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