On 5/27/2011 12:48 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
Good reading here-
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swis...uspect-samples


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.

These are just facts, they will have no effect on Anton's opinions.