More Ferret Droppings
The e-mail ferret dribbles in a few more pages, but not many. They are in original PDF format, and may be easier for others to manipulate. I'm not going to pull them out, gamma correct them and show them here.
Page 1 is an inventory sheet, page 2 is the one we dissected yesterday, and page 3 appears to have some more results, along with slightly confusing sample numbers.
Here is the PDF hosted on archive.org. I'm going for a ride, so maybe y'all can figure out what there is before I get back.
Update: typos fixed twice, last on 4-Oct-2006: Reconstructed pages readable by humans -
English: page 1, page 2, page3; French page 1, page 2, page 3. [3-Oct]
[end]
8 comments:
Not that I am paranoid or anything. Well, not any more than anyone else. But pages two and three of the PDF provide an aggravating puzzle, as well as some new text. Puzzle first.
The two pages ought to be front and back of the form "Fiche de suivi analytique de resultat et destruction des echantillons"--Follow-up form for the analysis of the results and the destruction of the samples. They have the same date at upper right 18/05/06 (when the TdF contract was begun, I suppose); pdf p. 2 has Page 1/2 on it, pdf p. 3 has 2/2.
The only two problems are: (1) The typefaces used on the two pages are completely different (one is sans serif, the other serifed), which is possible if the forms came looseleaf from different bins, let us say, but very unlikely if they were printed back-to-back. (2) But the pretense is that they _are_ back to back, and not loose leaf, since you will notice that the spiral binding holes and the three-hole punch holes are on opposite sides of the page.
_Except_ they do not seem to have been back to back with each other. The three-hole punch holes align all right. But all that means is that the same three-hole punch was used. More significant to me is that the spiral binding holes on pdf p. 2 are perfectly rectangular and intact, whereas those on pdf p. 3 are torn at the top and the disappear as if razored off at the bottom. I cannot believe the two pages were front and back to each other.
And then there is the second, outer, spiral binding of the note book into which all these pages have been pasted (probably having been torn out and xeroxed first). But perhaps that is the notebook of Mr. Ferret who organized these materials before sending them on to TBV.
Substance in a later post. I've got to get some dinner.
Marc
Marc,
It's certainly a challenge to get the third page readable. But it interests me that there's a result for what appears to be sample number 995475. Who would that be?
And from what I'm able to make out, there's a bunch of boilerplate text for various findings (although it's difficult for me to read or discern any data entered there).
Perhaps you're having better luck. What I can see looks like indications for results for EPO, HES and a couple of other compounds. Not sure if any of the results on the third page have to do with testosterone or epitestosterone.
Perhaps.
Hopefully you or someone else can shed more light on this mystery.
- Rant
OK, some new texts.
Pdf p. 3 has a lower section for Normal Results. I presume we are not too interested in that, though 995474 has a fair number of those. Indeed, initially there is a stamped entry that he was negative for ES02, ES04, and ES05. But, in handwriting, these negative findings have an asterisk next to them. The same hand has written the date 25/7/6 here and above, where an explanation of the asterisks is given.
In the upper section of this form, for Abnormal results, the first entry (for--I think 995475 was written erroneously for 955474, Dan, since this merely seems to give further detail to a result reported on pdf p. 2) reads: "The results of the tests for ES04 and ES05 are not entirely dependable because of the inhibition of the derivation due to interference with the matrix [or mold]." Someone who knows these tests will have to explain what is meant by matrix in this context. (It must be a standard problem, since the explanation "interference with the matrix" is printed in the form.) The same hand may have dated the verification of the findings on PDF p. 2. The person certainly uses the same dating convention, writing 25/7/6 instead of –06, but the slope of the numbers seems a little different.
Then, below that entry is an entry almost surely from the person who had written up the results in the box near the bottom of PDF p. 2. This reads:
[line 1] "T/E estimated above the threshold of 11,4 (+/- 30%)"
[line 2] "Conc" [I imagine Concentration] "testo" [for testosterone] "estimated and corrected. 45,4 mg/ml (+/- 20%)"
[line 3] "Conc epi" [for epitestosterone, I presume] "estimated and corrected. 3.9 mg/ml (+/- 30%)"
[line 4] "pH 5,2 d = [1.03 crossed out] 1.025 (+/- 0.002) screening"
Then there are some numbers and words at the right I cannot decipher. "Conf" appears (= confirmed?) All this is dated and signed 24 07 06.
PDF p. 2, somewhat clearer than yesterday’s version of the same page now reveals the name of a medical doctor (in the lab?), the date the samples were taken (date de prél.: 20/07/06), were received (Receptº Ech: same date), when their documentation was received (same date), and the date the testing began (21/07/06)
One more post to come.
Marc
OK, last offering.
PDF p. 1 is a different form (that is obvious from its shape, too). It is tracks the preservation of samples. (The person who fills it in is supposed to indicate whether this is a "screening" or "confirmation" sample by striking out the inapplicable term. This was not done.)
This form tracks only 995474. Most, but not all, of the writing is by the hand which wrote up the T/E results on pdf pp. 2 and 3. There are dates and times, and probably indications of tests. After a first column, which references something occurring on 20/07/06 at 22h15 (10:15 p.m.)--this in a different hand from any other we have seen, I think,--we get (all in the T/E results hand):
220706 [18] 220706 [18] 230706 [26] 230706 [26] 240706 [8]
(the numbers I have put in brackets are circled in the original, and I wonder if they correspond to the numbers on the sample bottles brought to the lab and linked there to the riders' id numbers)
Working from right to left (just because it is clearer at the right) we can read:
under the 240706 entry: "C-3 8h20" (a test performed or completed at 8:20 a.m.?)
under the second 230706 entry "17h00" (5 p.m.), then two characters I cannot distinguish
under the first 230706 entry may also be a time of day in addition to other letters
under the second 220706 may be "RL" (or "R1" or "RI") "12h45"
under the first 220706 some letters and then I think "9h05"
Well, that's all I can do. I like the puzzle, but since we have no idea as to the authenticity of any of these documents--which are without context even if genuine, I think this all remains a puzzle merely. One would not like to look like a fool, or, worse, be exploited for someone else's hidden agenda. I think TBV needs to challenge Mr. Ferret to give us some proof that these documents are significant, and not fabrications or irrelevant. Not that I wouldn't puzzle over them anyway. (But then I used to like to try to decipher medieval manuscripts for pleasure, too, and not as much was at stake.)
Yours in sport,
Marc
Good work guys! If you have some readable pages, mail them to me and I'll link them in. We *love* the help.
I have no idea if Mr. Ferret is likely to respond. So far it's been one-way traffic, and he ain't answering me.
It's annoying. TBV don't like being Ferret's [censored].
TBV
An emailer suggest the circled numbers may be "operator id" to explain who did something. The
other numbers (220706 etc.) may identify "aliquots" taken from the sample bottle for different specific tests. They are supposed to be able to account for every ml of the original sample.
TBV
Could be, I suppose. The six digits in themselves (eg 220706) are simply the way "the T/E reporter" writes his dates. He does that consistently. It doesn't seem that likely that there'd always be two aliquots taken each of two days, both by the same person that day but a different person the next. But I suppose it could be--and I suppose this might be the form that kept track of them. But--I'm thinking on the fly here--if they were to come back to do different tests, wouldn't you expect to see a repeated operator id--which we don't. And why wouldn't we expect to see different hands notating the aliquots if these were different operators taking them?
Marc
Okay, so I haven't read back over all the posts and comments, so some of this may be covered, but I'll make a couple of quick comments. Point 1 (and not so importan) - it is not unusual to have a form like this handwritten. Ask any scientist who works in a lab. They are analyzing a test and writing down results - litterally. Point 2 - the circular "x" is not an "x" at all but an omega (I belive, my Greek writing if off a bit). They appear to start in the upper right and end in the lower right. But, I have no idea what this means.
Post a Comment