Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[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.

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

Oh, you just misspoke, well, we all do that, no?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Oh, you just misspoke, well, we all do that, no?

I do like to respond to questions but my first post was not at a question asked of me - I doubt anyone else started out on this cite answering a question asked of them either.

 

[Anonymous]

I do like to respond to questions but my first post was not at a question asked of me - I doubt anyone else started out on this cite answering a question asked of them either.

I doubt there are many people who's first post on this site was a weak refutation of a positive drug test. A post that failed to provided any definitive evidence that there was a MASSIVE conspiracy involving lab techs, UCI collusion, and a cover-up. Just to give a bit of perspective.

Okay, hate to do it, but you are just another troll. I just read the excrement you wrote on the Astana thread, and so its "Ignoreland" for you. What is funniest is that you think somehow you and the professor are different from any other Armstrong troll that has come an gone in the last few years. One of these days, I will get a copy of that handbook, though its contents couldn't be more obvious.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

+1 to the better than wallpapering - I thought arguing on the internet was invented to meet all our procrastination needs?

That difference is electric charge......The goal of the analytical method is that this would be the only difference.

Precisely, that idea is central to all my comments.

Rule #1 is that you need at least two points to create a curve...... To reliably perform quantitative analysis, I need to operation at or within the limits of this range.

OK. I've been trying to avoid stating my academic background because I've forgotten almost everything I learned....but to save you some time explaining the basics, I do have a science background and I'm not struggling with the maths or concepts of linear systems and experimental variability.......it's the chemistry terminology and techniques that I'm trying to catch up on.

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

Lets definine recovery study as meaning figuring out what fraction of EPO from the original sample ends up in the final gel. In which case, yes, absolutely, that whole absorbency versus analyte quantity (y = mx +c) thing would be pretty handy....the more points the merrier within the linear region.....

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...... I can only say that I believe something more is going on that we haven’t been told.

I also think it's primarily about band identification, because the rEPO 'adverse analytical finding' criteria now includes number of bands in the basic area and their relative intensities. It's this kind of point that makes me think the test procedure for rEPO is not a recovery study as per the above definition. It's an analysis of the absorbency ratios of different bands, and a rough estimate of overall concentration by comparing with some other reference analysis. The rough estimate of sample concentration would be used for eliminating results outside the analytical range, and adjusting concentration to facilitate accurate band absorbency analysis. I really find it hard to believe that the standard method for establishing EPO use by an athlete involves tipping some rEPO into the sample.........the lawyers and internet doping apologists would have a field day. There is also no indication that any analyte is added to the athletes sample, until stability testing stage, that I could find in http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/td2007epo_en.pdf. But as you say, there is more going on than we have been told.....This article doesn't discuss 'adjusting the sample concentration' either....

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.

f1,f2 and f3 are not analytes, they are the fraction of EPO from the original sample that makes it onto the gel after centrifuging and double blotting etc. I'm talking about the situation where no rEPO analyte is added. No third marker is required to calculate the ratio of rEPO:nEPO in the gel. If the goal of the analytical method is met, (f1 = f2 = f3) then rEPO:nEPO in the gel is equal to rEPO:nEPO in the original sample. So stating rEPO in the sample, as a % of tEPO in the sample, is simply another way of expressing rEPO:nEPO in the gel, and does not require the absolute value if tEPO to be known. The accuracy is limited only by the uncertainties in estimating rEPO:nEPO in the gel. Having looked at the example of bands in the above link, I believe uncertainties in rEPO:nEPO could be quite small.....betcha I could write a nice bit of code to do the job.......nice smooth peaks, not too saturated, some little adjustments necessary to account for any overlap......no worries..........

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

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?

This comment:

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

was made in response to to this comment:

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?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

... What is funniest is that you think somehow you and the professor are different from any other Armstrong troll that has come an gone in the last few years.

Perhaps these "trolls" came to the conclusion that LA probably did use PEDs in their opinions but it does not make them so upset they get angry when someone else does not see that light - and, actually still have some appreciation for LA, they just have no interest in arguing for or against the "LA is a doper" and the doping problem alone is not that interesting for them.

Others perhaps just get tired of being called trolls.

 

[python]

This comment:



was made in response to to this comment:

yeah, that and more...this goes beyond some of the fadden quotes you posted. my clarification question relates to his statements regarding possibility of preparing those epo positive controls internally. a simple clarifying statement by fadden would clear the air.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

... my clarification question relates to his statements regarding possibility of preparing those epo positive controls internally. a simple clarifying statement by fadden would clear the air.

My personal favorite was the one about needing A & B samples for statistical significance. I'm still hoping that such comments were more of a reaction to landing in the middle of a flame war than a real urge to cloud the issues, but further clarification would be good.

Since you appear to be reasonably familiar with the methods, are you able to answer any of these specific questions:
1) Is any rEPO analyte added to athletes' samples during routine doping analysis?
2) If a sample contains both synthetic and natural EPO, how similar is the ratio of natural to synthetic EPO in the sample, to the ratio in the gel.
3) What is the measurement uncertainty in sample tEPO for the routine doping analysis method.

 

[RTMcFadden]

yeah, that and more...this goes beyond some of the fadden quotes you posted. my clarification question relates to his statements regarding possibility of preparing those epo positive controls internally. a simple clarifying statement by fadden would clear the air.

Post 792 provided the detail.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Post 792 provided the detail.

....................

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Hopefully the air is completely cleared for everyone now.

 

[Anonymous]

You are correct, you bring nothing new to the discussion...... although I am looking forward to your exploration of the space Alien theory.

A topic I could add some scientific knowledge to.

 

[Anonymous]

Hopefully the air is completely cleared for everyone now.

keeping seppas guessing only way avoiding war....

Take it easy you crazy russian.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

One major misconception about the hearsay rule is that hearsay is never admissible in court. While the general rule is that such evidence is inadmissible, there are many exceptions.

"There are two other common misconceptions concerning the hearsay rule."

"The first is that hearsay applies only to oral statements. The hearsay rule applies to all out-of-court statements whether oral, written or otherwise. The Federal Rules of Evidence defines a statement as an oral or written assertion or nonverbal conduct of a person, if the conduct is intended by the person as an assertion. Even written documents made under oath, such as affidavits or notarized statements, are subject to the 'hearsay rule'."

"The second common misconception is that all out-of-court statements are hearsay. This is not the case. An out of court statement may or may not be hearsay depending on the purpose for which it is offered. If the statement is being offered to prove the truth of what it asserts, then it becomes hearsay...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law#Common_misconceptions

You should be able to find this link - Betsy testified that LA made a statement to her. She claimed it was made in a hospital (not a courtroom). I believe you think this statement was true. This statement is therefore hearsay, admissible, but still hearsay.

This is Thoughtforfood. I am posting under a new name because I like it better.

Actually, it took me two years, but I discovered that this is an incorrect statement, I was right the whole time though I didn't know why. Now I do, and I am willing to bet at the time you knew I was right also, your pride just kept you from admitting it. That or you do not understand the fine line drawn by in the FRE like many of my fellow students. The scenario here was that the statement by Betsy was to be introduced (and was introduced in the SCA trial) against Armstrong, thus FRE 801(d)(2)(A) is the applicable rule being that Armstrong would be a party in both situations. The statement is NOT hearsay. Nor is it considered "admissible hearsay" as you suggested. I will quote and highlight the applicable parts:

"(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:
(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:
(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;

Normally, the statement would be hearsay, but because Armstrong made the statement, he is estopped from denying the statement, and the courts don't consider that statement to be hearsay. There is a clear distinction here, and many people misunderstand the FRE on this point because it seems confusing (and it is), but the fact is that the statement made by Armstrong in the hospital room in the presence of Betsy is not a hearsay statement in any trial or proceeding involving Armstrong as a party. If Armstrong were merely a witness in another person's trial, it would be hearsay, and likely admissible hearsay depending on the purpose, but for the purposes we discussed, it is not. Why they draw the distinction, I do not know, but they do. As such, I was correct in my assertion the whole time.

Thank you, that is all.

 

[andy1234]

This is Thoughtforfood. I am posting under a new name because I like it better.

Actually, it took me two years, but I discovered that this is an incorrect statement, I was right the whole time though I didn't know why. Now I do, and I am willing to bet at the time you knew I was right also, your pride just kept you from admitting it. That or you do not understand the fine line drawn by in the FRE like many of my fellow students. The scenario here was that the statement by Betsy was to be introduced (and was introduced in the SCA trial) against Armstrong, thus FRE 801(d)(2)(A) is the applicable rule being that Armstrong would be a party in both situations. The statement is NOT hearsay. Nor is it considered "admissible hearsay" as you suggested. I will quote and highlight the applicable parts:

"(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:
(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:
(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;

Normally, the statement would be hearsay, but because Armstrong made the statement, he is estopped from denying the statement, and the courts don't consider that statement to be hearsay. There is a clear distinction here, and many people misunderstand the FRE on this point because it seems confusing (and it is), but the fact is that the statement made by Armstrong in the hospital room in the presence of Betsy is not a hearsay statement in any trial or proceeding involving Armstrong as a party. If Armstrong were merely a witness in another person's trial, it would be hearsay, and likely admissible hearsay depending on the purpose, but for the purposes we discussed, it is not. Why they draw the distinction, I do not know, but they do. As such, I was correct in my assertion the whole time.

Thank you, that is all.

Good for you.

 

[MarkvW]

This is Thoughtforfood. I am posting under a new name because I like it better.

Actually, it took me two years, but I discovered that this is an incorrect statement, I was right the whole time though I didn't know why. Now I do, and I am willing to bet at the time you knew I was right also, your pride just kept you from admitting it. That or you do not understand the fine line drawn by in the FRE like many of my fellow students. The scenario here was that the statement by Betsy was to be introduced (and was introduced in the SCA trial) against Armstrong, thus FRE 801(d)(2)(A) is the applicable rule being that Armstrong would be a party in both situations. The statement is NOT hearsay. Nor is it considered "admissible hearsay" as you suggested. I will quote and highlight the applicable parts:

"(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:
(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:
(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;

Normally, the statement would be hearsay, but because Armstrong made the statement, he is estopped from denying the statement, and the courts don't consider that statement to be hearsay. There is a clear distinction here, and many people misunderstand the FRE on this point because it seems confusing (and it is), but the fact is that the statement made by Armstrong in the hospital room in the presence of Betsy is not a hearsay statement in any trial or proceeding involving Armstrong as a party. If Armstrong were merely a witness in another person's trial, it would be hearsay, and likely admissible hearsay depending on the purpose, but for the purposes we discussed, it is not. Why they draw the distinction, I do not know, but they do. As such, I was correct in my assertion the whole time.

Thank you, that is all.

Armstrong is NOT "estopped from denying the statement." He can deny the statement all he wants. His ability to deny statements that are attributed to him is a major reason why his own statements are not hearsay. It would have been less inaccurate if you would have said that he is "estopped from denying the admissibility of the statement."

But Armstrong was not "estopped" from denying the admissibility of the statement. There is no doctrine of law or fact that he was "estopped" from asserting. He was precluded by rule from making a hearsay objection.

 

[Jeremiah]

Armstrong is NOT "estopped from denying the statement." He can deny the statement all he wants. His ability to deny statements that are attributed to him is a major reason why his own statements are not hearsay. It would have been less inaccurate if you would have said that he is "estopped from denying the admissibility of the statement."

But Armstrong was not "estopped" from denying the admissibility of the statement. There is no doctrine of law or fact that he was "estopped" from asserting. He was precluded by rule from making a hearsay objection.

ooooh! Good point!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Armstrong is NOT "estopped from denying the statement." He can deny the statement all he wants. His ability to deny statements that are attributed to him is a major reason why his own statements are not hearsay. It would have been less inaccurate if you would have said that he is "estopped from denying the admissibility of the statement."

But Armstrong was not "estopped" from denying the admissibility of the statement. There is no doctrine of law or fact that he was "estopped" from asserting. He was precluded by rule from making a hearsay objection.

My statement was unclear. That was what I meant by the statement. Of course he can offer testimony that he never made the statement. Of the many legal arguments I have schooled you on, I wouldn't throw this one up as a win in your column. Certainly I should have taken more time writing the sentence, but I wouldn't go patting myself on the back if I were you. You have proven very often to be quite deficient in assessing legal arguments. And it wouldn't have been "less inaccurate" to say that his is estopped from denying the admissibility, it would have actually been accurate. And if you have a problem with that, I ask you to address the Deborah James Merritt and Rick Simmons as they are the authors of my case book, and that is the exact word used in describing this rule. Case book authors are not always completely accurate, but I will trust them over some guy who has proven time and again that he doesn't actually understand the legal arguments he is making.

 

[MarkvW]

My statement was unclear. That was what I meant by the statement. Of course he can offer testimony that he never made the statement. Of the many legal arguments I have schooled you on, I wouldn't throw this one up as a win in your column. Certainly I should have taken more time writing the sentence, but I wouldn't go patting myself on the back if I were you. You have proven very often to be quite deficient in assessing legal arguments. And it wouldn't have been "less inaccurate" to say that his is estopped from denying the admissibility, it would have actually been accurate.

Nothing personal.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Nothing personal.

My reply was very personal.

 

[MarkvW]

My reply was very personal.

Aww... everybody makes mistakes!

 

[Benotti69]

Aww... everybody makes mistakes!

Like pretending to be a legal eagal on a forum

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Aww... everybody makes mistakes!

You frequently prove this maxim, so I will defer to your expertise.

And learn the definition of "mistake." I was not mistaken I wan unclear. There is a difference. You just keep striking out.

 

[MarkvW]

You frequently prove this maxim, so I will defer to your expertise.

And learn the definition of "mistake." I was not mistaken I wan unclear. There is a difference. You just keep striking out.

Your sentence was perfectly unambiguous! It was a model of clarity!

 

[MarkvW]

Like pretending to be a legal eagal on a forum

I'm a pretender!