The Spanish cycling federation on Monday cleared Spanish cyclist Iban Mayo, who tested positive for doping during the 2007 Tour de France, after a second test proved negative, his lawyer and the federation said.

The federation informed Mayo "that the B sample had come out negative and for this reason it had ended" its inquiry, Mayo's lawyer Jose Rodriguez told AFP.

The cycling federation confirmed the news and said there had been a mistake with the first sample.

Mayo, a specialist climber, tested positive for blood-booster EPO during
the Tour on July 24 and would have been suspended for a minimum of two years if his B sample had proved positive.

Assuming for a minute that he's truly innocent, this certainly brings up the issues of false positives. Any sort of positive these days is nearly career ending. Can't undo it once the damage is done. It's not like he can go back and ride the Tour from where they yanked him from.

Still, his dramatic return to top level this year is a bit suspect to me.

Assuming for a minute that he's truly innocent, this certainly brings up the issues of false positives.

Not nearly to the degree that all the confessed or caught-by-the-cops dopers who "never tested positive" bring up the issue of false negatives :)

Not nearly to the degree that all the confessed or caught-by-the-cops dopers who "never tested positive" bring up the issue of false negatives :)

Yep.

On the bright side, Mayo wasn't pulled from the tour. It was a post tour test that produced the first positive. I'm glad he's been cleared by the B sample though. It gives me a bit of faith.

Not nearly to the degree that all the confessed or caught-by-the-cops dopers who "never tested positive" bring up the issue of false negatives :)
But they're going to have a field day with WHERE the false positive came from. Is this the first time that a positive from Châtenay-Malabry has been tested elsewhere? - TF

Chateau Malarbry (sp) is a joke. As much as a doping problem as there is in the peloton, there is also a serious issue with the quality of the testing, etc. in the doping control process in cycling. C'mon, the B-sample result gets announced more than 60 days AFTER the A sample result???

And besides the problem with the labs, there's the real problem of the Frankenstein-like lynch-mob media in Europe. He never got the benefit of the doubt and was sold down the river the day the positive A was announced. Totally, totally unfair. The careless jump-to-conclusions mentality in much of the cycling media is as destructive to the sport as the dopers themselves, adding more needless fuel to the doping fire.

I totally agree that 60 days is much, much too long. 48 hours seems reasonable to me. And there should be some sort of union-provided observer for the cyclist if he can't get himself or a hand-picked representative there. Kind of like a court-appointed defense attorney.

Leaks of positive A samples should be prosecuted. And only after a positive B sample should someone's name be released.

I can't help but think of Marion Jones, though.

Chateau Malarbry (sp) is a joke. As much as a doping problem as there is in the peloton, there is also a serious issue with the quality of the testing, etc. in the doping control process in cycling. C'mon, the B-sample result gets announced more than 60 days AFTER the A sample result???

And besides the problem with the labs, there's the real problem of the Frankenstein-like lynch-mob media in Europe. He never got the benefit of the doubt and was sold down the river the day the positive A was announced. Totally, totally unfair. The careless jump-to-conclusions mentality in much of the cycling media is as destructive to the sport as the dopers themselves, adding more needless fuel to the doping fire.

...Still, his dramatic return to top level this year is a bit suspect to me.

Could be a case of the dopers coming back to his level (although I have to confess that I have always had Mayo on my mental list of dopers).

Actually, the B-sample was not tested by the Châtenay-Malabry lab. The A-sample was, but the B-sample was sent to a totally different lab in Belgium. If you ask me, that's how it should ALWAYS be done. Separate labs for the A and B.

Somewhere, Floyd Landis is smiling, as LNDD fails again.

Actually, the French lab was closed at ther time when the B sample needed to be tested. So it was sent to Gent, where it came back negative. The B sample was then sent to Australia for confirmation where it was again found to be negative.
The UCI stated today that it will get the remainder of the sample sent back to Chatenay to confirm the findings of the other two labs. The sample will no doubt come back positive and this will go on for another two years. I think that this is ridiculous.

The B sample was then sent to Australia for confirmation where it was again found to be negative. The UCI stated today that it will get the remainder of the sample sent back to Chatenay to confirm the findings of the other two labs. The sample will no doubt come back positive and this will go on for another two years. I think that this is ridiculous.

I'm not sure the Australian group tested the B sample or just reviewed the results and agreed with the Belgium lab that it was inconclusive.

And yes, McQuaid has said the B sample will be retested in the same lab as the A sample. They'll probably use intra-lab vs. inter-lab variability for their justification.

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/23102007/58/mayo-b-sample-re-analysed.html

This whole discussion is lacking perspective. Namely that the UCI knows Mayo has been a bad boy yet currently outside of a positive dope test they lack the ability to suspend him. They are working towards getting a mechanism in place with their "blood passports" idea.

Mayo is your stereotypical "Man in Black". Shocking variation in form and from what I've read very suspicious blood readings over the years. So he almost undoubtably has been targeted.

IOW, the UCI thought they had finally got him twice this year and he appears to have eluded them yet again, but they're not ready to give up on the latest charge.

If he's guilty, I hope they catch him. But multiple labs returning multiple results doesn't inspire confidence in the system.

It would be interesting to see some of the other positive tests found by the french lab, being redone by 2 other labs and to have results compared.

In my opinion the UCI + WADA do more harm to the sport of Cycling by insisting on only using this suspect lab. All test should be done by 3 labs and this will remove any doubt of the results. Now UCI is saying that they want Mayo's B test redone by the French lab.
Funny how it seems that they are the only ones capable in the UCI's eyes. Is it really this or is it they can control the results????

How can you ruin a cyclists career with a test that cannot be duplicated by other labs.

Perhaps this is more about power and control than about truthfull results.

This is not saying that I do not believe that many if not all of the suspect cyclist are doping, what I am saying is that the "police" need to be above reproach and that the public needs to feel that nothing fishy is going on, and at present I trust UCI + WADA as little as I trust the cyclists.

It would be interesting to see some of the other positive tests found by the french lab, being redone by 2 other labs and to have results compared.

In my opinion the UCI + WADA do more harm to the sport of Cycling by insisting on only using this suspect lab.

Well the UCI doesn't only use the French lab. I believe which lab is used primarily comes down to where a race is taking place.

The problem with using multiple labs is that you would increase the variability in the test results even further, making it even more likely to get positive A's and negative B's. And of course you'd compound the problem even further by having a C sample tested elsewhere.

The fact that there is sometimes positive A's and negative B's isn't suprising if the dopers know what they are doing. Especially for something like EPO or the T/E test, a doper isn't going to use so much gear that he will be positive by a long way. The proper doping program will keep the rider under the limit and if he uses too much or uses it too close to the test or something else perturbs his physiology, he should be barely positive not way over the limit. And of course if there is some variability in the results and you barely tripped a positive, well then the 2nd test might just dip below the limit. Mind you this limit is often well above what is normal b/c the tests are set up to avoid false positives.

Using multiple labs could only be considered a "problem" if your goal is to get the results you want (i.e., more positives), rather than the results that occur (maybe positive, maybe not). Two separate labs should be required to validate the methodology and equipment used for the test. If there is variability in the test at different labs, then the test and/or the labs cannot be considered reliable. How can the UCI or WADA have any confidence in a system where different labs return different results? (Don't bother trying to answer that!)

If dopers can game the system, too bad. That should be strong incentive to develop a better test and better standards for running it, so that a positive is a positive wherever you go, and the result is definitive. When the testers game the system by rerunning the tests in the same lab, the system becomes a joke.

"Well the UCI doesn't only use the French lab. I believe which lab is used primarily comes down to where a race is taking place"

No but it seems that when there are questions about the results it is always the French Lab involved.

"The problem with using multiple labs is that you would increase the variability in the test results even further, making it even more likely to get positive A's and negative B's. And of course you'd compound the problem even further by having a C sample tested elsewhere."

You are missing what I mean here. What I am saying is that the each sample should be big enough to split between 3 labs or 3 labs test A sample if 2 or more positive then 3 labs test B sample if 2 or more positive then that is a positive.

"And of course if there is some variability in the results and you barely tripped a positive, well then the 2nd test might just dip below the limit".

I understand what you are getting at, but the fact remians that unless the organisations policing the sport work within their rules and seem to be honest, The public will have no respect for them or the sport . Right now UCI and WADA do not command this respect!! They appear as shady as the the doping cyclist willing the twist and break any rules to get a guilty verdict.

If there is variability in the test at different labs, then the test and/or the labs cannot be considered reliable. How can the UCI or WADA have any confidence in a system where different labs return different results? (Don't bother trying to answer that!)

Mo,

This is simply an unrealistic standard for complex biochemical tests. There is always going to variability, which by my understading, comes from multiple sources. And some of these sources are exacerbated by performing the tests in separate rather than the same lab. The issue comes down to controlling test-retest variability so that it within an exceptable level.

So I think the answer to the question of how can the UCI or WADA have any confidence in the results? Well the same way your local medical labs or university labs have any confidence in their results. That is the test-retest variability is within an acceptable range.

The Spanish cycling federation on Monday cleared Spanish cyclist Iban Mayo, who tested positive for doping during the 2007 Tour de France, after a second test proved negative, his lawyer and the federation said.

The federation informed Mayo "that the B sample had come out negative and for this reason it had ended" its inquiry, Mayo's lawyer Jose Rodriguez told AFP.

The cycling federation confirmed the news and said there had been a mistake with the first sample.



It's interesting that this information is all coming out of the Spanish camps, which we know protect their dopers based on their behavior over the OP case.

Now I'm reading that the B sample tested in Belgium was not negative it was "inconclusive" or even "unreadable". Therefore the UCI considers the B test to not have been performed and since the LNDD is open for business now, that is where the test will be conducted.

I don't think it is. WADA has the power to standardize the equipment, procedures and methodology used, which should eliminate variability. I don't think it is unrealistic to say that different labs using identical procedures, equipment, and methodology should return identical results. That should be the standard. If that standard cannot be met, then the test cannot be considered reliable.

What makes this different from medical lab results is that the doping tests are considered definitive and automatic. Positive = Doper = Suspension = Damaged/ended career = Financial loss. Medical lab results are a tool used by doctors to figure out what is going on. Unlike the UCI, no doctor is going to get back a lab result and instantly declare you dead, or amputate your leg, or whatever.

"If that standard cannot be met, then the test cannot be considered reliable."

Well it can't. So let's just go back to the free-for-all doping situation of a few years ago.

"What makes this different from medical lab results is that the doping tests are considered definitive and automatic. Positive = Doper = Suspension = Damaged/ended career = Financial loss. Medical lab results are a tool used by doctors to figure out what is going on. Unlike the UCI, no doctor is going to get back a lab result and instantly declare you dead, or amputate your leg, or whatever."

Good point. Doctors can look at other lines of evidence and sometimes I'm sure they get their treatment protocols wrong regardless (e.g. diagnosing a type of cancer) because of invalid tests. I know someone who was treated for one kind of cancer for sometime, only later when it did they realize they got the original diagnosis wrong.

I will say it as I've said before, the shortcoming of the UCI in fighting doping is that it only has this positive dope test as a standard for suspension. It should simply be able to suspend a rider because it thinks they are doping based on any number of lines of evidence (e.g. abnormal blood or hormone values, evidence from police raids, known association with a doping doctor).

Why not? Why doesn't WADA set up two identical labs of its own and stop farming this work out? Each lab would be identical--same exact state of the art equipment, procedures, etc. That's where the UCI (and everyone else in sport) would send all its tests. Doing this would give WADA a lot of credibility that it desperately needs to produce reliable test results, and it would likely result in more accurate testing. As was revealed in the Landis trial, the equipment at LNDD, for instance, is hardly state of the art. I would not have been surprised to hear testimony about how the techs had to slap the side of the machine to get it to work!

You'd have to have some way to split the samples up and then re-seal the samples. A representative for the cyclist would have to ensure the samples had not been opened, tampered with, and then re-sealed once they've been split. It'd be a nightmare if the cyclist himself/herself wanted to be present in for all the openings if the samples are sent around the globe. Who pays for the travel?

And I think the testing protocols should be robust enough that different labs would produce concordant results. If the tests are so flaky that two labs can't reproduce each other's results, that's a test that shouldn't be used, IMO.

One of the reasons the French lab may be the one that's most often called into question is the sheer numbers of tests they perform there. More tests = more mistakes. If there rate of questionable tests is higher, though, that's a big problem.

One of the reasons the French lab may be the one that's most often called into question is the sheer numbers of tests they perform there. More tests = more mistakes. If there rate of questionable tests is higher, though, that's a big problem.

It seems that the LNDD is considered the experts on this test, and it is looking more and more like the Ghent lab simply lacked the competence to run the test successfully. IOW, consistent with my limited experience with separating proteins on a gel, if you screw up you don't get data that is slightly off, you get nothing or something that makes no sense (a big blur).

I saw the following statement on cyclingnews.com and I was wondering if any one else has any problems with it?

--According to Gripper, Mayo's B sample was transferred to a laboratory in Gent, Belgium because the Châtenay-Malabry laboratory in Paris, where the original sample was tested, was closed for the holidays. "To ensure that the rider could have the B sample done more quickly, we transferred the sample, but the Gent laboratory just couldn't get the sample to confirm the Paris result," said Gripper.--

Gripper is the UCI's anti-doping manager.

Where are the riders rights?

Yea, sounds like they were shopping around for a lab to confirm the C-M non-negative. I also read the sample was sent to Australia. IMO, the UCI has bungled this on multiple levels.

I saw the following statement on cyclingnews.com and I was wondering if any one else has any problems with it?

--According to Gripper, Mayo's B sample was transferred to a laboratory in Gent, Belgium because the Châtenay-Malabry laboratory in Paris, where the original sample was tested, was closed for the holidays. "To ensure that the rider could have the B sample done more quickly, we transferred the sample, but the Gent laboratory just couldn't get the sample to confirm the Paris result," said Gripper.--

Gripper is the UCI's anti-doping manager.

Where are the riders rights?

It's interesting that this information is all coming out of the Spanish camps, which we know protect their dopers based on their behavior over the OP case.

Now I'm reading that the B sample tested in Belgium was not negative it was "inconclusive" or even "unreadable". Therefore the UCI considers the B test to not have been performed and since the LNDD is open for business now, that is where the test will be conducted.
You're really grasping to find reasons to defend the UCI and Co on this one. No matter what you may think of Mayo, they cannot end his career with a test that can only be made to show a positive by one lab's 'expertise'.

The UCI could accomplish one thing - they might reunite the Basques with the Spanish Gov't long enough to declare war on France.

TF

Yea, sounds like they were shopping around for a lab to confirm the C-M non-negative. I also read the sample was sent to Australia. IMO, the UCI has bungled this on multiple levels.

No the problem is the Spanish cycling federation trying to force a clearing of its rider. The same thing happened with Alejandro Valverde and operation puerto.If Mayo was Italian or German this would not happened.

You're really grasping to find reasons to defend the UCI and Co on this one. No matter what you may think of Mayo, they cannot end his career with a test that can only be made to show a positive by one lab's 'expertise'.

Sounds like it was a case of the Gent lab not being able to perform the test competently?

"It wasn't a negative B sample it was an inconclusive B sample," Anne Gripper, UCI anti-doping manager told AP. "The case for us is still very open, we have not gotten a final resolution on the B sample. It needs to be analysed in the Paris laboratory."

I believe it was McQuaid who called the Ghent test "unreadable".

Sounds like it was a case of the Gent lab not being able to perform the test competently?

"It wasn't a negative B sample it was an inconclusive B sample," Anne Gripper, UCI anti-doping manager told AP. "The case for us is still very open, we have not gotten a final resolution on the B sample. It needs to be analysed in the Paris laboratory."

I believe it was McQuaid who called the Ghent test "unreadable".
And??? Ghent is an approved WADA lab. I would assume that means they showed competency in running the tests required by WADA. The "inconclusive" was evidently confirmed by the Australian approved lab with a review of the results (it's still not clear to me whether they did the test or just reviewed the results, by I think it was the later).

If you were pulled over while driving and given a sobriety test and all the trained officers on the force came up with an "inconclusive" but one, would you consider it acceptable to pull your license based on that one officer's positive?

I still believe that you have to follow the rules, even if that means that some of the guilty escape.

Also, your, 'Where there's smoke, there's fire" arguments are not good enough to end Mayo's career.

TF

And??? Ghent is an approved WADA lab. I would assume that means they showed competency in running the tests required by WADA. The "inconclusive" was evidently confirmed by the Australian approved lab with a review of the results (it's still not clear to me whether they did the test or just reviewed the results, by I think it was the later).

If you were pulled over while driving and given a sobriety test and all the trained officers on the force came up with an "inconclusive" but one, would you consider it acceptable to pull your license based on that one officer's positive?

I still believe that you have to follow the rules, even if that means that some of the guilty escape.

Also, your, 'Where there's smoke, there's fire" arguments are not good enough to end Mayo's career.

TF

Same happened to Roberto Heras. Was it wrong to ban him?

Same happened to Roberto Heras. Was it wrong to ban him?
Same what? He had a positive from one lab, the B sample was found not to be positive by another, they redid the B at the first lab where it was found to be positive and they pulled his license? You're going to have to refresh my memory on that. - TF

Same what? He had a positive from one lab, the B sample was found not to be positive by another, they redid the B at the first lab where it was found to be positive and they pulled his license? You're going to have to refresh my memory on that. - TF

Just one lab. Robertos second sample was uncertain same as Iban. It was checked again and was positive. He was banned for two years. Then he was in operation puerto files.

I still believe that you have to follow the rules

If it is against the rules, then Mayo will have a good case when it gets to CAS. If not against the rules, assuming the LNDD B sample test is positive too, then he is caught.

Just one lab. Robertos second sample was uncertain same as Iban. It was checked again and was positive. He was banned for two years. Then he was in operation puerto files.
Not the same. Maybe there should have been a rule that says that if the lab finds the B non-positive then another lab must check the sample, but there wasn't. Puerto (or his actual guilt or innocence) has nothing to do with it. - TF

No the problem is the Spanish cycling federation trying to force a clearing of its rider.

On what basis do you make that accusation? I don't see anything in the Mayo case that would support your claim.

Too bad if the test was unreadable. If a WADA-accredited lab followed procedures, did everything right, and the results are inconclusive or unreadable, then that is the result of the B-sample testing. It's non-negative. It's over. To continue testing makes a mockery of the whole system, because it's crystal clear that the UCI will only stop testing when they get the positive they desperately want. When the UCI rigs the system to get the result they want, then it's all one big joke, and riders should be very afraid. Does anyone have any doubt that the third try of the B-sample at LNDD will return a positive result?

Too bad if the test was unreadable. If a WADA-accredited lab followed procedures, did everything right, and the results are inconclusive or unreadable, then that is the result of the B-sample testing. It's non-negative. It's over. To continue testing makes a mockery of the whole system, because it's crystal clear that the UCI will only stop testing when they get the positive they desperately want. When the UCI rigs the system to get the result they want, then it's all one big joke, and riders should be very afraid. Does anyone have any doubt that the third try of the B-sample at LNDD will return a positive result?

You dont understand anything of the EPO testing, you are just making yourself feel good by being upset.

What do you understand about EPO testing? Are you a lab tech, or biological scientists?

What do you understand about EPO testing? Are you a lab tech, or biological scientists?

I am microbiologist. EPO is testing by gel electrophoresis which makes patterns. You can see the patterns.

105674

A column is EPO drug. B column is negative EPO doping. C column is positive EPO doping. If it is not B or C it must be done again. It is a fuzzy picture.

BelgiumKneeWarmers <a href="http://www.belgiumkneewarmers.com/2007/10/positively-positive.html">has</a> a good summary of the matter along with some opining from an anonymous doping expert regarding the relative competence of the 2 labs. apparently this is something LNDD is actually good at wheras the lab in Gent "isn’t particularly competent to perform EPO testing"

BelgiumKneeWarmers <a href="http://www.belgiumkneewarmers.com/2007/10/positively-positive.html">has</a> a good summary of the matter along with some opining from an anonymous doping expert regarding the relative competence of the 2 labs. apparently this is something LNDD is actually good at wheras the lab in Gent "isn’t particularly competent to perform EPO testing"

I've also now read that the Ghent lab was apparently under threat of having their certification to run the EPO test revoked because of previous problems with performing the test competently.

I am microbiologist. EPO is testing by gel electrophoresis which makes patterns. You can see the patterns.

105674

A column is EPO drug. B column is negative EPO doping. C column is positive EPO doping. If it is not B or C it must be done again. It is a fuzzy picture.
Maybe they should have sent the sample to you.

Many of us know what electrophoresis is and have done it.

And we know that the UCI is treating this like a research project, not like a forensic testing procedure.

TF

The plot shown above would reflect a clean rider and a rider who very recently took a significant amount of rEPO. In practice you do get plots that are neither one side nor the other and that's where it gets hazy.

The plot shown above would reflect a clean rider and a rider who very recently took a significant amount of rEPO. In practice you do get plots that are neither one side nor the other and that's where it gets hazy.

One can go and look up the papers on Pubmed and see what the gels look like. I remember there being a large if not total overlap in the protein isoforms between a clean and a doped athlete, just the relative amounts of the different isoforms shift?

You dont understand anything of the EPO testing, you are just making yourself feel good by being upset.

What is there to understand? The test produced positive results the first time. The second test was inconclusive. Sorry, but stop there. After an inconclusive result, how can further testing be considered credible? I don't know where in the WADA rules it says that testing can be best two out of three. As a scientist, I don't know how you could proceed once doubt has been introduced. By definition, doesn't this make the EPO test unreliable?

By definition, doesn't this make the EPO test unreliable?

No, here is the Wiki version of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_%28statistics%29

By definition I would say it makes the Ghent lab incompetent, at least in running this test because they couldn't get a good gel. There's no way to speak about the reliability of a test if you can't get results to compare in the first place.

After an inconclusive result, how can further testing be considered credible? I don't know where in the WADA rules it says that testing can be best two out of three. As a scientist, I don't know how you could proceed once doubt has been introduced. By definition, doesn't this make the EPO test unreliable?

Replace the word credible with valid. Validity deals with the issue of the legitimacy of the results, that is are the results measuring something real. In this instance, validity would mean the test accurately distinguishes athletes who are clean from those who have taken EPO. Certainly folks have raised issues before as to the validity of various tests especially as WADA seems to keep most of this information secret.

What is at issue here doesn't appear to speak to validity or reliability but rather to the simple ability of the Ghent lab to run a test successfully so that there are results.

By definition I would say it makes the Ghent lab incompetent, ....

But wasn't one of the main points that came out in the Landis hearing that as long as a lab is WADA approved and can't be shown to have violated the international protocols, the results are accepted as being infallible? In other words, there is no such thing as an incompetent WADA approved lab.

the results are accepted as being infallible? In other words, there is no such thing as an incompetent WADA approved lab.

Well in this instance there doesn't appear to be results.

I think the issue you're speaking about is the validity of a test. As I understand it an athlete doesn't have the right to challenge the validity of a test. IOW, if WADA says a test is good and a particular lab is accredited to perform it, the athlete can't challenge the legitimacy of a result based on the claim that it doesn't detect what it claims to detect.

For example, Landis couldn't argue simply that the T/E ratio wasn't a valid test to detect exogenous T use. He either had to show the lab did something wrong to get the positive or that there is some other explanation for the positive. Of course if the latter is possible it speaks to the validity of the test.

The Spanish cycling federation on Monday cleared Spanish cyclist Iban Mayo, who tested positive for doping during the 2007 Tour de France, after a second test proved negative, his lawyer and the federation said.

The federation informed Mayo "that the B sample had come out negative and for this reason it had ended" its inquiry, Mayo's lawyer Jose Rodriguez told AFP.

The cycling federation confirmed the news and said there had been a mistake with the first sample.

Mayo, a specialist climber, tested positive for blood-booster EPO during
the Tour on July 24 and would have been suspended for a minimum of two years if his B sample had proved positive.

not so fast:

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/23102007/58/mayo-b-sample-re-analysed.html

The problem is that the riders do not have any rights. They are caught in the middle of politicians trying to show how they are doing the right thing and cleaning up the sport. Nevermind that innocent riders will be found guilty just to make a good showing to the public.

On one hand you have the GT operators, then you have the UCI and finally WADA all with their own interests. If there ever was a time for the riders to unionize (I hate unions, they are one step from communism) it's now. Someone has to step forward and make sure they aren't a ping pong ball in the middle of these three enttities looking out for their own interests.

IOW, if WADA says a test is good and a particular lab is accredited to perform it, the athlete can't challenge the legitimacy of a result based on the claim that it doesn't detect what it claims to detect.

Which seems to be pretty much what I wrote. If a lab is acredited by WADA, and there is no direct evidence that they did not follow ISP, the results are treated as infallible. There can be no such thing as an incompetent WADA lab.

I saw the following statement on cyclingnews.com and I was wondering if any one else has any problems with it?

--According to Gripper, Mayo's B sample was transferred to a laboratory in Gent, Belgium because the Châtenay-Malabry laboratory in Paris, where the original sample was tested, was closed for the holidays. "To ensure that the rider could have the B sample done more quickly, we transferred the sample, but the Gent laboratory just couldn't get the sample to confirm the Paris result," said Gripper.--

Gripper is the UCI's anti-doping manager.

Where are the riders rights?


- That quote from Ms. Gripper is just so wrong on so many levels. :rolleyes:

Which seems to be pretty much what I wrote. If a lab is acredited by WADA, and there is no direct evidence that they did not follow ISP, the results are treated as infallible. There can be no such thing as an incompetent WADA lab.

Yes results are treated as infallible, however not being able to get results is treated as incompetence and a lab does have to demonstrate it's ability to run tests and get the correct results on known samples to be accredited for a test.

In the Hamilton case it was revealed that the lab in question (I don't remember which one it was) had a "false positive" when getting it's accreditation to perform the homologous blood doping test. An Australian group developed the test and was sending them known samples to test. Hamilton argured the fact that they had a false positive was grounds for doubting the validity of the their tests.

Unfortunately what his side was aware of and ignored was that the lab stood behind their positive result and it was ultimately revealed the Australian group had their information incorrect and in fact the lab was correct, their positive was a true positive not a false positive.

Yes results are treated as infallible, however not being able to get results is treated as incompetence ...

WADA can't have it both ways. Either an acredited lab following ISL is infallible or it isn't, and WADA says it is. Ghent is an acredited lab, as far as we know it followed ISL, and it got results. The data did not conclusively prove the presence of rEPO. You can't suddenly say the lab is incompetent when it doesn't get the results you like.

It seems a little strange to me that a lab which loses it's acreditation can do no wrong one day (the day before acreditation is pulled), and is unable to generate meaningful results (as far as WADA is concerned) the next.

WADA can't have it both ways. Either an acredited lab following ISL is infallible or it isn't, and WADA says it is. Ghent is an acredited lab, as far as we know it followed ISL, and it got results. The data did not conclusively prove the presence of rEPO. You can't suddenly say the lab is incompetent when it doesn't get the results you like.

It seems a little strange to me that a lab which loses it's acreditation can do no wrong one day (the day before acreditation is pulled), and is unable to generate meaningful results (as far as WADA is concerned) the next.

you're either missing the point or being willfully obtuse. The results they produced were inconclusive. the results themselves are de facto proof of the lab's inability to administer the test. it's not a complex issue.

WADA can't have it both ways. Either an acredited lab following ISL is infallible or it isn't, and WADA says it is. Ghent is an acredited lab, as far as we know it followed ISL, and it got results.

I guess I'm not following your logic. Just because an athlete lacks the right to challenge the fundamental validity of a test, I don't get why a lab therefore can't be incompetent when it comes to running a test properly? The latter is determined by their results or lack there of, the former is determined by the due process laid out in the WADA code, no?

And maybe my message above was misleading. An athlete can't challenge the fundamental validity of a test, but he can always attempt to prove the test wasn't run properly and that accounted for his positive. Isn't this what Floyd argued? And he got his T/E test dismissed, right?

And an athlete can even in a way challenge the validity of a test by demonstrating that their positive was a false positive for a legitimate reason. Isn't this how the triathlete Beke (sp?) got his EPO positive overturned?

you're either missing the point or being willfully obtuse. The results they produced were inconclusive. the results themselves are de facto proof of the lab's inability to administer the test. it's not a complex issue.

No you're missing the point. As long as a lab retains its WADA acreditation, no amount of evidence or bad results can be used to cast doubt on the results as long as the lab can show it followed the ISL. Competence doesn't matter. Welcome to the world of WADA.

(and inconclusive results do not indicate incompetence. The mixture of isoforms present might show inadequate separation to make a determination under WADA rules. The test might perfectly resolve what's actually present, but the sample itself does not contain the evidence necessary to draw a conclusion.)

No you're missing the point. As long as a lab retains its WADA acreditation, no amount of evidence or bad results can be used to cast doubt on the results as long as the lab can show it followed the ISL. Competence doesn't matter. Welcome to the world of WADA.


no, but an inconclusive result is not a negative one. they've already got one + sample, apparently there was testing done in Australia on part of the B sample as well. 2 out of 3 should resolve this, assuming the aussie results are released an not just the retest at LNDD.

I guess I'm not following your logic. Just because an athlete lacks the right to challenge the fundamental validity of a test, I don't get why a lab therefore can't be incompetent when it comes to running a test properly? The latter is determined by their results or lack there of, the former is determined by the due process laid out in the WADA code, no?

And maybe my message above was misleading. An athlete can't challenge the fundamental validity of a test, but he can always attempt to prove the test wasn't run properly and that accounted for his positive. Isn't this what Floyd argued? And he got his T/E test dismissed, right?

And an athlete can even in a way challenge the validity of a test by demonstrating that their positive was a false positive for a legitimate reason. Isn't this how the triathlete Beke (sp?) got his EPO positive overturned?

What I'm trying to say is an athlete can not challenge the competence of an acredited lab to follow the ISL. As long as the lab can show it followed the steps spelled out in the ISL, the athlete can not raise the issue of the quality of the work. For example, if the ISL calls for pouring out 100 ml of a reagent, and the lab shows the reagent was poured into a graduated container, the athlete can not raise the issue that the operator barely glanced at the level while the liquid was still sloshing around. It may be shoddy work, but it followed the ISL.

So a lab certainly may be incompetent, but as long as it retains its WADA acreditation, the athlete is not allowed to raise that as an issue. For WADA it's black and white. Either the lab followed the ISL, in which case the results may not be questioned or it did not, in which case new questions may be raised. So in the case of the Ghent tests, as long as the lab followed the ISL (and there's no evidence it didn't), in the eyes of WADA, those results must be considered accurate.

As to challenging how the test was conducted, an athlete can only challenge that the ISL wasn't followed. If somethig is a standard lab practice but isn't explicitly spelled out in the ISL, then the athlete can not raise it. An example of that is the overwriting of data files. Landis raised this issue. Standard lab practice prohibits the destruction of data files, but ISL does not. Therefore, this argument was dismissed the arbitrators. So no, an athlete can not just prove a test wasn't run properly. Only certain aspects are open to challenge.

B samples +. this must be L'Equipe's fault somehow.

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13812.0.html

Wow, what a surprise! The whole system is a joke when procedures like this are allowed to happen.

Wow, what a surprise! The whole system is a joke when procedures like this are allowed to happen.

so he can appeal to CAS like the rest of the pillheads. and lose.

so he can appeal to CAS like the rest of the pillheads. and lose.

That's just it. They rigged the system by going best two out of three tests. To fight it, he has an overwhelming burden that will be very expensive. If he fights, he'll probably lose and end up a lot poorer. If he doesn't fight it, everyone assumes he is guilty. He can't win, even with blatant manipulation of the tests! That's a great system.

B samples +. this must be L'Equipe's fault somehow.
Not L'Equipe's fault, obviously. But it does beg the question as to how L'Equipe can coninue to get this information from the Chateau Malabry lab before anyone else. (For argument's sake I'm assuming UCI and Mayo have not been informed. A 'fact' not yet revealed.)

You'd think that after the exposure of their lackadaisical procedures they'd tighten things up a bit. The apparently open pipeline to L'Equipe is a violation of athletes' rights, of which they have precious few.

I don't fault L'Equipe for reporting what they learn, but I do fault Chateau Malabry for revealing what they shouldn't. Somebody at the top should be fired and the lab should be put on probation.

JSR

That's just it. They rigged the system by going best two out of three tests. To fight it, he has an overwhelming burden that will be very expensive. If he fights, he'll probably lose and end up a lot poorer. If he doesn't fight it, everyone assumes he is guilty. He can't win, even with blatant manipulation of the tests! That's a great system.

no worries, Mo. he's "lucky" enough to be Spanish and have RFEC totally in the bag so it could be WADA assuming this overwhelming burden to go to CAS in the end.

no worries, Mo. he's "lucky" enough to be Spanish and have RFEC totally in the bag so it could be WADA assuming this overwhelming burden to go to CAS in the end.

You're probably right. One BS system deserves deserves another. How ironic.

This whole situation stinks of corruption.

The LNDD should not be an accredited lab, based solely on the employees' penchant for leaking results to the media. A competent lab director would stop that behavior immediately because it casts doubt on the validity of his testing procedures and of his technicians' objectivity.

The Spanish national federation should not have cleared him before all the results were tallied. They've turned a rather blind eye to doping in the past, and I can't feel that they're completely honest, either.

The UCI needs to stop this crap. Everybody has an agenda, and, unfortunately, no-one's is beneficial for cycling.

B samples +. this must be L'Equipe's fault somehow.

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13812.0.html

Let the spin begin. If Mayo fails to make a prompt and complete denail and does not fight the matter tooth and nail - he will be convicted in the court of public opinion no matter how mixed up and leaky the process.

Protecting riders that have never tested positive but were implicated in O.P. is something Spanish sporting can be accused of - protecting riders that test positive for EPO is another. If Heras is any indicator - this positive result will spell the end of Mayo's career.

We'll see. /h

A competent lab director would stop that behavior immediately...

Unless of course, he's the leak.

Unless of course, he's the leak.

whoever the mole at LNDD is I think it says less about the inability of the lab to stay quiet than it does about the near perfect ability of damien ressiot, and by extension l'equipe, to always know before anyone else. He must have some <i>very</i> interesting leverage material to keep a source going this long.

whoever the mole at LNDD is I think it says less about the inability of the lab to stay quiet than it does about the near perfect ability of damien ressiot, and by extension l'equipe, to always know before anyone else. He must have some <i>very</i> interesting leverage material to keep a source going this long.

Or just enough Euros. Also; if you can buy the results, for a little more you can buy the results you want. - TF

Or just enough Euros. Also; if you can buy the results, for a little more you can buy the results you want. - TF


hilarious. I think if that were the case Ressiot or Walsh would long ago have bought themselves a post 2000 LA positive.

hilarious. I think if that were the case Ressiot or Walsh would long ago have bought themselves a post 2000 LA positive.

Well, we know that Walsh was not above paying his sources. He admitted paying Emma O'Reilly about $8,850, after initially lying and claiming he didn't.

Well, we know that Walsh was not above paying his sources. He admitted paying Emma O'Reilly about $8,850, after initially lying and claiming he didn't.

great, walsh paid a soigneur 9 grand for her story. pretty easy then to assume that ressiot's able to buy an entire lab based on that.

great, walsh paid a soigneur 9 grand for her story. pretty easy then to assume that ressiot's able to buy an entire lab based on that.

apples and oranges.

apples and oranges.

yeah, I got it and you're right- the payment did detract from walsh's or at least o'reillys cred a bit. none of this makes "if you can buy the results, for a little more you can buy the results you want." a plausible theory of how <b>Mayo's</b> positive came to be.

yeah, I got it and you're right- the payment did detract from walsh's or at least o'reillys cred a bit. none of this makes "if you can buy the results, for a little more you can buy the results you want." a plausible theory of how <b>Mayo's</b> positive came to be.

My comment was solely in response to your comment about Walsh buying an LA positive. I doubt he could buy a positive, but he was willing to pay for other dirt. It has nothing to do with Mayo.

My comment was solely in response to your comment about Walsh buying an LA positive. I doubt he could buy a positive, but he was willing to pay for other dirt. It has nothing to do with Mayo.

To date there hasn't been any indication the lab tests anything other than anonymous (or at least they couldn't pick out a specific rider) samples for the A's, as it should be per protocol. The specifics of the Armstrong EPO positives don't suggest any reasonable way the lab could have "framed" him. Remember it took the L'Equipe reporter snookering Armstrong into giving him permission to see his medical files at the UCI, which thus provided him with the coded sample numbers to link the leaked LNDD results to him. If the LNDD had possessed this code all along, that whole ruse would have been unnecessary.

Hey DB!

Stop confusing the masses with facts. Most would rather believe that all lab technicians in France are a bunch of high school kids using petri dishes as frisbees.

To date there hasn't been any indication the lab tests anything other than anonymous (or at least they couldn't pick out a specific rider) samples for the A's, as it should be per protocol.
But Mayo's case is very different. His B sample would be clearly identifiable since the original seal would have been broken and the volume available for testing would have been less than the standard. Couple this with the testimony from the Landis hearing that LNDD techs would examine the results of a test for "accuracy," and if the results looked "off" would delete those results, recalibrate the equipment in an undocumented way following no written protocol, and then re-run the sample; and it's clear to me that no one can say Mayo's tests could not easily have been doctored to get the results LNDD was looking for.

To date there hasn't been any indication the lab tests anything other than anonymous (or at least they couldn't pick out a specific rider) samples for the A's, as it should be per protocol. The specifics of the Armstrong EPO positives don't suggest any reasonable way the lab could have "framed" him. Remember it took the L'Equipe reporter snookering Armstrong into giving him permission to see his medical files at the UCI, which thus provided him with the coded sample numbers to link the leaked LNDD results to him. If the LNDD had possessed this code all along, that whole ruse would have been unnecessary.
You really think that an within an organization that is willing to sell the results they cannot find out who’s sample is who’s?

I'm not saying that that they falsified Mayo's or anybody else’s. I don't even know if L'Equipe did or didn't get the results through legitimate channels this time (though it is telling that most believe not). But your seeming belief that all pro riders are lying dopers and all LNDD government workers and cycling politicians are perfectly honest is absurd. And until it has been shown that LNDD has cleaned up its act, I see no reason to believe that someone who will take a little cash to break one rule won't take a little more to break the next. Not accusing anyone, just stating that that is where their credibility lies.

I also have agree with those that say that any test that cannot be run in another WADA accredited lab is not ready to be used to end a rider's career.

Is it pendulum thing? Do you feel that it has been in the rider's favor for so long it is OK to swing past objectivity in the other direction? How can you see it as OK to end a rider's career on a research project? It's like the 'give back a year's salary' thing. This is how these guys are making their living and there is no reason to believe that false positives do not exist.

I also believe that there is a serious doping problem, but believe that we cannot throw out objectivity and convict simply because we want to.

TF

But Mayo's case is very different. His B sample would be clearly identifiable since the original seal would have been broken and the volume available for testing would have been less than the standard. Couple this with the testimony from the Landis hearing that LNDD techs would examine the results of a test for "accuracy," and if the results looked "off" would delete those results, recalibrate the equipment in an undocumented way following no written protocol, and then re-run the sample; and it's clear to me that no one can say Mayo's tests could not easily have been doctored to get the results LNDD was looking for.

I believe this is the exact reason the athlete is allowed to have a representative there for the B sample testing. Did Mayo exercise that option? Will he claim the 2nd testing of his B sample broke protocol? I would think that is clearly laid out in the WADA rules which establish the due process for doping cases. CAS shouldn't have any trouble sorting out whether Mayo (and the Spanish Federation apparently) have a case or not.

You really think that an within an organization that is willing to sell the results they cannot find out who’s sample is who’s?

Well we know what it took to find out the identity for Armstrong's results. And we know that WADA and cycling officials contain dishonest people as well. We have heard of tip-offs for the "surprise" OOC tests in Spain, Belgian and Italy. We have Verbruggen/Vrijman's cover-up of the Armstrong exposure :)

I believe this is the exact reason the athlete is allowed to have a representative there for the B sample testing. Did Mayo exercise that option? Will he claim the 2nd testing of his B sample broke protocol? I would think that is clearly laid out in the WADA rules which establish the due process for doping cases. CAS shouldn't have any trouble sorting out whether Mayo (and the Spanish Federation apparently) have a case or not.
Mayo did not have a representative at the LNDD tests. He claimed these tests were invalid and would not endorse them by taking part.

Mayo has said the LNDD tests were outside the requirements by being a third test, but I also wonder how WADA will get around the fact that the seal on the sample had been broken before the LNDD testing. As I understand it, this is a clear violation of protocol, and while it doesn't mean the tests must be thrown out, it does shift the burden of proof from Mayo to WADA. That is, once Mayo proves there was a violation of WADA or ILS protocols, as the broken seal should be, then WADA has the burden of proof to show the violation could not have caused the adverse result. In this case that would mean showing a perfect chain of custody trail and further that within that chain of custody prove no one tampered with the sample. Given what came out in the Landis case, II think this may be very difficult.

"Well we know what it took to find out the identity for Armstrong's results."

We KNOW nothing of the kind. All we know is that the results were made public when, by protocol, nobody should have even known whose samples they were and that they should not have had the ID numbers at LNDD.

"And we know that WADA and cycling officials contain dishonest people as well. We have heard of tip-offs for the "surprise" OOC tests in Spain, Belgian and Italy."

I would not be suprprised if these rumors were true.

"We have Verbruggen/Vrijman's cover-up of the Armstrong exposure :)"

"Armstrong exposure" - nice term. I fail to see how you can call following the protocol 'cover-up'. Next you will be saying that the LNDD employees are 'whistle-blowing'!!!

TF

Mayo did not have a representative at the LNDD tests. <b>He claimed these tests were invalid and would not endorse them by taking part.</b>

Mayo has said the LNDD tests were outside the requirements by being a third test, but I also wonder how WADA will get around the fact that the seal on the sample had been broken before the LNDD testing. As I understand it, this is a clear violation of protocol, and while it doesn't mean the tests must be thrown out, it does shift the burden of proof from Mayo to WADA. That is, once Mayo proves there was a violation of WADA or ILS protocols, as the broken seal should be, then WADA has the burden of proof to show the violation could not have caused the adverse result. In this case that would mean showing a perfect chain of custody trail and further that within that chain of custody prove no one tampered with the sample. Given what came out in the Landis case, II think this may be very difficult.

The 2nd part of your post is at best a goofball technicality that CAS can sort out if either party takes it that far but the first is just further proof Mayo knew he was caught. Just more theatrics from a soon to be convicted doper.

The 2nd part of your post is at best a goofball technicality that CAS can sort out if either party takes it that far but the first is just further proof Mayo knew he was caught. Just more theatrics from a soon to be convicted doper.

Technicality is just a term that ordinarily smart people use to describe how the system screwed up and let a guilty man get away. Call it what you want, but it's a screw up. The only theatrics here are from the UCI and WADA, who have shown that they are willing to discard protocols and procedures as necessary to get the results they want. Is Mayo guilty? Probably. But if the system is legitimate, no one should have to rig it to make it work.

We KNOW nothing of the kind. All we know is that the results were made public when, by protocol, nobody should have even known whose samples they were and that they should not have had the ID numbers at LNDD.


I'm not sure what you mean by "ID numbers", if you mean the code number of the sample, well they have to have those as that is how the samples are tracked. Only WADA and UCI have the information to connect the code numbers to the riders.

WADA pressured LNDD into giving the results with code numbers to the UCI, probably in an attempt to force UCI to at least recognize they were aware of who was likely to be doping. Then Ressiot got to look at Armstrong's medical files at the UCI which showed him which code numbers corresponded to Armstrong.

Technicality is just a term that ordinarily smart people use to describe how the system screwed up and let a guilty man get away. Call it what you want, but it's a screw up. The only theatrics here are from the UCI and WADA, who have shown that they are willing to discard protocols and procedures as necessary to get the results they want. Is Mayo guilty? Probably. But if the system is legitimate, no one should have to rig it to make it work.

Id be with you if the 1st B test was conclusively negative. I think that in the event that a B sample test done under extraordinary circumstances fails to return a conclusive result that it's not unreasonable to test it again.

I'm not sure what you mean by "ID numbers", if you mean the code number of the sample, well they have to have those as that is how the samples are tracked. Only WADA and UCI have the information to connect the code numbers to the riders.

WADA pressured LNDD into giving the results with code numbers to the UCI, probably in an attempt to force UCI to at least recognize they were aware of who was likely to be doping. Then Ressiot got to look at Armstrong's medical files at the UCI which showed him which code numbers corresponded to Armstrong.
That's exactly the ID numbers I mean. By protocol, those numbers were suppose to be removed once the usable life of the sample (that season, I believe) was over since they did not have (and probably still don't) any protocols for keeping the sample, assuring that it hasn't been contaminated or knowing whose it really is. The numbers were only retained at the insistance of Pound. - TF

Id be with you if the 1st B test was conclusively negative. I think that in the event that a B sample test done under extraordinary circumstances fails to return a conclusive result that it's not unreasonable to test it again.
Except inconclusive is not the same as uncertain. There are three types of results for the EPO test. Proof positive, proof negative, and inconclusive. To use a concentration analogy, say concentration above 50 ppm is proof of guilt and concentration below 30 ppm is proof of innocence. Anything between 30 and 50 is inconclusive. Mayo's test came back at a value equivalent to a 40. So if you believe the lab performed the test properly, there is no reason to repeat the test as any accredited lab should always return the same value of 40.

Given WADA's position that the results of an accredited lab following international protocols can not be questioned for accuracy, it seems they have a serious problem. If both labs followed protocol, how will they explain the different results? If the first did not follow protocol, why was this not discovered internally before the results were made public?

Except inconclusive is not the same as uncertain. There are three types of results for the EPO test. Proof positive, proof negative, and inconclusive. To use a concentration analogy, say concentration above 50 ppm is proof of guilt and concentration below 30 ppm is proof of innocence. Anything between 30 and 50 is inconclusive. Mayo's test came back at a value equivalent to a 40. So if you believe the lab performed the test properly, there is no reason to repeat the test as any accredited lab should always return the same value of 40.

Given WADA's position that the results of an accredited lab following international protocols can not be questioned for accuracy, it seems they have a serious problem. If both labs followed protocol, how will they explain the different results? If the first did not follow protocol, why was this not discovered internally before the results were made public?

one lab is more proficient in doing the test than the other, I think, from what I've read, that's pretty much common knowledge and accepted across the board. The inconclusive result should give WADA reason to reconsider the original labs certification but in practical terms that has no bearing on whether mayo returned a + sample.

one lab is more proficient in doing the test than the other, I think, from what I've read, that's pretty much common knowledge and accepted across the board.
That may be common knowledge but by WADA's own rules, all labs are perfect as long as they follow standard protocols. Perfect is perfect. One lab can't be more perfect than another. And beside, who's to say the inconclusive result (40 ppm in my example) isn't the correct one?

What you're proposing is breaking the wall that all labs are perfect. If that is allowed from the WADA side, it opens the door for athletes to also challenge the proficiency of the lab. After all, WADA can't say their labs are perfect when the lab returns a result they like, but might not be proficient if the results run contrary to what WADA wants. I believe WADA has fought tooth and nail to stop athletes having the ability to challenge the quality of lab work when protocols are followed.