Armstrong used EPO in 99?

sub55

Seems to me that ... all of the stories which includes the L'Equipe one are nothing more than spectulation, and accusation

There has been no official findings, there has been no official review of the "evidence" - there has been no due process. So, for anyone to say that the article published in France must be true is rather frightening.

Until such time as that happens, all you have is a newspaper that has attempted in the past to cast doubt on a certain rider, using its ability to publish a story - do so.

Have there not been two cases recently in the States were respected newspapers published stories that they claimed to be true and then found out afterwards that - opps our reporter made it all up.

blobloblo

You know some things can be true without being "official" In this case all l'equipe did was to link a positive test to a name using the "procès verbaux de contrôle de Lance Armstrong sur lesquels figurent des numéros correspondant aux échantillons positifs". That's basically the paper that registers dope tests. Numbers of the paper and of the samples correspond

VeloFlash

No lab accredited for dope testing has any paperwork that identifies the donor of the samples. It was gumshoe work by L'Equipe that sleuthed that info from other locations.

From CyclingNews 24 Aug 2005:

However, Wilhelm Schänzer, head of the IOC doping lab in Cologne, supports the findings of the LNDD. "Urine samples can be kept in storage temperatures of between -20 and -40 degrees for years," he said. "The results are scientifically valid for me. If Mr. Ceaurriz says they are positive, then you can be assured that it's right."

__________________
VF

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

txags92

If I told you that a sample of your urine had been sitting in a freezer for 5 years, and that EPO broke down in urine to non-detectable levels even when frozen in about 3 months, and then I told you a test of your sample revealed EPO in your urine...what is the absolute first and simplest conclusion that you could think of to explain why a substance that breaks down in three months or less would show up in a sample that is 5 years old? Anybody?? Anybody?? Buehler??? Buehler??? Umm...that maybe the epo in the sample wasn't 5 years old??? So how would newer epo get into a sample that is 5 years old? Does the same company that owns the lab also own the newspaper? The same newspaper that has had investigators breaking into hotel rooms trying to find evidence of LA doping for years? Could those same investigators possibly know where the lab stored the samples? Could they possibly get ahold of some epo? Would they do it to sell a bunch of newspapers and to salvage the honor of all the europeans trounced by LA for 7 years?

The thing that sticks out like a sore thumb to me is this...if everybody claims that LA and the whole rest of the peleton were on EPO in 1999, then why did only 12 of 70 samples come back positive, including ALL 6 of LA's? That means that only 6 of 64 samples (9%) besides LA were positive...how is that possible if 90% or more of the peleton was on EPO? Or were only 12 samples spiked? We will never know, but I do believe in the simplest explanation probably being the right one...

mtnbiker371

For the record...I am behind LA 100% on this. Having said that...It is true EPO would not show up in 5 year old samples. I don't believe the lab said they retested 5 year old samples...but rather they applied a new/improved mathematical model to the data they collected in 1999. I don't think new tests were actually administered to the old samples. In any event, I don't believe Lance used EPO. And I certainly don't trust the motivations of the French when it comes to this crusade they have against him.

__________________
==========================
"Avoid Road Rage....Stay Out of Cars!"
Litespeed Pisgah
Giant TCR 2 Composite

VeloFlash

The 6 positive samples of LA were there because he was the Yellow Jersey holder and/or stage winner and was subject to more tests than any other individual rider.

Edit: In 1999 he won 4 stages and held the Yellow Jersey for 15 days.

He won the Prologue, Yellow Jersey holder to stage 2
He won stages 8, 9 & 19 and held the Yellow Jersey from stages 8-20

Also there is only a 2 to 3 day window of opportunity after administering under the French urine testing procedure to detect use of EPO. It is likely that a proportion of the other 58 samples tested may be outside this window.

CyclingNews reports: The tests were performed on samples taken from Armstrong after his victory in the 1999 Tour prologue, and after stages 1, 9, 10, 12 and 14 of that year's race. L'Equipe alleges that retrospective analysis by the Laboratoire national de dépistage du dopage de Châtenay-Malabry (LNDD) reveals traces of synthetic EPO.

Some diligent person has checked and concluded those were demanding stages, except for the prologue, where it would appear EPO was boosted.

__________________
VF

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

House

So you dismiss the doctor from Canada completely? (sorry her name slips my mind)

Borg

Oh nooo! We have George Bush on the line. "Hate us for our freedoms"...you have less freedom than the French. Man... Yanks (to generalise obtrusely) are a brainwashed bunch.

VeloFlash

No.

Everyone is quoting her as an authority. There are threads started on other forums with reference to her Velonews article as if it is the only authority.

I am just providing balance to show that opinion is divided.

House, were you one of the multitude of Americans who expressed views on forums that Pantani, a European, was guilty of doping when he had not failed a doping test? An unsafe hct level is not a doping test failure.

If so, why are you complaining about the current treatment of LA when there does exist some evidence that appears acceptable in some scientific quarters?

__________________
VF

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

Biscayne

If L'Equipe was really "out to get" Armstrong, they would have cut a deal with a major U.S. daily (like the NY Times or USA Today or The Sporting News) for a reprint in English and broad distribution in the U.S. As it stands, the U.S. is where Armstrong's endorsements are, etc. If somebody was "out to get him," that's the first thing they would have done.

Is there animosity? I'm sure there is. Armstrong mocked, demeaned, dismissed and impugned the European media his entire career. Imagine how you'd feel if you simply did your job and reported the news of USPS dumping the Activegin and insulin vials, only to have your professionalism attacked and your character impugned by Armstrong. I think anyone would bear some animosity. And, after years of having someone attack your professionalism and character and arrogantly mock you as a bunch of wrong-way Corrigans, and wag his finger in your face and say, "I'm so friggin' good at this you'll never catch me, you bunch of buffoons. You'll never be able to prove it, and I can get the people to dismiss you." Damn straight when the reporters finally nail his ass to the wall, there's going to be some attitude attached to it, and there will be a sense of satisfaction that he got what he had coming, and that he made his own bed.

It's very popular to talk about how horrible it is that anyone would dare question Armstrong's character. Yet nobody says squat about Armstrong's relentless and meanspirited attacks on other people's characters, many of whom were simply doing their jobs.

MJtje

Yeah funny: when I come with a video which is on the sporza site from Renno Roelandt of WADA that has seen the material and says LA is positive......everyone starts screaming that that isn't true....

It works both ways.......let's keep it balanced!

House

Ease up there cisco, I simply asked a question. I have a hard time when people pick to believe one authority and not another. Pantani failed what was the test at the time, Lance did not. The reasons to be sceptical of this are all around and have been mentioned numerous times. Chain of custody, some scientific quesrters say it's wrong, a paper that has had a history of attacking the subject somehow comes up with this info and on and on. A question for you, why do you base your decision on "some scientific quarters" and not (that I have seen) question the salient points that have been made? By the way I find it interesting that in response to a simple question you went on the attack.

Biscayne

What's to dismiss?

"I don't dispute their findings," Ayotte said. "If there's residual EPO after five yeras, it was properly identified."

It's pretty tough to come up with an interpretation of I DON'T DISPUTE THEIR FINDINGS that is particularly helpful to those desperate for any rationalization that would enable them to preserve the fairy-tale notion of Armstrong.

HammerHead

I'm not sure this is true. I dont think the new analysis was done on the 1999 tests. Especially since the EPO test was not used in 1999. From what I understand, the EPO test was carried out on the 1999 B samples in 2004. Then the "new" analysis protocol was used to interpret those tests. That makes the tests on 5 year old pee.

Did anyone read the article in (cycling news I think) regarding methods to mask doping. Sounds pretty straight forward and simple.

I'm still on the fence.....

__________________
I'm only truly happy when I'm anaerobic.