Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Digger]

I think you might have missed the point - unlikely that the samples were spiked - if they were, it was intentional - if intentional the odds really do not count.

Lol...and how would lab technicians have found out this information?
Secondly why would they only spike some samples?

 

[Digger]

No, 480 to 1 just makes me laugh.

Why?????????

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Lol...and how would lab technicians have found out this information?
Secondly why would they only spike some samples?

Please keep this coming, I think I only need one more post after this to be a senior member

DNA is fairly easy to obtain - a tooth brush, comb, known blood sample - once you have a known all you need is a lab that performs DNA analysis.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Lol...and how would lab technicians have found out this information?
Secondly why would they only spike some samples?

As mentioned earlier - it would have been done with intent - the results are what make you a believer and are therefore just what is in order if that is what they were going for.

Thanks for the senior member status

 

[Digger]

Please keep this coming, I think I only need one more post after this to be a senior member

DNA is fairly easy to obtain - a tooth brush, comb, known blood sample - once you have a known all you need is a lab that performs DNA analysis.

Lol....So lab techinicians got Lance's DNA...matched it with the urine samples...and then spiked his urine with EPO.
And people such as myself, Race Radio et al are called the conspiracy theorists.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I think you might have missed the point - unlikely that the samples were spiked - if they were, it was intentional - if intentional the odds really do not count.

It does if you don't know the codes for Armstrong's samples, which were issued by the UCI, not the lab.
The litagator mitagator?

No, 480 to 1 just makes me laugh.

So it, should.
As somebody else pointed out that figure only stands, if the "conspirator's" knew which days to spike.
When 6 days becomes 20, the odds shoot up, dramatically.

 

[scribe]

Thanks for the senior member status

You're welcome.

 

[Race Radio]

A article posted in a peer-reviewed journal and then discredited by a letter to the editor. Troubling indeed.

You may want to actually read the response. Beullens et al. read the test incorrectly. You may also want to check the author, Don Catlin. The Guy Armstrong said is the best in the world. So good he stopped his internal testing program before it started because he feared Catlin.

Here another negative review
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/108/5/1778-a

 

[Race Radio]

As mentioned earlier - if it was intentional, figuring out the samples would be part of the malice. DNA could be used to determine who belonged to the sample (although finding DNA in urine is much more difficult than blood it is possible). Again, I doubt this scenario without evidence of a conspiracy, but I think you cannot claim it is impossible.

You also cannot dismiss the Nazi Frogman, Space Alien possibility as those theories are as possible as yours.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Lol....So lab techinicians got Lance's DNA...matched it with the urine samples...and then spiked his urine with EPO.
And people such as myself, Race Radio et al are called the conspiracy theorists.

I do not subscribe to this conspiracy - I just mentioned that it was possible - I think you are intentionally blanking out that I have stated numerous times that I believe the evidence suggests it is likely that LA used EPO in 1999 - I will continue to have that belief unless it becomes apparent that the laboratory personal had a vendetta against LA. I do not believe that means it has been scientifically proven that LA has always used PEDs or is still using PEDs - he might be he might not. I do think it is narrow minded to call those who believe he was able to win without PEDs stupid or any other form of lack wit.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

You also cannot dismiss the Nazi Frogman, Space Alien possibility as those theories are as possible as yours.

An example of stating an opinion that claims it is possible to disagree with you is stupid.

I did not say it was likely, I said it was possible from a scientific standpoint to conspire to spike a sample if it was intentional. Again, without evidence of intent (and there is none as far as I know) the conspiracy is not likely.

 

[Digger]

I do not subscribe to this conspiracy - I just mentioned that it was possible - I think you are intentionally blanking out that I have stated numerous times that I believe the evidence suggests it is likely that LA used EPO in 1999 - I will continue to have that belief unless it becomes apparent that the laboratory personal had a vendetta against LA. I do not believe that means it has been scientifically proven that LA has always used PEDs or is still using PEDs - he might be he might not. I do think it is narrow minded to call those who believe he was able to win without PEDs stupid or any other form of lack wit.

Knowing the advantages of EPO and blood doping, the margins he won by, the fact that his competitors were doping with these products, etc etc, then I believe that anyone who still believes he won the Tour de France clean, to be either willfully ignorant, or simply....yes you guessed it.
So you are willing to accept that he doped in 1999. He dominated in an even greater way in latter years. Using your common sense, do you believe it plausible that his average speeds were even greater in later years, if he was clean?

 

[Mellow Velo]

What I find amazing is, because many of us believe in the laws of probability. In this case, odds of almost 500 to 1, we are labelled irrational haters.

The reason CentralCaliBike dismisses the odds altogether, is because what the fanboys are left with, were these figures not dismissed outright, are odds of 500 to 1 against their counter "spike" claim.

Irrational, or what?

Glad this is a forum, not the US supreme court.

 

[scribe]

......I will continue to have that belief unless it becomes apparent that the laboratory personal had a vendetta against LA.

I think it was some French reporter who identified the sample as having belonged to Lance.

 

[Digger]

What I find amazing is, because many of us believe in the laws of probability. In this case, odds of almost 500 to 1, we are labelled irrational haters.

The reason CentralCaliBike dismisses the odds altogether, is because what the fanboys are left with, were these figures not dismissed outright, are odds of 500 to 1 against their counter "spike" claim.

Irrational, or what?

Glad this is a forum, not the US supreme court.

Lance could pull out a gun and shoot people on TV, and his fans would say that it was an impersonator.
If Lance came out tomorrow morning and admitted his PED usage, they'd commend him and say he did if for cancer research. Basically, the guy will always have his groupies. No matter what - God like status.

 

[Digger]

I think it was some French reporter who identified the sample as having belonged to Lance.

Through the help of Lance I may add, in providing him the key ID numbers.

 

[scribe]

Through the help of Lance I may add, in providing him the key ID numbers.

Maybe they should just have French reporters do doping controls (?)

 

[scribe]

Lance could pull out a gun and shoot people on TV, and his fans would say that it was an impersonator.
If Lance came out tomorrow morning and admitted his PED usage, they'd commend him and say he did if for cancer research. Basically, the guy will always have his groupies. No matter what - God like status.

I saw John Wilkes Booth in the grassy knoll.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I think it was some French reporter who identified the sample as having belonged to Lance.

As Digger has pointed out.
The reporter had to get LA's permission, to request his code, from the UCI, in order to match the results.

The lab would have had to go through the same procedure.
So, the UCI would know, if anybody had attempted this same route.
Therefore, no lab technician, mad scientist or nazi frogman had the advantage of not being stuck, playing these huge odds.

 

[RTMcFadden]

You may want to actually read the response. Beullens et al. read the test incorrectly. You may also want to check the author, Don Catlin. The Guy Armstrong said is the best in the world. So good he stopped his internal testing program before it started because he feared Catlin.

Here another negative review
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/108/5/1778-a

I did and you missed the point. Which is "That's not how these systemsare suppose to operate." Research is supposed to be peer reviewed before it is published and rebuttals are suppose to come in the form of studies, that are themselves peer reviewed.

 

[python]

since i already called fadden an obfuscator and i provided the reasons he never refuted i will chip in once more adding some background:

i. fadden pushed the conspiracy theory first. in response and in addition to others i suggested if the french were after Armstrong’s destruction they’d choose a much easier route with a single well placed spike of his sample between 2001 and 2005 and in 2009. i reasoned there was no need to waste that much energy on a complicated and uncertain conspiracy with the 9999 samples.
ii. in response fadden came up with the “honest mistake” of some afld scientists as they were spiking “other” samples needed for their research. ‘you see no conspiracy and honest mistake…’
iii. i countered that with the remark that typically no lab spikes their own positive controls regardless of the project, research or a doping control . spiking is typically done by another (national) lab that would certify percent isoforms in the reference or standard sample. iow, the afld lab would never have to spike any samples for their research in 2005 and 2006. no lab would. incidentally, this was confirmed by the vrijman report that as we all know was slanted in the uci’s and armstrong’s favor. in response fadden referred to some unheard of potential novelty.
iiii. in response to i cycle in july questions fadden came up with the myriad of irrelevant chemical examples and statements none of which address the key issue - how would it be possible to spike 6 samples with the incredible regularity and an amazing precision down to several thousand molecules. .
iiiii. It appears fadden does not understand the testing procedure for epo. it’s obvious from several of his comments. the most telling is his speculation on positive controls.

An obfuscator gone chemical?

 

[Race Radio]

I did and you missed the point. Which is "That's not how these systemsare suppose to operate." Research is supposed to be peer reviewed before it is published and rebuttals are suppose to come in the form of studies, that are themselves peer reviewed.

So you are saying Don Catlin is wrong?

As you are unable, or unwilling, to address Catlin and others real criticism of Beullen's mistakes I will continue to believe Catlin and Ashenden.

 

[Digger]

Maybe they should just have French reporters do doping controls (?)

Well the Lance fans believe that's what happened anyway...They think L'Equipe did the testing themselves...

 

[bianchigirl]

I see Pat McPrat has stated that Astana didn't receive preferential treatment and that any lack of rigour in the application of the rules regarding the team were just human failings. But that many times? And for the same team? I mean, I like I nice cup of coffee as much as the next man or woman but not when I have a job to do that involves the application of a strict set of prescribed procedures.

 

[Digger]

I see Pat McPrat has stated that Astana didn't receive preferential treatment and that any lack of rigour in the application of the rules regarding the team were just human failings. But that many times? And for the same team? I mean, I like I nice cup of coffee as much as the next man or woman but not when I have a job to do that involves the application of a strict set of prescribed procedures.

The same Pat who told such a blatant lie when defending Lance saying that Betsy's testimony 'had been dismissed as being unreliable'. Completey false and dishonest.