Centerfield

Perhaps there is a fourth explanation. In his autobiography, Armstrong said he was administered EPO during his chemotherapy treatment to battle cancer. I have no idea whether it is possible that there would still be traces in his blood 2-3 years later.

Brian,

Another explanation is a false positive. The reason the sample tested even exists is because two samples were taken several years ago. Two samples are taken because, if one tests positive, the other is tested before any results are released. This is done to reduce false positives in the chemical tests.

Here, we're dealing with old samples and a still relatively new testing mechanism. There could be myriad ways for a false positive to be generated.

Right, a false positive is possible. All I know of this is that the expert quoted in the article I read said that the number of re-tests yielding different results "could be counted on one hand." If this is ture, then presumedly the test is pretty reliable.

I grant that this veers into the area of actual specific details, which, as I b!+ched about is where such articles tend to fall short. Another article I read somewhere included a quote to the effect of "Lance has to explain why this stuff got into 6 samples." This suggests they have multiple proofs of culpability. But the article inexplicably failed to follow up on the details.

As of now, I'm viewing both "false positive" and "sample numbering snafu" as possibly but not especially likely. I hope more details come out. Presumedly if some pee is left, science could show whose pee it was with DNA, right? I'd view "we used it all up" as peculiar unless someone can verify that they need a lot of pee to run a test. Are we talking test tubes or cups here anyway?

I heard that David Wells suggested that Rafael Palmeiro should take a lie-detector test, which sounds good in theory, but such tests are inexact or even borderline science if you ask me.

I have two friends who are highly involved in competitive cycling. Their opinion: everyone at the top level takes whatever they can get away with.

When I argued that Lance Armstrong had never tested positive (this was a few months ago), my one friend just rolled his eyes.

Yeah, I am not sure if I give a damn about this either way. I don't see how cyclists, or any athlete that trains from the time they get up until the time they go to bed, don't use steroids. I will say that on a personal level that I lean toward trusting the guy who emphatically denies steroid use over and over again (Armstrong), rather than the guy who denies it emphatically, gets caught, and then claims that he can't talk about it because of legal technicalities (Palmeiro). Funny, that is why Mark McGwire wouldn't answer questions at the Congressional hearing after he clearly was a user. It seems that to me that Armstrong is acting like someone who is telling the truth, but that of course is a personal opinion. I love his comment about the "slimy French!" :)

From the CNN article:

According to the paper, the allegations took six years to surface because EPO was undetectable in the 1999 tests. Last year, the French laboratory at Chatenay-Malabry -- one of the best in the world -- began conducting experiments to improve its banned-substance detection capabilities, according to L'Equipe.

New, unproven testing methods. A substance that is historically difficult to test for. Supposedly positive results in only 6 of 17 samples (less than a majority, even!). Tests conducted by the French, who have hated Lance Armstrong for years. Partisan French who have leaped to exploit questionable results as definitive proof without asking deeper questions or wait for further investigation.

Can you tell that I'm not convinced? I don't think Lance has anything to prove at this point. Frankly, there's nothing he can do to prove a negative. The burden remains on those making these strongly-worded claims on the basis of 6 of 17 test results. They need to demonstrate that the new technique is reliable on old urine. They need to demonstrate that an athlete could have EPO in their system only during part of the Tour. They need to demonstrate that they followed meticulous procedures to avoid contamination. They need to show who decided to violate the anonymity of samples used for the purpose of testing new diagnostic tools.

Some of these will require scientific answers, others can be more simply answered. For example, when during the Tour were the 6 positive samples provided? Were all 6 in the first few days, and were all 6 given before the 11 negative samples? That would be damaging evidence against Lance. But if the 6 positive samples came up more or less in random order out of the 17 samples, then that's a strong strike against the French claim. If the samples from days 1,2,4,5,5, and 8 are clean, while days 3 and 7 are dirty, is that consistent with our knowledge of how the body metabolizes EPO? I don't think so.

I'm not buying these claims, which look like part of an organized plot by somebody in France, until they answer these and other questions.

Yeah, I was wondering about the distribution of the positives and negatives too.

And i think all the riders who have tested positive should be outed, assuming the tests are reliable. Like I mentioned before, a different article that I read at least suggested that false positives were rare. But the 6 of 17 ratio needs to be explained...

Do we know whether or not it is possibly natural to have some level of EPO present in the blood stream of a highly conditioned athelete? I seem to recall hearing that it was entirely possible that at least some EPO can be produced naturally within the body.

What Pat said, and three more crucial word: "Chain of evidence."

Armstrong has been big fat target for many years, despised by the French sports press and his competitors. As a cancer survivor who took EPO as part of his chemo regime, he had to know that it also weakens immune systems. He also knew of the '98 scandals and arrests in the TdF involving the drug. It's unclear from my brief research if any of the competitors knew ahead of time of the new hematocrit-testing regs for the '99 TdF, and at least one person was disqualified from the '99 TdF because of elevated hematocrit (EPO dramatically elevates hematocrit levels) indicating EPO use. Armstrong's hematocrit passed muster at the time, and the direct testing showed no doping. The current samples at issue were screened using new methods of indirect-marker testing.

Armstrong has failed only one doping test in his entire career, involving a corticoid that is present in a skin cream used for "saddle sores," and was cleared. He'd been using the cream, he had the sores, it looked like an honest mistake and probably was.

Could he have doped for the '99 TdF? Sure. Does it look likely? No. Is the evidence conclusive? No. Is EPO naturally produced in the body? Of course--you'd die without it. Is the evidence chain complete? We don't know--but it is certainly incomplete by legal standards. Is the testing certain? Not really--as this article notes, it's tricky even with fresh samples unless there is direct detection of the artifical version. The use of indirect markers is considered tricky, and the use of indirect markers in older frozen samples even trickier. How close to race time would he need to have been exposed for EPO to show in indirect-marker tests? With massive doses well exceeding those used for doping, 4-7 days.

So, when were the samples taken, what tests were used, what's the chain of evidence, what's the sample ID verification (labels/samples weren't switched), and what science is there to show continuity of sample consistency over time, what were his hematocrtit levels when the samples were taken, etc.? Just WAY too many holes in there for me to start lobbing Lance grenades. A defense attorney would laugh his client right out of the courthouse--a jury would never see it. Need one hell of a lot more "there" there to make the kind of claims the French are making.

Which still leaves us with the two hypotheses, either a conspiracy or cheating.

I could care less whether he could get convicetd in a court. All I care about is what accounts for those 6 positive samples. Of course there's doubt, plenty to go around. But at this point, I just can't agree with the notion that it's unlikely that he cheated.

And OF COURSE it's true that the people reporting on these tests were out to get him. That's a given. But the question is still "did he deserve to get got?"

But the question is still "did he deserve to get got?"

But the other question is, why should we believe the French press, when they have a track record of making unfounded allegations about Armstrong every time he wins the TdF? There's an element of wolf-crying here as well. Barring positive evidence far above and beyond what we know, I see many reasons to not believe them. I have no dog in this fight, so I really don't care that much. All I have is more questions--but there are a LOT of them. We're not even talking about "beyond a reasonable doubt" here. We're talking about "big heaping mounds of more-than-reasonable doubt." Unless a good number of those questions are answered, and answered convincingly, it's all libel and sour grapes and sports feuding.

IOW, we don't know what accounts for those purported test results. We don't know if they're for real, much less if they're for Armstrong. So why be quick to jump on the "Hang Lance" bandwagon? Whether we're talking about court-grade evidence or even just a "reasonable person" standard, it's pretty obvious at this point that neither are remotely close to being met.

It looks to me like we have two failures. One is of the anonymity regime; one way or another, somebody failed Armstrong and potentially other riders in devising and administering the regime. Also, I read one blog-comment that claimed that samples were supposed to be tossed after four years.

Worse, we have the pretty much routine press misuse of incomplete scientific data. Note that the lab was making no claims, it was L'Equipe that drew conclusions on insufficient data. Let's face it - that happens everywhere. Remember, we just had the case of Fox misidentifying somebody as a terrorist. But it is true that the French press particularly sees Lance as a stalking horse.

One of many unknowns here is how well these tests work on old samples. Was finding that out a reason the lab got the samples? I'm willing to believe that 15 bikers were drugging, but it'd also be consistent with a high false-positive rate.

Humorist John Kelso of the Austin local paper suggested that Lance should threaten them with beating them yet another year, unless they shut up with this stuff.

Tully,

I knew there was one other thing I forgot to mention; thanks for referencing the chain of custody. We have absolutely no idea at this point who brought the samples from the storage facility to the lab, how long they were frozen or not frozen, etc.

The habitual hatred of the French sporting establishment toward Lance Armstrong, combined with the extraordinarily suspicious way this came about, means I'm not going to believe one word they say until they answer all of these questions. They start with zero credibility in my book. Now, if they satisfactorily answer all of the questions Tully and I and others have raised, then I'll reconsider. But until then, they should not be given any benefit of the doubt.

They've made very serious allegations with very weak evidence to back it up. And they did it with hubris. Cautious and fair-minded people would not leap to shout out that this positively proves Lance was a doper based on the evidence to date. The main accusers in L'Equipe don't even acknowledge the possibility of errors or outright fraud.