Looks like they're going to get Mayo by hook or by crook
Comments
-
I am sure I heard somewhere that ASO, who own l'Equipe (and run the TdF etc.) own or run the LNDD lab. If anyone can confirm this, I'd appreciate it. If this is the case, it would be fairly understandable that l'Equipe would get a few scoops out LNDD...Le Blaireau (1)0
-
They've got a mole. It's hard to find out these things, the journalist isn't going to give away his sources.
Leaking is wrong in this instance, it is not as if we are learning news that will be covered-up for example, it just allows l'Equipe to flog more copies whilst the accused have less time to prepare their defence.
On the other hand, we risk shooting the messenger. LNDD or L'Equipe aren't the guilty parties, it's the riders, soigneurs and preparatore that are the real villains.0 -
No, it's owned by the French government, it's a research lab that's part of the French CNRS university/research system.DaveyL wrote:I am sure I heard somewhere that ASO, who own l'Equipe (and run the TdF etc.) own or run the LNDD lab. If anyone can confirm this, I'd appreciate it. If this is the case, it would be fairly understandable that l'Equipe would get a few scoops out LNDD...0 -
Thanks. I agree the reporting of these things is an entirely different matter from the issues surrounding the actual tests.
Bottom line is Mayo's A and B samples are positive. Let him take it to the CAS and we'll see whether they throw it out or not.
If nothing else, he deserves to get booted for (a) being stupid enough to dope in the middle of the TdF while all the Vino and Rasmussen stuff was going down; and (b) getting caught.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Kléber wrote:On the other hand, we risk shooting the messenger. LNDD or L'Equipe aren't the guilty parties, it's the riders, soigneurs and preparatore that are the real villains.
Devils advocate /on.
If I pay a source inside the lab for a story, what else could I buy?
Look at the case with Rasmussen and the Dynepo "positives" - Non-approved test returns a positive and gets reported in the press. Surely any right minded person thinks that is not acceptable. Ok, we all know the Chicken is dodgy but imagine a story like that with a "widely considered clean" rider.
If you look at the stats for LNDD on the WADA site it makes for interesting reading.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
DaveyL wrote:I am sure I heard somewhere that ASO, who own l'Equipe (and run the TdF etc.) own or run the LNDD lab. If anyone can confirm this, I'd appreciate it. If this is the case, it would be fairly understandable that l'Equipe would get a few scoops out LNDD...
I never heard ASO owned LNDD....I knew about L'equipe being part of ASO...but neverrealised they had their own lab. That would be a a surprise...but then again the barcodes on Armstrong's B samples from the 1999 TDF were released either by WADA who approved the study or by LNDD to the L'equipe journo as that was the only way the journo could match the 1999 control forms from the UCI...by unaithroised leaks of barcodes ...hence their is a slight question mark over LNDD as they don't do anonymous studies...or at least when WADA commission them to do test improvement anonymously on old anonymous samples...this rule gets breached...LNDD or WADA...take your pic...I think LNDD look not good0 -
No, Kleber has corrected me on that one - they are not ASO-owned.Le Blaireau (1)0
-
Oh dear
Anne Gripper, UCI anti-doping manager explained this discrepancy in October, saying, "In Gent, they use a slightly different technique [than the Paris laboratory]."
When a test is approved do they not have a protocol and "technique" associated with them?
Anne - You're starting to sound about as bright as McQuaid.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
If anything Gripper is probably clearing up Pat's mess or the mess of history rather than creating a new one of her own. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.0
-
Imagine a different story...
You've going to buy a Picasso but somone says it's a fake. So you take it to a forensic lab in Paris, and they say it's a fraud, don't buy it. So you send it to Belgium and the boffins there can't make up their minds, they can't conclude either way.
So you send it back to the Paris lab and invite the seller, who all along has been insistent on the genuine nature of the painting, to attend the retest so he can monitor the process. But the seller doesn't show up, leaving the Spanish Arts Council to proclaim the integrity of the seller and the authenticity of the work despite having no evidence in either domain to know what it's talking about.
Would you buy the Picasso now?0 -
Kléber wrote:Imagine a different story...
You've going to buy a Picasso but somone says it's a fake. So you take it to a forensic lab in Paris, and they say it's a fraud, don't buy it. So you send it to Belgium and the boffins there can't make up their minds, they can't conclude either way.
So you send it back to the Paris lab and invite the seller, who all along has been insistent on the genuine nature of the painting, to attend the retest so he can monitor the process. But the seller doesn't show up, leaving the Spanish Arts Council to proclaim the integrity of the seller and the authenticity of the work despite having no evidence in either domain to know what it's talking about.
Would you buy the Picasso now?
Can I change it slightly?
Paris lab say "it's real, buy it", Ghent says "not sure"
Would you buy it?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Oh dear
Anne Gripper, UCI anti-doping manager explained this discrepancy in October, saying, "In Gent, they use a slightly different technique [than the Paris laboratory]."
When a test is approved do they not have a protocol and "technique" associated with them?
Anne - You're starting to sound about as bright as McQuaid.
Having many years of test experience - but not in the medical or scientific field, it's entirely possible different labs may carry out the procedures slightly differently. Even if all the test data and samples may be the same, labs may carry different equipment hence slightly different approaches and the procedures may allow for this.
I think what you're asking is why should one technique cause a difference in results - I think that should be explained. This entire situation may all be better understood if a valid reason could be explained.0 -
If you do a little digging I you will find that it is the UCI who have been rather 'leaky', not the lab itself...iainf72 wrote:.. the LNDD -> L'equipe path is a well worn one.
It's good journalism sure but if I lab constantly appears to be leaking, surely there's an issue.0 -
Absolute rubbish! The Armstrong EPO story was based on officially released data, not 'leaks' by the LNDD lab! The UCI itself supplied the journalist Damien Ressiot with all of Armstrong's doping control forms from the 1999 Tour. They did this because they though Ressiot was pro-Armstrong and was going to use the forms to back up Armstrong's claims that he had race clean ( :roll: ) with Armstrong's therapeutic exemption certificates providing evidence of this. Armstrong's own lawyers even gave approval to this. These forms provided Ressiot with the rider code numbers he needed to match to the results from the LNDD's research program which had found 12 positive tests for EPO in the 1999 Tour. Ressiot got copies of these results when they were released by WADA. All he had to do then was match up the codes. When all this came out the UCI went so far as to suspend it's medical chief for supplying the all important doping control forms to Ressiot.Dave_1 wrote:then again the barcodes on Armstrong's B samples from the 1999 TDF were released either by WADA who approved the study or by LNDD to the L'equipe journo as that was the only way the journo could match the 1999 control forms from the UCI...by unaithroised leaks of barcodes ...hence their is a slight question mark over LNDD as they don't do anonymous studies...0 -
Yes, these show that LNDD's 'non-negative' test result ratio is just a couple of percentage points above the average for WADA approved labs and, despite claims to the contrary, LNDD is far from being the lab with the highest 'non-negative' test result history. Also, as WADA have pointed out, these variations in the number of non-negative' test results can be wholly explained by reference to the sort of sports each lab predominantly tests. LNND test a lot of cyclists and we all know that doping is endemic in pro cycling!iainf72 wrote:[ If you look at the stats for LNDD on the WADA site it makes for interesting reading.0 -
To answer Daveyl's question
Iain, playing devils advocate for a moment, and using your extensive knowledge of what is involved in the epo test, could you come up with a scenario to explain why one lab can get a conclusive result and the other lab can't?
I don't need to know about the EPO test to expect 2 certified labs to come up with a similar result using the same protocols and test.
One of them is not performing the test correctly. And we should err on the side of caution so it's the LNDD doing something wrong. As a follow up WADA need to check both labs and make sure they're following the process and that the equipment is sound.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
From looking at the original Nature paper by Lasne and de Ceaurriz, they used isoelectric focussing electrophoresis to analyse the epo proteins. This produces a range of bands of varying pH numbers. In the paper, purified natural epo is distinctly separate from alpha and beta forms of synthetic rh-epo, but a sample taken from a control subject shows overlap across the two. It's easy to see how a bit of experience may be required to decide whether synthetic epo is present or not.
However, I would prefer to hear an explanation from one of the labs or the UCI as to why the Gent lab couldn't get a conclusive result and LNDD could. Anyway, Mayo's A and B are positive, this should be settled by CAS.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
"so it's the LNDD doing something wrong." This conclusion does not follow at all from your statement that "we should err on the side of caution"!iainf72 wrote:we should err on the side of caution so it's the LNDD doing something wrong.
It would be much fairer to say something such as "Given that we have had a second test which was inconclusive, and given the need to err on the side of caution, it might be argued that Mayo has not been proven guilty to the required standard, even though there are no grounds for assuming that the LNDD did anything wrong or for assuming that the LNDD result was a false positive."0 -
aurelio wrote:
"so it's the LNDD doing something wrong." This conclusion does not follow at all from your statement that "we should err on the side of caution"!iainf72 wrote:we should err on the side of caution so it's the LNDD doing something wrong.
It would be much fairer to say something such as "Given that we have had a second test which was inconclusive, and given the need to err on the side of caution, it might be argued that Mayo has not been proven guilty to the required standard, even though there are no grounds for assuming that the LNDD did anything wrong or for assuming that the LNDD result was a false positive."
That is what I meant
I just wanted to get the gist of it over.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Regular validation tests are a standard part of the procedure a lab has to follow in order to retain their WADA accreditation. Amongst other things these require that the lab produces NO false positives when analysing the test samples provided.iainf72 wrote:As a follow up WADA need to check both labs and make sure they're following the process and that the equipment is sound.0 -
Once again, CFA wades in
http://cyclingfansanonymous.blogspot.co ... aster.html
Is he the best english language cycling "journalist"?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Not when he comes out with things like:iainf72 wrote:Once again, CFA wades in
http://cyclingfansanonymous.blogspot.co ... aster.html
Is he the best english language cycling "journalist"?
"Whether Mayo is indeed a doper or not is at this point of utterly no consequence"...0 -
aurelio wrote:"Whether Mayo is indeed a doper or not is at this point of utterly no consequence"...
He's right though. You may disagree but shouldn't the WADA accreditation mean we could trust the results from any lab. If 2 labs disagree then it's a non-positive, move on. Sure, investigate why there was a difference but if the A and B results differ, the athletes rights are protected and the system works, no case to answer.
As I said, he may have dodged a bullet but at least the rules are being followed and it doesn't look like a farce.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
aurelio wrote:
Not when he comes out with things like:iainf72 wrote:Once again, CFA wades in
http://cyclingfansanonymous.blogspot.co ... aster.html
Is he the best english language cycling "journalist"?
"Whether Mayo is indeed a doper or not is at this point of utterly no consequence"...
At this point that statement is probably correct - this issue is now about the validity of the test process between different accredited labs.
Once that has been sorted out, the spotlight will once again fall back onto Mayo.0 -
iainf72 wrote:aurelio wrote:"Whether Mayo is indeed a doper or not is at this point of utterly no consequence"...
He's right though. You may disagree but shouldn't the WADA accreditation mean we could trust the results from any lab. If 2 labs disagree then it's a non-positive, move on. Sure, investigate why there was a difference but if the A and B results differ, the athletes rights are protected and the system works, no case to answer.
As I said, he may have dodged a bullet but at least the rules are being followed and it doesn't look like a farce.
Until the reasons why the labs produced a positive and an inconclusive result, then the disciplinary proceedings should remain. The point is, the 2 labs don't disagree, one has a result and the other can't make a decision one way or another. Another test to determine a positive or a negative on the B sample, so agreement can be achieved, is necessary. Its just another way of looking at the same problem and is no less valid than simply 'letting it go'!!!0 -
iainf72 wrote:Once again, CFA wades in
http://cyclingfansanonymous.blogspot.co ... aster.html
Is he the best english language cycling "journalist"?
Another armchair expert.... We could wait to hear what the scientists in Gent and LNDD have to say about their protocols, and what guys like Don Catlin have to say about it. Or we could just write a sensationlist blog about the whole "mess" (i.e. one lab couldn't get a conclusive result, and one lab returned positive for A and B samples).
I disagree that it's irrelevant whether Mayo cheated or not. Then again I am more interested in cycling, and making sure clean riders aren't cheated, than in following every twist and turn of the latest doping soap opera...Le Blaireau (1)0 -
I take the point but thought that right now we were discussing whether this guy is "the best English language cycling "journalist". I wouldn't say so, especially given that the depth of his 'journalistic investigations' appears to amount to regurgitating all the nonsense put around about the LNDD lab by those with a vested interest in trying to undermine it's credibility.Top_Bhoy wrote:At this point that statement is probably correct - this issue is now about the validity of the test process between different accredited labs. Once that has been sorted out, the spotlight will once again fall back onto Mayo.
I also like the way he considers only the way the Mayo case has, in his view, "undermined the ability of cycling fans to place any faith in the testing process". I am far more concerned about the way endemic doping in cycling has undermined the ability of cycling fans to place any faith in the results of events, with the finishing order doing little more than suggest which riders have a physiology which adapts the best to the current 'state of the art' doping methods.0 -
aurelio wrote:
I take the point but thought that right now we were discussing whether this guy is "the best English language cycling "journalist". I wouldn't say so, especially given that the depth of his 'journalistic investigations' appears to amount to regurgitating all the nonsense put around about the LNDD lab by those with a vested interest in trying to undermine it's credibility.Top_Bhoy wrote:At this point that statement is probably correct - this issue is now about the validity of the test process between different accredited labs. Once that has been sorted out, the spotlight will once again fall back onto Mayo.
I think Iainf just threw that little titbit in because he felt the discussion on discrediting the labs was running out of steam. 0 -
aurelio wrote:I wouldn't say so, especially given that the depth of his 'journalistic investigations' appears to amount to regurgitating all the nonsense put around about the LNDD lab by those with a vested interest in trying to undermine it's credibility.
But you suffer from complete blindness when it comes to LNDD - Could you admit they may have made a mistake? From reading your posts, I'd say you know what you're talking about but LOVE LNDD because of the work they did on the Armstrong samples.
They're probably not some complete toilet lab but there definately seem to be some issues. They were the comments from the Landis arbitration and the fact Landaluze won his CAS case. In both cases they were silly things but critical never-the-less. I fail to see why wanting good quality control to help tighten the noose is generating so much debate.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
If anyone at the UCI had half a brain, which I'm not suggesting they do, the second test on the B-sample would have taken place in Gent. Here we have a case of what many of us have been asking for: one lab finds the A positive, so you send the sample to another lab to get the B sample tested. They did it because of French holidays, and not as new procedure, but this mess has shown just how much such a procedure shines a critical light on the labs, which is a good thing. Instead of keeping the sample in Gent and figuring out why they got an inconclusive result, they went the easy way and sent it back to Châtenay-Malabry. Someone messed up in the testing establishment and we have to find out who and why. No one truly trusted Châtenay-Malabry up to now, and now we have Gent to be suspicious of too. So we have two dodgy labs instead of one. Good job, UCI!!! :roll:
Isn't it sad we have 5 pages on lab work with barely a real racing thread in view?0
