Armstrong: too good to be true?

[KrazyHorse]

This is why it's good that they go back and retest old samples with new tests. That way cheaters don't just have to fool the tests of today, but also the tests of the future

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
This is why it's good that they go back and retest old samples with new tests. That way cheaters don't just have to fool the tests of today, but also the tests of the future

You didn't read the article I posted, did you?

[KrazyHorse]

Uh...yes, I just did.

They've said that sometimes it degrades and sometimes some of it remains.

In this case, some remained.

What's your problem?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
This is why it's good that they go back and retest old samples with new tests. That way cheaters don't just have to fool the tests of today, but also the tests of the future

You know-- I am fine with the concept as long as

1. They keep sufficient samples so that retests are possible if someone gets a positive. I would hate for a false positive to ruin the career of an innocent. Once you get to one sample left, destroy it.

2. the samples do not degrade to materially affect the tests. What the Canadian researcher said was that a urine sample even at minus 20 will degrade in about 3 months such that EPO testing is not possible

If they want to test for things that were illegal at the time of the competition under those conditions, I would be fine with that.

If we could go back to the 1970s and 1980s Olympics I think we would see the east bloc losing a lot of medals

[Japher]

They've said that sometimes it degrades and sometimes some of it remains.

6 years is an awfully long time... even for a twinkie

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Japher


6 years is an awfully long time... even for a twinkie

and if I understand it , here they are looking for abnormally electrically charged "bits" within the sample

Oh and japher shouldn't you be off changing diapers??

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Flubber
2. the samples do not degrade to materially affect the tests. What the Canadian researcher said was that a urine sample even at minus 20 will degrade in about 3 months such that EPO testing is not possible

The director of the Châtenay-Malabry lab, where the EPO test was developed claims otherwise. From Boris' article:

"One of two things happens," De Ceaurriz said. "Either EPO, which is a protein, degrades as time passes and becomes undetectable. In that case we have a negative test result or, as in this case, the EPO persists as it is. We have therefore no doubt about the validity of our results."

[Japher]

Oh and japher shouldn't you be off changing diapers??

I'm at work.

here they are looking for abnormally electrically charged "bits" within the sample

Yeah, foreign particles are foreign particles. I wonder if his treatment for (or his having of) testicular cancer could be a sign?

[DanS]

And by then the top cheaters had probably moved on to EPO mk 2

Nothing more than a KH hunch.

[rah]

There's too many ifs and maybes here.
If there was another sample to test, I would feel more sure.

Like the football replay official. INCONCLUSIVE.

[chequita guevara]

I don't buy it.

[Japher]

They can't beat him now

They couldn't beat him then

So, they're trying to beat him then now

[Winston]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Winston:

While I understand your suspicion, I'm not sure I understand your giving up on a sport you apparently once liked quite alot. If you think all the top riders are juiced, wouldn't that just mean a level playing field where no one is really cheating vis-a-vis one another? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but cycling isn't like baseball where individual records keep going throughout the ages. They change the route of the Tour de France every year, so it's not like someone's total time is ever comparable to that of another year.

I personally think the 'level playing field' way of looking at it is ridiculous. It doesn't make any difference. They cheat, and the biggest cheater among the ones with some athletic ability to begin with, wins. Key word here is cheat. I don't like that. I especially don't like it when I start realising an entire sport is in on it - and the only suckers left are myself and all the other fans. Exit Winston, one sucker less.

For me, the suspicion started mounting about a year and a half after we had our own national winner of Tour de France, Bjarne Riis in 1996. He was a tremendous hero to virtually all of the population, until some doubts were starting to be raised - about his rapid ascent from a mediocre rider to the very peak of world cycling within just a couple of seasons. His association with doctors in the past who were now being exposed as suppliers of illegal substances. And so on, lots of revelations, but of course never any 100% conclusive incrimination. But he was off his pedestal, he remains off it, and he'll never come near it again. That's not just me, but the impression of a significant portion of the millions of people he cheated so massively a decade ago.

[rah]

You even said lots of revelations.

I don't think Lance is up to "lot's" of revelations, and until there are, should be given the benifit of the doubt.

And I don't go along with that level field thingie either.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


The director of the Châtenay-Malabry lab, where the EPO test was developed claims otherwise. From Boris' article:

"One of two things happens," De Ceaurriz said. "Either EPO, which is a protein, degrades as time passes and becomes undetectable. In that case we have a negative test result or, as in this case, the EPO persists as it is. We have therefore no doubt about the validity of our results."

Yup -- I saw that-- I also saw the bit where the Canadian said samples degrade inside 3 MONTHS and the bit where they talked about more qualitative testing instead of quantitative. When I hear 'qualitative" I start thinking "subjective" and "figure skating judging"

So lets sum up

1. its some form of new testing-- I wonder did they do control tests with 6 year old urine (some with EPO and some not)

2."the Paris lab had created the model to allow the application of "qualitative rather than quantitative" standards when interpreting test results" -- this says to me that there isn't some absolute number

[SIZE=1]

"Ayotte noted that earlier standards had called for the application of a "hard-number" interpretation of results, meaning that if a certain percentage of isoforms were positively or negatively charged, a result would be deemed to be an indication of EPO use. Ayotte said research subsequent to the development of the test has suggested that testers understand the reasons behind the formation of positive and negative isoforms and "recognize the presence of distinct populations in a sample." "

3. the urine is 6 years old when previously it was thought impossible to have a usable sample after 3 months

4. The linkage to Armstrong is suspect given the source of such linkage

5. Someone somewhere has violtaed ethics in a big-time way


All that said, Armstrong may be dirty but this whole thing stinks