Nd2PdlFstr

Another note to add to the thread...

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...p05/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.

Daily Commute

According to the NY Times article, interpreting the EPO test is a lot more interpretive than reading a thermometer:


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"?

doctorSpoc

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?

https://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8892.0.html
https://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!!!

Daily Commute

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.

remy123

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.

doctorSpoc

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??

Dolomiti

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?

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.

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

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

Daily Commute

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 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?

doctorSpoc

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??

Daily Commute

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.

adamastor

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

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...avoid_positive

doctorSpoc

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.

adamastor

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

Daily Commute

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.

Daily Commute

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


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.


Then let's see the results!


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.

Keith99

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.

johno

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?

doctorSpoc

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..

Daily Commute

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.

bellweatherman

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