level the charge that there was a conspiracy...


B) 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.

C) I don’t believe this could have been done without malicious intent. And I
don’t know the scientists so I can’t vouch for their character. Nevertheless,
I choose to believe people, especially scientists, to be honorable.

Seems pretty clear to me that he is stating he does not believe the samples were spiked with the information that he has. But it appears that your mind is made up about his intent, and mine for that matter.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

tff what ccb is obviously doing to you is trying to catch you in the avalanche of barely relevant or irrelevant quotes all reminiscent of an attempt by a lawyer to catch an unsuspecting witness in some inconsistency during an aggressive cross examination. note how he upped the volume just like fadden.

while the solution is very very simple - find a relevant quote or wait for the subject - fadden himself - to state clearly his position on the probability of spiking.

Certainly would clear the air. I am not a mind reader, perhaps he is what TFF is claiming.

 

[Anonymous]

A) I didn’t level the charge that there was a conspiracy...


B) 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.

C) I don’t believe this could have been done without malicious intent. And I
don’t know the scientists so I can’t vouch for their character. Nevertheless,
I choose to believe people, especially scientists, to be honorable.

Seems pretty clear to me that he is stating he does not believe the samples were spiked with the information that he has. But it appears that your mind is made up about his intent, and mine for that matter.

Each statement has a caveat for a reason, and you are well aware of why. Again, you can tell me farts don't stink, but when they do, you just look like a guy who cannot admit his farts stink.

One simple question, if he truly believes that, why present mountains of information that run counter to the claim? Objectivity? Please, I am still somewhat young, but I was not born yesterday.

 

[Anonymous]

tff what ccb is obviously doing to you is trying to catch you in the avalanche of barely relevant or irrelevant quotes all reminiscent of an attempt by a lawyer to catch an unsuspecting witness in some inconsistency during an aggressive cross examination. note how he upped the volume just like fadden.

while the solution is very very simple - find a relevant quote or wait for the subject - fadden himself - to state clearly his position on the probability of spiking.

Oh, I am well aware of what he is trying to do. Problem is that it isn't working because the facts do not lend themselves to his assertions.

 

[python]

Certainly would clear the air. I am not a mind reader, perhaps he is what TFF is claiming.

then just give the process a chance and shut up, will you. fadden is reading at this very moment. if he clearly states he does not believe the probability of intentional or accidental spiking is very low u'll have a point.

 

[Digger]

Certainly would clear the air. I am not a mind reader, perhaps he is what TFF is claiming.

I've asked him three times, do you have any evidence whatsoever that the samples were spiked, and he has refused to answer. Obviously, if he did not believe the samples to be spiked, a simple No would have been forthcoming.

I think this quote from him says alot about where he is leaning:
"I think we've moved beyond theorizing about the possibility. I think we've established that it's technically possible and even speculated that it may be done a routine basis (positive reference sample preparation)."

Not the words of a neutral viewpoint.

 

[Anonymous]

Certainly would clear the air. I am not a mind reader, perhaps he is what TFF is claiming.

Without a clear statement regarding his beliefs, is that not what you are doing?

 

[Anonymous]

Ahh, the smell of retreat.

 

[python]

Ahh, the smell of retreat.

nah..trust me, regrouping.

 

[Anonymous]

nah..trust me, regrouping.

It was a hook with a worm on it.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Without a clear statement regarding his beliefs, is that not what you are doing?

I guess - it was my opinion that he is posting because he works in the field of laboratory analysis and finds it an interesting mental exercise to consider how spiking might be done rather than just say it cannot. If someone asks me a question in a field I enjoy, and have some knowledge about, I certainly would respond in a similar manner.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

It was a hook with a worm on it.

tasty too.

 

[Anonymous]

I guess - it was my opinion that he is posting because he works in the field of laboratory analysis and finds it an interesting mental exercise to consider how spiking might be done rather than just say it cannot. If someone asks me a question in a field I enjoy, and have some knowledge about, I certainly would respond in a similar manner.

Nobody asked him him a question. He came and proffered his opinion all on his own.

He has however been asked to specify whether or not he believes there was a conspiracy involved, and we have not seen a clear, unambiguous answer to the question. Its almost like you are not an attorney, but we know you are, hence my question of your motives.

 

[RTMcFadden]

then just give the process a chance and shut up, will you. fadden is reading at this very moment. if he clearly states he does not believe the probability of intentional or accidental spiking is very low u'll have a point.

Ok, I'll clearly state that the probability of accidentally spiking the samples is none. It's simply not possible.

While I don't know what "very low" is, I am willing to state that the probaiblity of intentially spiking the samples is greater than 480 to 1.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, I'll clearly state that the probability of accidentally spiking the samples is none. It's simply not possible.

While I don't know what "very low" is, I am willing to state that the probaiblity of intentially spiking the samples is greater than 480 to 1.

Thanks for clearing that up! CentCal, care to ask a follow up question, or is this the proof you need?..me, I was sort of hoping for a "no"...

 

[python]

Ok, I'll clearly state that the probability of accidentally spiking the samples is none. It's simply not possible.

While I don't know what "very low" is, I am willing to state that the probaiblity of intentially spiking the samples is greater than 480 to 1.

ok. almost clear enough for me. does it mean that you withdraw your earlier assertion that the human error notan intentional spiking could have been involved?

 

[RTMcFadden]

I guess - it was my opinion that he is posting because he works in the field of laboratory analysis and finds it an interesting mental exercise to consider how spiking might be done rather than just say it cannot. If someone asks me a question in a field I enjoy, and have some knowledge about, I certainly would respond in a similar manner.

That and I'm between contracts and bored out of my mind. It's this or remove wall paper. Gee, I wonder which one I'd rather do.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Nobody asked him him a question. He came and proffered his opinion all on his own.

He has however been asked to specify whether or not he believes there was a conspiracy involved, and we have not seen a clear, unambiguous answer to the question. Its almost like you are not an attorney, but we know you are, hence my question of your motives.

I was not asked a question when I started posting either, neither was anyone else.

 

[python]

ok. almost clear enough for me. does it mean that you withdraw your earlier assertion that the human error notan intentional spiking could have been involved?

sorry for quoting myself but i'd like to get some answers to this and several other questions before i consider a public apology for my harsh tone. the air is much clearer now i must admit.