Beltran positive EPO - Page 5

I was thinking the same thing. Saying you've never been caught is different from saying that there is nothing to catch.

I am a Lance Armstrong fan and he is my favorite professional cyclist, but I do not put him on an unreachable pedestal. However, there is no proof that he doped, so anything else is purely speculation.

From what I know, out of his 1999 tests, six were "positive", and they were all "B" samples. But because the "A" samples were detroyed, or compromised, they could not be validated. So it sounded like Armstong got lucky because it is required that the "A" and "B" samples match. However...

From CBS News:
Lance Armstrong called it a "witch hunt" from the very beginning, saying a French newspaper used dubious evidence to accuse him of doping, even charging that lab officials mishandled his samples and broke the rules.

According to a Dutch investigator's findings released Wednesday, he may have been right.

The report, commissioned late last year by the International Cycling Union, cleared the record seven-time Tour de France champion of allegations that he used performance-enhancing drugs during his first win in 1999.

It said tests on urine samples were conducted improperly and fell so short of scientific standards that it was "completely irresponsible" to suggest they "constitute evidence of anything."


So it seems that the UCI is saying that the positive tests could have been made by mistake/human error, and thus were not even valid because if they were conducted properly, they most likely would have not been positive.

I pose the questions:

"What can cause a test to be positive?"

"Can something other than the chemicals from drugs, like human contamination of a sample, cause it to appear positive?"

None of us really know what goes on in those European labs, so our speculation involves minimal facts.

I also wonder about that notorious book LA Confidential. What about Emma O'Reilly?

From ABC Sports:
Emma O'Reilly, a former masseuse with five-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong's US Postal team and the key source in a book which alleges the American used EPO (erythropoietin), has appeared on French television to reassert her claims.

O'Reilly worked with Armstrong for three-and-a-half years from 1998 and was in almost constant contact with his close-knit team.

In the soon-to-be-released book, LA Confidential - The Secrets of Lance Armstrong, O'Reilly claims that she was asked to carry out a number of dubious tasks by the US Postal team.


O'Reilly detailed how she was allegedly asked by Armstrong to dispose of "black bags containing syringes" after the end of the Tour of Holland in 1998.

She also spoke of an occasion in May 1999, while Armstrong was at a pre-Tour training camp in the Pyrenees, when she was asked to drive to Spain to collect drugs and bring them back into France, which she later handed to Armstrong at a rendezvous in a car park.

France 3 also showed footage of what it said was a US Postal employee disposing of bags in a roadside garbage bin in 2000.

The contents of that bag, reportedly syringes and Actovegin blood plasma, subsequently led to an investigation which dragged the team through the mire four years ago, although no doping offences were ever proven.

In one entry, dated June 1999, she recalled a conversation with Armstrong which centred on his haematocrit (volume of red blood cells in blood) level.

O'Reilly said Armstrong told her he was concerned about his level, which was 41 when he raced the Dauphine Libere race in 1999.

Asked what he was going to do about it, Armstrong - in an alleged reference to EPO - is alleged to have said: "I'm going to do what all the others are doing."

Besides all of this, I thought one of Lance's teammates from his Motorola days admitted that Lance participated in a team-wide doping program.

There is definitely grounds for serious suspicion, but I think that even if Lance did dope I believe he was clean from the 2000 Tour until his retirement, because there were no subsequent questionable tests. I am not going to believe he did drugs unless I have proof. And even though I am an Armstrong fan, I am not going to be partial and ignore any facts or forms of proof that arise. Fair is fair.

I just wish that we could really know the truth instead of choosing to believe or not believe an athlete. Right now there is only a lack of proof that Armstrong has doped. It has not been proven he has had a 100% clean professional career. Besides, how would you prove that anyways?

__________________
The Tour De France is "the easiest race to win. When you are the strongest, the Tour is the easiest race to win because it is the hardest race of all." -Eddy Merckx

How's this:

(from www.tourdefrancenews.com)

The 33-year-old American who retired in July after coasting to his record seventh Tour title wasted no time in pouring scorn on the accusations. Armstrong said in a statement on his web site, www.lancearmstrong.com.

"L'Equipe, a French sports daily, is reporting that my 1999 samples were positive. Unfortunately, the witch-hunt continues and the article is nothing short of tabloid journalism. "I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs."

__________________
The Tour De France is "the easiest race to win. When you are the strongest, the Tour is the easiest race to win because it is the hardest race of all." -Eddy Merckx

Absolutely all evidence (qualify that . . . that I'M aware of) can be dismissed for various reasons technically speaking . . . hearsay, double hearsay, the technicalities of the A vs. B sample and potential spoiliation issues resulting from the passage of time from the sample date to the test date . . . etc. It goes on and on. There is a heck of a lot of smoke, but nobody's ever been able to link him to the fire directly as "technical" proof goes, in the realm of law or WADA/doping rules. The court of public opinion? That's a different story globally in the cycling community, as evidenced by all of the debate surrounding him on various cycling forums.

Bottom line . . . cancer aside, the guy has a heck of a lot of good luck on his side and circumstances surrounding him, along with some pretty crafty and successful spin doctors. When it comes to doping, he's like a cat and I think he got out of the sport on his ninth life, fortunately for him.

oh goodie come back to the Lance is clean, it's all speculation, no proof.

nothing's changed.

Well, there it is.

Clearly I stand corrected then. I personally never saw a statement from him go that far, but I also never followed him that closely.

Hi Edie. Welcome back.

*waves*

The Lance fans will never be convinced. Even if there is a video of Lance injecting himself with stuff, they will be coming up with spin about how the video was doctored. No point in this argument.

I see where you are coming from, but did you read my post?

I am a HUGE Lance fan but I am a person that can not only accept the truth but looks for it as well.

My whole life I have seen so many people go to one extreme or the other, but life is not that simple. I do not dismiss the possiblility that my sporting hero could have doped, although it has never been proven.

People cannot let their opinions make them partial to the point they ignore factual truths. That seems to happen alot on these forums, which is what you clearly pointed out. However your point works for both sides of the Lance debate. What you said could be true for some fans, but you also have to notice that people who dislike Lance are dying to see him proved guilty.

There are extremists on both sides of the arguement who decide in their heads that Lance is or is not guilty, without regard to the facts.

__________________
The Tour De France is "the easiest race to win. When you are the strongest, the Tour is the easiest race to win because it is the hardest race of all." -Eddy Merckx

And legally it may not be possible to prove that he doped unless someone spills the beans. Wait, some HAVE revealed stuff, but were then sued by him to shut up. That aside, the facts have been mentioned here (in the forum I mean, not in this thread) lots of times. IMHO, a person who looks at the facts totally impartially will conclude that he should have doped (even if you disregard the indications that he actually doped).

In any case, it looks like all threads on someone getting busted degrade into a discussion of LA. I shall stop discussion on this topic in this thread on my part...

Well in any case it is upsetting to still be seeing doping in cycling, but like everyone says, if someone thinks they can get away with it, I suppose they will always try.

Manuel Beltran was just one more cyclist that I admired that was revealed as a cheater. For athletes having such elite physical abilities, some cyclists seem to really lack the fortitude of character that we expect them to exercise.

It is hard for us to be fans right now because now we know that a cyclist can seem great for years, only to test positve for doping later on in their career. Cyclists are human, and they make mistakes, but cheating is for someone who has no respect for sport and what it is all about.

The Tour is the ultimate test, and I don't mean of just physical strength...

__________________
The Tour De France is "the easiest race to win. When you are the strongest, the Tour is the easiest race to win because it is the hardest race of all." -Eddy Merckx

So what do you make of Lance admiting that he doped? Do you think Frankie and Betsy are liars?

Uh, I would bet not many here think Frankie and Betsy are liars. Lance is a liar, but not them.

__________________
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
-- Albert Einstein

The doctor who treated Lance Armstrong at the Indiana University Medical Center, issued a sworn affidavit:

"Lance Armstrong never admitted, suggested or indicated that he has ever taken performance-enhancing drugs. Had this been disclosed to me, I would have recorded it, or been aware of it, as a pertinent aspect of Lance Armstrong's past medical history as I always do. ... Had I been present at any such 'confession,' I would most certainly have vividly recalled the fact."

Also, it is publicly known that Lance was prescribed EPO and steriods for post-cancer treatment. So maybe the Andreus heard wrong.

Tim Herman, Armstrong's attorney, said:

"Mr. Armstrong was taking steroids at the time, as part of his post-operative treatment. ... It's very possible that there could've been mention of steroids and epo in this conversation with these two doctors indicating either the current regimen, or the regimen that Armstrong was gonna be subject to after this surgery, or when he got out of the hospital."

Armstrong said:

"Ms. Andreu confirmed her ignorance of steroids prescribed as part of my post-operative treatment and of EPO also included in my required post-operative regimen, subjects which could conceivable arisen under the circumstances."

I honestly do not know what to make of all the accusations. All I know is that Lance has never been found guilty. If he really was, how come no one has been able to prove it? Alot of people are talking, but where is the proof?

On the other hand, why would the Andreus lie, since it would bring them no good?

I have a bad feeling about Lemond, as he seems to always be digging around for trouble. He has reason to dislike Armstrong, as Lance took his former title of "greatest American cyclist". And even though Trek owns Lemond's bicycle company, Lance's success has seen a rise in Trek bicycle sales, thus making enviable competition for Lemond now and in the future.

It is important to note that Trek has sued Lemond.

It is also important to note that Lemond issued a tearful public apoplogy to Armstrong after his initial criticism in 2001.

So to answer your question, Lance never admitted that he doped. Betsy Andreu claims she heard Lance discuss drugs he used (With no mention of when).

Do I think Betsy and Frankie are liars?

How would I possibly know? I was not there. I am just another American with access to the media. I have no first hand accounts of anything, so it is logical that I can only go by facts and what is proven.

All the talk and accusations raise my eyebrow and makes me wonder, but I will never call someone a cheat without proof.

__________________
The Tour De France is "the easiest race to win. When you are the strongest, the Tour is the easiest race to win because it is the hardest race of all." -Eddy Merckx

Its funny, if you had ever read anything written by Betsy, you would know that there is no ambiguity in what she heard Lance say. Go to DP and search for her, she posts under the name ElizaB. Lance admitted he did EPO, period.

You can live in La La land all you want, but there is no way that a rider who did not use blood doping techinques can/could compete with one who does. There are plenty of threads here with studies and individual tests that show an incredible increase in performance. Lance was racing against doped riders, and he doped to beat them. End of story. It is a fairy tale to buy into his "miracle" speech.

I am not trying to be an asshole here. You seem like a nice person. Nice people can believe lies. Lance is a liar. He has done a lot of good things for cancer awareness and to provide money, but he is a liar when it comes to his statements about his doping. He was not the most tested athlete in history, his urine samples did contain EPO, and he admitted in the hospital room that he used several doping products.

I was a fan. I am and always have been a realist. Realistically, there is no way he rode clean and beat riders who were doped to the gills. Didn't happen.

__________________
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
-- Albert Einstein