|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Context for TdS debacle
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. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Context for TdS debacle
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Context for TdS debacle
On 5/27/2011 12:58 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
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. and that's a fact. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Context for TdS debacle
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Context for TdS debacle
"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 Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Context for TdS debacle
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Context for TdS debacle
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Context for TdS debacle
On May 28, 2:38*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote: 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 Bicycleswww.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 I agree with your assessment of the handling of the Mayo case. However, I disagree with you that WADA has learnt anything from that, they seem even worse, if anything. In any case, that recent case indicates that the anti-doping system itself doesn't work correctly. If there are going to be investigations of 10 year old doping cases, one should also review the doping cases which were mishandled. That includes Mayo, and Landis as well, where the original AFLD test was shown to be incompetent. If the Armstrong 1999 AFLD samples ever come to a US trial, the defense is going to have a field day destroying the lab's credibility. -ilan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Context for TdS debacle
On May 27, 1:02*pm, ilan wrote:
It also confirms what I was saying, that the EPO test has a subjective element. ,,, as do a number of dope tests. IIRC, Ashenden's test for exogenous blood doping only requires a subjective detection of a peak corresponding to the non-native blood cells - no criteria as to the peak or the integrated quantity. With regard to the EPO test, my understanding is that it also is sensitive to the presence of exogenous EPO only for a very short period of time after the EPO is administered, yet the effects last for days to weeks. Just another reason why anyone who takes care can avoid detection of many dope tests and appear "clean" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Context for TdS debacle
On May 27, 6:38*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote: That was, what, 2007? Are you suggesting we're no better off now than we were then? Two words (and a link) - "Festina Affair" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festina_affair That was what, 1998? As an aside, geez - wouldn't you love to have been a sponsor and have your name immortalized as an inextricable link to cheating in sports? DR |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Missing context | Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_] | UK | 48 | September 12th 10 02:55 AM |
Highway Code debacle - CTC | David Damerell | UK | 10 | May 11th 07 05:26 PM |
Odd, no talk of the Sony debacle | [email protected] | Racing | 24 | October 15th 05 11:07 PM |
Q: Effectiveness of flashing front lights in rural context? | Peter Fox | UK | 15 | February 16th 05 08:14 AM |
What does "R+5" mean in the context of a BB? | Dave Thompson | Techniques | 2 | January 22nd 05 07:59 PM |