The 500/600 tests lie uncovered

whiteboytrash

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/

Excellent article here counting the lie of 500 tests by Armstrong. They count 236 maximum.

Armstrong at one point was suggesting 600 tests!

bompington

Thanks, that makes all the difference then.

emadden

Great find. Thanks!

prawny

Now all we need is a graph of the most tested athletes and we can put this to bed.

markwb79

Did they test for blood and urine back in those times?

If so, would that not count as two tests?

cal_stewart

Think we need another sub forum for armstrong

RichN95.

Did anyone ever take 500 literally? I didn't.

ddraver

Did nt David Walsh do a similar bit of digging and determine that he was nt even the most tested Athlete called Armstrong? Some other track and field athelte woman called Armstrong had 257* or something like that

*not the actual number

timoid.

ddraver wrote:

Did nt David Walsh do a similar bit of digging and determine that he was nt even the most tested Athlete called Armstrong? Some other track and field athelte woman called Armstrong had 257* or something like that

*not the actual number

He came up with Marion Jones being the most tested. And she didn't test positive either. Ho hum.

sherer

well that's destroyed the myth for me now.

If he can lie about the 500 tests what else has he lied about

dave_1

yes, he's a liar for sure..but one thing I never have fully understood is why testing science lagged so far behind the dopers. Whose inaction created the free for all that has led to so many tour titles now getting removed from the former winners?

derbygrimpeur

not sure it's inaction. Surely dopers are always going to be one step ahead of testers. You can't develop a test for a drug (or method of doping) that hasn't been created yet. A test can only be developed once it is known how someone is doping? And it's always going to be cheaper to dope, than to research/develop the test for that method of doping. Hence the lag.

edit: that's not to say there wasn't any degree of inaction. I'm sure there was an element of "cover the eyes" approach prior to 1998 (and to some degree after)

RichN95.

Dave_1 wrote:

yes, he's a liar for sure..but one thing I never have fully understood is why testing science lagged so far behind the dopers. Whose inaction created the free for all that has led to so many tour titles now getting removed from the former winners?

Hiring the person who introduced EPO to cycling to develop the EPO test probably didn't help matters.

whiteboytrash

ddraver wrote:

Did nt David Walsh do a similar bit of digging and determine that he was nt even the most tested Athlete called Armstrong? Some other track and field athelte woman called Armstrong had 257* or something like that

*not the actual number

Kristian Armstrong a female cyclist was tested significantly more times than Armstrong.

All in the online USADA database.

dave_1

derbygrimpeur wrote:

not sure it's inaction. Surely dopers are always going to be one step ahead of testers. You can't develop a test for a drug (or method of doping) that hasn't been created yet. A test can only be developed once it is known how someone is doping? And it's always going to be cheaper to dope, than to research/develop the test for that method of doping. Hence the lag.

edit: that's not to say there wasn't any degree of inaction. I'm sure there was an element of "cover the eyes" approach prior to 1998 (and to some degree after)

EPO was in use by 1990/91, created in 1987..and still being used heavily 20 years on. The test for mixed cell populations of same blood group that caught Tyler Hamilton had been in use haematology, in hospitals well before Hamilton's case but he was first to be caught by a "new test" that had been around for years before he got caught but not used. We can ban Armstrong, take his wins, but we can't blame him for the laizze fair attitude to developing test.

And I guess bone marrow shuts down when pints of blood get transfused and that will have been visible to testers if they had looked as one assumes haematologists have been aware of the impact of blood transfusion on patients blood profiles for several decades, yet only in past 5 years do we get a bio passport

derbygrimpeur

ok, but it still comes down to money doesn't it.

dave_1

derbygrimpeur wrote:

ok, but it still comes down to money doesn't it.

yes, you're so right. The UCI..how much did they have pre WADA, to really do some research and seek inside info on how to develop tests, to get Conconi and ferrari on their side rather than out making millions in the rule free, dope test free sport of cycling. I say rule free, cause without threat of punishment rules are no longer real rules

derbygrimpeur

Yeah - I'm not disagreeing entirely with you, just don't think you can see that any rider can have an easy time of it simply because testing wasn't where it should have been.

The UCI had enough cash - Armstrong made sure they did

To use an analogy (I'm assuming you're UK based?), the current PPI complanits in the banking industry could have been prevent years ago had the regulators done their job properly and written clear rules. But the banks didn't have to rip customers off when they knew what they were doing was wrong. Both parties have some blame.

Same with doping. Riders need to be held accountable, regardless of whether they're still riding professionally. But especially if they are a big cheese and are making a (fraudulent) living off their previous "success"

dave_1

derbygrimpeur wrote:

Yeah - I'm not disagreeing entirely with you, just don't think you can see that any rider can have an easy time of it simply because testing wasn't where it should have been.

The UCI had enough cash - Armstrong made sure they did

To use an analogy (I'm assuming you're UK based?), the current PPI complanits in the banking industry could have been prevent years ago had the regulators done their job properly and written clear rules. But the banks didn't have to rip customers off when they knew what they were doing was wrong. Both parties have some blame.

Same with doping. Riders need to be held accountable, regardless of whether they're still riding professionally. But especially if they are a big cheese and are making a (fraudulent) living off their previous "success"

If the UCI had been able to pay ferrari the kind of money Armstrong was, perhaps Ferrari, or Conconi would not have been in the black market. I blame the UCI and teams for not getting organised for decades. I blame riders, but only equally with the enforcement authorities who failed them all

derbygrimpeur

The riders knew it was wrong though, but still did it. If they didn't dope, there'd be no need for such rigorous(sp?) testing. I would place more blame on them than the authorities (except where authrities were involved in a "conspiracy")

emadden

Dave_1 wrote:

.....but one thing I never have fully understood is why testing science lagged so far behind the dopers. Whose inaction created the free for all that has led to so many tour titles now getting removed from the former winners?

Dave, from what I know, the cost for developing tests is very high. For example you would need to develop a specific "assay" or test method that can identify if the substance has been taken. An assay in simple terms is like l a device that can indicate the presence of a certain molecule (for example a pregnancy kit is a type of assay) that To develop that assay you would need to have a fairly detailed knowledge of how the product is broken down/metabolized/present in the body, including what the chemical/biological structure looks like. That data isnt so readily available. Remember, the doping product was probably developed as a therapeutic agent for a human or an animal and the company that developed is only interested in demonstrating the safety and efficacy of that product. They will produce data during clinical trials to demonstrate safety and efficacy and some of that data will explain how the agent is excreted in the body - but the developer is unlikely to go further and develop specific tests for identifying the presence of the substance... If they did, they wouldnt be sharing it as such data costs millions and millions to develop and is highly proprietary.... Also, assay developers are usually separate companies from the drug developers.

On top of all of that, the assay/test would need to be very robust to be able to withstand legal scrutiny by athletes facing bans etc...

The tests that have been developed and are in use are tests that can identify the "low hanging fruit" in scientific terms i.e. agents that can be picked up relatively easily by assays/tests that can be easily developed...

I read somewhere in a sporting pharmacology book that current testing methods/assay can only pick up about 10% of commonly used doping agents!! Its all about cost really.

luckao

I thought it was an inside joke when people started quoting this figure again in light of USADA's allegations. It's one of those absurd claims where you do a double take, and can't believe that you'd need to show somebody how incomprehensibly dense they're being when ignorantly utilising it as an irrefutable fact.

dave_1

emadden wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

.....but one thing I never have fully understood is why testing science lagged so far behind the dopers. Whose inaction created the free for all that has led to so many tour titles now getting removed from the former winners?

Dave, from what I know, the cost for developing tests is very high. For example you would need to develop a specific "assay" or test method that can identify if the substance has been taken. An assay in simple terms is like l a device that can indicate the presence of a certain molecule (for example a pregnancy kit is a type of assay) that To develop that assay you would need to have a fairly detailed knowledge of how the product is broken down/metabolized/present in the body, including what the chemical/biological structure looks like. That data isnt so readily available. Remember, the doping product was probably developed as a therapeutic agent for a human or an animal and the company that developed is only interested in demonstrating the safety and efficacy of that product. They will produce data during clinical trials to demonstrate safety and efficacy and some of that data will explain how the agent is excreted in the body - but the developer is unlikely to go further and develop specific tests for identifying the presence of the substance... If they did, they wouldnt be sharing it as such data costs millions and millions to develop and is highly proprietary.... Also, assay developers are usually separate companies from the drug developers.

On top of all of that, the assay/test would need to be very robust to be able to withstand legal scrutiny by athletes facing bans etc...

The tests that have been developed and are in use are tests that can identify the "low hanging fruit" in scientific terms i.e. agents that can be picked up relatively easily by assays/tests that can be easily developed...

I read somewhere in a sporting pharmacology book that current testing methods/assay can only pick up about 10% of commonly used doping agents!! Its all about cost really.

Thanks for the insight. But I still reckon it was known decades ago what a pint of blood infused or removed would do to blood parameters as well as EPO's influence too, so it's not only the dopers who deserve scorn and sneers but all who took no action to bring in bio passport 10 years earlier