Doping and Lance

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- some testimony (O'Reilly, Greg Lemond... see LA Confidential) <<

Is it credible that Armstrong could have used EPO in 1999? Certainly.

99% certain.

And nobody says that the other competitors didn't take EPO at the same time.
There is even some clue that much of them took EPO, too. 6 other samples
contained EPO.

-- Olivier

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- some testimony (O'Reilly, Greg Lemond... see LA Confidential) <<

The O'Reilly claims are simply not credible.

It's not 100% credible, but there is still a possibility.

This is the reason why I estimated only a 20% probability, even though I
considered 5 other clues (Ferrari, supra-human performance, SCA, cycling
pro, LA own words) - before I knew about these new evidences.

-- Olivier

"Man o' Tea" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Zoom said:

Don't you think you're on the wrong
newsgroup?

Discussing Lance seems to be acceptable
here, perhaps because he's a former
swimmer, thus a potential triathlete.

I think you'll find he's done a bit of Triathlon in the past....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is not "a single urine specimen".

There are 6 urine specimen, all with EPO. <<

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And the LNDD lab is very serious. They do testing for the Olympics, and are

accredited by the WADA. See:
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2?pageCategory_id=160 <<

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hence the 99% probability.<<

The conditions under which they do testing for the Olympics are
completely different than the conditions in the Armstrong case. In the
Olympics, there is high security, the specimen is tested immediately,
and then the "B" specimen is tested under conditions where there is a
very high degree of scrutiny. What happened in the case of the
Armstrong specimens does not come close to meeting these standards.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And I can tell you that the lab and L'Equipe wouldn't have made such claim

without very serious evidence. They perfectly know that LA will sue
them if
there is any doubt, and that he can pay for the best lawyers.<<

The "lab" was making no "claims." The "lab" was clear that the testing
was only carried out for methodological, research purposes and should
not be used to make accusations against individual riders. L'Equipe
was reporting factual findings that specimens matched to Armstrong were
found by the laboratory under general, long after the fact, research
conditions to contain recombinant EPO.

What is being demanded of Lance is that he be the one to prove that
laboratory errors were made (certainly possible in a setting wherein a
large number of specimens were being batch processed and in which a
sizable percentage of all specimens contained recombinant EPO, raising
the possibility of inadvertent or intentional contamination) and/or
that the specimens were intentionally adulterated in the years prior to
the research study. He is obviously in no position to prove either lab
error or sabotage.

The reporter has no legal requirement to prove that there was no lab
error or sabotage to avoid a libel suit. He is just reporting that
urine specimens tested positive; he doesn't need to prove anything
beyond that. The laboratory director has no requirement to prove that
there was no lab error or sabotage, as he is making no accusations
against Armstrong and is, in fact, saying that his lab's findings
should NOT be used to make such accusations. The Tour de France
director has no legal requirement to prove anything, as he is only
quoting a newspaper story, and he is filing no charges against
Armstrong.

In short, no one making accusations on the basis of this story has any
requirement to prove that Armstrong actually doped with EPO in 1999.
But several of these people are demanding that Armstrong provide an
"explanation."

It is the responsibility of those who accuse Armstrong of doping with
EPO to prove that (1) there was no possibility that the specimens were
adulterated in the 6 years prior to the testing and (2) that there were
no laboratory errors made at the time when there was mass processing of
old specimens as part of a research study.

The (Olympic accredited) Canadian lab director I quoted offered her
views on the matter, which largely agreed with the points I was trying
to make.

I'm sure that both Olivier and I will await with interest further
details concerning the degree of security enjoyed by the specimens and
the quality assurance measures in place at the time when the archival
specimens were batch processed under research (as opposed to forensic)
conditions.

- Larry W

didgerman said:

"Man o' Tea" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Zoom said:

Don't you think you're on the wrong
newsgroup?

Discussing Lance seems to be acceptable
here, perhaps because he's a former
swimmer, thus a potential triathlete.

I think you'll find he's done a bit of Triathlon in the past....

Yes we all know that, but the whole thing is really centered around
cycling. Everything on here has already been said on the cycling
newsgroups. Aren't there some swimmers that use EPO that we can talk about?

The following is only one of many important issues:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"The stablity of EPO in urine isn't as long as five years according to

our testing here in Montreal. It's more a matter of months," stressed
Ayotte, whose testing centre is accredited to WADA, the world's
anti-doping agency. <<

The stark implication of the above statement, if true, is that
recombinant EPO found in archival specimens years after the fact were
unlikely to have originated in the body of the person providing the
specimens.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"The stablity of EPO in urine isn't as long as five years according to

our testing here in Montreal. It's more a matter of months," stressed
Ayotte, whose testing centre is accredited to WADA, the world's
anti-doping agency. <<

In my day job as the director of a medical laboratory, one of the
biggest challenges is maintaining the integrity of unstable chemicals
and cells. Although liquid nitrogen storage is effective at
maintaining the stability of most chemicals (and cells), such storage
is very expensive, and I can't imagine that old urine would be stored
under liquid nitrogen. Liquid nitrogen storage is also problematic, in
that there has to be an unbroken chain of refilling the liquid nitrogen
tanks in a timely fashion over the years. It is very easy to "allow"
all the liquid nitrogen to evaporate between refillings, which
typically must take place every few weeks for a period of years (I'd be
astonished were old urine specimens subject to the same care, in this
regard, as are frozen embryos or sperm).

The next level of storage is in a minus 70 degree (Celsius) research
freezer. During the past ten years, there were two occasions where my
wife and I had to go to the lab after hours because an alarm indicated
freezer failure. We had to power up a backup freezer maintained for
this purpose and pack our drugs (many anticancer drugs are unstable, as
apparently is recombinant EPO) in dry ice chests while the back up
freezer was brought down to minus 70. Somehow I doubt that that the
urine freezers had such alarms and that there were workers who left
their homes emergently to come into the laboratory to deal with these
problems. Also, even when continuously frozen at minus 70, a number of
our drugs degrade over a period of months and certainly over a period
of years.

Thus, current accusers of Lance should be required to prove not only
that the specimens were continuously secured against adulteration but
also that quality control measures were in effect to ensure that
recombinant EPO present in an archived urine specimen in 1999 would
remain intact under conditions in which they were stored for the period
of time in question.

- Larry W

Zoom said:

didgerman said:

"Man o' Tea" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Zoom wrote:

>Don't you think you're on the wrong
>newsgroup?

Discussing Lance seems to be acceptable
here, perhaps because he's a former
swimmer, thus a potential triathlete.

I think you'll find he's done a bit of Triathlon in the past....

Yes we all know that, but the whole thing is really centered around
cycling. Everything on here has already been said on the cycling
newsgroups. Aren't there some swimmers that use EPO that we can talk about?

We didn't read all the stuff written in the cycling newsgroups. You
can just kill this thread.

(Larry Weisenthal) said:

What is being demanded of Lance is that he be the one to prove that
laboratory errors were made

What institution is making this demand?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is being demanded of Lance is that he be the one to prove that
laboratory errors were made

Quoted message said:

What institution is making this demand?

Both the Director of the TdF and Mr. Pound of the IOC have callen on
Lance to "explain himself."

In other words, both are calling on Lance to either admit guilt and
plead insanity or whatever or to prove that the alleged laboratory
findings are false.

(Larry Weisenthal) said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is being demanded of Lance is that he be the one to prove that
laboratory errors were made

Quoted message said:

What institution is making this demand?

Both the Director of the TdF and Mr. Pound of the IOC have callen on
Lance to "explain himself."

In other words, both are calling on Lance to either admit guilt and
plead insanity or whatever or to prove that the alleged laboratory
findings are false.

I think you are overstating it. That isn't a requirement of proof.
First, the IOC has no authority to require anything of Armstrong,
since he didn't compete in the Olympics. And an explanation isn't a
proof, so the TdF can't be demanding proof. He can't prove he didn't
use EPO anywha, since there is no way to prove the negative now. The
only requirement can be for Armstrong to respond with either "I used
EPO" or "I did not use EPO." There can't be any legal burden of proof
on him at this point. He either used EPO or he didn't. If he used EPO,
then he has no one to blame. If he didn't use EPO, then it is
unfortunate that this has happened, but all he has to do is say he
didn't use EPO and list all the problems of using test results on six
year old urine stored in an unsecured environment.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The only requirement can be for Armstrong to respond with either "I used

EPO" or "I did not use EPO." There can't be any legal burden of proof
on him at this point.<<

Quoted message said:

From Today's Los Angeles Times:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Armstrong vehemently said that the samples he gave the Tour in 1999 were clean. "It doesn't surprise me at all that they have samples," Armstrong said. "Clearly they've tested all of my samples since then to the highest degree. But when I gave those samples, there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee it."<<

But, from the Toronto Globe and Mail:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As Pound described "a circle tightening" around Armstrong, the director of the Tour de France, Jean-Marie Leblanc, yesterday termed the information "no longer rumours, or insinuations; these are proven scientific facts." He said Armstrong had fooled everyone and owed adoring fans and officials an explanation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[Pound said] "In the end, we may not be able to do anything [in terms of discipline]. But the message is clear: you may leave town with your medal and money, but you cannot hide. If you cheat, we will find you as science gets better.

Do you see what's going on. They (Lance's accusers) will refuse to put
THEMSELVES in the position of having to prove their allegations that
Armstrong doped. They will be satisfied with putting him in the
impossible position of proving that their insinuations are wrong. It's
precisely the same thing that is often done here of late in America,
when one wishes to discredit one's political opponents. It is called
"sliming." That's all they want to do: engage in sliming, without
having to meet the prior, internationally accepted standards of proof
of doping in sport.

The EPO testing protocol was only certified after demonstrating that
the protocol was both accurate and fair. It has been established as
being accurate and fair under the conditions of (1) immediacy of
testing, (2) confirmation in a second aliquot taken from the same
voided sample under rigorous scrutiny, also performed in a timely
fashion, and (3) assurance of an unbroken chain of secure possession
and protection against adulteration. The "new" testing protocol which
is alleged to be "proven scientific fact" is anything but proven
scientific fact.

It is slime. Just slime.

- Larry W

(Larry Weisenthal) said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The only requirement can be for Armstrong to respond with either "I used

EPO" or "I did not use EPO." There can't be any legal burden of proof
on him at this point.<<

Quoted message said:

From Today's Los Angeles Times:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Armstrong vehemently said that the samples he gave the Tour in 1999 were clean. "It doesn't surprise me at all that they have samples," Armstrong said. "Clearly they've tested all of my samples since then to the highest degree. But when I gave those samples, there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee it."<<

But, from the Toronto Globe and Mail:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As Pound described "a circle tightening" around Armstrong, the director of the Tour de France, Jean-Marie Leblanc, yesterday termed the information "no longer rumours, or insinuations; these are proven scientific facts." He said Armstrong had fooled everyone and owed adoring fans and officials an explanation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[Pound said] "In the end, we may not be able to do anything [in terms of discipline]. But the message is clear: you may leave town with your medal and money, but you cannot hide. If you cheat, we will find you as science gets better.

Do you see what's going on. They (Lance's accusers) will refuse to put
THEMSELVES in the position of having to prove their allegations that
Armstrong doped. They will be satisfied with putting him in the
impossible position of proving that their insinuations are wrong. It's
precisely the same thing that is often done here of late in America,
when one wishes to discredit one's political opponents. It is called
"sliming." That's all they want to do: engage in sliming, without
having to meet the prior, internationally accepted standards of proof
of doping in sport.

Why are you complaining about it? It is, as you say, the way things
are done now. Pound is talking out of school. If I were Armstrong and
knew I had not used EPO, I would sue pound for defamation of
character. He has made specific accusations against Armstrong that are
unprecedented and that I doubt he can support. I suppose he can
support the fact that EPO was detected in the sample, but his
conclusions are not warranted and amount to defamation. It isn't like
the immediate testing at the Olympics, but Pound is speaking as if it
is.

On the other hand, if Armstrong used EPO, I would just admit it and
say I learned my lesson after that race and stayed clean after that.

Quoted message said:

The EPO testing protocol was only certified after demonstrating that
the protocol was both accurate and fair. It has been established as
being accurate and fair under the conditions of (1) immediacy of
testing, (2) confirmation in a second aliquot taken from the same
voided sample under rigorous scrutiny, also performed in a timely
fashion, and (3) assurance of an unbroken chain of secure possession
and protection against adulteration. The "new" testing protocol which
is alleged to be "proven scientific fact" is anything but proven
scientific fact.

All he has to do is sue Pound based on the above requirements not
being satisfied. Pound is clearly in the wrong, assuming Armstrong did
not use EPO. If he did use EPO, he should just say so. If he didn't,
he should bring suit immediately.

Quoted message said:

It is slime. Just slime.

Unless there is more to Pound's claim than meets the eye, he is in big
trouble. But you said it: This is the way things are done now. Remove
the prohibition on drugs and the problem goes away.

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

Quoted message said:

What is being demanded of Lance is that he be the one to prove that
laboratory errors were made (certainly possible in a setting wherein a
large number of specimens were being batch processed and in which a
sizable percentage of all specimens contained recombinant EPO, raising
the possibility of inadvertent or intentional contamination) and/or
that the specimens were intentionally adulterated in the years prior to
the research study. He is obviously in no position to prove either lab
error or sabotage.

Nobody is demanding that to Lance.

If he wants, all he has to do is to sue L'Equipe because his reputation has
been tarnished (diffamation), because he will lose sponsor money because of
unfounded accusation, and ask for damage.

Experts and lawyers will talk, and the judge will decide...

-- Olivier

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

Quoted message said:

It has been established as
being accurate and fair under the conditions of (1) immediacy of
testing

Requiring immediacy of testing is a too big advantage for smart cheaters.
They will always have one molecule in advance.
You have to give time to anti-doping technology to be on par...
Freezing samples is the only credible threat.

-- Olivier

Silver0l said:

Requiring immediacy of testing is a too big advantage for smart cheaters.
They will always have one molecule in advance.
You have to give time to anti-doping technology to be on par...
Freezing samples is the only credible threat.

-- Olivier

I am not an ardient fan of Lance, or Hinault or anyone else that raced
the tour. However, Lance won the tour because he trained and dieted
like a mofo. He also did incredible things like getting up after
crashing and passing all his rivals up a hill, and by riding off-road.
And, by having more physical and mental strenght than his rivals, He is
not a cheater nor are other cyclists who triumphed in the tour. They
are all incredible athletes that subject themselves to extraordinary
mental and physical training. Calling them cheaters is idiotic. Their
athletic greatness is unquestionable. Lance is particularly
extraordinary, because he came back after almost dying and achieved
what he did.

Andres

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Requiring immediacy of testing is a too big advantage for smart cheaters.

They will always have one molecule in advance.
You have to give time to anti-doping technology to be on par...
Freezing samples is the only credible threat. <<

I don't disagree, but one simply cannot accept the sort of ad hoc,
uncontrolled testing which went on with the present urine specimens
(again, where the director of the laboratory in question said that the
results should NOT be used to assign guilt to any individual rider!).

If the World Sport wishes to initiate a system in which specimens are
to be held in perpetuity for future testing, then strict protocols and
quality controls must be established. For example, the protocols must
assure, with close to 100% confidence, that no tampering can occur.
Second, it must be established for the test article in question (in
this case, recombinant EPO) that said test article remains stable under
the conditions of storage for the time period in question (this is an
additional quality control against both intentional tampering and
inadvertent specimen mix ups).

You simply can't have a system wherein thousands of specimens are
stored without such strict protections and wherein specimens which are
pulled and tested for purely research purposes are then inappropriately
used as a basis for down the road accusations of doping, wherein the
accusers have no reasonable burden of proof.

The quality of "evidence" presently cited to accuse Armstrong is not of
sufficient quality to sustain a conviction in a court of law of a
parking violation, much less of defrauding various institutions and
companies and invididuals of tens of millions of dollars, which is
essentially what is being alleged.

It's pure slime.

- Larry W

L'Equipe may be a respected publication, but the way they handled this
(sensational headlines and "gotcha" writing style) was pure tabloid.
The way that the TdF director and IOC President responded were simply
unconsciounable.

The bare bones story, devoid of sensationalism, is that a large number
of urine specimens from 1999, including 6 attributed to Lance
Armstrong, tested positive for recombinant EPO in the course of a
research study into the plausibility of testing archived specimens for
rEPO. The paper should then have interviewed the laboratory director
of the lab in question, as well as other Directors of WADA-accredited
doping labs, for their opinions. Key questions should have been
clearly identified, such as the stringency of specimen security over
the period in question, whether or not the quality controls in place
for forensic testing at international sporting events were observed,
and whether or not is is likely that EPO would have survived such a
prolonged period of storage under the conditions in which they were
stored.

Both the TdF and IOC Directors, rather than making irresponsible
statements to the effect that "Armstrong's guilt has now been
scientifically proven" and "the circle is tightening around him, let
this be a lesson to cheaters that they can run but not hide," etc.,
should have said things like: "the implications of these findings are
potentially disturbing, but it must be established beyond reasonable
doubt that no tampering of these specimens could have occurred and that
there is agreement among the scientific experts that these results
indicate conclusively that the banned drug which was detected came from
the rider's body in 1999 and persisted in the specimen until the
present time. The most important lesson from this is that there must
be international agreement on rigorous protocols for the long term
storage of specimens for testing with future generations of detection
technologies."

There is a responsible way to present facts and there is an
irresponsible, slimey way. The three entities involved (L'Equipe, the
TdF Director, and the IOC President) all clearly display their biases
and their agendas by the slimy way in which they have presented these
findings.

- Larry W

Instead of saying he has never taken performance enhancing drugs,
Lance should have said he has never taken epogen. Also i believe he is
also presenting excuses not to sue the newspaper, saying it will waste
his time and money. If he is truly innocent he would sue the paper.
The paper must have known this too; and would have been careful before
coming out with the story. Whats the big deal with Lance having taken
the drug? Lot of prominent sportsmen have been exposed taking
performance enhancing drugs. But the exposed lot are just the tip of
the iceberg. They did not have testing for epogen at that time and the
players must have thought they would get away with it. I am just not
impressed with the way Lance has gone about denying this. I am
impressed with the evidence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also i believe he is

also presenting excuses not to sue the newspaper, saying it will waste
his time and money. If he is truly innocent he would sue the paper.<<

He doesn't have a case against the paper. The paper is reporting that
specimens from 1999 tested positive for rEPO 5 years after the fact, in
a research mode, with an unknown degree of security of the specimens
during archival storage against tampering, and with undocumented
stability of rEPO under the conditions of storage. The paper is not
publishing anything (presumably) which is not factually correct. It is
simply not responsibly presenting the entire story in context
(particularly ignoring the opions of other world doping experts, not
acknowledging the possibility of tampering, not addressing the issue of
EPO stability, etc.).

That's the problem. All of Lance's accusers are putting HIM in the
position of having to prove his innocence. They do not take the
position of having to prove his guilt, which means investigating the
degree of security the specimens received over the years and the
stability of rEPO under the storage conditions employed. They also do
not address the lack of a proven and accepted, standard protocol for
after the fact testing of archival specimens. There is a lot of
unfairness, but there is not clearly libel, which requires a
mistatement of facts, not an incomplete presentation of facts, which is
what is now going on.

And Lance DID say that he didn't take EPO. I gave an exact quote in
one of my earlier posts.