Doping Report

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/2005-09-09-uci-doping-evidence_x.htm

N.

No evidence because they haven't seen the test data yet. But when they do
see it, Armstrong's good friend Hein Verbruggen and his minions will take a
legalistic approach vis-a-vis sanctions which can not be imposed under the
present rules. This and the issues raised of breaches of confidentiality
and publishing of data is but a smoke screen regarding the central question
of fact, to wit, did Armstrong use EPO during the 1999 Tour? If the test
methodology is valid and the lab procedures in testing were correctly done,
and the numbers on the tested samples match Mr. Armstrong, one can only
conclude that Armstrong used EPO but will not be sanctioned for it due to
the rules as they presently exist. All of this not withstanding Armstrong's
statements that it was ok to freeze his samples for later testing as new
tests are developed. Ya can't have it both ways.

Note also that Verbruggen has also taken the position that subsequent
testing should not be done. That is to say, let the rider of today cheat
with a substance that can't be detected (or used in a manner to presently
avoid detection), and never have to worry about having the reality of
his/her actions tarnish their image or entry in the record books.

Having Hein Verbruggen investigate drug use in pro cycling is like having
George Bush investigate his appointments to FEMA.

"All of this not withstanding Armstrong's statements that it was ok to
freeze his samples for later testing as new tests are developed. Ya
can't have it both ways. "

Good point. Lance wants his samples frozen and kept for 10 years, yet
the moment somebody actually does something with thrm in terms of
testing, he cries foul (and so does the UCI). Not so amazing that the
man who supposedly wants to take a tough stance on doping, wants
absolutely nothing to do with retroactive testing. Nobody likes a
dodged bullet to make a 180 degree turn and come back the other way,
the UCI included.

Is there even any specific (existing) policy about sample ownership,
right to test samples, right to release results in the long term

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

Quoted message said:

"All of this not withstanding Armstrong's statements that it was ok to
freeze his samples for later testing as new tests are developed. Ya
can't have it both ways. "

Good point. Lance wants his samples frozen and kept for 10 years, yet
the moment somebody actually does something with thrm in terms of
testing, he cries foul (and so does the UCI). Not so amazing that the
man who supposedly wants to take a tough stance on doping, wants
absolutely nothing to do with retroactive testing. Nobody likes a
dodged bullet to make a 180 degree turn and come back the other way,
the UCI included.

Is there even any specific (existing) policy about sample ownership,
right to test samples, right to release results in the long term

My understanding, and I may be incorrect, is that the samples are the
property of the UCI.

B. Lafferty said:

Having Hein Verbruggen investigate drug use in pro cycling is like having
George Bush investigate his appointments to FEMA.

No more ludicrous than someone having you for a lawyer, Blind Spot.

R

RicodJour said:

B. Lafferty said:

Having Hein Verbruggen investigate drug use in pro cycling is like having
George Bush investigate his appointments to FEMA.

No more ludicrous than someone having you for a lawyer, Blind Spot.

R

I don't know about that. It would seem that if you can get Lafferty to
believe in your cause, he'll be on tenacious mofo.

Credibility, though, might be another issue.

Carl Sundquist said:

RicodJour said:

B. Lafferty said:

Having Hein Verbruggen investigate drug use in pro cycling is like having
George Bush investigate his appointments to FEMA.

No more ludicrous than someone having you for a lawyer, Blind Spot.

R

I don't know about that. It would seem that if you can get Lafferty to
believe in your cause, he'll be on tenacious mofo.

Credibility, though, might be another issue.

"Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he was merely
stupid."
~ Heinrich Heine

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

Quoted message said:

Carl Sundquist said:

RicodJour said:

B. Lafferty wrote:

>Having Hein Verbruggen investigate drug use in pro cycling is like
>having
>George Bush investigate his appointments to FEMA.

No more ludicrous than someone having you for a lawyer, Blind Spot.

R

I don't know about that. It would seem that if you can get Lafferty
to
believe in your cause, he'll be on tenacious mofo.

Credibility, though, might be another issue.

"Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he was merely
stupid."
~ Heinrich Heine

Being crazy or stupid are orthogonal concepts and not necessarily
different degrees of the same thing. Lafferty displays the typical
lawyer approach; that of selecting facts and presenting them in a way
that supports a preconceived outcome (right or wrong).

Phil H

B. Lafferty said:

If the test
methodology is valid and the lab procedures in testing were correctly done,
and the numbers on the tested samples match Mr. Armstrong, one can only
conclude that Armstrong used EPO but will not be sanctioned for it due to
the rules as they presently exist.

WRONG

You make assumptions that:
1. The sample was still good after 6 years. Do you have a "control"?
NO
Why? B/c the test is new and therefore this type of testing has never
been done before and there are no studies to prove that a 6 year old
sample is still viable. Only a scientist making a guess that they are,
which will never hold up in court. You don't make assumptions in
science/research, everything is black/white.
2. The test has no faults. But it does. There have been no studies on
the rate of false positives.
3. That no one tampered with the sample. Where is the A sample? Why
didn't they test it? The chain-of-custody was obviously broken if the
sample was being used for another study.

This whole thing smacks of a set-up. Any good attorney would put the
lab tech on the stand and rip him a new one.

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

If the test
methodology is valid and the lab procedures in testing were correctly
done,
and the numbers on the tested samples match Mr. Armstrong, one can only
conclude that Armstrong used EPO but will not be sanctioned for it due to
the rules as they presently exist.

WRONG

You make assumptions that:
1. The sample was still good after 6 years. Do you have a "control"?
NO
Why? B/c the test is new and therefore this type of testing has never
been done before and there are no studies to prove that a 6 year old
sample is still viable. Only a scientist making a guess that they are,
which will never hold up in court. You don't make assumptions in
science/research, everything is black/white.
2. The test has no faults. But it does. There have been no studies on
the rate of false positives.
3. That no one tampered with the sample. Where is the A sample? Why
didn't they test it? The chain-of-custody was obviously broken if the
sample was being used for another study.

This whole thing smacks of a set-up. Any good attorney would put the
lab tech on the stand and rip him a new one.

My dead grandfather (mother's side) killed JFK.

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

Quoted message said:

If the test methodology is valid and the lab procedures in testing were
correctly done, and the numbers on the tested samples match Mr. Armstrong,
one can only conclude that Armstrong used EPO

But we now know that the EPO test isn't reliable - R. Beke's data proves
that.

Andy Coggan

So are you saying that UCI owned those samples and authorized testing them?

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"All of this not withstanding Armstrong's statements that it was ok to
freeze his samples for later testing as new tests are developed. Ya
can't have it both ways. "

Good point. Lance wants his samples frozen and kept for 10 years, yet
the moment somebody actually does something with thrm in terms of
testing, he cries foul (and so does the UCI). Not so amazing that the
man who supposedly wants to take a tough stance on doping, wants
absolutely nothing to do with retroactive testing. Nobody likes a
dodged bullet to make a 180 degree turn and come back the other way,
the UCI included.

Is there even any specific (existing) policy about sample ownership,
right to test samples, right to release results in the long term

My understanding, and I may be incorrect, is that the samples are the
property of the UCI.

On 9/9/05 5:58 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Andy Coggan"

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

If the test methodology is valid and the lab procedures in testing were
correctly done, and the numbers on the tested samples match Mr. Armstrong,
one can only conclude that Armstrong used EPO

But we now know that the EPO test isn't reliable - R. Beke's data proves
that.

Andy Coggan

STOP THAT!!!

You cannot let facts get in the way of a good, old fashioned vendetta

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

Quoted message said:

So are you saying that UCI owned those samples and authorized testing
them?

No.
1. The UCI owns the samples. See:

Property of Samples

167. The Samples collected under these Anti-Doping Rules shall become the
property of the UCI upon collection.

2. Ownership does not logically mean that the UCI authorized the testing.
Then again, there may be permissions given by the UCI to WADA certified
laboratories to do research with the frozen samples.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

If the test methodology is valid and the lab procedures in testing were
correctly done, and the numbers on the tested samples match Mr.
Armstrong, one can only conclude that Armstrong used EPO

But we now know that the EPO test isn't reliable - R. Beke's data proves
that.

Andy Coggan

Care to comment on the three test methodologies used by the French WADA
accredited lab and the fact that they only determined a positive if all
three methodologies indicated a positive finding. Feel free to consult with
your buddy Eddie the Apologist Coyle before responding.

Quoted message said:

If the test
methodology is valid and the lab procedures in testing were correctly

done,

Quoted message said:

and the numbers on the tested samples match Mr. Armstrong, one can only
conclude that Armstrong used EPO but will not be sanctioned for it due to
the rules as they presently exist.

If... if... if...

Sounds like there's a lot we don't know. It'd be fair to wait for the
facts. I heard somewhere that you were a lawyer. I hope this is not true.

They're stripping Palmeiros' numbers. They'll also aventually strip
Lance's tainted victories. So we'll be back with Merckx, Indurain , and
Hinault as the record holders for winning 5 TDF. Un drole de monde.

Andre

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

Quoted message said:

RicodJour said:

B. Lafferty said:

Having Hein Verbruggen investigate drug use in pro cycling is like
having
George Bush investigate his appointments to FEMA.

No more ludicrous than someone having you for a lawyer, Blind Spot.

R

I don't know about that. It would seem that if you can get Lafferty to
believe in your cause, he'll be on tenacious mofo.

Credibility, though, might be another issue.

"Might"?

Andy Coggan

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

If the test methodology is valid and the lab procedures in testing were
correctly done, and the numbers on the tested samples match Mr.
Armstrong, one can only conclude that Armstrong used EPO

But we now know that the EPO test isn't reliable - R. Beke's data proves
that.

Andy Coggan

Care to comment on the three test methodologies used by the French WADA
accredited lab and the fact that they only determined a positive if all
three methodologies indicated a positive finding.

Sure: if the body can produce compounds that co-migrate with exogenous EPO,
then it could very well produce them in sufficient quantities to result in a
false positive no matter how high you set the bar. Alternatively, it could
be that sample composition as examined in this test has changed after 6 y in
a freezer, resulting in the same thing.

Quoted message said:

Feel free to consult with your buddy Eddie the Apologist Coyle before
responding.

??

Andy Coggan

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> If the test methodology is valid and the lab procedures in testing
> were correctly done, and the numbers on the tested samples match Mr.
> Armstrong, one can only conclude that Armstrong used EPO

But we now know that the EPO test isn't reliable - R. Beke's data proves
that.

Andy Coggan

Care to comment on the three test methodologies used by the French WADA
accredited lab and the fact that they only determined a positive if all
three methodologies indicated a positive finding.

Sure: if the body can produce compounds that co-migrate with exogenous
EPO, then it could very well produce them in sufficient quantities to
result in a false positive no matter how high you set the bar.
Alternatively, it could be that sample composition as examined in this
test has changed after 6 y in a freezer, resulting in the same thing.

Nice try but too many "ifs" to be a meaningful statement. In other words,
[censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Feel free to consult with your buddy Eddie the Apologist Coyle before
responding.

??

You know who your past co-author is.

Quoted message said:

Andy Coggan