Armstong dopes AGAIN



tinks said:
I'm not qualified but I'll share what I know:

Half-life in the given context, refers to the time it takes for the body to metabolise the substance. It doesn't really apply here because it wasn't in his system so it couldn't really be metabolised. ;)

It's my understanding that synthetic EPO in serum can be stored at -15C for 12 months, no problem. I'm not sure how stable it is in urine but I'll check it out.

As for the disagreement between experts; I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it. Dr Ayotte is no more qualified than Dr Ceaurriz and she hasn't seen his results so at the moment it's just some professional skepticism. Besides, as has been pointed out previously, if the sample had been degraded it would return a false negative - not a false positive.

Yah I wasn't sure per those resources if it meant 'true half life' or metabolic half life. Also when you urinate, aren't there cells in the urine which could metabolise the EPO? I'm not sure how long after the samples are taken if they are frozen right away :confused: . Saw some articles on EPO doping on Pubmed, but I don't have an subscription to them.

I wonder if they have enough sample left for another lab to test them?

http://www.sportsmed.info/articles/epo.html

Neat read on testing techniques for EPO doping.

http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/extract/48/11/2057

A very cool science journal article on the type of test used I believe by the French lab. I think if click on the PDF link it's free. A bit over my head though lol.
 
whiteboytrash said:
"For the first time - and these are no longer rumors, or insinuations, these are proven scientific facts - someone has shown me that in 1999, Armstrong had a banned substance called EPO in his body," Leblanc told L'Equipe.

"The ball is now in his court. Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the tour. Today, what L'Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled." On Tuesday, Leblanc called the latest accusations against Armstrong shocking and troubling.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBZKFRNRCE.html


I have to admit it's getting pretty interesting! I'm certainly curious to see what LA's response is to the latest volley from Leblanc will be. If these tests really can't be refuted (I'm still not sure but Leblanc seems to be convinced) then I think further denial only makes LA look worse. I'm sure he'll continue to deny it because without the "A" samples they probably technically won't be able to prove guilt. But personally I'd have more respect for LA if he just said something like: "Of course I used EPO, the same as everyone else. Until they clean-up the sport riders will continue to use the stuff." But I guess reality dictates that the cyclists have no choice but to deny. Just like Hamilton's "chimera" and Millar's "I only used it just the one time" arguments. :rolleyes:
 
Yeah wonder what his next step will be........LA and his team are awfully quiet........



meehs said:
I have to admit it's getting pretty interesting! I'm certainly curious to see what LA's response is to the latest volley from Leblanc will be. If these tests really can't be refuted (I'm still not sure but Leblanc seems to be convinced) then I think further denial only makes LA look worse. I'm sure he'll continue to deny it because without the "A" samples they probably technically won't be able to prove guilt. But personally I'd have more respect for LA if he just said something like: "Of course I used EPO, the same as everyone else. Until they clean-up the sport riders will continue to use the stuff." But I guess reality dictates that the cyclists have no choice but to deny. Just like Hamilton's "chimera" and Millar's "I only used it just the one time" arguments. :rolleyes:
 
From procycling today:This is serious clearly Leblanc believes the test..

Tour de France boss Jean-Marie Leblanc has offered few words of consolation to Lance Armstrong, the winner of his race for the past seven seasons, following yesterday’s allegations that the American took the blood-booster EPO before and during the 1999 race. Having described the story in L’Equipe – which of course is part of the same ASO organisation as the Tour itself – as “extremely complete, objective and convincing", Leblanc said the revelations were “a heavy blow for the Tour, for cycling and for sport in general”.

Leblanc’s response chimed with a prevailing attitude in France towards Armstrong since the American retired from the sport at the end of this year’s Tour on July 24. Within days, newspapers that had stood squarely behind Armstrong while he was still competing, suddenly changed tack and began to attack him. Chief among them was L’Equipe, whose allegations this week have brought into question Armstrong’s incredible achievements over the past few years.

Leblanc seems to have undergone a similar transformation, confirming to L’Equipe that he had consistently viewed Armstrong as the embodiment of the Tour’s renaissance after the nadir of the Festina scandal in 1998. But now, he has told L’Equipe, he is not so convinced of Armstrong’s qualities.

“This is the first time that we have more than just rumours and insinuations, these are confirmed scientific facts,” he said, adding that the onus is now on Armstrong to respond. “What L’Equipe has revealed tells me that I have been abused. We have all been abused,” Leblanc added.

Leblanc agreed that the allegations against Armstrong, if proved, would create a similar furore to the Festina affair, and could also mark a new stage in the battle against doping – “retroactive detection”. “It would be a useful tool” Leblanc explained. “We are all so fed up with doping that any means [of detecting it] are good as long as they are morally acceptable, so that nobody can cheat and think that they can get away with it.”

Leblanc urged the authorities in all sports to consider possible changes in anti-doping legislation to take retroactive testing into account. He also felt that the allegations against Armstrong would not have a long-term effect on the Tour. “We are all impatient for the next Tour, because we want to see the new generation, new figures… Disappointment is counter-balanced by hope.”
 
MJtje said:
From procycling today:This is serious clearly Leblanc believes the test..

Tour de France boss Jean-Marie Leblanc has offered few words of consolation to Lance Armstrong, the winner of his race for the past seven seasons, following yesterday’s allegations that the American took the blood-booster EPO before and during the 1999 race. Having described the story in L’Equipe – which of course is part of the same ASO organisation as the Tour itself – as “extremely complete, objective and convincing", Leblanc said the revelations were “a heavy blow for the Tour, for cycling and for sport in general”.

Leblanc’s response chimed with a prevailing attitude in France towards Armstrong since the American retired from the sport at the end of this year’s Tour on July 24. Within days, newspapers that had stood squarely behind Armstrong while he was still competing, suddenly changed tack and began to attack him. Chief among them was L’Equipe, whose allegations this week have brought into question Armstrong’s incredible achievements over the past few years.

Leblanc seems to have undergone a similar transformation, confirming to L’Equipe that he had consistently viewed Armstrong as the embodiment of the Tour’s renaissance after the nadir of the Festina scandal in 1998. But now, he has told L’Equipe, he is not so convinced of Armstrong’s qualities.

“This is the first time that we have more than just rumours and insinuations, these are confirmed scientific facts,” he said, adding that the onus is now on Armstrong to respond. “What L’Equipe has revealed tells me that I have been abused. We have all been abused,” Leblanc added.

Leblanc agreed that the allegations against Armstrong, if proved, would create a similar furore to the Festina affair, and could also mark a new stage in the battle against doping – “retroactive detection”. “It would be a useful tool” Leblanc explained. “We are all so fed up with doping that any means [of detecting it] are good as long as they are morally acceptable, so that nobody can cheat and think that they can get away with it.”

Leblanc urged the authorities in all sports to consider possible changes in anti-doping legislation to take retroactive testing into account. He also felt that the allegations against Armstrong would not have a long-term effect on the Tour. “We are all impatient for the next Tour, because we want to see the new generation, new figures… Disappointment is counter-balanced by hope.”

That's the same report that I just heard on NPR (National Public Radio) that led to my previous post. It'll interesting to see what the resopnse is from the Armstrong camp. The written report that you posted is more concise than what I heard on the radio. Evidently Leblanc is still caveating his statements by including things like "if proved". You have to wonder if Leblanc's reaction of "surprise" at the L’Equipe report is sincere (IMO). I mean... Does he really not know that there's a doping problem in pro cycling???
 
Ofcourse; everyone has there own little secret to protect......in the end it all comes down to credibility......which the cycling world doesn't have anymore!

- Leblanc wants to keep the TDF out of this (which he can't....)
- LA and his team want to proof they are not guilty (which they can't...)
- Hein Verbruggen has always had a policy trough the middle (the hardest job in cycling is being verbruggen, cause no doubt he knows more, but he needs to find sponsors and to help cycling and on the other hand sometimes be tough on dopers; conflict of interest!)
- WADA they want to show that they are the only organisation out there who really wants to catch dopers (with pound you have the perfect spokesperson!)

So everyone is saying things in favor of there organisation......but the **** allready hit the fan and this is BAD for cycling........



meehs said:
That's the same report that I just heard on NPR (National Public Radio) that led to my previous post. It'll interesting to see what the resopnse is from the Armstrong camp. The written report that you posted is more concise than what I heard on the radio. Evidently Leblanc is still caveating his statements by including things like "if proved". You have to wonder if Leblanc's reaction of "surprise" at the L’Equipe report is sincere (IMO). I mean... Does he really not know that there's a doping problem in pro cycling???
 
I think the issue here is different from other cyclists ie Miller. Its the fact that Armstrong has always publicly campaigned against doping. He was written letters to **** Pound, taken out full page advertisements in French papers to defend cycling and vilified those who associate themselves with the use of drugs.

LeBlanc liked Armstrong because he represented the new era of 'clean' cycling after 1998. This is why he feels betrayed because for the moment Armstrong seems guilty. We await what he has to say.

- This is my own opinion and not fact.

meehs said:
That's the same report that I just heard on NPR (National Public Radio) that led to my previous post. It'll interesting to see what the resopnse is from the Armstrong camp. The written report that you posted is more concise than what I heard on the radio. Evidently Leblanc is still caveating his statements by including things like "if proved". You have to wonder if Leblanc's reaction of "surprise" at the L’Equipe report is sincere (IMO). I mean... Does he really not know that there's a doping problem in pro cycling???
 
Spectatorsport said:
Yah I wasn't sure per those resources if it meant 'true half life' or metabolic half life. Also when you urinate, aren't there cells in the urine which could metabolise the EPO? I'm not sure how long after the samples are taken if they are frozen right away
There's a bit of debate about that, and there haven't been too many studies on the stability of EPO in six year old frozen urine. But if EPO did break down, then they wouldn't have come up with any positives. Metabolism would explain false negatives, but not false positives. So either EPO doesn't break down in frozen urine, or the whole thing is a hoax.
 
whiteboytrash said:

LeBlanc liked Armstrong because he represented the new era of 'clean' cycling after 1998. This is why he feels betrayed because for the moment Armstrong seems guilty. We await what he has to say.

- This is my own opinion and not fact.

Armstrong has also been donating large amounts of money to the UCI for doping tests. I'm not going to jump to any conclusions until all of the facts are in, which they may never be, but every side of this case is pretty suspect.
 
whiteboytrash said:
I think the issue here is different from other cyclists ie Miller. Its the fact that Armstrong has always publicly campaigned against doping. He was written letters to **** Pound, taken out full page advertisements in French papers to defend cycling and vilified those who associate themselves with the use of drugs.

LeBlanc liked Armstrong because he represented the new era of 'clean' cycling after 1998. This is why he feels betrayed because for the moment Armstrong seems guilty. We await what he has to say.

- This is my own opinion and not fact.

LeBlanc is a pimp, working for the same suspect organization that owns that rag tabloid and LeBlanc without Armstrong to prostitute needs to deflect criticism away from the real issue of rampant drug use in the sport and onto the "ghosts" of the past.

LeBlanc only "likes" whatever ho will get him more money and he knows this story has more holes than his head. The Armstrong camp knows the PR game as well as anyone and I'm sure they have helped "push" the conflict between the scientists on the validity of this story, which is why LA does not need to get in the gutter and slug it out.
 
“I don’t doubt that the results of the analyses undertaken by my French colleagues are solid,” said Müller, director of the Kreischa anti-doping institute, in the German press, before questioning why B samples taken at the 1999 Tour had been stored for so long, apparently without the permission of the riders involved.

“When it is shown that a dope control is negative it is destroyed, as is the B sample in the months after,” Müller explained. He added that the sample could be kept with the agreement of the athlete concerned and as long as the athlete’s anonymity was maintained. While it is not yet known whether Armstrong gave his approval for the storage of urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France, his right to anonymity has certainly been breached, although apparently not by the lab holding the samples.

Elsewhere in Germany, reaction to the news about Armstrong varied from calls for Jan Ullrich to take legal action against the American to demands for regulations accommodating retroactive testing. German tabloid Bild led the way on the Armstrong-bashing front, ‘awarding’ Tour victories to Ullrich (three times), Alex Zuelle, Joseba Beloki, Andreas Kloeden and Ivan Basso, despite the fact that L’Equipe’s allegations only deal with the 1999 Tour, where Zuelle – who was tainted by EPO scandal with Festina in 1998 - finished as runner-up.

There was more reasoned thinking in other sections of the German press, with Sueddeutsche Zeitung suggesting a precedent existed in taking action against athletes when positive proof of guilt did not exist. The case of Spanish cross-country skier Johann Muehlegg was cited. He was stripped of three gold medals at the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics despite only testing positive on one occasion.
 
Some scientists do not believe aged samples are reliable, period.

"[T]here is a divided opinion among anti-doping experts about the LNDD's latest results, especially as they come from samples that were almost six years old. "Can one be certain that in samples deep-frozen for years, there were no biological changes, no aging processes that could falsify the result?" said German National Anti-Doping Agency chief Dr. Roland Augustin to sid. "That has not been sufficiently determined scientifically."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug24news2

Not only is any version of the EPO test a relatively new development (obviously, post-1999), but also the effect of aging of urine samples on how the test works is unknown. If LNDD knew exactly how the EPO test worked in every instance, it would not need the 1998 and 1999 samples to do additional testing on. So, the recognition on the part of LNDD that it needed to use the samples for some type of testing is effectively an admission the EPO test (in various forms) is imperfect.

As noted above by the head of the German National Anti-Doping Agency, nobody knows what the effect of age of specimen is on EPO testing distortions.
 
homeycheese said:
LeBlanc is a pimp, working for the same suspect organization that owns that rag tabloid and LeBlanc without Armstrong to prostitute needs to deflect criticism away from the real issue of rampant drug use in the sport and onto the "ghosts" of the past.

LeBlanc only "likes" whatever ho will get him more money and he knows this story has more holes than his head. The Armstrong camp knows the PR game as well as anyone and I'm sure they have helped "push" the conflict between the scientists on the validity of this story, which is why LA does not need to get in the gutter and slug it out.
Good call.
If respected scientists in Germany and Canada are coming out asking big questions about the why and hows of the French lab, you can bet that lawyers are making phone calls to the best people in the world and lining up their teams for the PR war or the courtroom battle. These experts, BTW, were probably already retained by Lance for any upcoming trial in which the circumstantial evidence in the LA Confidentiel book were to be challeneged.

People seem to misunderstand when the scientists say they are not challenging the results--they want to keep the science industry out of the line of fire--privately they probably think these guys are shitheads for getting into this and seem to be firmly critical if reserved in their public statements about the French lab. Their ethics, their procedures etc are all being publicly criticized.
 
musette said:
Some scientists do not believe aged samples are reliable, period.

"[T]here is a divided opinion among anti-doping experts about the LNDD's latest results, especially as they come from samples that were almost six years old. "Can one be certain that in samples deep-frozen for years, there were no biological changes, no aging processes that could falsify the result?" said German National Anti-Doping Agency chief Dr. Roland Augustin to sid. "That has not been sufficiently determined scientifically."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug24news2

Not only is any version of the EPO test a relatively new development (obviously, post-1999), but also the effect of aging of urine samples on how the test works is unknown. If LNDD knew exactly how the EPO test worked in every instance, it would not need the 1998 and 1999 samples to do additional testing on. So, the recognition on the part of LNDD that it needed to use the samples for some type of testing is effectively an admission the EPO test (in various forms) is imperfect.

As noted above by the head of the German National Anti-Doping Agency, nobody knows what the effect of age of specimen is on EPO testing distortions.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
artmichalek said:
There's a bit of debate about that, and there haven't been too many studies on the stability of EPO in six year old frozen urine. But if EPO did break down, then they wouldn't have come up with any positives. Metabolism would explain false negatives, but not false positives. So either EPO doesn't break down in frozen urine, or the whole thing is a hoax.


I guess it could mean the test is faulty and not reliable on 6 year old urine.
 
http://www.velonews/news/fea/8746.0.html

Velonews said:
[size=-1]The director of Canada's top anti-doping laboratory on Tuesday said she was "very surprised" over doping allegations raised in a four-page story in the French sports daily L'Equipe. [/size]

[size=-1]Doctor Christiane Ayotte, director of the Doping Control Laboratory at Montreal's Institut National de la Recherché Scientifique, said that the L'Equipe story, outlining charges that seven-time Tour de France winner had used EPO at the 1999 edition of the race, raised several important scientific and ethical questions, beginning with the assertion that France's anti-doping lab had tested frozen urine samples five years after the fact. [/size]

[size=-1]"I don't dispute their findings," Ayotte said. "If there's residual EPO after five years, it was properly identified. We are not that lucky here." [/size]

[size=-1]"We are extremely surprised that urine samples could have been tested in 2004 and have revealed the presence of EPO," Ayotte said in an interview with VeloNews on Tuesday. "EPO - in its natural state or the synthesized version - is not stable in urine, even if stored at minus 20 degrees." [/size]

[size=-1]Scientists at the French national doping laboratory at Châtenay-Malabry developed the urine test in 2000 as a means of combating EPO use among endurance athletes. The test measures the electrical charge of isoforms released by the body. Isoforms resulting from naturally occurring erythropoietin have a distinctly different pattern of electrical charges than do those that result from the use of artificially produced erythropoietin. [/size]

[size=-1]Ayotte, director of the World Anti-Doping Agency-certified lab closest to WADA headquarters in Montreal, questioned the assertion of Doctor Jacques de Ceaurriz, director of the Châtenay-Malabry lab, who said that his method for detection of EPO is "absolutely reliable," even if the sample is five years old. [/size]

[size=-1]"One of two things happens," De Ceaurriz said. "Either EPO, which is a protein, degrades as time passes and becomes undetectable. In that case we have a negative test result or, as in this case, the EPO persists as it is. We have therefore no doubt about the validity of our results." [/size]

[size=-1]Ayotte, who has not had the opportunity to speak with De Ceaurriz since publication of the L'Equipe story, said that there would have been no logical reason for the lab to have held on to the samples without testing them for as long as it has. [/size]

[size=-1]"The lab in Paris, which originally developed the test, would have - should have - retested these samples in 2000 or 2001, in order to develop and validate their methods at the time," she said. "My interpretation is that retesting itself must have been conducted in 2000 or in 2001, but the results were reviewed using the new mathematical model that is now being developed in Paris." [/size]

[size=-1]Ayotte explained that as part of WADA's efforts to "harmonize" testing protocols among anti-doping laboratories worldwide, the Paris lab had created the model to allow the application of "qualitative rather than quantitative" standards when interpreting test results. [/size]

[size=-1]"That has to be the only explanation, because otherwise, I've been a liar all these years," Ayotte said. "I have been instructing everyone at all of the organizations not to expect to reproduce an EPO adverse finding if more that two or three months has elapsed since the sample was originally taken." [/size]

[size=-1]Ayotte noted that earlier standards had called for the application of a "hard-number" interpretation of results, meaning that if a certain percentage of isoforms were positively or negatively charged, a result would be deemed to be an indication of EPO use. Ayotte said research subsequent to the development of the test has suggested that testers understand the reasons behind the formation of positive and negative isoforms and "recognize the presence of distinct populations in a sample." [/size]

[size=-1]The development of that model, said Ayotte, may have prompted researchers at Châtenay-Malabry to go back and review existing data - which should include data from the retesting of '99 Tour samples - and apply them to the new model. Suggesting a more recent test, she said, "really makes me wonder." [/size]

[size=-1]"EPO is a protein hormone and it is not stable in urine, even when kept frozen," she said. "This has long had implications for any plan we've had to keep samples and specimens for long periods of time with the hope that we might, some day, retest those samples for a new substance." [/size]

[size=-1]Ayotte said that procedure aside, the Armstrong story in L'Equipe also raises a critical ethical question raised by the release of such data, without the possibility of follow-up tests. [/size]

[size=-1]"I am very worried about the circumstances about the way such information might have been leaked," Ayotte said. "We are fully allowed - and it is our duty - to investigate samples to make sure that if there is an adverse finding, it is properly reported. In this case, however, the director of the laboratory acknowledges that it cannot be deemed a doping offense because 1) the athlete has retired and 2) he is placed in a situation where there is now way to have the sample re-tested or verified." [/size]

[size=-1]"It seems to me," Ayotte continued, "that this whole thing is breach of the WADA code. We are supposed to work confidentially until such time that we can confirm a result. By no means does this mean that we sweep a result under the carpet, but it has to meet a certain set of requirements." [/size]

[size=-1]Ayotte said that the lab itself isn't facing questions in the matter. [/size]

[size=-1]"It isn't the lab that has the critical bit of information - the link between the code on the sample and the name of the athlete," she noted. "We only get a code at these WADA labs. Someone else must have supplied the paper with the names and their respective codes. So, to me, this whole thing raises a number of questions. I'm worried, because I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues in Paris. I am concerned that they did not cover their backs before being dragged into a very public issue of this kind." [/size]
 
You've come along way to start quoting the Germans ! Nothing on thepaceline.com ! LOL !

musette said:
Some scientists do not believe aged samples are reliable, period.

"[T]here is a divided opinion among anti-doping experts about the LNDD's latest results, especially as they come from samples that were almost six years old. "Can one be certain that in samples deep-frozen for years, there were no biological changes, no aging processes that could falsify the result?" said German National Anti-Doping Agency chief Dr. Roland Augustin to sid. "That has not been sufficiently determined scientifically."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug24news2

Not only is any version of the EPO test a relatively new development (obviously, post-1999), but also the effect of aging of urine samples on how the test works is unknown. If LNDD knew exactly how the EPO test worked in every instance, it would not need the 1998 and 1999 samples to do additional testing on. So, the recognition on the part of LNDD that it needed to use the samples for some type of testing is effectively an admission the EPO test (in various forms) is imperfect.

As noted above by the head of the German National Anti-Doping Agency, nobody knows what the effect of age of specimen is on EPO testing distortions.
 
Apparently, the way that the EPO test (at least the officially sanctioned one, which is not clearly the only one or the one that LNDD was using on the 1999 samples) may work is that it looks for reticulocytes that are larger and more numerous in the blood specimen. However, nobody has yet demonstrated that it is not possible for age to cause distortions in some specimens, by, for example, enlarging the reticulocytes due to the precised way the specimen is stored or not stored, or due to even the number of times the specimen may have been warmed up back to room temperature. Degradation of six-year-old samples is obviously an area of concern.

"A breakthrough in the search for a detection method came in 1999, when an EPO administration trial conducted by the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) and the Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory (ASDTL) demonstrated that recom-binant EPO leads to the production of reticulocytes larger and more numerous than those arising from endogenous EPO secretion. Aided by grants from the Australian government and the IOC, the Australians developed a promising blood test. A concurrent effort by a team of French researchers resulted in a direct test for recombinant EPO in urine."

http://www.dpcweb.com/documents/news&views/winter01/sydney2000.htm
 
The article also goes onto say: (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug24news2)

"However, Wilhelm Schänzer, head of the IOC doping lab in Cologne, supports the findings of the LNDD. "Urine samples can be kept in storage temperatures of between -20 and -40 degrees for years," he said. "The results are scientifically valid for me. If Mr. Ceaurriz says they are positive, then you can be assured that it's right."

You're struggling Mussette ! Looks like the Germans have countered each other !

musette said:
Some scientists do not believe aged samples are reliable, period.

"[T]here is a divided opinion among anti-doping experts about the LNDD's latest results, especially as they come from samples that were almost six years old. "Can one be certain that in samples deep-frozen for years, there were no biological changes, no aging processes that could falsify the result?" said German National Anti-Doping Agency chief Dr. Roland Augustin to sid. "That has not been sufficiently determined scientifically."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug24news2

Not only is any version of the EPO test a relatively new development (obviously, post-1999), but also the effect of aging of urine samples on how the test works is unknown. If LNDD knew exactly how the EPO test worked in every instance, it would not need the 1998 and 1999 samples to do additional testing on. So, the recognition on the part of LNDD that it needed to use the samples for some type of testing is effectively an admission the EPO test (in various forms) is imperfect.

As noted above by the head of the German National Anti-Doping Agency, nobody knows what the effect of age of specimen is on EPO testing distortions.
 
Anyone know yet if there is enough sample yet to retest it at some 3rd party lab? Also to confirm it was Lance's urine by DNA testing?