Opinion: Why I would vote for Brian Cookson
Vaughters' perspective on McQuaid's presidency
If McQuack is reelected how long before we see a couple Garmin positives?
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Opinion: Why I would vote for Brian Cookson
Vaughters' perspective on McQuaid's presidency
Hugh Januss said:If McQuack is reelected how long before we see a couple Garmin positives?
hrotha said:Depends. Unlike Hein, Pat has never claimed to be able to make anyone test positive. He might need, like, an actual positive or something.
hrotha said:Depends. Unlike Hein, Pat has never claimed to be able to make anyone test positive. He might need, like, an actual positive or something.
Wallace and Gromit said:Do we know how anyone can fabricate the results of the A and B sample to look like a genuine failure?
Doctoring the A sample = easy.
Doctoring the B sample to be consistent with this, when the sample is sealed and signed in the presence of the athlete and has to be opened in the presence of the athlete and their lawyer (if so requested) doesn't seem that easy.
I suspect any official / lab person needs a genuine positive sample to give a positive test; the sleight of hand presumably only works one way, i.e. creating negative results out of positive samples if desired / required.
We don't know, but it's quite a leap to assume.Benotti69 said:How do we know McQuaid has not made a positive?
Look at Li Fuyu, did he even request the b sample to be tested?
hrotha said:We don't know, but it's quite a leap to assume.
Wallace and Gromit said:Do we know how anyone can fabricate the results of the A and B sample to look like a genuine failure?
Doctoring the A sample = easy.
Doctoring the B sample to be consistent with this, when the sample is sealed and signed in the presence of the athlete and has to be opened in the presence of the athlete and their lawyer (if so requested) doesn't seem that easy.
I suspect any official / lab person needs a genuine positive sample to give a positive test; the sleight of hand presumably only works one way, i.e. creating negative results out of positive samples if desired / required.
Freddythefrog said:What was the final conclusion on Floyd's positive. I sort of got the idea that for sometime he felt that was he was on the gear big style, he was done for something he was not using. But that might been story version 4.3 or some such and we are now at "the facts - version 9.2".
Was Floyd stitched up ?
peterst6906 said:The easiest way to fabricate an analytical result is through software.
The sample handling and preparation can all be done as normal, but the instrument management software can be manipulated.
It's something I have done in the past (for training purposes) and in my work, it's something we have to be on the lookout for, but is extremely difficult to detect (except by running a sample yourself - and even then can be difficult).
It requires a fairly well developed conspiracy to implement, so I'm not saying the UCI have gone down this path, or that any lab staff would collude with them (most lab staff don't have the programming skills anyway), but it can be done.
A: +ve or -ve
B +ve or -ve
No problem if you really want.
This is not for all techniques (eg. gel electrophoresis, which has a physical result you can examine), but can be used for other common techniques (eg. GC, GC-MS, LC-MS, etc), where the result is produced inside the instrument and interpreted by software.
peterst6906 said:The easiest way to fabricate an analytical result is through software.
...
LC-MS...
So you are saying that it is possible?King Boonen said:Sorry, but you're going to have to be very specific here as I think you're making this up and I've picked LC-MS as an example.
You would have to re-write the software that controls the instrument, make sure it produced the result you wanted but still passed its tune and calibration and then get it to revert back to the original software with no-one being none the wiser. Along with the fact that any changes would be picked up in the software logs (particularly for Dionex stuff).
The raw files that come off the instrument could probably be manipulated but it'd take a huge amount of work and would be beyond pretty much anyone who didn't work for the instrument vendor. Heck, Thermo can hardly get their own software to work properly on the Exactive, every time they update Xcalibur we have problems so the idea of simply editing the software seems fanciful at best.
Wallace and Gromit said:Thanks. V helpful.
You may be able to help on another question I have re testing: Do they A and B samples have to give consistent results or do they both just have to give a failure?
Netserk said:So you are saying that it is possible?
Hugh Januss said:If McQuack is reelected how long before we see a couple Garmin positives?
orbeas said:If Fat Pat gets in the following better watch out ---
Team Sky
British Cycling Teams
Katusha and its Continental Team
Garmin
Radioshack
be interesting to see how long before all failed doping tests from the Tour - Vuelta come out...
Yes I know they said that the Tour was dope free but Pat needed a clean sheet, if he is re-elected he doesn't give sxxx!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now you must understand that you cannot expect from UCI that it continues to work for and invest in a team that is planning to break away from the UCI and to participate in a series not sanctioned by the UCI