H
Howard Kveck
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, "Sandy" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I really don't want to say it this way, but it's quicker.
> All your views are supported by no more than unsubstantiated complaints from
> interested parties.
> None of the complaints have been verified by independent authorities, which
> have, in fact, substantiated the exact opposite. (Incidentally, relying on
> the guys who criticized LNDD requires you to suspend disbelief that their
> financial interests in promoting their own equipment and software colors
> their views.)
> You want to believe. No prob. That's a splendid opinion that you're
> entitled to. Frankly, I would like to believe that no one ever tested
> positive really broke the rules. I would.
Well, I'll give a rundown on the things about the "LANCE tested positive for EPO
in '99" situation that I found not very up and up. I should state from the outset,
Sandy, that I am not of the opinion that "that dirty French lab was out to get LANCE"
or any of that kind of conspiratorial ****. Nor am I a "true believer" - I'm simply
not sure and would like to know. Onward.
As we know, someone at the lab took a bunch of frozen 'B' samples and decided to
run the newer EPO test on them. First issue: why? Second issue: what if theose 'B'
samples had ended up being needed for some other thing (say, there was a court
case...)? Having been opened under circumstances outside of the norm (I thought that
the athlete was entitled to have a rep there when the 'B' sample is opened and
tested), they were no longer useable to prove anything one way or the other. I know
that Brian likes to say that they can use the leftovers, but that isn't the way it's
done (and for a damn good reason).
The next thing that was odd to me was that there had never been any tests runs on
that procedure to see if it actually worked the same on old samples. By that I mean
the standard double-blind kinds of tests that are used to double check the validity
of a test: where a group of samples are created, some with EPO and some without,
tested and then compared to the register that shows which were which. By using the
'B' samples of unknown content, it really looks like the lab was sort of on a fishing
expedition. Not that i mean they were looking for *someone's* sample to turn up
positive, but looking to see what turns up, period. Kyle Legate has stated that if it
turned up showing EPO metabolites, then it's pretty much accurate and he works with
blood all day (from what I recall). But the lack of real double-blind testing of the
procedure on old samples leaves me with doubts.
The last thing that seemed less than optimal was the leak of the info. Since there
was no longer a counter sample to test, what could the athlete do? The leaker at the
lab surely knows that only a certain number of riders get tested, so it does narrow
the possible list of people down to a very small group. And the reporter was fairly
easily able to string things together so he coulld write a story that named the
biggest name. That seemed a little unethical to me, particularly in light of the
other issues I had with it.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
wrote:
> I really don't want to say it this way, but it's quicker.
> All your views are supported by no more than unsubstantiated complaints from
> interested parties.
> None of the complaints have been verified by independent authorities, which
> have, in fact, substantiated the exact opposite. (Incidentally, relying on
> the guys who criticized LNDD requires you to suspend disbelief that their
> financial interests in promoting their own equipment and software colors
> their views.)
> You want to believe. No prob. That's a splendid opinion that you're
> entitled to. Frankly, I would like to believe that no one ever tested
> positive really broke the rules. I would.
Well, I'll give a rundown on the things about the "LANCE tested positive for EPO
in '99" situation that I found not very up and up. I should state from the outset,
Sandy, that I am not of the opinion that "that dirty French lab was out to get LANCE"
or any of that kind of conspiratorial ****. Nor am I a "true believer" - I'm simply
not sure and would like to know. Onward.
As we know, someone at the lab took a bunch of frozen 'B' samples and decided to
run the newer EPO test on them. First issue: why? Second issue: what if theose 'B'
samples had ended up being needed for some other thing (say, there was a court
case...)? Having been opened under circumstances outside of the norm (I thought that
the athlete was entitled to have a rep there when the 'B' sample is opened and
tested), they were no longer useable to prove anything one way or the other. I know
that Brian likes to say that they can use the leftovers, but that isn't the way it's
done (and for a damn good reason).
The next thing that was odd to me was that there had never been any tests runs on
that procedure to see if it actually worked the same on old samples. By that I mean
the standard double-blind kinds of tests that are used to double check the validity
of a test: where a group of samples are created, some with EPO and some without,
tested and then compared to the register that shows which were which. By using the
'B' samples of unknown content, it really looks like the lab was sort of on a fishing
expedition. Not that i mean they were looking for *someone's* sample to turn up
positive, but looking to see what turns up, period. Kyle Legate has stated that if it
turned up showing EPO metabolites, then it's pretty much accurate and he works with
blood all day (from what I recall). But the lack of real double-blind testing of the
procedure on old samples leaves me with doubts.
The last thing that seemed less than optimal was the leak of the info. Since there
was no longer a counter sample to test, what could the athlete do? The leaker at the
lab surely knows that only a certain number of riders get tested, so it does narrow
the possible list of people down to a very small group. And the reporter was fairly
easily able to string things together so he coulld write a story that named the
biggest name. That seemed a little unethical to me, particularly in light of the
other issues I had with it.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
