Who is on the list of BANNED, GUILTY FIRED etc. cyclists due to doping - Page 3

docgtn · #31 04-07.-2009

Just our of curiosity, have you ever worked in a lab analyzing urine? I have, it would not be hard to corrupt a sample to create a false positive is you wanted to. Having said that I really do not have a doubt that most of the cyclist from the 1999 tour were on something. At that time they were way ahead of the testers and the only way to get caught really was for the police to raid your hotel room and catch you using. I wonder from the retroactive study, were any of the results from other riders released? I do not remember them being release, it was merely Armstrong's who were released because the French have it out for him. If they wanted to clean up the sport they should start with the French teams from that time, that was where the worst of the cheaters were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by doctorSpoc

it's a long sworded tail..

the samples that contained EPO were from 1999... when a urine sample is taken from an athlete it's separated into an A vile and a B vile so it can go through the testing procedure twice so positives can be confirmed. the A samples were tested at that time.. a time when there was no test for EPO, so of course they came back negative... the B samples were never used since the A's were negative... but were kept frozen for research.

In 2005 the UCI ordered a retrospective research, anonymous test of the B samples left over from the 1999 tour in order to see how well their current tests were working.. 1999 would be at a time when no one was actually trying to hide their use since EPO was undetectable at the time... so they could also see what percentage of the peleton would use a product if it was undetectable.. there would be lots of use for the project...

when a urine sample is given the same code is attached to the paper work and the sample so that the sample, the paper work and the athlete can be linked up later. Unfortunately/fortunately WADA used this same code for its samples they tested in 2005... but they didn't have the paper work to link it to athletes, so the test was still anonymous.

long story short a scheming LeMond reporter who saw and had a copy of the results of 1999 B samples and saw the codes along the side managed to get Armstrong and the head of the UCI's permission to show him and even to photocopy Armstrong's paper work from 1999... under the false pretence that he wanted to write a story to prove that Armstrong didn't have any special permission to use EPO because of his cancer (a common misperception that some even now believe). anyway, with the forms from the 1999 tour that had the codes and the tests of the B samples from 1999, tested in 2005 which also had the same codes it was possible to see which samples were Armstrong's... turns out 6 of the sample from the 1999 tour that contained EPO over the limit were Armstrong's.

these results can never be used to ban or secure a positive result for Armstrong because 1) they are B samples and by the letter... you need an A and a B sample positive to get a positive test. 2) the WADA procedures were not followed to the letter since this was meant to be a research project and never meant to convict anyone.. but of course this is a world renowned lab... they did follow standard lab procedures

but you need to ask yourself if just two sample.. an A and a B can be used to corroborate each other and is enough to convict someone of drug use... what do you make of 6 samples, many on consecutive days of the tour that contain EPO? sure he can never be deemed positive officially because of the technicalities but C'MON... it's a technicality, the guy is guilty as hell... that's obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

CJ Smith · #32 04-09.-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by youhaditcoming

I'm sorry but I've never seen your name or picture in any big race results, like you try to compare to Pro cyclists... and oh, yes, everyone doped but me
< ____ > (in the 90's with EPO)

COMPARE?
The "us" terminology used in a previous posting of mine refers to the cycling sport as one general body of people that enjoy the sport... This includes the low end bike shop owners and workers who get looked at or questioned by those who have no idea what is what within the sport we love. Not excluded in my usage of the term "us" is the American grandpa enthusiast, who was 40 and proud when LeMond won for the first time and still can't shake his love for the sport - even through all the drug circuses held annually. This is not just people who dress like (or copyright infringe the image of) Captain America (if that is your thing), or those who are wearing their aero/gremlin helmets on a routine Saturday club ride .

MY NAME?
I would never use my real name in a forum anyway... So you would never know if I was mentioned in any race results or not.

CLOSING:
In closing, please allow me to mention, through a simple and gentle explanation (leaving forked tongues at the door) that perhaps you should reread the posting topic. Notice that the posting was a question? One you overlooked and unfortunately failed to answer, but that is ok. Reread it again and the forum will both forgive you and give you another chance to reply. Mistakes happen, but I believe you are better than that. If I am incorrect (wouldn't be the first time), then to you I say, "You are the weakest link.. GOODBYE".

Karl Hungus · #33 05-04.-2009

Good old Tommy Simpson.

Supposedly when he died in the Tour back in the late 60's (I think) he was on three or more illegal drugs.

Still an amazing story, though.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode