Expert witness for the defense

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by trg, Aug 24, 2005.

  1. trg

    trg Guest

    Top lab official questions L'Equipe conclusions-

    The director of Canada's top anti-doping laboratory on Tuesday said she had
    "serious concerns" over doping allegations raised in a four-page story in
    the French sports daily L'Equipe.

    ....

    "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."

    Full Article-
    http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html
     
    Tags:


  2. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "trg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Top lab official questions L'Equipe conclusions-
    >
    > The director of Canada's top anti-doping laboratory on Tuesday said she
    > had "serious concerns" over doping allegations raised in a four-page story
    > in the French sports daily L'Equipe.
    >
    > ...
    >
    > "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."
    >
    > Full Article-
    > http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html
    >

    Note also that she says she has great respect for the director of the French
    lab and that she hasn't yet had the opportunity to speak with him.
     
  3. Cranky

    Cranky Guest

    B. Lafferty wrote:
    > "trg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]


    >>Full Article-
    >>http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html
    >>

    >
    > Note also that she says she has great respect for the director of the French
    > lab and that she hasn't yet had the opportunity to speak with him.


    Yeah that's was the important part of the article.......

    "We are extremely surprised that urine samples could have been tested in
    2004 and have revealed the presence of EPO,"

    "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,"

    "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."

    "EPO is a protein hormone and it is not stable in urine, even when kept
    frozen,"

    "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."

    "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."

    "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."
     
  4. Laff:

    "Note also that she says she has great respect for the director of the
    French lab".

    It would seem her "respect" is misplaced. This is the director who
    can't even protect the confidentiality his labs results. What kind
    of a sloppy shop was he running? Surely not one that would be
    "respected".
     
  5. Does anyone else think that Lafferty masterbates to a doctored photo of
    Lance injecting himself in the butt with a syringe?
     
  6. trg

    trg Guest

    <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
    [email protected]...
    > Does anyone else think that Lafferty masterbates to a doctored photo of
    > Lance injecting himself in the butt with a syringe?
    >


    No, he uses a real photo of Lance injecting himself in the butt with a
    syringe.
     
  7. Just because a substance is not stable within a medium, does that mean
    that on can not test ever for its presence?

    So perhaps the remnants of the EPO are merely broeken down by being
    immersed in piss. So what?

    I'm not a chemist. Someone tell us about what "stable" is supposed to
    mean here.
     
  8. >From what I read they where doing research on how well they could
    detect EPO. They really weren't investigating urine storage. So how
    do they know the effects of urine storage? What was their control
    group? Have they retained the urine of a group of known EPO users and
    known EPO non-users over six years to see how it tested?

    So the testers say their methodology works and Armstrong is a cheat.
    Armstrong says that he is not a cheat and their methodology doesn't
    work. I'll bet that if they had identified the other positives from
    1999, those people would also deny using and claim the methodology is
    wrong.

    Therefore they now have one data point (Armstrong) that says their
    methodolgy is wrong...they could easily obtain other data points which
    say their methodology is wrong (the others 'users')...and they lack any
    proof to show that their methodology was right (a known control group).

    How does a non-validated test prove anything?
     
  9. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > >From what I read they where doing research on how well they could

    > detect EPO. They really weren't investigating urine storage. So how
    > do they know the effects of urine storage? What was their control
    > group? Have they retained the urine of a group of known EPO users and
    > known EPO non-users over six years to see how it tested?
    >
    > So the testers say their methodology works and Armstrong is a cheat.
    > Armstrong says that he is not a cheat and their methodology doesn't
    > work.


    Incorrect. Armstrong has not yet addressed the issue of the French
    laboratory's methodology.


    > I'll bet that if they had identified the other positives from
    > 1999, those people would also deny using and claim the methodology is
    > wrong.
    >
    > Therefore they now have one data point (Armstrong) that says their
    > methodolgy is wrong...they could easily obtain other data points which
    > say their methodology is wrong (the others 'users')...and they lack any
    > proof to show that their methodology was right (a known control group).
    >
    > How does a non-validated test prove anything?
    >
     
  10. Jay S. Hill

    Jay S. Hill Guest

    B. Lafferty wrote:
    > "trg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>Top lab official questions L'Equipe conclusions-


    > Note also that she says she has great respect for the director of the French
    > lab and that she hasn't yet had the opportunity to speak with him.
    >

    Lafferty, you need to get some counseling, as in psychological.
     
  11. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Jay S. Hill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > B. Lafferty wrote:
    >> "trg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>>Top lab official questions L'Equipe conclusions-

    >
    >> Note also that she says she has great respect for the director of the
    >> French lab and that she hasn't yet had the opportunity to speak with him.

    > Lafferty, you need to get some counseling, as in psychological.


    Did I state something inaccurately?
     
  12. trg

    trg Guest

    "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
    [email protected]
    >
    > "trg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> Top lab official questions L'Equipe conclusions-
    >>
    >> The director of Canada's top anti-doping laboratory on Tuesday said she
    >> had "serious concerns" over doping allegations raised in a four-page
    >> story in the French sports daily L'Equipe.
    >>
    >> ...
    >>
    >> "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."
    >>
    >> Full Article-
    >> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html
    >>

    > Note also that she says she has great respect for the director of the
    > French lab
    >


    Showing that she has no personal axe to grind and giving the substance of
    her objections to these tests even more weight.

    See, it's not hard to play your little laywer's game.
     
  13. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "trg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
    > [email protected]
    >>
    >> "trg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:dehg[email protected]
    >>> Top lab official questions L'Equipe conclusions-
    >>>
    >>> The director of Canada's top anti-doping laboratory on Tuesday said she
    >>> had "serious concerns" over doping allegations raised in a four-page
    >>> story in the French sports daily L'Equipe.
    >>>
    >>> ...
    >>>
    >>> "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."
    >>>
    >>> Full Article-
    >>> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html
    >>>

    >> Note also that she says she has great respect for the director of the
    >> French lab
    >>

    >
    > Showing that she has no personal axe to grind and giving the substance of
    > her objections to these tests even more weight.
    >
    > See, it's not hard to play your little laywer's game.


    She has also said that if the French lab says it found EPO in the samples
    that there was EPO in the samples.
     
  14. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Just because a substance is not stable within a medium, does that mean
    > that on can not test ever for its presence?
    >
    > So perhaps the remnants of the EPO are merely broeken down by being
    > immersed in piss. So what?
    >
    > I'm not a chemist. Someone tell us about what "stable" is supposed to
    > mean here.


    I don't understand how EPO could get into a sample just by freezing it. If
    it's broken down, it would only disappear...so I'd say that there only is a
    bigger chance of false negatives. Regrettable, but not really relevant for
    Armstrong's samples.
     
  15. Sandy a écrit :
    > >

    > You haven't been reading -


    That is correct. Just like when I referee a scientific article, I stop
    reading when I find a fatal flaw which makes the result unpublishable.

    In this case, the director of the laboratory tries to pass off
    his subjective opinion as having scientific validity. Perhaps
    he has qualified his opinion somewhere, but I haven't seen it,
    and he doesn't seem to be protesting about the way his opinion
    has been taken as fact.

    -ilan
     
  16. Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:

    > I don't understand how EPO could get into a sample just by freezing it. If
    > it's broken down, it would only disappear...so I'd say that there only is a
    > bigger chance of false negatives. Regrettable, but not really relevant for
    > Armstrong's samples.


    AFAIK the urine tests are based on a ratio of one form of
    EPO or some EPO-derived reaction product to another:
    basic/acidic, hence the %basic column in the L'Equipe table.
    It is possible, though unlikely, that these compounds break
    down at different rates. This is why I thought it would be
    interesting to see a distribution of %basic values from
    (1) samples tested in 2001 and (2) the same samples (or their
    B samples if that's what available) tested now after 4 years
    of freezing.

    I am not a protein chemist, and wouldn't call this a strong
    likelihood as a defense for Lance anyway. However, for a
    scientist interested in extending the validity of EPO tests,
    this is one of the obvious questions to ask.

    It seems to me that the French lab chose to test the 1999
    samples, rather than a sample with a contemporary control,
    because there were few EPO positives in 2001 or so; from 1999,
    they were more likely to turn up positives since the athletes
    did not then fear an EPO test. Thus they would demonstrate the
    extended reach of the test more significantly.
    This could be enough motivation for them, without thinking
    about nailing any rider by name. It is a common scientific
    impulse to choose your experiment where you're more likely to
    have a positive detection, but it's poor experimental practice
    anyway.
     
  17. Kyle Legate

    Kyle Legate Guest

    Cranky wrote:
    >
    > "EPO is a protein hormone and it is not stable in urine, even when kept
    > frozen,"
    >

    I think she's mistaken. Proteins are stored frozen for years all the
    time, with only minor degradation. They often lose their activity if not
    stored at at least -70C but unless there are proteases around they often
    remain intact (there are no proteases in healthy urine). Since the EPO
    test is based on electrophoresis of basic isoforms, it relies on intact
    EPO, not active EPO. There's no reason to suspect that the test is
    unreliable on years-old samples.
     
  18. Kyle Legate

    Kyle Legate Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > Just because a substance is not stable within a medium, does that mean
    > that on can not test ever for its presence?
    >
    > So perhaps the remnants of the EPO are merely broeken down by being
    > immersed in piss. So what?
    >
    > I'm not a chemist. Someone tell us about what "stable" is supposed to
    > mean here.
    >

    Stable, as far as this test is concerned, means all in one piece.
    Proteins are chains of amino acid units, and the linkage between these
    units can become broken through the action of enzymes and certain
    chemicals. More information can be found at the link at the end of this
    post. The EPO test is based on electophoresis, which characterizes
    proteins according to a combination of size and charge. Basic
    (positively charged) excreted products are apparently a sign of EPO use.
    The test only demands that the excreted basic products are of the
    correct size to be able to match up with a standard for comparison.
     
  19. I wrote:

    > It seems to me that the French lab chose to test the 1999
    > samples, rather than a sample with a contemporary control,
    > because there were few EPO positives in 2001 or so; from 1999,
    > they were more likely to turn up positives since the athletes
    > did not then fear an EPO test. Thus they would demonstrate the
    > extended reach of the test more significantly.
    > This could be enough motivation for them, without thinking
    > about nailing any rider by name. It is a common scientific
    > impulse to choose your experiment where you're more likely to
    > have a positive detection, but it's poor experimental practice
    > anyway.


    To clarify, if one were just interested in establishing that the
    test works as well on long-frozen samples as on contemporaries,
    you wouldn't need a large group of 2001 positives. You need a
    group of 2001 tests, positive or not, the %basic number from each,
    and the frozen B samples. You test the B samples and see if the
    %basic numbers match the originals. Any number of effects could
    happen; you could get good matches, or there could be some fraction
    where you can no longer tell (unclassifiable), or the distribution
    of %basic could shift, or it could get broader, which would make
    the error rate of the test higher. Probably none of these
    confounding possibilities would happen. But unless you've done
    this experiment, you don't really know. It's possible neither
    Ayotte's Canadian lab nor de Ceaurriz's French lab have actually
    done this, because all I have read from them so far is rhetoric
    about whether the test works on frozen pee, not any reports of data.
     
  20. Jet

    Jet Guest

    On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 20:42:27 +0200, Kyle Legate <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Cranky wrote:
    >>
    >> "EPO is a protein hormone and it is not stable in urine, even when kept
    >> frozen,"
    >>

    >I think she's mistaken. Proteins are stored frozen for years all the
    >time, with only minor degradation. They often lose their activity if not
    >stored at at least -70C but unless there are proteases around they often
    >remain intact (there are no proteases in healthy urine). Since the EPO
    >test is based on electrophoresis of basic isoforms, it relies on intact
    >EPO, not active EPO. There's no reason to suspect that the test is
    >unreliable on years-old samples.


    I think you have a point. It would take more robust methods to store
    'viable' EPO, such as storage at -70 to -80C, perhaps.

    I'd still expect that this should have been verified with controls, even if
    the controls were stored in 2000 or 2001 since the thought of testing old
    samples may not have occurred to the lab in 1999.

    If readers don't have enough background on this, here's a link which was
    previously posted, but evidently not everyone read. It talks about
    proteases and the way bacteria can degrade EPO so that there is actually
    less in the substrate:

    http://www.rutgerbeke.com/en/news/march082005.asp

    Thanks again, Kyle - very informative posts on your part!

    -jet
     
Loading...
Loading...