Ricco's Missus positive for CERA

iainf72

DaveyL wrote:

They still found CERA in the B sample. Call it innocent if you want, she had CERA in her system and her partner is a convicted user. Not the wildest bit of speculation ever.

No, it's not

I do think it's a bit unfair on the athlete how much information is getting into the wild. Surely the communication should've been "B sample not positive" - Rather than "well, it's not positive by the rules, but it's in there"

DaveyL

Well, there are limited options, if there is a legal difference between negative and non-positive. If they couldn't announce it as negative, people would know what to infer from non-positive.

Maybe more important to the athlete's rights is, as Bike Pure have mentioned, confidentiality until the B sample is tested. It could be done but they would have to be a hell of a lot quicker with the B test than they are at the moment.

iainf72

Maybe they should just say non-AAF or AAF and be done with it.

I'd be supportive of not saying anything until the B is done but as you say, the speed of doing them is important. Cycling fans are so cynical as soon as you don't compete they think you've been nabbed.

DaveyL

Yes, what we have here is a bit like a "not proven" verdict...

dave_1

so she got off on a techincality ...but I didn't see it reported as that..other than here

Do we agree there is no need for a B sample? i

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

Do we agree there is no need for a B sample? i

No, I believe tests should be repeatable. So I'm fully supportive of a B sample.

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Do we agree there is no need for a B sample? i

No, I believe tests should be repeatable. So I'm fully supportive of a B sample.

I don't believe the degradation over time aspect hasn't been carefully looked at when they were developing the test given the damage it could do and has done to the credibility of the test. Surely they'd not have rolled out the test if they feared degradation was possible and one assumes they've tested same person samples a time apart at the trial stage to be sure they don't risk such embarrassment. Like you I believe in the two sample process...the right of every athlete, and I mean EVERY athlete not certain ones and not others.

jp1985

Would it not be possible to have a system where the A sample is sent to one lab and the B sample to another, test them both and only take action if both return a positive result?

DaveyL

It would work, but the analytical costs would be almost double the amount they currently are.

blazing_saddles

Getting off on a technicality shouldn't just be for the rich and famous.
If the "degradation over time" defence works for one, it should work for all.
Two samples, one rule.

DaveyL

It does work for all, she's off the hook. It doesn't change the fact that there was a CERA drug in her system.

blazing_saddles

Just like someone had EPO in his system, 6 times over, back in 1999, but no "B" sample.
Doesn't stop folks leaping in to proclaim his innocence.

Doobz

seems they are still after her head.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rossi-still-facing-investigation-for-possible-cera-use

DaveyL

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Just like someone had EPO in his system, 6 times over, back in 1999, but no "B" sample.
Doesn't stop folks leaping in to proclaim his innocence.

Care to point out those on this thread who are criticising Rossi, and who also stood up for Armstrong?

I wouldn't dispute the findings - both legal and *scientific* - in either case.

dave_1

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Just like someone had EPO in his system, 6 times over, back in 1999, but no "B" sample.
Doesn't stop folks leaping in to proclaim his innocence.

You finally answered my question! You don't agree with the two samples process nor I suspect does Iainf and the rest of your get Armstrong coterie that dominate the Pro Race section..

It is really terrible that he cheated all those clean riders around him, ...rejig the podium why don't we. TTFN

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

You finally answered my question! You don't agree with the two samples process nor I suspect does Iainf and the rest of your get Armstrong coterie that dominate the Pro Race section..

Que?

I said I believe in requiring an A and B to declare someone positive.

Did Armstrong have EPO in some samples? I think so, yes. Should he be punished for that? No.

blazing_saddles

No Dave, I do. Two samples are essential.
It is just, as Davy has been at pains to point out, we sometimes find that the system can fail to deliver the correct verdict.

Would I remove the "B" sample? No. Better that 100 guilty men go free, than one innocent man go to jail etc........

Oh and as to LA, wot Iain said. I wouldn't be comfortable defending him as clean, though.

DaveyL

Dave_1 wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Just like someone had EPO in his system, 6 times over, back in 1999, but no "B" sample.
Doesn't stop folks leaping in to proclaim his innocence.

You finally answered my question! You don't agree with the two samples process nor I suspect does Iainf and the rest of your get Armstrong coterie that dominate the Pro Race section..

It is really terrible that he cheated all those clean riders around him, ...rejig the podium why don't we. TTFN

I don't think anyone would support a one-sample system, Dave. As much as Pound's zeal has over the years been good for the anti-doping movement, it would be a very grave error to test only one sample - confirming an analytical finding in duplicate is essential to have confidence in the finding.

This whole episode should stimulate more work looking into sample storage and preparation, and maybe also refinements to the tests themselves.

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

I don't think anyone would support a one-sample system

From my perspective, two positive samples / tests is enough... and six is irrefutable.

DaveyL

What a surprise that the change of course on this thread has brought you out of the woodwork...

A one- or a two-sample system refers to having only an A sample, or an A and B sample from the same collection, which then have tob oth return a positive for an adverse analytical finding to be established.

I believe the six samples you are referring to were collected on different days. In that respect we can't really conflate these two issues.

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

I believe the six samples you are referring to were collected on different days. In that respect we can't really conflate these two issues.

However, from a mathematical / probability perspective, those six independent samples prove that Armstrong doped with a far higher degree of certainty than any A/B test of a single sample...

DaveyL

Not really. If the same sample was tested 6 times, then yes. But these weren't the same samples. The samples were all tested at the same lab and prepared together, and therefore they might all be at risk of the same contamination/instrument issues. Which is why B samples should be run at another lab. In contrast, a B sample run at different lab using the same protocols, showing up positive, is absolutely solid.

As I said before though, in both cases the legal and scientific outcomes cannot be disputed. Not sure why you want to go along a "LA is more guilty than Rossi" path. Oh wait. I do. Never miss an opportunity, eh?

Pokerface

And in related news, Ricco won his first race today since coming back from HIS ban.

dave_1

If the level of cera falls below the threshold of + in sample B, then may I ask is there a sound scientific reason for that threshold being set by WADA? I haven't see that threshold explained yet but have seen plenty say she got off on a technicality. Can we at least get the reasons for the threshold clear for readers like me and other before saying it is a technicality. Was the A method flawed? If, and I say IF, there is a sound reason for the WADA threshold then it's not fair to say Rossi is getting away on a technicality.

How come schumi was + in samples tested many months after they were given? This decay theory...it doesn't seem consistent and surely trials of the CERA test were run to be sure this 2nd sample decay would never be a danger given the damage and the cost to the anti-doping agencies.

re Lance A, 6 samples tested by the same person in the same lab with same equipment/method in the same week..To quite a lot of people, the purpose of second sample testing is to check method. I guess you don't agree cause if you do that means you agree LA had a case for a second round of tests on the 6 samples to check method again.

You either agree with 2 samples and method being checked in second samples or you don't agree with 2 sample protocol and LA is positive. I am giving LA the benefit of the doubt. He's clean as far as 1999 goes...only doubts can be had without second sample method testing

blazing_saddles

See, that's where we differ. While LA was technically clean, as far as two sample standard goes, I wouldn't go to bat for him, calling him "clean", based upon 6 positive "A" samples.
As Davy as said there's a big difference between being "technically" clean and clean without doubt.

There's a page missing from the rule book that should allow for samples like Armstrong to be split and re-tested under the two sample standard.
Unfortunately, it's missing.

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

How come schumi was + in samples tested many months after they were given? This decay theory...it doesn't seem consistent and surely trials of the CERA test were run to be sure this 2nd sample decay would never be a danger given the damage and the cost to the anti-doping agencies.

The mekon was nabbed using the blood test for CERA which is a lot more stable than urine. Rossi was the urine test.

Regarding the threshold - As far as I know, all things they test for have thresholds and it's to do with confidence Over a threshold and they're certain of the results.

DaveyL

Dave I think the main problem here is that they did the analysis from a urine sample. Mircera is not easy to detect in urine. From http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi- ... 0/PDFSTART

"Unfortunately, one of the latest generation of EPO-based pharmaceuticals, Continuous Erythropoietin ReceptorActivator (CERA), RO0503821, or pegzyrepoetin, marketed under the brand name MIRCERA – a PEGylated epoetin beta) is hardly excreted in urine due to its prolonged serum half-life (approximately 130 h) and molecular mass (approximately 60 kDa) and hence should preferably be tested in blood."

DaveyL

Oops. Wot iain sed.

BikingBernie

Blazing Saddles wrote:

See, that's where we differ. While LA was technically clean, as far as two sample standard goes, I wouldn't go to bat for him, calling him "clean", based upon 6 positive "A" samples.

It also the case that under current WADA rules an athlete can be held to have doped even if a positive A sample is not supported by a positive B sample.

What counts is the mathematical probability that the result is a true positive. This depends on a number of factors, including the substance being tested for and the test used. For example, a single 'A' sample test might give a confidence level of 99.9%, but lawyers will still try to exploit that 1 in a 1000 degree of uncertainty. The 'B' sample simply increases the confidence level to a degree where the lawyers are making fools of themselves if they try to argue it was a false positive.

Mathematically speaking, what really bolsters confidence is having multiple, independent samples all producing the same result. On that basis it has been scientifically proven that Armstrong was using Epo in 1999, and it seems then moved on to autologous blood doping once it was known that Epo could be tested for.

No apologies for the repost...

UCI experts do not believe in Armstrong

It may be that Lance Armstrong never officially tested positive, but according to Robin Paris Otto, one of UCI's anti-doping experts and the man who in 2000 developed the first analytical method for the detection of EPO, there is evidence that the opposite is true.

...He adds that the results which showed that the American was doped in1999 must be considered to be valid from a scientific point of view . "The methods used were valid. It is clear that the question mark concerning whether Armstrong was doped really is more of a legal than scientific nature. So there is scientific evidence that he was doped in1999 and that he took epo. To deny it would be to lie. "

http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_paren ... yhed=17128

"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden

---

Cyclevaughters: yeah, it's very complex how the avoid all the controls now, but it's not any new drug or anything, just the resources and planning to pull of a well devised plan

Cyclevaughters: it's why they all got dropped on stage 9 - no refill yet - then on the rest day - boom 800ml of packed cells

FDREU: they have it mastered. good point

Cyclevaughters: they draw the blood right after the dauphine

FDREU: how do they sneak it in, or keep it until needed

FDREU: i'm sure it's not with the truck in the frig

Cyclevaughters: motorcycle - refridgerated panniers

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

Not sure why you want to go along a "LA is more guilty than Rossi" path. Oh wait. I do. Never miss an opportunity, eh?

I haven't passed any comment at all on the Rossi case. :roll:

DaveyL wrote:

The samples were all tested at the same lab and prepared together, and therefore they might all be at risk of the same contamination/instrument issues.

Have you any evidence whatsoever that those six independently taken samples were 'prepared together'. Come to that what do you actually mean by 'prepared together'? What do you mean by 'instrumentation issues'. Have you even read the articles in Nature where the LNDD reported on their testing procedures?

As Ashendon has pointed out, the idea that Armstrong's samples could each have been deliberately manipulated (itself an extraordinary claim demanding an extraordinary level of evidence) doesn't hold water. That one sample or some other 'contamination' or 'instrumentation issue' could have led to a series of false positives from a series of six independent samples is an even greater nonsense. (I used to work in a lab doing chromatography and spectrophotometry testing and even following the lax industry standards we followed, there is no way one sample could affect the result of a separate, independent sample.)

The possibility that Armstrong's six positives from 1999 all false positives is further undermined by the fact that the LNDD has an excellent record for accuracy. Given the thousands of tests they run each year the number of false positives they have reported is miniscule. To my knowledge the total number of false positives they have produced is three, and it was the lab's own internal cross-checking systems that brought these to light! Given this it is inconceivable that the Epo they found in those 1999 (and 1998) Tour samples were all 'false positives'.