Hell, now I don't trust Lance nor WADA



Kyle Legate wrote:
> Alvin Ryder wrote:
> >
> > Armstrong has passed over 300 tests but apparently fails one based on
> > 1999 samples, this makes that lab look extremely dodgy.
> >

> The lab tested the 1999 samples using more sensitive technology than was
> available at the time. He passed the test because he managed to squeak
> under the detection threshold.
>


Valid tests for synthetic EPO have been around for years (which
Armstrong passed).

If this lab is claiming the discovery of an even better test method
then to gain any respect in the medical community they would publish
their results in journals not newspapers. And they would follow not
break protocols.

Clearly this is not serious pathology or "more sensitive technology",
it's just monkey business.

> By the way, he didn't fail one test, he failed SIX.


All done at the same lab and reported to the same newspaper, that's
really one test scenario (albeit with 6 sub-tests). Count it as 1 or 6,
either way it's totally against the grain and the entire situation
stinks of foul play. Actually I'd count it as zero valid tests.

Would you have your kidney removed based on a scandalous newspaper
report? I certainly would not.

Cheers ;-)
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Alvin Ryder wrote:
> > IMKen wrote:
> >

> <snip>
>
> > Also that lab did not follow the proper protocol and procedures, they
> > are suppose to obtain the permission of atheletes to test the B
> > samples. They should then report the results to the appropriate
> > governing bodies not to the tabloids! This behavior is no small breach
> > of conduct, its a major deviation of the correct medico-legal
> > procedures.
> >
> > And I would have thought the WADA should get their pathology results
> > directly from the lab, not via the newspapers.
> >
> > Anyway the bottom line for me is would you guys let someone chop your
> > kidney's out based on tests done on frozen 1999 urine samples? Nope
> > didn't think so.
> >
> > Cheers.
> >

>
>
> Hey Chipmunk,
>
> The lab did follow the correct procedure for doing RESEARCH.
>


No. True researchers publish their results in journals not newspapers.

I've worked in pathology labs for about 10 years and other research
organizations for another 10 years. This tabloid gossip doesn't look
like research to me.

Has the lab written a paper on their "research" that I can read?

> It was the
> newspaper who made the link between the RESEARCH result and the athlete,


How? They don't have access to that private and confidential data.

Magilla let's suppose you have had hundreds of tests that say your
kidney's are OK. But you pee'd in a jar 7 years ago and now you read a
scandalous newspaper report called "Research" that names you and says
your kidney must be removed. Would you do it? Can you answer that
question?
 
How can you personally say he failed one or six? Did you observe the test?
Do you put blind trust into the lab that leaked results?

Just curious,

Ken
"Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alvin Ryder wrote:
>>
>> Armstrong has passed over 300 tests but apparently fails one based on
>> 1999 samples, this makes that lab look extremely dodgy.
>>

> The lab tested the 1999 samples using more sensitive technology than was
> available at the time. He passed the test because he managed to squeak
> under the detection threshold.
>
> By the way, he didn't fail one test, he failed SIX.
 
Kyle Legate wrote:
> I don't know who you're replying to,


> If you weren't replying to me, quote next time so I don't have to waste
> my time.


If you didn't have Kunich kill-filed, you'd know who he was replying to.
 
Robert Chung wrote:
> Kyle Legate wrote:
>
>>I don't know who you're replying to,

>
>
>>If you weren't replying to me, quote next time so I don't have to waste
>>my time.

>
>
> If you didn't have Kunich kill-filed, you'd know who he was replying to.
>

A small price to pay.
 
IMKen wrote:
> How can you personally say he failed one or six? Did you observe the test?
> Do you put blind trust into the lab that leaked results?
>

The lab results are a matter of public record. L'Equipe had the key to
crack the identities,
but the lab techs didn't, so the possibility of sabotaging one rider's
multiple test results was not possible. Also, the majority of samples
tested actually came out negative, ruling out systematic error.

In short, I trust the lab results to tell a correct story.
 
"Donald Munro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity - didn't those "dirty" French riders confess to
>> doping? And hasn't Lance and Tyler both ADAMENTLY denied it?
>>
>> Oh, wait, the French are famous for their honesty and truthfulness
>> whereas those damned Americans are known liars.

>
> If the (dutch) cap fits, wear it.


You almost lose me there. I think you mean a rubber?
 

Similar threads