Has the UCI dumped Armstrong ?



fscyclist

New Member
Jul 30, 2006
753
0
0
swampy1970 said:
The actual test itself may have been above board and spot on but the documentation that followed had dozens of errors such as incorrect sample numbers, samples done out of sequence, errors not notated or initialed, lab techs knowing who's sample it was (and testified to this under oath), data on harddrives wiped prior to inspection, data from harddrives copied to CD and hardrives moved to other devices thus negating any chance of digital forensics being possible and thus leaving the data open to the possibility of tampering.... Hardly the kind of thing you'd expect from a world class lab. And given that quite a few atheletes from other sports have got their cases dropped due to such errors from said lab, then it's not a unique situation.

Flip the coin and you get situtations where someone like Petacchi, who has a theraputic exemption for the asthma drug salbutamol, was ever so slightly over the limit on one stage of the Giro in 2007, probably due to taking his meds once too much during a stage. He was banned, despite the fact that it is well recognised in the scientific community that in non-asthmatic atheletes salbutamol doesn't really have an effect and in asthmatics, once you get over the regular dose the effects of an additional inhilation are minimal.

One press of the inhaler too many = ban. A whole slew of lab errors = oh well, nevermind.

... and yes, I suffer from a pulmonary condition and take salbutamol before exercise and from data from the ol' powermeter, speedometer and heart rate - there aint no difference to be found taking that extra dose. I was kinda curious at the time if what I read was really true. ;) ... and it turned out to be.
It's the fact that labs and riders are seemingly not held to the same standards that pisses me of the most.

That and the French and their willingness to "leak" test information to the press almost immediately when a non-French rider is involved.
Who said Pettachi was using an inhaler? Did it ever occur to you that he may have exceeded the limit because he was taking it orally? Did you know that oral adminstration of salbutamol and other beta agonists DO improve muscle strength and endurance? Do you think WADA sets the limits so that it would be exceptionally difficult to exceed the TUE limit if used properly? Have you never heard of cyclists using a TUE as a way to mask doping? Why so much trust in cyclists who have proven time and again they will use all means necessary to cheat?
 

obxbes

Member
Mar 9, 2005
109
5
18
Do you mean quality french riders?
poulidor said:
I don't know what kind of job you do, but try to put a 1000pages document without errors... and then come back to discuss of that.
All those reported errors have been considered to not affect the case, and, as you pointed, some doping cases have been cleared by past when errors were to big.
( lab's tech were knowing that samples belonged to Floyd because of Landis' PR announcing the retesting and his witnesses were present to control the retesting. Maybe do you want to isolate the tech of the media world when a doping case has been found?)

There is no leak of french riders cases because they only didn't exist since a while! :D
 

musette

New Member
Aug 29, 2003
2,434
0
0
limerickman said:
Chatennay Malabry is a state funding testing facility.

WADA did not setup Chatennay Malabry.

That's right -- Chatennay Malabry receives funding from the French governmental authorities. But does not make your argument more or less persuasive, when it is the AFLD (a FRENCH governmental anti-doping agency) that tested LA for the testing date in question?!
 

swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,057
185
63
poulidor said:
I don't know what kind of job you do, but try to put a 1000pages document without errors...
When you're supposed to be a world class lab, simple things like numbers that identify samples, dates, times etc should not be incorrect. It doesn't matter how many pages there are in the report.

To be honest, I deal with more documentation that I'd like to. But then when you have to deal with data communictions and control systems for a large oil refinery then you really have no choice. Unlike some toff in a white jacket analysing cups of ****, if people in our department make errors when creating or amending documentation, then lots of people may have a rather 'troubled' ending to their day at some point in the future. It's part of the job and it's why you get paid well.
 

swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,057
185
63
fscyclist said:
Who said Pettachi was using an inhaler? Did it ever occur to you that he may have exceeded the limit because he was taking it orally? Did you know that oral adminstration of salbutamol and other beta agonists DO improve muscle strength and endurance? Do you think WADA sets the limits so that it would be exceptionally difficult to exceed the TUE limit if used properly? Have you never heard of cyclists using a TUE as a way to mask doping? Why so much trust in cyclists who have proven time and again they will use all means necessary to cheat?
BACKGROUND—Beta-2 agonists such as salbutamol are used, not only by asthmatic athletes to prevent exercise induced asthma, but also by non-asthmatic athletes as a potentially ergogenic agent. We have investigated whether inhaled salbutamol enhances endurance performance in non-asthmatic athletes.
METHODS—A prospective double blind, randomised, three way crossover design was used to study the effects of 200 µg and 800 µg inhaled salbutamol versus a placebo in 12 trained triathletes. The treatments were compared in three identical cycle ergometer sessions at 85% of the predetermined maximal oxygen uptake. Lung function, endurance time, metabolic parameters (glucose, potassium, lactate, free fatty acid, and glycerol), and psychomotor performance were evaluated.
RESULTS—Neither endurance time nor post-exercise bronchodilation were significantly different between the treatments. Metabolic parameters were affected by exercise but not by treatment.
CONCLUSIONS—Inhaled salbutamol, even in a high dose, did not have a significant effect on endurance performance in non-asthmatic athletes, although the bronchodilating effect of the drug at the beginning of exercise may have improved respiratory adaptation. Our results do not preclude an ergogenic effect of β2 agonists given by other routes or for a longer period.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1746141

___________________________________

The effect of salbutamol on performance in endurance cyclists.

Norris SR, Petersen SR, Jones RL.

Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

The effect of salbutamol (S) on cycling performance was examined in 15 highly trained non-asthmatic male cyclists. A double-blind, randomized cross-over design was used with S or placebo (P) administered using a metered-dose inhaler and a spacer device 20 min before each testing session. The S dose was 400 micrograms (four puffs), which is twice the normal therapeutic level. Subjects were habituated to all the laboratory procedures in the week prior to actual data collection. The subjects performed four tests under S and P conditions on separate days over 2 weeks. These included measurement of maximal O2 uptake (VO2max) (cycle ergometry) with assessment of pulmonary function before and after, a submaximal (90% of ventilatory threshold) square-wave work transition from a base of unloaded cycling, a 60-s modified Wingate test, and a simulated 20 km time trial. No significant differences were observed in any of the dependent variables related to aerobic endurance or cycling performance between the S and P conditions. These results support other findings that an acute dose (400 micrograms) of S has no performance-enhancing properties.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8781870?dopt=Abstract
 

slovakguy

Active Member
Mar 17, 2006
1,898
33
0
given lance's latest contribution to this farce, has anybody been keeping track to see if he's gone through all 5 of the kubler-ross stages of grief?
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
slovakguy said:
given lance's latest contribution to this farce, has anybody been keeping track to see if he's gone through all 5 of the kubler-ross stages of grief?

Ha ! Very good. I wonder what stage he was at when he locked himself in the bathroom crying like a baby with the tester outside ?

denial ?
 

poulidor

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,464
0
0
swampy1970 said:
When you're supposed to be a world class lab, simple things like numbers that identify samples, dates, times etc should not be incorrect. It doesn't matter how many pages there are in the report.
Stupid, you are.
To have all right is not essential when you have right the key number on the key document... a missing or false information is often not enough to nullified a document because there is many possibilities to rebuild that information.
You have to look back at what we had call "zero default"!
 

limerickman

Moderator
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
115
63
musette said:
That's right -- Chatennay Malabry receives funding from the French governmental authorities. But does not make your argument more or less persuasive, when it is the AFLD (a FRENCH governmental anti-doping agency) that tested LA for the testing date in question?!

AFLD did carry out the test on Mar 17th 2009.
No one suggested otherwise.
 

swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,057
185
63
fscyclist said:
Who said Pettachi was using an inhaler? Did it ever occur to you that he may have exceeded the limit because he was taking it orally? Did you know that oral adminstration of salbutamol and other beta agonists DO improve muscle strength and endurance? Do you think WADA sets the limits so that it would be exceptionally difficult to exceed the TUE limit if used properly? Have you never heard of cyclists using a TUE as a way to mask doping? Why so much trust in cyclists who have proven time and again they will use all means necessary to cheat?
The story started on May 23, 2007, the 11th stage of the Giro d'Italia, 198 kilometres from Serravalle Scrivia to Pinerolo. It ended in the expected mass sprint, and Team Milram's Petacchi used his unbeatable speed to take his third win of the race and his 22nd career Giro stage win. It was a hot and humid day, and the asthmatic Petacchi was suffering from the weather.

To combat his exercise-induced asthma, the Italian had an Abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption (ATUE) from the UCI, which allowed him to take three doses of 200 mcg of Salbutamol by inhalation each day, and three doses of 0.5 mcg of Betamethasone by aerosol. His medical prescription was for a product called Ventolin, which contains Salbutamol, to be used three times a day. Each puff from the inhaler contains 100 mcg of Salbutamol, so he was allowed six puffs a day, to reach his total of 600 mcg.

On May 23, Petacchi told the CAS, he took two puffs from his inhaler before the race, two during the race and two or three after the race. Because he won the stage, he had to undergo a doping control. The resulting urine sample was tested at the WADA laboratory in Rome, and on May 26, the lab issued its finding that the sample contained 1352 ng/ml Salbutamol. The legal limit is 1000 ng/ml for athletes with a TUE.

At the April 2 hearing, Petacchi had argued that as an asthmatic, he needed to use his inhaler more than usual on the hot and humid day during the Giro. "Unusually Mr. Petacchi had felt the need to use the inhaler after the race, only an hour before he gave his sample," the decision summarized the rider's argument. "The use after the race and shortly before he gave his sample" were allegedly the cause of the high concentration. In addition, he argued, he "may have used a sub-optimal inhalation technique" when he used the inhaler during the race and may have inadvertently swallowed some of the medication.

The CAS panel accepted most of these arguments, but still found him guilty. Petacchi did not show that the 1352 ng/ml concentration of Salbutamol was within the legal limits. "The Panel is not satisfied, on the basis of probabilities, that result was the consequence of him inhaling Salbutamol in accordance with his ATUE."

However, it accepted his explanation that the high concentration of Salbutamol "was that he took too many puffs of his Ventolin inhaler on that day, including some after the race," It also noted that "Mr. Petacchi accepts that he may not have complied precisely with the authorised dose of 600 mcg," as well as the fact that some of the puffs were taken only an hour before the doping control.

"Mr. Petacchi's fault can be characterised as administering an excess of therapy by taking more than six puffs of Ventolin," he panel found. "As an additional relevant circumstance, the Panel notes that Mr. Petacchi states that he took 2-3 puffs after the race which could support a view that Mr. Petacchi had, in taking the puffs, no intention to enhance his performance."
So, as I was saying, it seems as though the labs can do things a little sloppy, but God forbid that a rider take one inhalation too many or even something as simple as highlighted, swallowing instead of inhaling some of the product. I've never tried using my inhaler on a bike but I can't imagine it being the easiest of tasks....
 

classic1

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2006
11,394
980
113
swampy1970 said:
So, as I was saying, it seems as though the labs can do things a little sloppy, but God forbid that a rider take one inhalation too many or even something as simple as highlighted, swallowing instead of inhaling some of the product. I've never tried using my inhaler on a bike but I can't imagine it being the easiest of tasks....

Any wonder swampy. I farkin told ya you are supposed to inhale it, not shove it up your date and take it as a suppository.
 

swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,057
185
63
poulidor said:
Stupid, you are.
To have all right is not essential when you have right the key number on the key document... a missing or false information is often not enough to nullified a document because there is many possibilities to rebuild that information.
You have to look back at what we had call "zero default"!
I assume you mean correct sample number.

The sample number that was listed on most of the tests was incorrect and manually corrected in a manner that was inconsitent with ISO standards.

Landis's sample was often documented as 994474 instead of 995475. Not just a one digit error - but two. A search of records for sample 994474 revealed that since 2001 there was no receipt of any sample with that ID.

But I also assume that you think that manually altering documents in a non-ISO approved manner is also acceptable AFTER uncorrected copies had already been sent out.

documentation.jpg


They even listed the sample number incorrectly on the transport documentation sheet. 995476, which was actually a valid sample number, it just wasn't Floyds and it wasn't transported on that date... So whomever completed the form did so incorrectly and who ever received the "massive amount" of a whopping 7 samples in that package recevied them incorrectly too, despite signing for them and affixing the labs seal to the document.

In other lab documents 995475 and 995474 both appear to be given as the sample number.

The really odd thing - the lab had equipment that was capable of utilizing barcodes, but had decided to turn this system off.

The equipment used for analysis was 6 major revisions of software out of date and was using code intended for another machine entirely using a different operating system. Their excuse for using this machine rather than the more modern machine they had "the machine wasn't yet accredited" - despite the fact that it's been documented that said machine had been used to declare positive results prior to the end of the 2006 Tour.

Landis had argued that some of the results could have been used outside regular operating pressures.The USADA stated that if that had happened the green operator light turns yellow as a warning and then red and instrument shut down. What was actually the case was the light was a green LED for the power supply. It could not, and would never, turn yellow or red. The Lab later argued that it did not have a manual for the Isoprime tester and did not have access to one - despite one being available for download via the internet. The software analysis tool did have a yellow warning bar on the screen... Nice to know that the lab techs are so aware of their equipment.

I could just imagine what you'd think if you went to the docs and had a routine blood test and was told "Sorry, you have AIDS" and then you find out a decade later that they gave you the result of sample 4323334432-001 instead of 4323343432-001... I'm guessing you wouldn't say -"oh well, just a lab error"
 

swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,057
185
63
classic1 said:
Any wonder swampy. I farkin told ya you are supposed to inhale it, not shove it up your date and take it as a suppository.
Dude, shhhhhh. Don't go telling all my secrets!

Of course, I was going to ask him how much practise he'd had at aiming things in his mouth while his head was moving around... ;)
 

swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,057
185
63
poulidor said:
There is no leak of french riders cases because they only didn't exist since a while! :D
That's because the French don't win anything. :D

You gotta go back to 2004, and Mr Dopage Virenque, since the French last won any type of jersey at The Tour...

Just think - next year it'll be a quarter of a century since a Frenchman won his home tour. That's gotta sting a little... Riders going for the white jersey have never seen a Frenchman win The Tour!
 

slovakguy

Active Member
Mar 17, 2006
1,898
33
0
swampy, you make a good point with the blood test coming back positive for hiv. were that to happen, wouldn't you request/demand a second test be performed? the old standards still apply--get a second opinion in medical matters. using this motif for landis (and i really hoped that he would be vindicated) he had something like six "second" opinions which all came back positive for the identical synthetic testosterone. using ashenden's article, can you still maintain the lab had spiked landis' samples to achieve those results? i have greater respect for the cleanliness of the tdf than i have for toc, gdi, or vds with their "spotless" testing records.
 

Leafer

New Member
Apr 11, 2006
317
0
0
musette said:
That's right -- Chatennay Malabry receives funding from the French governmental authorities. But does not make your argument more or less persuasive, when it is the AFLD (a FRENCH governmental anti-doping agency) that tested LA for the testing date in question?!
Yep, it's all one big, national conspiracy that involves millions of Frenchmen, all with the sole purpose of framing Lance. Sheesh, if that were true, you'd think they'd have been able to come up with something a little more damning than EPO in old samples that can't be used for sanctioning and a possible infraction for having a shower. But hey, that huge mega conspiracy makes SO much more sense than, uh, you know, a top cyclist doping in the era of doping.

Do you guys even listen to yourselves anymore?
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
Leafer said:
Yep, it's all one big, national conspiracy that involves millions of Frenchmen, all with the sole purpose of framing Lance. Sheesh, if that were true, you'd think they'd have been able to come up with something a little more damning than EPO in old samples that can't be used for sanctioning and a possible infraction for having a shower. But hey, that huge mega conspiracy makes SO much more sense than, uh, you know, a top cyclist doping in the era of doping.

Do you guys even listen to yourselves anymore?

To put things in perspective. French newspapers are all tabloids which only print stories of Armstrong doping. Ignore the articles which celebrated his victories. French drug testers are all dodgy and would stoop to any level to try and make Lance test positive. Ignore the fact of the riders caught at last years Tour who admitted to the drug use. They actually forgot that they didn't take drugs. French drug labs only change reults of US riders dispite not knowing what rider they are testing and never ever, ever, ever, ever having a formal compliant lodged against them by Armstrong, Landis, WADA, the UCI, CAS, USADA or anyone else including the UN. It's only when US cyclists lock themselves in a bathroom screaming "Hog, Hog, make them go away" that all of a sudden we are back to the "the French arrogance" therom. Maybe they just don't buy **** like le nutcases on this forum. French arrogance indeed.
 

limerickman

Moderator
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
115
63
swampy1970 said:
I assume you mean correct sample number.

The sample number that was listed on most of the tests was incorrect and manually corrected in a manner that was inconsitent with ISO standards.

Landis's sample was often documented as 994474 instead of 995475. Not just a one digit error - but two. A search of records for sample 994474 revealed that since 2001 there was no receipt of any sample with that ID.

But I also assume that you think that manually altering documents in a non-ISO approved manner is also acceptable AFTER uncorrected copies had already been sent out.

documentation.jpg


They even listed the sample number incorrectly on the transport documentation sheet. 995476, which was actually a valid sample number, it just wasn't Floyds and it wasn't transported on that date... So whomever completed the form did so incorrectly and who ever received the "massive amount" of a whopping 7 samples in that package recevied them incorrectly too, despite signing for them and affixing the labs seal to the document.

In other lab documents 995475 and 995474 both appear to be given as the sample number.

The really odd thing - the lab had equipment that was capable of utilizing barcodes, but had decided to turn this system off.

The equipment used for analysis was 6 major revisions of software out of date and was using code intended for another machine entirely using a different operating system. Their excuse for using this machine rather than the more modern machine they had "the machine wasn't yet accredited" - despite the fact that it's been documented that said machine had been used to declare positive results prior to the end of the 2006 Tour.

Landis had argued that some of the results could have been used outside regular operating pressures.The USADA stated that if that had happened the green operator light turns yellow as a warning and then red and instrument shut down. What was actually the case was the light was a green LED for the power supply. It could not, and would never, turn yellow or red. The Lab later argued that it did not have a manual for the Isoprime tester and did not have access to one - despite one being available for download via the internet. The software analysis tool did have a yellow warning bar on the screen... Nice to know that the lab techs are so aware of their equipment.

I could just imagine what you'd think if you went to the docs and had a routine blood test and was told "Sorry, you have AIDS" and then you find out a decade later that they gave you the result of sample 4323334432-001 instead of 4323343432-001... I'm guessing you wouldn't say -"oh well, just a lab error"

You've put an articulate arguement here Swampy.

However - if the example you cite (above) is correct, how come USADA upheld the case against Landis?
And, how come CAS also upheld the case against Landis too?

Or are you suggesting that Chatennay Malabry, USADA, CAS and WADA are all part of some conspiracy to deliberately sabotage a set of test results?