Ashenden Interview: A Critique

Michael Ashenden is convinced that Lance Armstrong used rEPO during the 1999 Tour de France. In an interview in velocitynation he cites the results of the post-facto scientific tests LNDD did on the 1999 Tour samples as proof.

Ashenden may have made a number of unproven assumptions however. The lab personnel did a random blind test of samples that were coded with numbers unknown to the testers. In theory this would be the case if the sample was collected by AFLD then assigned a new number by the UCI. However, under WADA, transfer of samples seem to violate the true double blind standard. The Floyd Landis alternate "B" test samples were identified by UCLA with tape before they were shipped to Chatenay-Malabry. The testers were aware of whom they were testing. This fact was confirmed in the Pepperdine testimony. Stephen Schumacher claims that LNDD was aware of the identity of his samples. Stephen Schumacher claims that his "A" sample tested negative but that LNDD tested the "B" sample anyway. The "B" sample tested positive for rEPO CERA. The legal bases for Stephen Shumacher's claims should prove interesting in the Court of Arbitration of Sport.

That the 1999 Tour samples were stored properly, frozen at all times. Ashenden claims that if the samples were stored in an unfrozen state that the bands of endogenous EPO would have shifted, and this shift would have made the endogenous form indistinguishable from the synthetic. Ashenden claims that this did not happen citing some test that proved the samples integrity. The nature of this test was not explained in the interview, however.

It is not impossible to conclude that LNDD let the 1999 Tour samples lie about the lab unprotected. In the Floyd Landis case a calibration mix was injected in the GC/C/IRMS and left unattended for five hours, a clear violation of WADA chain-of-custody protocol. Unfortunately, there is no absolute proof that the 1999 Tour samples were stored in a warm environment, but there is no proof that the samples were stored correctly either.

Degraded samples would have caused rEPO molecules to disappear not to increase. Ashenden argues that all of the 1999 samples were in pristine condition, unchanged for the duration of the six years they were in storage. Ashenden also argues that the samples were of equal quality when they were tested. Ashenden also argues that the samples were secure with a clear chain-of-custody and that they were never tampered with. However, except for testimonial assurances from 'department of analyses' personnel (LNDD) or others involved in the collection, transfer, storage process, there is no absolute proof that the samples were not "spiked" in 1999.

If it was the intention of AFLD, the UCI or LNDD to prove that Lance Armstrong had used PED's all that would have been required is a presence of rEPO isoforms on a single sample collected during the 1999 Tour. The percentage of the rEPO found would be irrelevant. The mere presence of a prohibited substance is enough to establish an Adverse Analytical Finding under WADA code. If the samples were tampered with in the transport stage between race and laboratory then no complicated mathematical formula would have been required to account for the fluctuations in the isoform values measured between the stages by the laboratory personnel. No formula would have been needed to calculate the odds of a disgruntled person guessing from a coded number which samples belonged to whom, 1/300. The changes in isoform percentages measured at LNDD could have been accounted for by degradation of the samples stored for six years in LNDD's vault.

Even if a Currier would have been blind to the sample numbers, the people tested during the Tour de France is common knowledge. A list of people scheduled for testing during the stage is posted on the side of the doping control trailer. I distinctly remember a photograph listing Lance Armstrong, Jan Ullrich, the stage winner (person unknown) and perhaps a rider chosen at random, as people scheduled for testing that day. The odds of spiking the Armstrong sample in this situation is 1/4 or twenty five percent. The fact that the latter stages of the 1999 Tour de France Lance Armstrong tests showed no traces of rEPO may suggest that the person responsible was unsuccessful in some attempts, or he may have been replaced during the race.

Simply adding rEPO with an eye dropper would have precluded a need for a catheter needed to dispense micro quantities of rEPO to achieve a desired fluctuation of rEPO values that appeared plausible during a long term Grand Tour race. The rEPO value would have been 100% and the variations measured by LNDD would have been caused by degradation or decay as Christiane Ayotte suggested.

Ashenden seems to ignore a redundant problem at LNDD, coding errors. One look at the Lab Document Package of Floyd Landis is enough to convince anyone that the accumulated number of errors of any LNDD test is enough to invalidate the results. Perhaps when the 1999 samples were tested LNDD was more circumspect in their documentation.

Ashenden thinks that LNDD can conduct tests within the published margin of error. This did not happen in the Floyd Landis case. The CG/C/IRMS test results were expected to have an error rate of +/-.8mil. In fact, the tests had a margin of error closer to twenty percent.

Calibration. Ashenden assumes that all of the equipment used during the 1999 Tour tests were inspected and calibrated to render reliable and valid values. LNDD has a very bad track record of inspecting and calibrating instrumentation.

Conclusion

Michael Ashenden may have made a lot of unproven assumptions, but, he may be correct! Lance Armstrong may have used rEPO during the 1999 Tour de France. But Mr. Ashenden's argument as expressed in velocity nation is not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. Ashenden's argument that the samples could not have been "spiked" by LNDD, a disgruntled AFLD CDO or a person associated with the UCI are not resolved by his argument. There could have been plenty of means, method, and opportunity for tampering.

Relying on recall of witness testimony of events is never reliable, valid, or factual and never should be the basis for an argument.



Decide for yourselves, readers, if the Michael Ashenden interview is convincing enough to conclude that Lance Armstrong used rEPO during the 1999 Tour de France.