Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 11:00 AM ET, 01/28/2011

Chemist Don Catlin fires back at Sports Illustrated story on Lance Armstrong

By Cindy Boren

A prominent U.S. chemist featured in a Sports Illustrated doping expose last week on Lance Armstrong fired back this week, charging that the story "lack[s] credibility" and "misrepresents the truth."

Don Catlin, the nation's pre-eminent anti-doping scientist, accused the two writers, David Epstein and Selena Roberts, of mischaracterizing key facts and relying on innuendo to suggest that Catlin might have helped cover up a series of Armstrong's drug test results in the 1990s that allegedly showed unusually high levels of testosterone.

In a lengthy and measured response on his blog, Catlin challenged or explained various elements of the SI piece, saying, among other things, that he still has seen no evidence to suggest that the series of mid-1990s drug-test results cited in the story were either positive or Armstrong's. (He complained that SI would not show him any of the documents on which they made their allegations despite repeated requests.)

Back in the 1990s, he also said, he had no clue who Armstrong was, nor did he ever know the identities of any athletes whose urine he examined. (All were known only by numerical codes.)

By Cindy Boren  | January 28, 2011; 11:00 AM ET
Categories:  Lance Armstrong  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Baltimore Ravens fire Jim Zorn as quarterbacks coach
Next: Paul Tagliabue takes issue with description of Gene Upshaw's role


Sally -- Selena Roberts has a history of sensationalizing stories that are later discredited. She came out hard against the Duke lacrosse players, convicting them in public of stonewalling and covering up, and got the story wrong. Years later, she continues to try to spin her way out of what she wrote, long after it was discredited. Not too long ago, she wrote a book on A-Rod accusing him of pitch-tipping (among other things). THose charges were alter discredited based upon statistical analysis in the New York Times, which revealed that there was no basis to the charge. To this day, she will argue although it was apparent in her interview that she simply despises A-ROd.

What this means is that no one should take her reporting seriously, especially in any isntances in which she has decided to use her position to target people. She will dissemble.

Posted by: haunches | January 28, 2011 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company