Urine Trouble

[D-Queued]

it’s very sweat indeed to wake up to a bloody great news like this !!

but ppl should scale back their wildest projections about testing everything they could dream of.

i believe i once tried to address many of the questions popping here in an old post to benotti.

bottom line, it’s not too difficult to estimate how many samples armstrong gave in france (dozens). the problem is that very few if any (with few exceptions) are likely left. the issue is strict rules imposed on confidentiality and the required disposal of negative samples unless slated for research (usually within 3 months). otherwise, it would look like afld was conspiring to target store texas piss and mess with it. a big no-no !

that said, pierre bordry publicly stated in 2009 (when he invited the texas fraud to chose a lab for his 99 samples) there was enough 99 urine left to test for dna and epo. google meisters can easily find it. this means about 30-40 ml of some b samples. but i know this gets easily forgotten b/c ppl are not interested in boring technicalities and details but rather sexy dreams and speculation.

hopefully some samples may have been slated for research. i pray they have.

the fed should now goto lausanne lab

When did they start holding samples for retro testing possibilities?

Early 2000's?

Dave.

Edit to add: We also know that at the time of the experimental testing on the '99 samples that the '00 samples existed, but were still being held as evidence for the Gendarmes.

 

[python]

When did they start holding samples for retro testing possibilities?

Early 2000's?

Dave.

unless the olympics were involved, only a year or two ago with recent wada code revs. some stray samples may be still around but identifying them is a legal hurdle that novi be better pursuing/exploring in the us. which i think he had, quietly

 

[Dallas_]

but ppl should scale back their wildest projections about testing everything they could dream of.

b/c ppl are not interested in boring technicalities and details but rather sexy dreams and speculation.

Not agree python. Not patronizing you, but I definitely do look forward to your technical posts. Am sure others do too. The speculation is fun, but the nitty gritty you provide gets very interesting.

Now back to matters at hand. So realistically, maybe DNA match and a positive for say EPO is about the best result?

Got to admit I got carried away with detecting this and that as well.

cheers

 

[Barrus]

Perhaps this has already been asked and answered but I had not seen the answer, but why only the 99 samples? Would it not be better tohave samples from more years and run tests on all of them?

 

[Dallas_]

Perhaps this has already been asked and answered but I had not seen the answer, but why only the 99 samples? Would it not be better tohave samples from more years and run tests on all of them?

All day in Clinic. Have not seen an answer to your question.

details today - only 99 year info, no number of.

Only info was the word 'samples' and 1999

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by-us-authorities

cheers

 

[brianf7]

12 years on. hard to prosecute,eh?

Almost impossible and difficult to be sure they havnt been tampered with.
maybe like wine it will aromatise and sweeten.

How much would be left after 12 years with evaporation and no preservative.

!!pHEW!!! IT WILL STINK.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Damage his reputation w/ which demographic/target-group/audience?

<snip>

Time will tell.

Lance's position as the visible leader in the "war on cancer" is why he has transcended his sport, that much is easy to see. It is his stature and visibility that has helped deliver him to the US, and to a lesser extent the world, households. It is his "doing good" endeavors that perch him at the apex of a kind of wholesomeness blended with work ethic and determination that when matched with all his athletic feats, morphed him from a champion cyclist to a celebrity that has eclipsed almost any other US athlete.

It is all of this, and the underlying trust and integrity that his faithful have attributed to him, that will be his undoing. His willingness to have such a disparity between the "truth" and the "brand", going to extreme means to coordinate and manage what was essentially the best doping program in sports all the while campaigning on a platform of "never doped" that will leave his truest followers conflicted and betrayed.

I think the differences with Vick, and I realize it was just a handy example, are too great to make any meaningful comparison. Vick acted a thug, gave women STD's and despite being blessed with terrific athletic skills was never a real champion. He was not a champion for a cause and basically, as far as I can research, did the minimum to keep his job secure(which he now admits).

Lance is at risk across the demography, middle class "avg Joes", soccer Moms, upper class professional men, young kids who latch on to the image and the myth, and also the real hardcore followers: The people afflicted with cancer and their loved ones. Finding out it was a massive lie, that the guy doped to win and boldly proclaimed he was clean will cut deeply. These folks will react badly to his betrayal. It will hurt a lot. I think they will care a lot. Violation of trust like that is pretty serious emotional wreckage.

I don't see some Vick-like bounce back because his lie was not tied to his work or athletic job, and it was not tied to pandering false hope on the back of a very massive fraud. Vick lied about his "hobby", and that is not to downplay killing dogs, which I find morally reprehensible and disgusting. It is just very different than Lance and his false world.

I see Lance in a no-win situation. He is at risk of having some serious crimes leveled at him, ones that will require the exposure of the fullness of his scam to prove. It is narrow-minded to think these authorities won't get cooperation from the teammates, or from employees, or his ex-wife. It is a simpleton's view to think they won't roast him and his henchmen under the pressure of a very serious trial. They will and it will be very ugly and difficult for Americans to digest. He was their hero and he preyed on their emotions with devastating effectiveness thereby gaining their trust all while shielding himself with a cancer charity, making him "untouchable". You question him, you question the whole of them. How can so many people be wrong about their hero? He's Lance!

When it all breaks, there will be a massive lash back. I don't think his sponsors will be long by his side. Maybe Trek and Oakley, since they are the closest to him and cannot claim any level of ignorance as to how he came to win the TdF 7x. The reaction from fans will make him a very publicly ridiculed person. It will be abandonment, if it is not already happening. He will be toxic. Having Livestrong on a resume will carry a dark cloud and provoke endless questions.. "Did you know what Lance had been doing all those years? Ever see him take drugs?"

For as high as he had risen, his fall will be as stark in contrast. Too much trust being betrayed. Too much emotional toll for the true believers. Too many lies for too many years. The math will be short form and obvious: He cheated. It won't be some complex financial scheme (Mozila) that most folks can't grasp, or some stock exchange crime, like Madoff or Milken. He will be a clear and obvious bad guy, with not one ounce of "hero" to show once it is all done. There is no redemption story here.

Really, it is a tragic ending for a guy who had it all. Had dream-like athletic accomplishments. Lived in a dream-like world and life, business, charity, wife(s) and kids, fans, real followers who'd adored him and would do anything for their one inspiration. It is these people who needed it to be real to get them through cancer or inspire them to fight when it was bleak. But it was a lie. And that lie will hurt all these people, more deeply than any lie I can recall in recent history, due to the personal-ness that so many feel in connection with him and his story and this being intertwined with the hope, faith and trust placed in him.

 

[Benotti69]

+1 to Colm's post


But him getting caught will also have a huge affect on his ego and that all his hard work in cycling has been stripped bare to reveal a serious big time doping cheat and not just with the PEDs, that will hurt big time.

As for his sponsors leaving him, of course they will. Woods has lost lots of $$$millions as people do not want him associated with their brand.

Another thing that will go against Lance is his personality, he wont be the all smiling, pretend it is not true and doesn't hurt, he'll be angry as hell and he'll show it whether in court, twitter or public....it's a steep slope for the guy and he'll pick up lots of speed going down it. And also people will not be scared to stand up to the guy now or be intimidated by him if he is proven to be the sociopathic dope fiend we all know him to be.

The next few years will feel like he pi$$ed it all away because of not giving Landis a job. Who would have thought that a unworldly unsophisticated Mennonite would pull the rug out under Lance.

 

[GJB123]

I doubt any samples that old will be admissable in a US court. And if it was, you know that the Lance people will find their own scientists to cast doubt on the certainty of their conclusions. It seems like a long shot. This could signal the investigation is running out of steam. It's a point of view.

Funny thing is that. To me it seems the investigation is gathering pace, rather than running out of steam.

Regards
GJ

 

[unsheath]

Perhaps this has already been asked and answered but I had not seen the answer, but why only the 99 samples? Would it not be better tohave samples from more years and run tests on all of them?

I'll assume that they know these are tainted given Ashenden's retroactive tests. They don't need 7 consecutive positives from 1999 to 2005 for a smoking gun.

 

[andy1234]

Damage his reputation w/ which demographic/target-group/audience? Hardly making any pronouncement on LA's legal/criminal liability here, but it bears mentioning that not all of the public thinks like The Clinic and there will certainly be not insignificant segments of the population that really don't care about whatever cheating they may be compelled to realize Lance engaged in, if such an allegation were to be proven in US court. This is America, man, where Michael Vick - who served 21 months in federal prison + 2 months home confinement - is now QB for the Philadelphia Eagles. That's a pretty exalted position position for a sportsman, as there are...what, 30 teams in the NFL?

The people who already think LA are guilty are still going to think he's guilty. The question is whether or not they're going to care enough to treat Armstrong differently than they would a post-prison Michael Vick.

The Clinic is not representative of the way in which John Q. Public thinks about someone in Lance Armstrong's position. Call it unfortunate or not, but it's reality.

Cycling is such a small sport relative to the NFL (even smaller on the national level) and yet Armstrong is bigger than someone like Vick (w/ respect to current and future notoriety amongst the American public) - I just don't see there being a worse public reaction to him for having committed fraud or tax evasion or whatever (should any of that be proven) than the reaction to Vick for having led a dog-fighting ring.

[note: in comparing Armstrong to Vick, I fully realize that there is no empirical methodology used here to rate them. I just cited Vick as a somewhat similar case, to some degree.]

End of the day, even if proven in US court to have committed a crime, I don't see Armstrong suffering any worse than Vick (and he's certainly in a better position financially, and w/ respect to interconnected web of vested interests backing him who aren't prepared to abandon him wholesale and will maintain at least a qualified support). Time will tell.

+1
Most cycling fans in Europe "know" he doped already.
The general public think most pro cyclists dope already.
Armstrong is more of a celebrity than an athlete. He stopped being an athlete in 2005.
Outside of the Clinic, feeling on the subject is considerably more releaxed.

A ruling in a court of law will not change most peoples opinion of the guy. The extremists at both ends of the love\hate spectrum will maintain their viewpoint, evidence or otherwise, and the rest will raise an eyebrow and move on.

How well Armstrong recovers, will depend on the team around him.

 

[Cobber]

Now that the FDA has submitted some letters rogatory to the AFLD to obtain "Lance" urine, how about we focus in on what they will be doing with it.

Depending on how much whizz remains ( A/B or just B samples) this will decide what can be done. Science types who can speak to how much volume "might" remain, how much volume is necessary per test, would be much appreciated.

My thoughts:

1. CIR all samples - recall, they don't need an adverse T/E to jump to this test.

2. EPO test

3. CERA test (if this is not part of the EPO test)

4. Plasticizer test - cross-checking against "alleged" transfusion dates seems the likely way to go.

5. DNA test - gotta be sure it is "his" whizz...

More?

Plasticizers probably won't be informative, as they may not be passed through urine and the urine samples themselves were probably stored in plastic tubes.

Exciting times ahead!

Edit: Didn't know this.... but still not sure about plasticizers being passed in urine.

DEHP is used to make plastics flexible (such as PVC), and I am pretty sure is not present in the hard containers used to store small blood and urine samples.

 

[sniper]

The request for urine probably explains some of the statements Pat McQuaid made in his recent interview about Landis' credibility.

Clearly UCI knew that the transfer of evidence was being negotiated.

I thought this was a very nice observation.

the whole thread is pretty dope, by the way.

 

[Anonymous]

Damage his reputation w/ which demographic/target-group/audience? Hardly making any pronouncement on LA's legal/criminal liability here, but it bears mentioning that not all of the public thinks like The Clinic and there will certainly be not insignificant segments of the population that really don't care about whatever cheating they may be compelled to realize Lance engaged in, if such an allegation were to be proven in US court. This is America, man, where Michael Vick - who served 21 months in federal prison + 2 months home confinement - is now QB for the Philadelphia Eagles. That's a pretty exalted position position for a sportsman, as there are...what, 30 teams in the NFL?

The people who already think LA are guilty are still going to think he's guilty. The question is whether or not they're going to care enough to treat Armstrong differently than they would a post-prison Michael Vick.

The Clinic is not representative of the way in which John Q. Public thinks about someone in Lance Armstrong's position. Call it unfortunate or not, but it's reality.
<snip>

sorry, Joe, but i don't think you have a good grasp of John Q Public.

Colm's excellent post in response to the above comments explains why, but let me personalise this a bit.

my mother is very representative if not of your average Jane, but of a demographic LA cares about most of all -- big money donor to medical research charities.

(i should point out that any interest she has in the sport is because of my love of it, nothing more. she watches the TDF highlights but, again, it is more because of me than anything else... she has no vested interest, nor cares about the implications of doping... what matters to her is that HE LIED. and he used that lie to get money out of millions.)

she is beyond disgusted with LA. it really doesn't even matter what the outcome of the case is at this point, he has already fallen so low in her esteem. i'm sure she'll smile and be civil (she is such a good actress that way) if she has to be near him for some event, but neither she nor her friends would ever consider donating another cent.

the only thing that could possibly change her mind would be a total mea culpa from LA, a complete confession.

 

[Lanark]

Doing a plasticizer test would be a complete waste of time. It has only been a few years that intravenous methods of delivering fluids and other stuff are banned. Armstrong could easily argue he was using a saline drip, heck, he probably was.

The positive EPO-samples should be more than enough of course.

 

[Ferminal]

Doing a plasticizer test would be a complete waste of time. It has only been a few years that intravenous methods of delivering fluids and other stuff are banned. Armstrong could easily argue he was using a saline drip, heck, he probably was.

It doesn't really matter, the transfusion would still be a massive spike over whatever the baseline was.

But I still don't think a DEHP test would be key player in the investigation anyway, unless they could match it with dates from Floyd.

 

[thehog]

This is not an anti-doping control. The reason they’ve requested samples is to prove the path from purchase, to trafficking to storage to usage. They’ve asked for the samples form other cyclists as well.

 

[andy1234]

sorry, Joe, but i don't think you have a good grasp of John Q Public.

Colm's excellent post in response to the above comments explains why, but let me personalise this a bit.

my mother is very representative if not of your average Jane, but of a demographic LA cares about most of all -- big money donor to medical research charities.

(i should point out that any interest she has in the sport is because of my love of it, nothing more. she watches the TDF highlights but, again, it is more because of me than anything else... she has no vested interest, nor cares about the implications of doping... what matters to her is that HE LIED. and he used that lie to get money out of millions.)

she is beyond disgusted with LA. it really doesn't even matter what the outcome of the case is at this point, he has already fallen so low in her esteem i'm sure she'll smile and be civil (she is such a good actress that way) if she has to be near him for some event, but neither she nor her friends would ever consider donating another cent.

the only thing that could possibly change her mind would be a total mea culpa from LA, a complete confession.

Exactly, That is the point.
A lot of people are already aware of Armstrong's shady background.
The people with strong opinions either way wont be affected by the outcome of a court case.
The rest have been overlooking his past for years, and will continue to do so, if his team handle it effectively.

 

[Lanark]

It doesn't really matter, the transfusion would still be a massive spike over whatever the baseline was.

But I still don't think a DEHP test would be key player in the investigation anyway, unless they could match it with dates from Floyd.

What baseline? The DEHP would go up every time he had an intravenous application of whatever, there would be no way to prove that it was from a blood transfusion, and not from something else that was completely legal. (and this is all asuming he actually used blood doping in '99, although with no EPO-test there would be no reason to use such a cumbersome method).

 

[Ferminal]

What baseline? The DEHP would go up every time he had an intravenous application of whatever, there would be no way to prove that it was from a blood transfusion, and not from something else that was completely legal. (and this is all asuming he actually used blood doping in '99, although with no EPO-test there would be no reason to use such a cumbersome method).

If the DEHP metabolite concentration is in the "transfusion zone" then it came from a blood transfusion, not an IV or something else (let's discuss this further in the relevant thread if you want). Of course it's not definitive proof (as per the conclusions of the most recent studies) but combined with eyewitness accounts (or say, a biopassport) then it is very close to.

 

[thingswelike]

This is not an anti-doping control. The reason they’ve requested samples is to prove the path from purchase, to trafficking to storage to usage. They’ve asked for the samples form other cyclists as well.

This is more along the lines of what I was thinking. Whether LA doped or not isn't supposed to be the focus of the investigation. Without some other trafficking or fraud charges, none of this would be happening. At best I see this as supporting evidence, not the final gotcha.

 

[Benotti69]

This is more along the lines of what I was thinking. Whether LA doped or not isn't supposed to be the focus of the investigation. Without some other trafficking or fraud charges, none of this would be happening. At best I see this as supporting evidence, not the final gotcha.

which must be scaring the hell out of all these guys

What's the penalty for a conviction for trafficking?

Bet Fabiani is working hard with his congress contacts testing whether it would be possible to try and get laws changed for athletes in LA's case because it looks like he's 'donald ducked'.

 

[thehog]

This is more along the lines of what I was thinking. Whether LA doped or not isn't supposed to be the focus of the investigation. Without some other trafficking or fraud charges, none of this would be happening. At best I see this as supporting evidence, not the final gotcha.

Correct. Its important to establish that the drugs were used for illegal purposes and for committing fraud. The positive samples also back up the verbal testimonies.

 

[weekend warrior]

Correct. Its important to establish that the drugs were used for illegal purposes and for committing fraud. The positive samples also back up the verbal testimonies.

Does that mean that the UCI is complicit in fraud if they are sitting on positive samples?

 

[thehog]

Does that mean that the UCI is complicit in fraud if they are sitting on positive samples?

No. The UCI can do what every they want with positive and non-positive. The law is not concerned with what the UCI does. But they are concerned with trafficking and non-complicit use of prescription medicine.