Re: Mad Dog on science

Tom Kunich said:

Apparently we agree on both the absolutely invalid results from the
testing and the fact that what looks like a duck, smells like a duck
and quacks like a duck is likely to be a Lafferty.

What's with the ridicule of one of the posters? I don't think BL has
ever said the UCI should act to suspend on the test results, for a
whole bunch of reasons, no b sample, no adoption of the new test by
WADA, etc.

He's just saying, and I am too, if a lab is doing research, and finds
EPO, shouldn't cycling care about that? You critics of BL, and the UCI
suggest that a highly reputable lab doing research has no credibility?
What's with that?

I think an approach like that is what hardens WADA against us, and
ignores the doping issue. We should be saying, (apologies for repeating
another post) let us know when the test is ready, and the lack of b
sample issue is dealt with, and we will implement.

mtb Dad said:

Tom Kunich said:

Apparently we agree on both the absolutely invalid results from the
testing and the fact that what looks like a duck, smells like a duck
and quacks like a duck is likely to be a Lafferty.

What's with the ridicule of one of the posters? I don't think BL has
ever said the UCI should act to suspend on the test results, for a
whole bunch of reasons, no b sample, no adoption of the new test by
WADA, etc.

He's just saying, and I am too, if a lab is doing research, and finds
EPO, shouldn't cycling care about that? You critics of BL, and the UCI
suggest that a highly reputable lab doing research has no credibility?
What's with that?

So your wife goes in for a test for uterine cancer. They call you and say
'sorry, your wife tested positive in her sample that we stored out on the
porch all day in the sun. Oh, and by the way, we didn't bother to run
controls, and the tech that ran them was fired later that day for sloppy
work, because we're a highly reputable lab. Hope that's not a problem.'.

It say it just might be a problem. ;-)

-jet

Quoted message said:

I think an approach like that is what hardens WADA against us, and
ignores the doping issue. We should be saying, (apologies for repeating
another post) let us know when the test is ready, and the lack of b
sample issue is dealt with, and we will implement.

Huh? Has there been any suggestion of the lab mishandling samples?
All we know is a new test being researched found what they think is
EPO. Where'd this other stuff came from?

mtb Dad said:

Huh? Has there been any suggestion of the lab mishandling samples?
All we know is a new test being researched found what they think is
EPO. Where'd this other stuff came from?

They tested five year old samples which may have been stored at too high a
temperature (-18C rather than -40C) they apparently did not store controls
to run along with them, and did not follow proper forensics procedures
(chain of custody). Forensics are needed for proving misconduct and though
they were just (apparently) running some old samples on a new test to see
what would happen, there are those that now wish to use them to make
personal allegations. The point is, improperly controlled, improperly
stored samples run on a test not ready for prime time do not produce valid
results that can be interpreted. However it is enough to slander the
individual, unfortunately, and that's all it is, unproven allegations and
slander. Guess they should have waited until the test and controls were
ready, but now they're about out of sample. Too bad for them.

BTW, you might try quoting. I'm just guessing you're replying to me. ;-)

-jet

Not sure I've got the quote thing right, but here goes.

Jet said:

They tested five year old samples which may have been stored at too high a
temperature (-18C rather than -40C) they apparently did not store controls
to run along with them, and did not follow proper forensics procedures
(chain of custody). Forensics are needed for proving misconduct and though
they were just (apparently) running some old samples on a new test to see
what would happen,

Exactly. There were no plans to do anything other than research, and
besides, the lab doesn't know which samples are which.

Quoted message said:

there are those that now wish to use them to make
personal allegations.

But these are different people than the lab. How does that make the
lab less credible?

The point is, improperly controlled, improperly

Quoted message said:

stored samples run on a test not ready for prime time do not produce valid
results that can be interpreted.

I don't know about this. What source does this come from? But they do
suggest, now that they are out there, that doping is still going on.
Yet the UCI still says, shoot the messanger, instead of, hey, maybe
you're right, let us know when the test etc is ready ...

But they didn't, and Pound is prodding them to do more than shoot the
messenger. Todays announcement suggests that the investigation might
indeed go beyond leaks, or at least they didn't repeat that they were
only looking for leaks.

Quoted message said:

However it is enough to slander the
individual,

Yes, but that is exagerated by the denials. Why wouldn't Lance and UCI
say, "lets see the test validated". Unfortunately they played the
process card only.

mtb Dad said:

Not sure I've got the quote thing right, but here goes.

Jet said:

They tested five year old samples which may have been stored at too high a
temperature (-18C rather than -40C) they apparently did not store controls
to run along with them, and did not follow proper forensics procedures
(chain of custody). Forensics are needed for proving misconduct and though
they were just (apparently) running some old samples on a new test to see
what would happen,

Exactly. There were no plans to do anything other than research, and
besides, the lab doesn't know which samples are which.

The samples were stored and labeled in the same order as the Tour,
stage-by-stage. It's not difficult to guess which samples belong to whom.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there are those that now wish to use them to make personal allegations.

But these are different people than the lab. How does that make the
lab less credible?

Arguably, the lab ran these without proper safeguards of anonymity. They
should have re-randomized the samples, for one thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The point is, improperly controlled, improperly
stored samples run on a test not ready for prime time do not produce valid
results that can be interpreted.

I don't know about this. What source does this come from? But they do
suggest, now that they are out there, that doping is still going on.
Yet the UCI still says, shoot the messanger, instead of, hey, maybe
you're right, let us know when the test etc is ready ...

They suggest nothing. There were no controls run. Again I ask would you
rely on a test with no controls and improperly controlled samples to accept
an unfavorable diagnosis on a loved one? No, you'd ask for a proper test.
Someone tests you for gunpowder residue with out of date reagents - well I
guess you must have shot somebody, the question is when. Fair? Nope.

Quoted message said:

But they didn't, and Pound is prodding them to do more than shoot the
messenger. Todays announcement suggests that the investigation might
indeed go beyond leaks, or at least they didn't repeat that they were
only looking for leaks.

I didn't read that at all. It said what it said. It's unclear if the
'investigation' by Dutch lawyers will focus on guilt, persons, events or
lab quality.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However it is enough to slander the individual,

Yes, but that is exagerated by the denials. Why wouldn't Lance and UCI
say, "lets see the test validated". Unfortunately they played the
process card only.

Someone alleges you cheated. Would you not deny? After all that lie
detector machine from 1980 probably works ok. ;-)

-jet

Jet said:

They suggest nothing.

C'mon. An accredited lab, with a research history in creating the
original test for EPO all of a sudden throws all care and attention out
the window? Even as a completely private effort they wouldn't do that
lest their own employees blow the whistle on the lab leadership. Even
less likely if they planned to leak the results.

Quoted message said:

It said what it said.

It was the first statement that didn't say they were only looking at
the leak. Can you deny that?

Quoted message said:

Someone alleges you cheated. Would you not deny?

You're right. Lance would deny. But the UCI should have shown a bit
more interest.

Quoted message said:

-jet

In article
<[email hidden]>,

mtb Dad said:

Tom Kunich said:

Apparently we agree on both the absolutely invalid results from the
testing and the fact that what looks like a duck, smells like a duck
and quacks like a duck is likely to be a Lafferty.

What's with the ridicule of one of the posters? I don't think BL has
ever said the UCI should act to suspend on the test results, for a
whole bunch of reasons, no b sample, no adoption of the new test by
WADA, etc.

Agree.

Quoted message said:

He's just saying, and I am too, if a lab is doing research, and finds
EPO, shouldn't cycling care about that? You critics of BL, and the UCI
suggest that a highly reputable lab doing research has no credibility?
What's with that?

"If they find EPO." Well, they have not found EPO. Now what?

Quoted message said:

I think an approach like that is what hardens WADA against us, and
ignores the doping issue. We should be saying, (apologies for repeating
another post) let us know when the test is ready, and the lack of b
sample issue is dealt with, and we will implement.

Not a clue what you are saying here.

--
Michael Press

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

Quoted message said:

Not sure I've got the quote thing right, but here goes.

Jet said:

They tested five year old samples which may have been stored at too high
a
temperature (-18C rather than -40C) they apparently did not store
controls
to run along with them, and did not follow proper forensics procedures
(chain of custody). Forensics are needed for proving misconduct and
though
they were just (apparently) running some old samples on a new test to see
what would happen,

Exactly. There were no plans to do anything other than research, and
besides, the lab doesn't know which samples are which.

That's your claim. When the chain of custody is fractured in this manner you
have NO evidence worth anything.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there are those that now wish to use them to make
personal allegations.

But these are different people than the lab. How does that make the
lab less credible?

Somehow ALL of the tests seemed to have the same coded number that everyone
knew. This isn't a way to keep anonymous testing anonymous. How is it that
there was a single code number for ALL Lance's samples? If this were any
sort of open procedure all of the samples would have been coded separately.
This operation was being primed for abuse right from the start.

Quoted message said:

The point is, improperly controlled, improperly

Quoted message said:

stored samples run on a test not ready for prime time do not produce
valid
results that can be interpreted.

I don't know about this. What source does this come from?

How about from scientific knowledge of similar procedures throughout the
world of scientific research?

Quoted message said:

But they do
suggest, now that they are out there, that doping is still going on.

Unfortunately they mean nothing of the sort. Explain this - they claim that
EVERYONE is using EPO but only 12 samples out of a hundred test positive. Is
12% EVERYONE? Moreover, the claim is (now) that at least six of those
positives (HALF) are from a single person. So is 7% EVERYONE?

Earlier we heard that EVERYONE IS BLOOD PACKING. Now we're being told that
since only TWO people out of several hundreds tested positive then EVERYONE
IS AUTOLOGOUS BLOOD PACKING.

Maybe you're beginning to get the picture that what they're saying and what
the tests are reporting aren't matching.

I happen to have worked in separation science on the instrument side of the
business. I know for a fact that if they're looking for a chemical in the
blood they can find it if it's there.

I also know that before you destroy someone's reputation and their career
you had been have cross all your tee's and dotted all of your i's and that
hasn't been done in either the Hamilton case and most assuredly not in the
latest idiocy.

Quoted message said:

Yes, but that is exagerated by the denials. Why wouldn't Lance and UCI
say, "lets see the test validated". Unfortunately they played the
process card only.

Maybe you missed the fact that Lance gave the UCI a half MILLION dollars of
his own money to update the drug testing? Do you suppose he did that so that
they could find him positive? Or JUST MAYBE the guy who wanted the tests
more sensitive was concerned that he might be beaten by a doped dope?

As for Lafferty - don't be foolish enough to believe that he is interested
in anything but "Bring it all down, Man!"

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

Quoted message said:

Jet said:

They suggest nothing.

C'mon. An accredited lab

Sorry, they would have IMMEDIATELY lost all accreditation in the USA for
this folly. And they probably will in France as well. And it couldn't happen
to a nicer group.

Jet said:

They suggest nothing. There were no controls run. Again I ask would you
rely on a test with no controls and improperly controlled samples to accept
an unfavorable diagnosis on a loved one?

You and several others have fixated on the hypothesis that there were no
controls. I don't recall reading anywhere that the lab has admitted they
didn't run controls. Do you know this to be a fact?

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 04:35:41 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Jet said:

They suggest nothing.

C'mon. An accredited lab

Sorry, they would have IMMEDIATELY lost all accreditation in the USA for
this folly. And they probably will in France as well. And it couldn't happen
to a nicer group.

Well-l-l, maybe not since this was reportedly just a "lark", a "whim", lol,
and not a "real" scientific protocol for pubishing.

'hey hermie, let's run some of those old 1999 samples on the new EPO test.
No controls, no problem, it's just for fun.'

Actually that they picked those samples shows that it was not a lark or for
fun, but that they hoped to get some positives. But the dumbasses failed to
realize, as a real professional would, that running samples with no
accompanying controls is worthless, yes, worthless, even just for fun. In
addition, the dumbasses failed to realize that if they had waited until the
test was verified and controlled and then stored some controls at various
temps and times and conditions that they had an anti-dopers GOLDMINE in
those 1999 samples. But now, having fsked up, there's not enough left to
run via the ethical and scientifically proper protocols.

-jet

"Mad Dog" <[email hidden]> once again set a high bar with the following
comments, snipped...

Thanks for the time you take to lay out your perspective, and in such a
straightforward manner.

JF

OK,here is the question I still have. Someone may have addressed
it already, there is a lot of volume to the commentary on the EPO
test and a high percentage of urine in that volume (appropriate,
no?) so I've missed a fair chunk.

Jeff Jones mentioned problems with the antibody used to identify
EPO proteins, that it is not specific enough and that it picks
up non-EPO proteins.

This is a pretty significant flaw, is it not? You guys are
debating downstream stuff, but doesn't an upstream problem like
that compromise all the steps that follow? IOW, if you are running
an EPO test on stuff that you are not certain is entirely EPO,
whatever you get is suspect. Whether you followed correct
scientific/legal/ethical protocols or not.

Are they starting with [censored]? And if they are, how is it possible
that the end result is not [censored], regardless of how they got it?

Bob Schwartz

Jet said:

The reason controls, A&B samples are so critical is that there is a high
potential for scandal and manipulation and the test is a very -indirect-
test with a high possibility for false positive results. It's not like
we're testing hematocrits where you spin the blood and you're done. Even so
all hematocrit centrifuges are calibrated daily and with standard controls,
because, guess what? You spin the sample too slowly (rpm), or for too short
a time and the result is a false positive elevated result. The blood hasn't
had the time to pack adequately. So as the athlete's advisor, even in the
case of 'high hematocrit', I'd want to see the testing protocols and
calibration records to at least rule out that there were mistakes. If the
testing lab had no calibration procedures and records I'd be lodging an
immediate protest. Would you not also?

Sure I would, but only because it's in vogue these days.

Bob Schwartz said:

OK,here is the question I still have. Someone may have addressed
it already, there is a lot of volume to the commentary on the EPO
test and a high percentage of urine in that volume (appropriate,
no?) so I've missed a fair chunk.

Jeff Jones mentioned problems with the antibody used to identify
EPO proteins, that it is not specific enough and that it picks
up non-EPO proteins.

This is a pretty significant flaw, is it not? You guys are
debating downstream stuff, but doesn't an upstream problem like
that compromise all the steps that follow? IOW, if you are running
an EPO test on stuff that you are not certain is entirely EPO,
whatever you get is suspect. Whether you followed correct
scientific/legal/ethical protocols or not.

Are they starting with [censored]? And if they are, how is it possible
that the end result is not [censored], regardless of how they got it?

Well, this is something that can be checked out. If we knew which
antibody was used and what EPO peptide was used to generate it we could
have an idea of the degree of non-specificity. If the non-specificity
happens in only another place on the Western blot then you can't say for
certain that the spot you see at the right molecular weight and
isoelectric point of EPO is due to EPO or a second cross-reacting
protein, but if the pattern of cross-reacting proteins is the same for
each urine sample plus or minus the appearance of a signal at the
position of EPO then non-specificity isn't such a big problem.

It's just a thread that the non-believers can cling to.

Jet said:

Here's a page with some pretty good pictures of EPO gel precipitations, but
it's not related to cycling, just to give an idea what it looks like. Hope
this helps more than hurts, as in confusion... ;-D My fault if it does, I'm
in a hurry to go out.

I hope you had a good time but can you post the link now please?

Kyle Legate said:

Bob Schwartz said:

OK,here is the question I still have. Someone may have addressed
it already, there is a lot of volume to the commentary on the EPO
test and a high percentage of urine in that volume (appropriate,
no?) so I've missed a fair chunk.

Jeff Jones mentioned problems with the antibody used to identify
EPO proteins, that it is not specific enough and that it picks
up non-EPO proteins.

This is a pretty significant flaw, is it not? You guys are
debating downstream stuff, but doesn't an upstream problem like
that compromise all the steps that follow? IOW, if you are running
an EPO test on stuff that you are not certain is entirely EPO,
whatever you get is suspect. Whether you followed correct
scientific/legal/ethical protocols or not.

Are they starting with [censored]? And if they are, how is it possible
that the end result is not [censored], regardless of how they got it?

Well, this is something that can be checked out. If we knew which
antibody was used and what EPO peptide was used to generate it we could
have an idea of the degree of non-specificity. If the non-specificity
happens in only another place on the Western blot then you can't say for
certain that the spot you see at the right molecular weight and
isoelectric point of EPO is due to EPO or a second cross-reacting
protein, but if the pattern of cross-reacting proteins is the same for
each urine sample plus or minus the appearance of a signal at the
position of EPO then non-specificity isn't such a big problem.

It's just a thread that the non-believers can cling to.

It *has* been checked out. That's why I'm asking. From:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/epotest_problems
----
Besides exercise induced proteinuria, the second, and probably the
biggest worry with the EPO test, is the use of an antibody that is
non-specific for rEPO identification, i.e. it can identify other
proteins in the sample. This is termed cross reactivity, and was
noted in Peltre and Thormann's report. "Antibodies to EPO, monoclonals
or polyclonals, should be tested for their fine specificity and their
potential capacity of distinguishing between endogenous and exogenous
EPO," wrote Peltre and Thormann. The main antibody used in the test,
called AE7A5 and produced by the laboratory R & D Systems, has not been
designed to be used in anti-doping testing.

A number of research groups and individual scientists have pointed to
this as the main flaw in the EPO test. Prof. Bogaerts said in his
Sporza interview, "Laboratories in Leuven have shown that one of the
reagents which is used in the test is not specific enough. This means
that the antibody picks up other proteins." Thus, if a specific
antibody had been used, it would have been practically impossible for
Rutger Beke to have shown a positive result for EPO, even after intense
exercise.

Similarly, a very recent study by Australian researchers (Khan, Grinyer,
Truong, Breen, Packer. New Urinary EPO drug testing method using
two-dimensional gel electrophoresis. Clin. Chim. Acta 358 (1-2):
119-130, Aug. 2005) states that, "We have identified several urinary
proteins with which the monoclonal EPO antibody used in the current
test has non-specific binding. The iso-electric points of these
cross-reactive proteins overlap with HuEPO and rHuEPO." In other words,
false positives could result from the antibody erroneously identifying
natural EPO and other unrelated proteins in a urine sample. A more
specific antibody does not seem to have been developed.
-------

If the test is broken, it is still broken even if he did it.

Bob Schwartz