Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Bag_O_Wallet]

We have increasingly seen the fallacy of A/B samples being the only method to sanction dopers. Basso never had a B sample, in fact he never tested positive. Di Lucca's first suspension was for talking on the phone with his doctor. Kyle Leogrande was suspended and neither A or B sample tested positive. Marion Jones has never tested positive.

That some atempt to use this technicality as proof is willful ignorance.

A positive A and B sample combo isn't the only means to link a cheat to doping, I agree with you fully, but I can't think of anyone being nailed on just a positive A sample.

I'd say that this is at minimum very compelling evidence that he doped. Does it meet the burden of proof to say he's guilty I don't know. That probably depends on the court.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

IF!!

The two reports cited do nothing to back up any claim of EPO 'growing' or 'appearing' in tests - and indeed show the difficulty of any attempt to do so.

Armstrong was offered the chance to clear any doubt by having those 99 samples split so that there could be a "C" sample tested - he refused.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

You didn't read that part where it is physically impossible to "spike" a sample with any technology know to man. I can see now why you are confused.

 

[RTMcFadden]

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.

I guess you didn’t look at the post. So, here it is.

Step 1 of 4: Sample Preparation
The sample preparation consists in concentrating a little more than a tablespoon of urine to reduce it to roughly one drop. The EPO present in the urine ends up in the drop. So do other proteins.

Now, in order to spike the sample, I would need 1 tablespoon of urine and an aqueous solution spiked with rEPO. Could be 5 ml, 10ml, or 1 gallon for all it matters. Next, I would reduce the sample to roughly 1 drop (1 drop approximately = 0.05 ml). Then I would proceed to step 2.

 

[luckyboy]

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.

How about his crit being 49 back then when now it is around 42 (I can't find the exact values on his site - seem to have disappeared )

 

[Anonymous]

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.

I think we can all agree that you don't know what you are talking about. See, it is physically impossible to "spike" a sample because the concentration is too small for any physical means to deliver that minute amount. I mean, we all agree you are a liar, even you. So I think it is simple for you to admit this to us. Its just not right that you won't.

 

[Race Radio]

A positive A and B sample combo isn't the only means to link a cheat to doping, I agree with you fully, but I can't think of anyone being nailed on just a positive A sample.

I'd say that this is at minimum very compelling evidence that he doped. Does it meet the burden of proof to say he's guilty I don't know. That probably depends on the court.

Basso was suspended because his blood was found in a fridge in Madrid. That blood bag was transfered from the GC, to the Spanish Judiciary, to the Italian Judiciary, to CONI. Armstrong's samples were stored correctly in a WADA accredited lab and tested by the same lab that helped invent the test for EPO and CERA.

I think we can all agree that Armstrong is allowed a higher level of evidence and chain of custody then Basso

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

You have made the term 'hypoctrite' your new buzzword.

So - you claim earlier that the storage of sample from this years Tour was a "smear" - and now you are saying this shows that the 99 samples were not stored correctly - so which side have you gone on now?

 

[BikeCentric]

I guess you didn’t look at the post. So, here it is.

Step 1 of 4: Sample Preparation
The sample preparation consists in concentrating a little more than a tablespoon of urine to reduce it to roughly one drop. The EPO present in the urine ends up in the drop. So do other proteins.

Now, in order to spike the sample, I would need 1 tablespoon of urine and an aqueous solution spiked with rEPO. Could be 5 ml, 10ml, or 1 gallon for all it matters. Next, I would reduce the sample to roughly 1 drop (1 drop approximately = 0.05 ml). Then I would proceed to step 2.

See if you can follow me here genious: the issue is that the samples have already been concentrated to the size of "roughly one drop." Thus it is impossible to spke them. Moron.

 

[Sprocket01]

IF!!

The two reports cited do nothing to back up any claim of EPO 'growing' or 'appearing' in tests - and indeed show the difficulty of any attempt to do so.

Armstrong was offered the chance to clear any doubt by having those 99 samples split so that there could be a "C" sample tested - he refused.

I'm not a scientist and doubtless there are many views about this, but these things have to go through proper procedures. We can't have Dr Maserrati and his mates on the internet deciding what constitutes a positive test and what does degrade and what does not.

 

[Anonymous]

I guess you didn’t look at the post. So, here it is.

Step 1 of 4: Sample Preparation
The sample preparation consists in concentrating a little more than a tablespoon of urine to reduce it to roughly one drop. The EPO present in the urine ends up in the drop. So do other proteins.

Now, in order to spike the sample, I would need 1 tablespoon of urine and an aqueous solution spiked with rEPO. Could be 5 ml, 10ml, or 1 gallon for all it matters. Next, I would reduce the sample to roughly 1 drop (1 drop approximately = 0.05 ml). Then I would proceed to step 2.

However, your EPO would be different because it was not metabolized by the body. Dang, you were so close. See, the body actually USES EPO meaning that there is a chemical reaction that affects all of the components involved and inherently changes them. Meaning that pure EPO is not present, but the markers of its usage that are present.

 

[Sprocket01]

You have made the term 'hypoctrite' your new buzzword.

So - you claim earlier that the storage of sample from this years Tour was a "smear" - and now you are saying this shows that the 99 samples were not stored correctly - so which side have you gone on now?

I made no comment about the specific allegations, only that the general smear, if you like, that Astana were given an easy ride is the opposite of the truth.

 

[Sprocket01]

A positive A and B sample combo isn't the only means to link a cheat to doping, I agree with you fully, but I can't think of anyone being nailed on just a positive A sample.

I'd say that this is at minimum very compelling evidence that he doped. Does it meet the burden of proof to say he's guilty I don't know. That probably depends on the court.

I fully agree. Those that use these unreliable tests as hard proof are not basing this on any type of fair judgment.

 

[BroDeal]

I guess you didn’t look at the post. So, here it is.

Step 1 of 4: Sample Preparation
The sample preparation consists in concentrating a little more than a tablespoon of urine to reduce it to roughly one drop. The EPO present in the urine ends up in the drop. So do other proteins.

Now, in order to spike the sample, I would need 1 tablespoon of urine and an aqueous solution spiked with rEPO. Could be 5 ml, 10ml, or 1 gallon for all it matters. Next, I would reduce the sample to roughly 1 drop (1 drop approximately = 0.05 ml). Then I would proceed to step 2.

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.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not a scientist and doubtless there are many views about this, but these things have to go through proper procedures. We can't have Dr Maserrati and his mates on the internet deciding what constitutes a positive test and what does degrade and what does not.

I think we can all agree that is the case here.

 

[luckyboy]

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.

To be fair, he did say 'We know the laboratory could not have known which samples belonged to Lance Armstrong.'

Those that use these unreliable tests as hard proof are not basing this on any type of fair judgment.

What unreliable tests?

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

I'm not a scientist and doubtless there are many views about this, but these things have to go through proper procedures. We can't have Dr Maserrati and his mates on the internet deciding what constitutes a positive test and what does degrade and what does not.

Same applies to you and yours.

 

[Sprocket01]

I think we can all agree that is the case here.

Neither are you or the Doctor.

 

[RTMcFadden]

See if you can follow me here genious: the issue is that the samples have already been concentrated to the size of "roughly one drop." Thus it is impossible to spke them. Moron.

Unless of course you put that drop into say, a 10cc volumentric flask, added a known concetration of rEPO and diluted to volume. Then proceeded per the method.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I guess you didn’t look at the post. So, here it is.

Step 1 of 4: Sample Preparation
The sample preparation consists in concentrating a little more than a tablespoon of urine to reduce it to roughly one drop. The EPO present in the urine ends up in the drop. So do other proteins.

Now, in order to spike the sample, I would need 1 tablespoon of urine and an aqueous solution spiked with rEPO. Could be 5 ml, 10ml, or 1 gallon for all it matters. Next, I would reduce the sample to roughly 1 drop (1 drop approximately = 0.05 ml). Then I would proceed to step 2.

For that to be even possible one would need to be 100% precise - by adding that amount of rEPO would literally drown or saturate the sample with rEPO making the test impossible to read.

This was not the case with Armstrongs rEPO samples.

 

[BroDeal]

To be fair, he did say 'We know the laboratory could not have known which samples belonged to Lance Armstrong.'

The problem is that he spent a great deal of effort explaining how "impossible" it would be to put a tiny amount of EPO into a sample, but his explanation is flat out wrong, and it does not make him look good. He seems to have forgotten about the simple concept of dilution.

 

[Race Radio]

I'm not a scientist and doubtless there are many views about this, but these things have to go through proper procedures. We can't have Dr Maserrati and his mates on the internet deciding what constitutes a positive test and what does degrade and what does not.

Can we have Dr. Ashenden and Dr Parisotto. Both worked on the EPO test, Both analysed the testing procedure of the 99 tests, are on the UCI biopassport committee. Both say Armstrong doped. In fact Parisotto's words were "To deny is to lie"

In this thread it would be "To deny is to Troll"

 

[RTMcFadden]

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.

 

[Digger]

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.

No, address my point first. Does EPO appear in these circumstances? If so, I'm going to store my p*** and drink it in a few years.
And what basis do you have for saying that the sample from 1999-2005 was not stored properly?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I made no comment about the specific allegations, only that the general smear, if you like, that Astana were given an easy ride is the opposite of the truth.

Yes - we know, you aren't very good at making comments on any specific allegation because when you do your objectivity and bias are exposed.