This was taken from Tom’s thread on “innocent or not”. I thought the following text deserved its own thread (not that we don’t have enough already…):
"since the protocol of anonymity of the test subject was violated and “leaked”, it means someone had a motive to leak them (after all, if you have no motive to leak info, you wouldn’t do it.) If a person has motive to violate protocol and leak information, then I’d say there is a strong chance that they could be motivated to alter test results or samples. "
I understand that anonymity remains during the testing. Once the results are know then the numbers are allowed to be matched with a name. Especially when 6 out of 6 are tested positive.
If the info got to a reporter, who is to say that the same documents were not leaked years earlier to someone in the lab or storage facility. Who knows how many people walked by the freezer in five years? Any one of them could have tampered if they knew the exact sample numbers.
If the info got to a reporter, who is to say that the same documents were not leaked years earlier to someone in the lab or storage facility. Who knows how many people walked by the freezer in five years? Any one of them could have tampered if they knew the exact sample numbers.
The samples are sealed and tamper proof. I’ve been inside a doping control tent and they are pretty thorough.
I understand that anonymity remains during the testing. Once the results are know then the numbers are allowed to be matched with a name. Especially when 6 out of 6 are tested positive.
God, you are stupid. This was not a doping test, this was research to help baseline the urine test for EPO.
Bzzt. Assuming facts not in evidence. Nothing was leaked, no protocol was violated, no anonymity was compromised. Two pieces of information (the test results for the numbered samples and the names associated with the numbers) which by themselves meant little were released years apart each without knowledge of the other’s existence. A third party put the pieces together and as a result names could be matched to results. The concept of a leak and the existence of a “leaker” are total fabrications.
The test and methods are pretty hard to refute. It’s a certified lab that tests for EPO. In fact, the IOC uses them for testing. Is it a good lab only when the tests are negative?
Actually, speaking as a medical scientist they are quite easy to refute. The technique they use involves the glycosylation pattern of EPO. Normal human EPO is modified extensively by the body where additional sugar molecules are hung off of the protein backbone (this is called glycosylation). Synthetic EPO does not have this extensive sugar modification so the test basically is looking at the modification pattern of the EPO molecules in the blood stream to determine which percentage are naturally occurring and which are synthetic. Even at -80C (the temperature the samples were likely stored at), proteins degrade over time, particularly in regard to their quaternary structure (those sugar molecules). In my own research, I work extensively with protein and RNA analysis of brain tumors. Although I might “burn up” 6-year old samples hanging around in my freezer to test new hypotheses, I would never publish these results without confirming them using fresh samples. Also, remember these samples were analyzed as part of a “research” plan, not as part of a doping examination. Having worked as a research scientist with a variety of technicians, I can also say that the care they would have been subjected to as part of a “resarch project” would likely not at all be comparable to the highly rigorous test associated with a formal test.
Having worked as a research scientist with a variety of technicians, I can also say that the care they would have been subjected to as part of a “resarch project” would likely not at all be comparable to the highly rigorous test associated with a formal test.
Let’s re-emphasize that statement over and over and over again. I think that lost in all of this is the conditions that this “test” took place under, AKA the protocol for what took place. Understand that they were supposedly “fine tuning” the test for EPO, so who on Earth knows what was going on when Jean Francois whatever was going through the vials.
Question for you - under what circumstances would you ever use a sample with an unknown element (presence of synthetic EPO in this case) in a research setting?
The only situation I can think of where this would be remotely relevant would be if they were comparing one protocol with another to determine reliability - in which case you would want to use samples with known presence of the substance to be determined. Not a random sample of positives and negatives (as both tests could provide falses)
Does anyone know more specifics about what they were trying to do with these tests? It does sound like a bit of a witchhunt to me…
As a medical scientist you should know the difference between published results and a summary in the popular press. The fact that many details have not been spelled out yet in the press does not mean that anything not explicitly described did not take place. You say you wouldn’t publish the results without confirming samples, but have you seen anything published directly from the testing lab to indicate whether such samples were or were not used. As far as I know, the only thing written was a summary to WADA. You also state the conclusion that the samples were not handled with the same care as a “formal test”. Since this lab also conducts testing for WADA, they certainly have the capability to follow the same “formal test” protocol. On what do you base your conclusion that the same protocol was not followed for the research test. Are you just drawing that out of thin air?
It is considered extremely poor scientific process to “publish” one’s results in the lay press before it is subject to peer review. I face this all the time as a physician who takes care of patients with terminal brain cancer and does research on the same disease. I can’t tell you how many 60 Minutes reports I’ve seen over the years purporting the “cure” for malignant brain tumors. Not a single one has held up to scientific review and my patients are still dying. The fact that there is an article in L’Equipe, but no corresponding article in a peer review scientific journal entitled “Long term stability of EPO and peristent validity of urine based detection” or some such paper makes me very suspicous as a scientist. 2) The L’Equipe article says the analysis was done for research purposes under the explicit condition that the results not be used for prosecution. This tells me that 1) they were working in unknown territory regarding the validity of their test and 2) were probably not following the strict “chain of command, etc” associated with a formal test. In the end you can believe Lance or not, but I can vouch that a research lab can make plenty of mistakes and there are an awful lot of things that cry “conspiracy” here.
I would not make this personal. In fact, I have a great deal of experience with GLP and GMP and hold several patents with pharmaceutical companies. I take it you are some type of administrator?
I’m still hung up on the basic question of what testing different EPO test methods on essentially unknown-variable data was going to tell them.
That’s the part that smells to me. If you don’t already know what’s in the sample, how are the results going to tell you anything about the TEST??
Now, if they were testing the “B” samples of the 2001 data (for which, presumably, they already at least have the “A” sample test results), they might plausibly say they were going to compare the B-sample results from the NEW test vs. the A-sample results from the 2001 test and make some comparison. But that still requires the leap that the A and B samples are the same…
Question: Is there enough “juice” in each sample to test it more than once, or do you use up the entire sample with each test?
I just can’t seem to come up with a plausible test scenario for what they thought they’d learn from these “research tests” - EXCEPT “hey, these guys were doping!”
In which case, why were they calling this a “research study” instead of a “5-year-later official doping retest” …
