Going out on a limb.

Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
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.
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.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
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.
How do we know McQuaid has not made a positive?

Look at Li Fuyu, did he even request the b sample to be tested?
 
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.
You'd need a positive sample yes, but the switch would be fairly easy. All these samples would go through some sort of prep.

It would be fairly easy to preload a HPLC needle and then have it not draw up the sample you prepare but instead inject what was already in it. Even easier to prepare the sample and then just inject a different one.
 
May 26, 2009
460
0
0
With deskdrawers in Aigle , full of " Doping Sanctions " from the 100th Le Tour & the recent Vuelta , 30th Sept will be a busy day for the news hacks !

" How to win friends " will no longer matter , since the Election will be over and ALL Delegates will be heading home ! Nothing like letting them read about " News " whilst they are in transit , perhaps unable to contact their media buddies ?
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Hein still calls a lot of the shots there as we see with JV's piece. Beijing is a UCI race and he is basically calling it his in the voicemail so I don't think there is any change from him saying he can make anyone go positive. He still has too much influence to disregard that notion. McQuaid is joint at the hip with him and the Kimmage case was done by the both of them probably with Hein as the biggest pusher of it.

Just on Cookson, has he said anything about Verbruggen's honourary president role and would it be revoked if he gets elected?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
hrotha said:
We don't know, but it's quite a leap to assume.
Is McQuaid not made in the image of Hein? Obviously 'made in China' so not as reliable:D

When it comes to the UCI i think it is safe to assume the worst of them.
 
False powotive

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 ?
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
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.
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.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
1
0
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 ?
It was mighty convenient that the winner of the Tour happened to test positive while the UCI was feuding with the ASO, and the person who tested positive also happened to be someone who had "disrespected" the UCI by trying to get his salary from the bank guarantee when his team imploded.

I have always wondered if McQuaid's call to Landis was not McQuaid trying to salve his conscience by advising Floyd to not fight the charge to limit the damage to himself.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
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.
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?
 
Not one for conspiracy theories myself... We know that the UCI tries to suppress unfavourable results, but there has never really been confirmation (?) of them turning a negative into a positive. So I do not see the UCI interfering unless riders are actually going technically positive (which I have a feeling is not so common anymore).
 
peterst6906 said:
The easiest way to fabricate an analytical result is through software.

...

LC-MS...
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.
 
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.
So you are saying that it is possible?
 
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?
Technically they just both have to fail to cause an adverse analytical finding.

However any large error between the samples, would give the athlete a reason to challenge the results at the hearing and then take it further to CAS.

What a large error is depends on the specific techniques of course.
 
Netserk said:
So you are saying that it is possible?
Honestly, I don't think it is without causing the instrument to fail. In terms of editing the final file, I think it's very very unlikely, but I would accept an accomplished programmer may be able to do it with a large amount of work (we're talking at least several months).

That's for mass spec data, something like UV might be easier to fiddle with but I still think you could only do it by modifying the final files.

These instruments are extremely complicated, even old single quads, so I think it's massively unlikely someone has edited the operating software "for training purposes". Happy to be proved wrong though.
 
Nov 29, 2009
267
2
9,030
McQuaid

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,273
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
If McQuack is reelected how long before we see a couple Garmin positives?
If McQ were going to pull such a stunt, the quickest way would probably be to open a couple biopassport cases. Even if the cases were later overturned, by that point, the team would have likely been sunk just by the bad publicity alone, and JV's credibility would never be the same.

But I'm not sure the sport could withstand such a battle. An actual positive test would be safer from the UCI's perspective.
 

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pat is an ant compared to that, hes finished. He will get a couple of votes from cycling banana countries and thats all.
 
BroDeal said:
It was mighty convenient that the winner of the Tour happened to test positive while the UCI was feuding with the ASO, and the person who tested positive also happened to be someone who had "disrespected" the UCI by trying to get his salary from the bank guarantee when his team imploded.

I have always wondered if McQuaid's call to Landis was not McQuaid trying to salve his conscience by advising Floyd to not fight the charge to limit the damage to himself.
I remember listening and watching as it all played out. Particularly it stuck in my brain how he answered the questions on Radio 4 the day after the announcement in a morning interview. "The test was wrong, I could never be positive for that" just seemed so definite, not the usual I've had 200 test, every one before has been clean, there must be a mistake somewhere in the machine. It is a whacky conspiracy theory, but, we've had enough that was stranger than fiction.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Kudos to Vaughters for making very explicit the incompetence and dictatorial tendencies of the McDrug-em team.

On the other hand, Vaughters describes three issues/quarrels he had with McDruggen and, curiously, none of these was anti-doping related.
Did Vaughters never had any doubts about the way UCI handled anti-doping?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY