Mayo Positive For EPO

[limerickman]

LNDD breaks the rules, sometimes deliberately, sometimes out of incompetence or ignorance of the rules (as eludicated in the independent arbitration panel's report relating to LA).

LNDD didn't break any rules.

If LNDD was shown to have broken any rules - it would have had it's accreditation as a research facility withdrawn.
In addition if LNDD had broken any rules - LNDD would have had it accreditation as an IOC/WADA test centre, withdrawn

LNDD retains it's accreditation as a research facility.
LNDD retains it's accreditation as an IOC/WADA test centre.

 

[Tim Lamkin]

Not sad, but right and sweeping act...

next head to roll is Alpuerto Contapuerto...I hope it'll happen so all Spanish hidden names (as Valverde) and other big fishes (Discovery or former USPostal) will emerge.

NO it is sad, that it just keeps happening

All that are going to be caught in this years TDF, have been caught.

 

[Fen Tiger]

To gauge how testing has "improved", there have been 3 positives from the actual tour, Moreni, Vino and Mayo? Ras passed his tests and Sinkewitz test was done before the tour. Have I missed anyone?

Any way, how does this compare to the tours going back to say, post Festina '99? Is it showing more positive testing?

 

[beeka]

Stop it saluki. We are taking a wholistic approach to these discussions which includes Cadel and most certainly includes Contador and in particular includes UCI.

I am all for a clean Contador he just needs to pony up some DNA, have it cross referenced with Puerto bags and we are flying.

But the heart of where we are at is dealing with the UCI and ASO. First is a stake through the heart of the UCI and then in time with the help of the French Govt the removal of ASO and a fresh (powerless) event management structure for those events??

The professional elements of this sport need to move fluidly through one body IMO. What sort of model might work?

My first post here, so hi to all.
In regards to Contador or infact the whole peloton making DNA available to be crossed matched to Puerto blood bags, riders recently signed the RIDERS COMMITMENT TO A NEW CYCLING, UCI document. The last paragraph of which states.
"At the same time, I declare to the spanish law, that my DNA is at its disposal, so that it can be compared with the samples seized in the Puerto affair. I appeal to the Spanish Law to organise this test as soon possible or ALLOW THE UCI TO ORGANISE IT.
Contador signed it, as have the rest of the peleton.
http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI3/layout.asp?MenuId=MTI1NDg

Where's the problem in obtaining a DNA sample?
Give a sample to be tested or you don't ride anymore, I reckon. At the very least it would settle once and for all the uncertainty surrounding contadors win. Like a lot of people I suspect he doped or has been a doper but I want proof.

 

[jhuskey]

Pro Cyclist dope! Why haven't they been caught before? Because it did not suit big money investors at that time.
Look deeper since there are more playersthan just riders and managers.
The competition will get worse between the big money factions and the pawns will suffer.
It is far from over.

 

[helmutRoole2]

Yeah, I love how it took less than 20 posts for a Mayo EPO positive to degrade into another LA / DISCO...

I was actually thinking the same thing to a degree.

Maybe Mayo was just never that good. His results certainly support that.

Mayo was very good. If you followed cycling prior to EPO, you'd know that. Mayo, like most small climbers, didn't benefit as greatly from EPO. He did, however, have stunning pedal mechanics in and out of the saddle. This combined with his height-to-weight-strength ratio is what made him formidable.

 

[hgb]

LNDD didn't break any rules.

Then how did the information about Armstrong's 1999 B samples come out?

Somebody at LNDD, UCI or WADA was talking to L'Equipe and breaching rules on confidentiality.

 

[Maison]

LNDD didn't break any rules.

If LNDD was shown to have broken any rules - it would have had it's accreditation as a research facility withdrawn.
In addition if LNDD had broken any rules - LNDD would have had it accreditation as an IOC/WADA test centre, withdrawn

LNDD retains it's accreditation as a research facility.
LNDD retains it's accreditation as an IOC/WADA test centre.

That kind of thinking is right up there with, to paraphrase, "we know our tests are 100% correct, so we don't need to test them." Thanks ****!

 

[limerickman]

Then how did the information about Armstrong's 1999 B samples come out?

You've got to remember that the tests carried out were not as part of a doping test program.
The samples were tested as part of a research program.

How the info get out?
Your guess is as good as anyone elses.

Somebody at LNDD, UCI or WADA was talking to L'Equipe and breaching rules on confidentiality.

No breach of any confidentiality rules.
The confidentiality rules only apply to samples being tested as part of the doping test procedure.

The fact that the samples tested were not part of a doping test procedure (the six separate A-samples tested were destroyed in 1999 when each of the six A sample results provided six false non-positives), excludes them from the confidentiality rules.

 

[limerickman]

That kind of thinking is right up there with, to paraphrase, "we know our tests are 100% correct, so we don't need to test them." Thanks ****!

Well the IOC/WADA and ironically the UCI all retain the services of LNDD.

The fact of the matter is that if there was any impropriety on LNDD's part, LNDD accreditation as a test centre and as a research centre would be terminated.
LNDD retains it's accreditation as a research facility.
LNDD retains it's accreditation as an IOC/WADA test centre.

 

[Wayne666]

Then how did the information about Armstrong's 1999 B samples come out?

Somebody at LNDD, UCI or WADA was talking to L'Equipe and breaching rules on confidentiality.

UCI asked the lab to test the '99 samples to see if EPO use had dropped after the '98 Festina scandal. The '98 samples had been tested at some point in the past when the EPO test became available.

LNDD agreed if everything was anonymous, nobody would be sanctioned, etc. since there was no protocol followed for an official test.

Testing done, it appeared EPO use did decline as there were only 17 "positives" vs. 40 some from '98.

Then **** Pound/WADA pressured the lab to send the coded results to UCI, probably in a move to "force" the UCI to look at the offending riders. LNDD eventually relented.

Sometime around then the lab's results became public. Still anonymous because the lab only tests coded samples. Except all 4 riders tested at the prologue were positive and it's public knowledge who is tested. So it was known at this point that Armstrong was positive (Beltran, Zulle, ? too). As I recall this didn't generate too much press.

Some months later Ressiot asked Armstrong to allow access to his UCI medical files and Armstrong gave him permission. Once Ressiot had the file he could see the code numbers for Armstrong doping controls and he went back and cross-referenced them to the results of the testing. This is how it became known that 6 of the 17 positives were Armstrong's. Other than the other prologue positives I believe the rest remain anonymous to this day.

 

[doctorSpoc]

Then how did the information about Armstrong's 1999 B samples come out?

Somebody at LNDD, UCI or WADA was talking to L'Equipe and breaching rules on confidentiality.

where have you been man?

the results WERE leaked but there should have been no way to link them to any individual. the link to armstrong was as a result of armstrong being duped by a L'Equipe reporter who told them he was doing a story about how armstrong didn't get any special permission for any meds that could be performance enhancing. trying to put to rest the rumours that were going around armstrong had some kind of special permission to use EPO because of his cancer. Armstong authorised the UCI or to release his TUE forms and showed the reporter and allowed him to make copies of Armstrong's forms he had signed when he actually did his dope controls in 1999... there is a place on the forms where you can declare before the test that you are taking x,y,z and as long as it's on your TUE it's all good. only problem is that the indexing system used on the dope control forms was the indexing system that WADA had used to track the results. the leaked results had had the indexing numbers on it as well. the UCI were the only ones in possession of both the forms and the results and the only ones that should have been able to link rider to test but when they gave the L'Equipe reporter the dope control forms they basically gave them all the needed to link rider to test..

this is what all the back and forth between Vebruggen (UCI) and Pound (WADA) was about... they both (and armstrong too) contributed to the the results being linked back to armstrong..

 

[musette]

Some months later Ressiot asked Armstrong to allow access to his UCI medical files and Armstrong gave him permission.

That's not accurate. Ressiot asked LA for limited permission on another matter (what substances LA was officially permitted to use) and he misused, and the lab permitted him to misuse, the very limited authorization LA gave him.

You also forget the very important official rule that B samples for As that are negative are not permitted to be used for any means other than general experiment without names attached, and obviously are not intended to purportedly link any cyclist to those samples. That is basic WADA principle, intended to protect cyclists from unfair treatment after their As are negative.

 

[doctorSpoc]

That's not accurate. Ressiot asked LA for limited permission on another matter (what substances LA was officially permitted to use) and he misused, and the lab permitted him to misuse, the very limited authorization LA gave him.

You also forget the very important official rule that B samples for As that are negative are not permitted to be used for any means other than general experiment without names attached, and obviously are not intended to purportedly link any cyclist to those samples. That is basic WADA principle, intended to protect cyclists from unfair treatment after their As are negative.

you are absolutely wrong!!

it's the UCI not WADA that gave the forms to the reporter.. WADA doesn't have these forms.. this is why Vebruggen (UCI president at the time) was completely shot down and had to simply shut up at the end of it because **** Pounds showed the paper work that showed that it was the UCI and not the WADA that gave the reporter what they needed in order to link rider to test and you are right they gave him way more that armstrong had authorised but get your facts right... this had nothing to do with the lab and nothing to do even with WADA... this was imcompetence on the part of the UCI in an overzelous attempt to show armstrong in a good light...you need to go back and read the reports from that time... you are completely out to lunch here!

the lab, WADA, UCI no one ever claimed that this constitutes an official positive they just wanted to see what riders tests would look like if they knew that no one would be able to test for EPO (as they couldn't at the time) for research.. this doesn't constitute an official, on the books positive, but c'mon 5-6 samples with EPO in them.. it doesn't take a brain surgeon to put that together.. the guy was on EPO there is just no question.. people have hung Rasmussen out to dry because he missed 4 test but got off because they were from more than on organization and he doesn't even have any sample A,B,X,Y or Z that contains EPO... do you understand how incredibly silly you look protecting armstrong here... this is a guy who is so obviously guilty but got is off on a technicality.. the only people who can't see that are those that don't want to see... six B sample containing EPO... get a clue!!

 

[NJK]

Mayo just confessed on Spanish TV...... he said he was sorry and said he had phoned David Miller to apologies..... David Miller said he wasn't happy at SD and like their ethics on drugs.... slipstream here we come !

Something has been brewing for along time at SD i think. I read an article on Simoni & Ricco and they thought that Miller should keep his mouth shut about doping and that SD were doing more than enough about doping. I think DM feels isolated at SD.

 

[NJK]

Conversely it could be proof that doping does not override and counteract everything. Your theory also shoots down one of the biggest theories out there which is that nobody looks or acts tired so they must be doping. mayo was and he did.

If you look at Mayo on the last climb to Tignes he was the old Mayo bot seen for 4 yrs. He wasn't even blowing at all, not above threshold. Look again later in the tour the probable reason for his performance slide was either mental or the fact that he didn't want to get caught. Again he was never on the limit when getting dropped on the Aubisque.

 

[NJK]

I was actually thinking the same thing to a degree.

Mayo was very good. If you followed cycling prior to EPO, you'd know that. Mayo, like most small climbers, didn't benefit as greatly from EPO. He did, however, have stunning pedal mechanics in and out of the saddle. This combined with his height-to-weight-strength ratio is what made him formidable.

Mayo and all other talented climbers have been killed off by the postal brigade and other big corporate teams doping scam. Imagine how it must feel to dropped by the blue brigade leading LA up the final climb like it was a flat rd sprint, sickening.

 

[doctorSpoc]

Something has been brewing for along time at SD i think. I read an article on Simoni & Ricco and they thought that Miller should keep his mouth shut about doping and that SD were doing more than enough about doping. I think DM feels isolated at SD.

read that too.. funny how after doping came up they answered (diverted) a few question and then abruptly excused themselves as the reporter continued to ask about doping... guess he just asked one too many questions... thought it told a lot.

 

[wineandkeyz]

Well the IOC/WADA and ironically the UCI all retain the services of LNDD.

The fact of the matter is that if there was any impropriety on LNDD's part, LNDD accreditation as a test centre and as a research centre would be terminated.
LNDD retains it's accreditation as a research facility.
LNDD retains it's accreditation as an IOC/WADA test centre.

Using your reasoning, if there was any impropriety on Contador's part (i.e., if he doped) during the TdF, he would be disqualified. Therefore, since he was not disqualified, he did not dope.

 

[doctorSpoc]

What a surprise, Limerickman just repeats what he already said, despite being called out on it. Sounds familiar. God forbid he actually admits he's wrong or may be wrong about something. Stick to your guns ****!

what about you ignoring the other post in this thread that show that those saying the lab did something wrong are completely out to lunch?... if you've read my posts and wayne666 you'll see that the labs didn't do anything wrong.. the only thing that they might have done is leak the results of the 1999 test but without the links to the names of the riders. [edit.. but even that is not that bad.. it's research and no name were associated so... but the UCI contracted the research so they should have determined if it could be released or not] and i say might because someone from WADA, UCI or the lab might have leaked it... there is no conclusive proof the lab did leak the document. please tell us what the lab did wrong? what we know for sure is that they didn't provide a link from armstrong to his samples, the UCI did that with LAs permission, so please enlighten us?