Armstrong used EPO in 99?

limerickman

So his claim to be the most tested athlete on the planet, seems to be more embellishment on LA's part.
This business about testers turning up on his door step at all hours is merely his version of events.

The more one reads LA's words and LA's claims - and compares his version to what the UCI/Walsh/L'Equipe/WADA/O'Reilly/Swart/Anderson/LeMond/Betsy Andreu all say, the wider the gulf becomes.

limerickman

The documentation - which LA signed when he gave the same - links his name to the sample.

If there is a doubt as to the origin of the sample - should LA claim that the sample tested isn't his - they can do a DNA test and check the result against LA's DNA to put the identity issues beyond all doubt.

I haven't read LA claiming that the sample wasn't his.

VeloFlash

The answer is flexible and depends on which side of the Atlantic you live.

__________________
VF

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

3_days

Not necessarily. I mean, forgetting UCI/WADA procedural mandates for a second, if chain of custody can be established, then I'm not sure that the evidence from the test results isn't persuasive.

Again, if the issue is the reliability of the test, we have large contingent of medical experts who stand behind it as an accurate way to detect EPO use.

However, if the issue concerns the reliability of the six samples, the only questions that remain are: who's are they? have they, or could they have been, altered?

From what I've read here and elsewhere, there can be no false positive with the degradation of the sample - the EPO can only dissipate to undetectable levels in an untainted sample. Of course, this assumes that the sample could not have been altered.

In addition, I understand that you can't simply add traces of EPO to a sample to conspire and "create" a false positive- the readings will be skewed and the fraud would be obvious. True?

Finally, the issue of procedure, and the rules adopted by the UCI, etc. are clear in this case: Without A samples, and because the protective measures which are afforded to a rider when using B samples weren't employed, the B samples cannot be used to sanction LA.

VeloFlash

I have not seen any person or entity put there hand up to see if this "evidence" will be tested in the courts. LA has backed away from litigation on expense, time and he is now retired, WADA says it is impotent and that leaves only UCI.

Possibly from all those legal actions that LA has running one of the opposing parties may use it as evidence. But the rules of evidence in those cases may not require the A and B sample procedure. That was only the UCI, at the time, imposed rules. Just evidence, which could be subpoenaed, that a sample of urine contained evidence of EPO and could be identified to LA. DNA sampling would also be of assistance for identity.
I am sure if the evidence is to be tested in Court this would be the thrust of LA's lawyers.

Don't know.

Only if the UCI proceeds against LA, which I doubt. Look how they handled the corticosteroids issue in 1999.

__________________
VF

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

tomUK

i have a few questions;

What about the '00, '01, '02, '03, '04 and '05 tests? Have they been tested? If so, why do they not show signs of EPO? Are the drug takers ahead of the testers?

I recall David Millar admitting to taking EPO. Does anyone know as to the dates when he took it? Was he tested within a 4 week period of that?

Also, this year there was a dis-qualification of one ride (sorry, don't recall his name), His wife was bringing a stash of EPO to him. Has any of the dopers whom got caught for EPO use given any idea as to how they avoid it showing up on the tests?

It would be good to see Armstrong take a lie detector test. Somehow I don't think he'd pass. If the case ever made a court room it would be interesting to see Kristen take the stand and swear a solomn oath (from what I understand she is a pretty commited Catholic and I can't see her lying). Would she still be required to testify even in light of the hush money, I mean divorce settlement?

MJtje

Haha thrust me LA WILL pass the lie-detector........I thought he was pretty convincing at times during the Larry king interview.....

As for the Millar case he doped with (epo) during that last TT of the 2003 TDF which he won.....and they tested him after that........suprise suprise he didn't come positive..

So the dopers are ahead of the testers......
Read this and you will understand it's easy to beat the test: link

VeloFlash

Article in the Observer about the legal implications in other trials of the LA revelations of last week:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/spor...1558202,00.html

__________________
VF

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

3_days

I've never taken PED's and I wouldn't take a lie detector test either - At least in US courts, and still years after their invention, there's a reason why the lie detector test results aren't admissable over objection.