I'm not surprised that you come up with a "less than 1%" statistic out of nowhere. Since you completely lack expertise in the domain, I can't take any figure you provide seriously, without some kind of external authoritative reference for support. My line of thinking has nothing to do with coincidences, but it is that I don't know if 2 is a small number or a large number, and more importantly, neither do you. Your 1% statistic is something heavily brown-tinged.And for some reason, you ignore that there are 10 new positives now, and maybe two more, thanks to the IAAF/Lausanne lab retesting. Retesting is not a requirement, but a self-imposed commitment to catch more dopers, better late than never, with better tests inside a statute of limitations, at extra expense. That seems to be a significant positive step forward, yet you chose to focus on the two negative samples as further evidence of a continuation of cover-ups, despite the same media source suggesting the non-cover-up alternative that sample decay must be a concern.rjm33 revels in telling me I'm wrong, typically about some minor detail like a misspelling, or abbreviation error. I guess he feels some internal need to celebrate these minor victories. "Go rjm33!" In this case I said Sochi Olympics when I should have said Moscow World Championships. Yikes! My bad. The central point, that "Plan B" is very much about performing tests in Lausanne, in the case WADA declares another lab has problems, stands unchallenged, and fully supported by rjm33's link.I did not forget to mention the WADA instructions, but simply found it and still find it unimportant. But let's go ahead and not ignore it. Saugy said he did receive the instructions, but that the lab technicians were not aware of the exceptional nature of these samples, and destroyed it according to their normal rules for handling samples after analysis. Dick Pound did not believe it. He did not say why. I guess he understood that the whole lab in the whole analysis to destruction chain, must have been fully aware of the exceptional nature of the WADA instructions. Or perhaps that someone who was aware should have stopped the normal course of destruction. The exceptional one-off, first of its kind, nature of this out of the ordinary course of arrangement, combined with the fact that the lab actually did the re-analysis as instructed, informed WADA in advance before destroying the samples, and that WADA did not raise this as an issue at anytime between 2012-2015, leads me to believe that the technicians who carried out the destruction were unaware of the exceptional nature of these samples, and that the destruction of the samples was not an issue for WADA at the time, nor anytime after, until Dick Pound wanted to do a DNA analysis, and then forced the Lausanne lab to explain the destruction. A lack of communication to the staff, who regularly analyzes anonymous samples, seems to me to be highly plausible. I still wonder why Dick Pound did not believe it. Nevertheless, as the samples were re-analyzed by the lab, and the WADA-IC found no evidence of any other wrong-doing by the Lausanne lab, I don't see the destruction of these samples, post-analysis, according to standard procedures, in and of themselves, as evidence of something malicious, as alleged by the UK media, and by you and rjm33. This stands in stark contrast to the circumstances surrounding the admitted intentional destruction of 1417 samples of the Moscow lab with the expressed intention of limiting the extent of the findings of WADA's audit.My problem with your recount of history is that whenever I start to scratch the surface, looking for any corroborating details, nothing is as remotely clear as you allege.How did he help Armstrong? Yes, they did meet (something admittedly irregular/inappropriate), in the field, at the insistence of the UCI, for about 20 minutes, and Saugy shared with him general information about EPO tests that he gives at lectures. Armstrong and Bruynell denied a meeting ever happened, but Saugy admitted it did.Did Saugy "give him the keys"? Tygart said Saugy "nodded yes" at a dinner. Not a minuted admission under oath, but an interpreted gesture at a dinner. Saugy said this was a misinterpretation.What about the Tour de Swiss samples? The samples were "suspicious" but not "positive", according to the well defined criteria. No cover up, but a standard reporting of suspicious results, something less than positive, arising from an analysis of anonymous samples.How about being a paid consultant? I would expect an anti-doping expert with his length of service in anti-doping, to be a paid consultant for a sports ministry who needs to host large sporting events. This is something normal and above board.What about Lagat? His B-Sample wasn't tested by Saugy alone in Lausanne, but as a group in Cologne, in the German lab of Prof. Schanzer. All 5 experts present at the B-sample analysis unanimously explicitly and unambiguously declared that synthetic rhEPO was not present in Lagat's urine sample.How about Paula? He said there were confounding factors. This is true: there were at least two identified confounding factors that could only bias the scores in an upward direction. Every expert says the same thing.Your "history of supporting dopers" is a minority opinion not widely held among anti-doping organizations, sports federations, or elite athletes.rjm33 found again, another example of WADA's confidence in the Lausanne lab, by storing and helping with any analysis of the Sochi samples.Oh that's right -- you think WADA is also "in on it".One of your favorite sources recently wrote "Links between Moscow and Lausanne labs needs investigating". I feel that is where we are with *every* Saugy allegation. Every one. By all means, go ahead and investigate, and come back when you have something concrete, and not just a bigger list of uninvestigated allegations.Otherwise, it is simply not unusual that an anti-doping lab director with the length of his career, has a long list of interactions with athletes, and organizations, that have been linked, wrongly, or rightly, to doping. It's the nature of the anti-doping business.You can say it's a whole lot, but I see a whole lot of nothing.