Has the UCI dumped Armstrong ?

Discussion in 'Professional Cycling' started by whiteboytrash, Apr 7, 2009.

  1. swampy1970

    swampy1970 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    10,057
    Likes Received:
    185
    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.

    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?
     


  2. swampy1970

    swampy1970 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    10,057
    Likes Received:
    185
    You take a read of that link and then you tell me... There's not much on each page and after about 10 minutes and 20 pages you may be thinking, WTF. There seems to be errors and falsifications across the board but I'm not sure I'd go as far as "they were looking out for each other".

    Other fun stuff to consider: Oscar Pereiro publicly stated that he knew that Landis was positive before the UCI noticed was made. Riders knew on the 21st that "a top 10 rider was positive"... and this was before the 1st confirmation result on the A sample was complete (July 22nd) The 21st was the day after the stage where Landis was found to be positive.

    The IRMS work was started before the first comfirmation result was complete, something that is not normal and hightly unusual... Why was this done only on this one sample?
     
  3. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    Not being evasive - but if the documents you linked are factually correct, why then did USADA and CAS both uphold the case against Landis?

    If the testing process is littered with errors/mistakes - two separate arbitration entities saw fit to uphold the case against Landis.

    If I recall Landis hired some pretty heavy-duty defence lawyers to represent him, correct?
    Landis lawyers failed to convince the arbitration bodies of these errors/mistakes - that's assuming that there were mistakes of course.
     
  4. slovakguy

    slovakguy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    33
    um, because it came in at an 11/1 t/e ratio?

    as for another point, do you think lab techs are stupid and uniformed? i figure they just might know the biggest cycle race is making a loop around their country just about the time these samples come in. maybe they listen to radios or have tv's and can figure out that at least, what, half the samples can be hooked up to the stage's top finishers? but then to make the leap that they know this sample number is that rider so let's get to work spiking his sample in just the right amount so he's hot and we can jigger the results so a french rider has a shot? if that's the case, the french should re-examine the process because they haven't been very successful getting their riders on the top step.

    and part whatever we're on now, he still hasn't come up with an explanation of how that synthetic testosterone ended up in all his samples. to further that point, since he's returned to the races, how has landis' performance measured up to his riding in that tour?

    brute fact, the lab did its work, he got caught, and he paid the price. let's not let the technicalities obscure the man's cheating.
     
  5. swampy1970

    swampy1970 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    10,057
    Likes Received:
    185
    For IRMS testing to occour there's supposed to be a tigger limit of 200 ng/mL of Testosterone or Epitestosterone. The limits for T and E were 61.37 and 5.2 (T/E 11.8), however a second analysis of the A sample revealed T and E or 172.23 and 17.59 (T/E 9.8). Remember - this was the same sample using the same equipment to test. Those discrepancies only mark a 181% variation... Just a wee bit off.

    Paul Scott, former UCLA Olympic Lab Director commented:

    "TD2004EAAS is the controlling document. It required that ion 432 be used to establish the T/E ratio. This is true of both the screen and the confirmation. TD2004EAAS also requires, for the confirmations, that "the identity of the steroid reported with abnormal properties must be made..." It the references

    TD2003IDRC as the document controlling such identification.

    TD2003IDRC provides, in short, four diagnostic options for such identifications.

    1. Full scan with at least three diagnostic ions available at a relative abundance greater than 5%
    2. Full scan on a second "run" of the sample with such second run using a different derivative producing different diagnostic ions.
    3. SIM with at least three diagnostic ions.
    4. SIM with at least two diagnostic ions per run. Each such run using a different derivative producing different diagnostic ions.

    All evidence we have indicated the LNDD did not of these. It appears to "identify" T and E exclusively using retention time and a single ion."

    So, from Mr Scotts comments, how do you know that they actually managed to correctly identify T and E?

    Don Catlin stated that Landis's results would have been a negative at UCLA (UCLA is the largest WADA accredited lab in the world). There's quite a bit of verbage on why - check out page 55 of the Wiki Defense from the link I posted if you really what further info...
     
  6. slovakguy

    slovakguy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    33
    ...so, i go ahead and grant your argument that landis was framed (which i am not. i will only go so far as to say that landis is trying to get his victory through a technicality. and with an 11/1 t/e ration he'd have to have a bull elephant's sack swinging between his thighs--the balance issues for bike riding alone would discount that argument.) or he should be granted the victory because of the numerous lab errors. fine. one hip job and two years of training later, his performance is nowhere near the level he showed to win in the tdf. court of public opinion-he cheated.
     
  7. jimmypop

    jimmypop New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Verbage" - not a word. "Verbiage" - a word only used by posers.

    I never thought this thread would devolve into a vortex which sucked in a Landis apologist.

    Here's the thing: errors were made by all parties, but the most egregious error was Landis having the fucking synthetic testosterone in his system in the first place. If he wants to argue procedure and due process, that's fine. But I'll still believe that he's a cheat, just like I still believe OJ killed his wife. Can the drug testing system be improved? Most certainly. But that doesn't displace the fact that Landis didn't play by the rules which he agreed to play by. I find that more appalling than clerical errors at a lab.

    At some point, the relevance of the big picture takes a pragmatic front seat to the irrelevant details of a given situation. We're way past that point with Landis, so take your bullshit to the forum where articulate people fellate each other over minutea such as the angle of the piss hitting the cup and the volume of alcohol one drinks prior to giving a sample for a dope test.
     
  8. Bro Deal

    Bro Deal New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,701
    Likes Received:
    2
    There is your problem right there. FLandis' Wiki defense was filled with lies and distortions. The outrageous and unsupported nature of Landis' arguments is why he is paying a $100K fine off in installments.

    Don Catlin said (about Landis' data from the TdF) that it was clear that there was doping going on.
     
  9. Eldron

    Eldron New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    969
    Likes Received:
    1
    This has been the most useful post in the whole thread...

    Wht noy just copy and paste any other Armstrong posting instead of wasting the time and effort writing another?

    They go like this:
    Armstrong took a pee yesterday.
    Fucking doper.
    7 wins never positive.
    6 EPO positives.
    Never been caught.
    Doesn't mean he isn't a cheater.
    He loves cancer.
    He's a cheat.
    Plus he loves women that look like his mum.
    Never tested positive.
    He's making a come back.
    He's the devil.
    He's a god.

    Did I leave anything out?

    You gotta admit my version is 17 pages shorter and contains the same amount of useful info...
     
  10. TheDarkLord

    TheDarkLord New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,887
    Likes Received:
    0
    But it lacks the drama... :D
     
  11. swampy1970

    swampy1970 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    10,057
    Likes Received:
    185
    I brought up the Wiki defense not because I wanted to drag out the whole Landis deal again but to show that some of the labs are not as squeaky clean as you may have thought - which goes back to my earlier arguement in the thread that labs should be held to the same high standard that the riders are being held to.

    If a lab can't process the same sample and get the same results then there's something wrong between that sample entering the lab and the results leaving the lab... The reason they spend all that money on fancy calibrated equipment is so that results, given the same procedures and correct methodology, are repeatable at any time, regardless of location.
     
  12. swampy1970

    swampy1970 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    10,057
    Likes Received:
    185
    It's a slang term that's a bit different that verbiage...

    ... but then again I forgot I'm in the middle of a bunch of scientific folk who'd never use slang. :rolleyes:
     
  13. Cobblestones

    Cobblestones New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nike?
     
  14. Eldrack

    Eldrack New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,353
    Likes Received:
    1
    And all the while that everyone is bitching about LA on here my poor little thread about the Amstel Gold race, you know, one of those cycling races that isn't the TdF gets totally totally ignored. I mean I know LA isn't racing it but some other professional cyclists are. Some of them are probably even on drugs!
     
  15. wineandkeyz

    wineandkeyz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    0
    There. It's fixed.
     
  16. swampy1970

    swampy1970 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    10,057
    Likes Received:
    185
    Looking back at the winners list for that event is seems as though half the names have been banned at some time or other... :D
     
  17. slovakguy

    slovakguy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    33
    finding myself in agreement, although not 100%, with cedric vasseur's opinion on the discipline due armstrong. given he's not reputed to dodge the ooc testers in the past, issue the stern warning. falling out with him on trying to lessen the issue by calling it a "small" mistake. if we are to take the testing seriously, any action which might lead one to suspect masking should never be deemed small.
     
  18. poulidor

    poulidor New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just to remember that Armstrong had not pay all money that deserved Vasseur when racing with Postal...
    Maybe he has got that money!
     
  19. slovakguy

    slovakguy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    33
    a point i will concede to you, pouli. just saying c.v. in my opinion has the punishment right for the crime. you must admit armstrong does not have a history of dodging the dco. in this case, unlike with rasmussen's several missed tests, it would be difficult to sell a two-year suspension. hoping that afld have learned their lessons and will send a witness along to verify the dco's version. the only other option is for afld to go full speed ahead and suspend armstrong for two years and show the community that afld expect full compliance. very difficult choice to make.
     
  20. poulidor

    poulidor New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just pointed that Vasseur could have waited the full information before speaking.
    No one (extern) knows exactly what happened.
     
Loading...
Loading...