Armstong dopes AGAIN

Discussion in 'Professional Cycling' started by Chris_E, Aug 22, 2005.

  1. musette

    musette New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Similar to LA's response to this witch-hunt, my analysis will be short and sweet.

    -- First, as LA noted, "The paper even admits in its own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no way to defend myself. They state: 'There will therefore be no counter-exam nor regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since defendant’s rights cannot be respected.'"

    -- Second, the lab that performed the tests has the following to say: "The lab cannot link the results to a sportsman and can therefore not confirm the link made by L'Equipe between the test results and the (French federation) documents they publish," the Chatenay-Malabry laboratory said in a statement."

    http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=reu-armstronglab&prov=reuters&type=lgns

    Documents claimed by L'Equipe to link LA with the numbered samples tested have not been substantiated to be true. As everybody knows, L'Equipe has a long history of targeting LA and making allegations that have since turned out to be untrue against LA.

    -- Third, there is no demonstration that the 1999 samples have not deterioriated in the six years they have been sitting around. There is no indication they have not been contaminated, mishandled, etc.

    M Indurain notes: "... but it seems wrong that they are starting to dig over tests from years ago." "It's all very strange. I don't know to what extent it is legal to keep specimens like this."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/4177952.stm

    -- Fourth, there are no longer any double samples to be tested to confirm any EPO allegations.

    "Because only the B samples that were not tested during the 1998 and 1999 Tours were put into cold storage, no second sample exists as a control."

    http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=1561

    "French Sports Minister Jean-Francois Lamour said he was deeply saddened by the allegations, though he noted that they were unconfirmed and never could be because of the lost A samples."

    "The paper's investigation was based solely on B samples -- the second of two samples used in doping tests. The A samples were used up in 1999 for analysis at the time."

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/more/08/23/bc.cyc.armstrong.doping.ap/index.html

    -- Fifth, there is no evidence that the EPO test is reliable when used against aged blood samples. There is not even complete clarity the EPO test is reliable for recently collected samples.

    -- Sixth, LA was tested repeatedly for EPO during later tours, and has never tested positive. Given LA performed as well as in '99 in more recent tours where there was EPO testing, his performance does not appear attributable to EPO usage.
     


  2. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...however WADA have stated and to that similar to the Kelly White affair in athletics (BALCO), that if there is substantial evidence that an athlete has used PEDs then they will take action without the usage of a positive A and B sample. (Kelly White never tested positive to steroids but was stripped of her World Championship medals because of circumstantial evidence against her – she later admitted to her usage.)

    W
    hat we have here is evidence. WADA will dig deeper, interview and direct a response and take action. It is not over yet and the likes of Miguel Indurain, however a great cyclist he was does not have the legal or the scientific expertise to comment on such a case. As the samples were frozen to protect their integrity and the testing was a direct edict from WADA and UCI policy from 2000. The samples were not tested to drum up a tabloid news story. All L’Equpie did and which any member of the public had access to do themselves was match the testing report from the 1999 Tour de France with the samples results stored by the UCI/WADA.

    Unfortunately for Armstrong is that his B samples (plural) indicate that he was using EPO during the 1999 Tour de France. You cannot argue against direct science. He used EPO. He cheated. End of story.

     
  3. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    Science is science we can all agree. But not when people have an axe to grind. How were six of Lance's supposed urines randomly tested?

    How did L'Equipe get access to confidential records of the lab which did the tests and the ASO lists of documnets relating to what numbers matched what urines. If it had been done fairly a couple of years ago by the Sports Ministry or the Frnech Judiciary that would be another thing. But to do it last year in 2004 then release the reults after he retires, none of it makes sense. If the lab had 12 positives, didnt they have the obligation to report?
    None of it makes sense to me. Especially since on the face of it, Lance got better each year after 99. And was tested for EPO.
     
  4. MJtje

    MJtje New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    They were not.......read this:

    No. The LNDD was trying to validate a new test so they needed samples they could do both the new and the current test on. They wanted to use it on
    samples that had been collected before the current test was announced in
    2000 so they could get samples that presumably were clear of any masking
    agents. The 1999 "A" samples had already been used up but the "B" samples
    were still sitting around in a freezer so they figured they'd use those.
    They weren't trying to target Armstrong, they were trying to do research
    on a test. That research was done around the end of 2004, not six years
    ago. The results we are seeing appear to be from the current, not the new,
    test. The lab didn't have any way to link the samples to specific
    riders--the samples just have a number on them but they didn't have the
    "key." That's also why some news reports say that the lab has refused to
    verify that the samples belong to Armstrong: they can't verify it because
    they don't have the key. Someone tipped off L'Equipe and that's what they
    did. Apparently the numbers and names weren't computerized anywhere and
    the key had been tossed long ago, so L'Equipe found the names by scouring
    through slips of paper at the FFCT and the UCI to match them up. That's
    why the investigation took four months, and why L'Equipe published the
    little slips of paper with the identifying numbers and Armstrong's name on
    them.


     
  5. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    So how does a newspaper get access to documents which are confidential, like the maste key to Tour de France doping controls? Doesn't it all seem a bit fishy? I mean, really. Who can vouch for the accuracy of a bunch os scraps of paper?

    I don't think you can speak for why the lab has refused to verify the identity of the samples. Only the lab knows. It may be as you say, because they don't have the key--which they shouldn't, since all testing is SUPPOSED to be anonymous (unless you are Tyler Hamilton). But there may be other reasons, such as, who has access over six years to those urines and can the urines authentically be verified as the ones Lance submitted, or have they been doctored or tampered with. Just a few questions to think about.
     
  6. Ullefan

    Ullefan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    It all seems a bit fishy to me...isn't today exactly one month after the tour finished? Conspiracy?

    And BTW the same could be asked of how thesmokinggun website got hold of Michael Jackson's trial courtroom transcripts?

    The people to whom those positive samples belong to aren't going to sleep easy tonight.
     
  7. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're sounding like Tyler now ! Claming that you have a half brother you never knew about and that’s why you have two sets of DNA !

    The reason the lab cannot confirm the L'Equpie report is because their tests are meant to be anonymous so situation doesn't arise where they can show bias. This is the key to L'Equpie article. This is not circumstantial evidence, this is hard facts and direct science. This is why Leblanc and
    Verbruggen are taking it so seriously and Armstrong has said nothing apart from 'its gutter journalism' (cop out – facts ?). L'Equpie may have written 'choice' articles in the past but all they have done here is not made assumptions but drawn a direct match against the testers code for the rider and the urine sample. It’s pure and simple. You have access to the information yourself. You could have performed the same cross reference. It was that easy.
     
  8. thebluetrain

    thebluetrain New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,074
    Likes Received:
    0
    Was protocol followed in the test? No. That is why the lab is not confirming the report. That is why they dont want to put their ass on the line.
     
  9. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    I AM Tyler!!
    How did you guess?
    Damn, those winds on Mt Washington were hard as heck. Oh well, back to the dogs and Haven. Enjoy boys!
     
  10. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    They have put there ass on the line and confirmed that the samples did test positive for EPO but they cannot confirm they belong to Armstrong because they did follow protocol by not knowing the identity of the rider. This is the way all testing works.

    Again I state this is the key to the L'Equipe article, no dodgy tests, no labels being swapped, no nothing. All L'Equipe did was match the testing report from the 1999 Tour de France with the samples tested positive for EPO.

    The fact they happened to belong to Armstrong would of been surprising to all. Everything is water tight as none of the testers, WADA or the UCI knew who the samples belong to so there nothing untoward going on.



     
  11. thebluetrain

    thebluetrain New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,074
    Likes Received:
    0
    So not knowing the identity of a rider is the only protocol to a test?
     
  12. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    Lance!
    Talk to us baby!
    Whiteboytrach has finally nailed you.
    I have no comebacks to his arguments. He has won me over.

    We need you to go live on Larry King or Oprah tomorrow and admit you were wrong, but just in 1999, I dont want those memories of seeing you work your guts out on Luz Ardiden erased, or this year seeing your ride up Courchevel tainted...

    .or the three years I raised money for the LAF and heard you speak in Austin and saw cancer survivors and patients listen to the hope and encouragement you gave them go away, just confess now and all will be forgiven.
     
  13. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    You’re clutching at straws; I'll quote MJ from page 3 of this thread to prove to you full protocol was followed; The fact remains that Armstrong used EPO in the 1999 Tour de France, you have yet to show me fact that he wasn’t. You're a brave man now saying that the testers are untoward. Those statements are only in the realms of Tyler Hamilton and other drug cheats.

    The LNDD was trying to validate a new test so they needed samples they could do both the new and the current test on. They wanted to use it on
    samples that had been collected before the current test was announced in
    2000 so they could get samples that presumably were clear of any masking
    agents. The 1999 "A" samples had already been used up but the "B" samples
    were still sitting around in a freezer so they figured they'd use those.
    They weren't trying to target Armstrong, they were trying to do research
    on a test. That research was done around the end of 2004, not six years
    ago. The results we are seeing appear to be from the current, not the new,
    test. The lab didn't have any way to link the samples to specific
    riders--the samples just have a number on them but they didn't have the
    "key." That's also why some news reports say that the lab has refused to
    verify that the samples belong to Armstrong: they can't verify it because
    they don't have the key. Someone tipped off L'Equipe and that's what they
    did. Apparently the numbers and names weren't computerized anywhere and
    the key had been tossed long ago, so L'Equipe found the names by scouring
    through slips of paper at the FFCT and the UCI to match them up. That's
    why the investigation took four months, and why L'Equipe published the
    little slips of paper with the identifying numbers and Armstrong's name on
    them.

     
  14. thebluetrain

    thebluetrain New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,074
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, "the 1999 A samples had already been used up but the B samples were sitting around in a freezer so they figured they would use those" is full protocol? LOL Tomorrow's headline in L'Equipe will be " Lance Armstrong's lie, he is pregnant." No wait, it will be a pic of the lab tech's with the headline" Oops, I spilled my beer in the samples".

     
  15. Roadrash Dunc

    Roadrash Dunc New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    0
    How the F do you know that?
    Theres obviously something untoward going on Eienstein , or the newspaper that has been gunning for Armstrong over the past 5 years wouldnt have been given this leak from the French Sports Ministry.
    Fking hell , if its not a witch hunt , i dont know what is.
    Lance may well have taken EPO , in fact if my life depended on it im sure he has , but this whole story smells of malicious BS.
     
  16. DV1976

    DV1976 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    419
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's funny... Flyer was right. Even if LA admitted tomorrow that he was using PEDs there is a good number of you that would find an excuse not to believe him... Anyway, this seems to be an interesting story. BTW wasn't it about 4 months ago that LA anounced his retirement ( a bit hasty I may add)? Food for thought... Let's see how this unfolds...
     
  17. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1

    Right on Dunc!!
     
  18. thebluetrain

    thebluetrain New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,074
    Likes Received:
    0
    So the UCI and FFCT let L'Equipe "scour through slips of paper" at their offices?
    Is this a normal practice?
     
  19. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    Exactly!!
    I dont know where the hell weslaco TX is but RIGHT ON TRAIN BLEU!!!

    Thats what IM talking about !!!
     
  20. DV1976

    DV1976 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    419
    Likes Received:
    0
    Was "Watergate" a normal practice? Unless they broke into a building or something similar I can't see why there should be a problem. But I think that you are missing the point. The point is whether the test is valid and whether the samples really belong to Armstrong. The rest is immaterial...
     
Loading...
Loading...