Good News For Armstrong

From Cycling News:

Rogge wants new investigation into Armstrong
IOC chairman Jacques Rogge wants a new investigation in the Armstrong case
to conclusively determine if he used doping substances or not. With this,
Rogge wants to end the fighting between the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA)
and the International Cycling Union (UCI). On top of that, two IOC members
have also asked for a sanction against the WADA lab that analysed
Armstrong's samples.

Jacques Rogge is tired of the quarrelling between the UCI, WADA and the IOC
and shared his opinion with a journalist from Belgian Newspaper De Morgen.
"We have to respect the assumption of innocence. It's not up to the athlete
to prove he's not guilty, it is up to the sporting bodies to prove that he
is. I'm in favour of a thorough independent investigation, accepted by all
parties," the IOC boss said. "The IOC wants to retro-actively have the urine
samples examined but first WADA has to determine the procedures to do this.
Only then the discussion will stop."

B. Lafferty wrote:
From Cycling News:

Rogge wants new investigation into Armstrong
IOC chairman Jacques Rogge wants a new investigation in the Armstrong case
to conclusively determine if he used doping substances or not. With this,
Rogge wants to end the fighting between the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA)
and the International Cycling Union (UCI). On top of that, two IOC members
have also asked for a sanction against the WADA lab that analysed
Armstrong's samples.

Jacques Rogge is tired of the quarrelling between the UCI, WADA and the IOC
and shared his opinion with a journalist from Belgian Newspaper De Morgen.
"We have to respect the assumption of innocence. It's not up to the athlete
to prove he's not guilty, it is up to the sporting bodies to prove that he
is. I'm in favour of a thorough independent investigation, accepted by all
parties," the IOC boss said. "The IOC wants to retro-actively have the urine
samples examined but first WADA has to determine the procedures to do this.
Only then the discussion will stop."

This paragraph is self cotradictory and highlights the exact problem
he

I'm in favour of a thorough independent investigation, accepted by all

parties," the IOC boss said. "The IOC wants to retro-actively have the
urine
samples examined but first WADA has to determine the procedures to do
this.
Only then the discussion will stop."
end quote

How can it be independent if Wada is determining and designing the
procedures to be used in the investigation when Wada's procedures and
policies are a serious part of the questions being raised? This needs
to be farmed out to several university research departments for
independent totally disconnected research and testing on the tests
themselves, the validity of testing for old frozen samples, and just
what the limits and error rates for these tests are.
Wada has provided what I consider to be a solid theoretical procedure
that needs further research and confirmation in these exact
applications from other sources to verify the testing, and to find it's
limits before we start taking people's careers away for a minimum of 2
years.
I have zero faith in any of these groups to investigate themselves and
reach honest conclusions. There have been way too many incidents in the
past that would seem to indicate that they either can't, or won't be
objective in cleaning up their own houses and will be seeking a
whitewash.
This seems to me to be nothing more than an attempt to stop the bad PR
they are all getting and not much more.
Bill C

"Bill C" wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
From Cycling News:

Rogge wants new investigation into Armstrong
IOC chairman Jacques Rogge wants a new investigation in the Armstrong
case
to conclusively determine if he used doping substances or not. With this,
Rogge wants to end the fighting between the World Anti Doping Agency
(WADA)
and the International Cycling Union (UCI). On top of that, two IOC
members
have also asked for a sanction against the WADA lab that analysed
Armstrong's samples.

Jacques Rogge is tired of the quarrelling between the UCI, WADA and the
IOC
and shared his opinion with a journalist from Belgian Newspaper De
Morgen.
"We have to respect the assumption of innocence. It's not up to the
athlete
to prove he's not guilty, it is up to the sporting bodies to prove that
he
is. I'm in favour of a thorough independent investigation, accepted by
all
parties," the IOC boss said. "The IOC wants to retro-actively have the
urine
samples examined but first WADA has to determine the procedures to do
this.
Only then the discussion will stop."

This paragraph is self cotradictory and highlights the exact problem
he

I'm in favour of a thorough independent investigation, accepted by all

parties," the IOC boss said. "The IOC wants to retro-actively have the
urine
samples examined but first WADA has to determine the procedures to do
this.
Only then the discussion will stop."
end quote

How can it be independent if Wada is determining and designing the
procedures to be used in the investigation when Wada's procedures and
policies are a serious part of the questions being raised? This needs
to be farmed out to several university research departments for
independent totally disconnected research and testing on the tests
themselves, the validity of testing for old frozen samples, and just
what the limits and error rates for these tests are.
Wada has provided what I consider to be a solid theoretical procedure
that needs further research and confirmation in these exact
applications from other sources to verify the testing, and to find it's
limits before we start taking people's careers away for a minimum of 2
years.
I have zero faith in any of these groups to investigate themselves and
reach honest conclusions. There have been way too many incidents in the
past that would seem to indicate that they either can't, or won't be
objective in cleaning up their own houses and will be seeking a
whitewash.
This seems to me to be nothing more than an attempt to stop the bad PR
they are all getting and not much more.
Bill C


Bill, WADA is being asked to set the standards for testing the B samples as
they set the standards for all testing. That is to say, they will set the
procedure in consultation with their stakeholders. Once that is done, an
EPO test to be used will be agreed upon and, presumably, a UCI/WADA
accredited lab will do all the testing. I'm certain there will be
consultations with some of the University professors you'd like to see
involved. Perhaps it will be the three methodology test used by the French
lab, perhaps not. The bottom line is that Rogge has called for finding out
the truth about Armstrong and the others who came up positive that L'Equipe
and the other French paper discovered. The focus really needs, IMO, to be
on the substance of the tests as opposed to getting the leaker(s). If this
process is done openly with the UCI and riders representative present, it
should clear any cloud of an alleged French conspiracy. Do you think
Armstrong and the others will go along with such testing?

B. Lafferty wrote:
"Bill C" wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
From Cycling News:

Rogge wants new investigation into Armstrong
IOC chairman Jacques Rogge wants a new investigation in the Armstrong
case
to conclusively determine if he used doping substances or not. With this,
Rogge wants to end the fighting between the World Anti Doping Agency
(WADA)
and the International Cycling Union (UCI). On top of that, two IOC
members
have also asked for a sanction against the WADA lab that analysed
Armstrong's samples.

Jacques Rogge is tired of the quarrelling between the UCI, WADA and the
IOC
and shared his opinion with a journalist from Belgian Newspaper De
Morgen.
"We have to respect the assumption of innocence. It's not up to the
athlete
to prove he's not guilty, it is up to the sporting bodies to prove that
he
is. I'm in favour of a thorough independent investigation, accepted by
all
parties," the IOC boss said. "The IOC wants to retro-actively have the
urine
samples examined but first WADA has to determine the procedures to do
this.
Only then the discussion will stop."

This paragraph is self cotradictory and highlights the exact problem
he

I'm in favour of a thorough independent investigation, accepted by all

parties," the IOC boss said. "The IOC wants to retro-actively have the
urine
samples examined but first WADA has to determine the procedures to do
this.
Only then the discussion will stop."
end quote

How can it be independent if Wada is determining and designing the
procedures to be used in the investigation when Wada's procedures and
policies are a serious part of the questions being raised? This needs
to be farmed out to several university research departments for
independent totally disconnected research and testing on the tests
themselves, the validity of testing for old frozen samples, and just
what the limits and error rates for these tests are.
Wada has provided what I consider to be a solid theoretical procedure
that needs further research and confirmation in these exact
applications from other sources to verify the testing, and to find it's
limits before we start taking people's careers away for a minimum of 2
years.
I have zero faith in any of these groups to investigate themselves and
reach honest conclusions. There have been way too many incidents in the
past that would seem to indicate that they either can't, or won't be
objective in cleaning up their own houses and will be seeking a
whitewash.
This seems to me to be nothing more than an attempt to stop the bad PR
they are all getting and not much more.
Bill C


Bill, WADA is being asked to set the standards for testing the B samples as
they set the standards for all testing. That is to say, they will set the
procedure in consultation with their stakeholders. Once that is done, an
EPO test to be used will be agreed upon and, presumably, a UCI/WADA
accredited lab will do all the testing. I'm certain there will be
consultations with some of the University professors you'd like to see
involved. Perhaps it will be the three methodology test used by the French
lab, perhaps not. The bottom line is that Rogge has called for finding out
the truth about Armstrong and the others who came up positive that L'Equipe
and the other French paper discovered. The focus really needs, IMO, to be
on the substance of the tests as opposed to getting the leaker(s). If this
process is done openly with the UCI and riders representative present, it
should clear any cloud of an alleged French conspiracy. Do you think
Armstrong and the others will go along with such testing?

I don't think they will, and they have the excuse of using the fact
that Wada which has been terrible will be calling the shots on it
again. This gives them a very valid reason to refuse to cooperate. Wada
has created such huge questions about their objectivity, reliability,
and honesty that THEY can't lead the charge to clean this up without
first reestablishing some credibility.
I'm with you 100% on the idea of this happening, but we don't even
know if it's possible to do this accurately and I'm not willing to take
anything Wada and the labs it certifies as reliable and accurate.
Just who leaked this **** is immaterial, what is material is that the
system off justice in the sport has HUGE problems from one end to the
other, and is refusing to address them in any meaningful way.
First the testing methods need to be independently validated for the
purposes in which they are being used, the limits of reliable,
reproducible reasults need to be found, mitigating/contaminating
factors need to be identified and procedures to deal with them
incorporated before we even beging retesting what are a limited amount
of samples. I DO NOT want to see the remaining samples destroyed by
being used in a questionable manner of testing. If they are we'll be in
exactly the same place we are now with no way to go back and find out
the truth.
They rushed these tests into use before they were thoroughly tested,
and certified questionable methodology to get results as fast as
possible, and you know as well as I do that when you rush **** that's
this complex and sensitive there are going to be major problems most of
the time. There are this time and rather than try to deal with them
honestly they are all finger pointing and denying the problems. This
kills any crediblity they did have.
THEY have to be above reproach, both ethically and technically for any
of this to be credible. I think people would cut them some slack if
they had been seen to be making every effort to be as reliable,
responsible, and open as they could. Instead they have done NONE of
that and gone with the "We're right and know it, so shut the **** up"
route. They've gone the spinmeister route and are ignoring or working
to discredit anyone who has valid questions. This doesn't make me have
much faith in them.
Until they get their act together I'm firmly on the riders side.
Justice perverted, is justice denied, and it's being badly perverted by
the people responsible for dispensing it.
Bill C

In article
,
"B. Lafferty" wrote:

From Cycling News:

Rogge wants new investigation into Armstrong
IOC chairman Jacques Rogge wants a new investigation in the Armstrong case
to conclusively determine if he used doping substances or not. With this,
Rogge wants to end the fighting between the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA)
and the International Cycling Union (UCI). On top of that, two IOC members
have also asked for a sanction against the WADA lab that analysed
Armstrong's samples.

Jacques Rogge is tired of the quarrelling between the UCI, WADA and the IOC
and shared his opinion with a journalist from Belgian Newspaper De Morgen.
"We have to respect the assumption of innocence. It's not up to the athlete
to prove he's not guilty, it is up to the sporting bodies to prove that he
is. I'm in favour of a thorough independent investigation, accepted by all
parties," the IOC boss said. "The IOC wants to retro-actively have the urine
samples examined but first WADA has to determine the procedures to do this.
Only then the discussion will stop."

Rogge sees a party going on and wants in.

--
Michael Press

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...

Do you think Armstrong and the others will go along with such testing?

Given the serious questions that have been raised about the EPO test, only a
fool would submit to any testing that wasn't required of them.

Andy Coggan (who is thankful to be off USADA's radar)

"Andy Coggan" wrote in message
nk.net...
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...

Do you think Armstrong and the others will go along with such testing?

Given the serious questions that have been raised about the EPO test, only
a fool would submit to any testing that wasn't required of them.

Andy Coggan (who is thankful to be off USADA's radar)

Well, we've been around a few times on that one. As to being required,
recall that Armstrong has stated that his urine should be stored and tested
by new technology as it develops. IIRC, the UCI warned that samples were
being frozen for possible future testing. Given that the samples are the
property of the UCI, the riders may not have any choice in the matter.

Any positives found now would probably not lead to a sanction. We'd simply
know many more of the peloton liars. Six positives in 1999 + the
revelations of former employees and teammates with more to come. I wonder
who the other 35 or so from 1999 are. And then there's 1998..........

B. Lafferty wrote:
"Andy Coggan" wrote in message
nk.net...
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...

Do you think Armstrong and the others will go along with such testing?

Given the serious questions that have been raised about the EPO test, only
a fool would submit to any testing that wasn't required of them.

Andy Coggan (who is thankful to be off USADA's radar)

Well, we've been around a few times on that one. As to being required,
recall that Armstrong has stated that his urine should be stored and tested
by new technology as it develops. IIRC, the UCI warned that samples were
being frozen for possible future testing. Given that the samples are the
property of the UCI, the riders may not have any choice in the matter.

Any positives found now would probably not lead to a sanction. We'd simply
know many more of the peloton liars. Six positives in 1999 + the
revelations of former employees and teammates with more to come. I wonder
who the other 35 or so from 1999 are. And then there's 1998..........

Brian how the **** can you continue to use a seriously flawed test,
and system
as evidence of anything?!! I KNOW you want them to be found guilty, but
let's get it done in something resembling a reliable form.
**** the Patriot Act is more fair than this ****! Let's have some REAL
results and decisions, not rigged BS. This is where you make me crazy.
You are so concious of the rights of the accused and due process in 90%
of the situations, and I agree, then you go off and discard all of it.
If the Bushies had done anything even approaching this level of BS
you'd be screaming. There was more reliable evidence for WMD in Iraq
than is being created by WADA now, and they are just as arrogant about
the results. You are, rightly, raising hell about one but defending
another. That doesn't do you justice.
Bill C

"Bill C" wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
"Andy Coggan" wrote in message
nk.net...
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...

Do you think Armstrong and the others will go along with such testing?

Given the serious questions that have been raised about the EPO test,
only
a fool would submit to any testing that wasn't required of them.

Andy Coggan (who is thankful to be off USADA's radar)

Well, we've been around a few times on that one. As to being required,
recall that Armstrong has stated that his urine should be stored and
tested
by new technology as it develops. IIRC, the UCI warned that samples were
being frozen for possible future testing. Given that the samples are the
property of the UCI, the riders may not have any choice in the matter.

Any positives found now would probably not lead to a sanction. We'd
simply
know many more of the peloton liars. Six positives in 1999 + the
revelations of former employees and teammates with more to come. I
wonder
who the other 35 or so from 1999 are. And then there's 1998..........

Brian how the **** can you continue to use a seriously flawed test,
and system
as evidence of anything?!! I KNOW you want them to be found guilty, but
let's get it done in something resembling a reliable form.
**** the Patriot Act is more fair than this ****! Let's have some REAL
results and decisions, not rigged BS. This is where you make me crazy.
You are so concious of the rights of the accused and due process in 90%
of the situations, and I agree, then you go off and discard all of it.
If the Bushies had done anything even approaching this level of BS
you'd be screaming. There was more reliable evidence for WMD in Iraq
than is being created by WADA now, and they are just as arrogant about
the results. You are, rightly, raising hell about one but defending
another. That doesn't do you justice.
Bill C

The research done by the Châtenay-Malabry did not simply rely on the test in
use by WADA. It used three methodologies and only if the three came
positive was a positive finding made. No one has far, to my knowledge,
shown that the results of this research is riddled with false positives.
Doctor Christiane Ayotte of the WADA lab in Montreal has stated that she has
no doubt that Châtenay-Malabry found EPO. Her criticism centered on the
ethics of the results becoming known. Further, Dr Iñigo Mujika noted in
his report on problems relating to urinary protein content for the current
WADA test (not the research being done by the Paris lab), "In view of the
efforts of the different accredited laboratories (particularly those of
Châtenay-Malabry in the outskirts of Paris, Oslo and Barcelona) to eliminate
proteins not related with EPO present in the urine samples, particularly
after intense exercise performed in competition, it is clear that those in
charge of the application of the urinary rEPO detection test are fully aware
of the fact that there is a lack of specificity problem with the test in
urine samples with a high protein content."

Does Armstrong's urine have the excess protein of a Rutger Beke. Probably
not, as he never failed a drug test for EPO.

I think Bill that you have a suspicion of all authority bordering on
paranoia. Be critical and cynical, but don't simply refuse to accept
anything that those in authority do--particularly if it involves Dick Pound
and WADA. It isn't as black and white as that.

B. Lafferty wrote:

Any positives found now would probably not lead to a sanction. We'd simply
know many more of the peloton liars. Six positives in 1999 + the
revelations of former employees and teammates with more to come. I wonder
who the other 35 or so from 1999 are. And then there's 1998..........

Seriously? Does somebody have a freezer full of vintage 1998 urine
somewhere?