Context for TdS debacle
Mike Jacoubowsky
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-lab-director-confirms-meeting-bruyneel-and-armstrong-over-suspect-samples
So here's what we know-
#1: There was never a "positive" test to cover up in the first place. It was
a "suspicious" test with a reading of between 70-80% (percent of what I'm
not sure). To be "positive" it would have had to have been 85%. At that
time, the EPO testing was not solid enough to rule out natural means of
producing a positive result, thus the high threshold.
#2: There was no "special" meeting, according to Saugy, the person involved
who now happens to be the head of the lab in Lausanne. "And it also wasn't
about discussing a particular result or to cover up anything. I explained
how the EPO test worked and why there were suspect samples as well as
positive ones. This information was part of a lecture that I had been giving
in various locations." Saugy apparently had many meetings with many
teams/riders letting people know what the process was, how the testing
worked, etc. Yes, we can ascribe evil motivations to that, but seriously, if
your career was on the line based upon some new test, wouldn't you want to
know something about it, especially since there would be some concern
regarding false positives?
Within this context, it is entirely reasonable that Lance was not concerned
about the tests, whether he was doping or not. He had no reason to be
concerned. He had a suspicious test that was below the level of a positive,
and the process had been explained not just to Lance but other people as
well.
Of course, the 60 minutes interview put huge weight on Tyler's inference
that Lance made a positive test go away.
If you accept that Saugy is telling the truth, you come away not with the
idea that Tyler is lying, but that he completely misunderstood. He made
assumptions that were reasonable within his own framework, but that's all.
Assumptions that turn out to be falso.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Jimmy July
These are just facts, they will have no effect on Anton's opinions.
dave a
and that's a fact.
ilan
wrote:
> Good reading here-http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-lab-director-confirms-meeting-b...
It also confirms what I was saying, that the EPO test has a subjective
element.
-ilan
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:d7503843-fbb7-4394...@x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
It also confirms what I was saying, that the EPO test has a subjective
element.
-ilan
======
That was then, this is now. Today we have a number of different ways to look
at whether someone is excessively doping or not. And that's what it is...
we're testing, realistically, for "excessive" doping. We're putting up
limits that allow someone to dope to a certain level and tacitly saying
that's OK, because there's probably no other way to run things without the
likelihood of innocent people getting caught. People getting caught now have
simply screwed up or are just plain stupid. We see unbelievable rides and,
in the back of our minds, wonder if that's really possible without being
doped to the gills... and a few days later, we discover that it's not. It
doesn't mean everyone else is clean though. Just much-better managed. Some
are clean, perhaps many are clean, could even be most, as the doping
controls become a bit tighter over time, lowering the advantage of, dare I
say, "legal" doping over someone who's racing clean.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
ilan
wrote:
> "ilan" <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
When two labs decide that Iban Mayo's sample is inconclusive and one
that it indicates doping, I call that subjective. When only the doping
lab's opinion is taken into account, I call that injustice. That all
happened long after the supposed Tour de Suisse affair.
-ilan
Mike Jacoubowsky
> look
> at whether someone is excessively doping or not. And that's what it is...
> we're testing, realistically, for "excessive" doping. We're putting up
> limits that allow someone to dope to a certain level and tacitly saying
> that's OK, because there's probably no other way to run things without the
> likelihood of innocent people getting caught. People getting caught now
> have
> simply screwed up or are just plain stupid. We see unbelievable rides and,
> in the back of our minds, wonder if that's really possible without being
> doped to the gills... and a few days later, we discover that it's not. It
> doesn't mean everyone else is clean though. Just much-better managed. Some
> are clean, perhaps many are clean, could even be most, as the doping
> controls become a bit tighter over time, lowering the advantage of, dare I
> say, "legal" doping over someone who's racing clean.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
When two labs decide that Iban Mayo's sample is inconclusive and one
that it indicates doping, I call that subjective. When only the doping
lab's opinion is taken into account, I call that injustice. That all
happened long after the supposed Tour de Suisse affair.
-ilan
=====
What happened to Mayo was absurd. You had the Spanish federation doing their
usual thing (protecting their own) and then a comedy of screw-ups and
mis-steps that boggled the mind. I think the UCI & WADA have learned a lot
from that. It remains surprising to me that CAS found in favor of the UCI
and suspended Mayo, but in the end I think they did catch a doper.
That was, what, 2007? Are you suggesting we're no better off now than we
were then? I think the biological passport has helped significantly lower
the allowable doping bar. I suspect that, had we had that tool back then,
there would have been no question that Mayo was doping. But I also suspect
that, had the biological passport been in use then, Mayo would have been
more cautious.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"ilan" <ila...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ac4708a-fae1-4dda...@b1g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
ilan
wrote:
I agree with your assessment of the handling of the Mayo case.
However, I disagree with you that WADA has learnt anything from that,
they seem even worse, if anything. In any case, that recent case
indicates that the anti-doping system itself doesn't work correctly.
If there are going to be investigations of 10 year old doping cases,
one should also review the doping cases which were mishandled. That
includes Mayo, and Landis as well, where the original AFLD test was
shown to be incompetent.
If the Armstrong 1999 AFLD samples ever come to a US trial, the
defense is going to have a field day destroying the lab's
credibility.
-ilan
Brad Anders
> It also confirms what I was saying, that the EPO test has a subjective
> element.
,,, as do a number of dope tests. IIRC, Ashenden's test for exogenous
blood doping only requires a subjective detection of a peak
corresponding to the non-native blood cells - no criteria as to the
peak or the integrated quantity.
With regard to the EPO test, my understanding is that it also is
sensitive to the presence of exogenous EPO only for a very short
period of time after the EPO is administered, yet the effects last for
days to weeks. Just another reason why anyone who takes care can avoid
detection of many dope tests and appear "clean"
DirtRoadie
wrote:
> That was, what, 2007? Are you suggesting we're no better off now than we
> were then?
Two words (and a link) - "Festina Affair"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festina_affair
That was what, 1998?
As an aside, geez - wouldn't you love to have been a sponsor and have
your name immortalized as an inextricable link to cheating in sports?
DR
RicodJour
Hmmm. That reminds me - I need a new watch.
R
DirtRoadie
Evidence that there must some basis for the aphorism "any publicity is
good publicity."
DR
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:e382aeda-72df-4567...@28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
On May 27, 10:33 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 12:24 am, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 6:38 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > That was, what, 2007? Are you suggesting we're no better off now
> > > than we
> > > were then?
>
> > Two words (and a link) - "Festina
> > Affair"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festina_affair
>
> > That was what, 1998?
> > As an aside, geez - wouldn't you love to have been a sponsor and
> > have
> > your name immortalized as an inextricable link to cheating in
> > sports?
>
> Hmmm. That reminds me - I need a new watch.
Evidence that there must some basis for the aphorism "any publicity is
good publicity."
DR
======
Evidently. While Festina dropped team sponsorship, they have remained a
sponsor of the TdF itself in the years since.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Simply Fred
>> As an aside, geez - wouldn't you love to have been a sponsor and have
>> your name immortalized as an inextricable link to cheating in sports?
RicodJour wrote:
> Hmmm. That reminds me - I need a new watch.
Get a new Swiss hearing aid while you're about it.
RicodJour
I certainly will not! The pain still lingers from my letdown after
Froydo's whiskey fueled ride and subsequent banishment from the
pantheon of skinny guys wearing tight clothes.
But give it a couple of years - maybe I won't have a choice. ;)
R
Phil H
That's an understatement; I believe some of us would like that to
happen so we can see the testing system
ripped apart......from a scientific perspective that is.
Phil H
Phil H
I have some Festina shoe covers that were really cheap. I wear them
with the Festina logo on the inner side
so as not to draw too much attention.
Phil H
Simply Fred
>> That was what, 1998?
>> As an aside, geez - wouldn't you love to have been a sponsor and have
>> your name immortalized as an inextricable link to cheating in sports?
Phil H wrote:
> I have some Festina shoe covers that were really cheap. I wear them
> with the Festina logo on the inner side
> so as not to draw too much attention.
I like wearing Festina bib shorts and a Phonak jersey, Don't tell
Schwartz though, he'll probably have some gay complaint about the colour
combination.
ilan
There is already the independent legal report which found that the
AFLD has completely mishandled the L'Equipe investigators and
recommended that the lab be sanctioned.
-ilan
A. Dumas
> =====
> =====
>> ======
>> ======
Please, for all our sanity, will you finally get fucking OEQuoteFix
plugin installed?
Fred Flintstein
Mike, Lafferty is your fault!
F
Anton Berlin
But still - why would Lance need to donate to a non-issue?
His reaction is more guilty than the 'maybe' test result.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:3210d798-c5b7-4f89...@b1g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> Actually - it's much weaker now that we know much more about it.
>
> But still - why would Lance need to donate to a non-issue?
>
> His reaction is more guilty than the 'maybe' test result.
You answered your own question. He had no need to donate. It was more
likely a mis-guided attempt further his efforts in becoming the big
cheese of the peloton.
If you believe Saugy is telling the truth, then the entire TdS thing as
understood by Tyler goes out the window. Plain & simple.
Or do you feel Saugy is lying? If so, he's likely lied to quite a few
people in the investigation. People that Brian would suggest shouldn't
be lied to.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:bLidnX5osOzVFH_Q...@giganews.com...
Um, quick, tell me more about this plugin!!!
Simply Fred
>> Please, for all our sanity, will you finally get fucking OEQuoteFix
>> plugin installed?
Fred Flintstein wrote:
> Mike, Lafferty is your fault!
Dumbass,
As the author you should know its a feature not a fault.