DiLuca positive for EPO (CERA) ?? - Page 5

Yep and Rasmussen is a picture of health!!!

Lim - Di Luca is an egotistical dirty doping cheat. He has now been caught and it is goodnight for his career.

From bad to worse

Attached Thumbnails

       

   

__________________
Steve
CyclingForums.com

Firstly, the trace elements of corticosteroids were not an issue because he had cleared the cream with the doping authorities before the tour. That's why they were not concerned about it. This stuff about a prescription is nonsense. It's a completely non-issue. There's no evidence that even high levels of corticosteroids would benefit cyclings either. They are not anabolic.

I think you are being unreasonable to Armstrong. It may well be that, along with every other top contender at the time, he used EPO in his first tour in 1999. Indeed, it's hard to think of a reason why he would not have done, given that everybody else was using it and therefore he would have an unfair disadvantage. There was no test for it, it was just part of the set up back then. But there is not even circumstantial evidence to suggest he continued to use EPO for the rest of his six tour wins when the test became available for EPO. It's extremely hard to imagine how he could have gotten away with it, given the level of testing and scrutiny that he endured.

For the first year ever in the Tour, it's now almost impossible to dope and get away with it, thanks to the blood passports, and Armstrong is still up there with the leaders at the age of 38, after being out for four years. That tells it's own story. Contador can produce more power going up hill than Armstrong at his peek, according to the power metres, so if you took away him then Armstrong would be second right now. What more evidence do you want?

There is no reason to believe that he has cleared that "cream" before the tour. When he was asked if he had any TUE at the rest day he said he had no TUE, 2 days later the positive was known, 3 days later a back dated was done.
According the UCI rules, it was a positive test.
If the rules are not important in that case why are they more important for his 1999 samples? Could we no say that 6 positives, it's like 3 x (A + B) samples.

It's more extremely hard to believe that he could had became clean without loss of performance when EPO give a 20-30% boost.
Has he decrease his power? No, so still doped!

Why US Postal needed Actovegin? What about their 200 seringes and IV materials found after a stage? Is it normal to use around 20 seringe by rider every day? Manzano who confessed doping explained that he received each day between 10 and 20 injections...

Some of his 2000 or 2001 samples had been found with no human EPO, so probably the use of soap to mask EPO.
Don't forget that micro-dosing with EPO were still undectable, DynEPO and similar EPO were undetectable too.
Blood doping with homologus and autologus were undetectable.
You can still dream of it: performances indicate clearly NO.
autologus transfusion is still undetectable like some chinese, russian EPO.
Don't forget PFC and HGH, IGF,...

__________________
6 +2 (according Ashenden) samples with EPO should have banned Lance Armstrong to start next TDF !

The back-dated TUE is absolutely an issue, and it's been corroborated by a number of individuals. It cost Armstrong a cool $500k to get the UCI to accept that.

Now you're just sucking his c*ck.

You sure about that $500k? The "cortico positive" in the 99 Tour was of an amount that didn't meet minimum levels for a positive test.

The cortico-steroid was not a positive test. It didn't reach the levels. It was technically on the ban list, as cold meds are, but no cyclist were using it at that time, so it's a lot baloney. People should stop refering to it. No serious people who know about doping use this episode.

The early EPO was not as powerful as it's later versions, but once Armstrong got up to full fitness he completely tranformed the training programme for the Tour, as well of the technology. He rewrote the rule book for Tour training and power to weight ratio, which is why now other riders have copied him and caught up with his standard. During the last ten years, all of Armstrong's main rivals have been associated with hard and fast drug scandals, apart from Armstrong, so he just could not have gotten away with it.

The blood passports check for irregularities in the blood levels, and the policy is to annonuce this publically even though they have not tested positive, so I think for the first time its almost fullproof. That's how Diluca got caught by checking against his blood levels and then going back and retesting the samples. The samples are also now offically kept for seven years in proper conditions, so if they don't get caught today they know they will get caught in the years to come. It's finally just no longer worth it unless you are a complete nutter who doesn't care about getting caught as long as you win.

Please tell us then since you are so experienced in analytical chemistry.
If a substance degrades over time (as you say) and after 5 years is found in such quantities in a sample that far exceed the normal values what does this mean for its initial concentration?
Please state your analytical chemistry credentials and give us references that support your argument because I claim that your full of sh...t

Hands-on analytical chemistry (specifically gas chromatography and mass spectrometry) is a direct part of my profession, and that's all I care to disclose publicly. But, that doesn't matter.

Brushing your ad hominem attacks aside, you should be interested to learn that false positives are a reality in this field. Development of any analytical test method involves isolating interferences. This had not been done thoroughly at least by the time of the testing (as denoted by the researchers), and dealing with proteins and a urine sample that is 5-6 years old raises additional concerns.

If that doesn't register, maybe this will:

... which raises concerns about the possibility of false positives from testing used at that time:
www.cyclingnews.com - the world centre of cycling

And finally, a study conducted by Mujika on the efficacy of the test at that time concluded:
"Conditions of storage and transport of the urine can also seriously affect the validity and reliability of the test."
www.cyclingnews.com - the world centre of cycling

If you have any further questions, you can ask them because I have better things to do with my time.

(Unsubscribed)

__________________
Originally Posted by Flyer:
It is a matter of reading comprehension that you challenged by.

Well we could have an argument about that had this test been the one used to retro-analyze the samples from 99. Sadly for you it was not.
Armstrong himself never contested the validity of the process. He contested whether these were his samples. Plus he refused to have them retested.
Plus your earlier statement about EPO dissipation is not supported by the report you linked.

You are wrong again.
Why does he need a back dated TUE to clear a non-positive test? Are they idiot?

Game over... try again


Stupid answer!
Riis has done extraordinary performance with EPO, Virenque too and around 20 riders confessed of the magnitude of his efficacity.

You are probably a propaganda man who write stupid bull****.
Armstrong has been each year linked with drugs scandals or revelation about something wrong like his relation with Ferrari.
There is 6 different books about his doping... and every website related to cycling quotes his use.

You are pathetic and dishonnest.

Why not retest the 1999 samples of Lance?

__________________
6 +2 (according Ashenden) samples with EPO should have banned Lance Armstrong to start next TDF !

Poulidor

I don't know if the samples that keep being referred to are sufficient to label Armstrong guilty. They're sufficient to cast doubt on whether his performances were entirely clean. Seemingly due process hasn't been followed or the relevant authorities lack the will to make things stick.

1) Just becausebooks have been written about LA and doping doesn't make it so.
2) Just because books have been written about papa Xmas doesn't make him real. Apologies to those reading this who aren't aware of that and whose fantasy world I've just destroyed.
3) Many books are written by very learned very well respected people which contain sheer nonsense (those people made mistakes or got carried away with a belief or a thought process).
4) The fact that Kimage has written a book is all very well. The fact that it covers a contentious area which possibly helps with its sales is all well and good. The fact that Kimmage is happy to try to make money by attempting to destroy the careers of others isn't so nice. The fact that Kimmage was not such a successful cyclist casts doubts on his viewpoint anyway.

My point is that touting the fact that six books have been written ref LA and doping doesn't actually label the guy as a doper. Only tested samples using a reliable method under due process backed up by appropriate authorities utilising best practise can do that. Sadly the one set of samples that are claimed seem not to have been backed up by the other things that need to happen so close but no ceeeeegar.

Labelling someone as dishonest simply because they disagree with you isn't very nice and is hardly encouraging of free speech. Look we all want cheats caught (even if they are LA) but there's no need to be nasty about it.

Armstrong's samples were not supposed to be kept, and thus were not kept under labatory conditions. That's the difference.

You should know that many people have been caught doing EPO that haven't done particularly well. There is no hard evidence for this "20 percent" improvement. It maybe the best case scenario for some riders, but it doesn't turn you into a champion - you have to have the talent.

There is no evidence at all that Armstrong used dope in this decade. Get over it.

Won't happen, since "doping" has become the justification for the dislike. He's almost single-handedly destroyed the sport of cycling.. haven't you heard?

Well, yes, there is. As a matter of fact, people have testified under oath to the contrary.