Thread: LA

Originally Posted by Eevo

ive no issue with the first part.

using only 1 lab, i see that as a problem. no independent verification.

lol @ choc milk

In regard to your objections to not testing samples in multiple labs, let me provide you with some information, as I have had quite some experience in cycling and the procedures in place in regard to participation and drug testing. Here is an excerpt from the Australian Government National Measurement Institute, the body that conducts drug testing in sport in this country.

NMI's sports drug testing laboratory (known worldwide as the Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory or ASDTL) complies with the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:2005 and is accredited by NATA (7.71).

We are the only laboratory in the Australian region accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency to carry out doping control analysis in human sport and as such perform virtually all of the sports drug testing carried out in Australia and New Zealand. Samples are collected and shipped to us by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and Drug Free Sport NZ

It's the only sports drug lab in Australasia! This is exactly what happens the world over too. If you maintain that multiple labs must test multiple samples - otherwise, the results are somehow flawed, you are in effect saying that the entire process is flawed and therefore, by deduction, no positive test ever recorded can necessarily be legitimate. That is clearly non nonsensical.

Originally Posted by Scallops

It's the only sports drug lab in Australasia! This is exactly what happens the world over too. If you maintain that multiple labs must test multiple samples - otherwise, the results are somehow flawed, you are in effect saying that the entire process is flawed and therefore, by deduction, no positive test ever recorded can necessarily be legitimate. That is clearly non nonsensical.

no, im saying people make mistakes, tests arnt accurate all the time. it needs repeated.

i did a physics degree at uni.

for something to be a theory or rule/law/accepted in the physics community, it needs to be repeated many times.

info on the financials on livestrong cancer "awareness" vs "research" debate, note that it predates much of the current investigation...

Lance Armstrong and Livestrong | Lance Armstrong | OutsideOnline.com


as for the lab tests, the current testing for the re-injection of your own blood, tests for plasticizers in the blood that leach out of the plastic storage bags and into the blood. Stuff that does not exist in your blood unless you put it there - the fact that this was not tested for in prior years (the same scenario applied for EPO at the time) but now is does not make someone less guilty of cheating, it was simply a case of the testing used at the time of the offense was not targeting the drug or technique being used by the team.

As an imperfect analogy, think back 10-15 years - someone could be 100% off their head on marijuana or speed or a similar recreational drug. Mr Plod pulls said driver over and only has one tool at his disposal as a drug testing device, he uses his breathalyser to test for blood alcohol level and the driver passes (because he had no alcohol in his blood) so off the driver goes, he didn't fail the test so was never caught. Does this mean the driver was not intoxicated by any form of mind altering/judgement impairing drug? of course not, but this is the drivel brought up time and again by lance supporters - he never failed a test... which is not true on many levels beyond the mere intimidation/falsification testimonies given under oath by his former team mates etc.

Its not hearsay, its not proof, its testimony given under oath by a large number of guys, many of whom are now banned themselves for doing so. Did they have a choice? well only one guy has refused to take the stand in these cases and plead no contest - effectively stopping himself from either committing perjury now or admitting to perjury in the past by admitting drug use.

I find it unbelievable that people like Michael Ashenden have had their credibility challenged and their way of life effectively removed from them via the UCI and the bully boy tactics of team lance.

Originally Posted by Scallops

These samples were held in a controlled environment where the integrity of samples were guaranteed. Not on the dashboard of a Kingswood. The lab is a world accredited independent lab. The new tests were good enough to be used at the Sydney Olympics and there after, but not good enough to convince you?

Torana actually. Must get your facts correct Mr Scallops.
Keep up the discussion, it makes for interesting reading.

Cheers, Mick.

Originally Posted by Scallops

These samples were held in a controlled environment where the integrity of samples were guaranteed. Not on the dashboard of a Kingswood. The lab is a world accredited independent lab. The new tests were good enough to be used at the Sydney Olympics and there after, but not good enough to convince you?

Torana actually.

Keep the dicussion going, it is making very interesting reading.

Cheers, Mick.

Originally Posted by Eevo

no, im saying people make mistakes, tests arnt accurate all the time. it needs repeated.

i did a physics degree at uni.

for something to be a theory or rule/law/accepted in the physics community, it needs to be repeated many times.

Not the case in Chemistry ;-)

You need to study more on the validation of analytical test methods - this aint research or R&D, this is pharmaceutical quality assurance, an area where I make my living for over 20 years. Every single element of potential variation between user, equipment, chemical reagents, day of the week, location, operating conditions, range of testing, interfering false positives etc etc etc is tested multiple times across multiple laboratories in inter-laboratory comparison studies - in order for a method to be considered ready for use, everyone across that lab network globally will be getting the same results +/- 2% on specially prepared blind samples long before they move onto live samples.

Its this process that takes so much time to ensure the accuracy of the test methods when they finally do come out that allows the athletes to be ahead of the game for a few years, until such time as the tests are "officially" ready for use. The rigidity and validation program under which the analytical community has to work is in the athlete's favour in the short term, but in the long term, you are busted bigtime.

Wow, LA reads and posts on AULRO !

Originally Posted by rick130

Wow, LA reads and posts on AULRO !

He does? How do we know this?