Tweet
Originally posted by maracho
View Post
ft
Your article says the "B" samples analyzed in April are not considered official positives because the "A" samples that would have confirmed them were destroyed by previous testing.
The French lab (LNDD) in your article is notorious for controversy, leaking false positives, destroying records etc.. This same French lab mislabeled Landis sample 995474 as 994474, casting doubt on whether the sample was even his (wrong id number applied to Landis seems to be that that of Sergi Honchar, the winner of stage 19). The French also misidentified their own Lab ID number 178/07 as 478/07. These numerical labels are supposed to make the athlete anonymous in order to make testing equal and unbiased but the French lab illegally made notes that effectively identified Landis. To prevent technicians from trying to validate their own finding, samples are not to be tested more than once by the same person. Athletes had been recently acquitted when it was found that the same WADA technician had worked on both A and B-samples but it was found that the same technician had worked on Landis’s samples, he remained found-guilty. They also broke there own rules in fixing the mistakes with whiteout, etc... The CIR test results are not given numerically but by wavy lines interpreted by lab technicians but there were indications that the French lab was using out of date software and without a manual. Your WADA/USADA hero Christianne Ayotte scoffed at this as “nothing, bad typographic boo boos happen.” According to WADA’s own stats, Landis's B samples showed stats that they had been contaminated by bacteria, which is actually a common cause all kinds of false readings. Christianne Ayotte responds: “We don’t actually hold fast to these numbers. We don’t have to be certain, just satisfied. We don’t do reasonable doubt like in an American Courtroom”. WADA/USADA also broke their own rule that that lab tests of the same sample should not differ by more than 30% for epitestosterone and 20% for testosterone but the difference in Landis’s samples ranged from 181 to 238%. Your girl Ayotte scoffs again: “at any rate, they are both above the limit and a sign of doping.” WADA/USADA is also very ambiguous about their criteria standards for detecting positive results. WADA labs don’t actually test for testosterone but metabolite byproducts (plural) according to their rule book code and WADA labs such as UCLA and Australia, etc.. test for four byproducts to indicate a positive test result but the French lab only tested for one metabolite. WADA’s rule book also states tests should have less than a 1% false positive rate but a new study showed that CIR that tests for only 1 metobolite like the French lab have a 30% false positive rate. Two positive metobolites has a 7% false positive rate. Three positive metobolites is 0.68% and four positive metobolities is really low at 0.07%.
Paul Scott of ACE (former director of client services at the UCLA Olympic Laboratory) said, In my years at the UCLA lab, Ive never seen anything like what I experienced at the LNDD yesterday. The limitation placed on me and Simon [Davis an Isotope Ratio Mass Spectometry expert also selected by Landis to observe the retesting] demonstrates the lack of objectivity in this process, USADAs interest in controlling and limiting our observation of the retesting is an example of one of the most egregious problems in the fundamental science of anti-doping that I have experienced. Scott added, Good science does not fear being an open book. Any science that is not neutral and objective is not science at all. Labs acting under the direction of prosecuting Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) are, by definition, not independent. As service providers hired by ADOs, they have a vested interest in the results desired by their client. In this case, the client is USADA and the lab is the LNDD. From what I have witnessed so far, I have significant concerns that their analysis will render results that are scientifically invalid.
Bottom line is that if Landis would have been tested at UCLA, he would have been considered clean and when your girl Ayotte was asked when WADA labs like the ones in France would become standardized toward UCLA’s, she smirked: “it might end up being the other way around” . WADA boss **** Strong basically said it was all just distractions from the dopers. Wait until I show you how bad his Olympic committee is
https://books.google.com/books?id=uM...tygart&f=false
http://ia802307.us.archive.org/23/it...ward-final.pdf
I see why you love WADA’s Christianne Ayotte. She’s a 1% government yes-man like yourself. By the way, my earlier science articles disproved her uncited assertions
If you think my asking you to confirm a statement about CIR dismisses my or Conte's main premise (boxing and Olympic governing bodies like Wada/USADA are corrupt and protecting their favorite lobbies), then your high on straw man. The reason I disproved some of Conte's statements was because those happened to be the ones you kept cherry-picking and quote mining
Your article says the "B" samples analyzed in April are not considered official positives because the "A" samples that would have confirmed them were destroyed by previous testing.
The French lab (LNDD) in your article is notorious for controversy, leaking false positives, destroying records etc.. This same French lab mislabeled Landis sample 995474 as 994474, casting doubt on whether the sample was even his (wrong id number applied to Landis seems to be that that of Sergi Honchar, the winner of stage 19). The French also misidentified their own Lab ID number 178/07 as 478/07. These numerical labels are supposed to make the athlete anonymous in order to make testing equal and unbiased but the French lab illegally made notes that effectively identified Landis. To prevent technicians from trying to validate their own finding, samples are not to be tested more than once by the same person. Athletes had been recently acquitted when it was found that the same WADA technician had worked on both A and B-samples but it was found that the same technician had worked on Landis’s samples, he remained found-guilty. They also broke there own rules in fixing the mistakes with whiteout, etc... The CIR test results are not given numerically but by wavy lines interpreted by lab technicians but there were indications that the French lab was using out of date software and without a manual. Your WADA/USADA hero Christianne Ayotte scoffed at this as “nothing, bad typographic boo boos happen.” According to WADA’s own stats, Landis's B samples showed stats that they had been contaminated by bacteria, which is actually a common cause all kinds of false readings. Christianne Ayotte responds: “We don’t actually hold fast to these numbers. We don’t have to be certain, just satisfied. We don’t do reasonable doubt like in an American Courtroom”. WADA/USADA also broke their own rule that that lab tests of the same sample should not differ by more than 30% for epitestosterone and 20% for testosterone but the difference in Landis’s samples ranged from 181 to 238%. Your girl Ayotte scoffs again: “at any rate, they are both above the limit and a sign of doping.” WADA/USADA is also very ambiguous about their criteria standards for detecting positive results. WADA labs don’t actually test for testosterone but metabolite byproducts (plural) according to their rule book code and WADA labs such as UCLA and Australia, etc.. test for four byproducts to indicate a positive test result but the French lab only tested for one metabolite. WADA’s rule book also states tests should have less than a 1% false positive rate but a new study showed that CIR that tests for only 1 metobolite like the French lab have a 30% false positive rate. Two positive metobolites has a 7% false positive rate. Three positive metobolites is 0.68% and four positive metobolities is really low at 0.07%.
Paul Scott of ACE (former director of client services at the UCLA Olympic Laboratory) said, In my years at the UCLA lab, Ive never seen anything like what I experienced at the LNDD yesterday. The limitation placed on me and Simon [Davis an Isotope Ratio Mass Spectometry expert also selected by Landis to observe the retesting] demonstrates the lack of objectivity in this process, USADAs interest in controlling and limiting our observation of the retesting is an example of one of the most egregious problems in the fundamental science of anti-doping that I have experienced. Scott added, Good science does not fear being an open book. Any science that is not neutral and objective is not science at all. Labs acting under the direction of prosecuting Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) are, by definition, not independent. As service providers hired by ADOs, they have a vested interest in the results desired by their client. In this case, the client is USADA and the lab is the LNDD. From what I have witnessed so far, I have significant concerns that their analysis will render results that are scientifically invalid.
Bottom line is that if Landis would have been tested at UCLA, he would have been considered clean and when your girl Ayotte was asked when WADA labs like the ones in France would become standardized toward UCLA’s, she smirked: “it might end up being the other way around” . WADA boss **** Strong basically said it was all just distractions from the dopers. Wait until I show you how bad his Olympic committee is
https://books.google.com/books?id=uM...tygart&f=false
http://ia802307.us.archive.org/23/it...ward-final.pdf
I see why you love WADA’s Christianne Ayotte. She’s a 1% government yes-man like yourself. By the way, my earlier science articles disproved her uncited assertions
If you think my asking you to confirm a statement about CIR dismisses my or Conte's main premise (boxing and Olympic governing bodies like Wada/USADA are corrupt and protecting their favorite lobbies), then your high on straw man. The reason I disproved some of Conte's statements was because those happened to be the ones you kept cherry-picking and quote mining
Dude, you copy and pasted/wrote all of that because you can't admit that CIR testing can be done on frozen samples?
Really????
Do you admit that you were wrong now? Conte said they could be, A LAB ****ING DID IT, and you're still going in. You have issues when you can't admit that you're wrong.
Comment