Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Mellow Velo]

If you wanted to smear a rider, had, by some miracle, access to all the collected samples, but didn't know which corresponded to the targetted rider, how would you attempt to introduce EPO into said rider's sample/s?

There's one for both the "conspiracy theorists" and "haters" to ponder.

 

[Anonymous]

Wouldn't it just make more sense for an ambitious dude, with a lot to prove, to do what everyone else is doing anyway - and actually have a shot at winning?

Think of the headlines? CANCER SURVIVOR WINS TOUR DE FRANCE!

That could give a lot of hope to people. And if they do come up with a test for EPO in the future, well all they have is a C sample, and they can't do a proper counter analysis on that.

Jeez, it almost becomes a moral obligation.

For the betterment of mankind. I'm sure that's how LA justifies it.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

One issue I had with the Ashenden article is the claim that LA is 5'5" maybe 5'6". A brief search of the internet is not all that revealing of credible sources but a 5'9" - 5'10" seems to be the only opinion I was able to find (outside of the Ashenden article) and, when considering the bike frame of 58cm which seems to come up the most, it appears that the height mentioned in the article (by the reporter I believe) is somewhat misleading.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Harry Houdini might.

If you read the article I posted it demonstrates the scale that would be involved in identifying the correct samples, in order and keeping the amount of rEPO identified within the samples within limits.

I'm sorry but I don't believe in miracles.

Can't find the reference, but I can assure you that Pharmacuetical companies routinely dilute to the nanogram and picogram levels in their clinical research areas.

 

[Race Radio]

One issue I had with the Ashenden article is the claim that LA is 5'5" maybe 5'6". A brief search of the internet is not all that revealing of credible sources but a 5'9" - 5'10" seems to be the only opinion I was able to find (outside of the Ashenden article) and, when considering the bike frame of 58cm which seems to come up the most, it appears that the height mentioned in the article (by the reporter I believe) is somewhat misleading.

Armstrong is not 5'10". I think 5'8" is about right

 

[luckyboy]

None of us are going to give in about what we believe, so why are we all just going round in circles about these WADA-lab scientists (with a vendetta against LA/being paid off by someone who does) diluting EPO and somehow getting information as to which of the samples are his before spiking his sample and waiting one/two years (it was 2001 right?) for the EPO test to come in and hoping that someone will retro-test the samples so that they can finally bring him down?

 

[Race Radio]

We all have natural EPO as I understand it. That's why for many years they couldn't get a reliable test for it.

The test is not for natural EPO, it is for rEPO. Hence the reason there are no false positives.

 

[BroDeal]

Armstrong is not 5'10". I think 5'8" is about right

Is that a hobbit in the center?

One issue I had with the Ashenden article is the claim that LA is 5'5" maybe 5'6". A brief search of the internet is not all that revealing of credible sources but a 5'9" - 5'10" seems to be the only opinion I was able to find (outside of the Ashenden article) and, when considering the bike frame of 58cm which seems to come up the most, it appears that the height mentioned in the article (by the reporter I believe) is somewhat misleading.

One thing to keep in mind is that Trek measures its frames differently than the traditional methods. It measures from the BB to the top of seat tube, which means Armstrong's frame size is more like 54 - 56 cm when measured from C-C.

 

[BikeCentric]

One issue I had with the Ashenden article is the claim that LA is 5'5" maybe 5'6". A brief search of the internet is not all that revealing of credible sources but a 5'9" - 5'10" seems to be the only opinion I was able to find (outside of the Ashenden article) and, when considering the bike frame of 58cm which seems to come up the most, it appears that the height mentioned in the article (by the reporter I believe) is somewhat misleading.

Agreed that the height issue was somewhat weird, but you're correct that was brought up by the questioner and not Ashendon. LA seems to be 5'9" from what I can gather.

 

[RTMcFadden]

But this theory would mean that the sample presented would show 100% rEPO - this was not the case with Armstrongs samples except the prologue, his concentration of rEPO went from 87.7% to 100%.

Don't know what % is. Usually, in analytical testing, it means it's compared to a standard with a known concentration. So, my question to you is, "Where do they get the standard?"

Also, I don't see the issue with your concern regarding the variability. There are numerous facts that can impact these results. To me, a recovery of +/- 6.5% is quite acceptable, given this methodology.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Still 1999 and a TUE by your post.

Yes 1999 - but it was for a completely different drug - corticoid's.
There were alot of rumours in the 99 Tour of the abuse of coticoids and Armstrong denied using it.
He got popped for small traces from his 1st control - he had filled out on that form that he was not taking any medications and confirned this in interviews throughout the Tour as it was speculated he was still receiving treatment for his cancer.

After the positive his team produced a TUE - yes, after!

Actually it was because of this incident that the journalist who uncovered his EPO samples was able to request the TUE from the UCI in 2005.

But again- this has been covered in depth on seperate threads - I would suggest to read those first and if you have any question then add it to that thread but I believe you will find most areas covered in great detail.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

One issue I had with the Ashenden article is the claim that LA is 5'5" maybe 5'6". A brief search of the internet is not all that revealing of credible sources but a 5'9" - 5'10" seems to be the only opinion I was able to find (outside of the Ashenden article) and, when considering the bike frame of 58cm which seems to come up the most, it appears that the height mentioned in the article (by the reporter I believe) is somewhat misleading.

I have also seen a report where is 5'11!!

I have stood beside him - he is 5'9.

 

[BroDeal]

I have also seen a report where is 5'11!!

I have stood beside him - he is 5'9.

Tom Cruise is 5'10. Without his special shoes he loses about ten inches.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

That reminds me of a story: my brother-in-law tried to convince me he knew all about cycling and told me it was obvious why the tall, thin Armstrong always beat the short, fat Ullrich......

Susan

 

[RTMcFadden]

The results weren't deliberately leaked. A reporter requested the results from the lab in the still anonymous format, then obtained Armstrongs UCI ID number from the UCI after obtaining Armstrong's permission, then matched the samples to Amrstrong that way.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about and you aren't up on the facts.

You are correct, I'm not completely up on the facts, as there is no profit in being so. Personally, I don't care if he doped or not. My intention is to correct some of the misconceptions regarding the process and methodology for testing. My responses are not based upon what people have said regarding this issue. My responses are based upon my knowledge of pharmaceutical sciences, specifcially: analytical chemistry, method development, validation, regulations, complinace, and indsutry standards.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Is that a hobbit in the center?



One thing to keep in mind is that Trek measures its frames differently than the traditional methods. It measures from the BB to the top of seat tube, which means Armstrong's frame size is more like 55 - 56 cm when measured from C-C.

I ride a 5.2 Trek 54cm and am 5'10" (when feeling good about myself). I have tried the 56cm but it seemed long for me - apparently LA is riding a 58 which, even with the difference by Trek, suggests he is not 5'5" or 5'6" to me.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Don't know what % is. Usually, in analytical testing, it means it's compared to a standard with a known concentration. So, my question to you is, "Where do they get the standard?"

Also, I don't see the issue with your concern regarding the variability. There are numerous facts that can impact these results. To me, a recovery of +/- 6.5% is quite acceptable, given this methodology.

The variability allows us to determine when LA took rEPO - as in the studies you already posted the short window to get an positive from a sample.

While you are correct that a +/- is acceptable - this would be almost impossible to do through spiking a single sample.

Read the link I posted as it clearly articulates it better than I ever could (and because I am getting ready to go for a ride).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If you wanted to smear a rider, had, by some miracle, access to all the collected samples, but didn't know which corresponded to the targetted rider, how would you attempt to introduce EPO into said rider's sample/s?

There's one for both the "conspiracy theorists" and "haters" to ponder.

"I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles"

 

[BroDeal]

I ride a 5.2 Trek 54cm and am 5'10" (when feeling good about myself). I have tried the 56cm but it seemed long for me - apparently LA is riding a 58 which, even with the difference by Trek, suggests he is not 5'5" or 5'6" to me.

If you are 5'10 and riding a 54cm Trek, measured the way Trek measures, then you are riding a small frame for your size. That would put you on a frame measured center-to-center of anywhere from 50 to 52 cm, which is pretty small for someone 5'10..

Although since Trek switched to non-traditional geometry, I don't know if the still measure their frames center to top of seat tube, and compact geometry is just messed up anyway.

 

[Anonymous]

You are correct, I'm not completely up on the facts, as there is no profit in being so. Personally, I don't care if he doped or not. My intention is to correct some of the misconceptions regarding the process and methodology for testing. My responses are not based upon what people have said regarding this issue. My responses are based upon my knowledge of pharmaceutical sciences, specifcially: analytical chemistry, method development, validation, regulations, complinace, and indsutry standards.

Really? Keep telling yourself that and I am sure you will be the only one who believes it.

 

[BikeCentric]

You are correct, I'm not completely up on the facts, as there is no profit in being so. Personally, I don't care if he doped or not. My intention is to correct some of the misconceptions regarding the process and methodology for testing. My responses are not based upon what people have said regarding this issue. My responses are based upon my knowledge of pharmaceutical sciences, specifcially: analytical chemistry, method development, validation, regulations, complinace, and indsutry standards.

Well you need to get in touch with Dr. Ashenden then. Clearly he and the UCI could use your help in refining their doping tests. Frankly I'm going with his take over yours.

 

[Race Radio]

You are correct, I'm not completely up on the facts, as there is no profit in being so. Personally, I don't care if he doped or not. My intention is to correct some of the misconceptions regarding the process and methodology for testing. My responses are not based upon what people have said regarding this issue. My responses are based upon my knowledge of pharmaceutical sciences, specifcially: analytical chemistry, method development, validation, regulations, complinace, and indsutry standards.

Mr. Ashenden did a far better job of addressing these questions in his interview. You should read it some time as it covers most of the questions you brought up
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
Make sure you also read the follow up questions and comments.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

If you are 5'10 and riding a 54cm Trek, measured the way Trek measures, then you are riding a small frame for your size. That would put you on a frame measured center-to-center of anywhere from 50 to 52 cm, which is pretty small for someone 5'10..

Although since Trek switched to non-traditional geometry, I don't know if the still measure their frames center to top of seat tube, and compact geometry is just messed up anyway.

I have both a 2006 (semi-traditional) and a 2010 (sloping top tube) Madone. The Geo is supposedly the same (using a virtual top tube). They feel the same in terms of handlebar to seat but have a completely different ride.

I have been on other manufacturer frames and do not believe my 54s equate to a 50/52. For what it is worth I did have a bike fit prior to purchasing the 2006 model.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Really? Keep telling yourself that and I am sure you will be the only one who believes it.

WOW, lucky for me I'm the only one who needs to believe it.

 

[luckyboy]

Why is everyone suddenly discussing Lance's height?