Iban Mayo B-sample is negative

MMan said:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gosnm3v5MzsyDG_APHcWvgL0D-EA

The A-sample was tested at LNDD.

I believe the B-sample was tested elsewhere, but the stories don't say.

in the UK

Dan Gregory said:

MMan said:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gosnm3v5MzsyDG_APHcWvgL0D-EA

The A-sample was tested at LNDD.

I believe the B-sample was tested elsewhere, but the stories don't say.

in the UK

it now appears to have been Ghent in Belgium & Australia.......

Dan Gregory said:

Dan Gregory said:

MMan said:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gosnm3v5MzsyDG_APHcWvgL0D-EA

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The A-sample was tested at LNDD.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I believe the B-sample was tested elsewhere, but the stories don't say.

Quoted message said:

in the UK

it now appears to have been Ghent in Belgium & Australia.......

We need to slap an 'Under New Management' sign on this sport ASAP.
They shot themselves in the foot with this one. If they had respected
Mayo's rights (privacy) this could have been avoided.

Quoted message said:

The A-sample was tested at LNDD.

Seriously? According to the article-

"The cycling federation confirmed the news and said there had been a mistake
with the first sample."

I'd love to see the direct quote from a UCI official regarding that.

I think there needs to be a fundamental re-thinking of the doping controls.
If a "positive" A sample has a reasonable chance of being incorrect (which
now appears to be the case), then perhaps the "A" sample should be split
and, if the first test shows positive, a test on the second sample should be
immediately carried out, by a different lab, without requiring any further
intervention (little added time, no sanctions against the rider unless the
2nd test of the "A" sample verifies the first test procedure). Same sample,
different labs.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

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

Quoted message said:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gosnm3v5MzsyDG_APHcWvgL0D-EA

The A-sample was tested at LNDD.

I believe the B-sample was tested elsewhere, but the stories don't say.

MMan said:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gosnm3v5MzsyDG_APHcWvgL0D-EA

The A-sample was tested at LNDD.

I believe the B-sample was tested elsewhere, but the stories don't say.

from the iban mayo blog :

"Iban Mayo cause problems in a restaurant downtown Bilbao

The basque rider, Iban May, causing various problems this past week in
a restaurant in downtown Bilbao. The cyclist was accompanied by five
other friends, one of them a well-known journalist for a local
television.

Mayo, in a drunken state, he began to make obscene jokes and bad
taste, bothering other customers of the establishment of hospitality
and causing several incidents. He was also to the bathroom to smoke,
given that the local was not allowed and will not discovered her, it
did not burn anything other than a roll of toilet paper that was on
the verge of causing a small fire."

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

The A-sample was tested at LNDD.

Seriously? According to the article-

"The cycling federation confirmed the news and said there had been a mistake
with the first sample."

I'd love to see the direct quote from a UCI official regarding that.

I think there needs to be a fundamental re-thinking of the doping controls.
If a "positive" A sample has a reasonable chance of being incorrect (which
now appears to be the case), then perhaps the "A" sample should be split
and, if the first test shows positive, a test on the second sample should be
immediately carried out, by a different lab, without requiring any further
intervention (little added time, no sanctions against the rider unless the
2nd test of the "A" sample verifies the first test procedure). Same sample,
different labs.

The A and B samples are the same. The athlete gives both samples into
the little containers in the same, er, process.

The athlete even gets a selection of several empty, sealed containers,
and is asked to choose two of them.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

Quoted message said:

The A and B samples are the same. The athlete gives both samples into
the little containers in the same, er, process.

The athlete even gets a selection of several empty, sealed containers,
and is asked to choose two of them.

If they're physically the same (same stream going into a funnel that splits
to two containers?) then I guess what I want is an A, B & C sample. The A
sample is always tested, the B sample is automatically tested (without
delay) in the event of a positive A sample, and the C sample would be the
one the athlete could choose to have done, or not. In this example, I'd even
allow the athlete to choose from a list of approved labs for the final test.

I do recognize that I'm essentially giving the athlete more of a chance of
getting let off, when in fact guilty. Still, the present system, under which
an athlete is immediately suspended until things are set in place for the B
test, seems wrong.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

The A-sample was tested at LNDD.

Seriously? According to the article-

"The cycling federation confirmed the news and said there had been a
mistake
with the first sample."

I'd love to see the direct quote from a UCI official regarding that.

I think there needs to be a fundamental re-thinking of the doping
controls.
If a "positive" A sample has a reasonable chance of being incorrect
(which
now appears to be the case), then perhaps the "A" sample should be split
and, if the first test shows positive, a test on the second sample should
be
immediately carried out, by a different lab, without requiring any
further
intervention (little added time, no sanctions against the rider unless
the
2nd test of the "A" sample verifies the first test procedure). Same
sample,
different labs.

The A and B samples are the same. The athlete gives both samples into
the little containers in the same, er, process.

The athlete even gets a selection of several empty, sealed containers,
and is asked to choose two of them.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

The A-sample was tested at LNDD.

Seriously? According to the article-

"The cycling federation confirmed the news and said there had been a mistake
with the first sample."

I'd love to see the direct quote from a UCI official regarding that.

I think there needs to be a fundamental re-thinking of the doping controls.
If a "positive" A sample has a reasonable chance of being incorrect (which
now appears to be the case), then perhaps the "A" sample should be split
and, if the first test shows positive, a test on the second sample should be
immediately carried out, by a different lab, without requiring any further
intervention (little added time, no sanctions against the rider unless the
2nd test of the "A" sample verifies the first test procedure). Same sample,
different labs.

There are problems with splitting samples again.
One is that the donor and his representatives
are not present when the A sample seal is broken.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gosnm3v5MzsyDG_APHcWvgL0D-EA

The A-sample was tested at LNDD.

I believe the B-sample was tested elsewhere, but the stories don't say.

--
Michael Press

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

The A and B samples are the same. The athlete gives both samples into
the little containers in the same, er, process.

The athlete even gets a selection of several empty, sealed containers,
and is asked to choose two of them.

If they're physically the same (same stream going into a funnel that splits
to two containers?) then I guess what I want is an A, B & C sample. The A
sample is always tested, the B sample is automatically tested (without
delay) in the event of a positive A sample, and the C sample would be the
one the athlete could choose to have done, or not. In this example, I'd even
allow the athlete to choose from a list of approved labs for the final test.

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/urine_testing_guideline.pdf

Quoted message said:

I do recognize that I'm essentially giving the athlete more of a chance of
getting let off, when in fact guilty. Still, the present system, under which
an athlete is immediately suspended until things are set in place for the B
test, seems wrong.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

today
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20071023_130131Dev.html
says that it is not a "negative" sample but one that could not be read
correctly so in fact Mayo is not cleared

Dan Gregory said:

todayhttp://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20071023_130131Dev.html
says that it is not a "negative" sample but one that could not be read
correctly so in fact Mayo is not cleared

Huh. I read that the the Gent lab's B-sample results were "confirmed"
by an Australian lab. Any news/details on that front? Did the Oz lab
confirm that the sample could not be read correctly or...?

Jim

Dan Gregory said:

today
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20071023_130131Dev.html
says that it is not a "negative" sample but one that could not be read
correctly so in fact Mayo is not cleared

Is their positive reader on holiday again ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think there needs to be a fundamental re-thinking of the doping
controls.
If a "positive" A sample has a reasonable chance of being incorrect
(which
now appears to be the case), then perhaps the "A" sample should be split
and, if the first test shows positive, a test on the second sample should
be
immediately carried out, by a different lab, without requiring any
further
intervention (little added time, no sanctions against the rider unless
the
2nd test of the "A" sample verifies the first test procedure). Same
sample,
different labs.

There are problems with splitting samples again.
One is that the donor and his representatives
are not present when the A sample seal is broken.

But the second test of the "A" sample cannot do any more harm than the
present system. It can only increase the odds that the test doesn't go any
further, because you'd need both "A" samples (or A & B if you wish) to test
positive before it could move on to C.

But forget the specifics. The goal is to find a way to keep a positive A
sample from kicking an athlete out of competition, when it's quite possible
he or she will be later found not positive. Somehow we need to be a bit more
sure, a bit more quickly.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

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

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

The A-sample was tested at LNDD.

Seriously? According to the article-

"The cycling federation confirmed the news and said there had been a
mistake
with the first sample."

I'd love to see the direct quote from a UCI official regarding that.

I think there needs to be a fundamental re-thinking of the doping
controls.
If a "positive" A sample has a reasonable chance of being incorrect
(which
now appears to be the case), then perhaps the "A" sample should be split
and, if the first test shows positive, a test on the second sample should
be
immediately carried out, by a different lab, without requiring any
further
intervention (little added time, no sanctions against the rider unless
the
2nd test of the "A" sample verifies the first test procedure). Same
sample,
different labs.

There are problems with splitting samples again.
One is that the donor and his representatives
are not present when the A sample seal is broken.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gosnm3v5MzsyDG_APHcWvgL0D-EA

The A-sample was tested at LNDD.

I believe the B-sample was tested elsewhere, but the stories don't say.

--
Michael Press

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

But forget the specifics. The goal is to find a way to keep a positive A
sample from kicking an athlete out of competition, when it's quite possible
he or she will be later found not positive. Somehow we need to be a bit more
sure, a bit more quickly.

The goal is to cut the athlete's income as quickly as possible
in order to limit their defense. Although I doubt you would get
anyone at WADA to admit that.

The solution path is different if we are honest about the problem
statement.

Bob Schwartz

On Oct 23, 11:37 am, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The goal is to cut the athlete's income as quickly as possible
in order to limit their defense. Although I doubt you would get
anyone at WADA to admit that.

"Funny."

Quoted message said:

The solution path is different if we are honest about the problem
statement.

A clear and uniform problem statement would end Laffertyism as we know
it. If you destroy rbr, you are ruler of nothing.

Quoted message said:

Jim Feeley said:

So who decided to send the B sample to Gent? And why re test in France
rather than Belgium?

Quoted message said:

From cyclingnews.com:

"According to Gripper, Mayo's B sample was transferred to a laboratory
in Gent, Belgium because the Châtenay-Malabry laboratory in Paris,
where the original sample was tested, was closed for the holidays. "To
ensure that the rider could have the B sample done more quickly, we
transferred the sample, but the Gent laboratory just couldn't get the
sample to confirm the Paris result," said Gripper."

Oh. My. God.

I couldn't believe Gripper would really say that out loud, at least not
to the press! I thought it was time-honored RBR hyperbole. I thought
it was cyclingnews getting it wrong. But "both" cnn.com and
sportsillustrated.cnn.com have AP articles with the exact same final phrase.

Wow.

The B-test isn't finished until it confirms that he's guilty, I guess.

Does Mayo really have to do /any/ work to persuade the world he's the
subject of a witch hunt (regardless, of course, of his actual guilt or
innocence?)

Mark J.

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

If you destroy rbr, you are ruler of nothing.

There's a difference ?

Anyway FSA ads claim nothing is light.

rechungREMOVETHIS said:

Quoted message said:

From cyclingnews.com:

"According to Gripper, Mayo's B sample was transferred to a laboratory
in Gent, Belgium because the Châtenay-Malabry laboratory in Paris,
where the original sample was tested, was closed for the holidays. "To
ensure that the rider could have the B sample done more quickly, we
transferred the sample, but the Gent laboratory just couldn't get the
sample to confirm the Paris result," said Gripper."

1. Doesn't sound like the original sample was tested very quickly.
2. I'm sure Gripper really said, "but the Gent laboratory just
couldn't get the sample to confirm the Paris result, goddammit."
3. The sample is being sent to Paris in an act of extreme rendition,
where it will be waterboarded until it confesses.

I expect Lamour would probably say the Belgians are anglo.