That was then, this is now. Today we have a number of different ways to
look
at whether someone is excessively doping or not. And that's what it is...
we're testing, realistically, for "excessive" doping. We're putting up
limits that allow someone to dope to a certain level and tacitly saying
that's OK, because there's probably no other way to run things without the
likelihood of innocent people getting caught. People getting caught now
have
simply screwed up or are just plain stupid. We see unbelievable rides and,
in the back of our minds, wonder if that's really possible without being
doped to the gills... and a few days later, we discover that it's not. It
doesn't mean everyone else is clean though. Just much-better managed. Some
are clean, perhaps many are clean, could even be most, as the doping
controls become a bit tighter over time, lowering the advantage of, dare I
say, "legal" doping over someone who's racing clean.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
=====
When two labs decide that Iban Mayo's sample is inconclusive and one
that it indicates doping, I call that subjective. When only the doping
lab's opinion is taken into account, I call that injustice. That all
happened long after the supposed Tour de Suisse affair.
-ilan
=====
What happened to Mayo was absurd. You had the Spanish federation doing their
usual thing (protecting their own) and then a comedy of screw-ups and
mis-steps that boggled the mind. I think the UCI & WADA have learned a lot
from that. It remains surprising to me that CAS found in favor of the UCI
and suspended Mayo, but in the end I think they did catch a doper.
That was, what, 2007? Are you suggesting we're no better off now than we
were then? I think the biological passport has helped significantly lower
the allowable doping bar. I suspect that, had we had that tool back then,
there would have been no question that Mayo was doping. But I also suspect
that, had the biological passport been in use then, Mayo would have been
more cautious.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"ilan" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 10:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
"ilan" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 9:48 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
Good reading
here-http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-lab-director-confirms-meeting-b...
So here's what we know-
#1: There was never a "positive" test to cover up in the first place. It
was
a "suspicious" test with a reading of between 70-80% (percent of what
I'm
not sure). To be "positive" it would have had to have been 85%. At that
time, the EPO testing was not solid enough to rule out natural means of
producing a positive result, thus the high threshold.
#2: There was no "special" meeting, according to Saugy, the person
involved
who now happens to be the head of the lab in Lausanne. "And it also
wasn't
about discussing a particular result or to cover up anything. I
explained
how the EPO test worked and why there were suspect samples as well as
positive ones. This information was part of a lecture that I had been
giving
in various locations." Saugy apparently had many meetings with many
teams/riders letting people know what the process was, how the testing
worked, etc. Yes, we can ascribe evil motivations to that, but
seriously,
if
your career was on the line based upon some new test, wouldn't you want
to
know something about it, especially since there would be some concern
regarding false positives?
Within this context, it is entirely reasonable that Lance was not
concerned
about the tests, whether he was doping or not. He had no reason to be
concerned. He had a suspicious test that was below the level of a
positive,
and the process had been explained not just to Lance but other people as
well.
Of course, the 60 minutes interview put huge weight on Tyler's inference
that Lance made a positive test go away.
If you accept that Saugy is telling the truth, you come away not with
the
idea that Tyler is lying, but that he completely misunderstood. He made
assumptions that were reasonable within his own framework, but that's
all.
Assumptions that turn out to be falso.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
======
It also confirms what I was saying, that the EPO test has a subjective
element.
-ilan
======
That was then, this is now. Today we have a number of different ways to
look
at whether someone is excessively doping or not. And that's what it is...
we're testing, realistically, for "excessive" doping. We're putting up
limits that allow someone to dope to a certain level and tacitly saying
that's OK, because there's probably no other way to run things without the
likelihood of innocent people getting caught. People getting caught now
have
simply screwed up or are just plain stupid. We see unbelievable rides and,
in the back of our minds, wonder if that's really possible without being
doped to the gills... and a few days later, we discover that it's not. It
doesn't mean everyone else is clean though. Just much-better managed. Some
are clean, perhaps many are clean, could even be most, as the doping
controls become a bit tighter over time, lowering the advantage of, dare I
say, "legal" doping over someone who's racing clean.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
When two labs decide that Iban Mayo's sample is inconclusive and one
that it indicates doping, I call that subjective. When only the doping
lab's opinion is taken into account, I call that injustice. That all
happened long after the supposed Tour de Suisse affair.
-ilan