Is it true Lance Armstrong was cheating? - Page 4

You forgot the only part of the "specifics". Samples stored are supposed to have the permission of the UCI and the rider in question before a retest. The sample does not belong to the lab.

Always an interesting read:
http://www.velonews.com/media/report1999.pdf

Citing Emile Vrijmans report doesn't add to the debate.

Nor does it answer the substantive question as to why rEPO was found in six separate samples taken from one rider at 1999 Tour de France.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it" - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

do you have any clue what you are talking about?

Riis fully admitted his guilt without testing positive.. Jan Ullrich's blood was matched to blood bags in Dr. Fuentes fridge... so gets sanctioned (like Basso) for attempted cheating... neither of them failed dope tests, but guilt was proven by other means..

in the case of Armstrong his blood was given for the explicit purpose of being submitted to a dope test... basically there exist a contract between the UCI and armstrong on how, when and why that blood can be used.. so in this case the agreement/rule for dope test must be followed.

just the fact that all 1999 the samples are B samples means that they can't be used to sanction the rider. when a sample is given it is split in two samples (A and B) so a second test can be performed later confirming the first test.. but only if the A sample comes up positive... actually the term is non-negative since a positive dope test is one where both A an B samples come up non-negative.. with only B samples that can never be the case.. the test can NEVER yeild a positive and result in Armstrong being sanctioned even if those B samples definitely 100% are shown to contain EPO... Armstrong basically got off on a technicality... but the popular press don't write that.. too complex and convoluted for the general public if the press even understand what happened... so they just print Armstrong Proven Innocent and move on..

And this is why the Armstrong fanboys have switched tactics over the last year. They used to deny that Armstrong would ever dope and deny that there was any evidence that he did dope. These days they skirt the evidence by saying that since Armstrong was never sanctioned, he must have been clean. They refuse to argue the actual evidence and dismiss inconvenient facts by saying that if they were true then Armstrong would have been stripped of his wins, and since he wasn't, the evidence must not hold up. Public Strategies must be working overtime to provide these bogus lines of reasoning to the saddle sniffers.

__________________
"You are like the wind and I like the lion. You form the tempest. The sand stings my eyes and the ground is parched. I roar in defiance but you do not hear. But between us there is a difference. I, like the lion, must remain in my place. While you like the wind will never know yours." -- Mulay Hamid El Raisuli, Lord of the Riff, Sultan to the Berbers, Last of the Barbary Pirates

seems you don't know the specifics of the case...the retesting did have the explicit permission by the UCI (the UCI actually commissioned the re-testing) and Armstrong (all riders by virtue of signing the dope control form) for retest, but only for research (i.e. not for sanctioning).. the test wereanonymous and not used for sanction. Armstrong and Verbruggen even gave their explicit permission (unwittingly) to a L'Equipe reporter to get copies of the papers that allowed them to put names to these anonymous results.. although there were so many positives in 1999 B samples and you knew that 1st,2nd and 3rd + a random got tested that you could tell who tested positive just by looking at the stage results most of the time.. in the prologue 1st,2nd and 3rd all had EPO in them so we know for sure that Lance's, Alex Zulle's and Abraham Olano's samples all contained EPO.. even without any corroboration of samples to specific riders..

As far as the anti doping rules are concerned LA was not doping.

To be a "doper" under UCI rules at the time of the big 7 Tour de France victories you have to fail the test or admit to doping or be caught with doping implements.

LA was astute enough to exclusively contract the services of Dr. M. Ferrari (AKA Dr Evil) to ensure he was properly race "prepared" and avoid detection. The exception being the time in 1999 when he was caught by surprise by the late announced corticosteroid test.

However, there exists so much circumstantial evidence brought out in many of his legal cases (all by the way settled, not won as claimed by LA), the EPO tests on '99 B samples, by association and other factual commentary that you would have to be a dyed in the wool fan to believe his post 1998 & cancer prowess on the bike was not pharmaceutically fuelled.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

To LRM, BDeal, DocS, VF,

Thank goodness there are people, real factual seeking, thinking individuals like you to oppose the farcical brainwashing going on by LA, Johan B, C. Carmicheal ...

What really boggles my mind are the people who have been intimidated by LA, raced for him and are since ostracized, and the companies that have lost millions to him. Why haven't they sued him. I know that one insurance company tried but surely there are some other passionate disgruntled people that are willing to take him to court.

Undoubtedly, they are overpowered by the plethora of companies that make millions of dollars off him each year by endorsing their products. I guess all we can hope for is that some of his samples will be stored, retested by comparing his DNA to the blood samples and the true positives etc... declared.

Personally, I really don't care whether he won 10 TdFs over other cheaters while cheating. What I find truly offensive is that one day his evil ways will be proven and then millions of cancer patients will wonder how they could ever have hope again, as they believed in someone who is a cheater and lied about it for over a decade. That is as sinister as it gets.

UR

20 kilos??? twenty kilos is 40lbs... Lance Armstrong did not lose 40lbs... if you look at the report by Coyle (did tests on Armstrong physiology from before cancer to his last win Armstrong's race weight barely changed pre and post cancer.. this is another Lance Armstrong myth.. Lance would have had to be a fat, potato chip eating lard ass when he won the world championship to loose 40lbs post cancer... your assertion is ridiculous... maybe you read some where that during his cancer treatments he might have been emaciated and lost 40lbs (that he gained back in his recovery) but his race weight before and after cancer are documented as being the same.. i'm still amazed that someone could actually make such a ridiculous statement... did you even think about that before you wrote it?

a) Lance has failed a dope test for cortical steroids... he produced a doctor's not post test and got the positive overturned... he claimed that he used it for saddle sore, but no doctor with any sense would prescribe it for that since it thins the skin and would only make the problem worse in the end.

b) 6 of Lance Armstrong's "b" samples from 1999 contained EPO. when a blood or urine sample is taken it is split into two samples "a" and "b". if the "a" sample comes up "non-negative" (a positive test is when both "a" and "b" come up contain a banned substance) then the "b" sample is tested if both have banned substance then an only then is the athlete considered to have a positive/failed test and the athlete sanctioned. this is the reason Lance was not sanctioned for the 1999 tests.. he got off on a technicality. all the samples are "b" samples so none can ever yield a positive or used to sanction him.

c) Lance worked with Michele Ferrari for most of his post cancer career.. Ferrari is most notorious doctor in the sport of cycling.. why does Lance hire a hematologist to do his "training plans"... Michele Ferrari is famous for the quote that EPO is no more dangerous that orange juice..

d) Lance Armstrong posted his numbers from both the Giro d'Italia and the Tour de France this year on his web site... his numbers from the Giro d'Italia are typical of what scientist have seen from riders during a three week tour hematocrite etc go down as the tour goes on (one of the most respected papers on this is co-authored by the guy that does the internal team testing for Astana)... the problem is that his Tour numbers are completely different... his numbers a completely flat even going up a couple times during the tour and his reticulates go down extremely fast... this is typical of what you would see of someone doing blood doping (autologous blood doping.. i.e. when you use your own blood store and put it back in later is still undetectable..). and the other two co-authors of the aforementioned paper.. the ones that broke with the Astana internal test guy for 'ethical reasons' have come out and said exactly this... not that it proves conclusively that he doped, but these are the numbers you'd see from someone who is doping... and why the difference between the Giro and the Tour?

so even though i agree with you that Lance is a great athlete with lots of drive and determination, work ethic etc... but he dopes.. just like everyone else at the top.. it's so obvious to be ridiculous for anyone to claim otherwise.. get a clue guys!