Professional Cycling For the Fans - UCI lashes out against the WADA and French Paper

USP also got caught dumping empty packets of Actovegen (Calfs blood) which is a performance enhancing drug which there is no test for.
USP statement that is was used for road rash anybody who actually believes this must me really stupid.
Actovegen was also not approved for use on humans.they (Frigo also got caught with it this year)


Here you go Bliss and for all of the other people who doubt actovegin's use for road rash click on this link
from Nycomed a manufacturer of Actovegin (http://www.nycomed.com/en/Menu/Products/Actovegin.htm)

read down the blurb about the product. I believe it says and I quote:
"It may also be used in the treatment of skin disorders such as skin grafting (burns, scalds and erosions), impairment of wound-healing (torpid wounds, decubitus) and radiation-induced skin and mucous membrane lesions (prophylaxis and therapy)."

Last time I checked, road rash falls into the first category (burns, scalds, and erosions.

Here you go Bliss and for all of the other people who doubt actovegin's use for road rash click on this link
from Nycomed a manufacturer of Actovegin (http://www.nycomed.com/en/Menu/Products/Actovegin.htm)

read down the blurb about the product. I believe it says and I quote:
"It may also be used in the treatment of skin disorders such as skin grafting (burns, scalds and erosions), impairment of wound-healing (torpid wounds, decubitus) and radiation-induced skin and mucous membrane lesions (prophylaxis and therapy)."

Last time I checked, road rash falls into the first category (burns, scalds, and erosions.

gimme a break... big baggies of the stuff to treat road rash... i guess they just bath the rider in the stuff eh? HAHAHA... and i guess the cross country skiers and runners that initially sparked the IOC suspicions were also carrying it for road rash, we all know that road rash is also a big problem in x-country skiing ;) US Postal got all the paper work for it and brought it into the country all on the up and up... why then were they disposing of it by the side of the road?? sorry, that just make any kind of sense... total an utter BS... that is weak man, really weak... c'mon, admit you were stretching it pretty thin there... you need to up your game...

I wasn't making a statement on how USP used the actovegen, I was just proving that it can be used for road rash. I don't know the details of the story of them dumping it and I wasn't claiming to know why they had it.
I was just merely saying to the first poster that said actovegen was not useful for road rash, that it is in fact a treatment for road rash. I'm no arguing either side to why they had it.

a common misconception... the UCI, WADA and IOC ban classes of substances and methods outright (i.e. Anabolic Steroids, or blood doping methods) some substances explcitly yes, but if you get caught using some new designer steriod you will be found guilty... Actovegin was explicitly banned because it was decided it fell into the blood doping category that already existed in the list of banned methods (and substances)... so you are wrong, Lance COULD have been sanctioned if he admitted that he had used it for anything other than the bogus reasons US Postal gave because he would have been seen to be employing a blood doping method...

Actovegin, or any substance for that matter doesn't need to be explicitly on the list for it to be banned as long as it falls into one of the categories already there. the thing that helps cheats is that usually if it's not on the list it's not being looked for so usually you are safe to use it.
Hmmm... I'd like to see the UCI information from that time that states that something as sweeping as "blood doping methods" were banned. The IOC has no bearing on UCI banned substance lists. Don't get me wrong... they tend to follow one anothers' leads on doping. But, to provide that link as "proof" that Actovegin was "considered banned" by the UCI at that time is somewhat misleading.

Further, Lance never admitted to using it at all. In fact... from the very same link you provided:

"Here's the bottom line to everyone: I'll start by saying that we are completely innocent. We run a very clean and professional team that has been singled out due to our success. It has been a very frustrating situation that will absolutely be cleared up - I'm confident of that. I'm not going to give a politically vague response like "We've never tested positive" because that's not fair either. I will say that the substance on people's minds, Activ-o-something [Actovegin] is new to me. Before this ordeal I had never heard of it, nor had my team-mates.

"It's pretty simple - our team doctor is on the road with us for three weeks (during the Tour de France) to treat a group of 25-50 people. If something were to go wrong with any of them he would be responsible for their well-being. That's why he would have things like adrenaline, cortisone, scissors, stitches, etc. Some may be viewed as "performance enhancers" but they're not used in that sense. And to so incorrectly call something a substitute for doping is clueless and irresponsible. I can assure everyone we do everything in the highest moral standard."

The whole Actovegin thing is speculation anyway. It's just another "he said, she said" kind of thing. The press says they found Actovegin. USPS claims there was nothing more than medical waste (i.v. bags, gauze, bandages, etc...) in that "mysterious trash" that was dumped.

Thanks for disagreeing like an adult though. Something that the other fellow couldn't seem to do.

[QUOTE=Nd2PdlFstr]I can see that doghair has run out of valid responses, so I'll reply to this one instead.


Corticosteroids are the prescribed treatment for saddle sores. If you believe differently, you are simply wrong.

Another fact about Actovegin is that it was not a prohibited substance when that alleged event occured. So... even if Lance used it every single day of the Tour, he did not cheat.

I cycle for a amateur team in Belgium and we have a Doctor that the team use. I have had had saddle sores many times and there is no way the Doctor would ever give a saddle sore cream with a steroid in it to a cyclist

Unless you are a Doctor involved in cycling I know who I believe.

When USP had Actovegen it was not approved for use on humans so they should not have had it or have been using it.
It is still being used by cyclist today in Europe usually mixed with insulin which by chance is the other product the USP were caught with.

As usual, smoke, but no fire. Try again.

As usual, smoke, but no fire. Try again.

No need to fight, I've said it before. Armstrong will never be caught. NEVER ! Legally speaking nobody can attack him. He hasn't got EPO under his mattrass, his doctors are the best, the program is the best.

So he's not guilty. NOT...GUILTY !

No need for this thread to look for the proofs on a legal basis, they are non existent. What needs to be identified is:

- how reliable is the lab of Chatenay Malabry?
- how reliable is the paper l'Equipe? and its enquiry?
- what will the other 3 riders say to the case?
- will other positive riders be named?
- what will other reporters discover?

I am enjoying reading back news, articles in German, Italian, Spanish recognised international papers, including American ones. Please name me one American paper, that really deals with doping in professional cycling. Couldn't find a single one. All of them just copy European articles, and add their " oh we poor Americans" touch, witch hunt, etc ).

Yes I've read Armstrong's books, yes I've read LA Confidential, yes I read la Gazetta dello sport, la Marca, l'equipe, Kicker, NY Times, Sunday Times, Washington Post, etc, I want to read as much as possible about this case, then I'll make up my own mind.

Actually, I'm very close to it. Armstrong not guilty, but blood hell to me he took EPO in 1999...as did the others. Period

Have a nice day

actovegin helps saturate tissue with oxygen, it helps wounds heal faster, there is a 2% cream made for this. Postal and others, including skiers, and Olympic Swimmers, have been caught with bags of injectable solutions, the road rash stories are a convenient cover for a "dual use" medication. The team manager on Postal at the time was Mark Gorski, he was on the 1984 Olympic team that openly blood doped, and talked freely of it, becuase it was not illegal at that time. They won 9 medals, but to be fair, they were simply doing what everyone else was doing.

actovegin helps saturate tissue with oxygen, it helps wounds heal faster, there is a 2% cream made for this. Postal and others, including skiers, and Olympic Swimmers, have been caught with bags of injectable solutions, the road rash stories are a convenient cover for a "dual use" medication. The team manager on Postal at the time was Mark Gorski, he was on the 1984 Olympic team that openly blood doped, and talked freely of it, becuase it was not illegal at that time. They won 9 medals, but to be fair, they were simply doing what everyone else was doing.

They won 9 medals because the Eastern block countries weren't there... :rolleyes:

No it didn't. It had the conclusions drawn from raw data.

Are actual percentage numbers of every individual sample 'conlcusions', or are they 'raw data'?


If they did honest, professional tests, all this information will be easily available.

Why would it? Their actions weren't ment for publishing.


Again, any respectable scientist would be happy to provide the answers to how he or she performed a test. Let's see if this drug lab is run by respectable scientists.

If it wasn't, they would have been fired already.


he has the largest heart volume and lung volume ever measured for his size

I've never heard that one before.
Source?



Who cares about Dr. Ferrari? I have good friends who use drugs too. But, I don't. Wanna guess why? I'll tell you anyway. It's because I put my career at risk if I do, just like Lance does if he gets caught using. Being friends with someone who does things "wrong" does not make you guilty by association.


They weren't exactly just friends. He was a cycling doctor, known to help riders properly use drugs such as EPO. Armstrong and him worked together for his professional cycling career for years.

Fight Cancer
Be the world's fastest cyclist
Win the TDF 7 times in a row
Marry a rock star


Who wouldn't be jealous and want to make up stories in a lame attempt to smeer him.

Are actual percentage numbers of every individual sample 'conlcusions', or are they 'raw data'?
. . .
Read the detailed New York Times article I posted here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1580772&postcount=564).

Bottom line: The test is subjective, and requires interpretation. Your post shows that you know nothing about the test you think is valid.

Doping and athletes will always be there as long as there is competition and the athelete can justify that he needs to do it because others are doing it.

The issue to me is the ethics involved of a regulating body giving a blood sample and data to a newspaper. What was the motive? How sleazy is it to violate a persons privacy like this, blood is tissue and courts have ruled that you own this and control all of the rights to it. What other testing did they do with the blood, did they check for aids, hepatitus or other diseases. This is the bigger issue to me an seems to always get lost in the discussion

The issue to me is the ethics involved of a regulating body giving a blood sample and data to a newspaper. What was the motive? How sleazy is it to violate a persons privacy like this, blood is tissue and courts have ruled that you own this and control all of the rights to it. What other testing did they do with the blood, did they check for aids, hepatitus or other diseases. This is the bigger issue to me an seems to always get lost in the discussion

Actually, it was just the test results from a urine sample. But, this is in violation of the safeguards that both WADA and UCI set up to protect riders from false accusations. A doping accusation is very prejudicial: true or not, it harms the rider. Consequently, one should reasonably sure before tossing accusations around. So say both the UCI and WADA. Yes, I am also concerned at how quickly due process was chucked out. The current mess is neither fair, nor thorough.

I don't really blame the newspaper, it's in business to make money, and it's a sports newspaper which is hardly a hotbed of journalistic objectivity. They're supposed to stretch the truth. However, a lot of confidential information has been misused here, and even the EPO test itself has fallen under a cloud of suspicion for false positives - especially false positives resulting from mishandled samples. (witness the Beke case)

The trouble with this case is, no one wins. There is enough data floating around to cast suspicion on LA, enough things wrong with the EPO test and sample handling to cast doubt on the data, and enough disturbing coincidences regarding the circumstances of the test and subsequent information leaks to cast doubt on the assertion that this was not a planned attack. But nothing has been absolutely proven, one way or another.

And WADA, normally the pit bull terrier of anti doping efforts, tossed this one like a hot potato and is quietly trying to slip out the door. I wonder why...

And WADA, normally the pit bull terrier of anti doping efforts, tossed this one like a hot potato and is quietly trying to slip out the door. I wonder why...

Probably because they didn't exist in 1999?


Read the detailed New York Times article I posted here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1580772&postcount=564).

That doesn't look like the L'Equipe article to me. It has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You said that they didn't post the raw data, which is a lie. And if you read the original article, you would know that.


Bottom line: The test is subjective, and requires interpretation.

Yes, that is why there is a huge margin of error before declaring a positive. People naturally only produce well less than %40 of the type of EPO that they tested for, yet they only declare positives on +80%.


Your post shows that you know nothing about the test you think is valid.

Why do you say that? Because I think a test... actually three tests in one... is reliable, as it has been used for years?

[QUOTE=doctorSpoc] we all know that road rash is also a big problem in x-country skiing QUOTE]

Actually, seriously it is. You think there is snow all year round? Being as how I AM a competitive X-country skiier, I may know this. There is something called roller skis(short skis on wheels) and we go on roads with them, really hurts when you fall.

Second, doctorspoc, you said that all the peleton dopes, just no one challenges anyone to find them like LA does.. So what is your real name, I want to see you results from the last time you raced in the pro peleton.......

99% of this is all speculation. Unles you were there, you dont know for sure. Then again, this is the interent, you can say pretty much whatever you want.

"you can prove anything with statistics.......78% of people know that......"

What a joke... after all of his huffing and puffing (and hugging LA's nu++s) it turns out that it's likely Verbruggen himself (UCI president) that handed L'Equipe the documents they needed to link Armstrong to his samples (the papers that Armstrong and team director Bruyneel sign when the Urine sample was given in 1999)... doesn't sound like malace, just stupidity...

Wow, didn't know that WADA protocols allow for it to retest samples eight years after they were given... lucky for Armstrong WADA didn't exist when these sample were given.. doesn't seem like they have a real process on the books for this though...

Pound and Verbruggen should just get it over with... strap on the gloves and go twelve rounds... these guys lock horns, like every other day...

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8892.0.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
Pound says Verbruggen gave critical info to L'Equipe
By Charles Pelkey
news editor, VeloNews
This report filed September 15, 2005

World Anti-Doping Agency president Dick Pound says UCI president Hein Verbruggen was the probable source of documents linking anonymous urine samples to Lance Armstrong revealed three weeks ago by the French newspaper L'Equipe.

In conference call with reporters on Thursday, Pound referred to an as-of-yet-unreleased letter from Verbruggen that acknowledges that he had given reporters at least one document that provided i>L'Equipe with the critical information linking six samples that had tested positive for EPO to the seven-time Tour winner.

"It is obvious where the information came from," Pound said. "Mr. Verbruggen said to us that he had shown to all six documents signed by Mr. Armstrong and his team to the journalist, and that he had given that reporter a copy of at least one of those files."

In expose' titled "Armstrong's Lies" L'Equipe provided images of documents linking the numbered-but-anonymous samples, taken during the 1999 Tour de France, to documents containing those same numbers signed by both Armstrong and team director Johann Bruyneel.

The UCI has since announced that it intends to investigate the matter, but emphasized that much of its focus would be on tracking down the source of the leak.

Pound, who said that WADA has no jurisdiction in a case that occurred prior to its November of 1999 creation, said that the doping agency would assist the UCI in its investigation, but had "no interest" in participating if the leak issue was the UCI's sole focus.

WADA's international anti-doping protocols allow for the retesting of blood and urine samples for up to eight years after an event. Pound said that the Armstrong case underscored a need to develop procedures that would "allow us to get at the truth" while protecting an athletes right to challenge test results.

In the Armstrong matter, the positive results came from the re-testing of so-called "b samples," the only ones available, since the original "a samples" were destroyed at the time the original tests were carried out.

At the time, there were no tests available for the detection of EPO. The UCI began using a French-designed urine test at the 2001 Tour de France.

Now I'm starting to enjoy this. The title of this thread "UCI lashes out against the WADA and French Paper" is beginning to look ridiculous.

News:

Dick Pound, head of WADA, who was under heavy attack by Verbruggen, head of UCI, is fighting back, according to l'Equipe online www.lequipe.fr . In a press conference today, he confirms Verbruggen gave the information about the names of the positive riders himself to l' Equipe.

Pound:
«...M. Verbruggen nous a dit qu'il avait montré toutes les formules de Lance Armstrong à L'Equipe, au journaliste, et qu'il a même donné une copie d'au moins un des dossiers»
[Mr Verbruggen told us he showed all formula about LA to l'Equipe, to the journalist, and that he even gave a copy of at least one case.]

Here the full news thread in French
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20050915_173000Dev.html

Shame, coz now the full case will deviate from the true protagonists, Armstrong, Hamburger, etc who were (or maybe not ) EPO positive in 1999, to a fight between Pound and Verbruggen...

Let's see how this evolves

Have a nice day

Actually, seriously it is. You think there is snow all year round? Being as how I AM a competitive X-country skiier, I may know this. There is something called roller skis(short skis on wheels) and we go on roads with them, really hurts when you fall.

i'm very familiar with dry land traing methods... but why would they bring it to the actual competitions on snow... the group that had it in the meds lists were swimmers as well... weak!!



Second, doctorspoc, you said that all the peleton dopes, just no one challenges anyone to find them like LA does.. So what is your real name, I want to see you results from the last time you raced in the pro peleton.......

99% of this is all speculation. Unles you were there, you dont know for sure. Then again, this is the interent, you can say pretty much whatever you want.

"you can prove anything with statistics.......78% of people know that......"

You can say that about anything!!

is the world really a sphere? i've never been into space and seen it for myself so I don't know.. i'm just taking others word for it.

is there really a country call Irak? I don't know I've never been there.. it be just an invention, could be some some huge conspiracy to divert 100s of billions of dollars out of the American economy...

ALMOST everthing we take as fact and deal with on a daily basis, put to your test will result to the same conclusion you reached about the LA evidence.. I don't know for sure that this is true... everything around us has a probability of being true... the fact of the matter is that we look at our would and the things we hear, read, even see with our own eyes sometimes and we put it though our filters and we determine if we believe it or not... but if we use your criteria we would not believe anything unless we see it with our own eyes, do the test ourselves etc... does that make sense?? we look at the available evidence (even if the evidence is incomplete) and we can and do make a determination. Even legal systems work the same way, although the process is just written down and systematic. but bottom line, we can all use our own brains and look at the info and make a determination and this discussion board is set up for us to share info and our ideas with others... so that is what we do here...

i'm very familiar with dry land traing methods... but why would they bring it to the actual competitions on snow... the group that had it in the meds lists were swimmers as well... weak!!



You can say that about anything!!

is the world really a sphere? i've never been into space and seen it for myself so I don't know.. i'm just taking others word for it.

is there really a country call Irak? I don't know I've never been there.. it be just an invention, could be some some huge conspiracy to divert 100s of billions of dollars out of the American economy...

ALMOST everthing we take as fact and deal with on a daily basis, put to your test will result to the same conclusion you reached about the LA evidence...

Just to be clear, I'm with Doc on this one. I'm just fine tuning a bit.

How do we know Lance Armstrong exists? Or for that matter the Tour de France. Couldn't it just be a video hoax? So I guess unless we have actualy been there for the Tour we all have to shut up.

Taking it a bit farther. How many of us know France exists? I'm borderline. I have been to England twice and one time took the Hovercraft over and spent a day and a night in France. But it was overcast at the time I never recall seeing the French shore from England. Maybe they just looped back to an isolated section of England that was part of some great hoax.

Of course this is absurd, but it still could be true if I am limited to just what I saw.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep15news3

That doesn't look like the L'Equipe article to me. It has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You said that they didn't post the raw data, which is a lie. And if you read the original article, you would know that.
The New York times article is the most detailed account of how an EPO test is done that I've seen. If you have a better one, let us know. It says that the raw data of the test is, in part, a set of bars created when the treated urine is exposed to a magnet. If you show me a picture of that from L'Equipe, as well as the notes interpreting the graph, I will withdraw my comment. Otherwise, you owe me an apology for acusing me of telling a "lie."

Edit: Is this (http://img5.picsplace.to/img5/1/epo_000.jpg) what you were talking about? If so, that's just the conclusion, not the raw data.

Clarification: The bars are created when the treated urine is exposed to an electrical field. I said magnet. Yes, magnets can create electrical fields, but the NYT article made no mention of magnets.

WE LIVE IN AN AGE WHERE TESTS CAN'T PROVE EVERYTHING.

the naivete of people just astounds me. try putting aside your media-driven man-love and use something called the common sense standard. :lol: how can you not tell that this guy is on something? it blows me away that people think this guy(and alot of others) is for real. i don't think these tests prove anything. lequipe IS on a witch hunt, but with very good reason. you don't NEED a test to tell that armstrong is a doper. he's a cheater!

So by implicating "a lot of others," basically you have put them all on the same plane or standard... so based on that standard, Armstrong still won over the others.

In other words "everybody does it," OK, but Armstrong still beat everybody... were his drugs just better, or what was the difference?

It says that the raw data of the test is, in part, a set of bars created when the treated urine is exposed to a magnet. If you show me a picture of that from L'Equipe, as well as the notes interpreting the graph, I will withdraw my comment. Otherwise, you owe me an apology for acusing me of telling a "lie."

In part, you say. 'part of the test' does not equal 'the test'.

The New York times article is the most detailed account of how an EPO test is done that I've seen. If you have a better one, let us know. It says that the raw data of the test is, in part, a set of bars created when the treated urine is exposed to a magnet. If you show me a picture of that from L'Equipe, as well as the notes interpreting the graph, I will withdraw my comment. Otherwise, you owe me an apology for acusing me of telling a "lie."

Edit: Is this (http://img5.picsplace.to/img5/1/epo_000.jpg) what you were talking about? If so, that's just the conclusion, not the raw data.

tell me you are not serious right? so if someone records the temperature from a thermometer they need to show you a picture of the thermometer because reading 20 degrees on it and writing that down is not raw data??? [shaking my head] ??? ??? ??? ??? hey man, you stumped me I don't know how to comment on that one... please tell me you are not serious.

Another note to add to the thread...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep16news2

I'll add this, too... I have always said that, were I falsely accused of wrongdoing, you would see my face every single day protesting my innocence. Innocent people don't sit idly by and let others take up the fight for them. Lance proclaims his innocence every day. He stands in front of reporters and cameras and the public and screams to the top of his lungs that he is not a doper. If I were innocent, that's exactly what I would do. His actions make me believe him even more.

On the flip side, look at guys like (unfortunately) Tyler Hamilton. Tyler is sitting quietly at home, waiting for his legal team to convince a court that he has some rare blood disorder that caused his strange results. He's never in the news. He's never emphatic in his denial of doping. People are taking away his livelihood, and he's remaining more or less quiet about it. That's the portrait of a guilty man, IMHO.

tell me you are not serious right? so if someone records the temperature from a thermometer they need to show you a picture of the thermometer because reading 20 degrees on it and writing that down is not raw data??? [shaking my head] ??? ??? ??? ??? hey man, you stumped me I don't know how to comment on that one... please tell me you are not serious.
According to the NY Times article, interpreting the EPO test is a lot more interpretive than reading a thermometer:



"This is not like a pregnancy test, where you are either pregnant or you're not," said Nicolle Packer, an executive vice president and a founding scientist at Proteome Systems in Sydney, Australia, which has one of the research grants.

"It has to be prepared carefully and interpreted by an expert, who can mostly call it, I believe," she said in a telephone interview. "But it is definitely skill-based, and that is why W.A.D.A. is looking for a more clear-cut test."

* * *

The test for EPO, unlike, say, a test for cocaine use, requires skilled interpretation; it is more like reading an X-ray.

"You are looking at numbers and signals, but in the end what is most important here is the experience of the eyes of an expert," said Dr. Martial Saugy, director of the Swiss antidoping laboratory in Lausanne, who also specializes in EPO tests. "It's the 'now we see it - this looks like someone who has injected EPO.' "

* * *

To test for EPO, a preparation of urine is placed on the edge of a blotter, then subjected to the pull of an electrical field, leaving deposits in certain patterns that resemble a tiger's stripes.

Some bands are more associated with recombinant EPO, some more with the natural substance. But there is considerable overlap as well. Scientists assess the patterns and the intensity of the bands.

"There is a fair amount of cross-reactivity with the test, so there are certainly false positives," Packer, the research scientist from Australia, said. "There is a lot of argument - and a lot of politics - about whether the test is good."


Now, how can you say that the percentages are raw data? They are just the lab tech's assessment of the raw data. There may be other raw data (I don't know if there is), but, at a minimum, the raw data are the stripes that the electrical field causes the urine to create.

The question I have for Dolomiti is, do you have the integrity to apologize for acusing me of telling a "lie"?

seems Verbruggen did release at least one document to L'Equipe and at least showed him the rest... with the approval of Armstrong.. seems they got Armstrong's approval under false pretenses but "by any means necessary" right? and how does that change the fact that the documents are legit?

so when this all came out why didn't the UCI just say they had released one of the documents and showed the L'Equipe reporter the other documents (wonder if he had one of those little spy cameras and snapped picts of the the others) and that Armstrong actually authorized this... that seems a little fishy to me... a little weird?? I'm not sure what was even gained by not comming forward by doing this. It did allow speculation that all the info was leaked from other sources though. But now it looks like Armstrong is trying to hide things though.. why wouldn't they have said this at the onset?

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8892.0.html
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8897.0.html

And I don't agree with Armstrongs assessment that the whole problem was that the Lab or who ever leaked the test results with the id number on it... that's only half the problem. It's a chicken and egg... if only the tests were released (with ID numbers) and not the tests then Armstrong wouldn't have been linked to his tests either. How would the Lab know or anyone else know that L'Equipe would have access to these other papers and be able to make that connection? They were in the same boat as Armstrong who had half the documents necessary to make the connection without knowing that the guy that he was talking to had the other docs to make the connection.

but the main point is that yes... the leaks should be determinded but what of the test themselves... are they just going to be ignored? the UCI is just going to go ahead like nothing happend.. that's disgusting!!!

. . . but the main point is that yes... the leaks should be determinded but what of the test themselves... are they just going to be ignored? the UCI is just going to go ahead like nothing happend.. that's disgusting!!!
The conclusions L'Equipe published--without any raw data, without any documentation of chain of custody or of lab procedure, and without any ability to repeat the tests--are close to worthless scientifically. Unless the lab can produce the raw data and other documentation (I hope they can), then the accusations really are "disgusting."

Never trust scientists who won't show you their raw data. Never trust scientists who won't explain (step-by-step) exactly how they did a test.

Dog:

I don't know whether Lance is a juicer or not. I've gotten pretty cynical about high achieving athletes in any sport.

But think: There have been other athletes pre-drug era who dominated their sports as completely as Armstrong has his sport. If you are saying no one can dominate like that, how do you explain Eddie Mercx(sp?). Or Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Sandy Koufax, Walter Payton, Jim Brown? Did Mark Spitz dope in Mexico in '68?

Lance may be the biggest juicer on the planet(I don't think so--there's too many ordinary people around him who would let the story out; no one's loyal when you're going to put big bucks in their pockets. The era of the National Enquirer(in French-L'Equipe), I guess.).

But if he is proven to be, I'll feel disappointed. But until then I choose to believe in what Lance himself called a "miracle". I don't know Lance. He may be arrogant as hell. Character flaws in a pro athlete--who would have thought.

By the way, I prefer Lance's arrogance, commercialization, and rock star status to the sore loser attitude of a bunch of Euro-trash journalists. I don't think their countrymen even like them.

Anyway, all of you have my opinion--It's worth what you paid for it.

The conclusions L'Equipe published--without any raw data, without any documentation of chain of custody or of lab procedure, and without any ability to repeat the tests--are close to worthless scientifically. Unless the lab can produce the raw data and other documentation (I hope they can), then the accusations really are "disgusting."

Never trust scientists who won't show you their raw data. Never trust scientists who won't explain (step-by-step) exactly how they did a test.

what??? i'm not getting you.. what do you want to happen???

don't get wrong.. i'm with you in one respect in getting at the validity of the test... i'm all for the UCI doing a REAL investigation into the validity OR not of the tests... the point is that from the rhetoric they have no plans what so ever of doing that. I'd like WADA to be a part of that investigation because the UCI is just too corrupt. L'Equipe is a news paper and they did what news papers do to sell papers, but it's not their job to determine if the test are scientifically valid or not... they are certainly not qualified to do that either are neither are you or I.

...and the lab is supposed to explain to WHO and show their raw data to WHO.. what got released was not even to be release to the public so now they are suppose to show all and explain all to the public??? NO, it's for the UCI to get off their asses and do a REAL investigation... the info is in the public sphere it for the UCI to look at the info and say it is valid or invalid for reason A, B or C... bring in which ever experts the need, but do something!! What you and I are supposed to make that determination?? the lab just put the raw data in the paper and the public is supposed to parse it and make sense of it???

honestly I have no idea what you are suggesting??

Now, how can you say that the percentages are raw data? They are just the lab tech's assessment of the raw data. There may be other raw data (I don't know if there is), but, at a minimum, the raw data are the stripes that the electrical field causes the urine to create.

The question I have for Dolomiti is, do you have the integrity to apologize for acusing me of telling a "lie"?

So what you're saying is that the only thing that could have counted as 'raw data' in the original published article are pictures of stripes?



Never trust scientists who won't show you their raw data. Never trust scientists who won't explain (step-by-step) exactly how they did a test.

As it already has been mentioned, this test wasn't ment to be published.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you think we shouldn't believe leaked information.

Your sort of criticism would be perfectly understandable if the testing was ment to be publicised.



Lance may be the biggest juicer on the planet(I don't think so--there's too many ordinary people around him who would let the story out; no one's loyal when you're going to put big bucks in their pockets. The era of the National Enquirer(in French-L'Equipe), I guess.).

Actually, people have spoken out, and weren't given any money for it. But very few actually listened. (At least in the USA)


By the way, I prefer Lance's arrogance, commercialization, and rock star status to the sore loser attitude of a bunch of Euro-trash journalists. I don't think their countrymen even like them.

How does their writing have anything to do with being a 'sore loser'?

So what you're saying is that the only thing that could have counted as 'raw data' in the original published article are pictures of stripes?
Yes, at a bare minimum. It must also include any other information they collected in the process of the testing.



As it already has been mentioned, this test wasn't ment to be published. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you think we shouldn't believe leaked information. Your sort of criticism would be perfectly understandable if the testing was ment to be publicised.
That doesn't matter. They were still doing this for research purposes. They need the same basic information about the steps they took to validate research as they do to defend a positive drug test. Now, maybe chain of custody documentation will not be as carefully kept, but they should show what they have.



The form L'Equipe produced (http://img5.picsplace.to/img5/1/epo_000.jpg) contains only two numbers attributed to Armstrong: 265 and 96.6. Can anyone explain what these numbers represent? I assume, 96.6 is a percentage, but what is it a percentage of? Where did these numbers come from?

Yes, at a bare minimum. It must also include any other information they collected in the process of the testing.



That doesn't matter. They were still doing this for research purposes. They need the same basic information about the steps they took to validate research as they do to defend a positive drug test. Now, maybe chain of custody documentation will not be as carefully kept, but they should show what they have.



The form L'Equipe produced (http://img5.picsplace.to/img5/1/epo_000.jpg) contains only two numbers attributed to Armstrong: 265 and 96.6. Can anyone explain what these numbers represent? I assume, 96.6 is a percentage, but what is it a percentage of? Where did these numbers come from?

for the analysis (last 3 columns) red/pink equal positive, green = negative, light green equals unclassifiable and the vertical lines = reanalyse

column 1 = visual interpretation
column 2 (the 96.6) = isoformes percentage (percent natural to synthetic). 80% +/- 5% equal a positive 40% is typical of people on the street
column 3 = the new mathematic modelling

the 265 (IU/L) = the retained EPO... you would know that if you actually read the article and could read the colum headers...

you obviously have not read the article you are protesting so loudly about... maybe you should not critize something you don't about. ironically you are saying the article is missing A, B, C, and D and you don't even have a clue what's really in there because you haven't read it. kinda weird for some one who says he's lacking info.. how do you know what you are lacking??

That's a fair "gotcha." You're right, I should have read more carefully. Now, have you seen the raw data anywhere, or do we only have the conclusions that have been posted to this thread?

Another interesting question is whether the lab can verify the reliability of the substance they added to the urine (the stuff that reacts with the electrical field to create the bars). In a drunk driving case, if asked, the cops would have to verify that their machine was properly calibrated by properly certified fluid. Otherwise, the test will get thrown out.

Verifying the reliability of this test is a lot more complicated than many people think. I am NOT saying it can't be done. I am saying that the test is suspect if it is not done.

That's a fair "gotcha." You're right, I should have read more carefully. Now, have you seen the raw data anywhere, or do we only have the conclusions that have been posted to this thread?

Another interesting question is whether the lab can verify the reliability of the substance they added to the urine (the stuff that reacts with the electrical field to create the bars). In a drunk driving case, if asked, the cops would have to verify that their machine was properly calibrated by properly certified fluid. Otherwise, the test will get thrown out.

Verifying the reliability of this test is a lot more complicated than many people think. I am NOT saying it can't be done. I am saying that the test is suspect if it is not done.

Hi Daily Commute
1) Chatenay Malabri is a recognised National Anti Doping Lab, accredited by IOC, WADA, UCI.

2) The work they did on twice 70 samples ( 70 for TDF 1998 / 70 for TDF 1999 ) were ordered by WADA

3) Knowing that it costs between 400 and 600 USD per sample to do the job ( 2 days to fulfil the test? ) one can assume the lab did the tests in a very professional way. If they didn't they'd lose customers. Their credibility is at stake here, don't forget.

4) the guys in the lab couldn't care less about who's samples they were testing. The only ones interested would have been the newspapers and (maybe) WADA. We know UCI wouldn't want this ghost to appear now !!! We also have an idea now how the reporter got the names.

5) Because the test results rely on human interpretation, the error margin is at a very high percentage. One of the factors to test EPO is to compare the percentage of "basic isoforms" of certain proteins in a urine sample. The more basic isoforms present, the greater the likelihood that the person had injuected EPO within the last few days. A normal person would have less than 40 percent basic isoforms, while someone who had taken EPO could have between 80 and 100 percent, allowing for a very wide margin of error ( source "Cycling News", link below ). Now that's the reason why there were 12 "definite positives" among the 70 samples for 1999, 12 cases of synthetic/natural isoform relation of over 80% ( example you showed column 2 = 96.6%, that's OH MY GOD relation ! ).

6) No A samples, no C samples, duh

7) BUT 6 ( SIX times ) B samples, where this percentage was over 80%. Six times LA's samples.

8) No EPO = no 96.6%.

9) One exception though, one: BEKE Case. A Belgian rider, who develops naturally proteins that showed ( once only ) false positive. Aha, so could be Armstrongs case then. No? No, because this Belgian guy can reproduce this phenomenon ( with additionally hematocrit levels above 52 ) without taking EPO, but Armstrong can't. His normal levels seem to be around 41.

sorry wanted to be short, and I slipped again. Hope this will be read by some of you.

Have a nice day

Cycling News link

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/avoid_positive

That's a fair "gotcha." You're right, I should have read more carefully. Now, have you seen the raw data anywhere, or do we only have the conclusions that have been posted to this thread?

Another interesting question is whether the lab can verify the reliability of the substance they added to the urine (the stuff that reacts with the electrical field to create the bars). In a drunk driving case, if asked, the cops would have to verify that their machine was properly calibrated by properly certified fluid. Otherwise, the test will get thrown out.

Verifying the reliability of this test is a lot more complicated than many people think. I am NOT saying it can't be done. I am saying that the test is suspect if it is not done.

using your definition of raw data no... but you mean to tell me that you honestly expect that in a news paper article to find that?? (can you actually answer that? do you really expect that type of data to be printed in a paper?) c'mon this is L'Equipe... this isn't Nature or some other scientific journal.. and the lab can't release that info anyway, it would be another breach of protocol to do that, so it's just not going to happen... the only answer that makes any kind of sense is for the UCI and WADA to do an investigation and present their findings... that's it. if it's just a UCI investigation, especially given what they've put out there as their major goals.. it's just going to be a white wash and we are not going to know anything... if WADA and the UCI are involved we will get to something more closely resembling the truth... with each whatching over the other's back.

To those who attack L'Equipe, here some more info:

- L'Equipe is not a tabloid paper, it is a recognised sports paper. Armstrong always collaborated with them. They also wrote fantastic things about him ( he definitely is a superb athlete ).

- L'Equipe buried ( they slaughtered ) French riders on dope: Virenque was one of them in 1998, Brochard was another one. They caused the sacking of numerous French riders from Cofidis team in 2004.

- They released the news about David Millar, when French police discovered EPO syringes in his home. UCI admitted they couldn't have taken away Millar's world championship title, hadn't he admitted publicly taking EPO, as they did not have access to his "police confessions"...and l'Euqipe article wouldn't have changed this.

- They also attacked Hinault for his arrogance in late 70's .

- You will never find any private story ( outside sports ) related to Armstrong. No Sheryl Crow stories, or any gossip around his divorce and children.


L'Equipe is after any great story around sports and doping, and they give their reporters the means to do their inquiries. Damien Ressiot worked 4 months on LA's case. At least, they do not only rely on internet posts the way other papers do.

But here in Europe readers are more "blazé". Pfff, of course they all dope anyway. In U.S. it seems to be more the attitude, "No, he can't be on dope, they would have found something, it would be soooo easy to prove it. Plus, he can't be, he said he didn't !" In Europe, Virenque admitted to doping in 1998 ( but he admitted it only during the process around 2001 ? ), and he still stayed a HUUUUUGE superstar in France. In US you would have lynched him.

C'est la France
Have a nice day

using your definition of raw data no... but you mean to tell me that you honestly expect that in a news paper article to find that?? (can you actually answer that? do you really expect that type of data to be printed in a paper?) c'mon this is L'Equipe... this isn't Nature or some other scientific journal.. and the lab can't release that info anyway, it would be another breach of protocol to do that, so it's just not going to happen... the only answer that makes any kind of sense is for the UCI and WADA to do an investigation and present their findings... that's it. if it's just a UCI investigation, especially given what they've put out there as their major goals.. it's just going to be a white wash and we are not going to know anything... if WADA and the UCI are involved we will get to something more closely resembling the truth... with each whatching over the other's back.
No, I don't expect L'Equipe to have the information. But, at a minimum, I expect the lab to be able to produce it (and have it verified by independent people) before the test is accepted as correct. If UCI whitewashes it, that will be a pity. I am NOT saying Armstrong is innocent. I'm just saying we don't yet have enough information.

Adamaster raises some interesting points that deserve a thoughtful response. But I only have a few spare minutes now, so I'll have to leave them unanswered for the moment.

Edit: After thinking about your question, I do expect L'Equipe to have reviewed the raw data with objective headlines before running a headline like, "The Armstrong Lie." The information they have presented justifies a headline like, "Armstrong Tests Positive." But if the paper did not have the raw data and did not have it reviewed by independent third parties, the paper's willingness to leap to a conclusion unjustifed by the available facts hurts its credibility.

Hi Daily Commute
1) Chatenay Malabri is a recognised National Anti Doping Lab, accredited by IOC, WADA, UCI.

Even more the reason they should be able to provide the raw data and explain exactly how they did the test.



2) The work they did on twice 70 samples ( 70 for TDF 1998 / 70 for TDF 1999 ) were ordered by WADA

3) Knowing that it costs between 400 and 600 USD per sample to do the job ( 2 days to fulfil the test? ) one can assume the lab did the tests in a very professional way. If they didn't they'd lose customers. Their credibility is at stake here, don't forget.

4) the guys in the lab couldn't care less about who's samples they were testing. The only ones interested would have been the newspapers and (maybe) WADA. We know UCI wouldn't want this ghost to appear now !!! We also have an idea now how the reporter got the names.

You can't "assume" anything. That's why we do tests. You could also "assume" that the lab has a financial interest in covering up mistakes. The lab also has a financial incentive in convincing people that the test is more valid than it is. I'm not saying the lab cheated, only that it has a financial incentive to push the envelope.



5) Because the test results rely on human interpretation, the error margin is at a very high percentage. One of the factors to test EPO is to compare the percentage of "basic isoforms" of certain proteins in a urine sample. The more basic isoforms present, the greater the likelihood that the person had injuected EPO within the last few days. A normal person would have less than 40 percent basic isoforms, while someone who had taken EPO could have between 80 and 100 percent, allowing for a very wide margin of error ( source "Cycling News", link below ). Now that's the reason why there were 12 "definite positives" among the 70 samples for 1999, 12 cases of synthetic/natural isoform relation of over 80% ( example you showed column 2 = 96.6%, that's OH MY GOD relation ! ).
Then let's see the results!



6) No A samples, no C samples, duh

7) BUT 6 ( SIX times ) B samples, where this percentage was over 80%. Six times LA's samples.

8) No EPO = no 96.6%
That's why lab procedure is so important. Six samples handled the same way could lead to repeating the same error the same way six times. Also, the article you cited (like the NYT article I cited) says the test is undergoing "improvements." From what to what? What is wrong with the current testing procedure that needs to be improved?

Again, I am not saying Armstrong is innocent. I only say that L'Equipe made an accusation that has not been proved. The real investigation has just begun. Hopefully, the labs record-keeping and professionalism will be good enough to validate or invalidate the test.

Finally, unless I've missed it, none of us have mentioned who the real judges in this case are. The real judges are Nike, Suburu and Oakley. I would love to be a fly on the walls of their PR departments.

Dog:

I don't know whether Lance is a juicer or not. I've gotten pretty cynical about high achieving athletes in any sport.

But think: There have been other athletes pre-drug era who dominated their sports as completely as Armstrong has his sport. If you are saying no one can dominate like that, how do you explain Eddie Mercx(sp?). Or Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Sandy Koufax, Walter Payton, Jim Brown? Did Mark Spitz dope in Mexico in '68?

Lance may be the biggest juicer on the planet(I don't think so--there's too many ordinary people around him who would let the story out; no one's loyal when you're going to put big bucks in their pockets. The era of the National Enquirer(in French-L'Equipe), I guess.).

But if he is proven to be, I'll feel disappointed. But until then I choose to believe in what Lance himself called a "miracle". I don't know Lance. He may be arrogant as hell. Character flaws in a pro athlete--who would have thought.

By the way, I prefer Lance's arrogance, commercialization, and rock star status to the sore loser attitude of a bunch of Euro-trash journalists. I don't think their countrymen even like them.

Anyway, all of you have my opinion--It's worth what you paid for it.

Look up Eddy's results for the 1969 Giro. Or more to the point Tom Simpson in 67. Or why the second time that Jacques Anquetil broke the hour record it was not allowed.

Drugs go back a long way in sport and to the very roots of cycling.

Oh and there have been a lot of people coming forward, about both Lance and cycling in general, but it seems each and every one gets dismissed because they don't have a video of someone shooting up.

It's getting hard to say what the lab's involvment was. WADA commissioned the experiment, and presumably issued the authority to use the samples. The LNDD lab does have a financial stake in this - they hold the patent on the current EPO test, and are financially motivated to validate it. However, it appears that they just followed orders (didn't really have the opportunity to do otherwise), and it's the orders from WADA that have me curious. Curiouser still is WADA declining to reveal exactly what they contracted the lab to do. Or what test was used - there is talk that LNDD was using a new "two dimensional" test, not the current EPO test.

Now, one has to wonder why they used the 98 and 99 Tour samples, and what they hoped to accomplish. If the lab and WADA were on the level, and the samples were actually to remain 'forever anonymous', of what use would the results be? You couldn't tell if a series of positives were from one athlete, or a dozen. They only way you could make sense out of the results is if the samples were NOT anonymous. Almost as if it someone had this in mind all along... why go to all of that expense with 'anonymous' samples, when a few volunteers could have done the same job far more accurately?

What was WADA hoping to accomplish? Was this a legitimate test, or did they have ulterior motives?

...Now, one has to wonder why they used the 98 and 99 Tour samples, and what they hoped to accomplish. If the lab and WADA were on the level, and the samples were actually to remain 'forever anonymous', of what use would the results be? You couldn't tell if a series of positives were from one athlete, or a dozen. They only way you could make sense out of the results is if the samples were NOT anonymous. Almost as if it someone had this in mind all along... why go to all of that expense with 'anonymous' samples, when a few volunteers could have done the same job far more accurately?...

I think you might want to use volunteers as a control group but I would think you would want to evaluate/improve you test using real atheletes in real race stituations... we know that two triatheletes falsely tested positive but could demonstrate that under race stress the false positive could be repeated (large amount of proteins in the urine or something?)... we know this is not an issue with Armstong though, since he as passed hundreds of EPO tests in and out of competition... anyway the point is that the very best you can do is to test your test on the actual population in the actual situation to account for things like this.

the other thing is that the 1998 tests were kept confidential-- hey the system worked!... no one knows or will likely ever know who tested positive there.

why would you want to do it? it is great info to know that in 1998 there were 40 positive test i think? you get some idea of what portion of the population, given that they know they can dope with impunity will cheat... you could possibly figure out their doping regime if you could link multiple samples from the same athelete this could be done anonymously too. could explain why the id's were left on, you wouldn't have to link to a name you could just link to athelete A or B... You could deduce the numbers that had moved on to other drugs from 1998 to 1999 (i.e. trends year over year) etc, etc... this is all great information in the fight against doping... i'm sure there are even more of reasons to do these test though..

Did you hear that sound? It's the sound of this story dying.

It looks like these allegations have become like all the others. Smoke, no fire. Suspicion, no proof.

Did you hear that sound? It's the sound of this story dying.

It looks like these allegations have become like all the others. Smoke, no fire. Suspicion, no proof.


Dammit! The ********* gets away with it once again!