Expert witness for the defense

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

Quoted message said:

Top lab official questions L'Equipe conclusions-

The director of Canada's top anti-doping laboratory on Tuesday said she
had "serious concerns" over doping allegations raised in a four-page story
in the French sports daily L'Equipe.

...

"We are extremely surprised that urine samples could have been tested in
2004 and have revealed the presence of EPO," Ayotte said in an interview
with VeloNews on Tuesday. "EPO - in its natural state or the synthesized
version - is not stable in urine, even if stored at minus 20 degrees."

Full Article-
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html

Note also that she says she has great respect for the director of the French
lab and that she hasn't yet had the opportunity to speak with him.

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Full Article-
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html

Note also that she says she has great respect for the director of the French
lab and that she hasn't yet had the opportunity to speak with him.

Yeah that's was the important part of the article.......

"We are extremely surprised that urine samples could have been tested in
2004 and have revealed the presence of EPO,"

"The lab in Paris, which originally developed the test, would have -
should have - retested these samples in 2000 or 2001, in order to
develop and validate their methods at the time,"

"That has to be the only explanation, because otherwise, I've been a
liar all these years," Ayotte said. "I have been instructing everyone at
all of the organizations not to expect to reproduce an EPO adverse
finding if more that two or three months has elapsed since the sample
was originally taken."

"EPO is a protein hormone and it is not stable in urine, even when kept
frozen,"

"I am very worried about the circumstances about the way such
information might have been leaked," Ayotte said. "We are fully allowed
- and it is our duty - to investigate samples to make sure that if there
is an adverse finding, it is properly reported. In this case, however,
the director of the laboratory acknowledges that it cannot be deemed a
doping offense because 1) the athlete has retired and 2) he is placed in
a situation where there is now way to have the sample re-tested or
verified."

"It seems to me," Ayotte continued, "that this whole thing is breach of
the WADA code. We are supposed to work confidentially until such time
that we can confirm a result. By no means does this mean that we sweep a
result under the carpet, but it has to meet a certain set of requirements."

"We only get a code at these WADA labs. Someone else must have supplied
the paper with the names and their respective codes. So, to me, this
whole thing raises a number of questions. I'm worried, because I have a
great deal of respect for my colleagues in Paris. I am concerned that
they did not cover their backs before being dragged into a very public
issue of this kind."

Laff:

"Note also that she says she has great respect for the director of the
French lab".

It would seem her "respect" is misplaced. This is the director who
can't even protect the confidentiality his labs results. What kind
of a sloppy shop was he running? Surely not one that would be
"respected".

Does anyone else think that Lafferty masterbates to a doctored photo of
Lance injecting himself in the butt with a syringe?

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

Quoted message said:

Does anyone else think that Lafferty masterbates to a doctored photo of
Lance injecting himself in the butt with a syringe?

No, he uses a real photo of Lance injecting himself in the butt with a
syringe.

Just because a substance is not stable within a medium, does that mean
that on can not test ever for its presence?

So perhaps the remnants of the EPO are merely broeken down by being
immersed in [censored]. So what?

I'm not a chemist. Someone tell us about what "stable" is supposed to
mean here.

Quoted message said:

From what I read they where doing research on how well they could

detect EPO. They really weren't investigating urine storage. So how
do they know the effects of urine storage? What was their control
group? Have they retained the urine of a group of known EPO users and
known EPO non-users over six years to see how it tested?

So the testers say their methodology works and Armstrong is a cheat.
Armstrong says that he is not a cheat and their methodology doesn't
work. I'll bet that if they had identified the other positives from
1999, those people would also deny using and claim the methodology is
wrong.

Therefore they now have one data point (Armstrong) that says their
methodolgy is wrong...they could easily obtain other data points which
say their methodology is wrong (the others 'users'😉...and they lack any
proof to show that their methodology was right (a known control group).

How does a non-validated test prove anything?

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From what I read they where doing research on how well they could

detect EPO. They really weren't investigating urine storage. So how
do they know the effects of urine storage? What was their control
group? Have they retained the urine of a group of known EPO users and
known EPO non-users over six years to see how it tested?

So the testers say their methodology works and Armstrong is a cheat.
Armstrong says that he is not a cheat and their methodology doesn't
work.

Incorrect. Armstrong has not yet addressed the issue of the French
laboratory's methodology.

Quoted message said:

I'll bet that if they had identified the other positives from
1999, those people would also deny using and claim the methodology is
wrong.

Therefore they now have one data point (Armstrong) that says their
methodolgy is wrong...they could easily obtain other data points which
say their methodology is wrong (the others 'users'😉...and they lack any
proof to show that their methodology was right (a known control group).

How does a non-validated test prove anything?

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

Top lab official questions L'Equipe conclusions-

Quoted message said:

Note also that she says she has great respect for the director of the French
lab and that she hasn't yet had the opportunity to speak with him.

Lafferty, you need to get some counseling, as in psychological.

"Jay S. Hill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

Top lab official questions L'Equipe conclusions-

Quoted message said:

Note also that she says she has great respect for the director of the
French lab and that she hasn't yet had the opportunity to speak with him.

Lafferty, you need to get some counseling, as in psychological.

Did I state something inaccurately?

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Top lab official questions L'Equipe conclusions-

The director of Canada's top anti-doping laboratory on Tuesday said she
had "serious concerns" over doping allegations raised in a four-page
story in the French sports daily L'Equipe.

...

"We are extremely surprised that urine samples could have been tested in
2004 and have revealed the presence of EPO," Ayotte said in an interview
with VeloNews on Tuesday. "EPO - in its natural state or the synthesized
version - is not stable in urine, even if stored at minus 20 degrees."

Full Article-
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html

Note also that she says she has great respect for the director of the
French lab

Showing that she has no personal axe to grind and giving the substance of
her objections to these tests even more weight.

See, it's not hard to play your little laywer's game.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Top lab official questions L'Equipe conclusions-

The director of Canada's top anti-doping laboratory on Tuesday said she
had "serious concerns" over doping allegations raised in a four-page
story in the French sports daily L'Equipe.

...

"We are extremely surprised that urine samples could have been tested in
2004 and have revealed the presence of EPO," Ayotte said in an interview
with VeloNews on Tuesday. "EPO - in its natural state or the synthesized
version - is not stable in urine, even if stored at minus 20 degrees."

Full Article-
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html

Note also that she says she has great respect for the director of the
French lab

Showing that she has no personal axe to grind and giving the substance of
her objections to these tests even more weight.

See, it's not hard to play your little laywer's game.

She has also said that if the French lab says it found EPO in the samples
that there was EPO in the samples.

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

Quoted message said:

Just because a substance is not stable within a medium, does that mean
that on can not test ever for its presence?

So perhaps the remnants of the EPO are merely broeken down by being
immersed in [censored]. So what?

I'm not a chemist. Someone tell us about what "stable" is supposed to
mean here.

I don't understand how EPO could get into a sample just by freezing it. If
it's broken down, it would only disappear...so I'd say that there only is a
bigger chance of false negatives. Regrettable, but not really relevant for
Armstrong's samples.

Sandy a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You haven't been reading -

That is correct. Just like when I referee a scientific article, I stop
reading when I find a fatal flaw which makes the result unpublishable.

In this case, the director of the laboratory tries to pass off
his subjective opinion as having scientific validity. Perhaps
he has qualified his opinion somewhere, but I haven't seen it,
and he doesn't seem to be protesting about the way his opinion
has been taken as fact.

-ilan

Jonathan v.d. Sluis said:

I don't understand how EPO could get into a sample just by freezing it. If
it's broken down, it would only disappear...so I'd say that there only is a
bigger chance of false negatives. Regrettable, but not really relevant for
Armstrong's samples.

AFAIK the urine tests are based on a ratio of one form of
EPO or some EPO-derived reaction product to another:
basic/acidic, hence the %basic column in the L'Equipe table.
It is possible, though unlikely, that these compounds break
down at different rates. This is why I thought it would be
interesting to see a distribution of %basic values from
(1) samples tested in 2001 and (2) the same samples (or their
B samples if that's what available) tested now after 4 years
of freezing.

I am not a protein chemist, and wouldn't call this a strong
likelihood as a defense for Lance anyway. However, for a
scientist interested in extending the validity of EPO tests,
this is one of the obvious questions to ask.

It seems to me that the French lab chose to test the 1999
samples, rather than a sample with a contemporary control,
because there were few EPO positives in 2001 or so; from 1999,
they were more likely to turn up positives since the athletes
did not then fear an EPO test. Thus they would demonstrate the
extended reach of the test more significantly.
This could be enough motivation for them, without thinking
about nailing any rider by name. It is a common scientific
impulse to choose your experiment where you're more likely to
have a positive detection, but it's poor experimental practice
anyway.

Cranky said:

"EPO is a protein hormone and it is not stable in urine, even when kept
frozen,"

I think she's mistaken. Proteins are stored frozen for years all the
time, with only minor degradation. They often lose their activity if not
stored at at least -70C but unless there are proteases around they often
remain intact (there are no proteases in healthy urine). Since the EPO
test is based on electrophoresis of basic isoforms, it relies on intact
EPO, not active EPO. There's no reason to suspect that the test is
unreliable on years-old samples.

Quoted message said:

Just because a substance is not stable within a medium, does that mean
that on can not test ever for its presence?

So perhaps the remnants of the EPO are merely broeken down by being
immersed in [censored]. So what?

I'm not a chemist. Someone tell us about what "stable" is supposed to
mean here.

Stable, as far as this test is concerned, means all in one piece.
Proteins are chains of amino acid units, and the linkage between these
units can become broken through the action of enzymes and certain
chemicals. More information can be found at the link at the end of this
post. The EPO test is based on electophoresis, which characterizes
proteins according to a combination of size and charge. Basic
(positively charged) excreted products are apparently a sign of EPO use.
The test only demands that the excreted basic products are of the
correct size to be able to match up with a standard for comparison.

I said:

It seems to me that the French lab chose to test the 1999
samples, rather than a sample with a contemporary control,
because there were few EPO positives in 2001 or so; from 1999,
they were more likely to turn up positives since the athletes
did not then fear an EPO test. Thus they would demonstrate the
extended reach of the test more significantly.
This could be enough motivation for them, without thinking
about nailing any rider by name. It is a common scientific
impulse to choose your experiment where you're more likely to
have a positive detection, but it's poor experimental practice
anyway.

To clarify, if one were just interested in establishing that the
test works as well on long-frozen samples as on contemporaries,
you wouldn't need a large group of 2001 positives. You need a
group of 2001 tests, positive or not, the %basic number from each,
and the frozen B samples. You test the B samples and see if the
%basic numbers match the originals. Any number of effects could
happen; you could get good matches, or there could be some fraction
where you can no longer tell (unclassifiable), or the distribution
of %basic could shift, or it could get broader, which would make
the error rate of the test higher. Probably none of these
confounding possibilities would happen. But unless you've done
this experiment, you don't really know. It's possible neither
Ayotte's Canadian lab nor de Ceaurriz's French lab have actually
done this, because all I have read from them so far is rhetoric
about whether the test works on frozen pee, not any reports of data.

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 20:42:27 +0200, Kyle Legate <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Cranky said:

"EPO is a protein hormone and it is not stable in urine, even when kept
frozen,"

I think she's mistaken. Proteins are stored frozen for years all the
time, with only minor degradation. They often lose their activity if not
stored at at least -70C but unless there are proteases around they often
remain intact (there are no proteases in healthy urine). Since the EPO
test is based on electrophoresis of basic isoforms, it relies on intact
EPO, not active EPO. There's no reason to suspect that the test is
unreliable on years-old samples.

I think you have a point. It would take more robust methods to store
'viable' EPO, such as storage at -70 to -80C, perhaps.

I'd still expect that this should have been verified with controls, even if
the controls were stored in 2000 or 2001 since the thought of testing old
samples may not have occurred to the lab in 1999.

If readers don't have enough background on this, here's a link which was
previously posted, but evidently not everyone read. It talks about
proteases and the way bacteria can degrade EPO so that there is actually
less in the substrate:

http://www.rutgerbeke.com/en/news/march082005.asp

Thanks again, Kyle - very informative posts on your part!

-jet