There is enough left to have a 2nd test

CharlotteChurch said:

The ball is in your court now mr armstrong , prove your innocence!!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2005/interviews/?id=damien_ressiot_05

Its the same B sample as before whether you test it once or a million times, e.g. no A sample, get it?????

davidbod said:

Its the same B sample as before whether you test it once or a million times, e.g. no A sample, get it?????

Apparently he does not get it...and probably never will. 😕

davidbod said:

Its the same B sample as before whether you test it once or a million times, e.g. no A sample, get it?????

LOL that guy is on a roll.

For each set of tests of a cyclists, there is now only additional quantity from the B sample. The A sample is no longer available. Therefore, that there is more of urine from the B sample imposes no obligation on LA. :p

CC : I think WADA have stated that the lab in France only had one sample in it's possession.

The first sample tested in 1999, couldn't detect EPO : so effectively all of those cyclists who were taking EPO couldn't be detected as those samples
appeared to be "clean", they were discarded.

Of course we now know that Armstrong used EPO in six separate stages of the 1999 TDF.
We know this because the the second remaining sample that was stored and then tested in December 2004 proved that EPO was in the urine sample.

The UCI's test in 1999 cleared people who have subsequently been proven to have used PED's.
It's another UCI shambles.

Fortunately, somebody's mere assertion of something doesn't make it true (no matter how many times it's stated on the board), particularly for board readers with strong analytical skills 😎

The bottom line is the sufficiency of the remaining urine specimens for a second test does not affect the fact that each remaining amount no longer has two samples (so-called "A" and "B"😉. Leaving aside questions of specimen degradation and chain of custody, there is also a fundamental weakness in the EPO test that was utilized. The EPO test was flawed, and these specimens were being used to improve a test acknowledged to have been flawed and to have produced false positives. See my discussions in another thread.

musette said:

Fortunately, somebody's mere assertion of something doesn't make it true (no matter how many times it's stated on the board), particularly for board readers with strong analytical skills
.

........which you don't have.

musette said:

ol:

Leaving aside questions of specimen degradation and chain of custody, there is also a fundamental weakness in the EPO test that was utilized.

there is no fundamental weakness concerning the EPO test.
The test process was validated.
The chain of custody for sample process, was validated.
All validation processes for the new EPO test was validated prior to WADA's
introduction of the test in 2004.
The test is mandated by the WADA Code - which the UCI reluctantly signed up to in 2004.

musette said:

The EPO test was flawed, and these specimens were being used to improve a test acknowledged to have been flawed and to have produced false positives. See my discussions in another thread.

The test and the processes of the test - were validated and verified PRIOR to the introduction of the test in 2004.

The only false results that have thus far been identified - are the six false negative EPO results ascribed to Armstrong in the 1999 TDF.