Introducing the TBV Timeline

Introducing the TBV Timeline, a rundown of what happened when, if we know. This is newly split out from the Key References page, and expanded with the recent additions of the correspondence entries from our series.

As usual, please send corrections and additions.

TBV

[end]

Full Post with Comments...

Saturday Scavenging

Anonymous comment to this post, claims it is 'well known' in the pro cycling world that Landis botched his blood doping after bonking in Stage 16.

This has been suggested in lots of discussions I've been following. If so, we might see that IRMS of earlier samples are clean, and post-Stage 17 samples having some residual metabolites from the tainted doping blood. Clean IRMS on both sides would suggest tampering with the S17 sample. If the doping was E masking that was botched on S17, then I'd guess IRMS would be dirty on all tests. It seems like doing IRMS on other samples can help make the case for tampering, and to support or refute either of the plausible doping scenarios. It doesn't do anything for the implausible one-day T patch scenario.

Good lay overview from "The Chemical Eye"

Catlin's lay description of tests, for USA Today on Aug 1.

Good discussion of T/E example math in this Bicycling Forum post in July, pre IRMS.

Some analysis of WADA stats, and the 6 to 4 TE change.

Some background info about labs, reports and tests.

WADA has 33 accredited labs, as of May 8th.

Accreditation done to ISL and ISO/IEC 17025 standards; ISL assesors trained by WADA.

ISL described, it includes ethics, chain of custody, documentation standards and sensitivity requirements among others.
The actual standards can be found here, addendum here; from 2004. There may be something newer..

List of assesors; there are 31 individuals working for accrediting agencies. In France, it is COFAC; in the US it is the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA)

FAQ's about Labs, from WADA: Labs must run 1500 tests/year to avoid close scrutiny. Every quarter, WADA sends 5 samples to each lab and has them analyze them, with results reported back. If they mess up, they have accreditation problems.

Comment: It would be useful to know how many IRMS/CIR samples have been used in these evaluations of the labs that are accretied to do IRMS, and how successful these tests were.

Among the studies to support T/E and IRMS are

Establishing normal levels in urine; completed in 2001.
Making analytic standard references; completed in 2001
Analysing steroid metabolites with IRMS; completed 2001
Considering contaminated meat; 2001, may not be complete.
CIR with high and low baseline T/E; 2001.
Reference materials for Steroids; 2002, may not be complete.
Diet change affect on C12/C13; 2003, may not be complete.
Testosterone Gel, 2004;

Comment: The IRMS tests seem relatively new, probably not widely used before 2002? It would be useful to know how many IRMS tests have been done by the accredited labs, especially LNDD, and how many adverse findings have been declared from those tests. If these sample sets are small, the possibility of false positive becomes larger. The Space Shuttle flew 25 times before Challenger, which didn't prove it was safe. If there have only been 10 CIR positives, and no history of the technique being used for other diagnostic purposes, then there is the possibility of doubt. That doesn't help much unless you can duplicate a false positive experimentally, but it gives you hope you could pursue the theory.

Using the USADA reported numbers, there have been 25 US AAFs for Testosterone since 2001, with no breakdown of how many were IRMS tested. I'll look for WADA numbers later.

Australian lab got IRMS in 1999,

About half the labs use IRMS, says report in the Grauniad. Labs without IRMS are required to be able to send samples to a lab that does have one with a proper chain of custody.

China has IRMS, can test 4000 samples/yr. As of 2004, "Although the IOCMC has confirmed the HRMS and IRMS as official detecting methods, so far not every IOC-accredited laboratory has mastered the technology for the two instruments."

General rundown of anti-doping tests identifies IRMS mfgr. Mass Spec Solutions.

Sample AAF finding is shown. Says identification of the results of "speciality techniques such as EPO or IRMS" should be clearly marked. It is not required to go into detail about the test details, reporting a small set of values. There may be a separate, clearly marked "opinion" box that speculates on the likely cause of the result.

A Laboratory Documentation Package is to go with a "Final Analytical Sample Report". This "final" report is presumably what Landis and Jacobs are waiting for, and I've called a "pack" before. In litigation, the lab is only required to produce what is in the LDP standard, and no more, according to the ISL.

IRMS/CIR Related

While looking for other uses of IRMS/CIR, came upon the following, which doesn't even have a viewable abstract, but an interesting title: Challenges in Producing Defensible Environmental Chemistry Measurements for Litigation

IRMS Machine hygiene described, mostly contamination.

Physics Forum talks about Landis IRMS, pay particular attention to Moonbear, who talks about how a contaminate pipette could have screwed Floyd's test.

Previously noted new paper about C ratios in Cow urine based on diet. This is science behind the partly joking Muesli theory.

Using simultaneous analysis to detect food sources; slide set w/diagrams of apparatus.
Ceylon or Darjeeling? How to tell with your IRMS.
Where the Heroin is from, by your IRMS.

[updated Sunday 21:39]

Full Post with Comments...

Thursday Roundup

Quote of the Day

Q: What defense would prove his innocence to his worst critics?

A: For somebody to show how the body can make synthetic testosterone!! link

Julich ruminates to Abt at the IHT: "If we can't trust the labs, why are we doing this?"

Hamilton's purgatory continues; no Worlds, ProTour closed, from VeloNews.

DZ disappointed, says don't judge whole sport

Listeners speak, on the FredCast. [defined]

Don't take what you read at face value, says one time NCAA testing czar Gary Green, affiliated with the UCLA Olympic Analytical Lab. "All of the tests have become specialized and complicated in interpreting."

Landis Lies, Lies, Lies, at Digital Deception.

Discussion of PR and credibility, by Moffit-Smith

Petition mentioned and debated, at transformatum.

Numerous ongoing Arguments at Topix forums. This is where the most productive (or pointless) discussions seem to be happening. I'm getting shot, and shooting back.

[updated 18:29]

Full Post with Comments...