roadwarrior

I'll say this for you....you will not EVER have to worry about having to be on jury duty.

jdtschida

edit. nevermind, reposted transcript link...

DRLski

I think this is all a bunch of BS anyways, especially after watching larry king last night, glad I watched it. Besides I don't really trust a country that obviously do anything for a story and doesn't feel like lifting a finger to give everyone else a hand against terrorists. When France comes to an attack like England did maybe they'll change their views on everything including what they're doing to their most popular sport.

2Rodies

Actually France did support our war on terror. The French showed massive outpourings of sympathy and support after 9/11. They supported our war in Afganastan(sp) they just didn't support the war in Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism (remember the fictional mushroom cloud?).

Having said that I came away from the King interview with two observations. First I still believe that LA didn't dope. However I'm suprised by his lack of combativness, he has sued anyone and everyone who has even hinted that he has doped. This time he seems resigned to let it run it's course and that will sow the seed of doubt in many.

DRLski

I think he's just done dealing with all this crap.

Dave

canhep

Ok - I need some help to understand one thing - the Director of the Tour is quoted as having said that Lance fooled the fans etc.. I would think that he would be interested in protecting the race's reputation, it would seem the reasonable quote would be along the lines of "we have rules that govern the sport, Lance has abided by those rules and has never tested positive for any illegal drug through any official process. I can not speak to tests outside of this process"

Maybe I am too brainwashed, but I agree with Lance in that if the sport wants to clean itself up it has to stand behind its process, random sidebar testing which ignores controls and breaks all rules on confidentiality should not be tolerated.

Dolomiti

So, just because this information was unfairly leaked, he must not have doped

canhep

That is not close to what I said. IF the sport of cycling is going to publish rules to govern it, they need to abide by them. The "process" is in place to avoid the very things that Lance is claiming to defend himself.. there are no A samples... the samples were held for 5 years etc...

My complaint is actually unrelated to the question of whether he did or did not dope. The officials associated with the sport should defend their process, and help enforce it. Not promote renegade testing on the side aimed at any one person. All this does is cause distrust. Would YOU want to go into a sport where you knew there were no controls in place and at anytime someone could doctor a sample and get you kicked out. Face it, true or not, there is the very real chance these samples were doctored and because they chose not to follow the guidlines, they have missed the chance to really prove anything.

If Lance or any professional athlete doped I want them caught - but not by some newspaper leaving the athlete with no power to defend.

Trevor98

Well said.
This accusation is scary precisely because it is so unorthodox. This accusation reminds me of little girls calling mean other women "witch" with little or no proof. How do you defend yourself against such accusations? The current system of rules is designed to prevent ambiguity- L'Equipe apparently has no respect for that system and chooses to mount accusations that the governing body refuses to make.

2Rodies

It's not just that it was unfaily leaked it's also the process in which the tests were done. It seems as though the normal checks were dissregarded and tests could have easily been tainted. The head of the Canadien doping lab has flatly stated that she doesn't believe the tests could have even been conducted. The other bothersom fact is that they didn't identify the other "positive" riders, why only LA?

bellweatherman

It has been said that the testing process lacked the proper controls. I dispute that. In 1999, WADA did not even exist. So, the argument that protocols were not followed doesn't apply. In fact, the lab undertaking the tests is the top lab for sports drug testing in the world.

The validity of the test and the protocols followed are above and beyond that of standard protocols, even without a sample A set. In order to understand why you have to know how normal procedure is done for standardized testing. For instance, under standard protocols a sample A is tested, and if a positive result follows, then sample B is tested to confirm the results. However, not having one sample does not invalidate the other sample. The entire purpose behind having an A and a B sample is so that in a single event race, an B sample can be used to correlate the findings of an A sample. For the purposes of the lab testing the 1999 Tour samples, since there are multiple stages of the Tour, each stage in and of itself, can be used to correlate the values of another stage. So, instead of 2 samples (A & B) from a single stage saying the same thing, there are now multiple samples from different stages saying the same thing. Each of the 6 positive EPO results confirm the results of the other. Having multiple samples per multiple trials, instead of 2 samples (A & B) for the same trial, leads to overall higher reliability.

In summary:
1- WADA protocols do not apply because WADA did not exist in 1999 AND this particular EPO test did not exist in 1999
2- The protocols used supercede the standard A&B protocols today and the testing done by the laboratory is even MORE RELIABLE due to multiple samples correlating each other taken from multiple events.

The multiple events for which EPO was detected in Lance Armstrong's urine are:
Tour Prologue
stage 1 (Montaigu - Challans)
stage 9 (Le Grand Bornand - Sestričres, where he beat Alex Zülle by 31 seconds)
stage 10 (Sestričres-L'Alpe d'Huez)
12 (Saint-Galmier - Saint Flour)
stage 14 (Casters - Saint Gaudens)

Hoop

False, false, false. This is statistical and scientific gibberish. It may appear to pass common sense, but it fails scientific rigor.

You're focusing too narrowly on Armstrong and his six 'positive' tests. Look at the larger picture and see how the 11 'negative' (or missing?) tests fit your theory. How about those unidentified(?) riders who have only one 'positive' sample?

Trevor98

Nice research (but your missing one of the six). I am, however, wondering why his stages 8,11,12,13,15,16,17,18,19,20 urine sample weren't positive as well- I mean, if there was no test at the time, and he tested positive in the Prologue and stages 1,9,10, and 14 was he stopping and starting EPO usage? There is something wrong here- we, and I can only hope this includes L'Equipe, don't have anywhere near a complete story here. The interspersed chronology of the positive and negative tests needs to be explained.

I can see if the lab added EPO traces to random urine samples to validate their tests the lab would be reluctant to admit this for fear of being sued by Armstrong and further diminish their own respectability.

I don't see this being solved in any real way nor really changing anyone's mind.

Dolomiti

check https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...&postcount=385 or https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...&postcount=390

Especially considering the fact that the samples may have degraded in potency of artificial EPO, the number of positives compared to the number of doped samples may be small.

giorgios

My favorite part of the interview: "Let me get the calls now, but before we do by the way are you and Sheryl Crow going to get married" Larry King... "Listen, when I peed in that bottle there was'nt EPO in it, NOP WAY" LA

Hoop

I was posting in response to the statement that six positive results substantiated each other. If that is true (it isn't) how do we account for the other 'positive' results when then can't be substantiated buy other results (from other Tour stages)?

As to Armstrong's other 11 tests; Question: Why not identify Armstrong's negative (or inconclusive) results. Answer: It does not support the story of the paper.

bellweatherman

There is 0 chance that a positive result is false. That is the meaning of a false positive. A false positive means that a person who tests positive for a test is actually not positive. Drug tests are designed so that the occurence rate of a false positives are 0.

Now, to address your insinuation that the 11 other results dispute the findings of the 6 positive results. This is not true. The EPO hormone is actually a protein-based and like all proteins denature in the presence of heat and denature over time. The denaturing process causes the protein to lose its shape and becomes undetectable with current drug testing methods. That's why, you can take drugs that are protein based and if they denature in your body or in the urine before the test is performed, you will always turn up 100% negative even if youare guilty as the devil. So, the bad thing is that some riders will presumably get away with cheating the system if the EPO protein denatures before it is time for testing.

The purpose behind freezing the urine samples is that the samples can be saved longer as the protein is more stable at lower temps. That isn't to say that all proteins will remain intact. Some will denature over time which will lead to a negative result. The fact that Lance Armstrong has 6 out of whatever samples show up positive indicates that the results are valid because in those 6 separate samples, the results were positive indicating that the EPO protein had not denatured. It is physically impossible that a protein that has lost its conformation (shape) during the denaturation process can re-conform into its original shape. Therefore it is impossible that there are false positives. Thus, the only positives are the ones from which the protein had not denatured. Even scientists on two different continents of Canada and France agree that "such degradation, both said, does not lead to false positives."

Hence a positive result = a valid result.

Sincitycycler

Jean Mari Leblanc is a two-faced scumbag, according to Lance.

Trevor98

Doesn't this only apply to valid tests using valid samples under controlled environmental variables? I mean, if your are not trying to bust someone (as the lab claims) and you are fooling around with the tests in order to improve them are the controls the same? The possibilities of false positives here is not the same with a legal A sample test.

Additionally, if "Drug tests are designed so that the occurrence rate of a false positives are 0." then why the duel samples? If a drug test has zero percent chance of a false positive then why the second chance. Perhaps WADA knows something you don't- i.e. humans make mistakes and no test is perfect. Obviously this lab has some internal issues as they leaked at least part of the test results. Perhaps the leaker didn't have all the facts.

This is why information leaks are so suspect. Most often the leaker does not have all the information- and when that leak is the sole source your picture is incomplete.

If this leak was the sole source for L'Equipe they are irresponsible. One person has misled the press too often for them to trust him/her to not have a grudge.

lotek 

So how do we explain the Rutger Beke case (existance of false positive for EPO)?
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...ug05/aug10news
Again, I'm not saying he did or didn't just that there are false positives
(and not that this is the case here either).
marty

Hoop

WHA?

"Type I error - also called an alpha error, is the probability of deciding a constituent is present when it actually is absent."

False positives are a reality. They may be due to the method. They may be due to the collection or handling of the sample. They may be due to lab conditions. For whatever reason, they are there in this type of test.

Another poster pointed out the false positive rate for things like gestational diabetes and Down's Syndrome. We do our best to develop methods and practices that reduce the occurence, but eliminating them is a pipe dream.

Your assertion of a zero percent false positive rate is patently false.

Keith99

Shouldn't that be HUGE cajone?

Terex

I'm with Hoop. What I have to say to Bellweatherman (I think he meant to say "Bellwhetherman") is this:

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

dobber

So it's kind of like an article in the newspaper. If memory serves me, they (the newsrag) didn't print Lances response alonside the article.

Dolomiti

Actually, they we're begging for him to give them statements for the article. They called him about it before it was printed.