# Armstrong Exonerated - No Dope



## susteve (Mar 27, 2006)

From Associated Press - May 31, 2006

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands -- Independent Dutch investigators cleared Lance Armstrong of doping in the 1999 Tour de France on Wednesday, and blamed anti-doping authorities for misconduct in dealing with the Austin, Texas, cyclist.

A 132-page report recommended convening a tribunal to discuss possible legal and ethical violations by the World Anti-Doping Agency and to consider "appropriate sanctions to remedy the violations."

The French sports daily L'Equipe reported in August that six of Armstrong's urine samples from 1999, when he won the first of his record seven straight Tour titles, came back positive for the endurance-boosting hormone EPO when they were retested in 2004.

Armstrong has repeatedly denied using banned substances.

The International Cycling Union appointed Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman last October to investigate the handling of urine tests from the 1999 Tour by the French national anti-doping laboratory, known by its French acronym LNDD.

Vrijman said Wednesday his report "exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France."

The report also said the UCI had not damaged Armstrong by releasing doping control forms to the French newspaper.

The report said WADA and the LNDD may have "behaved in ways that are completely inconsistent with the rules and regulations of international anti-doping control testing," and may also have been against the law.

Vrijman, who headed the Dutch anti-doping agency for 10 years and later defended athletes accused of doping, worked on the report with Adriaan van der Veen, a scientist with the Dutch Metrology Laboratory.

EPO, or erythropoietin, is a synthetic hormone that boosts the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood.

Testing for EPO only began in 2001.


----------



## Sintesi (Nov 13, 2001)

susteve said:


> From Associated Press - May 31, 2006
> 
> AMSTERDAM, Netherlands -- Independent Dutch investigators cleared Lance Armstrong of doping in the 1999 Tour de France on Wednesday, and blamed anti-doping authorities for misconduct in dealing with the Austin, Texas, cyclist.
> 
> ...


I notice this isn't getting much play in the cycling websites. I wonder why that is?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Often reading these reports is far more insightful than the press snippets. Unfortunately the report hasn't been released yet and the UCI is pissed.

http://www.uci.ch/modello.asp?1stlevelid=B&level1=2&level2=0&idnews=4195

I think the only real question is is there a scientific or logical basis for "completely exonerating" Armstrong. If exoneration comes back to a violation of procedures, well no ****, we knew that already. Sounds like the lawyer did have assistance from a scientist so maybe the report will be enlightening.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

susteve said:


> The report also said the UCI had not damaged Armstrong by releasing doping control forms to the French newspaper.


Really?? I'm sure Lance won't be happy about that. If not for some rogue UCI staffer leaking those forms to L'Equipe, L'Equipe never would have put two and two together. And didn't the L'Equipe reporter use false pretenses to obtain the forms from the UCI staffer?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

fornaca68 said:


> And didn't the L'Equipe reporter use false pretenses to obtain the forms from the UCI staffer?


No, I think he used false pretenses to get Armstrong's permission to view his UCI medical records. Maybe he should sue himself 

Seriously, I think this is one instance when Armstrong will not be so sue happy. Despite the statement from the lawyer, I suspect reading the details of the report will reveal that while the standards are not sufficient to "convict" Armstrong of EPO use in '99, which we really already know, exoneration will not be the word that comes to mind. But maybe?


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

After reading Bicycling magazine and learning more about Armstrongs association with Ferrarri and who this guy really is - and the recent Spanish crackdown - I firmly beleive these guys are doping something at some level and know all the tricks.




Dwayne Barry said:


> No, I think he used false pretenses to get Armstrong's permission to view his UCI medical records. Maybe he should sue himself
> 
> Seriously, I think this is one instance when Armstrong will not be so sue happy. Despite the statement from the lawyer, I suspect reading the details of the report will reveal that while the standards are not sufficient to "convict" Armstrong of EPO use in '99, which we really already know, exoneration will not be the word that comes to mind. But maybe?


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Apparently the UCI still has a vendetta against the Dick Pound (and vice versa). Armstrong was exonerated the moment there weren't any A samples left because UCI rules don't permit disciplinary actions without both.

Doesn't mean a thing about whether he doped or not, and if you think he didn't after 6 different B samples were positive you have your head firmly planted in the sand.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

terzo rene said:


> Doesn't mean a thing about whether he doped or not, and if you think he didn't after 6 different B samples were positive you have your head firmly planted in the sand.


Yeah the question for me is is there a reason those "positives" exist other than EPO use. Hopefully the report will provide those answers.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*it was covered in velonews*

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9932.0.html

they say next phase will be looking into the leak. and then examining the ethics of releasing it and publishing it. I doubt this will get much coverage in L'Equipe.If I was Lance I'd buy a frickin' all of page 2-3 in L'Equipe (he can afford it) on one page I'd print the article and onm the second a full page,life size shot of my a$$ and have an arrow with the text (in French)" L'Equipe Place Lips here" Do I think he may have been doping?possible. Can I say for sure? Nope.

This is gonna hurt the haters, especially those whose guys are involved in the latest.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

The outcome is hardly surprising considering that UCI vice-president Hein Verbruggen and Leon Vrijman know each other well and have worked together in the past.


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

*They just put the feature on NYtimes.com w/ huge picture*

They just put the feature on NYtimes.com w/ huge picture of Lance in yellow. I assume this will now vlidate the piece as headline news for everyone else....


Interesting though - as others have said no sh** they can't prove he doped (we knew that before) but after reading the report will a reasonable person coclude that he likely did use EPO or not.. that is the question....

Nik


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Old_school_nik said:


> They just put the feature on NYtimes.com w/ huge picture of Lance in yellow. I assume this will now vlidate the piece as headline news for everyone else....
> 
> 
> Interesting though - as others have said no sh** they can't prove he doped (we knew that before) but after reading the report will a reasonable person coclude that he likely did use EPO or not.. that is the question....
> ...


What's potentially interesting is Vrijman is using very strong language before anyone has seen the report. IF a reasonable person who reads the report were still to conclude that Armstrong almost certainly had evidence of exogenous EPO use in his body in '99 you'll probably never hear about in the main stream media. Are they really going to read the report? This could be a huge media coup for the Armstrong camp. But hey maybe the report will point out how the test was flawed or that the positives weren't really positives. Maybe we'll get some hematocrit values?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Old_school_nik said:


> Interesting though - as others have said no sh** they can't prove he doped (we knew that before) but after reading the report will a reasonable person coclude that he likely did use EPO or not.. that is the question....
> 
> Nik


As much as I think Dick Pound is a blowhard and does far more damage than good, when he's right, he's right.

"Whether the samples were positive or not, I don't know how a Dutch lawyer 
with no expertise came to a conclusion that one of the leading laboratories 
in the world messed up on the analysis. To say Armstrong is totally 
exonerated seems strange," Pound said.


----------



## moneyman (Jan 30, 2004)

*Interesting*

It's pretty ambiguous, isn't it? I mean, the lead investigator spends a almost year investigating, then issues a long and detailed report, and finishes up with a wishy-washy statement like this:

_Vrijman said Wednesday his report "*exonerates Lance Armstrong completely *with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France."_

Hmmmm. I wonder what it _really_ means.

There's no way that some guy who was on his death bed, underwent surgery for removal of body parts, went through chemo therapy, worked harder than anyone else, has extraordinary genetics, and has a mindset that doesn't allow for the possibility of losing the Tour de France, could conceivably win that race seven times. In addition, if he was caught doping, he loses the tens of millions of dollars in endorsements. And, more important to LA, the support of those who work for his foundation. Add in the fact that he is likely the most tested athlete in the world, and I can see where there's plenty of room for doubt about the results of this investigation or LA's denials.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

You could substitute Museeuw (well maybe less money but otherwise the same) for Armstrong in your message and have an equally plausible scenario for denying doping. Yet we know beyond a reasonable doubt that Museeuw doped even post 2 death-bed experiences.


----------



## tanhalt (Nov 9, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> As much as I think Dick Pound is a blowhard and does far more damage than good, when he's right, he's right.
> 
> "Whether the samples were positive or not, I don't know how a Dutch lawyer
> with no expertise came to a conclusion that one of the leading laboratories
> ...


Actually, that statement is even more proof of how much of a Dick the "esteemed" Mr. Pound really is. Read this and tell me if you still think he's right (from the Velonews account):

"Vrijman, who headed the Dutch anti-doping agency for 10 years and later defended athletes accused of doping, worked on the report with Adriaan van der Veen, a scientist with the Dutch Metrology Laboratory."

No expertise...my a$#. Talk about blowing all your credibility in one shot!


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

moneyman said:


> It's pretty ambiguous, isn't it? I mean, the lead investigator spends a almost year investigating, then issues a long and detailed report, and finishes up with a wishy-washy statement like this:
> QUOTE]
> 
> He hasn't issued the report so that no one knows what he found. The devil will be in the details. "Completely exonerated" better mean there is good reason to discredit those EPO positives or reason to believe they were not "positive" in the first place.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

tanhalt said:


> Actually, that statement is even more proof of how much of a Dick the "esteemed" Mr. Pound really is. Read this and tell me if you still think he's right (from the Velonews account):
> 
> "Vrijman, who headed the Dutch anti-doping agency for 10 years and later defended athletes accused of doping, worked on the report with Adriaan van der Veen, a scientist with the Dutch Metrology Laboratory."
> 
> No expertise...my a$#. Talk about blowing all your credibility in one shot!


Yeah perhaps not. Although I have to say Vrijman's credentials do not run afoul of Pounds statements but the fact that he had a scientist helping maybe there will be some light shed on the core issue.

Although I can't find anything published by Adriaan van der Veen on Pubmed and Metrology is the science of measurement (or precision and accuracy) according to Wikipedia. Seems odd, isn't this a biochemistry issue more than anything? Makes me more and more suspicious that "completely exonerated" will not prove to be the case when the facts come forward.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*my post got dropped*

but it reflected what tanhalt said. Pound calls a guy with 10 plus years in doping control inexperienced. There goes his credibility


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*nothings changed.*



atpjunkie said:


> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9932.0.html
> 
> they say next phase will be looking into the leak. and then examining the ethics of releasing it and publishing it. I doubt this will get much coverage in L'Equipe.If I was Lance I'd buy a frickin' all of page 2-3 in L'Equipe (he can afford it) on one page I'd print the article and onm the second a full page,life size shot of my a$$ and have an arrow with the text (in French)" L'Equipe Place Lips here" Do I think he may have been doping?possible. Can I say for sure? Nope.
> 
> This is gonna hurt the haters, especially those whose guys are involved in the latest.



the leak, and for the most part this "exoneration", is irrelevant to whether LA doped and you know it. at this point he's "exonerated" in the same way that OJ and Jacko are. As for the leak, if there were laws or regulations broken in the leaking of LA's results than they ought to look into it and I'm sure tehy will, but it has nothing to do with how indicators of EPO use got into his piss and hardly helps LA to bring it up, let alone "buy a frickin' all of page 2-3 in L'Equipe (he can afford it) on one page I'd print the article"...more likely something he'd like to see go away. You can kick up all the dust you want about dick pound, the french, ressiot or the lab but none of it does anything to explain why he tested +. maybe this report will, but Im enough of a cynic to doubt it.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

atpjunkie said:


> but it reflected what tanhalt said. Pound calls a guy with 10 plus years in doping control inexperienced. There goes his credibility


How does being a lawyer running a doping control agency give one the knowledge to evaulate the validity of a test? Like I said above if "completely exonerated" is based on not following protocol, well no ****, we didn't need a 130 page document to tell us that. If it means the test was flawed, or those positive samples didn't really exist or belong to Armstrong, well then we've got something (or don't have anything as the case may be).


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2006)

One would want a scientist specializing in Metrology as part of the investigative process, above even a biochem scientist. The Metrology expert knows how to investigate sources of error, above all else, and whether or not the end result is valid to any scientifically useful measure. He would have reviewed the sampling process, documentation process and determined if the sample was properly isolated (against x-contamination) and that the lab preserved the sample as a uniquely identifiable object of test throughout the entire process. Then he would check the precision and accuracy of all testing equipment using direct measurement and statistical means, all testing procedures, analysis and results documentation. And blah, blah, blah...

Basically he would be able to determine whether or not the results were valid, but he would not be able to determine the test's value in predicting EPO usage (this is where you would need a biochem specialist and medical experts).


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Thanks, I must admit I've never even heard of metrology before. The report should make for an interesting read. I don't think Hamilton's CAS report contained anything remotely related to metrology issues. Sounds like they would have needed pretty detailed access to the Labs records and facilities for this work, no? 

I just can't get passed the idea that as far as we know the positives were declared on anonymous samples and the results would have remained anonymous if not for the duplicity of the L'Equipe reporter and the loose security of the UCI medical official. Seems like to me, Armstrong like Hamilton is only left with the flawed test arguement which perhaps is valid and the report will show that?

Beyond that you're talking about a conspiracy involving several people across several organizations to cook up these positives. It just doesn't seem probable. Could this report have possibly discovered something like that?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*well we'll have to read the report*

as I'm sure scientists were used. there has to be both methodological and ethical faults discussed.I haven't read the report yet so I can't really comment. Guy was independently chosen, was in the dutch anti doping agency for 10 years, I gotta assume he chose his words carefully after review of the docs.
I'm sure they used a lawyer as a multitude of ethical and/or legal breeches have been made. I think Dick Pound is just pissed because he missed his true calling as a Porn Star.


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Thanks, I must admit I've never even heard of metrology before. The report should make for an interesting read. I don't think Hamilton's CAS report contained anything remotely related to metrology issues. Sounds like they would have needed pretty detailed access to the Labs records and facilities for this work, no?
> 
> I just can't get passed the idea that as far as we know the positives were declared on anonymous samples and the results would have remained anonymous if not for the duplicity of the L'Equipe reporter and the loose security of the UCI medical official. Seems like to me, Armstrong like Hamilton is only left with the flawed test arguement which perhaps is valid and the report will show that?
> 
> Beyond that you're talking about a conspiracy involving several people across several organizations to cook up these positives. It just doesn't seem probable. Could this report have possibly discovered something like that?


1. Yes. Supposedly LNDD resisted the investigation, the only way their equipment, procedures, documentation and analysis could be verified would be if the investigative team overcame that resistance and had full access.

2. It ought to show whether or not the test results are valid or not. (Unless someone was playing dirty pool and purposely contaminiated the samples, or the investigative team was denided full access).

3. I would agree that it's improbable. But lawyers seem to be the best conspiracy theorists around 

So this announcement seems to be some sort of grandstanding by the lawyer. We won't have better information till the report comes out (or is leaked).


----------



## johngfoster (Jan 14, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Although I can't find anything published by Adriaan van der Veen on Pubmed and Metrology is the science of measurement (or precision and accuracy) according to Wikipedia. Seems odd, isn't this a biochemistry issue more than anything? Makes me more and more suspicious that "completely exonerated" will not prove to be the case when the facts come forward.


Actually, it is a metrology issue. No test is 100% accurate all the time. For each test there is a sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity is how inclusive the test is; a sensitive test is less likely to have a false negative, but may have many false positives. Specificity is how specific a test is to what you are testing. It may have many false negatives, but few false positives.

If it were a biochemical issue, it would have more to do with the actual biochemical reactions in the body to produce natural epogen or metabolise it.

Again, interested to see what's in the report.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

"Actually, it is a metrology issue. No test is 100% accurate all the time. For each test there is a sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity is how inclusive the test is; a sensitive test is less likely to have a false negative, but may have many false positives. Specificity is how specific a test is to what you are testing. It may have many false negatives, but few false positives."

Sure, but this was not a commission to investigate the validity of the EPO test. WADA and UCI already except it as valid. (And I don't know where I've been but people often talk about sensitivity and specficity but I've never heard it refered to as Metrology?).

"If it were a biochemical issue, it would have more to do with the actual biochemical reactions in the body to produce natural epogen or metabolise it."

Well what happens to the EPO isoforms frozen in urine for several years? Is there any reason it would increase the rate of false positives? Why were only 6 of Armstrong's samples postive and not all of them? Why did they occur every 3 or 4 days as one would expect for a typical EPO usage and a test with a ~24 hour window of detection?


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

From reading lance's statement you would never know the report has yet to be released. Very good PR.

I have no doubt there are methodological errors with the lab and test. For one nobody has ever shown that the isotopes are stable over a significant time in cold storage, so based on that alone the scientific validity, strictly speaking, is zero. But the clincher to me is the timing of the positive results. Natural proteins, as Beke was able to prove, would increase after hard stages/efforts, not before as with LA's positives. Other lab or contamination errors would occur in a more or less random manner, or if systemic in nature in a consistent manner, and that is also not consistent with the pattern of positives in Lance's case. Is is scientifically or legally valid proof? Hell no. But you can stretch things only so far and be forced to postulate such a long strained list of happenstance to explain the pattern of results that the simplest explanation, that he doped, swiftly becomes the most plausible.

Since rEPO is rountinely used during chemo he had direct experience that there was nothing to be afraid of in using it for sporting purposes (as long as kept within reason). It is an extremely safe drug, and even if it weren't a guy who repeatedly likens losing to death is not too likely to be worried about side effects anyway.


----------



## moneyman (Jan 30, 2004)

*I must have missed Museeuw's cancer treatments*



Dwayne Barry said:


> You could substitute Museeuw (well maybe less money but otherwise the same) for Armstrong in your message and have an equally plausible scenario for denying doping. Yet we know beyond a reasonable doubt that Museeuw doped even post 2 death-bed experiences.


I didn't know he underwent chemo for his broken leg. I am also unaware of his commitment to his foundation or the millions of cancer survivors that look to him for inspiration, or his "obligation of the cured" commitment. 

Combine that with the obvious lack of credentialing by the investigator and you're probably right on the money. I mean, the guy's just a lawyer. What does he know about sorting through conflicting evidence and reaching a fair conclusion based on the law? Its not like he's a judge or anything. Even though most judges are lawyers and make their decisions based on their legal training. And that "completely exonerated" comment is soooo misleading.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*while I agree with most of your sentiment M.M.*

Museeuw's broken leg went septic and damn near killed him. Cancer no, but still serious business. His motorcycle accident was equally life threatening. Now he hasn't been a big fundraiser like Armstrong but I don't usually draw comparisions between folks that were given a 'you're most likely gonna die' prognosis. Whether it cancer, heart disease, whatever, getting that prognosis hits equally as hard


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Museeuw came back from sepsis as a result of gangrene infection in his shattered knee and a traumatic head injury which left him in a coma for several days, IIRC, when he got run over on his Harley. Why would a near death experience make someone less likely to use drugs anyway?

Furthermore, why would Armstrong be scared to take EPO when he received it to ameliorate the anemic affects of chemotherapy (IIRC)?

In '99 how big was the cancer survivor story? Didn't that come after his TdF victory?

By your reckoning no top-level cyclist has ever doped because they risk too much financially if caught? Need I point out those that disprove this logic? Certainly in '99 Lance was not the financial power he would become later. 

Finally, trying to say no one would dope because of this, that and the other thing makes little sense. Tyler never doped because he's such a nice guy and loved his dog, and well golly gee he really, really says he didn't.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

terzo rene said:


> "From reading lance's statement you would never know the report has yet to be released. Very good PR."
> 
> Yeah it's as if he already knows what it says or knows that after such a bold statement from the lawyer it won't matter what it says. The LANCE tifosi will gobble this up hook, line and sinker regardless of what the report says.
> 
> ...


----------



## moneyman (Jan 30, 2004)

_Museeuw came back from sepsis as a result of gangrene infection in his shattered knee and a traumatic head injury which left him in a coma for several days, IIRC, when he got run over on his Harley. Why would a near death experience make someone less likely to use drugs anyway?_

It's not the near-death experience, its the drugs used in the treatment. LAs well-documented reactions to the chemo - including the EPO - give testament to the fact that chemo works because it destroys everything in its path, leaving behind a trail of destruction, i.e., vomiting, loss of energy, loss of hair, in such degree as to make one question whether the treatment is worse than the disease.

_Furthermore, why would Armstrong be scared to take EPO when he received it to ameliorate the anemic affects of chemotherapy (IIRC)?_

The association of EPO with the chemo is enough to dissuade its use. Its not an experience one would willingly re-create - any of it.

_In '99 how big was the cancer survivor story? Didn't that come after his TdF victory?_

LAs foundation was already up and running in 1996, shortly after his diagnosis. His cancer was well-known to the cycling community and to his friends in Austin.

Not big on a national scale, because cycling was such a puny sport here. But you and I both knew about it. For me, it really separated LA from the rest of the pack. I had given up being concerned about road racing when Lemond quit. My going concern was MTBing at the time, and when I began following LAs story, it became the reason for me to be interested again.

_By your reckoning no top-level cyclist has ever doped because they risk too much financially if caught? Need I point out those that disprove this logic? Certainly in '99 Lance was not the financial power he would become later. _

No - I'm saying that combined with the other reasons I laid out, the threat of losing his endorsements added to the disincentive. Also, one of his sponsors, Oakley, carried LA on their health insurance plan while he was in treatment. Seems that when Cofidis said adios, he was left without health insurance. The Oakley CEO went to his insurer and issued the ultimatum that LA be included in the plan, that the insurer accept his pre-existing condition or Oakley would find an insurer who would do that. Why would LA, known to be fiercely loyal to those loyal to him, risk hurting his sponsors, people who stuck their neck out for him when they didn't need to? I know all about the falling-out he has had with friends such Kevin Livingston and his divorce from Kristen. But I don't know what happened to precipitate the dissolution of those relationships.

_Finally, trying to say no one would dope because of this, that and the other thing makes little sense. Tyler never doped because he's such a nice guy and loved his dog, and well golly gee he really, really says he didn't._

Not saying "no one". Saying LA. I've got some pretty close knowledge about this whole thing, and believe me, LA doping makes little sense. He describe(d)s himself as a cancer survivor first, a cyclist second. Adding up all the consequences of doping makes the risk so great, and LA is great at assessing risk, that the possibility of his doping is remote. 

As to Tyler, I won't pretend to know what I don't know. His circumstances for the purposes of this discussion are irrelevant.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

MM, those are all nice reasons for him not to dope....but that does nothing to explain away the positive tests.

Lastly, until this report is made available, it seems all we have is our preconceived notions about LA, L'Equipe, WADA, UCI, etc. Let's wait for the lynch mob on LA or the LA 'haters' until the report is published.

Silas


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

You need to play the game:

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=639815#poststop




moneyman said:


> _
> 
> 
> Finally, trying to say no one would dope because of this, that and the other thing makes little sense. Tyler never doped because he's such a nice guy and loved his dog, and well golly gee he really, really says he didn't.
> ...


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*spill it dude.*



moneyman said:


> _
> Not saying "no one". Saying LA. I've got some pretty close knowledge about this whole thing, and believe me, LA doping makes little sense. He describe(d)s himself as a cancer survivor first, a cyclist second. Adding up all the consequences of doping makes the risk so great, and LA is great at assessing risk, that the possibility of his doping is remote. ._


_

if you've got some inside information you should lay it on the table. there's a couple other members of his inner circle who also had "pretty close knowledge" (stephen swart, emma oreilly, mike anderson) that wouldn't seem to share your viewpoint. soooo...if you can clear his name somehow let's see what you've got._


----------



## txzen (Apr 6, 2005)

I've skimmed over the report - mostly the last half of it that deals with the testing of the '98 and '99 samples. In brief:


Related to the integrity of the samples:

- the ’98, ‘99 samples that were the subject of the French news piece had been tested before and were "retested" again.

- There is no documentation as to how the samples were stored, at all.

- There is no chain of custody for the samples – also, apparently when the ‘B’ sample is cracked, the athlete or his representative is required to be present. But these tests were done without knowledge of the athletes, as we know.


Related to the integrity of the testing:

- Scientifically, they deviated from the normal, accepted test. The used what was described as an "accelerated measurement procedure" which differs STONGLY from the accepted test, in that positive and negative samples were NOT run at the same time, and an isoelectric focusing quality control to test the integrity of the urine sample - required for the official test - was not done. It appears to me that the "positives" were based only on a new mathematical formula, not by comparison with a known positive. 


Related to the issue of confidentiality and WADA:

- There are quite a lot of pages devoted to WADA - officially and publicly they distanced themselves from the test run by the French lab, but this report finds that they appear to not only be actively involved in this latest test, but did so with the intent to use the results to attempt to identify and discipline riders. Perhaps that explains why Dick Pound has his panties in a wad about it. Sanctions against UCI/WADA and the lab are recommended.



Finally, I find it funny and ironic that UCI/WADA/Dick Pound are publicly critical that the report was leaked by the investigator to the press before they had a chance to review it. Apparently, only athletes are allowed to be tried in the court of public opinion.


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

blackhat said:


> if you've got some inside information you should lay it on the table. there's a couple other members of his inner circle who also had "pretty close knowledge" (stephen swart, emma oreilly, mike anderson) that wouldn't seem to share your viewpoint. soooo...if you can clear his name somehow let's see what you've got.


He's talking about cancer survivorship or perhaps not surviving, he's not claiming to be in his inner circle.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

blackhat said:


> if you've got some inside information you should lay it on the table. there's a couple other members of his inner circle who also had "pretty close knowledge" (stephen swart, emma oreilly, mike anderson) that wouldn't seem to share your viewpoint. soooo...if you can clear his name somehow let's see what you've got.



What we have here folks is one big circle jerk. The haters will always believe LA doped regardless so who really cares. No sanctions, No bullet proof positives, he's retired with 7 count 'em 7 TdF's in a row........so get over it....

/And those mentioned didn't have an axe to grind either.......:17:


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

txzen said:


> - *There is no documentation as to how the samples were stored, at all.*
> 
> - *There is no chain of custody for the samples* – also, apparently when the ‘B’ sample is cracked, the athlete or his representative is required to be present. But these tests were done without knowledge of the athletes, as we know.
> 
> ...



There you have it, ZERO validity. Of course the circle jerk of haters will dismiss this out of hand.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*thx txzen*

it confirms what I've been suspicious of.
that there were flaws in methodology, oversight and procedure.


----------



## niterider (Feb 22, 2005)

*Can we move on now?*

After reading the report I can't imagine any reasonable person using these results as proof of LA doping again:

1) Sample chain of custody can't be determined
2) Samples were opened for other testing purposes
3) Sample storage can't be determined
4) Verified sample testing methodology was not followed

Set aside the other findings in this report that point to a witch hunt - How can you say that LA tested positive - These aren't technicalities - these are major flaws that make any result invalid

Those of you that believe LA doped due so in the face of no verifiable evidence


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2006)

txzen said:


> I've skimmed over the report - mostly the last half of it that deals with the testing of the '98 and '99 samples. In brief:


Whoa, I missed something, where'd you get the report???


----------



## niterider (Feb 22, 2005)

*Report location*

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9933.0.html


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

niterider said:


> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9933.0.html


After skimming the report, looks like WADA was on a witch hunt. Their credibility is now zilch. Contradiction after contradiction..... 'ol Dick's gonna have eat some crow....


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2006)

Thanks niterider!


----------



## pagstx (Oct 11, 2005)

Yeah WADA and Dick really look bad in this deal. His arrogance has always been difficult to stomach but now it looks like he feels that his organization is above the law. There is so much in the report that is damning. From twisting the statute of limitations to leaking the info, etc etc. Ugh, the guy makes it difficult to figure out which side he is on.

Pags


----------



## Damon64 (Sep 24, 2005)

I ate a poppyseed muffin once...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

niterider said:


> How can you say that LA tested positive - These aren't technicalities - these are major flaws that make any result invalid
> 
> Those of you that believe LA doped due so in the face of no verifiable evidence


This was always going to be the case b/c it was only a B sample, Armstrong wasn't there when it was opened, and finally one of the two purposes of the test was to verify that the EPO test could detect rhEPO use in old frozen urine.

It's a huge catch 22. Armstrong's "positives" were always going to be invalid as even knowing about them made it so. One of the major points is that the EPO testing was carried out for research purposes and therefore no possible identifiers should have been included. But it sounds like WADA strong-armed the LNDD into including the codes (and reporting the results in such a way that you could identify when and where the samples originated).

I'm about half-way thru it and still am left with the question of what explains Armstrong's "positives". I appreciate no one should have ever known about the results but we do. So what explains them. 

I don't think you can claim the LNDD "spiked" the samples (is this even possible?) b/c as far as I can tell they (nor WADA) had the information to link the codes with the riders. So are Armstrong's positives simply random noise from false positives given a flawed test, etc.?


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2006)

Are the test results for LA's samples valid?

1. No chain of custody documentation for the samples. Hence it is impossible to know that the samples coded for LA are in fact his.

2. No documentation on the storage of samples. Where the samples maintained -20C since '99? No way to tell.

3. Some of the samples where opened (hence defrosted) for other tests. This is no documentation indicating which samples were opened. So some of the samples *were not* held at -20C for the duration. We don't know which ones because there is no documentation.

4. Calibration and sample integrity tests skipped. No way to tell if the test was operating correctly, no way at *all*. The integrity of the data is rendended null and void. This is a *huge* screw up for a testing lab.

5. The testing was done using an 'accelerated' test schedule. This further reduces the intergrity of the data produced (not that it matters at this point)

6. There are other abnormalities in the testing procedure that I don't care to list, but it's already a useless test.

Basically LNDD was running a science experiment for WADA, and even that experiment is not clearly defined. LNDD should be stricken from WADA/UCI's lists of certified labs and be required to apply for recertification at the very least (I'd prefer a 2 year ban, then recertification).

Bottom line, the tests results indicating that LA tested positive for rEPO use in 1999 are null and void; they have *no* validity.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*muddy waters.*



Dwayne Barry said:


> I'm about half-way thru it and still am left with the question of what explains Armstrong's "positives". I appreciate no one should have ever known about the results but we do. So what explains them.


I wasted waaayy too much of last evening reading it and from my very layman's perspective I don't think they really answered that question. they spent alot of time knocking down the validity of the results as it pertains to sanctions, but we already knew that, it was a straw man argument. No a sample etc.... I wanted to know what exactly led to such a disproportionate # of the +'s being LA's. they wouldnt or couldnt answer that. it seems they didn't have universal access and got stiffarmed more than once and just accepted it. lots of loose ends.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*yeah what I think*

the lab should get banned, Dick Pound should get a 2 year suspension and WADA should be punished.
from what I read to answer the questionm
since the chain of custody was broken there is no way to verify samples were actually his, had been tampered with, had been compromised due to storage, temp etc... and finally that the accelerated test could through out a far higher number of false positives.
since the chain of custody is so sketchy and the leak focused solely on LA it smells of witch hunt and when you combine witch hunt with bad chain of custody you have to toss in tampering. 

think police frame up where the officer conveniently drops a bag of dope and a gun in a suspects home.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2006)

They won't ever be able to determine why the alleged LA samples had more positives because *all the results are null and void* due to many failures at the logistical and scientific level. See my post above.

At this point we're just beating a dead horse.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

blackhat said:


> I wasted waaayy too much of last evening reading it and from my very layman's perspective I don't think they really answered that question. they spent alot of time knocking down the validity of the results as it pertains to sanctions, but we already knew that, it was a straw man argument. No a sample etc.... I wanted to know what exactly led to such a* disproportionate # of the +'s being LA's. *they wouldnt or couldnt answer that. it seems they didn't have universal access and got stiffarmed more than once and just accepted it. lots of loose ends.


..........

gee ... that would be due to the way the lab *totally messed up the procedures* in general, and specifically the calibration errors ........ 

read my lips: *THE RESULTS ARE MEANINGLESS !!! ... the "disproportionality" is meaningless .... when the results in their entirety are SCIENTIFICALLY INVALID there is no meaning to them ... 

there are NO Positives, there are No Negatives ....

there is just a botched experiment .... there are no valid scientific conclusions that can be drawn from it .... 

*other types of conclusions can be drawn from this whole matter: 

*Rather, that in their eagnerness to create news/scandal they {L'Equipe} left their blinders on, threw caution to the wind and ran the story last August ..........*


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*I read your post*



AJL said:


> They won't ever be able to determine why the alleged LA samples had more positives because *all the results are null and void* due to many failures at the logistical and scientific procedures. See my post above.
> 
> At this point we're just beating a dead horse.



the results are void as it pertains to sanctions. we already knew that, this was a research oriented test. none of the issues you raised explain the +'s, they just make them useless for sanction. I think the lawyers would call it fruit of the poisonous tree.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Really no news at all in the report. But another historic victory for LA. All the US media were reporting he was totally cleared on all charges, so anything that happens in the future regarding those B samples is a moot point.

They could always test the samples again and eliminate a number of concerns in the report, though obviously not all. They likely have enough DNA samples from LA to eliminate any question of whether they are his samples too. Of course it still wouldn't allow any sanctions and therefore would be a waste of money other than for satisfying curiousity or just gloating.

I would actually like to see them do it because it would be funny to see all the LA press releases and threats flying without him daring to file a lawsuit to back it up.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

blackhat said:


> *the results are void as it pertains to sanctions.* we already knew that, this was a research oriented test. none of the issues you raised explain the +'s, they just make them useless for sanction. I think the lawyers would call it fruit of the poisonous tree.


.............

... the results are void as they pertain to *ANYTHING* ...

the lawyers would call it "case dismissed" ........


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

atpjunkie said:


> think police frame up where the officer conveniently drops a bag of dope and a gun in a suspects home.


Well that's not quite what I would conclude from reading it. There was clearly a (very good) witch hunt conducted by the L'Equipe reporter. He apparently has someone inside the LNDD feeding him the raw results as he knew information not made available in the official report and he was able to link Armstrong to those results by duping both Armstrong and the UCI. I think it's also correct to say LNDD (perhaps somewhat incompetently) carried out it's research in good faith and was not after Armstrong. And in fact could not have "framed" him b/c as the report says several times only UCI was in possession of the names to link to the coded samples.

Things get twisted thereafter because it appears the LNDD caved into pressure from WADA to report identifiers. I don't think this was to get Armstrong per se, but a move by WADA to force the UCI to go after people. Basically WADA would be able to say you've got information about people who doped in the past, you better target them now. You have to remember at that point WADA didn't know Rossier was going to be able to get Armstrong's medical files from the UCI.

It's a whole chain of events that link the several parties that brought this information to light and the time course of those events would seem to me to preclude a frame up.

You're still essentially left with basically saying the testing was so f'upped that you can't say those positives were Armstrong's or weren't false positives. OK. But boy their distribution is suspicious and 6 of 12 are Armstrong's. That's some bad luck, surely he didn't account for 50% of the doping tests. If anything I'm surprised there were only 12 positives.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

bonkmiester said:


> .............
> 
> ... the results are void as they pertain to *ANYTHING* ...
> 
> the lawyers would call it "case dismissed" ........


Yes case dismissed. But you're putting your head in the sand to pretend we don't know what we know. 

Can you explain what procedural errors or bias in the testing would have led to the disproportionate # of "positives" being Armstrongs and their suspicious distribution? Why would Armstrong's anonymous samples had been more likely to have been affected by these problems? Why would a mix up in samples draw the positives to Armstrong rather than any of the other riders tested?


----------



## RocketDog (Apr 9, 2005)

*Everyone gives LNDD too much credit*

To describe the testing as "research" is a stretch. If one were actually testing a hypothesis, they would need to know whether or not there actually was EPO in the sample before it was stored for seven years. What significance could their findings have other than to implicate? Who needs that scientific method anyway. Witchhunt plain and simple.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> You're still essentially left with basically saying *the testing was so f'upped* that you can't say those positives were Armstrong's or weren't false positives. OK. But boy their distribution is suspicious and 6 of 12 are Armstrong's. That's some bad luck, surely he didn't account for 50% of the doping tests. If anything I'm surprised there were only 12 positives.


.........

... the testing was so f'upped that you can't say *ANYTHING* ..

50% ... 6/12 ... DISTRIBUTION ... it's all meaingless DB .... you cannot believe any of it ... 

DB, the lab screwed the pooch so bad on this that everything they did is invalidated
you cannot draw any conclusions from it ..... pro or con ...


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Yes case dismissed. *But you're putting your head in the sand to pretend we don't know what we know. *
> 
> Can you explain what procedural errors or bias in the testing would have led to the disproportionate # of "positives" being Armstrongs and their suspicious distribution? Why would Armstrong's anonymous samples had been more likely to have been affected by these problems? Why would a mix up in samples draw the positives to Armstrong rather than any of the other riders tested?


........

please read my other post

also, DB, I have never stuck my head in the sand, a few moguls maybe, but no sand ... ... 
b0nk
ps- i enjoy your posts, t.zone's too .... they are enlightening


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

RocketDog said:


> What significance could their findings have other than to implicate? Who needs that scientific method anyway. Witchhunt plain and simple.


I believe they have declared two. First to see if they could detect rhEPO in old frozen urine. And if they could to see if usage changed between '98 and '99 (post-Festina affair). I agree these labs, (this was clear in the Hamilton report as well and what little they have published on the EPO test), do not follow accepted standards of scientific scrutiny or reporting. And this is probably a case, and probably not the last, where it has come back and bite them in the ass.

They need to make what they do and how they do it far, far more transparent.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*Dwayne*

since we know they had an insider and since we know they had a hostile motive

who's to say the insider didn't know which samples were LA's?

who's to say the insider didn't tamper with a variety of samples guessing if he tampered with 30 he was bound to get one of LA's?

who's to say the new testing doesn't have a 50% false positive rate?

who's to say the failures in the methodology and procedure produce so many false positives and negatives that the testing is absolutely valueless?

again by the lack of release of other sample results (the focus on LA) we'll never know how many others had similar rates. This is why (whether the testing was good or not) the focus on LA killed any validity to the testing as they didn't give a full account of other findings to do a comparitive.

So again,I can't say whether he did or not. But the methodlogy of the test and the sole focus on LA's result will forever cast doubt on these findings. Had Wada and L'Equipe done this as a whole survey of the peloton it would have come across as a better piece of science regardless of it's faults. Instead they way they chose to present it to the public when viewed under the light of its singular focus casts the doubt of suspicion and the smell of witch hunt all over it. Had they handled it better we may have gotten further and better testing.Instead their ham handed work has killed any future research into this as the whole thing has the shadow of witch hunt forever tagged to it.


----------



## niterider (Feb 22, 2005)

*Why couldn't tampering be a posibility?*



blackhat said:


> the results are void as it pertains to sanctions. we already knew that, this was a research oriented test. none of the issues you raised explain the +'s, they just make them useless for sanction. I think the lawyers would call it fruit of the poisonous tree.


Without documentation of chain of custody who knows who had the samples. We know part of the samples were opened at some point prior to the EPOr test - LA's could have been opened and tampered with at that point. Considering how this report makes WADA and the lab look - I wouldn't be surprised if individuals within those organizations worked together to identify LA's samples.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

Reactions from L'Equipe today ????

Evening edition ought to be out by now ................
b0nk


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

"who's to say the insider didn't know which samples were LA's?"

Because the tests were carried out before the reporter obtained the information from the UCI that could link Armstrong's name to his codes. This is what "broke" the story without this information the results (other than the prologue names since all 4 were "positive") would have remained anonymous.

"who's to say the insider didn't tamper with a variety of samples guessing if he tampered with 30 he was bound to get one of LA's?"

Because there were only 12 positives. He got awful lucky to get Armstrong so many times, especially since other than the prologue, (IIRC) Armstrong was the only "positive" on the 5 other days he was positive (I believe they test 4 to 6 riders each day).

"who's to say the new testing doesn't have a 50% false positive rate?"

Because 50% of the total sample were not positive. 

"Instead their ham handed work has killed any future research into this as the whole thing has the shadow of witch hunt forever tagged to it."

I think part of the basic problem is that this work was never carried out to nail Armstrong, nor could or should it have been. Somebody at WADA might have liked to have seen that but it just could never have been for legal reasons. The fact that Armstrong got caught in the crossfire between the lab doing some (probably) shoddy research work, the fighting between WADA and the UCI, and a sneaky reporter makes me all the more inclined to believe the basic lab results. I can't see how methodological problems with the science would have disproportionately affected Armstrong, which would appear to be the case.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*page 17.*



niterider said:


> Without documentation of chain of custody who knows who had the samples. We know part of the samples were opened at some point prior to the EPOr test - LA's could have been opened and tampered with at that point. Considering how this report makes WADA and the lab look - I wouldn't be surprised if individuals within those organizations worked together to identify LA's samples.


<i>while the information and documentation presented to date is insufficient to judge the scientific nature of the validity of the research conducted by the LNDD, in particular with regard to the analyses of the urine samples from the 1998 and 1999 tours de france, the investigator has found no evidence the the decision to analyse those samples was intended as part of a deliberate effort to dicredit LA as has been suggested.</i>

I suppose i'ts possible they were tampered with but no one is making that alleagation. Its possible hamiltons phonatom twin spiked them while he was hanging out with tupac and jimmy hoffa too, but noboy is making that claim either. as it says in the quote above, there was no evidence of a conspiracy. I don't think anyone's shown that you can "spike" a urine test to make it look like theres signs of having used epo in it either.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

niterider said:


> Without documentation of chain of custody who knows who had the samples. We know part of the samples were opened at some point prior to the EPOr test - LA's could have been opened and tampered with at that point. Considering how this report makes WADA and the lab look - I wouldn't be surprised if individuals within those organizations worked together to identify LA's samples.


Because only the UCI had the information to link rider and code. I believe this is confirmed explicitly in the report several times. The tests were carried out prior to the L'Equipe reporter getting this information. Any tampering would have been blind.


----------



## niterider (Feb 22, 2005)

blackhat said:


> <i>while the information and documentation presented to date is insufficient to judge the scientific nature of the validity of the research conducted by the LNDD, in particular with regard to the analyses of the urine samples from the 1998 and 1999 tours de france, the investigator has found no evidence the the decision to analyse those samples was intended as part of a deliberate effort to dicredit LA as has been suggested.</i>
> 
> I suppose i'ts possible they were tampered with but no one is making that alleagation. Its possible hamiltons phonatom twin spiked them while he was hanging out with tupac and jimmy hoffa too, but noboy is making that claim either. as it says in the quote above, there was no evidence of a conspiracy. I don't think anyone's shown that you can "spike" a urine test to make it look like theres signs of having used epo in it either.


I'm not making that claim either - it just seemed you needed an explaination of the positives other then the fact that they were scientificaly bogus


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*"bogus"*



niterider said:


> I'm not making that claim either - it just seemed you needed an explaination of the positives other then the fact that they were scientificaly bogus


I don't think the report is saying they're scientifically bogus. they're saying what they have received "is insufficient to judge the scientific nature of the validity of the research ". on a related note, the phrase "not recieved to date" comes up alot in the report. they could have benefited from either getting some sort of subpoena power so they could get what they wnated or kicking the ball down the road until they got all the access they needed. as it is, they really just made things murkier, though they succeeded in making pound look like a tool.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2006)

*OMG, I'm going to start hitting myself in the head with a hammer!*

One more time.


The [email protected]#$%king results are bogus!!!!

Please pay attention - There are *no* positive or negative results - because all the results are null and void and the data set is garbarge - all of the results from these tests need to be *thrown out*!

You can't apply *any* statistics to to the results, because the results themselves are * invalid*!!!!!

This is *no* probablity, or coincedence or skew or curious distribution and timing - because...*the results are invalid*!!!!

There is no need to explain why there were X positives and Y negatives because... the results are *invalid*!!! No one can say anything about them. They are garbage, trash, useless. 

Even if someone where to test some known positive and known negative urine samples for rEPO using the same methods LNDD claims to have used (but haven't produced all the documentation for) - and got the correct results - the results from the 1999 urine sample tests *would still be invalid!!!* We are talking about several points of failure here - there is just no getting around it!!



Sorry about being such an *ss, but I am angry now, because it appears that the misguided efforts of a few bureaucrats has done more damage to the sport than any doper ever could  

I hope someone takes WADA to the chopping block


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

AJL said:


> I hope someone takes *WADA to the chopping block*


.... yeah, maybe they should *Pound* his head with it ...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

bonkmiester said:


> .........
> 
> ... the testing was so f'upped that you can't say *ANYTHING* ..
> 
> ...


I have to respectfully disagree. By far most of the objections to the results from the LNDD lab in the report are related to being able to declare a "positive" finding for a given individual. OK we knew that going in.

That is a seperate issue from whether they were able to detect evidence of rhEPO use in the samples from '98 and '99 which is why they were conducting the "research" in the first place.


----------



## RCT (Jun 1, 2006)

*Tampering?*

Does anyone know if this report _completely exonerates _the lab, newspaper and WADA with regard to sample tampering? Can they prove conclusively that they did not tamper with the sample to produce positive results?


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

The results are bogus and he's NEVER tested positive. Case closed. Time to move on.


----------



## niterider (Feb 22, 2005)

blackhat said:


> I don't think the report is saying they're scientifically bogus. they're saying what they have received "is insufficient to judge the scientific nature of the validity of the research ". on a related note, the phrase "not recieved to date" comes up alot in the report. they could have benefited from either getting some sort of subpoena power so they could get what they wnated or kicking the ball down the road until they got all the access they needed. as it is, they really just made things murkier, though they succeeded in making pound look like a tool.


I said bogus - The report is full of examples to support my statement
4.13
4.14
4.26
4.56
4.58
4.59
4.60
I'm tired


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I have to respectfully disagree. By far most of the objections to the results from the LNDD lab in the report are related to being able to declare a "positive" finding for a given individual. OK we knew that going in.
> 
> That is a seperate issue from whether they were able to detect evidence of rhEPO use in the samples from '98 and '99 which is why they were conducting the "research" in the first place.



DB, I have to respectfully agree to disagree ......... the Lab blew it big time, apparently from start to finish.....


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

bonkmiester said:


> DB, I have to respectfully agree to disagree ......... the Lab blew it big time, apparently from start to finish.....



Back in the day when I worked in the lab, my azz would've been fired if I had done any of those "lapses". As for doing it for "research", they screwed the pooch there as well, never heard of a protocol where there were no controls.......no controls means the results are meaningless......incompetence on a scale not seen since the Bush admin


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

chuckice said:


> The results are bogus and he's NEVER tested positive. Case closed. Time to move on.


That makes for a nice headline, but I agree with others in that this report has only managed to cloud the issue a little bit.

Lots of complaints about chain of custody problems, using new testing methods, and not having the ability to convict based on these results. Well no kidding. Either the new testing methods only work on LA, or maybe he was the only one positive. Hmmm, maybe chain of custody was a problem, well why weren't there other positives as well?

I agree that the lab blew parts of their research from a doping control standpoint, but that wasn't their goal so why should we hold them up to those standards? This is especially true since no one here reccomends sanctioning Armstrong based on these results. It's just a matter of looking at the entire issue and making up your own mind as to what happened.

Reading the AP article does not make you an expert,

Silas


----------



## wongsifu_mk (Mar 5, 2002)

svend said:


> ......incompetence on a scale not seen since the Bush admin


Haha. 1999 & EPO'd Lance vs. WMDs in Iraq. Both have brillliant "findings".

But I digress…

Great thread. Loads of entertainment.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

SilasCL said:


> That makes for a nice headline, but I agree with others in that this report has only managed to cloud the issue a little bit.
> 
> Lots of complaints about chain of custody problems, using new testing methods, and not having the ability to convict based on these results. Well no kidding. Either the new testing methods only work on LA, or maybe he was the only one positive. Hmmm, maybe chain of custody was a problem, well why weren't there other positives as well?
> 
> ...


I'm not an expert and I don't claim to be...for me I just see it as:
a) he's never tested positive in any of the other years where the tests were valid
b) this test where supposedly he is/was is clearly flawed
c) he's retired
So it's just time to move on...there's plenty more dopage garbage to be had in the coming months with the Liberty mess.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

niterider said:


> I said bogus - The report is full of examples to support my statement
> 4.13
> 4.14
> 4.26
> ...


alrite, so it's bogus to you. that's cool but the authors of the report don't/can't say one way or the other. the author writes in 4.13 re. the test that they used that "a detailed description was not provided"...."the accelereated measurement procedure has to date not been disclosed or validated" they don't know whether it's bogus or not. the lab clearly thought it was sufficient for *non doping control purposes* and used it as such. nowhere do they, or can they as they havent had access, say the results or the test were bogus. 4.26 just reinforces this-the lab found the results sufficient for *non doping control purposes* and agreed that they weren't sufficient for use in sanctioning LA. the results aren't called into question as it relates to their intended use-developing a new model by which to detect EPO. 4.56 and 58 fleshes this out a bit more, regarding use for doping control, which these were not intended, and 4.60 illustrates the ongoing "strong belief" in the validity of the results by the lab. the people who were/are in the greatest position to know the value of the test and the results maintain their value to this day apparently.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2006)

SilasCL said:


> I agree that the lab blew parts of their research from a doping control standpoint, but that wasn't their goal so why should we hold them up to those standards? This is especially true since no one here reccomends sanctioning Armstrong based on these results. It's just a matter of looking at the entire issue and making up your own mind as to what happened.
> 
> Reading the AP article does not make you an expert,
> 
> Silas


They blew there research from a scientific standpoint, which, one would imagine, ought to be the goal of *any test lab*! There is no making up your own mind (with regard to the science) - it's clear that LNDD failed in this regard. If you mean making up your mind on whether Armstrong ever doped or not - sure, think whatever you want to.


**Reading the AP article does not make you an expert** - thanks for flamming us, talk about a strawman...geez.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

blackhat said:


> alrite, so it's bogus to you. that's cool but the authors of the report don't/can't say one way or the other. the author writes in 4.13 re. the test that they used that "a detailed description was not provided"...."the accelereated measurement procedure has to date not been disclosed or validated" they don't know whether it's bogus or not. the lab clearly thought it was sufficient for *non doping control purposes* and used it as such. nowhere do they, or can they as they havent had access, say the results or the test were bogus. 4.26 just reinforces this-the lab found the results sufficient for *non doping control purposes* and agreed that they weren't sufficient for use in sanctioning LA. the results aren't called into question as it relates to their intended use-developing a new model by which to detect EPO. 4.56 and 58 fleshes this out a bit more, regarding use for doping control, which these were not intended, *and 4.60 illustrates the ongoing "strong belief" in the validity of the results by the lab. the people who were/are in the greatest position to know the value of the test and the results maintain their value to this day apparently.*



well duh .........what do you expect the lab to do ??? admit they f'ed up the tests ??? .... yes they know the value of the tests - *it's NOTHING* ...
there is no value to the tests (other than selling more French newspapers)
heck, these jokers even made up the rules as they went along:


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*no. it doesn't say that.*



AJL said:


> They blew there research from a scientific standpoint.



after wasting more of my not at all valuable time reading it, Ill try and help you out a bit here. the one thing that sticks out in my mind that would advance your argument-test being bogus- is on p.20 1.21. it says teh process that generated teh results was "so deficient that it would be improper in this report to discuss these reports in more detail." as it would give them more credibility than they deserve. the problem is that they base this on not having seen the "underlying isoelectropherograms and other essential documents neccessary to evaluate the findings" (their words-certainly not mine). they (the investigator/authors) don't know the value of the tests because they've not had teh access they'd like and probably should have had. they make no finding of the value of the test or results for research purposes-because they can't.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

AJL said:


> They blew there research from a scientific standpoint, which, one would imagine, ought to be the goal of *any test lab*! There is no making up your own mind (with regard to the science) - it's clear that LNDD failed in this regard. If you mean making up your mind on whether Armstrong ever doped or not - sure, think whatever you want to.
> 
> 
> **Reading the AP article does not make you an expert** - thanks for flamming us, talk about a strawman...geez.


You say it's clear, I say clear as mud. Where is it 'clear' that they blew it? Please give me a specific example from the paper. Saying it is 'clear' does not make it so, just like the headlines don't make it so.

My girlfriend works in a lab, and I doubt she has chain of custody records on her various experiments. From a scientific standpoint, it may not be necessary. As others have said, the new test may or may not be as valid as the currently approved one, we don't know.

This paper has introduced a lot of new questions, but nothing that actually points to Armstrong not being positive in those tests.

As for my comment, it was directed at people who want this in the nice neat package that the media has put it in the the past two days. I say, look for the whole story or don't pretend you know it.

Silas


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

SilasCL said:


> Reading the AP article does not make you an expert,
> 
> Silas


No it doesn't but working in the biotech industry for 9 years as a bench scientist does give me some insight into how research is supposed to be performed if it is to be considered valid.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

SilasCL said:


> This paper has introduced a lot of new questions, but nothing that actually points to Armstrong not being positive in those tests.


What you fail to grasp is that those positives are meaningless. They could be false positives just as all those negatives could be false negatives. With what certainty are they sure they are positive. There are so many holes in this story that the only thing certain is that there is none.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

svend said:


> What you fail to grasp is that those positives are meaningless. They could be false positives just as all those negatives could be false negatives. With what certainty are they sure they are positive. There are so many holes in this story that the only thing certain is that there is none.


That's the problem with this report. It tackles the issue from the perspective of santioning validity. We all knew that there were never going to be sanctions, there were too many problems.

That being said, we don't get to hear what the new test they're running is, why it differs from the old one, etc. Because from square one, it's invalid because it's not WADA certified. Fine, I agree with that.

So, the result is we really don't know any more about the reality of the situation. We know conclusively that there is no room for any discipline or guilty verdict. But like a case which was flubbed up by a sloppy cop, if the evidence is there, but it was procured incorrectly, sensible people can look at the situation and say he may have commited the crime, but got away with it.

I am still waiting for evidence that A. The test they were using is not valid. B. The lab has a history of errors, enough to concern me about chain of custody issues. C. The presence of a one armed man as a WADA/L'Equipe spy in the lab.

Silas


----------



## aharrod (Apr 4, 2002)

*Chain of custody was what swayed me*

Particularly,
P 91 - The fact that a number of these urine samples were listed as missing, even though they had already been opened and used for other research prior to this research.

But the really damning part is:
The last line on 91 and first on 92 -

This is ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT as urine samples spiked with rEPO have been part of the research conducted by LNDD as well.

So not only did they " lose" some samples for awhile, but they had been previously opened for testing. And some of the testing involved "spiking" clean urine with rEPO to see how it tested. A couple of bucks here and there and BAM, LeEquipe has a good story, and Lance is back on the block again.


There are entirely too many inconsistencies, and way too much to gain by discrediting LA. He has never tested positive before, and was definitely in a position with way too much to prove. Is he a GENETIC freak with an Iron Will yes. A doper --- not since cancer certainly. Too much effort has been invested to try to convict him, if he was guilty he would have been caught. 

You either believe him or you don't. I always wanted to , but for me this stinks of Witch hunt. I will go buy my copy of Catcher in the Rye for the day.


Alex
Ps. this is my first post..


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

aharrod said:


> You either believe him or you don't. I always wanted to , but for me this stinks of Witch hunt. I will go buy my copy of Catcher in the Rye for the day.
> 
> 
> Alex
> Ps. this is my first post..


Damn, member since '02 and this was your 1st post, that has got to be an RBR record of some sort........

Yes, the whole thing stinks of witch hunt and there is ample precedence of the french targeting Armstrong especially......


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

aharrod said:


> Particularly,
> P 91 - The fact that a number of these urine samples were listed as missing, even though they had already been opened and used for other research prior to this research.
> 
> But the really damning part is:
> ...


Hey someone finally found that info. At least one of the Lance backers has read a serious amount of the report, I appreciate it.

It's not a matter of losing samples, it's a matter of not keeping a chain of custody report. There is a difference. Since the study was science only, not anti-doping, there would've been no reason to have said report. Just because it's not up to WADA standards does not imply tampering, conspiracy theories, etc.

This certainly does muddy the waters though. Before this report, I was 99% certain that he had taken EPO. Now, I'm about 80%. There is now a chance that his samples got spiked, as that was apparently practiced in some of their testing. I still see no reason why LA and other notable EPO users, like Haselbacher, were the only ones who tested positive, and that so many of LA's samples were positive. Either he was really unlucky, or the one armed man is still waiting to be found.

Silas


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2006)

Silas - sounds like your girlfriend has a cake job. I have a degree in physics. I've worked in testing labs as a lab tech and engineer. I have been taught how to design, plan and implement fairly complex tests - and I have experience doing the same professionally. I *always* knew what my samples were, where they we're from, batch numbers, dates, etc. 

Yes, there are some types of equipment that require only periodic calibration - the rEPO urine test doesn't sound like one of them, especially since they altered the test time - "accelerated" to use their term. I haven't used any equipment where I could skip control tests - never!

I've only focused on the scientific part of the UCI document. I didn't quote it because I assume anyone who wants to disagree with me has read the same sections and has a good grasp of basic science. This sounds like a "seat of your pants" test series - and yes, sometimes scientists do that just to see if it's worth pursuing furthur. But to *even suggest* that any valid data could be derived from such a test is pure and utter nonsense. 

There is *nothing* in the tests described in the UCI document that allow one to make *any* comment about LA testing positive or negative *at all!* Ergo, no inference at all can be made regarding the presence of rEPO in Lance Armstrong's urine samples from 1999. There was no test in '99 and there are no retroactively valid tests results today.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

SilasCL said:


> This certainly does muddy the waters though. Before this report, I was 99% certain that he had taken EPO. Now, I'm about 80%. There is now a chance that his samples got spiked, as that was apparently practiced in some of their testing. I still see no reason why LA and other notable EPO users, like Haselbacher, were the only ones who tested positive, and that so many of LA's samples were positive. Either he was really unlucky, or the one armed man is still waiting to be found.
> 
> Silas


Silas, There are no positives and there are no negatives. Those words in the context of the tests performed on the samples from the '99 tour are meaningless. There is no one armed man. There is only a meaningless test.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

SilasCL said:


> Hey someone finally found that info. At least one of the Lance backers has read a serious amount of the report, I appreciate it.
> 
> It's not a matter of losing samples, it's a matter of not keeping a chain of custody report. There is a difference. *Since the study was science only*, *not anti-doping, there would've been no reason to have said report*. Just because it's not up to WADA standards does not imply tampering, conspiracy theories, etc.
> 
> ...


.........

Not a "Lance Backer" but I have read the report ... without the benefit of "Lance Hater Reading Glasses" either (those glasses are myopic, aren't they)


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

svend said:


> Silas, There are no positives and there are no negatives. Those words in the context of the tests performed on the samples from the '99 tour are meaningless. There is no one armed man. *There is only a meaningless test*.


*Bingo *


----------



## aharrod (Apr 4, 2002)

*If you can't keep a record of*

Where the samples have been ( "missing") , and you know they have been thawed and used for other studies. You also know that some of those studies actually involved "spiking" the urine with rEPO, shouldn't our reaction be to suspect incompetence, etc on the part of the testing lab, before we accuse an athlete who has been tested over and over again and always found clean? It is normal I think to have people dislike popular figures, but in without any of the confidentiality, if you don't know where the evidence has been, how can you be sure it was his, or not used in those tests. for all we know it belongs to David Walsh, who spiked it himself with rEPO.

I am not so much a Lance Backer as someone interested in seeing him get a fair shake. 

Wow 2 posts in 4 years... 

Alex


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

AJL said:


> They blew there research from a scientific standpoint, which, one would imagine, ought to be the goal of *any test lab*!


Although I agree about what should be, in reality I would argue this is decidely not the case! For instance, I believe the only info. ever published about the rEPO test was the basic study showing that if you injected EPO and used the labs' methodology you could detect a shift toward the positive isoforms in the urine. OK, what's the dose/response of this relationship, what's the threshold for a positive determination, what about if it's a person engaged in prolonged endurance exercise? Presumably these are all things the labs figure out on their own and just use to the satisfaction of the scientists involved and WADA. It is not a very good system in my opinion.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

aharrod said:


> Where the samples have been ( "missing") , and you know they have been thawed and used for other studies. You also know that some of those studies actually involved "spiking" the urine with rEPO, shouldn't our reaction be to suspect incompetence, etc on the part of the testing lab, before we accuse an athlete who has been tested over and over again and always found clean? It is normal I think to have people dislike popular figures, but in without any of the confidentiality, if you don't know where the evidence has been, how can you be sure it was his, or not used in those tests. for all we know it belongs to David Walsh, who spiked it himself with rEPO.
> 
> * I am not so much a Lance Backer as someone interested in seeing him get a fair shake. *
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree with you more Alex............You should post more often ......
b0nk


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

*Where o where are the Haters Now?*



bonkmiester said:


> *Bingo *



You know, when this whole thing came out I thought it was kind of fishy but that LA might be guilty of doping in '99. Now having read the report there is no way anyone could come to that conclusion based on the overwhelming lack of protocol. None.


----------



## stickfigure (Oct 30, 2005)

*Ferrari conviction reversed*



bas said:


> After reading Bicycling magazine and learning more about Armstrongs association with Ferrarri and who this guy really is - and the recent Spanish crackdown - I firmly beleive these guys are doping something at some level and know all the tricks.


Not everyone who is charged with a doping offense - or even convicted of a doping offense - is actually guilty. An Italian appeals court recently absolved Ferrari of all charges. Here is the text of the story as published by Cyclingnews http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/may06/may27news:

"Michele Ferrari absolved of all charges by Italian appeals court 

By Tim Maloney, European Editor 

In a decision earlier this week, an Italian Court of Appeal in Bologna absolved Dr. Michele Ferrari of the sporting fraud charges related to accusations by Filippo Simeoni, as well as charges of abusing his medical license to write prescriptions "because the facts do not exist" to support these charges. 

Ferrari was the preparatore for many top cyclists, most notably Lance Armstrong. On October 1, 2004, Ferrari was convicted of sporting fraud and abusing his medical license to write prescriptions and sentenced by Judge Maurizio Passarini to suspend his medical license for one year and a fine of €900. One of Ferrari's main accusers was Simeoni, who Ferrari worked with from late 1996 to late 1997, claimed that Ferrari had given him erythropoietin (epo) and Andriol (synthetic testosterone). But the appeals court found that Simeoni's accusations against Ferrari had no basis in fact and threw out Passarini's judgement. 

After the successful appeal, Ferrari's attorney Dario Bolognesi said, "We're satisfied with this verdict, but we are still awaiting the full text of the court's decision that will shed light on why they overturned the original decision, because we have requested that the previous decision is removed from Doctor Ferrari's record. And we may also sue for damages."


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

svend said:


> You know, when this whole thing came out I thought it was kind of fishy but that LA might be guilty of doping in '99. Now having read the report there is no way anyone could come to that conclusion based on the overwhelming lack of protocol. None.


..........

Hi Svend,
the haters will show up, maybe later tonight ... It will be interesting to read the posts by Under A Crooked Sky ... 
b0nk


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

bonkmiester said:


> ..........
> 
> Hi Svend,
> the haters will show up, maybe later tonight ... It will be interesting to read the posts by Under A Crooked Sky ...
> b0nk


I can hear the crickets chirping from here.......


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

svend said:


> I can hear the crickets chirping from here.......


Wrong forum.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

svend said:


> I can hear the crickets chirping from here.......


I feel like a con in PO.

The brick wall I'm arguing against is similar as well. I feel that I made a couple of good points that have been ignored, so I'll give up trying to convince you guys otherwise.

Silas


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

SilasCL said:


> I feel like a con in PO.
> 
> The brick wall I'm arguing against is similar as well. I feel that I made a couple of good points that have been ignored, so I'll give up trying to convince you guys otherwise.
> 
> Silas


Just as you have not addressed the question of how the the tests could give any meaningful results. Not a brick wall at all, it is called science and what the LNDD did does not pass the test, that is what the report found and so in essence there is nothing there. If you want to believe LA doped, go ahead, it is just that the samples from '99 are useless as 
a factual basis for that belief.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Although I agree about what should be, in reality I would argue this is decidely not the case! For instance, I believe the only info. ever published about the rEPO test was the basic study showing that if you injected EPO and used the labs' methodology you could detect a shift toward the positive isoforms in the urine. OK, what's the dose/response of this relationship, what's the threshold for a positive determination, what about if it's a person engaged in prolonged endurance exercise? Presumably these are all things the labs figure out on their own and just use to the satisfaction of the scientists involved and WADA. It is not a very good system in my opinion.


No, it's not a good system - that's for sure. I wish I had this Paper, but I don't feel like shelling out $20 for it atm. 

Anyway, I haven't found out exactly what parameters are used in examining the isoelctropherogram images via computer software. I don't even know exactly how the oligosaccharide pattern differs between endogenous EPO and EPO manufactured using cultured animal cells. This is all good and interesting stuff, but, as it turns out, isn't the main issue here (although the baseline scientific information about EPO helps to point out the problems with having inadequate documentation).

No matter what the test is, for it to have any validity, it must follow prescibed scientific norms applied to all aspects of the test, from sample collection through analysis of the results. And all the information relevant to each specific test *must* be documented (otherwise it has no context or meaning).

As I listed here: Post #50, svend and niterider have also posted similar observations, some of necessary documention is just *missing* - awol - gone! Hence the test results are junk, not only for the purpose of doping control, but the results are just plain junk from the aspect of science. 

Since the samples where not meant to be used WADA doping controls - there was no documentation on the storage of the samples, i.e. we have no certain knowledge that the sample environment hadn't changed. This is bad, but, there is a way around this, which is using a stability test - except the stability test had not be conducted!!! As we cannot verify the anything about the state of glycoprotiens in question, whether they had begun to breakdown or not. Hence.  we cannot trust the results as being representative of the original chemical composition of the athlete's urine at the time the sample was taken. 

One could speculate that a breakdown would mean that the results were likely on the low side and hence still prove to be positive. But that is pure speculation, or possibly an educated guess. The reality is that we can't know (a) which glycoprotien broke down faster, the endogenous EPO, or that cultured from animal cells and (b) whether or not any of the breakdown components alter the test results in a consistent way or, in fact, any way!

Take a look at 4.14 and the footnotes - it's sad, really it is.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2006)

We are not ignoring you Silas, but we're talking a different language than you are.

You said:


> That's the problem with this report. It tackles the issue from the perspective of santioning validity


But the reality, if you read section 4 anyway, is that the report's proclaimation of LA's de facto innocence is based on a logical and scientific investigation of known facts (or ones that ought to be known but aren't). If you can't see the 'holes' in the science behind these specific tests - then we are not on common ground. 

Here's a simple example, I hope: 

Chain of custody is both a legal term, and in essence, as scientific one. Legally, it just means you know exactly each step the evidence took before it was tested with no gaps. In science, it means that you know the exact state of a sample from collection to testing, i.e. the environmental conditions experienced by the sample. Now in science, sometime we can get around the problem of gaps in the environmental history of a sample if we have tests that detect variations or procedures to remove defects. I don't know if there is an equivalent in law in dealing with exceptions - that's not my field of interest. 

In any case, I hope you get the point - which is that there are several levels through which this report was developed, two of them being the scientific logic and the legal logic (hey it was written by a lawyer, what else would we expect!).


----------



## surftel (Apr 18, 2005)

*More breaking legal news*

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/verdict/world/index.html


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

surftel said:


> http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/verdict/world/index.html


Yawn.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*nice.*



AJL said:


> We are not ignoring you Silas, but we're talking a different language than you are.
> .



condescend much? you're not speaking a different language than him, you're translating out of a different dictionary. The point he made that you're ignoring is that the results are still there, whether they're useful or not. the issues regarding WADA's insistence on labels, ressiots access to #'s and the chain of custody of the samples etc. are just a kabuki dance to distract attention from the central issue unless there's some proof of a conspiracy, which the report explicitly said there was no evidence of.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

AJL said:


> But the reality, if you read section 4 anyway, is that the report's proclaimation of LA's de facto innocence is based on a logical and scientific investigation of known facts (or ones that ought to be known but aren't). If you can't see the 'holes' in the science behind these specific tests - then we are not on common ground.



I see huge holes (most of which related to the validity of the test itself COULD exist but we don't know that they do because the lab didn't provide the information). Regardless I can't in good conscious say "OK it's totally worthless". The lab by all appearances was conducting the work in good faith without any knowledge of who the samples belonged to or in fact any knowledge the results would ever become public. Hence any bias (mixed up samples, false positives, criteria off for "positive" declaration) should be random or systematically distributed across all samples. Yet they somehow result in 6 of the 12 "positives" being attributed to Armstrong and with a distribution, IIRC, (once he was being tested everyday as the Tour leader) just like one would predict.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2006)

Ok, I give up. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

It's no wonder that WADA's efforts are so hamstrung, people here can't even come to agreement on section 4 of the report - nevermind coming to agreement on all known doping issues. Anyway, once Dynepo is availible - testing for EPO use will become essentially impossible except in long stage races - and even then, only by inference.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

blackhat said:


> condescend much? you're not speaking a different language than him, you're translating out of a different dictionary. The point he made that you're ignoring is that the *results are still there, whether they're useful or not*. the *issues regarding WADA's insistence on labels, ressiots access to #'s and the chain of custody of the samples etc. are just a kabuki dance* to distract attention from the central issue unless there's some proof of a conspiracy, which the report explicitly said there was no evidence of.



Good thing you don't do research for a living as you wouldn't last long.....Cognitive dissonance can hurt sometimes......perhaps you can kabuki dance the pain away


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

blackhat said:


> condescend much? you're not speaking a different language than him, you're translating out of a different dictionary. The point he made that you're ignoring is that the results are still there, whether they're useful or not. the issues regarding WADA's insistence on labels, ressiots access to #'s and the chain of custody of the samples etc. are just a kabuki dance to distract attention from the central issue unless there's some proof of a conspiracy, which the report explicitly said there was no evidence of.


so if i fail a drug test and there's a good chance the lab lost my sample and there's also a chance that they used my sample for testing in other areas but no one is really certain of that but there's good certainty that the proper procedures weren't followed then, regardless of my history, i'm flat guilty? and all that is just sleight of hand to distract from my "obvious" guilt? 

facts are facts. he's never tested positive and this test is tainted. even the guys at csi couldn't make this stick.


----------



## Henry V (May 26, 2005)

*Criminal vs Civil*

AJL, Svend, Bonk et al, I respect your conclusions based on the report, but I think the gap between you and Silas and DB (and perhaps Blackhat) stems from the difference between a criminal and civil trial in the U.S. No doubt you are aware that the burden of proof in a criminal trial is "beyond all reasonable doubt," but in a civil trial it generally is "more likely than not." Hence, O.J. and others like him can avoid prison but get nailed for millions in damages to the family. 

As Silas has pointed out, the report is focused on exonerating LA from a sanctions perspective; i.e., you can't use the lab tests to strip LA of his 1999 title or take any other actions against him. This is for all practical purposes much like a criminal prosecution, where chain of custody and other problems would lead to the complete exclusion of the evidence (which is what you are saying). But it's quite a stretch to say that the lab tests have no value or relevance for any other purpose--namely, a cycling fan's conclusion as to whether LA doped. I equate this to a civil trial, where the various problems could conceivably lead to exclusion, but more often would simply serve evidence presented by the defense to challenge the validity of the tests and convince the jury (i.e., the public) that, more likely than not, LA did not dope. 

For the record, this report leads me to believe that LA didn't dope in 1999, but I am not 100% convinced.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

Henry V said:


> But it's quite a stretch to say that the lab tests have no value or relevance for any other purpose--namely, a cycling fan's conclusion as to whether LA doped.



Based on the report, the lab tests are meaningless. I am waiting for one person with any kind of scientific background to contradict that statement. Like I said before, anyone can believe LA doped, they just can't use the '99 sample as any sort of legitimate evidence. 

Sloppy science leads to zilch and nada .......Cold Fusion anyone


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*yeah, thats already happened.*



svend said:


> Based on the report, the lab tests are meaningless. I am waiting for one person with any kind of scientific background to contradict that statement. Like I said before, anyone can believe LA doped, they just can't use the '99 sample as any sort of legitimate evidence.
> 
> Sloppy science leads to zilch and nada .......Cold Fusion anyone


the only people that are in a position to speak about the relative worth of the test or its results are standing behind it. that would be the lab workers that the report quotes as maintaining strong confidence in the results, or something to that effect. they're the only ones that have seen _everything_ as apparently a great deal wasn't provided to the investigator. There's nothing to suggest they're either conspiring against LA or unqualified so there's no legitimate reason to doubt them.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

blackhat said:


> the only people that are in a position to speak about the relative worth of the test or its results are standing behind it. that would be the lab workers that the report quotes as maintaining strong confidence in the results, or something to that effect. they're the only ones that have seen _everything_ as apparently a great deal wasn't provided to the investigator. There's nothing to suggest they're either conspiring against LA or unqualified so there's no legitimate reason to doubt them.


#1. Why did they not provide the investigator the info?
#2. Of course they are going to stand by their work, that means as much as my crap in the morning. See #1. The lapses cited in the report contradict any confidence in the results.
#3 Don't get a job involving research, you will not last.


They said it is true so therefore it must be even though there are so many flaws and holes in the story as to make it worthless. Excuse me, monkeys are now going to fly outta my azz.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*cheer up fanboy...*



svend said:


> #1. Why did they not provide the investigator the info?
> #2. Of course they are going to stand by their work, that means as much as my crap in the morning. See #1. The lapses cited in the report contradict any confidence in the results.
> #3 Don't get a job involving research, you will not last.
> 
> ...



1: read the report, pages 49 and 50. apparently the lawyers thought it wasn't a good idea to open up w/o court order. with LA's history of litigation binges, I think that's a prudent decision.
2: I'm not sure whatever the lab's mistakes were are large enough to essentially dismiss everything they say and attribute their opinions to either tinfoil hat conspiracy or self protection-remember, they never wanted this public or even identifiable, it was WADA that put that in motion. there's no proof the lab did anything that wasn't in good faith.
3:not planning on it.


----------



## caterham (Nov 7, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I see huge holes (most of which related to the validity of the test itself COULD exist but we don't know that they do because the lab didn't provide the information). Regardless I can't in good conscious say "OK it's totally worthless". The lab by all appearances was conducting the work in good faith without any knowledge of who the samples belonged to or in fact any knowledge the results would ever become public. Hence any bias (mixed up samples, false positives, criteria off for "positive" declaration) should be random or systematically distributed across all samples. Yet they somehow result in 6 of the 12 "positives" being attributed to Armstrong and with a distribution, IIRC, (once he was being tested everyday as the Tour leader) just like one would predict.


 I keep re reading this report and I just can't help but smell the odor of whitewash.
In regards to the lack of information provided by the lab,it's not even clear whether or not follow-up clarifications were even asked for by the investigators.


----------



## txzen (Apr 6, 2005)

SilasCL said:


> My girlfriend works in a lab, and I doubt she has chain of custody records on her various experiments. From a scientific standpoint, it may not be necessary. As others have said, the new test may or may not be as valid as the currently approved one, we don't know.
> 
> This paper has introduced a lot of new questions, but nothing that actually points to Armstrong not being positive in those tests.
> 
> Silas


It's not just chain of custody, or even storage - both of which are egregious errors. It's the fact that they didn't RUN A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE CONTROL. This is garbage science.




AJL said:


> No, it's not a good system - that's for sure. I wish I had this Paper, but I don't feel like shelling out $20 for it atm.



Well, I don't have that paper, but when this first surfaced, there was a nice post on the EPO test, in which I contributed this post:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=367914&postcount=30

The whole tread is nice in that it lays out the experiment...which I still find a bit scientifically shaky. Sugar residues on proteins degrade easily, and it is these residues that give the ability of natural and recombinant EPO to be distinguished. From frozen, concentrated urine. 

One of the scientist in Canada who has helped develop the test plainly stated that she believed that these samples needed to be tested soon after harvesting, as even brief periods of freezer storage may impact their integrity. 


I was troubled by the reports of the '99 samples, and still am. But in looking at this report, I do not see how anyone could try and draw one single shred of scientific conclusion with them. Under the best of circumstances, I think the EPO urine test is shaky, and the qualifications for positive and negative tricky to delineate. But with lousy samples and no control? Garbage.


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2006)

Thanks for the link txzen - great info!


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

txzen said:


> But with lousy samples and no control? Garbage.


Yet the garbage somehow selectively picked on Armstrong? Both in the # of positives (was this just a function of the # of times he was tested?) and in their distribution (I don't know what could explain this)? Furthermore, there are 2 other hints of some validity to the tests. The # of positives dropped dramatically from '98 (probably an underestimation of the extent of the doping because a number of teams took their needles and went home early) to '99, and in '99 all 4 riders tested in the prologue were positive (accounting for 1/3 of the positives!). The latter probably due to riders topping off at home before entering France and the threat of police raids, or getting caught with the goods crossing the border.

So yes, garbage in that it could never hold up to legal standards, but garbage that produced some oddly predictable results. Perhaps just bad luck on Armstrong's part, perhaps evidence of EPO use. No clarity at all.


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> So yes, garbage in that it could never hold up to legal standards, but garbage that produced some oddly predictable results. Perhaps just bad luck on Armstrong's part, perhaps evidence of EPO use. No clarity at all.


Hopefully VN, CN, ESPN, EuroSp or someone will hire an expert to review the findings and settle this, at least wrt this report and public impressions. This data can never meet legal standards (we already knew that). What we didn't know, but know now, is that even scientifically, the results are invalid. 

Simply due to the fact that the lab ran *no* controls and *no* integrity tests were run on *any* of the urine samples, the results are rendered meaningless. We do not and cannot know if the test was functioning correctly. We do not and cannot know if the samples had degraded such that the test results would be skewed and unsuitable for testing. 

So, for the hell of it, lets say LNDD did detect "EPO" in some samples; based on the those two little facts above, there is no way to prove that the samples were recombinant or endrogenous EPO. Hence there results have no context, or meaning. Does this, at least, make sense to you?





BTW, here's an article they some may find interesting visa vi sports and doping.


----------



## txzen (Apr 6, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Yet the garbage somehow selectively picked on Armstrong?


Right, I'm with you there - although I don't have the L'Equipe story in front of me, I'm fairly sure that there were other samples besides LA's that tested as positive. Also, it seems to me that they ran a number of Armstrongs samples, many or all of which were reported as positive. If the science is pretty much garbage, randomness would dictate a more spread out pattern of 'positive' results. The fact that most/all his were reported as positive is still a bit troubling. But, after reading the report, do you think you can believe the L'Equipe story?

Unfortunately, what was actually tested and what the results were are impossible to discuss, because the actual lab results have not been open to scrutiny. In reading the report, it seems to me that there were people associated with this work that were trying very hard not to just work on experimental technique, but to quickly analyse samples with the hope of showing riders were taking EPO in the late 90's before the test was fully developed. 

Do you think that there also maybe, just maybe, was an added incentive to show that Armstrong was one of them? With the utter abandonment of all protocols scientific and ethical, do you think that this may have had an effect on the way the experiments and results were performed and interpreted? 

Personally, I think it would be interesting to perform the test as it is officially run on those old samples and answer the question as to how widespread EPO use was before riders knew it could be detected. Unfortunately, that question was bungled by WADA and the lab in an operation that I agree fits the definition of witch hunt. Why on Earth they decided to be such morons in the lab, I don't know.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

"Right, I'm with you there - although I don't have the L'Equipe story in front of me, I'm fairly sure that there were other samples besides LA's that tested as positive."

Yes, there were 12 positives (compared to 40 in '98!) from 7 riders. We know some of the other names b/c all 4 riders tested after the prologue (Armstrong, Beltran, I'm pretty sure Zulle, and one other I can't remember) were positive and it is known who is tested each day.


"Also, it seems to me that they ran a number of Armstrongs samples, many or all of which were reported as positive."

He was positive after the prologue, stages 1, 9, 10, 12 & 14. As GC leader he should have been tested after the prologue & stage 1, then stage 8 thru 20 (a minimum of 15 times).

"The fact that most/all his were reported as positive is still a bit troubling. But, after reading the report, do you think you can believe the L'Equipe story?"

I'm pretty sure they printed copies of the lab results and the UCI medical forms indicating Armstrong's sample numbers.


"Do you think that there also maybe, just maybe, was an added incentive to show that Armstrong was one of them?"

How do you do this if all you have are coded samples?

"Personally, I think it would be interesting to perform the test as it is officially run on those old samples and answer the question as to how widespread EPO use was before riders knew it could be detected."

Apparently less widespread in '99 then '98.

"Unfortunately, that question was bungled by WADA and the lab in an operation that I agree fits the definition of witch hunt. Why on Earth they decided to be such morons in the lab, I don't know."

I don't think WADA bungled the question, as much as they inappropriately tried to get the UCI to do something about what should have been anonymous results. You have to remember these two institutions are diametrically opposed to one another. WADA wants to catch dopers, UCI wants to avoid any negative press. They essentially looked the other way for years and were only forced to do something about drugs because WADA came into existence, and if you want to stay an Olympic sport you have to play by WADAs rules.

I'm also not sure how big of a moron the lab was, a lot of what they did can be understood it terms of the samples were only being analyzed for their own research purposes and therefore they didn't need to worry about chain of custody, etc. b/c the samples were never suppose to be linked to a rider.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2006)

txzen said:


> Why on Earth they decided to be such morons in the lab, I don't know.


I have a feeling that their "Boss", Mr. Pound, put them under *too* much pressure. I suspect he is very difficult man to refuse. Having been under similar circumstances while working with a 'boss' who was hard to refuse - I have some sympathy for the lab works. I didn't bend, an almost lost my job.

As far as the surprising distribution of the test data goes - it could be attributed to a wide variety of reasons - particular because there where no control or integrity tests done (which could be just be because the boss said I need those results yesterday or you'll be our new janitor). 

What if LA's urine was unusually acidic or basic compared to the norm? What if the cancer treatments caused slight alterations in the consitution of his kidney output - which ultimately led to unusual breakdown components which in turn reacted with the glycoprotien isoforms over time?

It is also possible that despite all the screw ups, these results are actually correct, and LA used epo. The problem is that the tests *were* screwed up, so we can never be sure. So, LA is to be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise and the potential 'proof' is now lying in a landfill somewhere.

Truely an unfortunate series of events for competative cycling...


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I don't think WADA bungled the question, as much as they inappropriately tried to get the UCI to do something about what should have been anonymous results. You have to remember these two institutions are diametrically opposed to one another. WADA wants to catch dopers, UCI wants to avoid any negative press. They essentially looked the other way for years and were only forced to do something about drugs because WADA came into existence, and if you want to stay an Olympic sport you have to play by WADAs rules.
> 
> I'm also not sure how big of a moron the lab was, a lot of what they did can be understood it terms of the samples were only being analyzed for their own research purposes and therefore they didn't need to worry about chain of custody, etc. b/c the samples were never suppose to be linked to a rider.


Both are great observations!

Regarding the lab - add time pressures and a change in mandate and the testing could easily be 'botched', even without any malice or forthought.

Regarding the UCI and WADA; yes, the UCI according to some pieces I've read, have let riders continue to race even when there was evidence of some sort of cheating going on. It was done in the interest of promoting the sport and keeping the sponsors free from facing scandals within 'their' teams.

My, my, as the world turns.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

One point - the retests were carried out between 2004-5 - significantly before Equipe published their story. One rider had a significant number of positives - but this could as easily have been Virenque as Armstrong (Virenque held the KoM jersey for almost as many stages as Armstrong held the MJ) and Equipe have never liked Virenque - their 'praise' has never been more than extremely grudging.

At the end of the day, this was a significant doping story which just happened to implicate Armstrong rather than Virenque - no one, least of all Armstrong, has ever (wisely) denied that the paperwork that matches the samples is his. Rather, he has been able to rely on the UCI and their abhorrence of actually doing anything positive to stamp out doping - remember, this is the organisation that, when J-M Leblanc tried to deny entry to riders and personnel implicated in doping (Saiz in 99 and Virenque spring to mind), had them reintegrated in the race - against the organisers wishes. DB is quite right in his analysis of the 2 main players - and if the UCI had done something sooner then WADA wouldn't have had to step in to fill the vacuum.


----------



## DriftlessDB (Jul 29, 2005)

Bianchigirl said:


> and if the UCI had done something sooner then WADA wouldn't have had to step in to fill the vacuum.


My bigest problem with this whole thing is that the WADA has appeared to become the vacuum, sucking in all the power it can. It seems as though there is no system of checks to hold the WADA accountable for it's actions. Pound does and says whatever he wants and if you don't want to play ball he plays either plays the "no olympics for your sport" card or the "you must not be serious about eliminating doping in your sport" card and it is almost always done through the media. I wonder why? If all of the information about the WADA's heavy handedness revealed in the report is correct it is very, very troubling. There has got to be a more even handed (and law abiding) approach.

Did LA dope? I really want to believe he didn't, but there is a high probability he did and I think many riders still do. Didn't diminish any of my enjoyment of any of his wins or of cycling in general. Doped or not, the guys at the pointy end have to turn the pedals through the pain and I find that impressive. The bad thing about this is if LA didn't dope he has no recourse. I know, I know the tests were all hogwash. I agree. But the toothpaste is out of the tube and there is no getting it back in. This battle will rage for eternity.

Dave


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

But then the race comes down the best doper and therefore it isn't fair at any level.




DriftlessDB said:


> Did LA dope? I really want to believe he didn't, but there is a high probability he did and I think many riders still do. Didn't diminish any of my enjoyment of any of his wins or of cycling in general. Doped or not, the guys at the pointy end have to turn the pedals through the pain and I find that impressive. The bad thing about this is if LA didn't dope he has no recourse. I know, I know the tests were all hogwash. I agree. But the toothpaste is out of the tube and there is no getting it back in. This battle will rage for eternity.
> 
> Dave


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

Maybe they need to change the tests & standards?

Instead of a "threshold level" of rEPO, then why not a ZERO amount of it? ... just like 'roids and some other substances ........

it seems to me that with the current standards they are setting these guys up to test the system and it will be a game of "may the best micro-doser win" .....

b0nk


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

bonkmiester said:


> Maybe they need to change the tests & standards?
> 
> Instead of a "threshold level" of rEPO, then why not a ZERO amount of it? ... just like 'roids and some other substances ........
> 
> ...


Because EPO is a naturally occurring hormone in your body and rEPO does not leave a unique metabolite that can distinguish it from what's in your body. EPO exists in about 10 different isoforms so when you isolate it and run it on a gel you get separate bans of these ~10 different proteins. What's been shown is that when you inject EPO you get a shift in the normal distribution of these isoforms. That is the basis of the urine test.

Growth hormone is still undetectable for the same basic reason (distinguishing natural GH from rGH). I think testosterone is undetectable as well so they rely on a certain testosterone/estrogen (or similar hormone) ratio to detect testosterone use. So sopers inject both the testosterone and estrogen hormones to maintain the ratio.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Maybe the level should be set at 45%, however


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Because EPO is a naturally occurring hormone in your body and rEPO does not leave a unique metabolite that can distinguish it from what's in your body. EPO exists in about 10 different isoforms so when you isolate it and run it on a gel you get separate bans of these ~10 different proteins. What's been shown is that when you inject EPO you get a shift in the normal distribution of these isoforms. That is the basis of the urine test.
> 
> Growth hormone is still undetectable for the same basic reason (distinguishing natural GH from rGH). I think testosterone is undetectable as well so they rely on a certain testosterone/estrogen (or similar hormone) ratio to detect testosterone use. So sopers inject both the testosterone and estrogen hormones to maintain the ratio.


Yes, but it (synthetic EPO) is distinguishable by the bands .........


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

bonkmiester said:


> Yes, but it (synthetic EPO) is distinguishable by the bands .........


Well not by a band that is there or not but by the relative distribution of the EPO proteins in the different bands. You basically have a histogram and you have to say if the % in column x, y, z, etc. exceed this % of the total proteins you're deemed positive. But there is going to be natural variation between individuals in how those bands are distributed, between tests, etc. so you have to set your limits for a postive fairly high to avoid false postives. 

I think you can see how this is a much more difficult prospect than detecting something that has no physiological reason for being in your body. I believe this is how many of the synthetic anabolic steroids are detected, they leave behind metabolites that otherwise don't exist in the body. So you just look for these metabolites and if you find them you bust someone. People have been making designer steroids that were beating the dope tests because the authorities didn't know they existed and therefore weren't looking for the specific metabolites.

PS. First rule of thumb when looking at a picture in a scientific paper is that you can bet that is their best data, I suspect most individuals' comparisons aren't nearly that clear cut! Especially as the window for the test is only 3 days at best, so as you move further in time from the injection the isoforms will move back to normal.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

*With only the intention to stir the pot up a bit....*

I submit the following letter purloined from the letters column at Velonews

discuss -- (I can see the fanboys getting apoplectic, the haters hating more and all of the rest of us looking on with slightly bemused expressions at all of this free entertainment....)

<i>But what about the original question? 
To the Editor: 
I admire and find fascinating the degree to which the Armstrong cabal has managed to deflect the public and media attention away from the positive '99 samples. The publicity has been so effective that a pathologist writes to enlighten VeloNews not about the science behind it all, but instead to throw off a few caustic remarks about due process, with grave concerns that Armstrong's "rights" have been violated, and equal dismay that WADA is run by an attorney who does not understand "due process." (See Richard Long's letter, "Good night, Dick " in Wednesday's Mailbag) 

Let's get this clear - no one has inalienable rights of due process. "Due process" is created and given by an entity through it's constitutions and laws - or it isn't. That's why "due process" means something entirely different in the varying legal jurisdictions of France, Italy, Spain and the United States, as well as such organizations as WADA, UCI and ASO - all of which could exercise various types of jurisdiction over Armstrong, his races and commercial activities. With respect to allegations of doping in the '99 Tour de France, the laws and processes of United States would have almost no applicability. 

Concerns about the French concept of "due process" may have prompted Armstrong and Hamilton to abandon their training grounds of the Cote d'Azur for Spain, where (until recently) "due process" makes it a lot safer to carry illegal drugs than in France. I would have advised him to do so regardless of whether he was training on drugs. The French Gendarme may look charming, quaint and even old fashioned when we see them fanning out along the July roads of the Galibier Pass, but they are most fearsome in their application of the law and they are quite eager to tell you that "your 'rights' don't work here, American boy." 

One must understand "due process" to realize that with respect to the Vrijman Report, "due process" is utterly irrelevant. Armstrong was not under any legal jeopardy at the hands of Vrijman, so no "due process" could apply. Insofar as Vrijman comments upon the "due process" of a third-party's actions over which he has no jurisdiction - he editorializes. It is a classic smoke-screen of a smoke-screen. Vrijman might as well been reviewing motion pictures or analyzing mutual fund performance. The real question before Vrijman was "Regardless of whether any cyclists ‘rights' were violated, what does the evidence say?" 

He didn't answer the question, and he took over a hundred pages to do so. That's why it's a farce. 
Yours, etc. 
Miguel Crow 
Scarsdale, New York 

</i>


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2006)

philippec said:


> _He didn't answer the question, and he took over a hundred pages to do so. That's why it's a farce. _


He did answer the question based on the evidence he had, and the fact that a good portion of what would have been necessary evidence to support the lab's work (documentation) didn't even exist! 

Now that is a farce!!


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*agree with you there...sort of.*



AJL said:


> He did answer the question based on the evidence he had, and the fact that a good portion of what would have been necessary evidence to support the lab's work (documentation) didn't even exist!
> 
> Now that is a farce!!


based on the evidence he had, he made a fair attempt to draw some conclusion. unfortunately he (they) don't seem to be very compelling investigators as they spent alot of time in that report saying they were either awating replies or had been denied further access. if his purpose was in fact to determine "Regardless of whether any cyclists ‘rights' were violated, what does the evidence say?" than, yeah, it was sort of a "farce". he didn't do much to clear that up. If LA is actually innocent of the '99 charges, he should have sued Lequipe or the lab in french court so they could have gotten the lab to open up. Of course if LA knew the results were accurate.....


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2006)

I was talking about sample related data that the lab didn't bother to even document. 

For example: Most controlled environmental units use for storage have a means to record temperature readings 24x7, but the lab didn't have that data. Either they didn't bother to turn the recording unit on, or they did but tossed the data, or they just used a freezer case set to -20 and had no way of knowing if there were any termperature excursions. While the latter two might fly in an industrial environment - they are inadequate for a dedicated testing lab. 

I understand that the lab probably wasn't thinking ahead when the first samples were collected - so it's probably not be their fault at all. It's just another one of those strange bit and pieces of info we will never know.


----------

