Armstrong's urine samples requested by US authorities
harg...@yahoo.com
(http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by-
us-authorities )
My guess is that this evidence will fail the chain of evidence
requirement if Lance goes to court. This could increase the possiblity
that Lance could be indicted since the defense probably cannot object
in a grand jury investigation.
DirtRoadie
That may be the best point actually raised so far.
DR
ilan
The samples can't be used, in particular, any test on them has no
scientific value.
-ilan
Simply Fred
> The samples can't be used, in particular, any test on them has no
> scientific value.
Tell that to Lafferty.
BLafferty
Justice Department can test them and introduce the results in court with
a proper evidential foundation--complete chain of custody and testimony
as to testing procedure, all of which is open to challenge by the defense.
ilan
It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B
sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that
in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to be held
up to scientific standards..
-ilan
A. Dumas
> It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B
> sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that
> in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to be held
> up to scientific standards..
Single samples may be split into A and B samples, right? In fact, that
is how it is done when the rider pees into the cup. He doesn't come back
the next day for a second donation.
Phil H
No, the whole point of A and B samples is to minimize the possibility
of a false positive due to an anomoly occurring to the A sample that
would likely not occur to the B sample. If such a thing happened to
the A sample, example a contamination, then splitting the A sample is
worthless. The check has gone and the outcome of the test on the A
sample will not meet the required confidence level for statistical
significance on its own.....in my opinion.
Phil H
A. Dumas
> On Feb 25, 12:32 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
>> ilan wrote:
>>> It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B
>>> sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that
>>> in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to be held
>>> up to scientific standards..
>> Single samples may be split into A and B samples, right? In fact, that
>> is how it is done when the rider pees into the cup. He doesn't come back
>> the next day for a second donation.
>
Then how? Rider pees into cup, half of it goes into another cup, both
are sealed, that's it. It's a single split sample from the outset. When
splitting it later doesn't change a thing (for the population).
A. Dumas
> When splitting it later doesn't change a thing (for the population).
-when-
Fred on a stick
I don't have any experience with drug testing so I have no idea how relevant
this is but last year I participated in a research project where I had to
give both blood and urine samples. They needed two samples of urine and
three of blood. I pee'd into one cup, then I pee'd into another. They didn't
split the sample. Same with the blood: they didn't take one draw and then
split it.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Dumas,
Averaged over the population, it doesn't change
anything. But we don't have dope charges and
criminal trials for entire populations. Not yet anyway.
In an individual case it might change something,
and that's what individuals tend to care about.
The difference between peeing into two cups and
splitting one vial into A and B after the fact is
controlling for whatever unknown things might have
happened to one vial and its sample between the
dope control trailer and the courtroom.
Remember when the doping-war official suggested
splitting the sample to make a "new B sample" and
Lafferty posted a thread of similar title here? Even
the professional dope cops didn't take that idea
seriously.
However, I don't know if US criminal law and practice
says a damn thing about A and B samples. That's a
doping-authority rule. Remember, this is a fraud trial,
not a doping trial, so it's irrelevant. They need to get
a jury to believe that the B sample test proves fraud,
not that it secures a doping conviction, so doping-offense
rules are at best advisory.
Fredmaster B
BLafferty
the prior French testing may be used for analysis if the chain of
custody is still intact (apparently it is) and there is enough to test.
The AUSA may offer to allow Armstrong's counsel to have an expert
observe the testing, or if there is enough urine, they may allow a
defense expert to test that portion with a government expert observer.
Brad Anders
> What is left over from
> the prior French testing may be used for analysis if the chain of
> custody is still intact (apparently it is)
Chain of custody is only one of many requirements for any testing on
these samples to have validity. There also has to be proof that the
samples were never intentionally or unintentionally contaminated, that
the samples were maintained in a controlled condition for the past 11
years (e.g. temperature), etc. Should the samples show EPO present,
I'm pretty sure LA's laywers would ( as they have in the past with
these samples ) be able to produce all manner of explanations as to
why the results have no significance.
BLafferty
> On Feb 25, 4:14 pm, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> What is left over from
>> the prior French testing may be used for analysis if the chain of
>> custody is still intact (apparently it is)
>
> Chain of custody is only one of many requirements for any testing on
> these samples to have validity. There also has to be proof that the
> samples were never intentionally or unintentionally contaminated, that
> the samples were maintained in a controlled condition for the past 11
> years (e.g. temperature), etc.
That is all part of the chain of custody.
> Should the samples show EPO present,
> I'm pretty sure LA's laywers would ( as they have in the past with
> these samples ) be able to produce all manner of explanations as to
> why the results have no significance.
They would blow a lot of smoke, but in court that smoke gets cleared
very quickly. This isn't some UCI hack letting Lance off the hook.
Phil H
Several things can compromise the test. The A sample gets mixed up
later with someone elses, wrong ID number or whatever, did you read
the report on FL's test sample? I also assume these A samples were
already tested introducing more opportunity for reducing reliability.
Anyway, the B sample is a safeguard for screwups like these so if it
the A sample does get mixed up or messed up and is later split into
two, well, you get the picture. The samples need to be split at the
time they are collected; done at a much later time reduces the
itegrity ot the test. Otherwise, why bother?
Phil H
Phil H
No, its some bullshit lawyer with a preconceived notion more intent on
"winning" than truth seeking. For every expert witness that testifies
to the validity of the test you'll find 10 that'll say it's BS and
they'll say it's BS before the result is known and whatever the
outcome. Given the apparent motivation of people like yourself who
have been able to identify samples and whatever else, well, the whole
thing doth stink m'lud.
Phil H
Frederick the Great
<50d4aa91-7bf8-44fa...@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Phil H <phol...@gmail.com> wrote:
There is (or should be) a seal on each sample container.
The seal proves that the donor and the official aver
that the biological sample came from the donor at the
time and place given on the seal. If the seal is not
intact ...
--
Old Fritz
BLafferty
Whether or not the test for EPO is accepted as valid within the
scientific community is likely not open to serious debate. There may be
an expert willing to testify otherwise. Will they be able to convince a
jury that the test itself isn't scientifically valid when a panel of
WADA experts has certified the test as valid? Probably not, but odd
thing can be decided by a jury. I suppose that the government could ask
the court to take judicial notice of the scientific validity of the test.
If the test itself is upheld as scientifically valid, the issues then
are chain of custody and the testing procedure/protocol used.
Armstrong's attorneys will have a good deal of work and make a good deal
of money for what is very likely to be a losing cause. However, they
will be well paid--up front.
Scott
>
> Whether or not the test for EPO is accepted as valid >within the scientific community is likely not open to >serious debate. There may be an expert willing to >testify otherwise. Will they be able to convince a
> jury that the test itself isn't scientifically valid when a >panel of WADA experts has certified the test as valid? >Probably not, but odd thing can be decided by a jury. I >suppose that the government could ask
> the court to take judicial notice of the scientific validity >of the test.
>
I'd guess that a jury of red blooded Americans will have no trouble
coming to the conclusion that a French lab, one with a reputation for
not following protocols or protecting privacy, could very easily have
screwed up the storage of the samples in question, perhaps even
deliberately tampering with them.
How that would affect the outcome of a trial, well, as you like to
say, time will tell.
A. Dumas
> In an individual case it might change something,
> and that's what individuals tend to care about.
For better or for worse, though; I can't tell right away which is more
likely, without diving in.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> scientific community is likely not open to serious debate. There may be
> an expert willing to testify otherwise. Will they be able to convince a
> jury that the test itself isn't scientifically valid when a panel of
> WADA experts has certified the test as valid? Probably not, but odd
> thing can be decided by a jury. I suppose that the government could ask
> the court to take judicial notice of the scientific validity of the test.
>
> If the test itself is upheld as scientifically valid, the issues then
> are chain of custody and the testing procedure/protocol used.
> Armstrong's attorneys will have a good deal of work and make a good deal
> of money for what is very likely to be a losing cause. However, they
> will be well paid--up front.
Dumbass,
IT'S NOT A DOPING TRIAL.
If they present ironclad evidence that Armstrong
had EPO metabolites in his pee in 1999, he still
doesn't get the chair unless they also prove that
he committed fraud on the US government based
on the terms of the USPS team contract. So lay off
wittering about how Armstrong's lawyers will be
well paid for a losing cause, because there is plenty
in that chain of reasoning that they will be paid to
poke at. I'm beginning to think you're jealous
for not getting a piece of the action, or at least a
retainer.
Fredmaster Ben
BLafferty
issue. The remaining urine will be tested in an FBI lab or in a US lab
under the eyes of the FBI.
BLafferty
The EPO and all of his statements about racing drug free are thus shown
to be false. That's one of the five requisites of fraud.
Scott
No, I get it, even if you don't. It's not about the French lab's
results, it's about the French lab's ability to safeguard the
integrity of the samples such that the results of any current testing
would be valid in the eyes of the jury. Nobody gives a damn about the
earlier results.
BLafferty
the Dept. of Justice would not go to the trouble of Letters Rogatory to
get them.
Scott
That is your assumption, and besides, it's all about persuading the
jury, right?
BLafferty
problems, the urine samples would be of no use to the DoJ and there
would be no need to go through the time and effort of Letters Rogatory.
That must be dealt with long before considering using the samples at
trial.
Phil H
>
> - Show quoted text -
"The national anti-doping laboratory in Chatenay-Malabry said it
promised to
hand its finding to the World Anti-Doping Agency, provided it was
never
used to penalize riders."
Now why would they say that......and later do an apparent 180? Should
make for an interesting dialogue.
Phil H
Brad Anders
> That's what chain of custody is about. If there wasn't a valid chain,
> the Dept. of Justice would not go to the trouble of Letters Rogatory to
> get them.
Really? I suspect that they'd go after the samples, regardless of
issues. Why? Because even if there are issues, by adding to the
suspicion that LA was doping, jurors will be swayed. Or, perhaps, this
is a last-ditch effort to get some hard evidence against LA for doping
while on Postal, as they don't seem to have dug up any other hard
evidence.
H. Fred Kveck
Scott <hendric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I guess the DoJ would never go to the trouble of Letters Rogatory (or any of
dozens of other things) as a means to make the other side think they have more than
they do. Funny that a chess guy like Blaff wouldn't see that.
Scott
wrote:
> In article <0c053c72-652a-4f10-91dd-8a3707d14...@x13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 6:40 pm, BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > That's what chain of custody is about. If there wasn't a valid chain,
> > > the Dept. of Justice would not go to the trouble of Letters Rogatory to
> > > get them.
>
> > That is your assumption, and besides, it's all about persuading the
> > jury, right?
>
> I guess the DoJ would never go to the trouble of Letters Rogatory (or any of
> dozens of other things) as a means to make the other side think they have more than
> they do. Funny that a chess guy like Blaff wouldn't see that.
Even Cousin Vinny knows they have to disclose their evidence.
BLafferty
Without a valid chain of custody the samples would never be put in
evidence for a jury to consider.
BLafferty
Because they have not turned the test results over for the issuance of a
UCI/WADA sanction. Duh........
Frederick the Great
BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> The EPO and all of his statements about racing drug free are thus shown
> to be false. That's one of the five requisites of fraud.
Another one is intent to take money and not provide
the goods or services promised. Gotta have all five
or get called a four-flusher.
--
Old Fritz
Simply Fred
> I guess the DoJ would never go to the trouble of Letters Rogatory (or any of
> dozens of other things) as a means to make the other side think they have more than
> they do. Funny that a chess guy like Blaff wouldn't see that.
He's still trying to mate that Polgar chick so he's a bit distracted.
Phil H
>
> - Show quoted text -
They said that because they have not turned the tests results over but
they'll turn the samples over to a foreign criminal
investigation....duh to you, that makes as much sense as you do.
Phil H
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Fred Fredburger
> Without the appearance of a valid chain of custody the samples would never be put in
> evidence for a jury to consider.
Fixed that for you.
thirty-six
Insinuation is a powerful tool best used in the absence of direct
compelling evidence.
thirty-six
The withdrawal of the sample at the last moment due to technicalities
supports the insinuation.
Brad Anders
> Without a valid chain of custody the samples would never be put in
> evidence for a jury to consider.
So, in all the court cases you've participated in, there's never been
a time you've seen evidence introduced that wasn't open for debate as
to whether or not it was valid? Of course not, that would be
ridiculous to expect. Just as it's ridiculous to expect that 12-year-
old urine samples that have been shuffled between multiple labs
outside of the US, wouldn't be severely challenged in a US Federal
court as their accounting over that very long period of time.
Brad Anders
> The withdrawal of the sample at the last moment due to technicalities
> supports the insinuation.
BLafferty
If you know the chain of custody has been broken tell us. As for the
testing, IIRC, the head or the WADA lab in MOntreal said that if there
is EPO in the urine, it's there, as long as the chain of custody is
intact, the point being that storage isn't the issue with this
substance, EPO, because it doesn't degrade.
thirty-six
> On Feb 27, 5:07 pm, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The withdrawal of the sample at the last moment due to technicalities
> > supports the insinuation.
>
Reasons for considering it inadmissable evidence will be sought in any
event.
Fred Flintstein
Dumbass,
He asked you a question. You completely blew it off and
addressed a point that Brad didn't make.
Just wanted to point that out. Dumbass.
Fred Flintstein
BLafferty
I thought his first question/issue was rhetorical. I've been involved
in many drugs in the workplace cases (mostly cocaine and heroin) where
the chain of custody/testing procedure was questioned. In 99% of the
cases the challenge went nowhere.
Fred Flintstein
You know who you remind me of? Ed Meese. When he said that
innocent people don't get accused of crimes.
Fred Flintstein
PS And Anton, in the US doping for a bike race is not a
crime.
Mike Jacoubowsky
"BLafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:qO2dnWdlMrS-LffQ...@giganews.com...
The samples don't have to be put in evidence for a jury to serve a
useful (for the prosecution) purpose. That's been my point all along.
They could end up being useless in court, but the fear of what they
*could* represent might motivate others to talk. Again, one more time, I
maintain that the samples could have been poorly maintained, or in some
way not admissible as evidence, yet the French would still be more than
willing to cooperate with a "Letters Rogatory."
At least from what I understand from what you've said and I subsequently
looked up.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
BLafferty
Carry on, FuckWit.
Fred Flintstein
> You comment evidences your lack of something factually cogent to say.
> Carry on, FuckWit.
Wow, you're in a bad mood! Are you like this every Tuesday?
Fred Flintstein
Simply Fred
>> You comment evidences your lack of something factually cogent to say.
>> Carry on, FuckWit.
Fred Flintstein wrote:
> Wow, you're in a bad mood! Are you like this every Tuesday?
He's definitely not Tuesdays child.