| |
Main
Date: 22 Oct 2007 15:25:49
From: MMan
Subject: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gosnm3v5MzsyDG_APHcWvgL0D-EA
The A-sample was tested at LNDD.
I believe the B-sample was tested elsewhere, but the stories don't say.
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 06:44:25
From:
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
On Oct 23, 6:48 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 23, 8:58 am, Jim Feeley <jfee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So who decided to send the B sample to Gent? And why re test in France
> > rather than Belgium?
> >From cyclingnews.com:
>
> "According to Gripper, Mayo's B sample was transferred to a laboratory
> in Gent, Belgium because the Ch=E2tenay-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."
>
> 1. Doesn't sound like the original sample was tested very quickly.
> 2. I'm sure Gripper really said, "but the Gent laboratory just
> couldn't get the sample to confirm the Paris result, goddammit."
> 3. The sample is being sent to Paris in an act of extreme rendition,
> where it will be waterboarded until it confesses.
>
> Earlier this year during the French Open Tennis Tournament, all doping
> tests were sent to Montreal for analysis. The ATP said the Montreal
> lab was cheaper. Roland Garros is maybe 15 km from the LNDD in
> Chatenay-Malabry.
You can easily draw one of two equally horrifying conclusions from
that statement. Either the Paris lab used a "turn the knob until it
looks positive" protocol and the Gent lab is calling them out on it,
or the Paris lab did everything right and the Gent lab is unable to
confirm a real positive under any conditions. Both point to a system
of tests that are so operator and site sensitive that no results,
positive or negative, can be trusted.
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 15:48:43
From:
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
On Oct 23, 8:58 am, Jim Feeley <jfee...@gmail.com > wrote:
> So who decided to send the B sample to Gent? And why re test in France
> rather than Belgium?
>From cyclingnews.com:
"According to Gripper, Mayo's B sample was transferred to a laboratory
in Gent, Belgium because the Ch=E2tenay-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."
1=2E Doesn't sound like the original sample was tested very quickly.
2=2E I'm sure Gripper really said, "but the Gent laboratory just
couldn't get the sample to confirm the Paris result, goddammit."
3=2E The sample is being sent to Paris in an act of extreme rendition,
where it will be waterboarded until it confesses.
Earlier this year during the French Open Tennis Tournament, all doping
tests were sent to Montreal for analysis. The ATP said the Montreal
lab was cheaper. Roland Garros is maybe 15 km from the LNDD in
Chatenay-Malabry.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 11:19:11
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
rechungREMOVETHIS wrote:
>>From cyclingnews.com:
> "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."
>
> 1. Doesn't sound like the original sample was tested very quickly.
> 2. I'm sure Gripper really said, "but the Gent laboratory just
> couldn't get the sample to confirm the Paris result, goddammit."
> 3. The sample is being sent to Paris in an act of extreme rendition,
> where it will be waterboarded until it confesses.
I expect Lamour would probably say the Belgians are anglo.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 19:57:02
From: Mark
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 23, 8:58 am, Jim Feeley <jfee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So who decided to send the B sample to Gent? And why re test in France
>> rather than Belgium?
>
>>From cyclingnews.com:
>
> "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."
Oh. My. God.
I couldn't believe Gripper would really say that out loud, at least not
to the press! I thought it was time-honored RBR hyperbole. I thought
it was cyclingnews getting it wrong. But "both" cnn.com and
sportsillustrated.cnn.com have AP articles with the exact same final phrase.
Wow.
The B-test isn't finished until it confirms that he's guilty, I guess.
Does Mayo really have to do /any/ work to persuade the world he's the
subject of a witch hunt (regardless, of course, of his actual guilt or
innocence?)
Mark J.
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 14:11:48
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
On Oct 23, 11:37 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> The goal is to cut the athlete's income as quickly as possible
> in order to limit their defense. Although I doubt you would get
> anyone at WADA to admit that.
"Funny."
> The solution path is different if we are honest about the problem
> statement.
A clear and uniform problem statement would end Laffertyism as we know
it. If you destroy rbr, you are ruler of nothing.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 10:58:41
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> If you destroy rbr, you are ruler of nothing.
There's a difference ?
Anyway FSA ads claim nothing is light.
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 09:43:13
From: Tom_A
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
On Oct 23, 8:58 am, Jim Feeley <jfee...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Oct 23, 7:29 am, Jim Feeley <jfee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Huh. I read that the the Gent lab's B-sample results were "confirmed"
> > by an Australian lab. Any news/details on that front? Did the Oz lab
> > confirm that the sample could not be read correctly or...?
>
> Answering my own question...this story has more details:
>
> http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/13559.0.html
>
> "The second sample is not negative," UCI anti-doping coordinator Anne
> Gripper told AFP at Tuesday's doping summit in Paris. "The analysis of
> it has not yet finished."
> ...
>
> There were some reports that labs botched the test, but Gripper
> insisted that testing methods between labs in France, where the "A"
> sample was tested, and follow-up tests in Belgium are not the same.
> Officials now want a second sample to be re-tested at the Chatenay-
> Malabry lab in France.
>
> She said it would be another "five or six weeks" before the second
> round of tests is completed. Even if the follow-up tests are negative,
> the UCI said it might consider an appeal to the Court of Arbitration
> for Sport.
>
> [there's more in the story linked above]
>
> ========
> So who decided to send the B sample to Gent? And why re test in France
> rather than Belgium?
>
> Jim
Hmmm...can anyone say "results shopping"??
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 15:58:21
From: Jim Feeley
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
On Oct 23, 7:29 am, Jim Feeley <jfee...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Huh. I read that the the Gent lab's B-sample results were "confirmed"
> by an Australian lab. Any news/details on that front? Did the Oz lab
> confirm that the sample could not be read correctly or...?
Answering my own question...this story has more details:
http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/13559.0.html
"The second sample is not negative," UCI anti-doping coordinator Anne
Gripper told AFP at Tuesday's doping summit in Paris. "The analysis of
it has not yet finished."
...
There were some reports that labs botched the test, but Gripper
insisted that testing methods between labs in France, where the "A"
sample was tested, and follow-up tests in Belgium are not the same.
Officials now want a second sample to be re-tested at the Chatenay-
Malabry lab in France.
She said it would be another "five or six weeks" before the second
round of tests is completed. Even if the follow-up tests are negative,
the UCI said it might consider an appeal to the Court of Arbitration
for Sport.
[there's more in the story linked above]
========
So who decided to send the B sample to Gent? And why re test in France
rather than Belgium?
Jim
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 14:29:06
From: Jim Feeley
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
On Oct 23, 6:11 am, Dan Gregory
<dangreg...@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk > wrote:
> todayhttp://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20071023_130131Dev.html
> says that it is not a "negative" sample but one that could not be read
> correctly so in fact Mayo is not cleared
Huh. I read that the the Gent lab's B-sample results were "confirmed"
by an Australian lab. Any news/details on that front? Did the Oz lab
confirm that the sample could not be read correctly or...?
Jim
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 00:00:35
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
On Oct 22, 6:25 pm, MMan <mman...@cs.com > wrote:
> http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gosnm3v5MzsyDG_APHcWvgL0D-EA
>
> The A-sample was tested at LNDD.
>
> I believe the B-sample was tested elsewhere, but the stories don't say.
from the iban mayo blog :
"Iban Mayo cause problems in a restaurant downtown Bilbao
The basque rider, Iban May, causing various problems this past week in
a restaurant in downtown Bilbao. The cyclist was accompanied by five
other friends, one of them a well-known journalist for a local
television.
Mayo, in a drunken state, he began to make obscene jokes and bad
taste, bothering other customers of the establishment of hospitality
and causing several incidents. He was also to the bathroom to smoke,
given that the local was not allowed and will not discovered her, it
did not burn anything other than a roll of toilet paper that was on
the verge of causing a small fire."
|
| |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 16:39:34
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
> The A-sample was tested at LNDD.
Seriously? According to the article-
"The cycling federation confirmed the news and said there had been a mistake
with the first sample."
I'd love to see the direct quote from a UCI official regarding that.
I think there needs to be a fundamental re-thinking of the doping controls.
If a "positive" A sample has a reasonable chance of being incorrect (which
now appears to be the case), then perhaps the "A" sample should be split
and, if the first test shows positive, a test on the second sample should be
immediately carried out, by a different lab, without requiring any further
intervention (little added time, no sanctions against the rider unless the
2nd test of the "A" sample verifies the first test procedure). Same sample,
different labs.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"MMan" <mman37x@cs.com > wrote in message
news:1193091949.196360.146090@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gosnm3v5MzsyDG_APHcWvgL0D-EA
>
> The A-sample was tested at LNDD.
>
> I believe the B-sample was tested elsewhere, but the stories don't say.
>
|
| | |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 05:55:04
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
In article
<XwaTi.381$%13.106@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net >,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote:
> > The A-sample was tested at LNDD.
>
> Seriously? According to the article-
>
> "The cycling federation confirmed the news and said there had been a mistake
> with the first sample."
>
> I'd love to see the direct quote from a UCI official regarding that.
>
> I think there needs to be a fundamental re-thinking of the doping controls.
> If a "positive" A sample has a reasonable chance of being incorrect (which
> now appears to be the case), then perhaps the "A" sample should be split
> and, if the first test shows positive, a test on the second sample should be
> immediately carried out, by a different lab, without requiring any further
> intervention (little added time, no sanctions against the rider unless the
> 2nd test of the "A" sample verifies the first test procedure). Same sample,
> different labs.
There are problems with splitting samples again.
One is that the donor and his representatives
are not present when the A sample seal is broken.
>
> "MMan" <mman37x@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1193091949.196360.146090@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gosnm3v5MzsyDG_APHcWvgL0D-EA
> >
> > The A-sample was tested at LNDD.
> >
> > I believe the B-sample was tested elsewhere, but the stories don't say.
> >
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 10:27:57
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
>> I think there needs to be a fundamental re-thinking of the doping
>> controls.
>> If a "positive" A sample has a reasonable chance of being incorrect
>> (which
>> now appears to be the case), then perhaps the "A" sample should be split
>> and, if the first test shows positive, a test on the second sample should
>> be
>> immediately carried out, by a different lab, without requiring any
>> further
>> intervention (little added time, no sanctions against the rider unless
>> the
>> 2nd test of the "A" sample verifies the first test procedure). Same
>> sample,
>> different labs.
>
> There are problems with splitting samples again.
> One is that the donor and his representatives
> are not present when the A sample seal is broken.
But the second test of the "A" sample cannot do any more harm than the
present system. It can only increase the odds that the test doesn't go any
further, because you'd need both "A" samples (or A & B if you wish) to test
positive before it could move on to C.
But forget the specifics. The goal is to find a way to keep a positive A
sample from kicking an athlete out of competition, when it's quite possible
he or she will be later found not positive. Somehow we need to be a bit more
sure, a bit more quickly.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:rubrum-4BDC92.22550422102007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article
> <XwaTi.381$%13.106@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
>> > The A-sample was tested at LNDD.
>>
>> Seriously? According to the article-
>>
>> "The cycling federation confirmed the news and said there had been a
>> mistake
>> with the first sample."
>>
>> I'd love to see the direct quote from a UCI official regarding that.
>>
>> I think there needs to be a fundamental re-thinking of the doping
>> controls.
>> If a "positive" A sample has a reasonable chance of being incorrect
>> (which
>> now appears to be the case), then perhaps the "A" sample should be split
>> and, if the first test shows positive, a test on the second sample should
>> be
>> immediately carried out, by a different lab, without requiring any
>> further
>> intervention (little added time, no sanctions against the rider unless
>> the
>> 2nd test of the "A" sample verifies the first test procedure). Same
>> sample,
>> different labs.
>
> There are problems with splitting samples again.
> One is that the donor and his representatives
> are not present when the A sample seal is broken.
>
>>
>> "MMan" <mman37x@cs.com> wrote in message
>> news:1193091949.196360.146090@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> > http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gosnm3v5MzsyDG_APHcWvgL0D-EA
>> >
>> > The A-sample was tested at LNDD.
>> >
>> > I believe the B-sample was tested elsewhere, but the stories don't say.
>> >
>
> --
> Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 13:37:30
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> But forget the specifics. The goal is to find a way to keep a positive A
> sample from kicking an athlete out of competition, when it's quite possible
> he or she will be later found not positive. Somehow we need to be a bit more
> sure, a bit more quickly.
The goal is to cut the athlete's income as quickly as possible
in order to limit their defense. Although I doubt you would get
anyone at WADA to admit that.
The solution path is different if we are honest about the problem
statement.
Bob Schwartz
|
| | |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 01:00:57
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
In article <XwaTi.381$%13.106@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net >,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote:
> > The A-sample was tested at LNDD.
>
> Seriously? According to the article-
>
> "The cycling federation confirmed the news and said there had been a mistake
> with the first sample."
>
> I'd love to see the direct quote from a UCI official regarding that.
>
> I think there needs to be a fundamental re-thinking of the doping controls.
> If a "positive" A sample has a reasonable chance of being incorrect (which
> now appears to be the case), then perhaps the "A" sample should be split
> and, if the first test shows positive, a test on the second sample should be
> immediately carried out, by a different lab, without requiring any further
> intervention (little added time, no sanctions against the rider unless the
> 2nd test of the "A" sample verifies the first test procedure). Same sample,
> different labs.
The A and B samples are the same. The athlete gives both samples into
the little containers in the same, er, process.
The athlete even gets a selection of several empty, sealed containers,
and is asked to choose two of them.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 19:28:53
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
> The A and B samples are the same. The athlete gives both samples into
> the little containers in the same, er, process.
>
> The athlete even gets a selection of several empty, sealed containers,
> and is asked to choose two of them.
If they're physically the same (same stream going into a funnel that splits
to two containers?) then I guess what I want is an A, B & C sample. The A
sample is always tested, the B sample is automatically tested (without
delay) in the event of a positive A sample, and the C sample would be the
one the athlete could choose to have done, or not. In this example, I'd even
allow the athlete to choose from a list of approved labs for the final test.
I do recognize that I'm essentially giving the athlete more of a chance of
getting let off, when in fact guilty. Still, the present system, under which
an athlete is immediately suspended until things are set in place for the B
test, seems wrong.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote in message
news:rcousine-703578.18005622102007@news.telus.net...
> In article <XwaTi.381$%13.106@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
>> > The A-sample was tested at LNDD.
>>
>> Seriously? According to the article-
>>
>> "The cycling federation confirmed the news and said there had been a
>> mistake
>> with the first sample."
>>
>> I'd love to see the direct quote from a UCI official regarding that.
>>
>> I think there needs to be a fundamental re-thinking of the doping
>> controls.
>> If a "positive" A sample has a reasonable chance of being incorrect
>> (which
>> now appears to be the case), then perhaps the "A" sample should be split
>> and, if the first test shows positive, a test on the second sample should
>> be
>> immediately carried out, by a different lab, without requiring any
>> further
>> intervention (little added time, no sanctions against the rider unless
>> the
>> 2nd test of the "A" sample verifies the first test procedure). Same
>> sample,
>> different labs.
>
> The A and B samples are the same. The athlete gives both samples into
> the little containers in the same, er, process.
>
> The athlete even gets a selection of several empty, sealed containers,
> and is asked to choose two of them.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
> "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
> Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 14:11:45
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
today
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20071023_130131Dev.html
says that it is not a "negative" sample but one that could not be read
correctly so in fact Mayo is not cleared
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 17:05:03
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
Dan Gregory wrote:
> today
> http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20071023_130131Dev.html
> says that it is not a "negative" sample but one that could not be read
> correctly so in fact Mayo is not cleared
Is their positive reader on holiday again ?
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 06:32:43
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
In article <G%cTi.117$%Y6.49@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com >,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote:
> > The A and B samples are the same. The athlete gives both samples into
> > the little containers in the same, er, process.
> >
> > The athlete even gets a selection of several empty, sealed containers,
> > and is asked to choose two of them.
>
> If they're physically the same (same stream going into a funnel that splits
> to two containers?) then I guess what I want is an A, B & C sample. The A
> sample is always tested, the B sample is automatically tested (without
> delay) in the event of a positive A sample, and the C sample would be the
> one the athlete could choose to have done, or not. In this example, I'd even
> allow the athlete to choose from a list of approved labs for the final test.
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/urine_testing_guideline.pdf
> I do recognize that I'm essentially giving the athlete more of a chance of
> getting let off, when in fact guilty. Still, the present system, under which
> an athlete is immediately suspended until things are set in place for the B
> test, seems wrong.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 16:32:22
From: lewdvig
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
On Oct 22, 3:50 pm, Dan Gregory
<dangreg...@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk > wrote:
> Dan Gregory wrote:
> > MMan wrote:
> >>http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gosnm3v5MzsyDG_APHcWvgL0D-EA
>
> >> The A-sample was tested at LNDD.
>
> >> I believe the B-sample was tested elsewhere, but the stories don't say.
>
> > in the UK
>
> it now appears to have been Ghent in Belgium & Australia.......
We need to slap an 'Under New Management' sign on this sport ASAP.
They shot themselves in the foot with this one. If they had respected
Mayo's rights (privacy) this could have been avoided.
|
| |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 23:45:45
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
MMan wrote:
> http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gosnm3v5MzsyDG_APHcWvgL0D-EA
>
> The A-sample was tested at LNDD.
>
> I believe the B-sample was tested elsewhere, but the stories don't say.
>
in the UK
|
| | |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 23:50:33
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: Iban Mayo B-sample is negative
|
Dan Gregory wrote:
> MMan wrote:
>> http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gosnm3v5MzsyDG_APHcWvgL0D-EA
>>
>> The A-sample was tested at LNDD.
>>
>> I believe the B-sample was tested elsewhere, but the stories don't say.
>>
> in the UK
it now appears to have been Ghent in Belgium & Australia.......
|
|
