'98 retro testing...

Richmond Racer

How are you going to kick them out for denials?

These tests werent carried out as regular competition testing in 98 (when of course there was no EPO test). They were conducted as a test of the lab testing protocols themselves in 94. There were no B samples. None of this process provides the robust due process provided to enable 1) conclusive proof, or 2) the rights of the athletes to defend themselves. In these respects, you can actually see grounds for the CPA's objections.

mike6

dish_dash wrote:

Either way, just because they were negative or not tested it doesn't mean that they weren't doping. They just weren't caught through this approach...

It's a total shambles. Both O'Grady and Blijlevens (not to mention Jaja) highlight that there is no guarantee that anyone will tell the truth to any of these truth and reconciliation approaches being suggested... both lied very recently about their doping past. If I was running Dutch or Australian cycling I'd be fuming...

Also, using PEDs during training allows the body to work harder and recover faster so more hard sessions can be performed and absorbed. Come off the PEDs before competition and the risk of a positive is almost nil, but the performance gains are still there.
I cant remember when they started out of competition testing but I think it was after 98.

shazzz

Richmond Racer wrote:

shazzz wrote:

I seem to recall that Boardman voluteered to have blood samples taken and stored for future testing once the detection testing had caught up with the doping methods. Maybe when he was doing his hour records? Am I imagining that or did it really happen?

Pretty certain he did. Just trying to find a link to confirm it

It's one of the things that has always made me confident he was clean. I will continue to believe it in the absence of any evidence to the contrary!

slim_boy_fat

Another casualty.

inrng: Abraham Olano loses his job as the Vuelta's technical director following his appearance on the French senate's list, via @Juan_Guti

sherer

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Another casualty.

inrng: Abraham Olano loses his job as the Vuelta's technical director following his appearance on the French senate's list, via @Juan_Guti

pleased about that as he still stated he was clean and didn't know why he was on the list. Surely they must realise that the omerta isn't working any more and the best thing for the sport to move on is for them to come clean

frenchfighter

frenchfighter

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Another casualty.

inrng: Abraham Olano loses his job as the Vuelta's technical director following his appearance on the French senate's list, via @Juan_Guti

This doesnt make sense. Too much overreacting now.

le_patron

Loving the squirming denials and half truths. I'd fire them just for that, it's cringe worthy.

Richmond Racer

Zabel's being partcularly weaselly

bipedal

frenchfighter wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Another casualty.

inrng: Abraham Olano loses his job as the Vuelta's technical director following his appearance on the French senate's list, via @Juan_Guti

This doesnt make sense. Too much overreacting now.

In light of Olano's reaction, it kind of does make sense... it's bad for business

Give me more

Jeroen Blijlevens is gone as sports director from Belkin as a result of coming up in this

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/ ... ion_296975

Could have confessed at the start of the year for a 6 month suspension, but decided to say he never doped -__-

frenchfighter

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cycling ... ves-report

Macaloon

Almost worthy of its own thread, this one. BR's Rick Chasey ProTrolls Vaughters & Bruyneel :shock:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Vaughters/status/360460426653339651

slim_boy_fat

Macaloon wrote:

Almost worthy of its own thread, this one. BR's Rick Chasey ProTrolls Vaughters & Bruyneel :shock:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Vaughters/status/360460426653339651

Awesomesauce!

thomthom

Everytime Johan's name comes up it annoys me knowing how much money he has.

TheBigBean

Which reminds me, what has happened to Bruyneel's much delayed USADA hearing?

Yellow Peril

Richmond Racer wrote:

Zabel's being partcularly weaselly

Every time a positive is revealed for Zabel it will be "the only other time I did it". He seriously needs to man up.

rick_chasey

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

Almost worthy of its own thread, this one. BR's Rick Chasey ProTrolls Vaughters & Bruyneel :shock:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Vaughters/status/360460426653339651

Awesomesauce!

My twitter mentions section has exploded.

dimspace

ad_snow wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

dimspace wrote:

Here you go. The 98 samples by result, stage etc.

No colour on a name means no sample taken.

nice

Can you clarify what undetectable means? Does it mean there's not enough of a sample to test or that any drugs present are undetectable (in which case they should be negative/all the negatives should be undetectable - if you're a cynic)

Cheers.

Yep.

First to explain the background, these were samples sent to the lab in 2004 purely for them to fine tune and test the EPO detection. Some of the samples had already been used for testing, back then standard donation was about 50cc, (now i think its 100cc), so depending on wether the samples had been used, some were in bigger quantities etc.

There were three tests in total.
1) The initial test is a visual autoradigraphic test which just detects the presense of EPO in a sample. ie. does it contain EPO or not. (This is indicated in the first column on the lab sheets coloured pink for EPO present, green if EPO not present). On my summary chart at this point I have referred to positive tests as "adverse", cn I think called them suspicious, others various terms.

2) There is then a second test to determine the amount of EPO present in the sample. When the EPO test was originally created the suggested level was 60% but the UCI chose to set a positive as any result in excess of 80%. For the purposes of the lab tests they considered 85% as a true positive. So any samples that showed EPO in phase 1, and then showed over 85% in phase two become "Positive".

3) There is a third column based on mathematical analysis but the lab dont use it.

Undetectable is generally because the size of the sample is too small to be adequatly tested or had degraded, as apposed to "manquant" where the sample was missing. The initial visual radiography is able to detect unnatural EPO, and can distuinquish between natural and unnatural. In indetectable they couldnt perform the test at all succesfully.

Note: Not all of the samples positive in phase 1 were tested in phase 2 due to there not being a big enough sample to test. So some of the adverse went on to become positive, some remain as adverse because there wasnt enough to do a full EPO test. However, its worth noting, that with the exception of 1 test all the samples that did go to phase 2 proved positive.

The one exception is O;Grady. His phase 1 test on stage 14 showed presence of EPO. His test in the second phase showed an EPO concentration of (around Im going from memory) 65%. For the sake of the lab tests this was not a positive, under the UCI rules of 80% its not positive, but under the original suggested figure of 60% it is positive. Its certainly suspicious and shows high levels of artificial EPO.

The names were calculated by taking the lab references on the results sheets, and cross referencing against the individual rider tests sheets from about page 100 in the French Senate Report. For the sake of the diagram I populated it with the stage podiums and jersey winners so that we could see a pattern of testing.

This topic has all the source documents in http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=3086.0 - we had a seperate discussion topic. We just file sources in threads for easy finding later on. That has the french documents, as well as the Vrijman report commissioned by the UCI in 2006 to dispute teh findings, copies of the lab sheets, and my excel doc which has the sources for the matching in it.

knedlicky

bipedal wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Another casualty.
inrng: Abraham Olano loses his job as the Vuelta's technical director following his appearance on the French senate's list, via @Juan_Guti

This doesnt make sense. Too much overreacting now.

In light of Olano's reaction, it kind of does make sense... it's bad for business

Agree with bipedal about Olano, but it will also be somehow wrong if all those now named lose their jobs, while those of that year whose samples have gone missing or have degraded, or those who were never tested, keep theirs. That’s just too simple.

It probably wouldn’t have made any difference had Olano doped a bit less, but his denying looks pretty stupid when the isoformes value of his positive (100% on stage 8 ) actually suggests he doped more than any other rider, Pantani included.
Olano wasn’t involved in the action during stage 8, but would have probably doped for the day before, the first TT stage and a discipline he was reputedly good at. But in the days before micro-dosing and other refinements like intravenous injections, riders could still be very positive over 24 hours later. (Olano finished 6th, behind Ullrich, Hamilton, Julich, Jalabert and Ekimov)

Same with Ullrich’s positive on stage 21; it was almost as high (99.9%), but probably not to help on that stage (the last stage of the Tour), rather the day before, because then there’d been another TT (which Ullrich won).

dimspace

ON the general subject of names. I have no real issue with the riders having taken EPO.

I have a big issue when they offered the opportunity by their teams (Belkin and Greenedge to name two), and confess all misdeads in return for a short ban, they declined to do so.

When confronted with the fact that a rider had a positive test on stage 14 of the Tour, the riders chooses to lie and say he took EPO before the Tour and threw it away.

First one I can handle, last two, unforgivable.

knedlicky

Rick Chasey wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

Almost worthy of its own thread, this one. BR's Rick Chasey ProTrolls Vaughters & Bruyneel :shock:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Vaughters/status/360460426653339651

Awesomesauce!

My twitter mentions section has exploded.

O’Grady was more than suspicious on stage 14 (as mentioned by Bruyneel in your Twitter thread), he was highly suspicious.
His isoformes percentage was 83.1% in that test, and 85% or higher is considered positive – a figure which is already fairly generous considering normal values are in the 15-60% range, usually at most 40%.
Johan 1 - Jonathan 0

knedlicky

dimspace wrote:

ad_snow wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

dimspace wrote:

Here you go. The 98 samples by result, stage etc.
…..

nice

Can you clarify what undetectable means?
….. Cheers.

Yep.
First …..
…..
The one exception is O;Grady. His phase 1 test on stage 14 showed presence of EPO. His test in the second phase showed an EPO concentration of (around Im going from memory) 65%. For the sake of the lab tests this was not a positive, under the UCI rules of 85% its not positive, but under the original suggested figure of 60% it is positive. Its certainly suspicious and shows high levels of artificial EPO
....

Well done initially for the chart and now for being prepared to have a go at an explanation, but I think your memory about O’Grady’s value is faulty.
As I wrote above to Rick, it was 83.1%.

dimspace

knedlicky wrote:

dimspace wrote:

ad_snow wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

dimspace wrote:

Here you go. The 98 samples by result, stage etc.
…..

nice

Can you clarify what undetectable means?
….. Cheers.

Yep.
First …..
…..
The one exception is O;Grady. His phase 1 test on stage 14 showed presence of EPO. His test in the second phase showed an EPO concentration of (around Im going from memory) 65%. For the sake of the lab tests this was not a positive, under the UCI rules of 85% its not positive, but under the original suggested figure of 60% it is positive. Its certainly suspicious and shows high levels of artificial EPO
....

Well done initially for the chart and now for being prepared to have a go at an explanation, but I think your memory about O’Grady’s value is faulty.
As I wrote above to Rick, it was 83.1%.

O'Grady 26.7.98 - lab ref 064 415


Lab sheet 064 415

rick_chasey

knedlicky wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

Almost worthy of its own thread, this one. BR's Rick Chasey ProTrolls Vaughters & Bruyneel :shock:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Vaughters/status/360460426653339651

Awesomesauce!

My twitter mentions section has exploded.

O’Grady was more than suspicious on stage 14 (as mentioned by Bruyneel in your Twitter thread), he was highly suspicious.
His isoformes percentage was 83.1% in that test, and 85% or higher is considered positive – a figure which is already fairly generous considering normal values are in the 15-60% range, usually at most 40%.
Johan 1 - Jonathan 0

I totally don't care. I just fancied a pun and enjoy Bruyneel on Twitter.

mididoctors

Rick Chasey wrote:

knedlicky wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

Almost worthy of its own thread, this one. BR's Rick Chasey ProTrolls Vaughters & Bruyneel :shock:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Vaughters/status/360460426653339651

Awesomesauce!

My twitter mentions section has exploded.

O’Grady was more than suspicious on stage 14 (as mentioned by Bruyneel in your Twitter thread), he was highly suspicious.
His isoformes percentage was 83.1% in that test, and 85% or higher is considered positive – a figure which is already fairly generous considering normal values are in the 15-60% range, usually at most 40%.
Johan 1 - Jonathan 0

I totally don't care. I just fancied a pun and enjoy Bruyneel on Twitter.

Do you think he picked up on it thou?

srsly I think he missed it.

Richmond Racer

It was entertaining. Thanks Rick

ratherbeintobago

TheBigBean wrote:

Which reminds me, what has happened to Bruyneel's much delayed USADA hearing?

CAS have yet to set a date, as JB himself reminded me on Twitter last week when I mistakenly stated he was banned. :oops:

mididoctors

dish_dash wrote:

Either way, just because they were negative or not tested it doesn't mean that they weren't doping. They just weren't caught through this approach...

It's a total shambles. Both O'Grady and Blijlevens (not to mention Jaja) highlight that there is no guarantee that anyone will tell the truth to any of these truth and reconciliation approaches being suggested... both lied very recently about their doping past. If I was running Dutch or Australian cycling I'd be fuming...

Yes but this is why you combine approaches because you get to cross reference stories and see who has character and who hasn't

T and R has value even if people lie.

we now know

yes?

you piece it together from all the sources you can

ddraver

dish_dash wrote:

It's a total shambles. Both O'Grady and Blijlevens (not to mention Jaja) highlight that there is no guarantee that anyone will tell the truth to any of these truth and reconciliation approaches being suggested... both lied very recently about their doping past. If I was running Dutch or Australian cycling I'd be fuming...

That's a very good point, one of the few things that drops out of all the handwringing is that T&R processes just won't work...yet still we have people bleating for them on twitter... :roll: