carlfreddy

https://beta.velonews.com/article/71575

I had thought that his A sample from the ICC he won cam back positive? Am I mistaken or was that back in 2006, not 2007?

Anyway, how often does the USADA decide to test the B sample after the A sample comes back negative?

Could the illustrious Mr. Ball be on to something when he says that it's prejudice against Leogrande by the conservative establishment?

Discuss.

Duke of Kent

I believe you mean "test the B sample after the A sample comes back negative."

carlfreddy

OOoo.

That is indeed what I meant.

Dubbayoo

Man, I disagree 101% with naming a guy bringing an anonymous lawsuit. I don't care for the guy nor his tats but that is bogus. Crap journalism, imo.

damocles1

The USADA is supposed to destroy the 'B' sample after an 'A' sample comes back negative. Again, the USADA is changing their own rules as they go. It has nothing to do with Ball or Kayle.

Floyd brought up this point in an interview with Velonews last week.

Do I think Kayle doped? Who knows? Did he fail a piss test? NOPE!

carpediemracing 

I think if USADA tests the B sample, that's their prerogative. They can use the results for more targeted testing, training new technicians, whatever.

However, unless there is other evidence of doping (apparently there are people who claim Leogrande was doping but then again I don't know what that means), a single sample, A or B, can't be used to levy a punishment. Witness Hamilton's destroyed B sample.

So, fine, test, and test well (they probably want to do more stringent tests, which perhaps Leogrande may not pass, or at least he thinks he may not). But unless there is other evidence (sworn witness and backup data), the test results can only be banked, not used.

If the test comes back positive, they have to keep their mouths shut and just pick him for more testing when he has another winning streak. Then do some of the expensive tests that they didn't do before.

cdr

carpediemracing 

I was curious about the process and did some research.

There is no mention of destroying the B sample if the A sample is negative. In fact, there is a clause for racers to make their samples available for testing/research purposes.

https://www.usantidoping.org/files/ac...e_handbook.pdf

cdr

seppomadness

Basically this is 100% accurate. It is an entirely well thought out, rational and ethical position to take. Once again I am impressed. Not bad for a seppo

asgelle

But doesn't the fact that the athlete must consent in writing for the sample to be used for research indicate that it can not be used without consent? Further, since no AAF can be had without a positive A sample, what reason can there be for testing the B other than research?

"You can contribute to anti-doping research as well. To
voluntarily choose this option, check the box on the Doping
Control Official Record that gives your consent for research.
After the analysis of your sample, any remaining urine can
be used for research with your consent. "

carlfreddy

I think the problem is that there is a fear that the ToC will bar Leogrande from competing since, technically, he is involved in an on-going doping case.

And if that is the motivation for the suit, I agree completely.

asgelle

Further, if USADA is prohibited from commenting on pending investigations, how could anyone know if any rider is officially under investigation. By definition, any statement that a rider is under investigation is unofficial.

redal

There have been rumors about Kayle in SoCal back to 2006. About that time he started openly discussing doping with many riders in the SoCal peleton. He also bragged about and showed some riders the products he was using. Then it was rumored that he failed the test when he won at Downer's. The follow up to that rumor was that his B sample at the time cleared him. If he doesn't have anything to hide why file an anonymous lawsuit and call a reporter and tell him to "lose" his phone number? I think it would be faster to file a lawsuit forcing the USADA to test the sample, collect their witness statements and make a decision so they can close their investigation.

Duke of Kent

I think just about everyone has heard the 2006 rumors. I'm inclined to believe them a bit, but I'm not going to throw the guy under the bus until I hear two positive tests, A and B. He's entitled to that.

That said, when he took off from the gun at a SuperWeek race, lapped the field with two pr three other guys in tow, and then took off again, THAT was impressive. Pretty serious field he put a hurtin' on.

redal

What if he told you he was doping and showed you his vast supply of doping products? Would you still think he wasn't cheating because he could pass the very lenient tests. There are more dopers than the ones that are getting caught. Most of them know how to pass the tests and will tell you how close to race day they can inject EPO or testoserone or HGH and still pass the test.

Duke of Kent

Oh I'm not saying I disagree with you. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he was. But I'm not the judge, nor am I the jury.

carpediemracing 

I believe that's true if there is no other evidence of doping.

However, USADA says that non-positives can still lead to a doping conviction if there are corroborating witnesses, evidence of use, even possession.

I have to imagine something like this happened (this is me talking, not USADA):
1. Tests are expensive so they do the test:epi test but not the more expensive carbon isotope test.
2. Test:epi comes back negative.
3. Someone contacts USADA and says that so-and-so uses Androgel in patch form and they saw him use it. And maybe something else that boosts epi (it's on the list of prohibited stuff) or reduces hormone levels in test (like the "no hormones in DiLuca's urine" thing).
4. Since this is a serious charge, USADA must investigate this. It's like someone calling 911 and saying "Someone ***** me". No matter what the caller says after that, there has to be an investigation to make sure that either someone got ***** or someone didn't get *****.
5. Since USADA is investigating so-and-so, they probably (and this is where I'm not clear) have the right to test the B sample and do, say, a carbon isotope test (very damning if found positive) or maybe check the actual hormone levels (i.e. does he have less testosterone than an infant?).

Although suing doesn't prove anything one way or another, it's like Allan Davis's situation. As soon as he was implicated in Operation Puerto he volunteered to give his DNA. He didn't go suing anyone to shut them up, nor did he do it anonymously. The fact that someone sued anonymously to have an investigation ended, well, that sounds sort of suspicious to me. In France, where they can hold you for no reason? No. Here in the US where criminals walk all the time? Yes.

So who leaked the identity, if it really is Leogrande? A lot of people have an interest in building support for him, and presented correctly, a lot of people will support him. It could have been Ball, the lawyers, etc.

I have to believe the USADA did not leak Leogrande's name. First, it won't help their investigation. Second, they kept some guys under wraps that I RACED AGAINST. No one knew about the four guys who tested positive in my area. Okay, for one there were rumors of a "locked box" he carried around, but the others? Not a whiff of controversy. This means no one told anyone. Where I am rumors spread pretty quickly but no one knew until the suspension was announced, then everyone was like "Hm, let me look at pictures of this guy... ooh... and he won here, here, and here? Hm... he used to be pack fodder and now look at him."

My point is USADA has been pretty tight.

Typically USADA is prohibited from making announcements regarding ongoing investigations. The "investigatee" is not. So USADA, for example, couldn't say a word while Landis was posting stuff everywhere. And, as far as I can tell, USADA didn't say anything.

cdr

asgelle

John Doe did not sue anonymously. He filed under his own name and it was known to the court and parties involved. The public release was cleansed for reasons previously stated.

asgelle

Funny you should say this is about shutting USADA up. Bill Hue, the Wisconsin state judge who comments on TBV, suggests one goal of the suit is to get USAC/USADA on the record through depositions given under oath following U.S. laws of evidence. Remember the same legal team working on the Landis case is pursuing this one, so it could be an opportunity for them to get information that might help Landis. The courts provide much greater discovery than was allowed by USADA.

There's an intriguing analysis of why USAC is doing this here. https://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/

carlfreddy

I noticed that suggestion (the judges comments can be seen here) on TBV.

What good will come of getting USADA on record? Does "John Doe" want this so that his negative A-sample is officially on record? Or in an effort to get USADA to state that they are using the B-sample as a means of building their non-analytical findings case against the rider?

Also, something I'm not exactly clear on; if the USADA tests a B-sample after the A-sample came back negative under the premise of research and/or building a non-analytical findings case, how are the results used? Say the B-sample comes back positive, if they use that result as the basis for their ruling how is that a non-analytical finding?

Normally I don't even think twice when I hear/read about another cyclist being involved in a doping case, but for some reason this story caught my interest. Maybe because it involves an Elite cyclist versus a professional?

recneps

Leogrande has long been known as the man with what you need to win races in cali, they've been trying to pop him forever.