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.
-- 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.