Ricco's Missus positive for CERA

DaveyL

Prepared together - prepared in the same lab. Maybe by the same technician.

Instrumentaton issues - instrument calibration, instrument artefacts, etc.

Basically the reasons the code requires the B sample to be run in another lab, to eliminate lab specific possibilities for error.

Perhaps you can provide me with the specific reference to the Nature article, then I can tell you if I've read it or not. I've read a lot of papers...

Your comment that "A/B sample is enough but 6 is irrefutable" implied a comparison between the case at hand (if I can point you to the title of the thread there is a clue as to what the main topic is).

There are similarities between Rossi's case and Armstrong's - legally not positive, even though the analysis found traces of a banned substance. But there are differences - at least Ms Rossi had recourse to a B sample. Armstrong did not. You, Howard, clearly think the presence of six samples negates that - I don't, because they are *different* samples. I also don't think the findings were incorrect, as I have already stated several times.

Anyway, any comment from you on the Rossi case?

DaveyL

It's a shame you didn't learn how to spell chromatography while you were working in that lab, Howard.

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

Prepared together - prepared in the same lab. Maybe by the same technician. Instrumentaton issues - instrument calibration, instrument artefacts, etc. Basically the reasons the code requires the B sample to be run in another lab, to eliminate lab specific possibilities for error.

Except WADA rules don't require the B sample to be tested in a separate lab. Quite the opposite in fact. See section 3.5.6 of the following WADA document.

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Resou ... rts_EN.pdf

Also see section 5.2.4.3.2.2 of the following WADA document.

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World ... 009_EN.pdf

(As I have already said, a positive B sample is not even necessary in order to hold a rider to be guilty of doping, even if a negative B sample is held to be sufficient over-ride a positive A sample.)

DaveyL wrote:

Perhaps you can provide me with the specific reference to the Nature article, then I can tell you if I've read it or not. I've read a lot of papers...

Here's one reference. I don't have subscription access anymore, but could E-mail you a full-text copy if you wish.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 635a0.html

DaveyL wrote:

Anyway, any comment from you on the Rossi case?

It has been scientifically proven that Vania Rossi had CERA in her blood.

DaveyL wrote:

It's a shame you didn't learn how to spell chromatography while you were working in that lab

We all make typo's. And it was 32 years ago, so perhaps I should put it down as a 'senior moment'.

DaveyL

I have a subscription, so it's OK, and yes I have read that short article. What's your point?

I am not quite sure what you are arguing about. If you think the evidence against Armstrong is legal then perhaps you should attempt a private prosecution.

As I have said several times now, I don't dispute the scientific outcomes of those tests. In fact I am not sure who you think does - no-one on this thread has.

I will repeat again, "... at least Ms Rossi had recourse to a B sample. Armstrong did not. You, Howard, clearly think the presence of six samples negates that - I don't, because they are *different* samples."

As for testing of the B samples - my mistake. I presume all my other points are correct, since you've chosen not to respond to them?

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

As for testing of the B samples - my mistake. I presume all my other points are correct, since you've chosen not to respond to them?

Nah, they are all about as well informed as you are about WADA's regulations.

DaveyL

Yes, Howard, I should follow your lead and just not respond to stuff that proves me wrong.

stagehopper

BikingBernie wrote:

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.)

Having also worked for many years in labs performing a whole range of chromatography, including a lot of work with blood samples, I can envisage a whole range of scenarios that would lead to contamination across a series of six independent samples.

The "problem" comes when the only six samples contaminated amongst a batch of samples which have prepared and analysed randomly are those belonging to one person ...

BikingBernie

stagehopper wrote:

Having also worked for many years in labs performing a whole range of chromatography, including a lot of work with blood samples, I can envisage a whole range of scenarios that would lead to contamination across a series of six independent samples.

But envisaging a situation where 'contamination' is possible is very different to envisaging a situation where one sample could affect another in a way that a previously clean sample somehow showed a positive result, as Ashenden has noted. Given the importance of thresholds and comparing naturally occurring markers with exogenous substances, even mixing a clean sample with a similarly sized 'EPO positive' sample, then dividing the sample into two and retesting them, would in many cases result in neither sample showing up a positive result.

Also, as you point out, situations where 'contamination' is possible are not hard to envisage, and so are easily avoided as long as routine procedures are followed.

stagehopper wrote:

The "problem" comes when the only six samples contaminated amongst a batch of samples which have prepared and analysed randomly are those belonging to one person ...

Exactly so, as I said earlier, the probability of something like that happening for some reason other than the person was doping with Epo are statistically insignificant.

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

PauloBets

BikingBernie wrote:

stagehopper wrote:

Having also worked for many years in labs performing a whole range of chromatography, including a lot of work with blood samples, I can envisage a whole range of scenarios that would lead to contamination across a series of six independent samples.

But envisaging a situation where 'contamination' is possible is very different to envisaging a situation where one sample could affect another in a way that a previously clean sample somehow showed a positive result, as Ashenden has noted. Given the importance of thresholds and comparing naturally occurring markers with exogenous substances, even mixing a clean sample with a similarly sized 'EPO positive' sample, then dividing the sample into two and retesting them, would in many cases result in neither sample showing up a positive result.

Also, as you point out, situations where 'contamination' is possible are not hard to envisage, and so are easily avoided as long as routine procedures are followed.

stagehopper wrote:

The "problem" comes when the only six samples contaminated amongst a batch of samples which have prepared and analysed randomly are those belonging to one person ...

Exactly so, as I said earlier, the probability of something like that happening for some reason other than the person was doping with Epo are statistically insignificant.

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

Not you again..you keeping talking about this burned out ex TDF winner as if he's still relevant. You're a troll and have nothing to do but talk bad of everyone.

dennisn

BikingBernie wrote:

stagehopper wrote:

Having also worked for many years in labs performing a whole range of chromatography, including a lot of work with blood samples, I can envisage a whole range of scenarios that would lead to contamination across a series of six independent samples.

But envisaging a situation where 'contamination' is possible is very different to envisaging a situation where one sample could affect another in a way that a previously clean sample somehow showed a positive result, as Ashenden has noted. Given the importance of thresholds and comparing naturally occurring markers with exogenous substances, even mixing a clean sample with a similarly sized 'EPO positive' sample, then dividing the sample into two and retesting them, would in many cases result in neither sample showing up a positive result.

Also, as you point out, situations where 'contamination' is possible are not hard to envisage, and so are easily avoided as long as routine procedures are followed.

stagehopper wrote:

The "problem" comes when the only six samples contaminated amongst a batch of samples which have prepared and analysed randomly are those belonging to one person ...

Exactly so, as I said earlier, the probability of something like that happening for some reason other than the person was doping with Epo are statistically insignificant.

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

Glad to hear you're back BB. How are you feeling? I learned about your bile duct explosion on another thread. You're lucky. I've heard that those kind of blowups can be fatal. Hope your convalescence is coming along well and yes, I will send you those copies of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged like you requested. Plus the LA Fan Club entry form.

BikingBernie

PauloBets wrote:

you keeping talking about this burned out ex TDF winner as if he's still relevant.

A habit most in evident amongst still wet behind the ears Pharmstrong fanboys, such as yourself...

dennisn wrote:

I learned about your bile duct explosion on another thread. You're lucky. I've heard that those kind of blowups can be fatal. Hope your convalescence is coming along well and yes, I will send you those copies of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged like you requested.

You do have a very odd conception of reality, Dennis. Still, I guess it would be naive to expect anything else from someone whose idea of 'liberty' appears to be to dismantle the 'state', so inevitably handing even more power over to unaccountable corporate interests, and thereby creating the ultimate 'closed society', as Karl Popper put it.

dennisn

BikingBernie wrote:

PauloBets wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I learned about your bile duct explosion on another thread. You're lucky. I've heard that those kind of blowups can be fatal. Hope your convalescence is coming along well and yes, I will send you those copies of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged like you requested.

You do have a very odd conception of reality, Dennis. Still, I guess it would be naive to expect anything else from someone whose idea of 'liberty' appears to be to dismantle the 'state', so inevitably handing even more power over to unaccountable corporate interests, and thereby creating the ultimate 'closed society', as Karl Popper put it.

Wow, Karl Popper. Now that's a name I haven't heard since I was in the Navy(67-71)
and had taken to reading everything from Marx to Rand. I'll have to brush up on him a bit.
Well, let's say a lot. I just don't read that kind of material much anymore. Lately I've taken to reading the books that you're supposed to read in order to be well read. Working on "An American Tragedy" at the moment. Good stuff. Give me a title by Karl that you enjoyed, if you would. I've been known to read just about anything. Glad to see your bile has been restored.

stagehopper

BikingBernie wrote:

But envisaging a situation where 'contamination' is possible is very different to envisaging a situation where one sample could affect another in a way that a previously clean sample somehow showed a positive result ... given the importance of thresholds and comparing naturally occurring markers with exogenous substances, even mixing a clean sample with a similarly sized 'EPO positive' sample, then dividing the sample into two and retesting them, would in many cases result in neither sample showing up a positive result.

But many of those situations wouldn't involve one sample affecting another. Contamination can come from many other sources e.g. from the solvents used to work up the samples, from the injector, from the chromatography column itself ... which is why having duplicate samples, and retesting samples is important in any validation of a positive test result.

Given what we know of the nature of the '99 results of course, it would be extremely unlikely such contamination occurred.
















Also, as you point out, situations where 'contamination' is possible are not hard to envisage, and so are easily avoided as long as routine procedures are followed.

stagehopper wrote:

The "problem" comes when the only six samples contaminated amongst a batch of samples which have prepared and analysed randomly are those belonging to one person ...

Exactly so, as I said earlier, the probability of something like that happening for some reason other than the person was doping with Epo are statistically insignificant.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden[/quote]

RichN95.

From all of this we can come to four conclusions

1. Armstrong probably doped in 1999

2. The 1999 tests weren't proper tests (just exercises to test the test) and therefore of no legal weight.

3. BikingBernie has only two interests. Armstrong and marxist politics.

4. BikingBernie is by far the most boring person I've ever come across in an internet forum. Truely so dull that he'll be like that in real life.

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

From all of this we can come to four conclusions

Only if we ignore the rules of logic.

Armstrong probably doped in 1999.

Perhaps, in that even 99.999% certainty is a measure of probability. However, in this case 'almost certainly' or even 'certainly' would be a more accurate thing to say.

The 1999 tests weren't proper tests (just exercises to test the test) and therefore of no legal weight.

Here we have a possible case of deliberate equivocation in relation to the term 'proper tests'. True, enough the test did not meet the criteria needed for the UCI to pursue sanctions against Armstrong. (Although today some issues, such as not having a separate B sample, would not preclude action being taken under WADA rules). However, this does not undermine that fact they they were still 'proper tests' in terms of their scientific validity and as such prove that Armstrong doped. As the UCI's own doping expert put it '"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."

BikingBernie has only two interests. Armstrong and marxist politics.

Here you make the logical error called 'The False Dichotomy' or ‘The Either-Or Fallacy’. To be a critic of far-right wing 'libertarianism' does not entail that one must be a Marxist.

BikingBernie is by far the most boring person I've ever come across in an internet forum. Truely so dull that he'll be like that in real life.

Here you commit the logical error of over-generalisation. That is forming a generalised conclusion on the basis of insufficient evidence. Another example of the same error would be concluding that ‘The French are rude’ on the basis of having encountered two rude waiters when on holiday in Paris. Also for someone so dull I seem to be able to pretty good at 'exciting' a response to what I post.

frenchfighter

afx237vi

Creeeeepy.

iainf72

afx237vi wrote:

Creeeeepy.

Not as creepy as a cat with hands...

afx237vi

iainf72 wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Creeeeepy.

Not as creepy as a cat with hands...

:shock:

I'm not so sure, actually...