Armstong dopes AGAIN

[limerickman]

If I'm wrong

There's no if - you are, wrong.

The public story is that he was caught by an unannounced doping control, his hematocrit was well over 50%, and he was chucked out of the Giro.

His crit level was tested and he was over 50% threshold.

You stated that he failed a dope test - Pantani didn't fail a dope test, he failed a crit test.
Armstrong failed the WADA dope test.

Sorry, but the UCI just disavowed any approval of the lab's tests today. WADA backed out of any authority in the L'Equipe story as the samples in question predated WADA's existence.

Not if you read the WADA code.
July 2004 - UCI signed up to WADA.
In signing on the dotted line - the UCI authorised WADA free access to all contemporaneous and retrospective samples.

The UCI statement today contradicts the code it signed up to in July 04.

any tests on the B samples unusable for anything more than unethical character attacks. Of course, the B samples were destroyed for this experiment, so any DNA verification is no longer possible.

The A sample deemed Armstrong to be clean in 1999.
The same test procedure that deemed David Millar and hundreds of other cyclists clean too.
The A sample was destroyed because it was deemed "clean".

The B sample failed the new improved test - the test that the UCI signed up to as part of the WADA code in July 2004.

And I notice that even the EPO test is now under question for false positives.

If the test was not precise - why did the UCI sign up in 2004 along wth all the other main sporting bodies ?
The test was verified as being scientific and accurate.
the test got the impramteur of all the sporting federations own scientists.
To claim that the test is fallible - after signing up to the code - smacks of
a contradiction.
Why sign ?

No, the UCI is saying that they do not acknowledge it's authenticity.

The UCI signed the doping sheet. Armstrong signed the doping sheet.
the UCI signed the test sheet.
the UCI result copy was re-printed in L'Equipe.

Now the UCI says it's not authentic.

I don't read L'Equipe because it's reporter lied about the story. He said he spent 'months' researching this. The UCI says his 'research' was limited to unethically obtaining unofficial information.

.......information obtained from......the UCI.
Someone at the UCI tipped off L'Equipe about the six positives.

He published WADA's reaction to continuing the experimental tests two days before WADA was informed of it. This guy is dirty.

.

WADA never claimed that the results were published before it's knowledge.
WADA never stated that the journalists findings were wrong.

And so was the rest of the peloton. In 1996, Lance had cancer, and Indurain was pulverized by Mr. 60%..

But you said earlier that no European could beat LA.
Plenty of Europeans beat LA.

Up until LA started doping that is.

 

[CharlotteChurch]

The UCI is the most corrupt sporting body there is

Hein even said he was against retrospective testing cos it would create a never ending case-what a joke!!!!

 

[davidbod]

The presumption is the only way you fail a crit test is by doping.

Armstrong didn't failed the WADA dope test. He failed a Research test.

The UCI isn't contradicting the code, WADA is.
WADA must abid by WADA code in dealing with the samples entrusted to it.

The UCI didn't sign up for the new Research test as it wasn't even in existence at that time.

How is it that a Research test is verified?

Either WADA was aware of what the lab was doing knowingly violating WADA code, or the Lab was running completely rogue, either of which is pretty serious.

That last statement by your own admission should read:
Plenty of DOPED Europeans beat LA. Up until LA started doping that is.

 

[MJtje]

Armstrong vindicated in Anderson judgement; Le Monde defamation case dismissed

Encouraged by UCI statement - "asking many of the right questions" says Armstrong

By Tim Maloney, European Editor (cyclingnews)

Two of the pending legal cases that have been bedeviling Tour de France champ Lance Armstrong appear to have been resolved. Although Armstrong was is on his way to attend his friend and team-mate George Hincapie's celebration in Greenville, SC, Armstrong's agent Bill Stapleton told Cyclingnews that "Lance feels totally vindicated about the Mike Anderson case; the ruling [for summary judgement and dismissal of his claims] is very significant; it shows that [Anderson's] accusations are without merit in an American court."

Tim Herman, Armstrong's attorney in Austin, Texas explained to Cyclingnews that Texas State District Judge Margaret Cooper ruled in favour of [Armstrong and his personal management company Luke David LLC] with a motion for summary judgement that has dismissed Mike Andersons' claims of breach of contract and that Armstrong has defrauded the former Austin bike shop employee who served as Armstrong's paid dogsbody from 2002-2004. "This totally vindicates Lance," explained Herman. "Anderson has one more 'straggling' claim about pay, but there is not much to that claim." Herman will now file other motions to dismiss Andersons' other claims, "but they are insignificant," he says.

Bill Stapleton emphatically told Cyclingnews that "this summary judgement totally vindicates Armstrong's claim that there was no contract, no fraud or abuse of Anderson", while Herman elaborated that, "yes, Anderson's claims can be appealed but the summary judgement and dismissal of his claims takes the guts out of any appeal."

Stapleton further elaborated that "we have heard earlier this week that the French judge in charge of the alleged defamation case [by Italian rider Filippo Simeoni] over Armstrong's comments in Le Monde will also be dismissed," but the French justice system has not communicated when the formal case closure will be forthcoming.

As for the ongoing investigation against Armstrong by the Annecy prosecutor, stemming from depositions from Emma O'Reilly given to the Brigade de lutte contre le trafic des stupéfiants (BLTS), based in the French Justice Ministry in the Quai d'Orfevres, Stapleton knows nothing. "We have had no notification whatsoever in this matter," he said. "There is no substance to any of this and as for the investigators who were supposedly following out team in the Tour de France, all we know is what we read in the paper."

Cyclingnews asked Stapleton to comment on the UCI statement that was released Friday about L'Equipe's allegations about Lance Armstrong and he replied that "Lance is encouraged and pleased to see that they are taking a full and complete course of investigation in this matter. We found the UCI statement encouraging, because it was a meaningful investigation asking the right questions."

Continued Stapleton: "The UCI is asking WADA and the French (LNDD) lab for documents that would back up these claims. They are asking how confidentiality can be breached, and what the motives of certain people are. Like **** Pound's pronouncement of [Armstrong's] guilt without any supporting documentation, Pound's public pronouncements have been inappropriate. And how all these alleged events brings all drug testing policies into question. If was an Olympic athlete and if saw this happen when I was competing, I would be very concerned!"

Armstrong also issued his own statement on the UCI press release:

"I'm pleased the UCI is investigating this entire matter thoroughly because any professional investigation will reveal that the allegations made by a French sports tabloid have no basis because I never used any performance enhancing drugs. Based on the translation I read of the press release, I'm pleased that the UCI seems to be asking many of the right questions."

 

[Ullefan]

The presumption is the only way you fail a crit test is by doping.

You cannot ''fail'' a crit test, you can be over the 50% level which would be deemed to be a health and safety hazzard, and be excluded from a race. You will be suspended for a few weeks. Any rider who has a naturally high heamtocrit above 50% would require a doctors certificate to allow them to race. Being excluded from a race for having a heamatocrit above 50% is not a positive doping offence.

 

[limerickman]

The presumption is the only way you fail a crit test is by doping.

A crit test is a crit test.
A crit test is not a test from doping, it is a test for haemocrit.

A dope test is a test for performance enhancing drugs.

A crit test and a dope test are materially different.

The UCI isn't contradicting the code, WADA is.
WADA must abid by WADA code in dealing with the samples entrusted to it.

There was only one sample entrusted to WADA by the UCI.
The UCI tested the initial sample in 1999 - that test deemed LA to be clean.
That test deemed David Millar to be clean.

The second sample - stored by the lab on behalf of the UCI - came under the
jurisdiction of WADA following the UCI adoption of WADA in July 2004.

WADA even remarked at the time of the test result that it could not initiate a charge against LA because there was no second sample to test.
But WADA did state that the sample that the lab had in it's custody on behalf of the UCI from the 1999, did test positive for EPO.
Six times, in six samples.

How is it that a Research test is verified?

How was the testing procedure ratified ? You mean the WADA procedure ?
All of the international bodies - during the consultative process of the WADA code - were at liberty to test the accuracy of the WADA EPO test before signing on to the code.
The UCI in fact tested the WADA test and found it to be accurate.
Subsequently, the UCI signed over all testing to WADA after July 2004.

That last statement by your own admission should read:
Plenty of DOPED Europeans beat LA. Up until LA started doping that is.

My last statement states that LA was incapable of winning the TDF.
he only managed to do so after he started to take PED's - as proven in the WADA tests.

 

[davidbod]

I'm confused on how you don't understand this. The EPO test applied in this case was a RESEARCH test. A research test can not be approved and verified by the WADA scientific community nor the governing bodies in question while it is being researched at a single isolated lab. You only have to look at the surprise and skepticism from various other WADA scientists to realize that.

By UCI's statements today and for those of objective questioning minds it has been pretty apparent all along that the UCI new nothing about the research testing going on at the LNDD lab. What they are now questioning and intending to follow up on is whether WADA new of this new testing and if so were aware of the WADA code breached as a result. If they were not aware then the lab was doing rogue research violating WADA code all on its own accord.

Why have WADA and the LNDD lab not provided the answers to the questions the UCI has raised? And if it is because they need to seek counsel before responding as another has posted then why would they need to seek counsel. What have they (WADA LNDD) to hide.

 

[CharlotteChurch]

if any government had committed the blatent vested interests that the uci had there would be resignations, the uci is the most corrupt sporting body there is, imagine accepting money from a rider for anti doping- a disgrace
today is the day cycling died
his own coach carmichael who is alleged to have payed off greg strock to keep his name out of the media says that lances weight loss accounts for only 3 min improvement, so can people explain where the other 1 hr 27 min improvement came from?

Why are people accusing **** pound?
all he said is that there was a high chance of doping at the 99 tour de france
he never directly accused lance

**** pound is a hero!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
he is the only one who has the guts to stand up to the cheats and corrupt like la and hein

all true cycling lovers support You DP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


why are the uci complaining about the tests being carried out?
the uci have always allowed these tests to be carried out on old samples,
read high performance cycling by asker jeukendrup and they describe how the french lab in question tested samples from 99 back in 2000 when the old test was introduced.they gave the samples to the lab.


the uci are at fault yet are asking questions of everyone except themselves

 

[limerickman]

I'm confused on how you don't understand this. The EPO test applied in this case was a RESEARCH test. A research test can not be approved and verified by the WADA scientific community nor the governing bodies in question while it is being researched at a single isolated lab. You only have to look at the surprise and skepticism from various other WADA scientists to realize that.

By UCI's statements today and for those of objective questioning minds it has been pretty apparent all along that the UCI new nothing about the research testing going on at the LNDD lab. What they are now questioning and intending to follow up on is whether WADA new of this new testing and if so were aware of the WADA code breached as a result. If they were not aware then the lab was doing rogue research violating WADA code all on its own accord.

Why have WADA and the LNDD lab not provided the answers to the questions the UCI has raised? And if it is because they need to seek counsel before responding as another has posted then why would they need to seek counsel. What have they (WADA LNDD) to hide.

In July 2004 : the UCI handed over all contemporaneous and retrospective testing to WADA, when they (UCI) signed up to the WADA Code.
Part of the WADA code, included the introduction of the new EPO test.
A test whose procedures and methodology was tested by the UCI during the WADA Code consultative process, prior to the UCI's signing of the code.

On signing the Code, WADA were allowed access to all stored samples.
In December 2004, WADA using the test in the code - decided to test retro
samples for research purposes.
Research purposes being - presumably - to see if any samples from prior years
contained PED's.

The UCI can claim that it has no knowledge of WADA's researching retro samples.
However this claim undermines what the UCI signed up to in July 2004.
The Code it (the UCI) signed up explicitly states that all contemporanoeus and retro samples fall within the remit of WADA, on the enactment of the Code.

For the UCI to now claim that it had no knowledge of WADA retro testing -
is a non-issue. WADA are not compelled to tell the UCI that it was testing retro samples because the Code authorises them to test whatever, whenever.

Rogue research ?
The Code is explicit - WADA have custody and access to all samples.
WADA are not compelled to inform the UCI of it's intent to test particular samples.
What WADA is compelled to do is to inform the UCI of results it finds in contemporary and retro tests, showing positive results for PEDS's.
This it did.

 

[JohnO]

Not so much a case of 'don't understand' as 'choose to ignore'.

And the battle of semantics continues. The UCI never entrusted WADA with urine samples, the lab has had them all the time. The same lab that seems to have leaked the results, as well as experimenting with samples, without getting proper permission.

The UCI statement also makes an interesting distinction - with all of the left over samples at the lab's disposal, why did they first pick the 99 Tour? They had samples from just about every competition in France, including football and tennis, and for a number of years. It's fairly obvious at this point that L'Equipe had targeted only LA in this supposedly objective story. Perhaps the lab has done the same?

WADA has excused itself entirely from the matter, on the grounds that they didn't exist in 1999. Whatever WADA thinks is irrelevant at this point, other than to note that the UCI's doping controls are similar to WADA's, and neither were observed by the lab. The comments from the UCI today hint that WADA may have had greater complicity in this incident than just **** Pound running off at the mouth.

Let's look into another problem with the LNDD test - they turned in an EPO positive, using their new test, on triathlete Rutger Beke about a year ago, resulting in his being banned from competition. That was overturned on August 9, when the test was shown to have produced a false positive. Beke's test results were remarkably similar to what was used to accuse Lance - about 1/3 positive, and 2/3 negative. This false positive did not deter L'Equipe from proceeding with the Armstrong story that was published after August 9 - absence of malice cannot be claimed now.

Finally - after years of seeing cycling getting dragged into draconian and arbitrary accusations, we're hearing some voices of sanity. And before anyone goes running the UCI down, all they have done is insist that the doping test organizations live up to the same code of ethics that they expect of the riders. Oh, and the UCI did note that this does not appear to be happening in the current incident.

I'm confused on how you don't understand this. The EPO test applied in this case was a RESEARCH test. A research test can not be approved and verified by the WADA scientific community nor the governing bodies in question while it is being researched at a single isolated lab. You only have to look at the surprise and skepticism from various other WADA scientists to realize that.

By UCI's statements today and for those of objective questioning minds it has been pretty apparent all along that the UCI new nothing about the research testing going on at the LNDD lab. What they are now questioning and intending to follow up on is whether WADA new of this new testing and if so were aware of the WADA code breached as a result. If they were not aware then the lab was doing rogue research violating WADA code all on its own accord.

Why have WADA and the LNDD lab not provided the answers to the questions the UCI has raised? And if it is because they need to seek counsel before responding as another has posted then why would they need to seek counsel. What have they (WADA LNDD) to hide.

 

[CharlotteChurch]

Not so much a case of 'don't understand' as 'choose to ignore'.

And the battle of semantics continues. The UCI never entrusted WADA with urine samples, the lab has had them all the time. The same lab that seems to have leaked the results, as well as experimenting with samples, without getting proper permission.

The UCI statement also makes an interesting distinction - with all of the left over samples at the lab's disposal, why did they first pick the 99 Tour? They had samples from just about every competition in France, including football and tennis, and for a number of years. It's fairly obvious at this point that L'Equipe had targeted only LA in this supposedly objective story. Perhaps the lab has done the same?

WADA has excused itself entirely from the matter, on the grounds that they didn't exist in 1999. Whatever WADA thinks is irrelevant at this point, other than to note that the UCI's doping controls are similar to WADA's, and neither were observed by the lab. The comments from the UCI today hint that WADA may have had greater complicity in this incident than just **** Pound running off at the mouth.

Let's look into another problem with the LNDD test - they turned in an EPO positive, using their new test, on triathlete Rutger Beke about a year ago, resulting in his being banned from competition. That was overturned on August 9, when the test was shown to have produced a false positive. Beke's test results were remarkably similar to what was used to accuse Lance - about 1/3 positive, and 2/3 negative. This false positive did not deter L'Equipe from proceeding with the Armstrong story that was published after August 9 - absence of malice cannot be claimed now.

Finally - after years of seeing cycling getting dragged into draconian and arbitrary accusations, we're hearing some voices of sanity. And before anyone goes running the UCI down, all they have done is insist that the doping test organizations live up to the same code of ethics that they expect of the riders. Oh, and the UCI did note that this does not appear to be happening in the current incident.

the uci DID give the samples to the lab,
it isn't the first time they have done this.
they done it back in 2000 as well when the original epo test was introduced and they gave the results to media and universities
the only difference this time is that the uci leaked the names of the sample owners.

UCI are at fault here yet want to question everyone except themselves

bekes case has nothing to do with la's, beke showed he produced proteins similar but not the same as epo in his urine and even showed why he showed negative sometimes

armstrong hasn't shown this and can't because bekes was a one off case

 

[limerickman]

Not so much a case of 'don't understand' as 'choose to ignore'.

And the battle of semantics continues. The UCI never entrusted WADA with urine samples, the lab has had them all the time. The same lab that seems to have leaked the results, as well as experimenting with samples, without getting proper permission.

The UCI statement also makes an interesting distinction - with all of the left over samples at the lab's disposal, why did they first pick the 99 Tour? They had samples from just about every competition in France, including football and tennis, and for a number of years. It's fairly obvious at this point that L'Equipe had targeted only LA in this supposedly objective story. Perhaps the lab has done the same?

WADA has excused itself entirely from the matter, on the grounds that they didn't exist in 1999. Whatever WADA thinks is irrelevant at this point, other than to note that the UCI's doping controls are similar to WADA's, and neither were observed by the lab. The comments from the UCI today hint that WADA may have had greater complicity in this incident than just **** Pound running off at the mouth.

Let's look into another problem with the LNDD test - they turned in an EPO positive, using their new test, on triathlete Rutger Beke about a year ago, resulting in his being banned from competition. That was overturned on August 9, when the test was shown to have produced a false positive. Beke's test results were remarkably similar to what was used to accuse Lance - about 1/3 positive, and 2/3 negative. This false positive did not deter L'Equipe from proceeding with the Armstrong story that was published after August 9 - absence of malice cannot be claimed now.

Finally - after years of seeing cycling getting dragged into draconian and arbitrary accusations, we're hearing some voices of sanity. And before anyone goes running the UCI down, all they have done is insist that the doping test organizations live up to the same code of ethics that they expect of the riders. Oh, and the UCI did note that this does not appear to be happening in the current incident.

By signing the Code the UCI allowed WADA access to all samples, contemporaneous and retrospective.
The lab where the 1999 samples were held was therefore subject to the provisions of the code.
Semantics - perhaps. But let's be clear, the UCI signed the code, that allows
WADA access.

Now you morph the argument from L'Equipe leaked the data, to the lab leaked the data.
Again you are wrong.
The re-printed reports in L'Equipe were the UCI copy reports.
The UCI leaked the data to L'Equipe.
Not the lab.

You do have a point about the lab retaining other samples from other sports.
But the L'Equipe journalist made it clear that all he was after was the LA data and that the results, leaked by someone at the UCI to him, were to that end.

WADA excused themselves from the scandal when the data was published because it said that it did not have a second sample.
If there was a second sample for any of the tests - you can be sure that WADA would be pushing the UCI to retract LA 1999 TDF title.

If you honestly believe that the UCI is doing a good job - good luck to ya.
I don't think that a sport that has had the level of scandal and the number of deaths, can say that it's ruling bodies doing a good job.

As a delegate to the Irish Cycling Federation - I have lobbied hard to get motions tabled against Verbruggen and his co-horts.
Sadly the inertia and the refusal of delegates in other federations to tackle these issues prevents some of us, who care about the sport, from making progress.
But we at least try to reform it.

 

[CharlotteChurch]

By signing the Code the UCI allowed WADA access to all samples, contemporaneous and retrospective.
The lab where the 1999 samples were held was therefore subject to the provisions of the code.
Semantics - perhaps. But let's be clear, the UCI signed the code, that allows
WADA access.

Now you morph the argument from L'Equipe leaked the data, to the lab leaked the data.
Again you are wrong.
The re-printed reports in L'Equipe were the UCI copy reports.
The UCI leaked the data to L'Equipe.
Not the lab.

You do have a point about the lab retaining other samples from other sports.
But the L'Equipe journalist made it clear that all he was after was the LA data and that the results, leaked by someone at the UCI to him, were to that end.

WADA excused themselves from the scandal when the data was published because it said that it did not have a second sample.
If there was a second sample for any of the tests - you can be sure that WADA would be pushing the UCI to retract LA 1999 TDF title.

If you honestly believe that the UCI is doing a good job - good luck to ya.
I don't think that a sport that has had the level of scandal and the number of deaths, can say that it's ruling bodies doing a good job.

As a delegate to the Irish Cycling Federation - I have lobbied hard to get motions tabled against Verbruggen and his co-horts.
Sadly the inertia and the refusal of delegates in other federations to tackle these issues prevents some of us, who care about the sport, from making progress.
But we at least try to reform it.

didn't mcquaid sit on the late late show and mouth off against kimmage and walsh when they accused roche and kelly of doping?

the sport is dead
i agree with jean rene bernadeau- the only hope is wada and **** pound

 

[bobke]

didn't mcquaid sit on the late late show and mouth off against kimmage and walsh when they accused roche and kelly of doping?

the sport is dead
i agree with jean rene bernadeau- the only hope is wada and **** pound

Message removed

 

[VeloFlash]

the uci DID give the samples to the lab,
it isn't the first time they have done this.
they done it back in 2000 as well when the original epo test was introduced and they gave the results to media and universities
the only difference this time is that the uci leaked the names of the sample owners.

UCI are at fault here yet want to question everyone except themselves

bekes case has nothing to do with la's, beke showed he produced proteins similar but not the same as epo in his urine and even showed why he showed negative sometimes

armstrong hasn't shown this and can't because bekes was a one off case

Charlotte, for someone with such a beautiful voice you are adept with the pen. Keep up the good informative posts!

 

[JohnO]

The issue has nothing to do with whether or not WADA had access to the samples. WADA did not experiment on the samples, the lab did. In any case, the lab's test violated WADA protocols as well as UCI protocols. To quote the UCI's announcement:

WADA believes that they have no jurisdiction over this matter, given that it apparently relates to urine samples collected in 1999, before WADA was created. Moreover, WADA has told the UCI that on the basis of the reports of the research done and methods used in this case, no disciplinary procedure could be opened against the riders concerned and that in their view, the organization responsible for investigating is the UCI. In light of WADA’s position on this matter, the UCI has assumed all responsibility for investigating the matter.

I'd break a freehub if I tried to backpedal as hard as WADA did on this one. In any case, the UCI could not possibly have leaked the results of the lab's experiment, because the UCI did not, and as of today, still does not, have the results of the experiment. To further quote their statement:

The UCI reiterates that at this point we have no information at all about the testing apparently done in Châtenay-Malabry, who authorized or commissioned that testing, the reason for the testing or the manner in which the testing was conducted.

So how did the results of the experiment on the remaining samples, ostensibly to remain forever anonymous, and ostensibly not to be used without the athlete's permission, get into L'Equipe's hands? Since WADA is the current authority until they decided to bow out, I will assume that the results of the experiment were sent to WADA. That is the most likely source of a leak.

Whatever the history of the UCI has been, they seem to be a lone voice of reason right now. **** Pound accuses based on unverified information in contradiction to his own regulations, WADA itself is running for cover, and L'Equipe publishes a focused attack and tries to palm it off as objective and thorough investigation. The lab's actions are suspicious, in the samples they picked to play with, and their violation of custody rules by doing so without obtaining permission. Or did they? And if they did, from whom? Labs live and die by the custody of samples, they knew exactly the implications of unauthorized experiments. It will be interesting to see if the lab rolls over and identifies someone at WADA as the authorization to proceed. (for sure, they didn't get it from LA) Then the fat is really in the fire.

The point of tracing this back is to establish whether this was, as the lab and L'Equipe insist, just an experiment that had some interesting results by pure happenstance, or as is quite possible, a deliberate attack on LA by more than one organization. If it were a deliberate attack by L'Equipe and people at the lab, or people at WADA, or all of the above, then alteration of the results to produce the desired accusation becomes a distinct possibility. Switching the results at the lab to match the doping sheet L'Equipe has also becomes a possibility.

However, if the lab and WADA acted in good faith, and within the bounds of the regulations that govern them, then there might be some truth to what L'Equipe says. At this point though, it's looking like at least one of those two organizations would have to act improperly in order for this sequence of events to transpire. And if they have already broken two or three rules, what is to stop them from breaking two or three more?

 

[MJtje]

Both Paolo and Charlotte are NOT Flyer........

There you go......I think we are all flyers according to you!!!!!!!
The real flyer is still on/off on dailypeloton and banned on this forum.....

 

[CharlotteChurch]

Both Paolo and Charlotte are NOT Flyer........

There you go......I think we are all flyers according to you!!!!!!!
The real flyer is still on/off on dailypeloton and banned on this forum.....

ignore him, he has shown his racist tendencies already and like most americans finds it hard to admit they are ever wrong

 

[mitosis]

HELLO??? That's what I just said in the very post that you're responding to you nit-wit!!! Did you even read it??? I apologize for resorting to name-calling but MY GAWD!

Let me simplify it so that even you can understand. That's what I meant when I said:


(In the above quote I removed the comment that I had in parenthesis so that even the simplest of minds would be able to understand what I was saying)

The fact still remains however that while L'Equipe maintains that the sheet that they're using to match the samples to Armstrong is the UCI's sheet, the UCI has not confirmed this to be true. Once the documents that L'Equipe has used to make the match have been authenticated then there's no more question.

All I'm saying is that it's not outside the realm of possibility that a newspaper that's been known to have a grudge against Armstrong, a paper that stands to make a lot money from a scandalous report regarding LA and the TdF, and a reporter looking to make a name and some money for themself could possibly have falsified the documents (that is to say it's not entirely impossible). I'm not sure if you're aware of this but newspapers have the ability to generate quality documents (to let you in on a little secret: it's what they do for a living... you know... printing and such).

I'm not saying that I personally think that this is the case. Only that it's a possibility. Get it?

You got me. I did respond to your post before reading the whole lot. Nit wit is a fair call in this case. If its any explanation I was getting annoyed at all the excuses posters want to offer that even Lance doesn't seem to support.

 

[mitosis]

Oh so you're saying that the rest of the pro peloton are clean? That LA was the only rider using EPO? LOL! Out of curiousity... What color is the sky in your world?

You're the nit wit in this case! Did you read my post? Did it say anything about other riders? Did it suggest all other riders are clean?

Yes I would like to see Lance racing clean - against a pro peloton that was also clean. Mainly to see whether his superiority is due to having better dope than the others or better genes.

One-all I believe.