newhero
Reged: 23/09/2008
Posts: 253
|
|
Lance, probably amongst others, has been offered a re test of his samples that alegedly showed positive during the 1999 Tour. Also on offer is the chance to have them tested at another venue, as some have cast doubts on the quality of service offered by the Paris test centre calling them incompetent.
I could understand an incompetent tester NOT finding something that is present in a sample, but I cant get my head around the theory of finding something in a sample that is not there.
I may be a bear of little brain but it wont add up for me.
|
wuverley
Reged: 16/05/2008
Posts: 4043
Loc: Man of Kent
|
|
Contamination, bad labelling would be two causes.
--------------------
Invicta
|
tonybv9
Reged: 08/10/2007
Posts: 751
|
|
Remember 100m sprinter Ben Johnson? The irony of his doping bust was that he was caught for something he didn't actually take. He was thoroughly and meticulously "prepared", but his then coach has since expressed bemusement at what came out in the test. "He had no reason to take that".
--------------------
Walk a mile in my shoes...and you will wear the bloody cleats out.
|
dang
Reged: 16/06/2006
Posts: 958
Loc: twixt 7 & ?
|
|
Trying to be neutral - but is there scientific proof that contamination can occur in an airtight container?
|
newhero
Reged: 23/09/2008
Posts: 253
|
|
So. What you are sugesting is that clean samples get contaminated by positive samples? or that the testers have a stash of performance enhancuing drugs that they routinely add to un popular riders samples?
On the labeling issue, the labels are completed and added to the A and Bcontainers in the presence of the rider so that rules that one out.
Still confused.
|
plymchick
Reged: 17/09/2007
Posts: 251
Loc: World Of My Own
|
|
Maybe they're impling that because the French don't like Lance, they have "tampered" with his samples or that the samples may not really be his? - but without actually saying so due to libel etc.
|
wuverley
Reged: 16/05/2008
Posts: 4043
Loc: Man of Kent
|
|
Quote:
So. What you are sugesting is that clean samples get contaminated by positive samples?
Still confused.
Er yes, that's what I was suggesting could be a reason for a false positive. I believe it happens from time to time.
I'm not sure what you're confused about.
--------------------
Invicta
|
tonybv9
Reged: 08/10/2007
Posts: 751
|
|
Interesting reading
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/athletics/article1161566.ece
--------------------
Walk a mile in my shoes...and you will wear the bloody cleats out.
|
mamba80
Reged: 09/08/2007
Posts: 403
Loc: Cornwall
|
|
Why an earth are we going down this route....again!
His sample is 9 yrs old, anything could have happened to it after such a long time, he, Amstrong, would be crazy to agree to this.
the UCI, has totally shot its self in the foot.
Deal with the present and the future and judge him (and the others) on their future performances.
Cycling, as a pro sport, will be dead if we carry on like this.
|
MagnersCattlegridCon
Reged: 25/04/2008
Posts: 648
|
|
I agree with mamba:
Anything could have happened to it, I know specimens are kept for a certain period of time but didn't think it was as long as 9 years. There is nothing to say it hasn't been tampered with either when it was originally tested in '99 or since then(it is certainly not unheard of). Therefore, if Armstrong accepts, it could produce an untrue positive result.
However, if Armstrong rejects, many (probably the majority on this forum) will take it as him having something to hide and no doubt this will be the media's take on it as well.
I think the french have really made a bad decision on this one! This possibly puts proof to the theory of the French being against armstrong by forcing him into a corner on this one. Yes, there is a possibility that the specimen could be negative and uncontaminated but there is a risk to Armstrong's reputation whatever he decides to do.
There is a 2/3 chance that the result will be VERY bad for cycling, please introduce me to the tosser who thought up this one!
--------------------
Only a true cyclist knows the taste of tarmac.
|
newhero
Reged: 23/09/2008
Posts: 253
|
|
Wuverley.
What Im confused about is the fact that you guys are saying thet samples get contaminated. So Ricco was innocent then?
So what is the point of doing any testing if the athlete can just say "well its probably contaminated, thats why I was positive" Ridiculus.
And claiming that a lab would falsly label someone positive cos they didnt like them. Please. Get real.
|
MagnersCattlegridCon
Reged: 25/04/2008
Posts: 648
|
|
Quote:
And claiming that a lab would falsly label someone positive cos they didnt like them. Please. Get real.
The same thing can happen in almost any other industry. Finance, business, law, politics etc etc. No sector is totally immune to corruption. Regulations can fail, people can be made out to be scapegoats. Fact is, it happens.
We have no idea what goes on within the teams, labs, authorities etc. We only have speculation but when we see it happening everywhere else I would love for anyone to give me one reason why testing labs/authorities are immune to corruption.
Right now cycling is very similar to the banks, regulation has been there and mostly followed but people have turned a blind eye to the obvious. Now it's in crisis nobody knows who to trust, big names are falling and images destroyed. Ideally both need a fresh start, but for cycling this could mean previous dopers would be ignored and allowed to continue and for banking it would mean that tax payers pay the price.
There is no simple answer, nor is there anything to say that the same thing won't happen again. Regulation has its limits and some people will do anything to find a way around it.
As for contamination, the bbc report dave produced shows that it is very difficult to prove one way or another.
--------------------
Only a true cyclist knows the taste of tarmac.
|
goblin
Reged: 31/03/2007
Posts: 1389
Loc: down yur me anzum
|
|
Is there a scientist/chemist in the house that can comment on the contamination argument? If not, then there's no point in arguing the case either way because none of us have a clue about what goes on with samples over a nine year period!
Armstrong won't agree to a test - he doesn't have to. This will lead to guilt by refusal for the doubters.
If he did take the test and fail he would claim contamination - so again, a no win situation where some will believe his side of the story and others wouldn't.
....and the theories go on forever more. Time to give it a rest me thinks!!
|
Dazzricles
Reged: 24/08/2008
Posts: 621
|
|
You may like to know how medical control is conducted:
Competitors sign a form to the effect they acknowledge there call for testing. The urine is given in front of a sample taker (they are SAPOSED to view the urine exiting the body, but this embarrasing for both parties and can make it a difficult thing to do. Few people are comfortable in this situation). The sample is then divided into two containers each is numbered and picked at random by the commpetitor. These are then placed in padded containers that are then sealed in front of the competitor with tammper proof seals that are individualy numbured.All the numbers are recorded in multiple and a copy given to the competitor. If my memory serves me correct the compettitor also signs to the efect they are happy with the conduct of the test.
One sample is tested the othere kept secure for 2nd testing in the event of possitives , appeals etc. Tampering with the 2nd sample is all but impossible as far as I can see due the nature of the seals.
Things maybe slightly differnt now but its hard to see how.
|
rover1971
Reged: 09/06/2008
Posts: 349
Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
|
Imagine Armstrong agrees to the re-test and it's clean....this forum will be dead as most of the members will be eating humble pie! 
--------------------
Former Deeside Thistle loon!
|
newhero
Reged: 23/09/2008
Posts: 253
|
|
Rover1971.
Why would I need to eat humble pie? I have not sugested Armstrong is guilty of anything. We have a testing procedure in place and also can now test for EPO that we could not do in the late 90s early 2000s. To sugest that any rider be exempt purely through his media profile is wrong. Lets have the same rules for all.
You seem to be of the opinion that if someone is not 100% for Lance then they must be against him. It is posible to be neutral, as I am.
He is once again living in the glare of publicity, which he seems to relish, so he must be prepared to take the rough with the smooth.
Did he think the doping issue in cycling had gone away?
|
Bryan48
Reged: 28/07/2008
Posts: 99
Loc: Co Cavan .Ireland
|
|
Just all goes to show the negative effect Armstrongs comeback is alreay having on pro cycling. This whole doping question, did he or didn't he will gather monementum as next season and the TDF approaches.
Lance e reconsider, your 37 , just accept and enjoy a quieter life. You've had your day in the sun and it's time to ,move on.
|
dang
Reged: 16/06/2006
Posts: 958
Loc: twixt 7 & ?
|
|
But as this site says :-
"Cycling Weekly has learned that the UCI wrote to Lance Armstrong on two separate occasions to explain that he would not be eligible to ride the Tour Down Under before the American announced his intention to make it his comeback race."
So what is he doing?? Trying to make himself bigger than the sport? It certainly doesn't make him appear 100% honest.
|
bikechad
Reged: 29/07/2008
Posts: 1
|
|
Quote:
Did he think the doping issue in cycling had gone away?
Not at all, you Lance bashers are living proof that dopes are alive and prospering in cycling!
The guy is a superhero and probably the best thing to happen in cycling for decades, roll on Le Tour 2009 after the last 2 years of boredom.
|
CBGB
Reged: 01/05/2007
Posts: 74
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Did he think the doping issue in cycling had gone away?
Not at all, you Lance bashers are living proof that dopes are alive and prospering in cycling!
The guy is a superhero and probably the best thing to happen in cycling for decades, roll on Le Tour 2009 after the last 2 years of boredom.
Have you seen the last 2 tours? Armstrong is a legend for sure but he made winning the Tour a formula which was fairly boring.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
