Re: Interview with drug testing expert Dr. Don Catlin

[Andrew Price]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 14:18:50 -0500, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In Lance's case, the A sample was negative and the French used up all of the
>B samples.

I understand that this is not the case - there are remaining "B"
samples. What is the source of your assertion?

 

[Rich Clark]

"Andrew Price" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 14:18:50 -0500, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In Lance's case, the A sample was negative and the French used up all of
>>the
>>B samples.
>
> I understand that this is not the case - there are remaining "B"
> samples. What is the source of your assertion?

I think one source of confusion is not understanding that the samples in
question are from the entire 1999 Tour - an A and a B sample from each of
many different days. In every case the A sample was used at the time.

RichC

 

[Roger Zoul]

Rich Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
:> "Andrew Price" <[email protected]> wrote in message
:> news:[email protected]...
:>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 14:18:50 -0500, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote:
:>>
:>>>In Lance's case, the A sample was negative and the French used up
:>>>all of the
:>>>B samples.
:>>
:>> I understand that this is not the case - there are remaining "B"
:>> samples. What is the source of your assertion?
:>
:> I think one source of confusion is not understanding that the
:> samples in question are from the entire 1999 Tour - an A and a B
:> sample from each of many different days. In every case the A sample
:> was used at the time.

Why have they not reported on any other riders in that tour? Or have they?

 

[Pat]

: >In Lance's case, the A sample was negative and the French used up all of
the
: >B samples.
:
: I understand that this is not the case - there are remaining "B"
: samples. What is the source of your assertion?

In the first reporting of the situation, other posters wrote that all of the
B samples were used.

Pat in TX

 

[Rich Clark]

"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why have they not reported on any other riders in that tour? Or have
> they?

L'Equipe is only interested in pillorying LA, is why. It's an irrational
hatred. That's why they will go to any lengths, including making **** up, to
discredit him.

The issue of "other riders" doesn't enter into it.

RichC

 

[Roger Zoul]

Rich Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
:> "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
:> news:[email protected]...
:>> Why have they not reported on any other riders in that tour? Or
:>> have they?
:>
:> L'Equipe is only interested in pillorying LA, is why. It's an
:> irrational hatred. That's why they will go to any lengths, including
:> making **** up, to discredit him.
:>
:> The issue of "other riders" doesn't enter into it.

That what I thought...you'd think they at least try to put some other kind
of spin on it, though.

 

[Sock Puppet]

On 28-Aug-2005, "Rich Clark" <[email protected]> wrote:

> L'Equipe is only interested in pillorying LA, is why. It's an irrational
> hatred. That's why they will go to any lengths, including making **** up,
> to discredit him.

LA is doing a fine job of discrediting himself in his post competitive
cycling career. Participating in "The Tour de Crawford" is inexcusable.
--
Sock Puppet

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Rich Clark]

"Sock Puppet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> LA is doing a fine job of discrediting himself in his post competitive
> cycling career. Participating in "The Tour de Crawford" is inexcusable.

He wants the Administration to pour more money into cancer research. He's in
a unique position to lobby for his cause. I'd do the same, and I bet you
would, too. If you wouldn't, you'd have no business setting yourself up as a
premiere advocate for a cause.

Personally, doing what LA did (riding with the shrub) would turn my stomach,
and I probably couldn't bring myself to do it. But I don't have the kind of
single-minded passion that makes a champion (in several senses of the word).

RichC

 

[Robert Chung]

Pat wrote:
>>> In Lance's case, the A sample was negative and the French used up all
>>> of the B samples.
>>
>> I understand that this is not the case - there are remaining "B"
>> samples. What is the source of your assertion?
>
> In the first reporting of the situation, other posters wrote that all
> of the B samples were used.

All of the B samples from 1999 were *tested.* The EPO test doesn't use all
of each B sample, and there is enough remaining of each B sample so that
this test and perhaps others could be re-done.

 

[Robert Chung]

I wrote:

> and there is enough remaining of each B sample so
> that this test and perhaps others could be re-done.

I believe those re-tests are scheduled to occur right after hell freezes.

 

[Pat]

: I wrote:
:
: > and there is enough remaining of each B sample so
: > that this test and perhaps others could be re-done.
:
: I believe those re-tests are scheduled to occur right after hell freezes.

I don't remember seeing any disclaimer such as "and the remaining samples,
whose chain of evidence has been scrupulously documented, will be turned
over to WADA so that their labs can further test the urine in the presence
of the athlete as required by the agreed upon rules." Do you?

Pat in TX
:
:

 

[Robert Chung]

Pat wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>
>>> and there is enough remaining of each B sample so
>>> that this test and perhaps others could be re-done.
>>
>> I believe those re-tests are scheduled to occur right after hell
>> freezes.
>
> I don't remember seeing any disclaimer such as "and the remaining
> samples, whose chain of evidence has been scrupulously documented, will
> be turned over to WADA so that their labs can further test the urine in
> the presence of the athlete as required by the agreed upon rules."

That's why I don't think re-tests will occur. There's nothing to be
learned from them.

 

[Pat]

: > I don't remember seeing any disclaimer such as "and the remaining
: > samples, whose chain of evidence has been scrupulously documented, will
: > be turned over to WADA so that their labs can further test the urine in
: > the presence of the athlete as required by the agreed upon rules."
:
: That's why I don't think re-tests will occur. There's nothing to be
: learned from them.
:
Oh yeah--there's always the possibility that the tests were actually
negative or weren't Lance's sample, or had been degraded so badly that
whoever read the tests was just guessing, or....

Pat in TX
:

 

[Robert Chung]

Pat wrote:
>>> I don't remember seeing any disclaimer such as "and the remaining
>>> samples, whose chain of evidence has been scrupulously documented,
>>> will be turned over to WADA so that their labs can further test the
>>> urine in the presence of the athlete as required by the agreed upon
>>> rules."
>>
>> That's why I don't think re-tests will occur. There's nothing to be
>> learned from them.
>>
> Oh yeah--there's always the possibility that the tests were actually
> negative or weren't Lance's sample, or had been degraded so badly that
> whoever read the tests was just guessing, or....

That would only be so if the chain of custody had been scrupulously
maintained. You've argued that it hasn't and, since it hasn't, it can have
no probative value. Chain of custody cuts both ways: if broken, it can
neither convict nor exonerate. That's why it won't get re-tested.

 

[jj]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:08:33 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Pat wrote:
>>>> I don't remember seeing any disclaimer such as "and the remaining
>>>> samples, whose chain of evidence has been scrupulously documented,
>>>> will be turned over to WADA so that their labs can further test the
>>>> urine in the presence of the athlete as required by the agreed upon
>>>> rules."
>>>
>>> That's why I don't think re-tests will occur. There's nothing to be
>>> learned from them.
>>>
>> Oh yeah--there's always the possibility that the tests were actually
>> negative or weren't Lance's sample, or had been degraded so badly that
>> whoever read the tests was just guessing, or....
>
>That would only be so if the chain of custody had been scrupulously
>maintained. You've argued that it hasn't and, since it hasn't, it can have
>no probative value. Chain of custody cuts both ways: if broken, it can
>neither convict nor exonerate. That's why it won't get re-tested.

I think Mike J said it best. "There's not adequate evidence to convict or
acquit, only to slander."

jj

 

[Pat]

:
: I think Mike J said it best. "There's not adequate evidence to convict or
: acquit, only to slander."
:
: jj

Yeah, and the French seem to be really good at that, don't they?

Pat in TX
:

 

[Chris BeHanna]

Sock Puppet wrote:

> On 28-Aug-2005, "Rich Clark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>L'Equipe is only interested in pillorying LA, is why. It's an irrational
>>hatred. That's why they will go to any lengths, including making **** up,
>>to discredit him.
>
>
> LA is doing a fine job of discrediting himself in his post competitive
> cycling career. Participating in "The Tour de Crawford" is inexcusable.

To a sock puppet, perhaps.

--
Chris BeHanna

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Robert Chung]

Pat wrote:
>> I think Mike J said it best. "There's not adequate evidence to convict
>> or acquit, only to slander."
>>
>> jj
>
> Yeah, and the French seem to be really good at that, don't they?

Hmmm. I'm guessing you don't have adequate evidence to convict or acquit
them of that charge, only to slander them.

 

[Sock Puppet]

On 28-Aug-2005, "Rich Clark" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Personally, doing what LA did (riding with the shrub) would turn my
> stomach, and I probably couldn't bring myself to do it.

Speaking of turning stomachs, if I met shrub, I might do what his father did
to the Japanese Prime Minister.

--
Sock Puppet

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Pat]

: >> I think Mike J said it best. "There's not adequate evidence to convict
: >> or acquit, only to slander."
: >>
: >> jj
: >
: > Yeah, and the French seem to be really good at that, don't they?
:
: Hmmm. I'm guessing you don't have adequate evidence to convict or acquit
: them of that charge, only to slander them.

Let's review, shall we? First the French (or was it the Norwegians? The
Greeks?) give the official Tour de France samples to an unauthorized group.
They (wait, maybe it was the Russians? or the Finns?) do not make any
preparations to follow the Tour de France rules or even the rules of basic
fairness. Then, they (surely it must be the Portugese!) decide that secrecy
is the order of the day and do not let ANY of the athletes involved
participate. Then, they ( was it the Brazilian newspapers? the Canadians?)
declare Lance to be "guilty of doping" because "six" samples out of 17 have
been speculated to be positive. No mention of the other 11 samples. No
mention that the chain of evidence has been scrupulously followed and other,
authorized labs are welcome to duplicate the "positive results"---or even
that there remains sufficient samples to do further testing. Nope--it is
either "believe us!" or nothing.

Naw, nothing to "convict" the French in there, is there? It MUST be someone
else that concocted this hatchet job. No French newspaper would have any
type of animosity against Lance Armstrong, right?

We have a saying in Texas: Get Real!

Pat
:
: