Bitches, I told you so... (Lance Armstrong related)

[threemae]

@Fiveyearlurker

It wasn’t “consistent”. It happened once with one sample. I’m making one simple statement that an n of 1 is nice, but no conclusions should be drawn. Any number of things can happen to make a false positive once. If it comes up positive from three to five independent samples, then I’ll conclude that he is doping.

It was six independent samples where he tested positive.

[dropzone]

@Fiveyearlurker

Yeah, but mine was the extent of my knowledge, and I get the feeling you knew more than you wrote!

And both answers exceeded the limits of my understanding, but any answer beyond, “They just are, okay?” would’ve done that. Thanks!

[Loopydude]

@threemae

You don’t disagree that it’s now clear that it’s more likely than not that Armstrong doped, do you?

As I’ve said over and over, it’s anything but clear to me, there’s a boatload of reasonable doubt, including the real possibility of malfeasance, and I’d be a goddamned idiot to take just this finding as proof of anything. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t, but she should not be sanctioned, even if retroactive sanctions are possible, based on what we now know, which ain’t much for certain.

[dropzone]

@threemae

But this isn’t a criminal trial. As observers of the sport, we’re well within out rights to decide if Mr. Armstrong is a doper or not.

I completely don’t have a dog in this fight and do not understand the medicine and chemistry involved, but I would disagree with that statement. If insufficient evidence exists for a guilty verdict in a criminal trial then deciding on our own is strongly akin to pulling your beliefs out of your ass. This isn’t like the OJ trial, in which there was more than enough evidence convict but which got ignored by the jury. When you make your blanket statement that LA doped in '99 without having sufficient evidence to convict you are committing slander against Armstrong.

[Skywatcher]

@threemae

It was six independent samples where he tested positive.

What happened to the other 11 he gave that year?

[Loopydude]

I think this editorial, sums it up pretty well, in its own unsophisticated way:

He tested clean 17 times during the '99 Tour and now must explain how six frozen secondary urine samples allegedly tested positive for EPO with no primary sample to compare the results with. Other than hopping into a time machine and being tested again, the only defense Armstrong has is his word. Unfortunately for Armstrong, that won’t cut it for many people, no matter what he has accomplished on or off his bike.

My last post in this ridiculous thread: threemae, you vindictive malcontent. Get over your unhealthy obsession and find a better target.

[Monty]

@threemae

But this isn’t a criminal trial.

No, it’s simple character assassination.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@threemae

It was six independent samples where he tested positive.

Explain. I was under the impression that there was a lost A sample, and the sample that was tested was a single B sample. Are you saying that they tested the B sample six times, or were there six independent samples that tested positive six times?

[threemae]

@Fiveyearlurker

Explain. I was under the impression that there was a lost A sample, and the sample that was tested was a single B sample. Are you saying that they tested the B sample six times, or were there six independent samples that tested positive six times?

No, there were a total of 17 samples collected in that Tour. Each time a sample is collected, it is immediately divided into two samples. An A and a B. The A samples were all used up for testing in 99. All of the B samples were tested by this research group in 2004. Six independent samples came back as positive, i.e. collected on different days either as part of mandatory blanket sampling, random sampling, or every stage winner has to provide a sample immediately following the win.

[threemae]

@dropzone

I completely don’t have a dog in this fight and do not understand the medicine and chemistry involved, but I would disagree with that statement. If insufficient evidence exists for a guilty verdict in a criminal trial then deciding on our own is strongly akin to pulling your beliefs out of your ass. This isn’t like the OJ trial, in which there was more than enough evidence convict but which got ignored by the jury. When you make your blanket statement that LA doped in '99 without having sufficient evidence to convict you are committing slander against Armstrong.

No, there’s no requirement to be able to convict someone of a crime for you to say something bad about them. If Lace Armstrong decided (as he does have a tendency to do) to sue me for slander, the burden would be a civil one; that is more likely than not or 51-49, however you chose to phrase it.

A good example here is Barry Bonds. Lots of people thought that he used steroids to break baseball records, and lots of people said so publicly. He never successfully sued anyone for libel or slander over it, yet there’s more actual evidence against Lance Armstrong than there is againt Barry Bonds.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@threemae

No, there were a total of 17 samples collected in that Tour. Each time a sample is collected, it is immediately divided into two samples. An A and a B. The A samples were all used up for testing in 99. All of the B samples were tested by this research group in 2004. Six independent samples came back as positive, i.e. collected on different days either as part of mandatory blanket sampling, random sampling, or every stage winner has to provide a sample immediately following the win.

So, isn’t there a simple experiment that could be performed to rule out foul play or accidentally spiking in recombinant protein? If the hypothesis is that the new method of detection allows for better sensitivity than the previous method that had been used with the A samples, then test the remainder of the B sample (I would be suspicious if they are lost or used up) by the old methods. They should come up negative if this hypothesis is true.

If they now pop up positive, where A samples which were split from the same tubes previously tested negative, it certainly would raise an eyebrow.

[threemae]

@Loopydude

Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t, but she should not be sanctioned, even if retroactive sanctions are possible, based on what we now know, which ain’t much for certain.

I never said that he should be sanctioned. In fact I’ve said the exact opposite twice now. But it is more likely than not that he’s doped, so now that there’s some new relavant information regarding the case, I thought I’d bring it back into the same forum where I brought it up last year in the interests of fighting ignorance and what-not. Although they haven’t been the loudest voices in this thread, I do think that some opinions regarding whether he’s doped or not have been changed. So look at that, we’ve all had another interesting and fact-filled discussion and the SDMB will go on to live another day.

[threemae]

@Fiveyearlurker

So, isn’t there a simple experiment that could be performed to rule out foul play or accidentally spiking in recombinant protein? If the hypothesis is that the new method of detection allows for better sensitivity than the previous method that had been used with the A samples, then test the remainder of the B sample (I would be suspicious if they are lost or used up) by the old methods. They should come up negative if this hypothesis is true.

If they now pop up positive, where A samples which were split from the same tubes previously tested negative, it certainly would raise an eyebrow.

That’s a great idea. I don’t know if any of the samples are left (I assume and hope that some bit would be), and my understanding of the previous test was that you pretty much had to dump a quart of EPO straight into your blood for it to pick up anything, but assuming it’s still available, sure.

What you should remember though, is that all of this is relying on some conspiracy to plant EPO in Lance’s samples along with a bunch of others in varying amounts (don’t forget about the 100+ “weak positives” that the researchers found but reported as being inconclusive). I doubt that this will happen unless the French pursue criminal charges in the matter. I think it’s clear that WADA, the UCI, etc. won’t attempt to pursue sanctions in the matter.

What I’m really curious now are the 2000 samples. This was before the current urine test popped up so presumably before riders used advanced evasion methods. My understanding was that all of the 2000 B samples were still under some sort of French criminal warrant.

[Princhester]

@PunditLisa

“Or as good as caught” doesn’t fly with me. There’s either proof or there isn’t.

Way to miss the point, dimwit. You stated that you didn’t believe the allegations because Armstrong had tested clean in recent years. I pointed out that others had been caught on the basis of other evidence while testing clean. I even gave you an example: David Millar. He confessed. But he never failed a test. But it’s probably better for the headache your cognitive dissonance is giving you if you just don’t think about the implications of that.

Reporters are neither trained nor qualified to run drug tests. And they are biased. Therefore, their “conclusions” are worthless.

OMG. There’s nothing more to say.

A positive test for PEDs by a reputable lab.

How about six by the third largest lab in Europe using a test that just got written up in Nature, amongst the most prestigious and carefully peer reviewed journals there is?

How’s the headache?

[PunditLisa]

@Princhester

Way to miss the point, dimwit. You stated that you didn’t believe the allegations because Armstrong had tested clean in recent years. I pointed out that others had been caught on the basis of other evidence while testing clean. I even gave you an example: David Millar. He confessed.

And that proves what about Lance Armstrong? That he could have still been doping. By your reasoning, everyone’s guilty even if they tested positive. He’s damned no matter what.

OMG. There’s nothing more to say.

Yet, there you go.

How about six by the third largest lab in Europe using a test that just got written up in Nature, amongst the most prestigious and carefully peer reviewed journals there is?

Oh, good. So we can agree that the lab is reputable. What exactly did the spokesperson from the lab say about this matter?

[GaWd]

I don’t disagree with you on this. I think it’s extremely unlikely that someone who went through as much chemotherapy as Armstrong did would not ALSO have been administered EPREX (the rHuEPO of choice in 1997-1998) as a valid medicinal therepeutic drug. I’ll lay London to a Brick that it was EPO in particular which allowed him to resurrect his career as quickly as he did. But I’ll also add that in 1999 there was no valid EPO test on file, hence, a truckload of other riders were also on the gear too.

Abso-fucking-lutely. I do think his career is owed to EPO, but I think it is owed to prescribed EPO given to him during his treatments. Since sport doping is one of my interests, and I have been aware of the use and abuse of EPO, I’ve been saying this since 1999.

I think this witchhunt is ridiculous crazy though. I hope they get what they’re looking for out of this bullshit, and can finally let it drop. I also dare them to go over 2000-2005’s urine tests and dig up some positives. I have a hunch it ain’t there.

Sam

[GaWd]

@threemae

That there was some vast conspiracy to plant EPO in the blinded test tubes? That someone managed to track down Armstrong’s sample numbers, sneak into the lab, unfreeze the samples, place EPO in them, add EPO to six other random samples, and then add trace amounts to a bunch of others so that they would come back “weak positives” and never get reported? Really, I understand how it’s possible, but what’s more likely? That Armstrong was doped with a shit-load of EPO and that EPO will survive for a few years at -20 C or the above conspiracy.

It seems that that would be fairly easy given the fact that Lance released his “blind” control numbers years ago…

[Princhester]

@PunditLisa

And that proves what about Lance Armstrong? That he could have still been doping. By your reasoning, everyone’s guilty even if they tested positive. He’s damned no matter what.

Shitforbrains, you’re the one who said you don’t think LA dopes because he has passed tests. I never suggested this proved anything at all, one way or another. But your admission that what you said originally is crap is noted.

Oh, good. So we can agree that the lab is reputable. What exactly did the spokesperson from the lab say about this matter?

Precisely nothing to contradict L’Equipe. So here’s this reputable lab, it does certain tests that show certain positives. L’Equipe then publishes what is (on your case) a mindbogglingly defamatory story based on this reputable lab’s results. Does the lab come out and say L’Equipe have got it wrong?

[crickets…]

There’s a picture being painted here, but to see it you have to have your eyes open.

[Princhester]

@GaWd

It seems that that would be fairly easy given the fact that Lance released his “blind” control numbers years ago…

Mr GaWd, meet Mr Occam. Mr Occam, this is Mr GaWd.

[MilTan]

Well, I think this point has been raised earlier in the thread, but I don’t think it’s been sufficiently addressed:

Are we to believe that Armstrong is one of, at most, 7 riders (6 positive samples from Armstrong + 6 other positive samples) who took EPO in such huge amounts that it produced a “strong” positive? Why aren’t there more positive samples?

If there were 7 dopers, why aren’t there multiple positives for the other riders? If there were, in fact, fewer dopers (say two riders who each produced 6 positive samples), are we to believe that out of the entire peloton, Armstrong was one of two that doped heavily enough for the test to produce a strong positive (hell, even one of seven is odd)?

If in fact many riders doped at the same level, and it’s just chance that some come back as strong positives (this seems to be the most likely case to me), isn’t it quite fortuitous that half of them happen to come from Armstrong?

All I’m saying is that the results are fantastically lucky for the scandal mongers…