UCI: No sanction for Armstrong over EPO charges

bobke said:

Armstrong walks
[censored] Pound Talks
L'Equipe stalks
Lim mocks

lemme be the first to say told ya so

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/9562.0.html

If you're riding clean, then why would you need to make an agreement like this?

Quoted post said:

McQuaid also cited an agreement by riders in the 1999 Tour that their blood samples would only be tested for research, and then only under an assurance of confidentiality.

Sounds like the sort of agreement you make when you have something to hide.

bobke said:

Armstrong walks
[censored] Pound Talks
L'Equipe stalks
Lim mocks

lemme be the first to say told ya so

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/9562.0.html

The fact is that the UCI couldn't sanction Armstrong despite the six separate positive results.

To sanction a rider - both samples, per test, must test positive.

The fact that sample A for each of the six tests was deemed not to contain dope - only because the contemporaneous test in 1999 couldn't detect EPO - the A sample was deemed "clean" and thus destroyed.
Leaving on one remaining sample, for retrospective testing for EPO 5 years later.

We now know that Armstrong doped at least six times in the 1999 TDF.
Even McQuaid acknowledges it "The UCI does not deny the validity of the six forms printed in L'Equipe,"

We all huh? No, some of us can read and reason. :p

lman if somebody came up to you today and said that you would be losing your career on the basis of a re-test under highly questionable methods and chain of custody protocol breaches of urine that you supplied 6 years ago, there is no way that you would stand for it and would be screaming bloody murder.

Hypocrite I say!

But at least you are having fun with it. Vaya con Dios mate. 😄

[font=Verdana]Hold fire: The UCI investigation into how the forms were released is complete with the net result of:[/font]

[font=Verdana] [/font]

[font=Verdana]“McQuaid said it would not have been possible for Dr Zorzoli to realise the connection between the signed control forms from the 1999 TdF, and the research results of the laboratory. The tests were being done for research only, and "he wasn't aware of the results of those tests". [/font]

[font=Verdana]"The guy [Ressiot] was supposedly writing a particular story about (Armstrong) riding clean, so we knew the grounds on which he came here [to UCI headquarters]. It wasn't just us," McQuaid continued, "but it was also Lance Armstrong and his people who helped him." [/font]

[font=Verdana]Now the UCI “awaits the results of the independent investigation on the doping allegations against Lance Armstrong.” - to which there will be no sanctions because of the “[/font][font=Verdana]agreement by riders in the 1999 Tour that their blood samples would only be tested for research, and then only under an assurance of confidentiality”[/font]

[font=Verdana] [/font]

[font=Verdana]Therefore no sanction but the independent investigation is still likely to find him guilty.[/font]

limerickman said:

The fact is that the UCI couldn't sanction Armstrong despite the six separate positive results.

To sanction a rider - both samples, per test, must test positive.

The fact that sample A for each of the six tests was deemed not to contain dope - only because the contemporaneous test in 1999 couldn't detect EPO - the A sample was deemed "clean" and thus destroyed.
Leaving on one remaining sample, for retrospective testing for EPO 5 years later.

We now know that Armstrong doped at least six times in the 1999 TDF.
Even McQuaid acknowledges it "The UCI does not deny the validity of the six forms printed in L'Equipe,"

whiteboytrash said:

[font=Verdana] [/font]

[font=Verdana]Therefore no sanction but the independent investigation is still likely to find him guilty.[/font]

The indpendent investigation is likely to stall out and be forgotten due to lack of interest and funding.

whiteboytrash said:

[font=Verdana]Hold fire: The UCI investigation into how the forms were released is complete with the net result of:[/font]

[font=Verdana] [/font]

[font=Verdana]“McQuaid said it would not have been possible for Dr Zorzoli to realise the connection between the signed control forms from the 1999 TdF, and the research results of the laboratory. The tests were being done for research only, and "he wasn't aware of the results of those tests". [/font]

[font=Verdana]"The guy [Ressiot] was supposedly writing a particular story about (Armstrong) riding clean, so we knew the grounds on which he came here [to UCI headquarters]. It wasn't just us," McQuaid continued, "but it was also Lance Armstrong and his people who helped him." [/font]

[font=Verdana]Now the UCI “awaits the results of the independent investigation on the doping allegations against Lance Armstrong.” - to which there will be no sanctions because of the “[/font][font=Verdana]agreement by riders in the 1999 Tour that their blood samples would only be tested for research, and then only under an assurance of confidentiality”[/font]

[font=Verdana] [/font]

[font=Verdana]Therefore no sanction but the independent investigation is still likely to find him guilty.[/font]

He's guilty.
There's no question. He doped. Six times in 1999 that we know of.

McQuaid himself says it : the UCI doesn't deny the validity of the six tests.
(see the link http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/9562.0.html).

But because only one sample from the six tests exists : the UCI cannot do anything.
The UCI would need to have the other sample tested for each of the six tests and to have those samples test positive to sanction Armstrong.

The problem for Armstrong is that the six positives still stand.
Armstrong will avoid sanction.
That's immaterial - the evidence of the six positives is compelling and emphatic.

bobke said:

Armstrong walks
[censored] Pound Talks
L'Equipe stalks
Lim mocks

lemme be the first to say told ya so

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/9562.0.html

So what exactly did you tell us?

You told us that Armstrong was done an injustice by the press.

You tried to ignore the fact that Armstrong took EPO in 1999.

Not much to gloat about there. 🙄

mitosis said:

So what exactly did you tell us?

You told us that Armstrong was done an injustice by the press.

You tried to ignore the fact that Armstrong took EPO in 1999.

Not much to gloat about there. 🙄

He did tell us that it was a conspiracy to try to make Lance look bad, just like they are trying to frame Tyler.

limerickman said:

"The UCI does not deny the validity of the six forms printed in L'Equipe,"

Hmm, don't twist the above (the validity of the forms, i.e., that these were genuine forms and documents) to your later statement:

"McQuaid himself says it : the UCI doesn't deny the validity of the six tests.
(see the link http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/9562.0.html)."

I appreciate that accountants may be more familiar with bean-counting than with actual words/language, but surely there must be a difference obvious to all between validity of FORMS and validity of the TESTS. And then there surely must be an obvious difference between the validity of the TESTS and the validity of the TEST RESULTS as an indication of doping or absence thereof. :p

tcklyde said:

If you're riding clean, then why would you need to make an agreement like this?

Sounds like the sort of agreement you make when you have something to hide.

All the riders agreed to these conditions, ot I should say insisted on these conditions so that if there were a flase positive or mix up they would get to oversee the B sample without it being
LEAKED TO THE PRESS
WITH NO OFFICIAL OR LEGAL RECOURSE
JUST THEIR REPUTATION SCORCHED

so rider confidentiality is a key feature

1. So is doing the lab tests under complete anonymity
2. so is chain of custody of riders urines or bloods
3. so is not releasing riders forms with the control numbers on them to journalists with no scruples
4. so is not being a sh#tweasal
5. etc etc etc

Now that the UCI have all but admitted that Armstrong doped in 1999 - why issue such an elaborate statement that somebody can't be sanctioned if they're absolutely squeaky clean? - I suspect the floodgates will open and other positives (such as the pre 99 steroid positive) and evidence will emerge.

musette said:

Hmm, don't twist the above (the validity of the forms, i.e., that these were genuine forms and documents) to your later statement:

"McQuaid himself says it : the UCI doesn't deny the validity of the six tests.
(see the link http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/9562.0.html)."

I appreciate that accountants may be more familiar with bean-counting than with actual words/language, but surely there must be a difference obvious to all between validity of FORMS and validity of the TESTS. And then there surely must be an obvious difference between the validity of the TESTS and the validity of the TEST RESULTS as an indication of doping or absence thereof. :p

If you want to get in to a debate about semantcis we can.
Having been coached by the currect UCI President for 5 years, the President
always chooses his words carefully.

The fact of the matter is that the validity of the TESTS is incontrovertible.
The C-M lab tested a number of urine samples.
Six separate samples showed the presence of EPO (synthetic EPO) given in samples by Mr Armstrong during the 1999 TDF.
The 6 TEST SAMPLE sheet identity numbers were signed by Mr Armstrong as being his.
The 6 TEST SAMPLE identity numbers are identical to the identity numbers on the TEST SHEETS signed by Armstrong.

The results are conclusive and emphatic.
Your man cheated - on six occasions in the 1999 TDF.

bobke said:

All the riders agreed to these conditions, ot I should say insisted on these conditions so that if there were a flase positive or mix up they would get to oversee the B sample without it being
LEAKED TO THE PRESS
WITH NO OFFICIAL OR LEGAL RECOURSE
JUST THEIR REPUTATION SCORCHED

so rider confidentiality is a key feature

1. So is doing the lab tests under complete anonymity
2. so is chain of custody of riders urines or bloods
3. so is not releasing riders forms with the control numbers on them to journalists with no scruples
4. so is not being a sh#tweasal
5. etc etc etc

You can't claim the UCI broke protocols and then claim damages because the protocols were not enforced.

In this instance, the fact that the C-M lab were doing research on samples, places this entire issue outside UCI standard protocols.

Let's look at the chronology again :
1999 TDF dope tests were carried out : two samples taken from each rider.
The UCI tests found that there were no positives in sample A.
Sample A is destroyed.
Sample B is stored for posterity under UCI supervision.

2005 : WADA accredited labs devise a test for detection of synthetic EPO in urine.
Test is validated and approved.

Sample B is removed for storage for testing (note : testing the B sample - and not testing the accuracy of the test).
Six separate urine samples shows the presence of synthetic EPO.

UCI cannot act to impose punishment retrospectively, because it requires two positive results from two samples per rider.

bobke said:

Armstrong walks
[censored] Pound Talks
L'Equipe stalks
Lim mocks

lemme be the first to say told ya so

velonews.com9562.0.htmlOpen ↗

Armstrong is guilty, over and out!

limerickman said:

You can't claim the UCI broke protocols and then claim damages because the protocols were not enforced.

In this instance, the fact that the C-M lab were doing research on samples, places this entire issue outside UCI standard protocols.

Let's look at the chronology again :
1999 TDF dope tests were carried out : two samples taken from each rider.
The UCI tests found that there were no positives in sample A.
Sample A is destroyed.
Sample B is stored for posterity under UCI supervision.

2005 : WADA accredited labs devise a test for detection of synthetic EPO in urine.
Test is validated and approved.

Sample B is removed for storage for testing (note : testing the B sample - and not testing the accuracy of the test).
Six separate urine samples shows the presence of synthetic EPO.

UCI cannot act to impose punishment retrospectively, because it requires two positive results from two samples per rider.

Well time to stop going back and forth, y'know I think Lance didnt dope.
But on the face of it, lets say the tests really are positive, and for all I know they are.
And the sheets really do match, which they certainly do.
It's a bad deal for cycling, bad fro Lance's career and PR, bad message to other athletes that you do HAVE to cheat to win, since this was one of Lance's big PR messages--he trains harder etc etc.
Whatever one concludes, the appearance of guilt is not resolvable and therefor a mess for him and everyone. They cant prove he did and strip him of the win, he cant prove he's innocent and put the guilt away.
Its a big mess.
Everything that could go wrong did.
Thats why leaking the stuff and matching to the research tests is a big problem.

bobke said:

Well time to stop going back and forth, y'know I think Lance didnt dope.
But on the face of it, lets say the tests really are positive, and for all I know they are.
And the sheets really do match, which they certainly do.
It's a bad deal for cycling, bad fro Lance's career and PR, bad message to other athletes that you do HAVE to cheat to win, since this was one of Lance's big PR messages--he trains harder etc etc.
Whatever one concludes, the appearance of guilt is not resolvable and therefor a mess for him and everyone. They cant prove he did and strip him of the win, he cant prove he's innocent and put the guilt away.
Its a big mess.
Everything that could go wrong did.
Thats why leaking the stuff and matching to the research tests is a big problem.

I agree with you to the extent that the current situation exonerates neither
party.

But what's the solution, Bobke - sweep it under the carpet because the sport needs to maintian the myth that the top riders are clean? Why shouldn't the TdF have the same courage of its convictions as the Vuelta and the Giro and shouldn't we accept that, in order to have a trasnparent sport, even the biggest heads might roll?

limerickman said:

Having been coached by the currect UCI President for 5 years, the President always chooses his words carefully.

If he chooses his words carefully -- that is precisely why the validity of the TESTs only means that he thinks that the test methodology was a valid one for the EPO test, and the forms released by Dr Z were genuine forms. That does not mean LA's test results are valid... or positive from a valid testing process as applied to his samples for that matter. :p

Again, people, please try to read carefully, if you can do that. 😄 😉

limerickman said:

Having been coached by the currect UCI President for 5 years, the President
always chooses his words carefully.

What about his sister? She looked pretty hot in cycle sport. 😄