Iban Mayo
- Thread starter thebluetrain
- Start date
Bro Deal said:
OK ......... The lab sends a faulty reading to the UCI......
The UCI kicks Mayo out............
Mayo's TDF hopes are dashed....... His season is in ruins.....
We find that the reading was not correct.........
So .......Who do we blame??????
Bruyneel?
Armstrong?
They get blamed for everything else..........
Maybe they should have tested the B sample then kicked Mayo out if it tested positive.......
But that is too simple of a solution to the rabid anti-dopers who are reactionaries to a problem that is not new to cycling.
Who says it was faulty? It may have been close to the threshold for positivity, such that retesting gets a slightly different result.wolfix said:
Kicked him out of what? He finished the TdF in 16th place. He rode the Giro and the Tour; sounds like a packed season to me.wolfix said:
The currrent zero tolerance policy is a direct result of endemic doping and the teams and the riders who just don't get it; instead of changing their doping policies, they think of the increased enforcement as an opportunity to gain an advantage on other teams and other riders. It is those teams and those riders who are destroying the sport, not those who are trying to stop the doping.wolfix said:
Your "simple" solution would result in riders racing until their B samples came back posiitve. Race results would not be known for months. The turmoil in the sport would be even worse than all the doping positives. In a better world where only a small percentage of the riders were doping, it would be workable; but in this world, it is not realistic.
wolfix said:
This is of course not a good situation for Mayo, whose late season was spoilt by the faulty result. Still, I wouldn't change anything in the procedure because it is such a rare event that the B sample comes out negative when the A sample was positive. Wofix, you cannot test the B sample the same day as the A sample. To open (and test) a B sample is not a trivial thing, legally, since so much is at stake. I think there might be a satisfactory solution for this kind of situation. The lab which did the faulty A sample testing should pay Mayo some sort of compensation for potential earnings during Mayo's absence from racing. The lab itself has probably insurance for such a case anyway.
Interesting to note that LNDD did not test the B sample. Two labs, one in Belgium and one in Australia did, and both got the same result - negative.
So, either two labs acting independently got the wrong result, or LNDD got the wrong result. Care to guess what the result would have been if LNDD had tested the B sample?
Quite true, the doping problem is serious. It won't be solved by busting innocent people, though. Given the penalty for error, to both rider and the sport in general, it is time to hold the organizations and labs to the same standards that the riders must live up to.
So, either two labs acting independently got the wrong result, or LNDD got the wrong result. Care to guess what the result would have been if LNDD had tested the B sample?
Quite true, the doping problem is serious. It won't be solved by busting innocent people, though. Given the penalty for error, to both rider and the sport in general, it is time to hold the organizations and labs to the same standards that the riders must live up to.
Ok. Mayo tests positive for testosterone during the Giro and wiggles out of it. He tests positive for EPO at the Tour and wiggles out of it. I am seeing a pattern here.
Maybe you or someone else knows the answer as to why the A sample takes 1-2 weeks for processing but the B sample takes 2 months? It would be much more fair if the rider was only DQ'd for a couple weeks waiting for the B result rather than lose a whole season.Bro Deal said:
Also agree that a negative B sample doesn't prove innocence, only that the B test was negative (see Marion Jones). I wonder if there is degradation of thee sample in the three months it takes to retest.
Yeah, his doctor isn't very good at his job. If he was a mechanic he would definately over fill your oil. A lot of riders must still be doping but less than they used too and very close to the mark. I think a classic case could be Valverde rode well some days but average the rest, that is surely how clean or cleaner riders should ride an event such as a 3wk race. I have a few doping protaganists say you must be stupid to get caught while racing.Frigo's Luggage said:
wolfix said:
Mayo's TDF hopes dashed???????????
Is that the hope that he wouldn't get caught, by any chance?
International Cycling Union president Pat McQuaid has confirmed Spanish rider Iban Mayo's 'B' sample for his positive drugs test will be re-analysed in Paris.
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/23102007/58/mayo-b-sample-re-analysed.html
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/23102007/58/mayo-b-sample-re-analysed.html
I think the UCI would simply love to get Mayo because they know from his blood parameters and drastic variations in form over the years that he is a doper. They probably thought they had him in the Giro and now they thought they had him at the Tour. They simply aren't ready to throw in the towel yet.El Loto said:
From the outsiders perspective, that is certainly true. You are looking at it from the perspective of someone influenced by the Floyd/Armstrong propaganda machine. The guys at the UCI almost certainly haven't bought into those opinions at all, and probably could care less anyway. They simply thought they had caught someone that they "know" is a doper and are looking to get rid of them by whatever means. If that means monkeying around with which tests are legit and which are not, well so be it.fscyclist said:
I think that is probably bang on; but it also it may lead to the UCI cutting corners in order to get him, which will more ammunition their the critics. We'll see if Mayo is smarter than Hamilton and is more careful from now on.Wayne666 said:
I don't see that UCI having the B sample reanalyzed by the LNDD will accomplish anything good.
Never been accused of being influenced by Floyd/Armstrong propoganda before, so thanks for that one.Wayne666 said:
I'm looking at this from a scientific perspective. In order for a test to be valid it must be reproducible, and not just reproducible at the same lab by the same person. For instance, if you published a method of testing in a reputable journal, another scientist may test your method (a form of peer review). If it is not reproducible, then your test is invalid and you end up with a lot of egg on your face.
The most likely reasons the test results differ are:
1. The test was not conducted using the exact same methodology and/or standards
2. Someone tested it incorrectly
3. The A and B samples differed in some way
4. The samples degraded or changed in some way during the time delay
5. The result was close enough to the cutoff that the measure of error may overlap the area where a sample is called positive.
Frankly, I don't like the UCI "monkeying" around with samples, but at this point I really don't care; the whole organization is a farce. Maybe next year they'll institute 17th century medical standards and employ urine sniffers and tasters to discern which drugs the riders are using.
I think #5 is probably the most likely explanation especially since there was almost certainly increased variability in the test results due to the tests being conducted in two different labs. The UCI will probably use this as their excuse for falling back on a B test conducted at the same lab as the A test. This test could always come back negative too and then the issue will be irrelevant anyway.fscyclist said:
And I didn't say I though the UCI monkeyed around with the sample, just they're playing a game as to which test is acceptable and which isn't.
Similar threads
- Breaking News
- Road Cycling
- Breaking News
- Road Cycling
- Breaking News
- Road Cycling
- Robert Chung
- Road Cycling