Armstrong used EPO in 99?

Verite

House, I'm still waiting for a response from you. En francais s'il vous plait.

Verite

This is typical House. When unable to make a counter-argument he immediately becomes condescending and states that he is through with the debate. In reality, he is unable to make any meaningful counter-argument because there is none to be made. In other words, he's wrong and he knows it. Like I said earlier House, you're a joke.

VeloFlash

I can only interpret that as running up the white flag. Attempting to insult my English rather than address the debate certainly supports your implied position of weakness.

House said: but perhaps it was merely a mistake made on live TV?

Very specific and emphatic by Armstrong. Also grabbed on many Forums by naive and uninformed pro LA supporters as contributory evidence to a set up. And you may recall Armstrong faltered when asked in the interview about the EPO test (now known universally to be the French urine test) on the 1999 samples:

KING: Is EPO picked up blood or urine?

ARMSTRONG: I don't know. I mean, we're talking about a urine control here, but I suspect -- yeah, I suspect they could find it in the blood too. But I would be -- I'd be speculating if I said that.


But Armstrong was knowingly being dishonest about the suspicion of 6 out of 17 B samples turning up positive, as you know but have muted yourself as it is contrary to your US patriotism fuelled bias and agenda.

You are conducting yourself in a parallel manner as when Tyler Hamilton was found positive. What is your position on Tyler Hamilton now?

Or you implied that as Jan Ullrich was a product [proved false] of the sports corrupt East German system he was a suspect doper. Guilt by unproved association. But any provable and suspect LA association, like Dr. Michelle Ferrari, is explicable.

__________________
VF

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

Paolo

HI
I am new to the forum and have read with interest the opinions on lance armstrongs positive.

there seems to be two main camps here (For & Against)

I have worked as a doctor for 9 years in the UK and have read articles about the French Urine test and actually seen it in action.
I suppose it is not surprising that some people are trying to blame the test but i can categorically say that the test works.

The only Question to be answered in this case is whether the test works?
people have told the moral arguments about a second chance(B sample) and with this in mind there is very little chance he will be sanctioned by the uci,wada etc....

The arguments put forward against the test are pretty poor.
one is the sample could have degraded over 7 years
Let me explain:

say for example there are two hypotetical situations
this is taking in to account that the theories of a conspiracy are untrue
(which imo they are and allegations which could never be proven by lance)

Theory 1:Lance gave a sample that contained EPO. If this happened and the sample degraded over time as some say, the epo would breakdown and disappear thus giving a negaitive, despite the sample containing epo originally.

Theory 2:Lance Gave a clean sample. Since no epo was contained in the sample in the first place any breakdown in the structure of the clean urine would still contain no epo traces.

if as lance and his fans say that the sample cannot be guaranteed for seven yrs then he should still have produced a negative either way
this is an indisputable medical FACT

This situation reminds me of Olga Yegorova who was allowed to run in 2001 in edmonton where she was let off by the iaaf according to P Radcliffe on a technicality.

Maybe i am talking to the wall trying to convince people of the validity of the test

Thanks

limerickman

Six separate Armstrong 1999 TDF urine samples were found to have traces of synthetic EPO.





Exactly.
All tests would have been negative regardless.

If he never used PED's as he has always claimed - how come six separate samples contained EPO ?




Yegorova was allowed to get away on a technicality but her subsequent performances had zero credibility.
I always admired Paula's stance on this - she displayed a placard at Edmonton accusing Yegorova of cheating.




The test's credibility is not in question : it was adopted by all governing bodies prior to 2004 Athens Olympic Games.

If you recall a lot of international sporting bodies approved the test.
Unless sporting bodies ratified the test and accepted the tests validity, they were precluded from participating at Athens.
The UCI left it to the last minute to ratify it's acceptance of the test (rumour has it that many of the teams in cycling didn't want the UCI to approve it).
When the UCI approved it - this made it mandatory for cyclists to be subject to the test at Athens.

mr Armstrong decided that he wanted to look after his kids instead of going to Athens, I might add.

VeloFlash

And if I further recall WADA were lobbying for the retention of samples to be provided at Athens 2004 and future Olympics for 8 years for further testing when new drug detection procedures were introduced.

That would have caused some concerns for any athlete who knew they were ahead of the anti-doping game in 2004, particularly if they were looking to commercially bank on their past successes.

The re-testing of the 1999 TdF samples proved to be a dry run of that proposed policy. It now appears the 1999 re-testing was undertaken at the request of Canadian headquartered and internationally funded WADA and was not some sinister and clandestine French plot.

__________________
VF

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

limerickman

Correct : the "mind the kids" excuse was his get out from being subjected to more stringent testing.

tmctguer

i hope the lab publishes the complete methodology they used to handle and test the samples. if that same methodology is used today to successfully catch EPO users, then why wouldn't it work to detect EPO in properly stored samples?

Armstrong is standing behind the drug tests of '00 - '05 that were clean to support his position that he did not use performance enhancing drugs in '99. at least in my mind, if the tests they performed on the '99 samples pass the "proper science" test and are consistent with the methods & procedures used for the '00 - '05 tests, there is little reason to doubt the results of tests performed on the '99 samples.

the ethical issues behind leaking out information is a separate issue entirely. ethical questions are being used by many people, including Armstrong, to suggest the existence of a conspiracy theory against him (e.g., an unethical lab technician, poor lab practices, anti-american sentiment in france, jealousy in france about their state of cycling).

the only one worthy of discussion is whether the lab may have accidentally or purposely tainted the samples. in response to this allegation, the lab should be able to show the chain of custody of the samples, the storage methodology, and the testing methodology to sufficiently address these questions. once again, if the lab routinely tests blood & urine samples for athletic competitions, there is little reason to suggest that suddenly, their methods & procedures are questionable.

armstrong is the ONLY one who really knows whether he illegally used EPO. the scientists can only show test results that appear to show he did. unfortunately, armstrong has everything to gain by denying the allegations. hence the need for science to explain what tests they performed and how they handled the samples.

at this point, i support the scientists and assume armstrong is guilty of using EPO in '99. i will do so until such time as a more plausible argument is proposed by a non-biased source that explains how the science was flawed.

limerickman

LA may well the only person for sure who knows if he - or did not - take PED's.
Unfortunately for him, the tests show that he had a PED in his sample.
So his words - if they ever had credibility - are now redundant.

With regard to the custody and methodolgy for the retention of samples, as i have already explained all international sporting bodies were required to sign up to the WADA testing for major sports events like the Olympics.
In signing up to the test, the international bodies were allowed several years to consult, interogate and to test, the methodology.
In fact WADA spent a considerable amount of time working with all the sporting bodies to ensure that all of the concerns raised were addressed.

micron

I'm interested in a couple of things Armstrong has said:

1) The attestation that he had 17 tests at the 99 Tour and yet only 6 were positive - Armstrong only gave 15 tests in that Tour.

2) In a short interview in Equipe in 1999, Armstrong is asked 'have you used substances like cortisone or EPO in your cancer recovery' to which Armstrong categorically states 'No, never' - yet in chapter 4 of 'It's not about the bike' (published 2000) he states that EPO was indeed part of his recovery.

limerickman

..........his own words put him in this bind initially.
It was only a matter of time until the physical evidence materialised.

Good post, Mic.

micron

thanks limerickman - sometimes it helps to be able to go to the primary sources instead of depending on heavily edited translations.

you may also be interested in this information from the UCI on the actual number of tests Armstrong had in the TdF to 2004:

1999 15 tests (Armstrong alleges he gave 17 in his Larry King interview) (urine)
2000 12 tests (urine)
EPO test finally put into use by UCI at Tour of Flanders
2001 10 tests including 5 specific EPO tests (urine)
2002 9 tests including 8 for EPO (urine)
2003 9 tests including 6 for EPO (urine)
2004 8 tests including 7 for EPO (urine), 1 blood test for EPO

It's interesting that not every sample was routinely tested for EPO - so with micro dosing you could still evade the test.

It's also interesting that for the 'most tested athlete in the world', he doesn't seem to have had significantly more tests in those races than any of the other jersey holders would have done....Voeckler would have had more tests in the 2004 race than Armstrong, for example.

VeloFlash

When I read the LA claim of 17 tests on the Larry King interview I thought it was beyond the realms of possibility.

The stage winner, the GC leader (Yellow Jersey) and some riders (number?) at random get tested each stage.

Armstrong was GC leader for 15 stages which also coincided with his 4 stage wins. It is beyond the statistics of chance that out of nearly 200 riders for 2 of the remaining 6 stages the random sample selector, presumably computer based, selected him twice.

__________________
VF

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

micron

apparently the other 4 are: Virenque, Hamburger, Beltran and (possibly) Castelblanco.

So, we have 2 known dopers (Virenque and Hamburger), a future teammate of both Armstrong and Ullrich (and an ex-teammate of Indurain) and an ex-Kelme rider...

Guessing there won't be a passionate defence of Virenque...