The difference there is that when you or I go back for a second test, we give a new blood sample. It goes off to a different lab and it tested by different staff on a different machine. This isn't the case with Tour samples. All of Floyds samples for Stage 17 were done on the same machine by the same staff.slovakguy said: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.
From the evidence given, it was shown that the isoprime machine used was carried out the tests when out of spec, 5.2x10-6 millibars (rather than the operating range of 2 and 4x10-6 millibars). It was shown during testimony that lab staff were not aware of this range and it was also shown that they did not have documentation/manuals for this device. It was noted that pressures this high will lead to instrument damage and invalid results. The operating manual specifically states that the operator "wait until the pressure shown on the Penning gauge falls below 5E-6" I'm not sure how much more specific the manufacturers manual could have been.
Then again, they could have used their other isoprime machine, that still had the "lifting rings" attached to the magnets. The rings are only suposed to be present during installation (the magnets weigh 45kg each) and must be removed prior to running the machine. Given that these machines internal parts are required to be manufactured to 0.005 millimeters, leaving these huge (and very heavy) lifting rings in place will skew readings. Now, Floyds initial tests of the "positive" results were not done on this machine but the restests were. What I'm questioning though is given that the Isoprime1 machine was shown to be operating out of manufacturer specified tolerances and Isoprime 2 had never been configure properly since installation, how well are the machines maintained?
As for the identification of methyltestosterone then rules for identification of such is pretty straight forward:
TD2003IDCR - The retention time fo the analyte shall not differ by more than one percent or +-0.2 minutes (which ever is smaller) from that of the same subatance in a spiked urine sample.
Using the 'A' sample in question the rention time was 21.13 minutes, however the analysis of blank urine they identified this at 20.92 - ie 0.21 minutes, which is outside WADA specs for the same test. Similar issues where noted throughout the tests.
I'm not sure if you're aware but during 2006, LLND public declared that some samples stated as postive were infact contaminated by it's own controls. Leaked documents during that year prove that they botched samples, mislabeled samples (wrong sample numbers and dates) and some of these documents were signed by Dr Olivier Rabin, the WADA science director, who it has to be said, has never denied the authenticity of these documents.
But back the the AIDS analogy - if I wanted a second opinion, guess where I wouldn't want my sample to be tested?