Armstrong and doping on American radio

Howard said:

marc said:

Quoted message said:

Howard wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This overlooks the fact that Armstrong is powerful man, with even more
powerful friends, who as such is in a good position to 'manage' the
fall out from any allegations made against him. Of course, he is
helped in this process immeasurably by the fact that so many people
don't want to even look at (or listen to!) the evidence against him in
the first place.

Now we are into conspiracy theories?

What's next Landis was replaced by aliens?

Nothing to do with conspiracy theories, just the dirty world of PR and
'Reputation management'.

The only people throwing conspiracy theories around have been those
arguing that Landis (and Armstrong come to that) are the victim of
some sort of plot by ASO/ The French lab/ The French Media/ anyone who
is French to discredit them. Thankfully not everyone (not even in the
USA where for some to doubt Armstrong is to be 'un-American'😉 is dumb
enough to be taken in by such nonsense. For example:

You have an awful lot of web sources ontap for someone that hasn't an
axe to grind.

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

Quoted message said:

I have not clicked into any of this stuff. With Armstrong - surely the
most tested athlete of all time - there can be only two conclusions:

(a) he was clean.

(b) he had the best chemist that ever shook a test tube.

Probably the latter. Doping is widespread in all branches of American sport.
The money is too tempting. Doctors get sucked into the trap.

Best solution is to abandon these silly "one year suspensions" by the
sporting bodies and prosecute dopers for fraud through the criminal courts.
If a businessman cheated a rival out of many millions of
pounds/euros/dollars, he would end up in prison for quite a few years if
convicted. Athletes are no longer "sportsmen" and are in it entirely for
financial interests - so they should be treated the same as businessmen.

marc said:

... in a cival case such as the one we are discussing I would have
grave qualms about listening to one organisation that was praising a
second, if the first was in the employ of the second.

But neither David Cowan of the Drug Control centre in London, Dr. Gary
I. Wadler of the New York University School of Medicine nor Donald H.
Catlin of the Olympic drug-testing laboratory at U.C.L.A. were
'praising' WADA. Rather all three were speaking about the significance
of the test procedure itself. In addition, the tests were done by a
lab which operates independently of the lbs they work at. Perhaps you
feel that experts should be debarred from passing even generalised
comments on such issues if they also work in the field, which as
experts one would expect they might well do!

Quoted message said:

No matter how you want to cut it the French lab is tainted, and the WADA
IMHO is not much better.

'Tainted' is a very loaded word and smacks of the influence of the
smear campaign run by the Landis camp. Unfortunately WADA rules
prevent a lab from debunking claims made about them. I also wonder
how many organisations are so flawless in their procedures that
absolutely no criticism could be levelled against them?

The bottom line is that artificial testosterone was found in 7 of
Landis's samples. Unless one wants to go down the lunatic route of
claiming that some sort of conspiracy is afoot the only credible
explanation of that fact is that Landis doped.

marc said:

You have an awful lot of web sources ontap for someone that hasn't an
axe to grind.

Like many people I keep copies of any interesting story I come across
and I have been reading articles on doping in cycling for the best
part of a decade. I do exactly the same with many other topics I find
interesting. You should see the number of research papers and media
articles I have collected over the years relating to speed
enforcement, traffic law, cycle helmets and other issues that I do
have 'an axe to grind' over! There is nothing wrong with making an
attempt to keep well informed.

Ric said:

If a businessman cheated a rival out of many millions of
pounds/euros/dollars, he would end up in prison for quite a few years if
convicted.

Such sweet optimism. Perusal of the footnotes for the Enron / Arthur
Anderson scandal will reveal how often that happens. I agree with the
sentiments, but not the belief in the system.

Jon

marc said:

Now we are into conspiracy theories?

What's next Landis was replaced by aliens?-

Having come into this thread late, and reading 91 messages in one go,
the overwhelming impression is that the omerta of uk.rec.cycling is
bullying Howard for publicising some information you would rather was
kept quiet.

Tony, Marc etc would you like to spit at him if you could? Would you
follow him around a club ride and shout '[censored], [censored]' at him?
Would you?

Seriously, a lot of you guys on here really give the impression that
you want the whole druggie thing swept under the carpet.

Howard said:

This overlooks the fact that Armstrong is powerful man, with even more
powerful friends, who as such is in a good position to 'manage' the
fall out from any allegations made against him.

Which in turn overlooks the fact that his very profile attracts news,
including potentially bad news, and consequently investigative
journalists who have over time unearthed stuff with far greater possible
nasty consequences to themselves than being "fallout managed" by LA and
his friends.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you should read a little Chomsky. It might give you the
insight that most 'news filtering', especially in the USA, does not
function in order to let the 'important' stuff though, but to ensure
that it doesn't get though...

If you read Chomsky (and I have read some) then you would appreciate
that whether or not an athlete had been doping is exactly the sort of
non-news that the power brokers *love* to have filling the airwaves, as
it keeps things like the nastier aspects of US trade and foreign policy
off the radar.

If you really think doping of a retired athlete is globally significant
news that will affect matters of life and death and/or
political/financial/corporate power in any meaningful sense then it just
shows you've got too close to this to think about it rationally.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In message <[email hidden]>

Howard said:

marc said:

You have an awful lot of web sources ontap for someone that hasn't an
axe to grind.

Like many people I keep copies of any interesting story I come across
and I have been reading articles on doping in cycling for the best
part of a decade. I do exactly the same with many other topics I find
interesting. You should see the number of research papers and media
articles I have collected over the years relating to speed
enforcement, traffic law, cycle helmets and other issues that I do
have 'an axe to grind' over! There is nothing wrong with making an
attempt to keep well informed.

If you are so well informed what's your view on the quality of data that
is produced by the particular drug testing laboratory used for the Tour
de France? Validation of results, reproducibility of results,
confidentiality of the data, adherence to standard operating procedures,
anonymity of the samples, double blind testing?

For me the key factor in all this is that the laboratory concerned
doesn't appear to adhere to proper standards. Time and time again their
procedures have been shown to be lacking and thus the evidence they
produce is seriously open to question, not just legally but also
scientifically. Since most of the hard evidence of doping depends upon
these laboratory results it means that the allegations remain unproven.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

Peter Clinch said:

If you really think doping of a retired athlete is globally significant
news that will affect matters of life and death and/or
political/financial/corporate power in any meaningful sense then it just
shows you've got too close to this to think about it rationally.

Eh? Where on earth did I suggest that the Armstrong doping saga "is
globally significant news that will affect matters of life and death
and/or political/financial/corporate power". Such a flight of fantasy
is a long way from me pointing out that a lot of people have a vested
interest in maintaining the 'Armstrong myth', not least because he is
a 'corporate America's pin-up boy' to borrow a phrase I read
elsewhere.

What does seem to be true is that the 'Armstrong and doping' thing
frequently takes on the role of a touchstone for a number of issues
with far greater significance than whether some bike rider doped in
order to win races. For example, the level of 'proof' required in
order to hold someone to be guilty of something, the extent and nature
of Francophobia, American nationalism and so on. At times the whole
Armstrong debate even seems to be an exercise in political psychology.

Quoted message said:

From 'debates' I have seen elsewhere this typically involves those who

appear to have a rather 'hierarchical' outlook on life, and as such
believe that 'important' and powerful people should be 'respected',
striking out at those who they seem to regard as, in a small way,
subverting the hierarchical order by being critical of Armstrong.

Nick said something earlier which recognised much the same point.
Quote: "I see little point in debating Armstrong's alleged drug
taking as it appears to be such an emotive subject in that it
motivates people to take very entrenched positions that seem to be
based on factors other than drug taking itself."

Whatever, for a topic of little importance about which you simply
don't care you seem to have expended an awful lot of time debating it
on here. In fact you could probably have listened to all those radio
programs that you claimed you were too busy doing important stuff to
hear!

Peter Clinch said:

If you really think doping of a retired athlete is globally significant
news that will affect matters of life and death and/or
political/financial/corporate power in any meaningful sense then it just
shows you've got too close to this to think about it rationally.

Eh? Where on earth did I suggest that the Armstrong doping saga "is
globally significant news that will affect matters of life and death
and/or political/financial/corporate power". Such a flight of fantasy
is a long way from me pointing out that a lot of people have a vested
interest in maintaining the 'Armstrong myth', not least because he is
a 'corporate America's pin-up boy' to borrow a phrase I read
elsewhere.

What does seem to be true is that the 'Armstrong and doping' thing
frequently takes on the role of a touchstone for a number of issues
with far greater significance than whether some bike rider doped in
order to win races. For example, the level of 'proof' required in
order to hold someone to be guilty of something, the extent and nature
of Francophobia, American nationalism and so on. At times the whole
Armstrong debate even seems to be an exercise in political psychology.

Quoted message said:

From 'debates' I have seen elsewhere this typically involves those who

appear to have a rather 'hierarchical' outlook on life, and as such
believe that 'important' and powerful people should be 'respected',
striking out at those who they seem to regard as, in a small way,
subverting the hierarchical order by being critical of Armstrong.

Nick said something earlier which recognised much the same point.
Quote: "I see little point in debating Armstrong's alleged drug
taking as it appears to be such an emotive subject in that it
motivates people to take very entrenched positions that seem to be
based on factors other than drug taking itself."

Whatever, for a topic of little importance about which you simply
don't care you seem to have expended an awful lot of time debating it
on here. In fact you could probably have listened to all those radio
programs that you claimed you were too busy doing important stuff to

Peter Clinch said:

If you really think doping of a retired athlete is globally significant
news that will affect matters of life and death and/or
political/financial/corporate power in any meaningful sense then it just
shows you've got too close to this to think about it rationally.

Eh? Where on earth did I suggest that the Armstrong doping saga "is
globally significant news that will affect matters of life and death
and/or political/financial/corporate power". Such a flight of fantasy
is a long way from me pointing out that a lot of people have a vested
interest in maintaining the 'Armstrong myth', not least because he is
a 'corporate America's pin-up boy' to borrow a phrase I read
elsewhere.

What does seem to be true is that the 'Armstrong and doping' thing
frequently takes on the role of a touchstone for a number of issues
with far greater significance than whether some bike rider doped in
order to win races. For example, the level of 'proof' required in
order to hold someone to be guilty of something, the extent and nature
of Francophobia, American nationalism and so on. At times the whole
Armstrong debate even seems to be an exercise in political psychology.

Quoted message said:

From 'debates' I have seen elsewhere this typically involves those who

appear to have a rather 'hierarchical' outlook on life, and as such
believe that 'important' and powerful people should be 'respected',
striking out at those who they seem to regard as, in a small way,
subverting the hierarchical order by being critical of Armstrong.

Nick said something earlier which recognised much the same point.
Quote: "I see little point in debating Armstrong's alleged drug
taking as it appears to be such an emotive subject in that it
motivates people to take very entrenched positions that seem to be
based on factors other than drug taking itself."

Whatever, for a topic of little importance about which you simply
don't care you seem to have expended an awful lot of time debating it
on here. In fact you could probably have listened to all those radio
programs that you claimed you were too busy doing important stuff to
hear!

Howard said:

Eh? Where on earth did I suggest that the Armstrong doping saga "is
globally significant news that will affect matters of life and death
and/or political/financial/corporate power".

When you suggested I read some Noam to show me how news of LA would be
kept from getting beyond American radio.

Quoted message said:

Such a flight of fantasy
is a long way from me pointing out that a lot of people have a vested
interest in maintaining the 'Armstrong myth', not least because he is
a 'corporate America's pin-up boy' to borrow a phrase I read
elsewhere.

And equally there are people with a vested interest in getting the
biggest story of their lives into print.

Quoted message said:

Whatever, for a topic of little importance about which you simply
don't care you seem to have expended an awful lot of time debating it
on here.

What I have been trying to tell you, is that you've Lost The Plot.
While I don't care very much about LA, I /do/ care that so much energy
is being spent on chasing a Lost Plot when there are so many other
things that could be done which might actually help improve pro cycling
and its image.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Howard said:

Perhaps you should read a little Chomsky. It might give you the
insight that most 'news filtering', especially in the USA, does not
function in order to let the 'important' stuff though, but to ensure
that it doesn't get though...

In return I recommend you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Tony

In message <[email hidden]>

marc said:

Howard said:

Tony Raven said:

Yes well WADA rules were demonstrated in the Landis hearing in which
Landis' team gave a details demolition of the laboratory work and
results

I think you meant to say "Landis's team showed that there was a
certain amount of administrative sloppiness at the lab concerned, and
may have found the odd document where someone had failed to cross a
couple of 't's".

So you think it is OK for administrative sloppiness in such a
laboratory? Let me ask a question of you. If you were on trial for a
criminal case, such as an accusation of murder, and the evidence against
you were forensic, e.g. DNA testing, what standards would you expect to
see maintained by the laboratory?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What they did not do was explain why 7 of his samples, when
subjected to a sophisticated carbon isotope test, showed traces of
exogenous testosterone!

You sure they were Landis's samples, this is the lab that has
"administrative sloppiness".

I think this is rather sadly a serious point. In an ideal world we would
all like to have faith that the results produced by a laboratory are
accurate and correct. However scientific fraud is not that uncommon,
particularly where individuals have an opportunity to manipulate the
data for their own personal causes. That is why laboratory testing that
is to be used in a criminal investigation has to be above suspicion. The
standard operating procedures (SOPs) are created precisely to try and
maintain the integrity of the data. Any demonstrable breach of those
SOPs has to call into question the integrity of the data and of the
staff who produce the data. That doesn't mean the data is wrong it just
means that it shouldn't be regarded as of a high enough integrity to
prove a legal case. As a basic principle the person carrying out the
tests should not have any idea which samples come from which accused
individual, thus they should be correctly marked with a code that can
only be broken by a third party. Also there should be sufficient
controls included each time, both positive and negative to validate that
the test has run properly. Also the results should be verified by an
independent test under similar controlled conditions on a second sample.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

Mike Clark said:

For me the key factor in all this is that the laboratory concerned
doesn't appear to adhere to proper standards. Time and time again their
procedures have been shown to be lacking and thus the evidence they
produce is seriously open to question, not just legally but also
scientifically.

That is, of course, if you believe the spin put out by people with a
vested interest in trying to discredit the laboratory, such as Landis,
Vinokourov and so on...

Interestingly, not all riders try to question the validity of the labs
findings. When the lab detected synthetic testosterone in a sample
provide by Cristian Moreni during the Tour he didn't even request that
his 'B' sample be tested to confirm the finding.

In reality, if one reads the smear tactics used by people like Landis
they sound like nothing more than the desperate tactics of someone who
knows that they have been caught fair and square. For example,
Landis's team tried to argue that the carbon isotope tests- the
decisive ones- should not have been done because the T/E ratio tests
were not, or so they argued, conclusive. This sounds much like someone
being stopped for speeding and then failing a breath test trying to
claim that the breath test result was not valid because the police
could not show that the speed gun used in the initial 'pull' had been
calibrated recently!

Howard said:

Quoted message said:

From what I have read non of the 'sloppiness' was of a scale that

would call into doubt the origin of the samples, nor the validity of
the testing.

You clearly haven't read much. The complete chain of custody has big
gaps in it where the whereabouts of the samples cannot be accounted for,
the ID numbers were changed on the forms with typex (a method that is
banned for very good reasons in GLP) "because it was obvious it was
wrong" ignoring the fact that samples from a competitor with that exact
number were also going through the lab at that time and that if the
number had been written down wrong it could only be a guess as to what
the correct number was. Minor errors? I think not.

Quoted message said:

I wonder, would you also discount forensic evidence in a serious
criminal trail, say for rape or murder, because the lab conducting the
tests was Home-Office approved...

The Home Office has an open policy with criticism and whistle blowing
allowed - something that WADA contractually forbids its labs from doing
- and independent regulatory inspection. If WADA cleaned up its act and
started acting against sloppy labs rather than defending and supporting
them then it might be a different discussion.

Tony

Howard said:

But neither David Cowan of the Drug Control centre in London, Dr. Gary
I. Wadler of the New York University School of Medicine nor Donald H.
Catlin of the Olympic drug-testing laboratory at U.C.L.A. were
'praising' WADA. Rather all three were speaking about the significance
of the test procedure itself. In addition, the tests were done by a
lab which operates independently of the lbs they work at. Perhaps you
feel that experts should be debarred from passing even generalised
comments on such issues if they also work in the field, which as
experts one would expect they might well do!

You need to read up on the WADA omerta and then reconsider your statements

Tony

In message <[email hidden]>

Martin Dann said:

Mike Clark said:

In the days before recombinant EPO was available my colleagues and I
used to purify the natural EPO that is normally found in human urine.
This was to allow us to culture erythroid colony forming cells.

Taken from one of our publications

Watt et al, Molecular Biology and Medicine, 1, 95-115 (1983)

So is drinking ones own urine regarded as cheating, or
just taking the [censored]?

;-)

Quoted message said:

If for example you are on a long ride, you need to take plenty of
water with you (especially if there is nowhere to buy fluids on
route). So drinking you own urine would mean that you would have to
carry less water, and get an EPO boost.

You wouldn't absorb it across the gut. It would be necessary to inject
it. Obviously volume is an issue so it would be necessary to concentrate
it and at least partially purify it. Then of course there are also
concerns about possible contamination and infection so sterility and
proper handling would be necessary. Obviously it isn't to be recommended
on health grounds.

Quoted message said:

The only extra you might have to carry is salts and sugars to make
your urine isotonic. (Or is urine isotonic already?)

Salts and low molecular weight molecules are able to equilibrate across
the kidney so would be at a similar concentration in urine to the blood.
As a filter the kidneys, when correctly functioning do not allow high
molecular weight molecules and cells to cross.

Quoted message said:

I'll get my coat.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

raisethe said:

marc said:

Now we are into conspiracy theories?

What's next Landis was replaced by aliens?-

Having come into this thread late, and reading 91 messages in one go,
the overwhelming impression is that the omerta of uk.rec.cycling is
bullying Howard for publicising some information you would rather was
kept quiet.

Tony, Marc etc would you like to spit at him if you could? Would you
follow him around a club ride and shout '[censored], [censored]' at him?
Would you?

Not at all. David Walsh is old tired news and someone posting it as
"all the evidence there is around relating to Armstrong's (and other
riders) 'alleged' doping:" gets the same treatment as a numpty who posts
the BsHIT site as "all the evidence there is around relating to cycle
helmet safety"

I don't believe any of us have done other than firmly point out the
errors in that position apart from the humorous asides on denial and
guilt. YMMV

Tony

Tony Raven said:

raisethe said:

On 8 Aug, 21:13, marc <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now we are into conspiracy theories?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What's next Landis was replaced by aliens?-

Quoted message said:

Having come into this thread late, and reading 91 messages in one go,
the overwhelming impression is that the omerta of uk.rec.cycling is
bullying Howard for publicising some information you would rather was
kept quiet.

Quoted message said:

Tony, Marc etc would you like to spit at him if you could? Would you
follow him around a club ride and shout '[censored], [censored]' at him?
Would you?

Not at all. David Walsh is old tired news and someone posting it as
"all the evidence there is around relating to Armstrong's (and other
riders) 'alleged' doping:" gets the same treatment as a numpty who posts
the BsHIT site as "all the evidence there is around relating to cycle
helmet safety"

I don't believe any of us have done other than firmly point out the
errors in that position apart from the humorous asides on denial and
guilt. YMMV

Tony- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fair enough, I think my late night brain was getting frazzled by all
those scientific posts.

Apologies.