More (how to cheat)

And yet there has been no indepedent varification and the parties
involved are both those who have economic stakes in these test being
usable.

My, some people are willing to believe anything that is negative
without the slightest critical ability.

Kunich,

When you ASSume, you make an ass of you and me. I never said that I
believed anything in his research.

But I would be interested in knowing if the typical racer sample range
is "clean" (all three criteria negative) or is the peloton simply not
flunking the test (as currently given).

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

http://velonews.com/news/fea/8795.0.html
So the question now, is just how often do the riders meet 1 or 2 of the
3 criteria for a positive EPO test?
What are the three criteria? Can all three be measured in urine, or is
there a need for a blood/urine element to the test?

This means the test gives both false positives and lets cheaters cheat without
getting caught. Makes you wonder why they bother with the test.
---------------
Alex

Uh: How do you find false positives in this content?

Perhaps if the the test results were 100% pubic knowledge, then we can
just draw our own private conclusions. If the peloton is failing 2/3
of their EPO test components, I'd rather just know someone is dirty and
just not care if they are getting suspended or not.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kunich,

When you ASSume, you make an ass of you and me. I never said that I
believed anything in his research.

But I would be interested in knowing if the typical racer sample range
is "clean" (all three criteria negative) or is the peloton simply not
flunking the test (as currently given).

You misunderstand, the fact is that they AREN'T giving you real information
such as what the numbers are in a control group compared to what they are in
the so-called positive group. We've heard that some people's NATURA:L EPO
can be more or less acidic than normal and test as the injected form. We've
also seen Chung (I think) imply that there was some way of "pushing" rhEPO
into the "normal" region.

You know what? This is all becoming games. The tests cannot be trusted
because they haven't run all of the controls. Now these people who have a
financial stake in drug detection are telling us that none of the detection
schemes are foolproof and they need to have more money handed to them to
develop more tests in order to catch all the bad guys.

Well, answer me this - if everyone was using EPO in 1999 and 2000 and 2001
and the EPO test came on-line somewhere around 2001.5 why is it that only
Lance tested positive? (OK, but HALF of the positives were apparently
Lance).

Guys like Lafferty have been frothing at the mouth for years for this sort
of thing and L'Equipe was more than willing to compromise the entire drug
detection system to get a story.

OK, there was a story but it now cannot be independently verified. That
means the story is little more than fiction. Start to finish.

No Tom, there were several other positives in that bunch. Perhaps the
only substantial argument Lance could make right now, is pointing out
that only his results were leaked (or reported on). Forget why only
6/17 came back positive....why was he the only person identified by
name?

Tom Kunich said:

Well, answer me this - if everyone was using EPO in 1999 and 2000 and 2001
and the EPO test came on-line somewhere around 2001.5 why is it that only
Lance tested positive? (OK, but HALF of the positives were apparently
Lance).

40 positives in 1998 Tour
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug27news

photoshoppper said:

Perhaps if the the test results were 100% pubic knowledge

we'd know for sure how many balls LANCE has.

Donald Munro said:

photoshoppper wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps if the the test results were 100% pubic knowledge

Quoted message said:

we'd know for sure how many balls LANCE has.

However many there are, we know they are big ones.