2002SaecoReplica wrote:Go re-read the statements from Gent and from Australia.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... ct22news2a
That's the statement from the Spanish federation, not from either lab.
Moderators: robbosmans, Moderator Team
2002SaecoReplica wrote:Go re-read the statements from Gent and from Australia.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... ct22news2a
GrahamB wrote:2002SaecoReplica wrote:Go re-read the statements from Gent and from Australia.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... ct22news2a
That's the statement from the Spanish federation, not from either lab.
rustychain wrote:I agree that test must be repetable.
2002SaecoReplica wrote:You're still not reading.
The Gent lab and Australian lab both notified the Spanish Cycling Federation about the negative B test results. Are you trying to say that the Spanish Cycling Federation is lying and neither labs in Gent or Australia have come out to call their lie?
PezTech wrote:I just can't seem to believe that WADA have not simply paid off the UCI to provide evidence that they are a good doping controler.
[...]
That lawyers can confuse what's good or bad is simply down to the UCI and WADA being HORRIBLE at their jobs and not setting proper definitions for controls and positives...
GrahamB wrote:2002SaecoReplica wrote:You're still not reading.
The Gent lab and Australian lab both notified the Spanish Cycling Federation about the negative B test results. Are you trying to say that the Spanish Cycling Federation is lying and neither labs in Gent or Australia have come out to call their lie?
I read quite well. Nowhere does it say "The Gent lab said it was negative".
It says the "Spanish Federation told Mayo it came back negative". So we are actually dealing with a description in English by Mayo's PR person of what Mayo was told in Spanish by the Spanish Federation was the content of a report sent to them from (the Dutch speaking part of) Belgium.
My job is in biostatistics. I can tell you that even between people with the same first language, the difference between "the result is negative" and "there isn't enough evidence to say the result is positive" is difficult to convey... especially when the hearer doesn't want to understand.
I am suggesting that the Spanish federation is trying to spin the situation. I would not go so far as to say they are lying, only that they are not being as clear as they could. In any case, if it's unthinkable that the Spanish Fed'n would lie, why is it acceptable to say that the UCI and the Chatenay-Malabri lab are in a conspiracy to falsify results and destroy the career of an innocent rider?
Yes, the UCI could have done better. It would certainly have helped if, rather than saying positive, they'd given an estimate of the relevant parameter with its margin for error.
Hypothetically, if we were talking about testosterone ratios, it's conceivable that what happened was:
test 1: 4.5 +/- 0.3, positive;
test 2: 4.6 +/- 1.0, inconclusive;
test 2a: (same data looked at by different people) 4.5 +/- 1.0, inconclusive;
test 3: 4.4, +/- .25, positive.
Note that in the above example, the hypothetical test results are not contradictory. Maybe something like this happened with Mayo's test... we don't know.
2002SaecoReplica wrote:(The UCI says inconclusive but again, word parsing).
GrahamB wrote:2002SaecoReplica wrote:(The UCI says inconclusive but again, word parsing).
To me, "to parse" is to work out what it means. That's a bad thing?
UCI says inconclusive, Spanish Federation says negative. As you say, they're different. I don't see why the Spanish Federation is more credible than the UCI. Unless someone has a copy of the original lab reports, that's where we are stuck.
PezTech wrote:
Personally I have more "reasonable doubt" in the system than I did in 98'.
Unless they catch you leaping out a hotel window with a needle stuck in your ass (or walking into a drug lab with tens of thousands of Euro's), I simply doubt the findings.
My oppinion is mostly due to the fact that I hate seeing ALL of my hero's prove me wrong for being a fan...
I think lots of guys Dope and they're getting caught... That lawyers can confuse what's good or bad is simply down to the UCI and WADA being HORRIBLE at their jobs and not setting proper definitions for controls and positives... It's probably far more about that than it is about really thinking any country is far worse than another...
clouchi wrote:4: Some national bodies have failed investigate or deal with their riders testing positive - the spanish investigation of puerto seems half-hearted for example, and this may be down to trying to avoid the national image, or for financial reasons - who knows?
DocRay wrote:clouchi wrote:4: Some national bodies have failed investigate or deal with their riders testing positive - the spanish investigation of puerto seems half-hearted for example, and this may be down to trying to avoid the national image, or for financial reasons - who knows?
This is also the reason why so many teams historically liked to setup training camps in Spain. It wasn't just the nice weather and tapas.
Add in the mention of other sports, in particular Football, and all of a sudden it faltered.DocRay wrote:clouchi wrote:4: Some national bodies have failed investigate or deal with their riders testing positive - the spanish investigation of puerto seems half-hearted for example, and this may be down to trying to avoid the national image, or for financial reasons - who knows?
The lack of investigation in Spain around OP is simple: sports doping was not illegal in Spain at the time of OP, so no laws were broken. The evidence will remain in the hands of Spanish courts and likely never see the light of day. OP was a criminal investigation around a doctor and illegal medical practices, it was not about sports and had nothing to do with UCI or WADA.
This is also the reason why so many teams historically liked to setup training camps in Spain. It wasn't just the nice weather and tapas.
DocRay wrote:Most of the pro peloton has hematocrit levels that are skewed higher than any other sport, but amazingly just below the 50% level allowed by the UCI (which is still artificially high).