A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Comment on the Equipe accusation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 27th 05, 05:43 PM
Mad Dog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comment on the Equipe accusation

says...

Now I am not sure how to detect contamination.


Given the right standards, one could take a stab at it. For example, if the
original urine sample had been split into 3 subsamples (A, B and C) then an EPO
standard could have been spiked into sample C prior to freezing/storing and the
B and C could have been analyzed in the current "study". (A was used for
testing back in real time) Analyzing the spiked C sample would help understand
how the EPO degraded during the time it was stored frozen. Such an analysis
would not provide an unequivocal solution to the current dilemma - it would be a
starting point in a new validation.

Without a series of studies to validate the stability and fate of frozen/stored
urine samples for later analysis of EPO, the current results are quantitatively
meaningless. It is easy for people to say that any EPO measured/detected is
proof of guilt, but I would not expect that point of view to survive a critical
peer review.

Given that only one sample existed for each collection date and also that the
current study appears to be tilted heavily towards analyzing Armstrong's
samples, there apears to be a strong bias in the study design. This doesn't
look like medical research - it looks like a witch hunt. If the researchers
(and I use that label very loosely) wanted to perform valid science, then this
should have all been done much more openly so that PRIOR to sample analysis,
WADA could have been involved in the insurance of proper chain of custody and in
the prohibition of contamination. Also, all pro riders who provided samples
should have been notified in advance that their aged, frozen ratainer samples
were about to be thawed and analyzed.

The design of the WADA-sanctioned EPO test has an A and B sample precisely to
avoid the issue we are faced with at this point in time. Lafferty wants to
trumpet the precident of re-analyzing the remainder of a recently analyzed
subsample (supposedly in this case inventing a surrogate A from residual B) but
what that accomplishes is to ignore the reason for having redundant subsamples
sealed immediately after collection.

Justification for violating scientific protocol by biased lawyers is nothing new
- it happens all the time and has resulted in the formation of tribunals in
Europe that oversee patent litigation, etc. The members of the tribunals are
educated and experienced scientists.

Ads
  #12  
Old August 27th 05, 06:04 PM
D. Ferguson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comment on the Equipe accusation

On 27 Aug 2005 06:29:52 -0700, "Perry"
wrote:

Some pro-Lance posters maintain that, yes, he could have been 'cured'
of testicular cancer with chemo because this type of cancer is
'primitive' and very 'susceptible to chemotherapy.'

THE POINT IS, however, Lance the spinmeister sez his cancer had spread
to his lungs and brain(!) THESE types of metastatic malignancies ARE
NOT 'primitive' and are not easily cured by chemo.

THIS IS THE POINT most doubters make.
And to date, no credible individual 'cured case' has come forward to
offer his- or herself as a parallel to Armstrong's claims.


Yeah, those big horseshoe scars in his head were fake.

Dumbass troll.
  #13  
Old August 27th 05, 07:12 PM
IMKen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comment on the Equipe accusation

Clearly this is a "Witch Hunt". If the tests were performed for research
then they would have used models injected with EPO, taken their urine and
then tested it. To perform research we have to have some known values. To
do it in a "Random Manor" would leave the research meaningless.

Ken


"Mad Dog" wrote in message
...
says...

Now I am not sure how to detect contamination.


Given the right standards, one could take a stab at it. For example, if
the
original urine sample had been split into 3 subsamples (A, B and C) then
an EPO
standard could have been spiked into sample C prior to freezing/storing
and the
B and C could have been analyzed in the current "study". (A was used for
testing back in real time) Analyzing the spiked C sample would help
understand
how the EPO degraded during the time it was stored frozen. Such an
analysis
would not provide an unequivocal solution to the current dilemma - it
would be a
starting point in a new validation.

Without a series of studies to validate the stability and fate of
frozen/stored
urine samples for later analysis of EPO, the current results are
quantitatively
meaningless. It is easy for people to say that any EPO measured/detected
is
proof of guilt, but I would not expect that point of view to survive a
critical
peer review.

Given that only one sample existed for each collection date and also that
the
current study appears to be tilted heavily towards analyzing Armstrong's
samples, there apears to be a strong bias in the study design. This
doesn't
look like medical research - it looks like a witch hunt. If the
researchers
(and I use that label very loosely) wanted to perform valid science, then
this
should have all been done much more openly so that PRIOR to sample
analysis,
WADA could have been involved in the insurance of proper chain of custody
and in
the prohibition of contamination. Also, all pro riders who provided
samples
should have been notified in advance that their aged, frozen ratainer
samples
were about to be thawed and analyzed.

The design of the WADA-sanctioned EPO test has an A and B sample precisely
to
avoid the issue we are faced with at this point in time. Lafferty wants
to
trumpet the precident of re-analyzing the remainder of a recently analyzed
subsample (supposedly in this case inventing a surrogate A from residual
B) but
what that accomplishes is to ignore the reason for having redundant
subsamples
sealed immediately after collection.

Justification for violating scientific protocol by biased lawyers is
nothing new
- it happens all the time and has resulted in the formation of tribunals
in
Europe that oversee patent litigation, etc. The members of the tribunals
are
educated and experienced scientists.



  #14  
Old August 27th 05, 07:16 PM
B. Lafferty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comment on the Equipe accusation


"IMKen" wrote in message
...
Clearly this is a "Witch Hunt". If the tests were performed for research
then they would have used models injected with EPO, taken their urine and
then tested it. To perform research we have to have some known values.
To do it in a "Random Manor" would leave the research meaningless.

Ken


Don't you mean Wizard Hunt? Looks like the caught the whizzing Wizard.


  #15  
Old August 27th 05, 07:52 PM
Mad Dog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comment on the Equipe accusation

B. Lafferty says...

IMKen wrote...


Clearly this is a "Witch Hunt". If the tests were performed for research
then they would have used models injected with EPO, taken their urine and
then tested it. To perform research we have to have some known values.
To do it in a "Random Manor" would leave the research meaningless.


Don't you mean Wizard Hunt? Looks like the caught the whizzing Wizard.


Confusious say: "Easy to find what one looks hard enough for - even if not there
in first place."

  #16  
Old August 27th 05, 11:53 PM
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comment on the Equipe accusation

Montesquiou wrote in message
...

"DepartFictif" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
besides.. using the same sample to do a B test is insane.. if it has
been tampered with, then what the **** is the point of having an A and
B test? It isn't only against possible errors by the lab that there
are A and B test, but also due to mix-ups, sabotage etc etc.. how on
earth can you claim that you can use the same sample to do both and A
and B test!!! (it's not a question)


The question is the following :

Did Lance used drog for to win the 1999 TDF ?

If according the result of the Lab he used EPO, no doubt about it : he is
a liar and a dishonest.


Maybe you ought to look at those results a little closer. I believe that
Lance was tested every day after the Seistrierre stage (9th is memory
serves).

Why would he test positive on stages 9 and 10 and not 11? then 12 and 13 and
no others after that? There was also the critical TT at Futuroscope for the
19th stage.

Why, of course there is that latest study which demonstrated that the test
for EPO isn't selective enough. It shows several different proteins that
aren't connected to EPO and are generated in the body during exercise
stress.

Then of course there is the other point - EPO doesn't cause the body to
instantly make more blood cells. It works over time. Taking EPO DURING the
Tour probably wouldn't be a particularly good idea completely aside the fact
that he could have overshot and been caught with high hc.
..


  #17  
Old August 28th 05, 12:46 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comment on the Equipe accusation


"Tom Kunich" a écrit dans le message de news:
t...
Montesquiou wrote in message
...

"DepartFictif" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
besides.. using the same sample to do a B test is insane.. if it has
been tampered with, then what the **** is the point of having an A and
B test? It isn't only against possible errors by the lab that there
are A and B test, but also due to mix-ups, sabotage etc etc.. how on
earth can you claim that you can use the same sample to do both and A
and B test!!! (it's not a question)


The question is the following :

Did Lance used drog for to win the 1999 TDF ?

If according the result of the Lab he used EPO, no doubt about it : he is
a liar and a dishonest.


Maybe you ought to look at those results a little closer. I believe that
Lance was tested every day after the Seistrierre stage (9th is memory
serves).

Why would he test positive on stages 9 and 10 and not 11? then 12 and 13
and no others after that?


I am not competent for to do a correct and clear analyse of the results as
published by L 'Equipe.
My impression is that we note a climax (Level 96.6 stage 9) then a decrease
on the following day (Level 88.7 stage 10).
What the level of EPO who can be detected ? I don't know.
Had the Lab done a test on a all the Lance's sample or just in some by
randomic choice ? I don't know.

Important to remember that the Lab had just as reference an arcane Nber (
185 557 for the stage 9) and the focus was not to analyse Lance Armstrong.

I don't know if you have a copy of the l'Equipe; There is in the edition 3
copy picture of the lab document.
Do you know if there is a reproduction of l"Equipe page 2 ? Because if you
have not this picture it will be difficult to explain.



There was also the critical TT at Futuroscope for the
19th stage.

Why, of course there is that latest study which demonstrated that the test
for EPO isn't selective enough. It shows several different proteins that
aren't connected to EPO and are generated in the body during exercise
stress.

Then of course there is the other point - EPO doesn't cause the body to
instantly make more blood cells. It works over time. Taking EPO DURING the
Tour probably wouldn't be a particularly good idea completely aside the
fact that he could have overshot and been caught with high hc.
.




  #18  
Old August 28th 05, 04:41 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comment on the Equipe accusation

A DNA test would show if the sample was indeed Lance's

  #19  
Old August 28th 05, 05:06 AM
Sir Topham Hatt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comment on the Equipe accusation

Who says the lab tested every one of Lance's sample? Lance use this same
argument on Larry King Live, "What about the other 17 samples I gave during that
tour?", blah, blah, blah... "why didn't those samples come up positive?"

Hey Lance u dumbass, its because the lab did not test all of your samples?
I stand corrected if someone can point out if every sample on file was tested
during the so called research...

BTW
Who is less useful than Larry King ?

"Tom Kunich" wrote:

Montesquiou wrote in message
.. .

"DepartFictif" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
besides.. using the same sample to do a B test is insane.. if it has
been tampered with, then what the **** is the point of having an A and
B test? It isn't only against possible errors by the lab that there
are A and B test, but also due to mix-ups, sabotage etc etc.. how on
earth can you claim that you can use the same sample to do both and A
and B test!!! (it's not a question)


The question is the following :

Did Lance used drog for to win the 1999 TDF ?

If according the result of the Lab he used EPO, no doubt about it : he is
a liar and a dishonest.


Maybe you ought to look at those results a little closer. I believe that
Lance was tested every day after the Seistrierre stage (9th is memory
serves).

Why would he test positive on stages 9 and 10 and not 11? then 12 and 13 and
no others after that? There was also the critical TT at Futuroscope for the
19th stage.

Why, of course there is that latest study which demonstrated that the test
for EPO isn't selective enough. It shows several different proteins that
aren't connected to EPO and are generated in the body during exercise
stress.

Then of course there is the other point - EPO doesn't cause the body to
instantly make more blood cells. It works over time. Taking EPO DURING the
Tour probably wouldn't be a particularly good idea completely aside the fact
that he could have overshot and been caught with high hc.
.


  #20  
Old August 28th 05, 06:18 AM
Benjamin Werner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comment on the Equipe accusation

IMKen a écrit :
Clearly this is a "Witch Hunt". If the tests were performed for research
then they would have used models injected with EPO, taken their urine and
then tested it. To perform research we have to have some known values. To
do it in a "Random Manor" would leave the research meaningless.


Sigh. It was already said that WADA wanted the research done to learn to
what extent the riders had changed their behavior. The research was not
about the testing technique but about human behavior. You can believe
this or not, but it sure is rational.


B
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What stem for Easton EC90 Equipe bar? GT Techniques 3 May 17th 05 01:58 PM
Time Equipe Cleats (pre-Impacy models) Philip W. Moore, Jr. Marketplace 0 October 26th 04 10:06 PM
Need some Time Equipe Profil Shoes Philip W. Moore, Jr. Racing 1 October 11th 04 01:05 PM
FS: Time Equipe Pro CX road shoes, 42.5 Eric Harvey Marketplace 0 December 30th 03 08:43 PM
FS: Time Equipe Pro CX shoes, 42.5 Eric Harvey Marketplace 0 December 27th 03 01:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.