Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla



Tom Kunich wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for listing all the examples of those athletes who were
>>>> suspended because of a "false positive" for EPO.....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The names are easily googled. But you knew that.
>>>
>>> Bob Schwartz
>>
>>
>>
>> List two. (What would I Google under anyway? Do you think that just
>> because an article alleges it was a false positive that means it was?)
>>
>> List two examples of an EPO false positive. No Google. You list them.
>
>
> Just so we're clear - the EPO test results are AMBIGUOUS in some 80% of
> the cases and are INTERPRETTED by the person performing the test. That's
> why the French Lab seems to be finding a great many positives and no one
> else is.
>


Yeah, like you actually carefully examined all the evidence and saw the
BAP gel migrations. You're not even qualified to say what you are saying.

Magilla
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

> our
> fearless leader, or is that feckless - sorry for the English).

Why are you asking us?

<http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=feckless.>

That is a nasty thing to say about someone. Check the
dictionary before hurling epithets.

The apology does not fly.

--
Michael Press
 
Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Michael Press <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> our
>> fearless leader, or is that feckless - sorry for the English).
>
> Why are you asking us?
>
> <http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=feckless.>
>
> That is a nasty thing to say about someone. Check the
> dictionary before hurling epithets.
>
> The apology does not fly.

Who apologized?
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> 3) The same expert Beke used in his case to "prove" his EPO positive was
> a false positive was the same expert who claimed both Bo Hamburger and
> Geneviéve Jeanson's EPO positives were likewise false positives. In
> fact, the legal argument was the same.

Did you make that up?

Dude, give me some search terms.

Bob Schwartz
 
Bob Schwartz wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> 3) The same expert Beke used in his case to "prove" his EPO positive
>> was a false positive was the same expert who claimed both Bo Hamburger
>> and Geneviéve Jeanson's EPO positives were likewise false positives.
>> In fact, the legal argument was the same.
>
>
> Did you make that up?
>
> Dude, give me some search terms.
>
> Bob Schwartz



Search #1 = Joris Delanghe Beke
Search #2 = Joris Delanghe Jeanson


Both cases rely on showing the antibody used in the EPO's ELISA test is
not mono-specific and therefore cross reacts with natural proteins, thus
causing a false positive. He also alleges that contamination of the
urine increases a false positive rates, which is why it is essential
that couriers immediately mail their samples for overnight shipment.

I'm not sure if Beke actually used Delanghe in his case, but he
consulted with him prior to the case and the defense he used ended up
being nearly identical to the one Jeanson used if not absolutely identical.

Bo Hamberger used the same defense to get off (also a non-WADA case like
Beke's). Both Jeanson and Hamburger later confessed to taking EPO,
calling into serious question Beke's case as well.


Magilla
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
> Michael Press <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> our
> >> fearless leader, or is that feckless - sorry for the English).
> >
> > Why are you asking us?
> >
> > <http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=feckless.>
> >
> > That is a nasty thing to say about someone. Check the
> > dictionary before hurling epithets.
> >
> > The apology does not fly.
>
> Who apologized?

I take you at your word, and that is `sorry.'

--
Michael Press
 
In article <[email protected]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> Howard Kveck wrote:

> > The fact that they get different results at different labs says a lot
> > about the integrity of the testing.
>
>
> Can you give any examples of this? Name a specific athlete case.
_______________________
"The Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) has officially rejected a request from the
International Cycling Union (UCI) to re-open the Iban Mayo case, after the sport's
world governing received a second opinion on the B sample taken from Mayo in the 2007
Tour de France. Mayo's A sample tested positive for EPO (Erythropoietin) shortly
after the Tour last year, however results of his B sample, tested in the first
instance by Belgium's national anti-doping lab in Gent last October returned an
inconclusive result, clearing the rider of any wrong doing.

"However the UCI, not convinced by the Gent lab's findings, sought a second
opinion on the sample. It had the French Chatenay-Malabry lab, whose practices came
under scrutiny after Floyd Landis' positive sample from the 2006 Tour, test the
sample which returned a positive reading in mid-December.

"RFEC, however, has stated that the second testing is illegal, describing it as
being "in contrast to the principles of justice", and that re-opening the case would
be double jeopardy.

""We wrote to the UCI on December 28 to inform them that the competition committee
could not reopen [the Iban Mayo file]," explained Eugenio Bermudez, general secretary
of the RFEC. "No one can be tried twice for the same facts ".

"The UCI has appealed the matter with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
where the matter is expected to be resolved in Lausanne, Switzerland
"We supported Mayo and we will continue to do," added Bermudez."
_______________________

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/jan08/jan08news

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> > Howard Kveck wrote:

> >> The fact that they get different results at different labs says a
> >> lot about the integrity of the testing.

> > Can you give any examples of this? Name a specific athlete case. I
> > predict you will either never respond to this post or respond and not
> > answer the question.
> >
> > Like most people in here, you base your arguments on figments of your
> > imagination.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Magilla
>
>
> In Mayo's case, the first test came out "inconclusive." The second test
> done by the LNDD came out positive.

The first test (at LNDD) was a positive. The second test was at Ghent - that was
inconclusive. They retested that sample at LNDD and got another positive.

> I don't consider that "different results." If you get an inconclusive
> test, you should just run it again. They did that and got a positive.

Well, the fact that they get different results (and I know that "positive",
"inconclusive" and "negative" are different results) at different labs indicates that
there are problems with a) lab personnel, b) lab equipment, c) the tests themselves.
Those factors are are a start of a list of possible problems. I imagine that others
with more experience in a lab can fire off some more. Anyway, a test should be
repeatable with the same results in any lab. That's one of the core principles of the
scientific method.

> But considering this is the only case where two different WADA labs
> tested the same rider (due to a holiday in France), you can't give me
> any other examples to show me this is really a problem.

I didn't spend any time looking - this one was right there. Kyle had mentioned it
and it's been in the news fairly recently.

Look, I want the racing to be good, with everyone having as equal a chance as can
be. I'd prefer there to be no doping - just like you. But I want it done right,
without a bunch of questionable stuff thrown in there. However, unlike you...

> By the way, Mayo doped. Let's not get stupid. Guy goes from getting
> dropped in the Tour and crying on worldwide TV to off the front. Plus,
> he's from Spain - home of the doping culture in cycling.
>
> Mayo will lose this case. Mayo is doped to the gills. Same with that
> Spanish war refugee Herasshole.

.... I don't want it to be accomplished by assumptions.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
On Mar 24, 11:14 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

> In Mayo's case, the first test came out "inconclusive."  The second test
> done by the LNDD came out positive.
>
> I don't consider that "different results."

Why not?

>  If you get an inconclusive
> test, you should just run it again.  They did that and got a positive.

Because you think Mayo doped (as you stated elsewhere at least once),
and want to see him "caught", even by a lab that has conflict of
interest and a dirty history?

> By the way, Mayo doped.

Yeah, there it was.

> Let's not get stupid.

OK. Sounds good. Let's also use another lab, at least one, an
independent one, that doesn't have soiled underwear, OK?

How about let's make a rule that all samples have to be sub-divided
*before* they go into any lab, so A and B (C, D, E, etc.) can (must)
be tested in different labs, including home countries of affected
riders, to remove the possibility (maybe) that a lab, especially one
known for, at minimum, sloppy procedures and sample handling, would
not succumb to the temptation of covering its pimply ass?

Google "Houston Police Lab Scandal" if you've forgotten.

>  Guy goes from getting
> dropped in the Tour and crying on worldwide TV to off the front.  Plus,
> he's from Spain - home of the doping culture in cycling.

Two strikes and you're positive? And we'll test you until we can prove
it? Like Floyd?

> Mayo will lose this case.  Mayo is doped to the gills.  Same with that
> Spanish war refugee Herasshole.

The doping problem starts at the top. Goes through Chateau-
Lamebrainery and then is rained down (so to speak) upon the riders.
AKA "scapegoats".

Thank you. --D-y
 
Howard Kveck wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Howard Kveck wrote:
>
>
>>>> The fact that they get different results at different labs says a
>>>>lot about the integrity of the testing.
>
>
>>>Can you give any examples of this? Name a specific athlete case. I
>>>predict you will either never respond to this post or respond and not
>>>answer the question.
>>>
>>>Like most people in here, you base your arguments on figments of your
>>>imagination.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>Magilla
>>
>>
>>In Mayo's case, the first test came out "inconclusive." The second test
>>done by the LNDD came out positive.
>
>
> The first test (at LNDD) was a positive. The second test was at Ghent - that was
> inconclusive. They retested that sample at LNDD and got another positive.
>
>
>>I don't consider that "different results." If you get an inconclusive
>>test, you should just run it again. They did that and got a positive.
>
>
> Well, the fact that they get different results (and I know that "positive",
> "inconclusive" and "negative" are different results) at different labs indicates that
> there are problems with a) lab personnel, b) lab equipment, c) the tests themselves.
> Those factors are are a start of a list of possible problems. I imagine that others
> with more experience in a lab can fire off some more. Anyway, a test should be
> repeatable with the same results in any lab. That's one of the core principles of the
> scientific method.
>

No, an inconclusive result is not considered a result. It should never
have been divulged by the lab and simply re-run by them until they got a
definitive result.

I hate to tell you, by the labs that run your medical tests do the same
thing all the time. Nobody said lab work was perfect. Somehow, you
think that if lab work isn't perfect it can't be used. Not true.

Mayo's case will have the opportunity to go through the CAS process,
just like Landis' case.

You can't talk in generalizations like you do. The EPO test does
conform to the scientific method and so diid Mayo's result. If not,
then the CAS will dismiss it.

Magilla
 
Howard Kveck wrote:
>
>>By the way, Mayo doped. Let's not get stupid. Guy goes from getting
>>dropped in the Tour and crying on worldwide TV to off the front. Plus,
>>he's from Spain - home of the doping culture in cycling.
>>
>>Mayo will lose this case. Mayo is doped to the gills. Same with that
>>Spanish war refugee Herasshole.
>
>
> ... I don't want it to be accomplished by assumptions.
>


Neither do I. The LNDD said Mayo's EPO test was positive. Mayo's
argument apparently claims they had no right to run the "B" test since
the "A" test was negative.

In fact, the A test was merely inconclusive and simply re-run by the LNDD.

But even if you were to look at Mayo's argument at face value, it
attempts to get off on a pathetic technicality. Mayo doesn't deny the
second test by the LNDD was positive, only that it shouldn't have been run!

You need to go to the hospital and get your stomach pumped Rod Stewart
style.


Magilla
 
Howard Kveck wrote:
>
>>By the way, Mayo doped. Let's not get stupid. Guy goes from getting
>>dropped in the Tour and crying on worldwide TV to off the front. Plus,
>>he's from Spain - home of the doping culture in cycling.
>>
>>Mayo will lose this case. Mayo is doped to the gills. Same with that
>>Spanish war refugee Herasshole.
>
>
> ... I don't want it to be accomplished by assumptions.
>


Neither do I. The LNDD said Mayo's EPO test was positive. Mayo's
argument apparently claims they had no right to run the "B" test since
the "A" test was negative.

In fact, the A test was merely inconclusive and simply re-run by the LNDD.

But even if you were to look at Mayo's argument at face value, it
attempts to get off on a pathetic technicality. Mayo doesn't deny the
second test by the LNDD was positive, only that it shouldn't have been run!

You need to go to the hospital and get your stomach pumped Rod Stewart
style.


Magilla
 
[email protected] wrote:

> On Mar 24, 11:14 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>
>>In Mayo's case, the first test came out "inconclusive." The second test
>>done by the LNDD came out positive.
>>
>>I don't consider that "different results."
>
>
> Why not?


It's like a false start in the 100 meter dash or a let in tennis. You
just do it over.

It's not up to you to determine what a valid result is or isn't - that's
up to the lab.


Magilla
 
[email protected] wrote:

> On Mar 24, 11:14 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>
>>In Mayo's case, the first test came out "inconclusive." The second test
>>done by the LNDD came out positive.
>>
>>I don't consider that "different results."
>
>
> Why not?


It's like a false start in the 100 meter dash or a let in tennis. You
just do it over.

It's not up to you to determine what a valid result is or isn't - that's
up to the lab.


Magilla
 
[email protected] wrote:

> On Mar 24, 11:14 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>
>> If you get an inconclusive
>>test, you should just run it again. They did that and got a positive.
>
>
> Because you think Mayo doped (as you stated elsewhere at least once),
> and want to see him "caught", even by a lab that has conflict of
> interest and a dirty history?
>


How did the second EPO test by the LNDD turn positive if he didn't dope?
Thousands of EPO tests are done on cyclists every year and they all
come up negative.

Surely just re-running the test wouldn't cause it to turn positive.

You people are bigger liars than the cyclists.

Magilla
 
[email protected] wrote:

> On Mar 24, 11:14 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>
>> If you get an inconclusive
>>test, you should just run it again. They did that and got a positive.
>
>
> Because you think Mayo doped (as you stated elsewhere at least once),
> and want to see him "caught", even by a lab that has conflict of
> interest and a dirty history?
>


How did the second EPO test by the LNDD turn positive if he didn't dope?
Thousands of EPO tests are done on cyclists every year and they all
come up negative.

Surely just re-running the test wouldn't cause it to turn positive.

You people are bigger liars than the cyclists.

Magilla
 
[email protected] wrote:

> On Mar 24, 11:14 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> OK. Sounds good. Let's also use another lab, at least one, an
> independent one, that doesn't have soiled underwear, OK?
>
> How about let's make a rule that all samples have to be sub-divided
> *before* they go into any lab, so A and B (C, D, E, etc.) can (must)
> be tested in different labs, including home countries of affected
> riders, to remove the possibility (maybe) that a lab, especially one
> known for, at minimum, sloppy procedures and sample handling, would
> not succumb to the temptation of covering its pimply ass?
>
> Google "Houston Police Lab Scandal" if you've forgotten.


No, let's not make up that rule and just say we did.

If the cyclists feel the current system is so unethical and so
fraudulent, you should ask them and their agents and managers how come
they didn't lobby for the changes you propose. Surely if the current
system were so fraudulent and fraught with false positives as you imply,
the innocent cyclists would be highly motivated to want to protect
themselves from rampant false positive, no?

See, it all comes out in the wash. [Hint: the real reason cyclists
don't lobby for these changes is because they know every time someone is
caught they are guilty as hell].

Actions speak louder than words. And that is why cyclists don't protest
the WADA code or boycott a race or ask for any changes: because they
don't feel the tests ae inaccurate.


Magilla
 
[email protected] wrote:

> On Mar 24, 11:14 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> OK. Sounds good. Let's also use another lab, at least one, an
> independent one, that doesn't have soiled underwear, OK?
>
> How about let's make a rule that all samples have to be sub-divided
> *before* they go into any lab, so A and B (C, D, E, etc.) can (must)
> be tested in different labs, including home countries of affected
> riders, to remove the possibility (maybe) that a lab, especially one
> known for, at minimum, sloppy procedures and sample handling, would
> not succumb to the temptation of covering its pimply ass?
>
> Google "Houston Police Lab Scandal" if you've forgotten.


No, let's not make up that rule and just say we did.

If the cyclists feel the current system is so unethical and so
fraudulent, you should ask them and their agents and managers how come
they didn't lobby for the changes you propose. Surely if the current
system were so fraudulent and fraught with false positives as you imply,
the innocent cyclists would be highly motivated to want to protect
themselves from rampant false positive, no?

See, it all comes out in the wash. [Hint: the real reason cyclists
don't lobby for these changes is because they know every time someone is
caught they are guilty as hell].

Actions speak louder than words. And that is why cyclists don't protest
the WADA code or boycott a race or ask for any changes: because they
don't feel the tests ae inaccurate.


Magilla
 
[email protected] wrote:

> On Mar 24, 11:14 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Guy goes from getting
>>dropped in the Tour and crying on worldwide TV to off the front. Plus,
>>he's from Spain - home of the doping culture in cycling.
>
>
> Two strikes and you're positive? And we'll test you until we can prove
> it? Like Floyd?


Techically you should be able to test a sample 100 times and it should
never come up positive.

How come Mayo's came up positive on the second test yet hundreds of EPO
tests conducted by WADA labs every year come up negative.

Magilla
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla
Replies
3
Views
460
Road Cycling
MagillaGorilla
M
R
Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla
Replies
7
Views
451
Road Cycling
MagillaGorilla
M
M
Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla
Replies
21
Views
696
Road Cycling
Tom Kunich
T
T
Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla
Replies
0
Views
397
Road Cycling
Tom Kunich
T
A
Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla
Replies
1
Views
494
Road Cycling
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
F
Top Bottom Back