Guilty...not guilty, ...guilty again

[DocRay]

Ok, Iban Mayo is back in the news, they tested his B sample again, now it's positive for EPO, whereas it was negative last time, and positive the time before that.

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13812.0.html

2008 looks like another writeoff, UCI is now officially a joke.

[NS]

This stinks and adds weight to every appeal lodged against this lab.

Its a disgrace, a farce, no its a shambles.

[dastardly]

Ok, Iban Mayo is back in the news, they tested his B sample again, now it's positive for EPO, whereas it was negative last time, and positive the time before that.

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13812.0.html

2008 looks like another writeoff, UCI is now officially a joke.

Not that i disagree with this in general terms, in this case it is the Spanish lab thats a joke, or am i misreading it?

[2002SaecoReplica]

Here's the thing.

The A sample was tested at the French LNDD lab. The B sample was then tested in Gent, Belgium and in Australia and both of those tests came back negative. The UCI got mad, said that those labs must have done the tests wrong so they demanded(against protocol I believe) the B sample be re-tested at the LNDD lab. So of course, the B sample comes back positive.

This is really a sad joke. The LNDD lab has case after case after cause been caught breaking the rules, not following protocol, and in generally screwing up. When these tests at another WADA accredited lab outside of the LNDD lab the results are different. The LNDD can say that the other labs didn't do they test right but that's straight bullshit. They're both accredited by WADA so they know how to do these tests. This is a simple EPO test that has been available for years. It's not rocket science.

If I were a rider I'd be scared to death to know that LNDD is in charge of doing my doping controls.

[coloclimber]

As an attorney, I would take Mayo's case in a second. It will never get past the Spanish authorities though.

[GrahamB]

The B sample was then tested in Gent, Belgium and in Australia and both of those tests came back negative.

Not quite. The Gent lab found it was inconclusive. The Australian lab reviewed the electrophoresis gels (but did not re-test the sample) and also said inconclusive.

The Spanish cycling federation announced these inconclusive results as negatives.

So a better description would be positive... don't know (nor us)... positive.

[DocRay]

Here's the thing.

The A sample was tested at the French LNDD lab. The B sample was then tested in Gent, Belgium and in Australia and both of those tests came back negative. The UCI got mad, said that those labs must have done the tests wrong so they demanded(against protocol I believe) the B sample be re-tested at the LNDD lab. So of course, the B sample comes back positive.

I run a biomedical research lab, and yes, there are people who somehow get through university who can't reliably make coffee, but in my lab, those people are fired.

The UCI seems attracted to these idiots.

[Rodrego Hernandez]

The UCI was tipped off that Mayo was using by one of his team mates - allegedly.

They have now proved it - not that anyone could seriously been in doubt that he was dirty??

[racyrich]

The UCI was tipped off that Mayo was using by one of his team mates - allegedly.

They have now proved it - not that anyone could seriously been in doubt that he was dirty??

If the UCI doesn't really care if the case is proven or not. I think I'll start some rumours that certain riders are using EPO. Then the UCI can find them guilty and ban them.

[Danton]

We have a positive test, an inconclusive test and a positive test.

When someone tests positive, the rules say you have the chance to admit guilt or to request the B-sample is re-tested, when you are allowed to review the testing, literally to stand in the laboratory as the testing is done, you can see everything from the opening of the seal on the sample which you closed when you gave the sample, you can monitor everything. Or, if you're just a humble athlete and not a labo expert, you can even send someone on your behalf to monitor the testing.

If Mayo knows he is innocent, why did he not send some top experts to monitor the tests and to expose what they are doing wrong. If you suspect someone's not following protocol, here is the golden chance to expose it and to prove your innocence!

[DocRay]

If you suspect someone's not following protocol, here is the golden chance to expose it and to prove your innocence!

Urine humor is great.


and in related ridiculous pro-racing news, Tyler Hamilton is back:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13825.0.html

[2002SaecoReplica]

The UCI was tipped off that Mayo was using by one of his team mates - allegedly.

They have now proved it - not that anyone could seriously been in doubt that he was dirty??

The UCI has only proved that the LNDD lab can produce a positive doping control on command.

The Spanish Cycling Fed. stated today that they are not going to sanction Mayo so the UCI will just have to deal with it. The system is a joke and this Mayo case proves it.

[quote=cyclingnews.com]
Spanish fed won't sanction Mayo

Spanish cycling's secretary general Eugenio Bermudez has refused to sanction Iban Mayo, the Saunier Duval rider whose positive test for the banned blood boosting hormone EPO raised questions about the UCI's testing procedures. Mayo's 'A-sample' from the second rest day of the 2007 Tour de France was found to be positive for EPO by the Châtenay-Malabry laboratory in Paris, but the 'B-sample' test done in Gent, Belgium was reported as negative by the Spanish federation in October.

The UCI, however, claimed that the result was not negative, but was inconclusive, and sent the remainder of the 'B-sample' back to Paris for another test. The second result was positive. Bermudez objected to the treatment of the 'B-sample' by the UCI. "They wanted that second test because they are more interested in a result that works for them," he said.

Mayo was furious with the procedure, asserting his innocence and calling the third test 'illegal'. Bermudez expects that by refusing to sanction Mayo, his organisation will face strong opposition from the UCI. "It's not voluntary but I expect (a confrontation) to come," Bermudez told The Associated Press. "If there was another manner of doing this we would prefer to do it that way but there doesn't seem to be any other route out of this."

"To satisfy people, what do we have to do? Change the laws? Kill each cyclist's career?," Bermudez asked. "There are laws for everyone – cyclists, politicians, the UCI – and if Mayo had tested positive on that same day he would have been sanctioned," Bermudez said. "But the UCI is reading the rules in its own manner, which just doesn't work for us."[/quote]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... /dec22news

[GrahamB]

The UCI has only proved that the LNDD lab can produce a positive doping control on command.

BS. I know a guy who did a lot of the statistical consulting for the development of the first EPO tests. The point was to make them very, very conservative. In other words, the thresholds were set so that a "positive" really did mean "beyond reasonable doubt".

The process was very thorough: they even recruited amateur cyclist volunteers and gave them dope so they could compare with "clean" volunteer controls (some of whom turned out to be clearly doping on further investigation... whether as a direct attempt to sabotage the protocols or sheer stupidity, no one knows).

One consequence of this level of conservatism is that any additional noise will mean the results become "inconclusive", because they are biased in favour of a negative result. In this case it seems clear that the Gent lab may have had some contamination issues. That sounds a much more plausible explanation to me than a huge conspiracy, led by the UCI, to destroy the credibility of cycling (and so the UCI's cash stream).

The fact that the Spanish federation chose to report an inconclusive result as "negative" says much more about the Spanish federation, to me.

[2002SaecoReplica]

The UCI has only proved that the LNDD lab can produce a positive doping control on command.

BS. I know a guy who did a lot of the statistical consulting for the development of the first EPO tests. The point was to make them very, very conservative. In other words, the thresholds were set so that a "positive" really did mean "beyond reasonable doubt".

The process was very thorough: they even recruited amateur cyclist volunteers and gave them dope so they could compare with "clean" volunteer controls (some of whom turned out to be clearly doping on further investigation... whether as a direct attempt to sabotage the protocols or sheer stupidity, no one knows).

One consequence of this level of conservatism is that any additional noise will mean the results become "inconclusive", because they are biased in favour of a negative result. In this case it seems clear that the Gent lab may have had some contamination issues. That sounds a much more plausible explanation to me than a huge conspiracy, led by the UCI, to destroy the credibility of cycling (and so the UCI's cash stream).

The fact that the Spanish federation chose to report an inconclusive result as "negative" says much more about the Spanish federation, to me.

Go re-read the statements from Gent and from Australia.

The lab in Gent tests Mayo's B sample and it was declared negative. They then had the lab in Australia confirm the test done in Gent and they agreed, the test was negative.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... ct22news2a

Both of those labs declared negative B sample test results. It was the French lab that decided that these results were not negative but "inconclusive". The Gent and Australian labs are both WADA accredited labs so both meet the same, supposed, strict standards for methodology and ethics. So they do the test and they get a negative.

Anne Gripper's statement to the AP is clear, "To ensure that the rider could have the B sample done more quickly, we transferred the sample, but the Gent laboratory just couldn't get the sample to confirm the Paris result".

So Mrs. Gripper and the UCI have a problem. They have their champion LNDD lab producing results that can not be replicated outside of their own lab. The basis of any good science is that someone else can take your experiment, repeat the methodology, and get the same result. So Mrs. Gripper and the UCI have a lab that is clearly doing drug testing that other labs are unable to confirm. In science, if your hypothesis can not be confirmed by an outside source, so called pear-review, than it is considered invalid. The same standards apply in Mayo's case.

[swinter]

Personally, I've suspected Mayo for a long time. In general, I have been more hawkishly anti-doper than most. But if the B sample comes back negative, then the UCI should let it go. Retesting until you get the result you want is not playing fair. On this one, the Spanish federation has it right.

And, clearly, the French lab needs to clean up its act.