UCI Lawyer says Armstrong should be cleared of EPO accusation!!

[wolfix]

Interesting thought .........Setting aside the 1999 situation, what explains Armstrong winning the rest of the TDF's when he was tested regularly and the tests were in place?

He got better over the years and was a marked man. {JU gave him a run one year] And we know the doping controls would have been more aggressive. But he continued the run of victories. And except for retirement, he would be favored this year also.

 

[rejobako]

They criticize the procedure, WADA, L'Equipe, the French etc but NOT the validity of the results...

Respectfully, that's a bit of doublespeak there. If the procedures are not followed for storage and sample integrity, etc., the results cannot be presumed to be valid. You're suggesting that the only thing that matters is the conclusion. The old saying goes: garbage in, garbage out.

 

[House]

From the latest AP report, here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2464102
The report said tests on the samples were conducted improperly, and fell so short of scientific standards that it was "completely irresponsible" to suggest that the results "constitute evidence of anything."

It said no proper records were kept of the samples, there had been no "chain of custody" guaranteeing their integrity, and no way of knowing whether the samples had been "spiked" with banned substances
The report said WADA and the LNDD may have "behaved in ways that are completely inconsistent with the rules and regulations of international anti-doping control testing," and may also have been against the law. It accused WADA of putting pressure on the LNDD to summarize the results of the tests, and said both agencies violated rules of confidentiality by openly discussing them.

It said neither Armstrong nor any of the other riders that were tested retroactively could fairly be accused of violating anti-doping regulations based on the LNDD's examination.

 

[doctorSpoc]

Interesting thought .........Setting aside the 1999 situation, what explains Armstrong winning the rest of the TDF's when he was tested regularly and the tests were in place?

He got better over the years and was a marked man. {JU gave him a run one year] And we know the doping controls would have been more aggressive. But he continued the run of victories. And except for retirement, he would be favored this year also.

scroll up..

how about auto blood transfusion, Perfloro carbons, Hemopure, Oxyglobin and Hemassist... etc, etc...? get a clue!!! EPO is old school... Armstrong can afford much better than that...

have you read a paper in the last few days with the spanish auto blood tranfusions scandle??

[edit] the above are undetectable or vastly less detecatable than EPO and more effective
USPS also was linked to Actovegin (calves blood)
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/2001/02/14/ioc_actovegin_ap/

 

[saluki]

OK I'm not a biochemist and it's been a while since I read about the test but I'll give you my overview and somebody else can fill the gaps.
They don't detect the substance EPO in the urine. They detect substances (and I think a ratio of substances) that are indicative of synthetic EPO but not EPO itself. Obviously if you take a needle and put EPO in a sample you destroy it in the sense that everybody with half a brain will realise that the sample has been tampered with. Nobody claimed such to be the case here. Not even Armstrong. Read all the statements again. They criticize the procedure, WADA, L'Equipe, the French etc but NOT the validity of the results...

I don't have half a brain, so you will have to help me. Why would someone know that a sample had EPO introduced with a needle or with some other method. Are you saying that the original sample contains no EPO, but simply the other substances that indicate EPO. Or are you saying that it contains both EPO and the other substances, but the EPO cannot be detected.

In any case, regarding the other substances, why could I not introduce them as well.

And if we are talking about tiny quantities being introduced, I could introduce a very small amount of EPO by diping a needle into EPO, shaking off all liquid and then diping it into the sample.

 

[DV1976]

Respectfully, that's a bit of doublespeak there. If the procedures are not followed for storage and sample integrity, etc., the results cannot be presumed to be valid. You're suggesting that the only thing that matters is the conclusion. The old saying goes: garbage in, garbage out.

As far as I know all proper procedures regarding storage and handling were followed . We have been through all this before. It's not a backyard Mexican lab making cheap steroids for BBers. It's a WADA accredited lab.
And you can't have 6 false negatives. It's statistically improbable.
Another important factor is that not all LA's samples were positive. If your theory was correct all should have been false positives. You can't have it both ways.

 

[limerickman]

I'm afraid not. You keep hanging your hat on the premise that the only way to screw with a sample is to add something to it. Not the case:

I'd appreciate it if you desisted from misquoting me.

What I stated was that synthetic EPO cannot be added to urine retrospectively.
If synthetic EPO was added to urine retrospectively - the sample would be destroyed and would be untestable.
That's what I said.

The science to back that conclusion up was validated/verified during the consultative process undertaken by WADA/C-M, during the clinical trials process, and was addressed before the test was accredited as being scientific and before it was used to test samples under WADA protocols.

You don't have to add anything to the sample to artificially create an environment for a false positive. Chain of custody is no "misnomer". It's critical to this case, and every case involving an accused faced with tangible evidence held against him. And as citizens of civilized societies, we should be thankful for it.

Hold up here.

The chain of custody argument is a misnomer.

Synthetic EPO cannot be added to the urine sample retrospectively.

The molecular content of the synthetic EPO differs to naturally occuring EPO.

In relation to the detection of EPO : there are three parameters that have to be attained.
1.percentage of isoforms present (indicating EPO use when present in values greater than 80 percent, with a margin of 5 percent).
2.Visual interpretation
3.Mathematical modelling.

Only samples that are deemed to be be positive under the three parameters, can designate a positive result for EPO per sample.

So in the case of Armstrong's six positive results for EPO : each result fulfilled the three parameters above.

 

[rejobako]

As far as I know all proper procedures regarding storage and handling were followed .

"As far as you know"? LOL. Unless you're the one and only omnipotent God, I'll have to defer to the conclusions of the independent investigator who stated unequivocally that the chain of custody could not be established. You cannot simply presume that proper procedures were followed, especially in light of the investigator's excoriating findings on the conduct of L'Equipe, WADA, etc., in obtaining and using the samples. Armstrong may be no angel, but you really want to presume that those jackals who were after him handled the samples properly? OK, but there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

 

[rejobako]

I'd appreciate it if you desisted from misquoting me.

And I'd appreciate it if you'd address the substantive content of my post:

naturally occurring proteins in the urine of athletes could register in the band associated with injected EPO and that the patterns could be distorted if the urine was not properly stored.

None of anything you posted addresses the fact that improper storage of a sample can create a false positive. And unless chain of custody can be established, you cannot presume that the samples were stored properly.

 

[wolfix]

yes he can and i'm sure he does.. just like everone else... i'm not as naive as some on this board... everyone on the top level is on something... c'mon... armstong won because of his dedication and training and single mindedness in winning the tour and the tour only... but there is just no way he could have won without PEDs given that everyone around him was doing it too... it's actually impossible. taking PEDs leveled the playing field.

You are probably correct on that.....

[BTW....Blood doping is nothing new. It is the old skool... Second after "speed" in the dating department.}

But the problem is that LA gets attacked on this forum for not being a champion. The word is that he cheats. And yet no one really challenges anyone else in cycling. It is very possible that if the blood of Pantani and JU was tested retroactively there may be the same results as Armstrongs. But these results were not part of a witch hunt. Their results were never "leaked." { I am only using these 2 riders as an example because they are well known.}

I have thought about cycling and the morality a lot the past few days..... Most cyclists tend to have double standards when it comes to their hero's. I include myself. I was a big Merckx fan growing up. But as I study the history of the sport I can see him for what he was. There is no doubt he was a riding speciman. But he was a bully and he cheated. If he competed today , he would have been expelled from the sport. So his wins are really tainted.

What makes him a champion and not Armstrong?

No one on here wants to deal with that. Merckx lives on "hallowed ground."

Look at what LA does in his own life. He is actively connected to the cancer world. And it is not just lip service. He has used his celebrity to raise untold millions to help others. Other athletes in this country respect him. And the champions in cycling do too. Basso/JU/Indurain and Merckx all say very positive things about him.

 

[saluki]

"As far as you know"? LOL. Unless you're the one and only omnipotent God, I'll have to defer to the conclusions of the independent investigator who stated unequivocally that the chain of custody could not be established. You cannot simply presume that proper procedures were followed, especially in light of the investigator's excoriating findings on the conduct of L'Equipe, WADA, etc., in obtaining and using the samples. Armstrong may be no angel, but you really want to presume that those jackals who were after him handled the samples properly? OK, but there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

The very fact that the chain of custody could not be established would seem to indicate that proceedures were not followed.

 

[limerickman]

"As far as you know"? LOL. Unless you're the one and only omnipotent God, I'll have to defer to the conclusions of the independent investigator who stated unequivocally that the chain of custody could not be established. You cannot simply presume that proper procedures were followed, especially in light of the investigator's excoriating findings on the conduct of L'Equipe, WADA, etc., in obtaining and using the samples. Armstrong may be no angel, but you really want to presume that those jackals who were after him handled the samples properly? OK, but there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

I refer you once again to the history of the retention of the samples.

Until the UCI signed up to the WADA protocols, the UCI retained responsibility for the storage of the samples.

On signing the protocols the samples came under the ambit of WADA in July
2004.

I suggest that you familiarise yourself with doping protocols and the jurisdiction and custody of samples before trying to impugn other posts contributions before commenting.
Neither Lance Armstrong or his legal team questioned the chain of custody when the results of the 6 separate positive results were published.
Nor did Armstrong request information as to the chain of custody.
Indeed, Armstrong acknowledged that the chain of custody issue would not prove that he did not dope.
.

 

[rejobako]

Another important factor is that not all LA's samples were positive. If your theory was correct all should have been false positives.

Only if you presume all of the samples were stored the same way and taken on the same date and time.

 

[limerickman]

None of anything you posted addresses the fact that improper storage of a sample can create a false positive. And unless chain of custody can be established, you cannot presume that the samples were stored properly.

All samples under WADA protocols are required to be stored under clinical conditions.

I have explained this to you three times today : I told you that these protocols were outlined/tested/verified/validated as part of the consultative process for the clinical testing of the EPO test.
I also told you that all sporting federations were allowed to examione/verify/validate those protocols during the consultative period.
And I also told you that the consultative period lasted between 18 -24 months.

I am not prepared to continuously repeat this issue.

Nor am I prepared to tolerate your deliberate misquoting me either.

 

[House]

I refer you once again to the history of the retention of the samples.

Until the UCI signed up to the WADA protocols, the UCI retained responsibility for the storage of the samples.

On signing the protocols the samples came under the ambit of WADA in July
2004.

I suggest that you familiarise yourself with doping protocols and the jurisdiction and custody of samples before trying to impugn other posts contributions before commenting.
Neither Lance Armstrong or his legal team questioned the chain of custody when the results of the 6 separate positive results were published.
Nor did Armstrong request information as to the chain of custody.
Indeed, Armstrong acknowledged that the chain of custody issue would not prove that he did not dope.
.

Typical creative memory of limrick.


1) Lance did question the CoC...as a matter of fact he did it on worldwide television, CNN

2) Missed this:

From the latest AP report, here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2464102
The report said tests on the samples were conducted improperly, and fell so short of scientific standards that it was "completely irresponsible" to suggest that the results "constitute evidence of anything."

It said no proper records were kept of the samples, there had been no "chain of custody" guaranteeing their integrity, and no way of knowing whether the samples had been "spiked" with banned substances
The report said WADA and the LNDD may have "behaved in ways that are completely inconsistent with the rules and regulations of international anti-doping control testing," and may also have been against the law. It accused WADA of putting pressure on the LNDD to summarize the results of the tests, and said both agencies violated rules of confidentiality by openly discussing them.

It said neither Armstrong nor any of the other riders that were tested retroactively could fairly be accused of violating anti-doping regulations based on the LNDD's examination.

3) I love how you make demands of proof for things and make statements without any proof as if they are fact.

 

[limerickman]

Only if you presume all of the samples were stored the same way and taken on the same date and time.

all samples were taken on the dates and times : Armstrong signed the sheets numbers 185 557, 160 297, 157 372, 185 479, 185 475, 186 397.
They're the six tests sheets with Armstrong's signature that were found to contain synthetic EPO.

 

[rejobako]

I suggest that you familiarise yourself with doping protocols and the jurisdiction and custody of samples before trying to impugn other posts contributions before commenting.
Neither Lance Armstrong or his legal team questioned the chain of custody when the results of the 6 separate positive results were published.
Nor did Armstrong request information as to the chain of custody.
Indeed, Armstrong acknowledged that the chain of custody issue would not prove that he did not dope.
.

And I suggest you read the quotations from Vrijman reported this morning regarding the samples. "There was no chain of custody guaranteeing their integrity". Whether Armstrong questioned the chain of custody at the outset is irrelevant, and you know it. He had no idea what happened to those samples after they left the tip of his penis, and Vrijman has concluded that no one else does either. So "familiarizing myself" with the protocols is kinda meaningless when no one can verify that they were followed.

But it's fun to watch you and a few others gnashing your teeth and repeating the "you can't add EPO retrospectively" mantra, which in this case is about as relevant as reciting your grocery list.

 

[DV1976]

"As far as you know"? LOL. Unless you're the one and only omnipotent God, I'll have to defer to the conclusions of the independent investigator who stated unequivocally that the chain of custody could not be established. You cannot simply presume that proper procedures were followed, especially in light of the investigator's excoriating findings on the conduct of L'Equipe, WADA, etc., in obtaining and using the samples. Armstrong may be no angel, but you really want to presume that those jackals who were after him handled the samples properly? OK, but there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

First of all he wasn't independent. He was hired by the UCI. That in my book hardly makes him independent.
Spare me the lecture about the conduct of WADA. There is no comparison between WADA and UCI.
No one has proved that proper procedures haven't been followed. And for me proper procedures mean two things.
1) Were the samples Armstrong's? By all accounts they were. Not even Armstrong claimed otherwise (how could he he gave the codes)
2) Were the tests accurate? By all accounts they were. Even UCI admitted it.
To me that's enough. The rest is lawyers talking...

 

[rejobako]

All samples under WADA protocols are required to be stored under clinical conditions.

Vrijman says no one can verify protocols were followed, or who had the samples when protocols should have been followed. What's your point?

 

[rejobako]

To me that's enough. The rest is lawyers talking...

I see nothing, I hear nothing . . . .