That's the statement from the Spanish federation, not from either lab.

_________________
Graham

I agree that test must be repetable. I also think the B test should alway be done in another country on a radom rotation basis to exclude questionable practices. Perhaps even a third lab to review both tests.

Enforcement of doping can't work if there is no confedence in the system. At this time I have no confedence in anything regarding doping. This lab I believe has more then once broken proceedure for testing and reporting. Failure to follow proceedure for testing got the Chicken kicked out of the TDF.

I have no idea if Mayo is doping but his results say that if he is perhaps he should see a new Dr.

UCI needs to get it together and FAST

_________________
WW Velocipedist Gargantuan

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?

_________________
- Zipp rims will break if you look at them too hard
- R-Sys wheels will spontaneously explode
- The ZG crankset will never, ever exist
- Everyone needs Lightweights, even if they're fat and old
- Parts actually made of metal are SO 10 years ago

True...

And the results should be repeatable on the same sample with other labs repeating the proceedure...

That's what gets me... The french lab with ties to Le Equipe seems to find news worthy bombshell results that are doubted in other spots (but can't seem to find a Frenchman that isn't tres magnifique). The Spanish seem to not be able to admit a bombshell has exploded (only someone as purely stupid and egomaniacle as Manolo Saiz could get caught red handed in spain) and the Belgians (my favortie was suspending Frank VDB in one part of belgium but not in another) seem to simply not care that cyclists cheat.


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.

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. The UCI are greedy and pathetic enough for it and it's not like WADA have the guts or ability to attack any stronger sport.

BUT!


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...

_________________
charles@pezcyclingnews.com

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.

_________________
Graham

You amaze me... WADA paying off the UCI? Read that again to yourself a couple of times and tell me where in their budget WADA would have the "bribes for sporting organisations" line.

I know several very good doctors who have been reduced to jelly in the witness stand by aggressive lawyers. In fact, almost no one does their job in a completely above-board way that would stand up to the level of scrutiny being applied.
"Do you take extensive written notes of every interview you do, which you then archive for 5 years? Or at least you record everything and archives the tapes, don't you? Are you saying that in fact some of the comments you have ascribed to riders were the result of your unaided memory? Is it not possible that you in fact misconstrued the sense of my client's comments, perhaps subconsciously, in order to obtain a better story? Were there any independent witnesses present at the interview who can confirm the precise form of words used?..."

Consider for example that story published in PezNews about the health of children of ex East German Athletes. Supposedly it was recently published. Well, it hasn't been published in the biomedical or epidemiological literature. It turns out the author is a historian, with no identifiable medical or epidemiological expertise. So, did you check your sources? Did you note that the author was a historian?

No, and in your position I wouldn't have either... but in court, you could be made to look like a reckless journalist with no respect for correct procedures and scant regard for the truth.

I'm not saying the lab people are good at their jobs. Maybe they are quite bad... working in a routine analytic lab is actually a pretty brain deadening activity. What I am saying is that Landis and others have paid some very talented lawyers a lot of money to make the lab look bad... and I know that every lab I've been associated with would look bad under those circumstances.

_________________
Graham

You're guilty of Hillary Clinton speak...parsing words.

Inconclusive is not the same as positive. Inconclusive, as I'm sure you know, it a "we're not sure".

Yet the problem remains. The LNDD lab gets a positive A sample. Tests done in Gent and Australia give a negative results(The UCI says inconclusive but again, word parsing). At this point, according to the UCI's and WADA's own rules Mayo's case is suppose to be ruled as negative and the rider is cleared. The UCI has broken it's own rules go re-test the B sample in the LNDD lab knowing that the lab, with several documented cases of screw ups and breaches of protocol, would produce the positive result.

This is a simple matter of peer review and when the LNDD's test results were subject to peer review that failed. It's just that simple.

_________________
- Zipp rims will break if you look at them too hard
- R-Sys wheels will spontaneously explode
- The ZG crankset will never, ever exist
- Everyone needs Lightweights, even if they're fat and old
- Parts actually made of metal are SO 10 years ago

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.

_________________
Graham

Inconclusive or negative really don't matter because neither one is positive, and according to WADA and the UCI's own rules, they only get to do an A sample test and a B sample test. They don't get to do a re-do if they flub the test up somewhere.

And lets be clear on the matter. If you're going to declare a rider positive of doping and effectively end his career there had better be crystal clear repeatable testing data that proves the rider was taking drugs. So far we have a positive out of a lab with known protocol and procedural errors, and two negative/inconclusive/whatever tests, and then a "redo" positive test out of said shady lab.

I'm sorry, but that simply is not good enough. If the UCI and WADA are going to place 4 year sanctions upon riders for drugs, and they should, than they had better do a damn good job of making a solid case against them. This, "uh, we think he's doping, we're like 90% sure but we could be wrong" attitude does not cut it.

_________________
- Zipp rims will break if you look at them too hard
- R-Sys wheels will spontaneously explode
- The ZG crankset will never, ever exist
- Everyone needs Lightweights, even if they're fat and old
- Parts actually made of metal are SO 10 years ago

Look at results and judge. Rasmussen just made public his hematocrit levels measured at the TDF from day one to day kicked out. His hematocrit rose over 10% in two weeks -there is only one way for that to happen.
A hematocrit assay is very simple, a child could do it. 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).

Then there is the opposite situation: Millar never tested positive for EPO, but admitted to using it in many races where he was repeatedly tested. By the same argument, we are to believe Armstrong never used EPO, but every rider who ever came close to him has now been proven to have cheated (but not always caught in testing!).

The point: race testing and labs prove nothing, unless a mistake was made by the doper, a la Landis. This should really be in the hands of Interpol with criminal charges against doctors.

I think there may be a tendancy amongst sports fans to look for any other reason they can to explain away their hero's misdemeanors. Combine this with the love of a good conspiracy theory and you find theories that a governing body are trying to destroy its own sport (as opposed to destroying it by trying to get control over its most lucrative events - but thats another story). On the balance of likelihood I think that:

1: The rewards of sporting success has lead to many sportstars cheat, and in the case of cycling via drugs - this has been shown by positive tests, police raids, confessions and others methods.

2: Unlike many other sports cycling has adopted a very stringent testing precedure. This has lead to more positives.

3: On the whole these tests have been done by an international body - therefore cover-ups are less likely.

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?

5: The international bodies have generally, finally acted properly - but in their haste have sometimes acted in a slightly distasteful way eg by naming riders before 2nd tests are carried out.

As a final example, think of Pantani - he really inspired admiration for the way he rode and it was hard to accept that his desire for success lead him to cheat and abuse his body. But he did.

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.

Interesting point.

_________________
"Really fast people are frustrating, but they make you faster. When you get faster, you might frustrate someone else."

2009 Trek Madone 5.5 Project One SRAM Force 16.4 lbs w/pedals and cages.
2007 Bianchi 928 Carbon Lugged- SRAM Rival-17 lbs.

Add in the mention of other sports, in particular Football, and all of a sudden it faltered.

Lots of very good points. However I wonder if this is a way forward, ie regulating outcomes, rather than behaviour?

For eg, proving that someone has used EPO or blood-doping to "beyond reasonable doubt" levels is always going to be difficult. There will be arguments "I have this freaky physiology that produces more haemoglobin under acute physical stress". We can say that this is statistically implausible, but applying population stats to individuals is dangerous.

So if instead there was an extended form of blood profile limits, the philosophy is simply "you are not fit, you cannot race". Granted the current concerns about EPO's non-specificity, is it fair to distinguish someone who boosts there h-crit by blood-doping as compared to someone who spends every night in a hypoxic tent, if they get to the same result?

(Hypoxic conditions scare me... sounds like a short cut to early cognitive decline )

_________________
Graham