VeloFlash said:
The answer is flexible and depends on which side of the Atlantic you live.
Not necessarily. I mean, forgetting UCI/WADA procedural mandates for a second, if chain of custody can be established, then I'm not sure that the evidence from the test results isn't persuasive.
Again, if the issue is the reliability of the test, we have large contingent of medical experts who stand behind it as an accurate way to detect EPO use.
However, if the issue concerns the reliability of the six samples, the only questions that remain are: who's are they? have they, or could they have been, altered?
From what I've read here and elsewhere, there can be no false positive with the degradation of the sample - the EPO can only dissipate to undetectable levels in an untainted sample. Of course, this assumes that the sample could not have been altered.
In addition, I understand that you can't simply add traces of EPO to a sample to conspire and "create" a false positive- the readings will be skewed and the fraud would be obvious. True?
Finally, the issue of procedure, and the rules adopted by the UCI, etc. are clear in this case: Without A samples, and because the protective measures which are afforded to a rider when using B samples weren't employed, the B samples cannot be used to sanction LA.