Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Mellow Velo]

Actually, you are correct. Aren't blinded studies wonderful.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/10...epo-urine-test-called-into-question-by-study/

Nice blog. Very objective.
Not only are negative tests in question, but positive ones are too, as shown by the example above of the positive in which the EPO should have cleared the man’s system.


So, not stictly speaking correct, is it?
The subject had taken EPO, in the first place.

What the study actually highlights, is what Kohl has said and the recent targeting of certain riders has shown.
You are unlucky to get caught.

 

[BikeCentric]

Actually, you are correct. Aren't blinded studies wonderful.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/10...epo-urine-test-called-into-question-by-study/

"The lab also declared a sample positive, although the man had stopped taking the drug and it should have been gone from his urine."

LOL, thanks for the link and the laughs.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

All you need to know about the 1999 samples.

I know, Ashenden is shocking, he has a disgraceful agenda known as anti-doping.

I think the most enticing thing about the 1999 samples is how it would go down in a civil case.

Interesting read - as mentioned earlier I have had doubts about the 1999 samples since the testing results were published however this article brings some questions to mind that I was not aware of previously:

a) It seems the analyst is working as a Freelance researcher (this would suggest he needs to do something of note to continue getting paid) - before someone jumps in and says I am calling his statement a lie, I am not, he may be correct and the samples could be as he described but the fact he is working freelance and apparently continues to get paid based presumably on the name he made with this case does raise a few questions.

b) Ashenden states that "it was realistic, they realized that the most likely samples where they would find EPO were samples collected before the EPO test was introduced. And that was the '99 Tour de France." He goes on to claim the basis for the relatively low number of positives (13 out of 87 tested) was likely a result of the change in the mentality of the peloton from the 1998 Tour caused most riders to avoid EPO. If that was the case and they were attempting to pick a tour with a high number of EPO results to insure their research into an EPO test was accurate, why not go straight to the 1998 Tour and test those samples instead?

c) The claim the lab did not know the individuals they were testing is reasonable, however, I do not see any reason they could not have obtained information in the manner that the reporter mentioned did - if all it took was a phone call.

Again, the article was interesting but did raise questions that I was not aware of previously - I would be more interested in reading the actual report from the lab that reviewed the blood samples. Since I have suspected a possibility that LA took EPO in 1999, this does not actually change my opinion (but it does not make it any stronger either).

Probably the one thing I consider that tends to favor EPO use from time to time is a statement by LA he had not used performing enhancing drugs during his tour wins (or something along those lines) - if memory serves he was asked if he ever used performing enhancers and the response evaded the question asked. He could be accurate with the statement and still have used during training prior to the 1999 TdF > of course he may also have used then and now, but other than these test results, I have not heard of any other positives.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Actually, you are correct. Aren't blinded studies wonderful.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/10...epo-urine-test-called-into-question-by-study/

I have already read that article - which again shows the difficulty of detecting rEPO.

However I have read the NYC report and had a brief look at the study quoted - it does not appear to back up the bloggers claim that rEPO appeared in the sample of an athlete that had not taken it.

From memory what the study concluded was large doses of rEPO could be detected but the window of oppurtunity for flagging a positive was from a couple of days to just a few hours and micro dosing did not register a positive.

 

[RTMcFadden]

In the 70s, there were clinical trials where samples of EPO were preserved to see how long they'd be reliable. 1999-2005 is a lot shorter than 70s-now.

I think I'm right in saying that WADA scientists had no knowledge of which samples belonged to who, so its not like they could've sabotaged samples. Doing that would be near impossible anyway given the tiny amounts (of EPO) involved.

Don’t know where you got that notion from, but you are incorrect. As a standard element of analytical method validation, one spikes a negative sample with a known concentration of the analyte and performs the test to determine the completeness of recovery with the sample matrix.

As pointed out by Dr. Maserati, the 99 samples were tested in order to improve the testing procedure, which would have included validation activities. So, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that spiked negative samples were mis-read / mis-interpreted an leaked as positive. One may even go so far as to claim nefarious intent.

 

[Race Radio]

That's apparently right, but we don't know all the circustances because they were not done in the normal way. Nobody was checking to see what conditions they were kept under. All I'm saying is people can hardly complain about the UCI and then use this unofficial 1999 tests as proof that did not meet all the standards. That is a reasonable point.

Like most of your post it is not "reasonable"

It is well known that the test were performed properly and they were stored correctly. There were no conditions that could cause EPO to appear in the samples.

I think we can all agree you are inventing issues that have been long since proven incorrect in a week attempt to bait other posters and derail the thread. This is why you have been banned multiple times.

 

[BikeCentric]

Don’t know where you got that notion from, but you are incorrect. As a standard element of analytical method validation, one spikes a negative sample with a known concentration of the analyte and performs the test to determine the completeness of recovery with the sample matrix.

As pointed out by Dr. Maserati, the 99 samples were tested in order to improve the testing procedure, which would have included validation activities. So, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that spiked negative samples were mis-read / mis-interpreted an leaked as positive. One may even go so far as to claim nefarious intent.

If you'd actually read the Ashenden interview (which you've revealed that you haven't by this post of yours) then you'd know that it's actually physically impossible to spike the '99 samples. Quite simply, it's not even possible to manufacture a pipette small enough to spike the sample with a proportionate amount of rEPO that would not completely dilute the small sample size. They store the samples in small sizes precisely for this reason - to eliminate the possbility of spiking.

So unless you've personally invented a nanotechnology device that can manufacture a microscopic pipette and can prove this to us you're full of crap.

 

[Race Radio]

Interesting read - as mentioned earlier I have had doubts about the 1999 samples since the testing results were published however this article brings some questions to mind that I was not aware of previously:

a) It seems the analyst is working as a Freelance researcher (this would suggest he needs to do something of note to continue getting paid) - before someone jumps in and says I am calling his statement a lie, I am not, he may be correct and the samples could be as he described but the fact he is working freelance and apparently continues to get paid based presumably on the name he made with this case does raise a few questions.

Ashenden was one of the team that developed the EPO test and in on the UCI review board for the Biopassport. There are few in the world that would a better person to review the process and the results.

 

[poupou]

Interesting read - as mentioned earlier I have had doubts about the 1999 samples since the testing results were published however this article brings some questions to mind that I was not aware of previously:

a) It seems the analyst is working as a Freelance researcher (this would suggest he needs to do something of note to continue getting paid) - before someone jumps in and says I am calling his statement a lie, I am not, he may be correct and the samples could be as he described but the fact he is working freelance and apparently continues to get paid based presumably on the name he made with this case does raise a few questions.

b) Ashenden states that "it was realistic, they realized that the most likely samples where they would find EPO were samples collected before the EPO test was introduced. And that was the '99 Tour de France." He goes on to claim the basis for the relatively low number of positives (13 out of 87 tested) was likely a result of the change in the mentality of the peloton from the 1998 Tour caused most riders to avoid EPO. If that was the case and they were attempting to pick a tour with a high number of EPO results to insure their research into an EPO test was accurate, why not go straight to the 1998 Tour and test those samples instead?

c) The claim the lab did not know the individuals they were testing is reasonable, however, I do not see any reason they could not have obtained information in the manner that the reporter mentioned did - if all it took was a phone call.

Again, the article was interesting but did raise questions that I was not aware of previously - I would be more interested in reading the actual report from the lab that reviewed the blood samples. Since I have suspected a possibility that LA took EPO in 1999, this does not actually change my opinion (but it does not make it any stronger either).

Probably the one thing I consider that tends to favor EPO use from time to time is a statement by LA he had not used performing enhancing drugs during his tour wins (or something along those lines) - if memory serves he was asked if he ever used performing enhancers and the response evaded the question asked. He could be accurate with the statement and still have used during training prior to the 1999 TdF > of course he may also have used then and now, but other than these test results, I have not heard of any other positives.

His astonishing increase of performance, the common use of EPO, his relation with Dr. EPO Ferrari, his lies (like the corticoid backdated TUE) support largely the finding.

If I am correct the 1998 samples were tested too, 80% were positive.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Interesting read - as mentioned earlier I have had doubts about the 1999 samples since the testing results were published however this article brings some questions to mind that I was not aware of previously:

a) It seems the analyst is working as a Freelance researcher (this would suggest he needs to do something of note to continue getting paid) - before someone jumps in and says I am calling his statement a lie, I am not, he may be correct and the samples could be as he described but the fact he is working freelance and apparently continues to get paid based presumably on the name he made with this case does raise a few questions.

b) Ashenden states that "it was realistic, they realized that the most likely samples where they would find EPO were samples collected before the EPO test was introduced. And that was the '99 Tour de France." He goes on to claim the basis for the relatively low number of positives (13 out of 87 tested) was likely a result of the change in the mentality of the peloton from the 1998 Tour caused most riders to avoid EPO. If that was the case and they were attempting to pick a tour with a high number of EPO results to insure their research into an EPO test was accurate, why not go straight to the 1998 Tour and test those samples instead?

c) The claim the lab did not know the individuals they were testing is reasonable, however, I do not see any reason they could not have obtained information in the manner that the reporter mentioned did - if all it took was a phone call.

Again, the article was interesting but did raise questions that I was not aware of previously - I would be more interested in reading the actual report from the lab that reviewed the blood samples. Since I have suspected a possibility that LA took EPO in 1999, this does not actually change my opinion (but it does not make it any stronger either).

Probably the one thing I consider that tends to favor EPO use from time to time is a statement by LA he had not used performing enhancing drugs during his tour wins (or something along those lines) - if memory serves he was asked if he ever used performing enhancers and the response evaded the question asked. He could be accurate with the statement and still have used during training prior to the 1999 TdF > of course he may also have used then and now, but other than these test results, I have not heard of any other positives.

Much of what you have argued here has been covered in other threads on Armstrong.
If you wish to read up on the Armstrong case it is probably better to start there as all these claims have been debated by both sides.

A quick reply on your main points- the samples from the 1998 Tour were also tested, it was an obsevation from the Tour 99 samples that there was far less EPO taken during that Tour.

The journalist did not get LA's 6 digit number form "one phone-call", he had to get the number from the UCI with permission from Armstrong himself - he did this by claiming to do a story on Armstrongs use of a TUE from the 99 Tour - when in resipt of those files it had the 6 digit code that identified which samples were Armstrongs.

 

[RTMcFadden]

If you'd actually read the Ashenden interview (which you've revealed that you haven't by this post of yours) then you'd know that it's actually physically impossible to spike the '99 samples. Quite simply, it's not even possible to manufacture a pipette small enough to spike the sample with a proportionate amount of rEPO that would not completely dilute the small sample size. They store the samples in small sizes precisely for this reason - to eliminate the possbility of spiking.

So unless you've personally invented a nanotechnology device that can manufacture a microscopic pipette and can prove this to us you're full of crap.

Actually, based on the EPO Test Procedure (http://www.antidopingresearch.org/EPOtestJuly08.pdf), it's quite an easy thing to do.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Don’t know where you got that notion from, but you are incorrect. As a standard element of analytical method validation, one spikes a negative sample with a known concentration of the analyte and performs the test to determine the completeness of recovery with the sample matrix.

As pointed out by Dr. Maserati, the 99 samples were tested in order to improve the testing procedure, which would have included validation activities. So, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that spiked negative samples were mis-read / mis-interpreted an leaked as positive. One may even go so far as to claim nefarious intent.

Dont know where you got that notion from - if you read the Vrijman report there is no mention of spiking samples - and as that report was based on a clear attempt to discredit Pound and WADA that would have been highlighted in the report.

 

[Rupert]

Conflict

It seems to me that an issue which is continually repeated here is the conflict between the need to catch cheaters and the need to avoid wrongly punishing the innocent. As long as the standard is tilted toward not wrongly punishing the innocent over catching cheaters, some will get away with cheating. So when standards (blood level thresholds, chain of custody issues, legal/technical procedures, etc designed to protect the rights of the athlete) are tilted toward avoiding false positives and not punishing the innocent there can always be doubt about innocence. The burden of proof is to show to a very high standard that cheating occurred, with very little room for doubt. Many of the strong opinions here seem to me to actually reflect disagreement about how high the threshold for proving guilt should be set - the legal answer would be that unless guilt is proven according to the established rules then the athlete is innocent. Statements about "FACT" and "Guilt" and "tested positive" are just opinions unless they met established standards according to the published rules and using the correct procedures. Not that no cheating occurred, just that it hasn't been proven adequately according to the rules. This is surely not a great system but I don't see a better way, unless public lynchings after convictions in the "court of public opinion" are superior. Surely cycling is way ahead of most other big $ sports where the standards for conviction are ridiculously high or there is very little testing and the punishment for being caught is ridiculously small.

 

[Sprocket01]

Actually, you are correct. Aren't blinded studies wonderful.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/10...epo-urine-test-called-into-question-by-study/

Thanks. Very interesting. This confirms my fears.

 

[RTMcFadden]

It seems to me that an issue which is continually repeated here is the conflict between the need to catch cheaters and the need to avoid wrongly punishing the innocent. As long as the standard is tilted toward not wrongly punishing the innocent over catching cheaters, some will get away with cheating. So when standards (blood level thresholds, chain of custody issues, legal/technical procedures, etc designed to protect the rights of the athlete) are tilted toward avoiding false positives and not punishing the innocent there can always be doubt about innocence. The burden of proof is to show to a very high standard that cheating occurred, with very little room for doubt. Many of the strong opinions here seem to me to actually reflect disagreement about how high the threshold for proving guilt should be set - the legal answer would be that unless guilt is proven according to the established rules then the athlete is innocent. Statements about "FACT" and "Guilt" and "tested positive" are just opinions unless they met established standards according to the published rules and using the correct procedures. Not that no cheating occurred, just that it hasn't been proven adequately according to the rules. This is surely not a great system but I don't see a better way, unless public lynchings after convictions in the "court of public opinion" are superior. Surely cycling is way ahead of most other big $ sports where the standards for conviction are ridiculously high or there is very little testing and the punishment for being caught is ridiculously small.

This is known as Blackstone's Formulation, proposed in the mid-1700's.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Actually, based on the EPO Test Procedure (http://www.antidopingresearch.org/EPOtestJuly08.pdf), it's quite an easy thing to do.

Have you actually read any of the information you have posted?

You have posted two studies - neither of which back any claim that rEPO can grow in a sample or that there is a way to manipulate a sample.

Yet again this report shows the difficulties in obtaining a positive indication on a test for rEPO.

 

[Race Radio]

Actually, you are correct. Aren't blinded studies wonderful.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/10...epo-urine-test-called-into-question-by-study/

I do not see anything in this article that points to a false positive. Lots of false negatives but even the person who tested positive HAD BEEN TAKING EPO.

I think we can all agree that if the test resulted in false positives that with the thousands of tests being performed each year that you would have dozens of them. Where are they?

 

[luckyboy]

Don’t know where you got that notion from, but you are incorrect. As a standard element of analytical method validation, one spikes a negative sample with a known concentration of the analyte and performs the test to determine the completeness of recovery with the sample matrix.

As pointed out by Dr. Maserati, the 99 samples were tested in order to improve the testing procedure, which would have included validation activities. So, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that spiked negative samples were mis-read / mis-interpreted an leaked as positive. One may even go so far as to claim nefarious intent.

Ashenden. The size of the samples are too small to be sabotaged/tampered with.

 

[Anonymous]

You're saying it doesn't matter how the samples are stored or who was watching over them? I would have thought people concerned about the allegations about how the UCI handled testing procedures this year would be the first ones to highlight how insufficient this is.

Yes, that is what he is saying. See, SYNTHETIC EPO cannot materialize in urine, nor is there any delivery system know to man that can introduce it to a sample and make it look like a positive result. They just don't make anything capable of injecting that minute of an amount.

Now, you have once again gotten pages and pages of response from your trolling. You just cannot help yourself, can you?

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks, that's interesting. That's one person's view, but I'm sure other scientists would say the fact that the test has degraded would make the chance of confusing the synthetic cells with natural ones all the greater. That's why the test was not accepted.

Look it may well have shown EPO on the 1999 samples, but using these tests as proof doesn't sit well with the attacks on the UCI about fresh tests this year, I'm sure you'll agree.

Source?.............

 

[Anonymous]

It may have been a WADA approved lab - many labs are - but nobody can account for what they were doing there for that length of time or what conditions they were kept under. That's why they were not accepted.

No, its not. It was because retroactive testing was not in effect, and that the samples had no B sample because thats what they were.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It seems to me that an issue which is continually repeated here is the conflict between the need to catch cheaters and the need to avoid wrongly punishing the innocent. As long as the standard is tilted toward not wrongly punishing the innocent over catching cheaters, some will get away with cheating. So when standards (blood level thresholds, chain of custody issues, legal/technical procedures, etc designed to protect the rights of the athlete) are tilted toward avoiding false positives and not punishing the innocent there can always be doubt about innocence. The burden of proof is to show to a very high standard that cheating occurred, with very little room for doubt. Many of the strong opinions here seem to me to actually reflect disagreement about how high the threshold for proving guilt should be set - the legal answer would be that unless guilt is proven according to the established rules then the athlete is innocent. Statements about "FACT" and "Guilt" and "tested positive" are just opinions unless they met established standards according to the published rules and using the correct procedures. Not that no cheating occurred, just that it hasn't been proven adequately according to the rules. This is surely not a great system but I don't see a better way, unless public lynchings after convictions in the "court of public opinion" are superior. Surely cycling is way ahead of most other big $ sports where the standards for conviction are ridiculously high or there is very little testing and the punishment for being caught is ridiculously small.

Good post - that is exactly the difficulty with doping tests.
I am certainly in favour of an athlete being entitled to a fair system and therefore the procedures and testing standards have to remain high - as it is their livelihood and reputation at stake - before having a sanction imposed on them.

However just because an athlete does not test positive does not mean they have not cheated - in the Armstrong case the 99 samples were not tested to impose a sanction but the presence of EPO imo shows he was cheating.

 

[Sprocket01]

Actually, based on the EPO Test Procedure (http://www.antidopingresearch.org/EPOtestJuly08.pdf), it's quite an easy thing to do.

Interesting. If these problems were happening with new results this shows you how unreliable tests from years ago, not done by the proper procedures, could be.

If people want to make the claim that Armstrong was doping in 1999, they should highlight the strong circumstantical evidence, not be hypocrites by citing these experimental tests that did not even received counter analysis. That is only fair.

 

[Anonymous]

It's quite clever how RaceRadio baits. He slips in the word liar in order to get a response, then uses the fact that most people disagree with me to make it look like it's me causing the scene. He's very crafty. I won't be falling for this trolling tactic again.

I think we all agree that you are a liar because you are. Even you can see this reasonable proposition.

 

[Sprocket01]

No, its not. It was because retroactive testing was not in effect, and that the samples had no B sample because thats what they were.

That's the point. These days they are indeed kept under lock and key and routinely checked to ensure they are kept in the proper conditions. However since that policy was not in effect until recently, there is no way of telling what happened to the samples or what they were still doing there. We should be honest about this. We can't criticise the UCI and then hold up these 1999 tests. That's not right.