A Sample vs. B Sample

There's much precedent within the team.

http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/paris-nice/2006/sport_sto849857.shtml

Mark VandenBerghe

"At Time T" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When was the B sample taken? Before the stage? Before the TdF? Is
there anything that can conclusively show that it was from natural
causes? When do we know the results of B?
Thanks!

At Time T said:

If they were taken at exactly the same time, then there is no reason
they should be different but for foul play, right?

No, any test of this sort has variability in the results, which can
sometimes be substantial. If Floyd is lucky maybe his positive is only
slightly over the limit, and the variability of the test will put the B
sample under the limit.

As I understand it there is one sample taken, which is then divided
into an A and B portion.

It would be very interesting if they made public the actual results.

I wonder how far over the limit he was and how consistent his results
have been from test to test?

It would also be interesting to see the trend for any riders that were
close to the 6:1 limit after they changed the limit to 4:1. Did they
trend down?

For that matter, has Armstrong ever made his actual results public?

Do the riders even get the results, or just a pass/fail?

I remember reading that Tyler was given repeated warnings that he was
close to the test limit for blood doping and then his results started
to trend down - but didn't get low enough. So I would think that
the officials are keeping track of the trends and have a good idea who
to suspect.

A 4:1 ratio is significantly over the 1:1 normal ratio and from what I
have read the tests are usually accurate to within +- .xx.

My speculation is rampant without the actual data!

Just wondering out loud.

Quoted message said:

At Time T said:

If they were taken at exactly the same time, then there is no reason
they should be different but for foul play, right?

No, any test of this sort has variability in the results, which can
sometimes be substantial. If Floyd is lucky maybe his positive is only
slightly over the limit, and the variability of the test will put the B
sample under the limit.

As I understand it there is one sample taken, which is then divided
into an A and B portion.

jbkinpa said:

It would be very interesting if they made public the actual results.

I wonder how far over the limit he was and how consistent his results
have been from test to test?

It would also be interesting to see the trend for any riders that were
close to the 6:1 limit after they changed the limit to 4:1. Did they
trend down?

For that matter, has Armstrong ever made his actual results public?

Do the riders even get the results, or just a pass/fail?

I remember reading that Tyler was given repeated warnings that he was
close to the test limit for blood doping and then his results started
to trend down - but didn't get low enough. So I would think that
the officials are keeping track of the trends and have a good idea who
to suspect.

A 4:1 ratio is significantly over the 1:1 normal ratio and from what I
have read the tests are usually accurate to within +- .xx.

My speculation is rampant without the actual data!

NPR reports 11 as the ratio, but with a very low E not a high T. This
is what the editor of velonews.com said in an interview.

I don't know what an oddly low E reading means. Maybe all the water he
drank?

Quoted message said:

Just wondering out loud.

Quoted message said:

At Time T said:

If they were taken at exactly the same time, then there is no reason
they should be different but for foul play, right?

No, any test of this sort has variability in the results, which can
sometimes be substantial. If Floyd is lucky maybe his positive is only
slightly over the limit, and the variability of the test will put the B
sample under the limit.

As I understand it there is one sample taken, which is then divided
into an A and B portion.

They increased the max T:E ratio from 4:1 to 6:1 not to long ago. Why?
Too many false positives? The fact that they had to increase it in
the first place should cast doubt on the validity of the 6:1 ratio as
the barrier.

1:1 is the average T:E ratio I have read, but some produce more
testosterone than others. If some produce more than others, I would
guess that T:E can take bigger swings in some people than it can in
others. Shouldn't this be a relative test; the barrier levels should
vary from person to person. Is it reasonable to change the barrier by
person so that the chance of a Type 1 error is about the same for all
riders?

They tested the guy after an incredibly dominant ride. I do not know
how they calibrate the test, but I think it would be interesting to
know given that they are testing riders right after a stage win.
Levels of testosterone jump after major victories/conquests don't they?

I will be the first to say that I do not know enought about what I am
talking. I do not have a background in biochemistry or medicine.

Quoted message said:

At Time T said:

If they were taken at exactly the same time, then there is no reason
they should be different but for foul play, right?

No, any test of this sort has variability in the results, which can
sometimes be substantial. If Floyd is lucky maybe his positive is only
slightly over the limit, and the variability of the test will put the B
sample under the limit.

As I understand it there is one sample taken, which is then divided
into an A and B portion.

Dumbass said:

jbkinpa said:

It would be very interesting if they made public the actual results.

I wonder how far over the limit he was and how consistent his results
have been from test to test?

It would also be interesting to see the trend for any riders that were
close to the 6:1 limit after they changed the limit to 4:1. Did they
trend down?

For that matter, has Armstrong ever made his actual results public?

Do the riders even get the results, or just a pass/fail?

I remember reading that Tyler was given repeated warnings that he was
close to the test limit for blood doping and then his results started
to trend down - but didn't get low enough. So I would think that
the officials are keeping track of the trends and have a good idea who
to suspect.

A 4:1 ratio is significantly over the 1:1 normal ratio and from what I
have read the tests are usually accurate to within +- .xx.

My speculation is rampant without the actual data!

NPR reports 11 as the ratio, but with a very low E not a high T. This
is what the editor of velonews.com said in an interview.

I don't know what an oddly low E reading means. Maybe all the water he
drank?

The concentration data are corrected to a urinary specific gravity of
1.02 g/mL, but dilution wouldn't affect the ratio anyway.

Andy Coggan

At Time T said:

When was the B sample taken? Before the stage? Before the TdF? Is
there anything that can conclusively show that it was from natural
causes? When do we know the results of B?
Thanks!

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-landis-testosterone&prov=ap&type=lgns

Samples are taken at the same time -- else you can't "confirm" anything.
This report says a B sample generally undergoes a more sophisticated
test (carbon isotope) that helps isolate synthetic testosterone.

I personally am not a big fan of the testing industry, which by now I'd
guess is a multi-billion dollar industry with much to gain by false
positives because it could lead to mandatory testing for all athletes
virtually all the time. If Landis did not cheat and still ends up being
stripped of his title and banned for two years, he has no recourse
because as there would be no accountability nor liability for errors,
both procedural and/or from scientific assumptions.

Funny I haven't seen anybody mention Roberto Heras who was banned for
EPO and stripped of his Vuelta title last year. I had thought to order
the '05 Vuelta DVD set for that race until the banning (from World
Cycling Productions) and notice that it never went on sale anyway. I
wonder if a similar fate will befall the TDF set for this year. Even if
not, this first test will cost them sales, and if Landis loses his
title, sales will probably be a shadow of what they would have been
(esp. considering the lively nature of the tour this year) and so that
company will stand to lose hugely among others.

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

Quoted message said:

It would be very interesting if they made public the actual results.

I wonder how far over the limit he was and how consistent his results
have been from test to test?

It would also be interesting to see the trend for any riders that were
close to the 6:1 limit after they changed the limit to 4:1. Did they
trend down?

When did they set it at 4:1? It used to be 10:1 about 15 years ago.

Carl Sundquist said:

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

Quoted message said:

It would be very interesting if they made public the actual results.

I wonder how far over the limit he was and how consistent his results
have been from test to test?

It would also be interesting to see the trend for any riders that were
close to the 6:1 limit after they changed the limit to 4:1. Did they
trend down?

When did they set it at 4:1? It used to be 10:1 about 15 years ago.

2005, IIRC

Jim

On 7/27/06 11:31 AM, in article
[email hidden], "At Time T"

Quoted message said:

When was the B sample taken? Before the stage? Before the TdF? Is
there anything that can conclusively show that it was from natural
causes? When do we know the results of B?

At the same time as the A sample ... They split it into two different sealed
vials.

Dumbass said:

At Time T said:

When was the B sample taken?

Probably taken at the same time as the A sample. Otherwise, it could
not be used to confirm A.

Quoted message said:

Before the stage? Before the TdF? Is
there anything that can conclusively show that it was from natural
causes?

I'm not sure about conclusively, but the 6:1 limit can be reached
naturally or due to some pathological conditions, so it it not absolute
proof of doping all by itself.

Folks, it isn't 6:1 anymore the new limit is 4:1

Ron

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:26:53 -0700, benwood <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I personally am not a big fan of the testing industry, which by now I'd
guess is a multi-billion dollar industry with much to gain by false
positives because it could lead to mandatory testing for all athletes
virtually all the time.

Labs aren't out on their own. I haven't seen so much certification
since I started working at one. And we aren't huge, but our cases run
past 10,000 a year - I doubt we would or could create a blip by
targeting athletes by falsifying anything. So we might gain a few
cases, but we sure as hell would lose every related certification and
invite everyone else back to redo their certifications out of cycle if
caught. Yeah, that's something a lab would do. Falsify data on a high
profile case and see if we could get away with it.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...