Iban Mayo

Wayne666

[QUOTE=fscyclist]Maybe you or someone else knows the answer as to why the A sample takes 1-2 weeks for processing but the B sample takes 2 months? /QUOTE]

I believe it was because the LNDD was closed for holiday by the time it came around to test the B sample. So it was then sent elsewhere for testing, to Beligum I think. Finally since apparently it is somewhat tricky to actually declare a positive EPO test, I believe all test results are now reviewed by the Australian group that came up with the test.

El Loto

So what happens now if LNDD finds the re-analysed B Sample positive? Presumably the UCI would love to undermine the other two labs and agree with LNDD if it is so.

__________________

Leafer

What standard is that? I don't see the riders living up to any standards, which is what gets us into this mess in the first place.

fscyclist

Yes, I'm puzzled by the UCI's actions to reanalyze it in Paris. I don't think they've thought through the outcomes.

Wayne666

I think the UCI would simply love to get Mayo because they know from his blood parameters and drastic variations in form over the years that he is a doper. They probably thought they had him in the Giro and now they thought they had him at the Tour. They simply aren't ready to throw in the towel yet.

fscyclist

If LNDD finds a B sample positive, what does that solve? If anything it just makes the case more messy and may further discredit past results from LNDD or the other labs depending on your point of view.

Wayne666

From the outsiders perspective, that is certainly true. You are looking at it from the perspective of someone influenced by the Floyd/Armstrong propaganda machine. The guys at the UCI almost certainly haven't bought into those opinions at all, and probably could care less anyway. They simply thought they had caught someone that they "know" is a doper and are looking to get rid of them by whatever means. If that means monkeying around with which tests are legit and which are not, well so be it.

Bro Deal

I think that is probably bang on; but it also it may lead to the UCI cutting corners in order to get him, which will more ammunition their the critics. We'll see if Mayo is smarter than Hamilton and is more careful from now on.

I don't see that UCI having the B sample reanalyzed by the LNDD will accomplish anything good.

__________________
"You are like the wind and I like the lion. You form the tempest. The sand stings my eyes and the ground is parched. I roar in defiance but you do not hear. But between us there is a difference. I, like the lion, must remain in my place. While you like the wind will never know yours." -- Mulay Hamid El Raisuli, Lord of the Riff, Sultan to the Berbers, Last of the Barbary Pirates

fscyclist

Never been accused of being influenced by Floyd/Armstrong propoganda before, so thanks for that one.

I'm looking at this from a scientific perspective. In order for a test to be valid it must be reproducible, and not just reproducible at the same lab by the same person. For instance, if you published a method of testing in a reputable journal, another scientist may test your method (a form of peer review). If it is not reproducible, then your test is invalid and you end up with a lot of egg on your face.

The most likely reasons the test results differ are:
1. The test was not conducted using the exact same methodology and/or standards
2. Someone tested it incorrectly
3. The A and B samples differed in some way
4. The samples degraded or changed in some way during the time delay
5. The result was close enough to the cutoff that the measure of error may overlap the area where a sample is called positive.

Frankly, I don't like the UCI "monkeying" around with samples, but at this point I really don't care; the whole organization is a farce. Maybe next year they'll institute 17th century medical standards and employ urine sniffers and tasters to discern which drugs the riders are using.

Wayne666

I think #5 is probably the most likely explanation especially since there was almost certainly increased variability in the test results due to the tests being conducted in two different labs. The UCI will probably use this as their excuse for falling back on a B test conducted at the same lab as the A test. This test could always come back negative too and then the issue will be irrelevant anyway.

And I didn't say I though the UCI monkeyed around with the sample, just they're playing a game as to which test is acceptable and which isn't.

whiteboytrash

fscyclist

I still don't know what the point of a retest is. Lets say LNDD finds the B sample positive. What will that do other than add more confusion to the issue? With two other labs stating the B sample is negative, Mayo already has plenty of ammo to claim his innocence (although I must reiterate, the test doesn't prove innocence, only a negative test). If they wanted LNDD to test the B sample, they should have done that from the start.

fscyclist

You are correct. Sorry.

I don't think it is right for the UCI to monkey around with which test is acceptable. In fact, under WADA code I don't think this is allowed, but who knows anymore.

cyclingheroes

Correct. Anyway the UCI will never bring a solution, if you ask me.. they are a major part of the problem.

__________________
Cycling news, picture galleries & live coverage


www.cyclingheroes.info