"Technical probs" with Heras B sample tests

patch70 said:

If you could suggest an alternative then?
Every single test for ANY condition (be it doping, HIV, pregnancy, prostate cancer etc etc) is similarly grey. All tests that are used to give a positive versus negative answer actually give a quantifiable result that statistitians have worked on to find the best cutoff for positive or negative. Doping tests are no different.

If you really want a test that gives zero false positives, you make a test that never, ever gives a positive result. If you want a test that gives zero false negatives, you make a test that always reads positive. Would that be black and white enough for you? Every useful test (that gives both positive and negative results) will produce some false results in either direction. That is a statistical certainty. However, you statistically work out the cutoff to give you the most useful test.

You have walked to the edge of the cliff and are now over the edge and falling fast.
Do you have to assemble a panel of experts to read a preganancy or HIV test? (Like Tyler's tests from Athens?) No, because the tests are black and white.
Do you ever get fuzzy we are not sure lets run it for two more days results with HIV or pregnancy tests? (like Roberto's Vuelta tets?) No.

Yes, you want a test that is very sensitive but also quite specific. The specificity of this test needs improving, period, that goes for the urine EPO and the blood doping tests, the both of them.
Geez, don't they teach you guys anything down under?

bobke said:

If Armstrong was tested 10-20 times a year, and that's your number as far as I know unless you provide the quote, thats one to two times a month.

The number of tests - undergone by Lance Armstrong per year - since 1999
according to the UCI were between 10-20 : most tests took place during competition.

I believe his book states that he's the most tested athlete on the planet :
he wasn't.
Nor was he tested out of competition : the UCI stated this.

bobke said:

...........that still leaves several other for off season random testing. Thats a lot and short of weekly or twice monthly urines drug addicts give to prove they are clean, no sport or athlete could go so far.

It doesn't the UCI stated that Armstrong was only tested in competition by them.

bobke said:

And if patch will please get my point, the lab tests ARE grey, the answers are black and white, guilty or not guilty. That does not make sense. Get it?

All scientific tests contain some "grey" : nothing is absolute not even DNA testing which is 99.99% accurate.
Of course, you could try to mount a defence based on the .01% doubt.

This doesn't mean that DNA testing is inaccurate - it is accurate.

Just like the EPO tests and the Cortiscoid tests that showed Armstrong doped.

This is excellent reading - apologies if this has been posted before:

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/td2004epo_en.pdf

hombredesubaru said:

You have walked to the edge of the cliff and are now over the edge and falling fast.
Do you have to assemble a panel of experts to read a preganancy or HIV test? (Like Tyler's tests from Athens?) No, because the tests are black and white.
Do you ever get fuzzy we are not sure lets run it for two more days results with HIV or pregnancy tests? (like Roberto's Vuelta tets?) No.

Still you don't get it.
Pregnancy tests are not black and white all the time. Statistitians have arbitrarily picked a level of bHCG and called it positive. If you test too early and are pregnant, it will be a false negative. If you have a bHCG-secreting tumour, it will be falsely positive. So yes, you do get occasional "fuzzy" results.
I can also give you plenty of examples of false results from HIV tests, cancer detection tests and so on. That is how testing works. Why do you think doping tests would be different to all other tests?

It's probably time you stepped out of this argument as you are making yourself look even sillier.

limerickman said:

The number of tests - undergone by Lance Armstrong per year - since 1999
according to the UCI were between 10-20 : most tests took place during competition.

I believe his book states that he's the most tested athlete on the planet :
he wasn't.
Nor was he tested out of competition : the UCI stated this.

It doesn't the UCI stated that Armstrong was only tested in competition by them.

All scientific tests contain some "grey" : nothing is absolute not even DNA testing which is 99.99% accurate.
Of course, you could try to mount a defence based on the .01% doubt.

This doesn't mean that DNA testing is inaccurate - it is accurate.

Just like the EPO tests and the Cortiscoid tests that showed Armstrong doped.

Wise words again, i agree 100%

micron said:

This is excellent reading - apologies if this has been posted before:

wada-ama.orgtd2004epo en.pdfOpen ↗

OK, I just read the article in Triathlete Mag over the weekend about Rutger Beke, the Belgian triathlete who was busted for EPO then proved his innocence. According to the article, which was digested simply enough for me to grasp, unlike this WADA article, the test detected his own EPO which was busting through his kidneys during the hard race effort. He was able to reproduce that test on the track with a scientist in tow to swear to the results. He said the test they used did not distinguish between natural and synthetic EPO so the only way he could prevent another false positive was to insist on being tested right before the race and again many hours after the finish... not right at the finish. He offered to sit under supervision for 5-10 hours before testing. Synthetic EPO would show up before and after the wait period but his stuff would be gone a few hours after the hard effort.

That's what I understand of the article. That does cast huge questions on the test so can someone shed some light on these issues for me and how this might relate to Heras's test? I thought that Heras was claiming the same problem as Beke had with the test? Of course, if I cheated, I would do the same thing.... try to devalue the test using real examples. But are these examples valid?

[font=Verdana]Yes this is the same issue in the Armstrong case... when he says: "I passed over 300 tests" but being caught for using EPO means the test is dodgy like Beke proved.... NO. If Heras and former team-mate Armstrong both produced high quantities of EPO naturally then they would of tested positive 300 times. Heras and Armstrong cannot use this argument. What they use is the old favourites: "The samples wasn't stored properly", "It wasn't transported to the lab properly" etc. (Still better than the vanishing twin mind you !) - The Beke precedent does not apply to the Heras case.

[font=Verdana]Heras lawyers are going for testing technicalities… its going to be hard. EPO testing is very good these days and it will be hard to prove otherwise. They lab boys know the procedures and they always follow them. Heras had a Doctor with him when he took the test. If there were any problems it should have been raised then. [/font]

[/font]

barnstorm said:

OK, I just read the article in Triathlete Mag over the weekend about Rutger Beke, the Belgian triathlete who was busted for EPO then proved his innocence. According to the article, which was digested simply enough for me to grasp, unlike this WADA article, the test detected his own EPO which was busting through his kidneys during the hard race effort. He was able to reproduce that test on the track with a scientist in tow to swear to the results. He said the test they used did not distinguish between natural and synthetic EPO so the only way he could prevent another false positive was to insist on being tested right before the race and again many hours after the finish... not right at the finish. He offered to sit under supervision for 5-10 hours before testing. Synthetic EPO would show up before and after the wait period but his stuff would be gone a few hours after the hard effort.

That's what I understand of the article. That does cast huge questions on the test so can someone shed some light on these issues for me and how this might relate to Heras's test? I thought that Heras was claiming the same problem as Beke had with the test? Of course, if I cheated, I would do the same thing.... try to devalue the test using real examples. But are these examples valid?

whiteboytrash said:

Heras lawyers are going for testing technicalities… its going to be hard. EPO testing is very good these days and it will be hard to prove otherwise. They lab boys know the procedures and they always follow them. Heras had a Doctor with him when he took the test. If there were any problems it should have been raised then.

There were problems in the B test - I don't know if they disclosed what they were, but there was a flurry of announcements about some mysterious trouble that wouldn't affect the results and the B test had to be postponed by a couple days. I suspect Heras's lawyers will bring this up in subsequent proceedings.

And even if the procedures are followed perfectly that doesn't mean that the test is accurate. I think there's enough room in the science and the reviews that lawyers can at least present a case - especially about false positives. That of course doesn't mean any of the parties involved is going to be reversing any decisions, only that there will be more lawsuits and challenges.

I think the Armstrong case will die and go away - there's no way they're going to strip him of any titles or winnings so people will just stop caring. The insurance issue of getting his bonus from USPS/Disco may drag on for quite a while though as a contractual matter.

barnstorm said:

OK, I just read the article in Triathlete Mag over the weekend about Rutger Beke, the Belgian triathlete who was busted for EPO then proved his innocence. According to the article, which was digested simply enough for me to grasp, unlike this WADA article, the test detected his own EPO which was busting through his kidneys during the hard race effort. He was able to reproduce that test on the track with a scientist in tow to swear to the results. He said the test they used did not distinguish between natural and synthetic EPO so the only way he could prevent another false positive was to insist on being tested right before the race and again many hours after the finish... not right at the finish. He offered to sit under supervision for 5-10 hours before testing. Synthetic EPO would show up before and after the wait period but his stuff would be gone a few hours after the hard effort.

That's what I understand of the article. That does cast huge questions on the test so can someone shed some light on these issues for me and how this might relate to Heras's test? I thought that Heras was claiming the same problem as Beke had with the test? Of course, if I cheated, I would do the same thing.... try to devalue the test using real examples. But are these examples valid?

There was more to it for Beke. He had also in his urine alpha-1-anti-chymotrypsin - but only after short hard efforts. (The false +ve result was in a shorter, less important race - not the Hawaii Ironman where he tested negative). Without the A1ACT in his urine, the false +ve did not happen. There was also a question about bacterial contamination of his urine sample which would suggest that it was stored at a non-refrigerated temperature for too long.

So, as WBT has said, this is a very specific situation for Beke and does not apply to others. A1ACT-proteinuria is very uncommon, even with intense efforts.

[font=Verdana][font=Verdana]Irrelevant argument. If it takes forensics a year to determine that a the bullet lodged in some guys head was the one from the gun in question then its permissible as evidence the same if it took one day to conclude. You’re still guilty. (this is often the case in all criminal trials).

[/font][font=Verdana]In fact the length of time for it took to conclude a positive test of both of Heras’s A and B sample will go in favour of the lab (prosecution) as they wanted to be absolutely sure without a shadow of doubt that EPO was present in the urine sample. This is actually a good thing. Time does not constitute that lab does not know what they are doing in constitutes that the want to be 100% right. No where in the regulations that says once the rider is informed of the positive A sample that there is a certain amount of time that passes before a B test becomes invalid or that it means that the sample was not handled properly.

[/font][font=Verdana]The defendant (Heras) has as just as much time as the prosecution has to go over the science. He can request re-tests if he wants and provide counter analysis in an appeal. However we know and he knows that he doesn’t want to do that. The only precedent for false positives has been based upon athletes who record high readings for EPO in a urine test naturally. False positives for the EPO test have never been based upon handling procedures.

[/font][font=Verdana]The athlete has many rights during the testing procedure. You may ask why no athlete has ever overturned an EPO test based upon the handling and testing procedure ? Because they have Doctors and lawyers present and they sign a paper to confirm they saw the way the sample was stored. Any thing adverse during the testing should be brought to the attention of the UCI doctor at the time not after they return a positive !

[/font][font=Verdana]Final point to remember; An improperly handled urine sample does not ‘grow’ EPO within in its sample. It will degenerate and provides nothing, a negative. EPO only exists in the urine when the athlete has injected it. This is fact. Chose for yourself.[/font]
[/font]

DiabloScott said:

There were problems in the B test - I don't know if they disclosed what they were, but there was a flurry of announcements about some mysterious trouble that wouldn't affect the results and the B test had to be postponed by a couple days. I suspect Heras's lawyers will bring this up in subsequent proceedings.

And even if the procedures are followed perfectly that doesn't mean that the test is accurate. I think there's enough room in the science and the reviews that lawyers can at least present a case - especially about false positives. That of course doesn't mean any of the parties involved is going to be reversing any decisions, only that there will be more lawsuits and challenges.

I think the Armstrong case will die and go away - there's no way they're going to strip him of any titles or winnings so people will just stop caring. The insurance issue of getting his bonus from USPS/Disco may drag on for quite a while though as a contractual matter.

whiteboytrash said:

[font=Verdana][font=Verdana]Irrelevant argument. If it takes forensics a year to determine that a the bullet lodged in some guys head was the one from the gun in question then its permissible as evidence the same if it took one day to conclude. You’re still guilty. (this is often the case in all criminal trials).

[/font][font=Verdana]In fact the length of time for it took to conclude a positive test of both of Heras’s A and B sample will go in favour of the lab (prosecution) as they wanted to be absolutely sure without a shadow of doubt that EPO was present in the urine sample. This is actually a good thing. Time does not constitute that lab does not know what they are doing in constitutes that the want to be 100% right. No where in the regulations that says once the rider is informed of the positive A sample that there is a certain amount of time that passes before a B test becomes invalid or that it means that the sample was not handled properly.

[/font][font=Verdana]The defendant (Heras) has as just as much time as the prosecution has to go over the science. He can request re-tests if he wants and provide counter analysis in an appeal. However we know and he knows that he doesn’t want to do that. The only precedent for false positives has been based upon athletes who record high readings for EPO in a urine test naturally. False positives for the EPO test have never been based upon handling procedures.

[/font][font=Verdana]The athlete has many rights during the testing procedure. You may ask why no athlete has ever overturned an EPO test based upon the handling and testing procedure ? Because they have Doctors and lawyers present and they sign a paper to confirm they saw the way the sample was stored. Any thing adverse during the testing should be brought to the attention of the UCI doctor at the time not after they return a positive !

[/font][font=Verdana] Final point to remember; An improperly handled urine sample does not ‘grow’ EPO within in its sample. It will degenerate and provides nothing, a negative. EPO only exists in the urine when the athlete has injected it. This is fact. Chose for yourself. [/font]
[/font]

I can't quite follow what you're arguing here.

I wasn't saying the problems with Hera's test were an explanation or an exhoneration, only that the lawyers would try to use them to make this case drag out until no one has any money left to pay them. That's what lawyers do. You said there weren't any problems, I noted that there were. You say it was just time, I say I never heard exactly what caused the delay. You may be right about the time effect on the procedure, I know I'm right about lawyers.

I don't understand your "year, bullet, gun, permissible evidence" analogy at all - are you talking about Armstrong or Heras?

If Heras gets his verdict overturned, it'll be on a technicality - the case against him is pretty tight. But there's enough stuff surrounding the testing procedure and the science behind the test at least for his defense lawyers to put up a case. They don't need to know what the false positive rate is - they only need to show that the lab doesn't either - that's enough doubt right there to swing some jurors.

Concerning Armstrong: Nowhere in the regulations does it say that if your A sample is negative that your B sample can be handed off to a lab for research and those results can be used to hang you. The B sample is for the rider to protest a positive A sample. If your A sample is negative then your drug test is over and you pass. I have not heard anyone from UCI or ASO say that Armstrong should have his results changed because of this testing or any future testing - they'll say they believe the tests, they'll call him a cheat, but they recognize that they don't have any grounds legally to take any action. The motivation to defame Armstrong will gradually dwindle away and the money to do testing on the rest of his samples will find its calling elsewhere so the issue will die and we'll all find something else to talk about.

DiabloScott said:

The issue will die and we'll all find something else to talk about.

That's putting it nicely. 😄 😄

DiabloScott said:

I wasn't saying the problems with Hera's test were an explanation or an exhoneration, only that the lawyers would try to use them to make this case drag out until no one has any money left to pay them. That's what lawyers do. You said there weren't any problems, I noted that there were. You say it was just time, I say I never heard exactly what caused the delay. You may be right about the time effect on the procedure, I know I'm right about lawyers.

From CyclingNews.com:

His lawyer, Jose Maria Buxeda, said that he will argue that the EPO test is unreliable and that there were up to eight procedural errors in Heras' test, rendering it invalid.

See - I told ya.

DiabloScott said:

From CyclingNews.com:

His lawyer, Jose Maria Buxeda, said that he will argue that the EPO test is unreliable and that there were up to eight procedural errors in Heras' test, rendering it invalid.

See - I told ya.

[font=Verdana]Like I said…. ‘technicalities’….. EPO test is good, result is correct but they are going for ‘procedural’ irregularities…..

Told you so......[/font]

Umm, WBT the lawyer is also arguing that the test is [censored] too.............. which quite frankly it is (in the opinion of a scientist) as it will only be able to give a true positive on the most clear cut cases which is never going to happen unless the riders have [censored] doctors who don't know how too do the EPO properly.

Eldrack said:

Umm, WBT the lawyer is also arguing that the test is [censored] too.............. which quite frankly it is (in the opinion of a scientist) as it will only be able to give a true positive on the most clear cut cases which is never going to happen unless the riders have [censored] doctors who don't know how too do the EPO properly.

Why throw out the baby with the bath water?
At least this test will pick up the odd doper and there isn't another option at this time for a more sensitive Eop test.

[font=Verdana]This has a familiar ring to it... [/font][font=Times New Roman] [/font]

bobke said:

Ummmm...the infallible papacy of doping testing is yet again having trouble with figuring out who's on first.

Roberto's B sample testing, which was performed this week or today and was to be released today has been delayed.
The reason?
Technical problems with the test.
They have to do "further testing" on the sample.

Hmmmm...
now if it comes back positive Heras will have all the chance in the world to protest.
If the test is reliable and accurate, there should be no such problems...
unless of course the "problem" (he he 🙂 is that the lab forgot to spike the sample with EPO like they did the A sample, and oh yeah, Lance's 99 EPO TdF samples too.

This whole thing stinks!!!!!!!!