"Known Leak"

wimpyVO2 said:

Floyd says UCI leaked the results to step in front of the "known leak"
at the Chatenay-Malabry lab. If UCI knows there's an information
security issue at this lab, why does UCI and WADA continue to certify
the lab? Yank their cert until they clean up their act.

DITTO!
CM lab stinks of incompetence.

"wimpyVO2" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Floyd says UCI leaked the results to step in front of the "known leak"
at the Chatenay-Malabry lab. If UCI knows there's an information
security issue at this lab, why does UCI and WADA continue to certify
the lab? Yank their cert until they clean up their act.

IIRC, the UCI decided to tell the public that a rider in the Tour had tested
positive without naming the rider. They did so out of a concern that
L'Equipe is thought to have contacts at the lab and might get the story out
first. Remember though, the lab only has the code numbers of the samples
and not the documentation linking them to a specific rider. That is not to
say someone could not make an educated guess, but it would be a guess absent
the UCI's forms linking the coded samples to specific riders.

Further, IIRC, it was Phonak that first confirmed to the press/public that
Landis was the one.

Bottom line in this instance is that the fact that a Tour rider tested
positive was NOT leaked by the CM lab. But, feel free to inhale Howard
Jacobs' smoke all you like. It isn't going to save Floyd's ass if the B
comes up positive for synthetic testosterone.

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

Quoted message said:

IIRC, the UCI decided to tell the public that a rider in the Tour had
tested positive without naming the rider. They did so out of a concern
that L'Equipe is thought to have contacts at the lab and might get the
story out first.

So in other words the UCI had such little confidence in the lab's security
they had to do a pre-emptive announcement.

Not that it matters now, anyway.

Carl Sundquist said:

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

Quoted message said:

IIRC, the UCI decided to tell the public that a rider in the Tour had
tested positive without naming the rider. They did so out of a concern
that L'Equipe is thought to have contacts at the lab and might get the
story out first.

So in other words the UCI had such little confidence in the lab's security
they had to do a pre-emptive announcement.

Not that it matters now, anyway.

There are procedural issues here that are interesting and ought to be
dealt with. Those issues don't have anything to do with whether Floyd
gets suspended, however. If his test is positive, it's positive.

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
l%2Bg.54$yO4.15@dukeread02...
|
| "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| news:[email hidden]...
| >
| > IIRC, the UCI decided to tell the public that a rider in the Tour had
| > tested positive without naming the rider. They did so out of a concern
| > that L'Equipe is thought to have contacts at the lab and might get the
| > story out first.
|
| So in other words the UCI had such little confidence in the lab's security
| they had to do a pre-emptive announcement.
|
| Not that it matters now, anyway.
|

No they had no confidence in the lab's confidentiality. Not the same as the
security.

trg said:

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
l%2Bg.54$yO4.15@dukeread02...
|
| "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| news:[email hidden]...
| >
| > IIRC, the UCI decided to tell the public that a rider in the Tour had
| > tested positive without naming the rider. They did so out of a concern
| > that L'Equipe is thought to have contacts at the lab and might get the
| > story out first.
|
| So in other words the UCI had such little confidence in the lab's security
| they had to do a pre-emptive announcement.
|
| Not that it matters now, anyway.
|

No they had no confidence in the lab's confidentiality. Not the same as the
security.

Almost exactly the same. Your distinction is like the embezzler who only takes
ten dollar bills.

Ron

"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
| On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 22:53:48 +0200, "trg" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
|
| >"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
| >l%2Bg.54$yO4.15@dukeread02...
| >|
| >| "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| >| news:[email hidden]...
| >| >
| >| > IIRC, the UCI decided to tell the public that a rider in the Tour had
| >| > tested positive without naming the rider. They did so out of a
concern
| >| > that L'Equipe is thought to have contacts at the lab and might get
the
| >| > story out first.
| >|
| >| So in other words the UCI had such little confidence in the lab's
security
| >| they had to do a pre-emptive announcement.
| >|
| >| Not that it matters now, anyway.
| >|
| >
| >No they had no confidence in the lab's confidentiality. Not the same as
the
| >security.
|
| Almost exactly the same. Your distinction is like the embezzler who only
takes
| ten dollar bills.
|
| Ron

No security is who has access to the actual test and testing equipment.
Confidentiality is who has access to the information about the test results.
I had no confidence in L'Equipe's reporting of the test results, because
confidentiality was not maintained. However, unless the UCI also bases their
statement on a leak rather than official results, the fact that l'Equipe
reported (truthfully or not) what the results were before they were
officially released, does not put the official results in question.

Suppose you had one million people watching on television every step of the
testing process from Floyd's pissing in the jar, to the results in the lab.
And there was only one person during the whole time that touched, or could
have touched the sample. That would be a test that was secure but not
confidential.

Likewise, if I hack the email system at the lab and read the result in an
interlab email, I have no effect on the result. There is no security issue
with the test. My knowing the results can in no way change them.

The fact that the NSA phone taps were disclosed by a leak, doesn't mean that
they didn't happen.

trg said:

"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
| On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 22:53:48 +0200, "trg" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
|
| >"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
| >l%2Bg.54$yO4.15@dukeread02...
| >|
| >| "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| >| news:[email hidden]...
| >| >
| >| > IIRC, the UCI decided to tell the public that a rider in the Tour had
| >| > tested positive without naming the rider. They did so out of a
concern
| >| > that L'Equipe is thought to have contacts at the lab and might get
the
| >| > story out first.
| >|
| >| So in other words the UCI had such little confidence in the lab's
security
| >| they had to do a pre-emptive announcement.
| >|
| >| Not that it matters now, anyway.
| >|
| >
| >No they had no confidence in the lab's confidentiality. Not the same as
the
| >security.
|
| Almost exactly the same. Your distinction is like the embezzler who only
takes
| ten dollar bills.
|
| Ron

No security is who has access to the actual test and testing equipment.

Security is also about being able to trust the people with access.

Quoted message said:

Confidentiality is who has access to the information about the test results.
I had no confidence in L'Equipe's reporting of the test results, because
confidentiality was not maintained. However, unless the UCI also bases their
statement on a leak rather than official results, the fact that l'Equipe
reported (truthfully or not) what the results were before they were
officially released, does not put the official results in question.

Depending on who the leak is.

Quoted message said:

Suppose you had one million people watching on television every step of the
testing process from Floyd's pissing in the jar, to the results in the lab.
And there was only one person during the whole time that touched, or could
have touched the sample. That would be a test that was secure but not
confidential.

Extreme example, but true.

Quoted message said:

Likewise, if I hack the email system at the lab and read the result in an
interlab email, I have no effect on the result. There is no security issue
with the test. My knowing the results can in no way change them.

Again true. Now suppose the source of the leak is a tech with expensive
appetites ....

Quoted message said:

The fact that the NSA phone taps were disclosed by a leak, doesn't mean that
they didn't happen.

Most people doing business overseas have always known better than to expect
confidentiality on an international phone call.

Ron

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

Quoted message said:

No security is who has access to the actual test and testing equipment.
Confidentiality is who has access to the information about the test
results.

People who have access to the information to leak, might as easily have
access to the samples to 'fix'.

trg said:

"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
| On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 22:53:48 +0200, "trg" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
|
| >"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
| >l%2Bg.54$yO4.15@dukeread02...
| >|
| >| "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| >| news:[email hidden]...
| >| >
| >| > IIRC, the UCI decided to tell the public that a rider in the Tour had
| >| > tested positive without naming the rider. They did so out of a
concern
| >| > that L'Equipe is thought to have contacts at the lab and might get
the
| >| > story out first.
| >|
| >| So in other words the UCI had such little confidence in the lab's
security
| >| they had to do a pre-emptive announcement.
| >|
| >| Not that it matters now, anyway.
| >|
| >
| >No they had no confidence in the lab's confidentiality. Not the same as
the
| >security.
|
| Almost exactly the same. Your distinction is like the embezzler who only
takes
| ten dollar bills.
|
| Ron

No security is who has access to the actual test and testing equipment.
Confidentiality is who has access to the information about the test results.
I had no confidence in L'Equipe's reporting of the test results, because
confidentiality was not maintained. However, unless the UCI also bases their
statement on a leak rather than official results, the fact that l'Equipe
reported (truthfully or not) what the results were before they were
officially released, does not put the official results in question.

Suppose you had one million people watching on television every step of the
testing process from Floyd's pissing in the jar, to the results in the lab.
And there was only one person during the whole time that touched, or could
have touched the sample. That would be a test that was secure but not
confidential.

Likewise, if I hack the email system at the lab and read the result in an
interlab email, I have no effect on the result. There is no security issue
with the test. My knowing the results can in no way change them.

The fact that the NSA phone taps were disclosed by a leak, doesn't mean that
they didn't happen.

"if I hack the email system at the lab and read the result in an
interlab email, I have no effect on the result."

But no email that had been transferred through that (hacked) server
could be "trusted", just as no other encrypted email can be "trusted".

I'll leave the word "trusted" in this context as open for another
debate.

-bdbafh

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
| "trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| news:[email hidden]...
| >
| > No security is who has access to the actual test and testing equipment.
| > Confidentiality is who has access to the information about the test
| > results.
|
| People who have access to the information to leak, might as easily have
| access to the samples to 'fix'.
|

Not so. At least not with the B sample, and if they don't have access to the
B sample, then they wouldn't tamper with the A sample unless they want to
make their own lab look bad.

There is a rigid step by step protocol to ensure that the testing of the
sample doesn't get tampered with. It includes seals on the samples. And in
fact, that's the reason that the suspected doper has the right to have a
representative at the B test, so he can make sure that the sample hasn't
been tampered with (ie the seal is unbroken) and the test results are not
fudged. The protocol calls for and ensures the security of at least the B
sample and it's testing. (This is why the results of the retroactive EPO
tests of last year are not usable, the testing protocol wasn't followed.)

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

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
| "trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| news:[email hidden]...
| >
| > No security is who has access to the actual test and testing
equipment.
| > Confidentiality is who has access to the information about the test
| > results.
|
| People who have access to the information to leak, might as easily have
| access to the samples to 'fix'.
|

Not so. At least not with the B sample, and if they don't have access to
the
B sample, then they wouldn't tamper with the A sample unless they want to
make their own lab look bad.

Who separated the urine samples into A and B? The lab of course. It would
have been child's play to doctor the samples before the division.

Quoted message said:

There is a rigid step by step protocol to ensure that the testing of the
sample doesn't get tampered with. It includes seals on the samples.

In the USA, labs are careful because they can be held liable. In Europe it
isn't as clearly demarked.

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
| "trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| news:[email hidden]...
| >
| > No security is who has access to the actual test and testing
equipment.
| > Confidentiality is who has access to the information about the test
| > results.
|
| People who have access to the information to leak, might as easily have
| access to the samples to 'fix'.
|

Not so. At least not with the B sample, and if they don't have access to
the
B sample, then they wouldn't tamper with the A sample unless they want to
make their own lab look bad.

Who separated the urine samples into A and B? The lab of course. It would
have been child's play to doctor the samples before the division.

You're talking out of your ass. You just make this [censored] up as you go, don't
you? It's the athlete who fills up the A and B containers and verifies that
they are sealed. And he (or his representative) is the one who ensures the
seal on the B sample is intact.

5.11.10 The DCO shall instruct the Athlete in the sealing of the A and B
containers. Both the DCO and the Athlete shall check that the bottles are
securely sealed.

In fact, once the samples leave the facility where they were collected, they
are only identified by a number, not a name. The lab does not know whose
sample they are testing unless the DCO memorized the sample number and
explicitely called the lab whose sample they had received (probably via
courrier).

Tom Kunich said:

Who separated the urine samples into A and B? The lab of course. It would
have been child's play to doctor the samples before the division.

I don't think so - you pee in a cup and then the administrator pours
your pee into two separate vials and seals both of them in your
presense. Then you sign the form that shows your name next to the code
number that matches the one on both bottles.

The ideal way to sabotage the sample would be to spike the pee cup or
swap the pee cup with a planted sample before splitting it - this would
require collusion with the testing administrator and subterfuge during
the collection procedure.

Trickier would be to swap both samples with doctored urine in different
bottles and counterfeit labels.

And trickiest of all would be to doctor the actual samples in such a way
that the seals appear to be unbroken and the results would be identical.

"Geraard Spergen" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

Who separated the urine samples into A and B? The lab of course. It would
have been child's play to doctor the samples before the division.

I don't think so - you pee in a cup and then the administrator pours your
pee into two separate vials and seals both of them in your presense. Then
you sign the form that shows your name next to the code number that
matches the one on both bottles.

The ideal way to sabotage the sample would be to spike the pee cup or swap
the pee cup with a planted sample before splitting it - this would require
collusion with the testing administrator and subterfuge during the
collection procedure.

Trickier would be to swap both samples with doctored urine in different
bottles and counterfeit labels.

And trickiest of all would be to doctor the actual samples in such a way
that the seals appear to be unbroken and the results would be identical.

It's the athlete who does the splitting. And he chooses from amongst several
sample containers. So all the containers would have had to be spiked by the
administrator and invisible to the athlete who has the right to refuse to
use any container that he deems unclean.

The only way for the lab to sabotage things is as you said to somehow spike
the B sample without breaking the seal. But of course unless the
Administrator was in on it, they'd have no way of know to whom the samples
belonged to.

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

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> a écrit dans le message de news:

Quoted message said:

Who separated the urine samples into A and B? The lab of course. It would
have been child's play to doctor the samples before the division.

You're talking out of your ass. You just make this [censored] up as you go,
don't you? It's the athlete who fills up the A and B containers and
verifies that they are sealed. And he (or his representative) is the one
who ensures the seal on the B sample is intact.

The athlete pees in a cup. They divide it in his presence and put the seals
on it. At least that's the way they do it here.

Quoted message said:

5.11.10 The DCO shall instruct the Athlete in the sealing of the A and B
containers. Both the DCO and the Athlete shall check that the bottles are
securely sealed.

In fact, once the samples leave the facility where they were collected,
they are only identified by a number, not a name. The lab does not know
whose sample they are testing unless the DCO memorized the sample number
and explicitely called the lab whose sample they had received (probably
via courrier).

Here's a clue - when you get a B sample back it's clear who it belongs to.

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

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

Who separated the urine samples into A and B? The lab of course. It would
have been child's play to doctor the samples before the division.

I don't think so - you pee in a cup and then the administrator pours your
pee into two separate vials and seals both of them in your presense. Then
you sign the form that shows your name next to the code number that
matches the one on both bottles.

That's the way they do it here as well. But consider this - they are
presently saying that an athlete could wipe some powder off of his hand into
the urine cup to nullify any positive finding for EPO. They would be doing
this in front of the medical technician. Why wouldn't it be just as easy for
a medical technician to have had his sample cup contaminated as he handed it
to the rider to pee into?

Look, all of this is rediculous because I doubt that there was any real
finding of exogenous testosterone. I think that if we knew the precise
process they used we'd be able to determine that the testosterone was
contaminated by an adjacent peak. I was quite serious when I said that
separation science is more art than science.

Quoted message said:

The ideal way to sabotage the sample would be to spike the pee cup or swap
the pee cup with a planted sample before splitting it - this would require
collusion with the testing administrator and subterfuge during the
collection procedure.

Not necessarily, if you'd ever been around card sharks you'd be absolutely
amazed at what people can do right under your nose in plain view.

Quoted message said:

Trickier would be to swap both samples with doctored urine in different
bottles and counterfeit labels.

And trickiest of all would be to doctor the actual samples in such a way
that the seals appear to be unbroken and the results would be identical.

I agree with that.

This is sort of like the questions concerning Tyler's "unborn twin". It
wasn't meant to be serious, but to demonstrate that there is at least one
way that the tests could have been doctored.

Here we are now a couple of years later and Hamilton is still proclaiming
his innocence and no one has been able to suggest why someone using
autologous blood packing would have someone else's blood in him. How,
precisely, could such an error have been made? And in the MOST important
races of the year?

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

Quoted message said:

It's the athlete who does the splitting. And he chooses from amongst
several sample containers.

I suggest you find one of the relatively common demonstrations of slight of
hand or pick-pocketing. It is a relatively common skill. How do you suppose
there are gamblers that can cheat in front of the entire table without being
caught? That's why they have cameras on all the tables these days.

But as I stated before, I don't believe that there was cheating by anyone. I
believe that the test results were compromised because of natural
variations. There have been several articles cited that demonstrate that as
the probable cause.

Tom Kunich said:

Here's a clue - when you get a B sample back it's clear who it belongs to.

So on the one hand we hear the argument that these tests have poor
reliability and some even imply poor validity.

But now you imply a new wrinkle. Of course if the sample have an ID
number the first test (A) will be blind but the secong (B) may not be.
While clearly someone has to go find the B sample by its ID number. But
if the lab does large number of tests in fact the technician may not
know who the samples belong to. Thye B sample can simply be one (or
several) in a much larger batch run.

But your implication is that not only does the technician know to whom
the sample belongs but he or someone else can sabotage the sample or
the process so that the results come out just the same as the A sample.
Pretty good with a test of questionalbe reliabiltiy. Or do they just
make up the results and skip the test?

At some point you guys just have to give it up. But clearly your are
not at that point. Is Elvis dead yet?