Armstrong charged and banned

[Chuffy]

There is still the issue of reliability of the tests.

The test for EPO has been shown to have a high false positive rate in people who have undergone exercise.

I've never come across that mentioned in any cycling/doping related articles. Have you got a link or source?

 

[ufkacbln]

I've never come across that mentioned in any cycling/doping related articles. Have you got a link or source?

Wikipedia:

Detection of EPO use

Some success has also been realized in applying a specific test to detect EPO use. An inherent problem, however, is that, whereas pharmaceutical EPO may be undetectable in the circulation a few days after administration, its effects may persist for several weeks. In 2000 a test developed by scientists at the French national anti-doping laboratory (LNDD) and endorsed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was introduced to detect pharmaceutical EPO by distinguishing it from the nearly identical natural hormone normally present in an athlete’s urine. The test method relies on scientific techniques known as gel electrophoresis and isoelectric focusing. Although the test has been widely applied, especially among cyclists and triathletes, it is controversial, and its accuracy has been called into question. The principal criticism has been toward the ability of the test to distinguish pharmaceutical EPO from other proteins that may normally be present in the urine of an athlete after strenuous exercise.
The validity of a doping conviction based on the EPO test method was first challenged successfully by Belgian triathlete Rutger Beke. Beke was suspended from competition for 18 months in March 2005 by the Flemish Disciplinary Commission after a positive urine test for EPO in September 2004. In August 2005, the Commission reversed its decision and exonerated him based on scientific and medical information presented by Beke. He asserted that his sample had become degraded as a result of bacterial contamination and that the substance identified by the laboratory as pharmaceutical EPO was, in fact, an unrelated protein indistinguishable from pharmaceutical EPO in the test method. He claimed, therefore, that the test had produced a false positive result in his case.

Cycling News




Joris Delanghe et al Testing for recombinant human erythropoietin

Testing for recombinant Epo in urine may seem practical at first sight but appears to be a very difficult task. The amount of endogenous Epo in urine is extremely low . The physiological background for testing Epo in urine is complex and the handling of Epo by the renal tubules is poorly understood . Furthermore, exercise-induced renal ischemia and the accompanying postexercise proteinuria may affect the clearance of this 32- to 39-kDa protein and the quality of the urine matrix.

Drugds in sport

In the Blood journal study, a research group led by Associate Professor Monique Beullens and Professor Mathieu Bollen (of the Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium) and their colleague Dr. Joris R Delanghe (of the Department of Clinical Chemistry, University Hospital, Gent, Belgium), showed the widely-used IOC and WADA EPO test can lead to the false-positive detection of rhEPO in post-exercise, protein-rich urine of endurance sports athletes.
As a result of a disputed case of alleged rhEPO-abuse by an endurance athlete with post-exercise proteinuria, European scientists wondered whether the test for rhEPO could lead to false-positive results, perhaps as a result of cross-reactivity of the EPO-antibodies with other proteins of urine that were unrelated to EPO.
The straightforward experimental protocol of the reported study leaves little doubt that the major urinary protein that the WADA test visualizes with the EPO antibodies is not EPO.
The article by Belgian scientists therefore challenges WADA claim that "the detection method for EPO is valid and reliable". Other WADA statements such as the method for EPO detection "has undergone an extensive scientific validation" and "it is a well-established procedure widely accepted by the scientific community, as demonstrated by publication in a number of international scientific journals" are similarly false.
Contrary to the WADA claims, the Doping Journal analysis of citation impact of earlier publications on EPO testing in urine indicates the IOC/WADA method for EPO testing is not scientifically popular or well-established. An in-depth analysis of the articles behind the IOC's urine test for EPO showed earlier publications missed critical control experiments and were not designed to exclude non-specific false-positive misidentification of other non-EPO urine components.

 

[Chuffy]

Ta.

 

[lukesdad]

So who would qualify as a reliable and independent witness, in your opinion?

Kevin Livingston.

 

[Noodley]

I am reliable. And independent. Pick me.

 

[Buddfox]

And how would this be assessed? Are there accreditation schemes for witnesses? Would witnesses only be accepted if they have a reliability score of 75% or more? The reliability and standing of the witness is down to whoever hears the evidence, be that a judge, a panel or a jury.


Again, the motivation of a witness and the potential impact on their evidence is up to whoever is hearing the case. You are effectively ruling out anyone with a connection to the events they witnessed.

You are talking complete horse toffee.

Isn't this why lawyers spend a lot of time in cross-examining witnesses, to establish their credibility? I guess you could call that the test to which you refer. My guess is it wouldn't take a lot to discredit some if not all the witnesses here. Unfortunately with LA there's so much background noise that it's hard not to show you don't have some kind of vested interest. Hincapie might be OK?

 

[yello]

Another question answered for me this morning; Bruyneel didn't have the 30 day extension like Armstrong does, only 5 days. He's opted for arbritation

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling...han-bruyneel-fight-doping-charges-arbitration

Maybe his pockets aren't as deep as Armstrong's? I guess his hearing won't be until after Armstrong's complaint has been decided upon. Another clever tactical move by Bruyneel?

 

[User169]

Joris Delanghe et al Testing for recombinant human erythropoietin[/SIZE

Drugds in sport

That work was disputed, btw. The journal that published the work subsequently published an analysis from one of the french doping labs basically accusing the authors of shoddy work. Its not an easy test to interpret, but Given that many dopers seem to have passed inumerable tests, i think it more reasonable to saythat the testing regimes are skewed in favour of false megatives.

 

[ufkacbln]

There are problems with the testing, and there have been cases where this doubt has been sufficient to overturn suspensions and bans in court.

That is where we need to look. If there is sufficient doubt then there is a defence.

Add to that the question (again in the above references) as to whether testing old samples is valid and my point remains that there may be enough doubt to invalidate much of the evidence.

The controversy over the tests is simply another factor

The false negative rate is acceptable as this may miss the offender, but has no lasting effect in the way that a false positive can. A false positive is unacceptable because of the devastating consequences.

 

[yello]

I neglected to mention an important factor in the analysis of the blood passport data that Michael Ashenden mentioned. That is, a race calender. The analysts only see the blood values, they don't know anything about when the athlete was competing (for obvious anonymity reasons). That apparently can give a whole new dimension to the analysis. Overlay the athletes race calendar over the data and certain values can look more (or less) suspicious.

 

[Noodley]

An excellent point yello, one often overlooked or unknown by many who make comments about data as if it is "fact" beyond question or further discussion.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

The false negative rate is acceptable as this may miss the offender, but has no lasting effect in the way that a false positive can. A false positive is unacceptable because of the devastating consequences.

Saying it is 'unacceptable' doesn't help here. It's like people asking for 100% certain proof of some hypothesis. There will always be false positives and false negatives in any test. The only question is what chance of each there is and what chance on each side one is prepared to accept for both the specific and wider purposes of the test. And if you are saying 'no chance', then you are really saying 'no testing'.

 

[Chuffy]

I neglected to mention an important factor in the analysis of the blood passport data that Michael Ashenden mentioned. That is, a race calender. The analysts only see the blood values, they don't know anything about when the athlete was competing (for obvious anonymity reasons). That apparently can give a whole new dimension to the analysis. Overlay the athletes race calendar over the data and certain values can look more (or less) suspicious.

I'm sure that Ashenden and his colleagues are well aware of that. From what I've read, the passport analysis is effectively weighted to make it very difficult to get a positive result. Also, in this specific case, we know exactly who the athlete is and what he was doing, so that particular issue isn't a factor.

I know there have been a few cases where the B sample has turned out negative, which would be consistent with what Cunobblychap's examples describe, but I don't think anyone has ever had a sanction overturned because of a false positive. Why should Armstrong be any different? Besides, the case against him is going to be build on a huge amount of evidence, not just the blood data. Any part of it would be enough to bring down a smaller rider. It says worlds about Armstrong's power and influence that it's taking such a massive effort to nail the cheating bastard.

 

[Red Light]

That work was disputed, btw. The journal that published the work subsequently published an analysis from one of the french doping labs basically accusing the authors of shoddy work.

Oohhh!!!! Pots, kettles and black. What came out at the Landis arbitration was some of the shoddiest labwork I have seen courtesy of LNDD. If they had been a medical diagnostics company the regulatory authorities would have shut them down.

 

[yello]

I'm sure that Ashenden and his colleagues are well aware of that.

Yes they are. As I said, It was an article written by Ashenden that I read it in. Or am I misunderstanding you?