To all non believers...

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

so you can say that it is impossible for a urine test 2 be changed from negative to positive for ANY banned substance with all the shit that can be done these days? it seems to me like all you guys have is theorys to why lance could have been a cheat, just as i have my theorys as to why he wasnt a cheat. untill there is concrete evedince about those 6 urine samples, all any one can have is theorys!!!There is concrete evidence. The six samples were part of an anonymous (read: no one knew that they were Lance's, so how could they have been tampered with?) trial run held at the LNDD but (I believe) conducted by the Australian developers of the original EPO test. They asked the UCI for extra samples, the UCI said, sure, we have a bunch from the '99 and '00 Tours you can use, the samples were tested for EPO, 50+ of which came back positive, 6 of which had the same code number. Ressiot, being the good investigative journalist that he is, caught wind of the re-testing of the Tour samples, managed to get a hold of the UCI ID list, and discovered that those 6 coded samples that tested positive for EPO matched the UCI code for Armstrong.

Straight and simple, Armstrong got caught retroactively with EPO in his piss. I don't know why anyone feels the need to try and obfuscate a pretty straightforward story with wild conspiracy theories - it's not like discovering that one of the top riders was doping is really a revelation any more, hell it's more of a revelation to discover that a top rider from the past decade wasn't doping. So I can only assume that you just refuse to accept that Armstrong was, while very successful, just another doper, simply because it's "Lance Armstrong", which is kinda stupid.

I don't know why anyone feels the need to try and obfuscateWOW cool word :D big word too :rolleyes:

There is concrete evidence. The six samples were part of an anonymous (read: no one knew that they were Lance's, so how could they have been tampered with?) trial run held at the LNDD but (I believe) conducted by the Australian developers of the original EPO test. They asked the UCI for extra samples, the UCI said, sure, we have a bunch from the '99 and '00 Tours you can use, the samples were tested for EPO, 50+ of which came back positive, 6 of which had the same code number. Ressiot, being the good investigative journalist that he is, caught wind of the re-testing of the Tour samples, managed to get a hold of the UCI ID list, and discovered that those 6 coded samples that tested positive for EPO matched the UCI code for Armstrong.

Straight and simple, Armstrong got caught retroactively with EPO in his piss. I don't know why anyone feels the need to try and obfuscate a pretty straightforward story with wild conspiracy theories - it's not like discovering that one of the top riders was doping is really a revelation any more, hell it's more of a revelation to discover that a top rider from the past decade wasn't doping. So I can only assume that you just refuse to accept that Armstrong was, while very successful, just another doper, simply because it's "Lance Armstrong", which is kinda stupid.There you go with that conspiracy theory stuff again...