Armstong dopes AGAIN

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

  1. thebluetrain

    thebluetrain New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,074
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would believe LA was doping if he had tested positive in one of the many tests during his racing career that was administered correctly, but I sure as hell am not going to believe a French Newspaper that has been trying to drag him down for years and "scoured" around to piece together evidence that is 6 years old. The lab that did the test wont even confirm it.
     


  2. thebluetrain

    thebluetrain New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,074
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its in deep South Texas on the border with Mexico.
     
  3. DV1976

    DV1976 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    419
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, it's a bit early to form an opinion but surely you must agree that this is an interesting story. Just for the record (although I know that this won't change your mind). Le Equipe is not the National Enquirer or The Sun. It's one of the biggest sports papers in Europe and in general is considered reliable and they wouldn't run a false story of that callibre unless they had strong evidence. I am not saying that they are right just suggesting that it shouldn't be discarded just because it's French... Chances are that they are right...
     
  4. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    Bullshit. L'Equipe is a rag journal under the guise of a sports paper. Sports papers, last time I checked, are not staffed with Woodwards and Bernsteins. And even Miguel Indurain stated today that the French and L'Equipe have been after Lance since day 1. This whole thign smells to high heaven and looks completely rigged. I mean if Lance were doing EPO, why would he get better after1999 when they had the test in 2001--his very best year ever. Why did he never test posiotive, until after he retired and can no longer refute the tests in real time with A and B samples. Bullshit!!!
     
  5. thebluetrain

    thebluetrain New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,074
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are right is alot early to form an opinion. The story to me is not interesting. To me its just another in a long line of many that have never proved anything. Its all circumstantial unless the lab that did the test can confirm it.
     
  6. DV1976

    DV1976 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    419
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who did what? The fact that you don't like what a paper writes it doesn't mean that is a rag journal...

    This is correct. They could argue, however, that since day one the knew that he was a fraud and they did their best to prove this. As for Indurain, well, he is not exactly a saint on one hand and on the other neither is he impartial as an LA buddy...
    .
    Again a possible argument could be that they didn't test anything from 2001 (unless I missed something) and also that by 2001 athletes had become more sophisticated in their EPO use and could avoid detection (e.g. by micro-dosing) as was suggested this year. As for LA he can always refute it. There are courts and if he doesn't feel confident in the French Justice system there is always the European Court...

    Anyway... Patience...
     
  7. davidbod

    davidbod New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well here you go. When the Scientists start debating it you know somethings up. The problem is this will never be proved one way or the other, so let the debate continue ad-nausium for infinite. I'd love to see Armstrong sue this rag for millions and win. Does it strike anyone as funny how there were 12 positives, but only one name was matched to the samples from the "key" out of the 12.

    http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html
     
  8. Rudy

    Rudy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like to think that Lance is legit. If he's not, it would be a huge disappointment to me. But I just wanted to be unbias and point out a fact.

    The testing lab simply pointed out that they can't tie the testing samples to Lance simply because they receive anonymous samples during testing. Another word, they received samples with numbers on it and they don't know whom they belong to. They do not receive samples with names on them.

    They're just simply stating their positions, which are facts. They're not supporting nor denying any evidence or lack there of.
     
  9. Roadrash Dunc

    Roadrash Dunc New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find the biggest problem believing this story is the lack of credibility that L'Equipe have.

    You are correct , they are a cut above the Sun or the Enquirer , but they have a self admitted axe to grind when it comes to Armstrong.
    That sort of partisanship throws out all objectivity and makes it almost impossible to believe what you read in that paper when it comes to Armstrong and cycling.

    I will wait for the story to break further - i think WADA could end up with egg on their faces if they side too strongly with L'Equipe.The journalists involved in this particular story are scum.So take it with a pinch of salt.
     
  10. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    I have read L'Equipe many times, and I base my opinion that it is a rag journal on the fact that it is so very biased and slanted against Armstrong. Why else would they opine that at Lance's retirement, "never has the leaving of a champion been greeted with so much widespread relief." That is just flat out wrong.

    I was in the Alps this summer baby. I saw the cyclosportif La Marmotte and saw my son finish up Alpe d'Huez with about 8,000 other cyclists from all over Europe. Never, ever, anywhere in the U.S., including Austin at Lance's Ride for the Roses, have I seen so many Trek bikes tricked out USPS, so many USPS and Discovery full team kits, and even so many of Lance's new line of Livestrong kits and 10/2 kits. These were not Amerticans dude! They were Europeans, and they were Lance fanatics. So L'Equipe stands alone in their vehement refusal to acknowledge his widespread acceptance in EUrope.

    Thats point number one.

    Point number two, if, as you argue L'Equipe "knew" magically that Lance was a fraudfrom Day 1 and then worked for years to prove it, that, to my mind, is the definition of a witchunt, and not impartial investigative journalism. L'Equipe would be quite comfortable in the France of the Reign of Terror: execute first, ask questions later. Not to be too xenophobic, but I believe that these tendencies do aggregate in certain peoples and it would be fair to say that from Cardinal Richelieu through
    the Reign of Terror down to Vichy France, there is a certain thread of what I would call, being shitweasals, that the French may not monopoloze but certainly have predilection for.

    Yes, you missed something. They tested in 2001 for EPO with their new and wonderful accurate test. So accurate and wonderful taht they have had to constantly revise and re-do the test---because it is so unreliable in other words, duh. And yes, all of USPS and Lance's urines from 2000 were teswted as well for EPO with the 2001 testm they were all negative. USPS were the only ones to have this done.
     
  11. thebluetrain

    thebluetrain New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,074
    Likes Received:
    0
    WhiteBoyTrash, did you read this part of the article? End of Story.


    [size=-1]Ayotte said that procedure aside, the Armstrong story in L'Equipe also raises a critical ethical question raised by the release of such data, without the possibility of follow-up tests.[/size]

    [size=-1]"I am very worried about the circumstances about the way such information might have been leaked," Ayotte said. "We are fully allowed - and it is our duty - to investigate samples to make sure that if there is an adverse finding, it is properly reported. In this case, however, the director of the laboratory acknowledges that it cannot be deemed a doping offense because 1) the athlete has retired and 2) he is placed in a situation where there is no way to have the sample re-tested or verified."[/size]

    [size=-1]"It seems to me," Ayotte continued, "that this whole thing is breach of the WADA code. We are supposed to work confidentially until such time that we can confirm a result. By no means does this mean that we sweep a result under the carpet, but it has to meet a certain set of requirements."[/size]

    [size=-1]Ayotte said that the lab itself isn't facing questions in the matter.[/size]

    [size=-1]"It isn't the lab that has the critical bit of information - the link between the code on the sample and the name of the athlete," she noted. "We only get a code at these WADA labs. Someone else must have supplied the paper with the names and their respective codes. So, to me, this whole thing raises a number of questions. I'm worried, because I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues in Paris. I am concerned that they did not cover their backs before being dragged into a very public issue of this kind."[/size]
     
  12. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    Right on!! Just like the Tyler case!!!
     
  13. frank jewett

    frank jewett New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    flo jo didn't return a positive test at any point of her career, however she's since died of heart failure & u won't find anybody who doesn't think she was a drug cheat. dismissing these results as a french plot 2 tarnish lance's image is simply over the top. what is really more likely here??
     
  14. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I agree with all of this. It is all true. However as stated in previous and similar to that of 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.) I will also add David Miller and the entire Festina 1998 team to this argument. We should remember that’s its not one B sample here, its 6 separate B samples from different stages showing EPO. WADA have every right to deem this as a ‘positive’ similar to that of a positive A and B sample.

    What 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.

    As for the L'Equipe having a vendetta against Armstrong this is not entirely true. You will note that L'Equipe over the years as had an averment opposition to doping by any athlete. I have copies of the newspaper during the Cofidis affair looking for the 'real criminals' i.e. the French doctors who administer the drugs. They called for the blood of the entire team and wanted them thrown out of the UCI (they are a French team for the record). L'Equipe have long campaigned to rid the sport of drugs and the have championed the cause to report the facts on any rider using dope. The fact that Armstrong is now caught up in a rather dubious affairs means that have the right like anyone else to report it.

    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 and no bias being shown by any group including the newspaper.

    In closing please see Dick Pounds comments in the International Herald Tribune this morning. Pound added, "If the report had come out about this year's Tour de France, I'd be on the phone right now asking what they were doing about this and demanding documents. This shows why we want to save samples for eight years. Athletes and coaches who cheat should know they will live in a state of uncertainty for years as testing methods improve."

    I hope this acts a deterrent to all cyclists who use PED’s because in the end it will catch up with them. This is why they do it.

     
  15. MJtje

    MJtje New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmmz WBT there is no point discussing this.........there are some serious LA-fans here.........we are in europe not against LA! There's a lot of people who like/adore him.....at the same time they seem to know that LA's performance can't be real.......(given the history we know of the sport; still european sport!)

    Insofar as L'equipe........aah well they did there story and they just matched the riders numbers with the samples number and 'woooooooow is that armstrong.....no way this is news.....was this test good (yeah renno roelandt of wada told on sporza)so let's publish........'

    That's how every paper works. No single journalist wouldn't have printed this.......this is just too big news.......


     
  16. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some on the users of this forum are allowing their emotion to distort there viewpoints. Like any jury deciding a verdict you must only observe and absorb the facts and nothing else. Personal prejudice should not come into your understanding of the case. Yes Armstrong is a great cyclist, yes he probably is the best Tour rider ever, yes he has done great work for the cancer community and cycling in the US and yes EPO may have not taken him from a mule to a super athlete but in short he broke the rules. You can still love what he has done and his achievements but he broke the rules in the 1999 Tour de France.

    WADA announced this morning that it cannot take action because they as a body were not formed until 2000. However the UCI has recourse to legal action against Armstrong. Sporting sanctions will not apply as the athlete is retired but they can strip him of his 1999 title and pursue financial damages.

    Armstrong may have never used EPO beyond 1999 but we do know now that 6 times during the 1999 Tour de France he used EPO to aid his performance. This has been proven. End of story. You can still love what he has done and his achievments but he broke the rules in 1999.

    The reason that the likes of Musette have nothing to say is that there is nothing to say to defend him. The silence is deafening.

     
  17. scotty72

    scotty72 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    0
    What has been proved is that you will jump on any ant- LA bandwagon you can find.

    A dodgy test by a dodgy agency sponsored by a news agency in a dodgy country determined to nail LA.

    How can a degraded 7 y.o sample prove anything?

    Perfect catch 22. There is no B sample to verify that this isn't a stitch up.

    French MO, try to nail a guy who can't defend himself with manufactured, unverifiable evidence.

    And to think, we actually defended these guys in 2 world wars !

    Scotty
     
  18. thebluetrain

    thebluetrain New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,074
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly. Had this been a real test real test during the season with proper protocol followed I would believe it. Its just to shady for me to believe.




     
  19. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    A dodgy test by a dodgy agency sponsored by a news agency in a dodgy country determined to nail LA.

    Scotty I'm just reporting the facts:

    The test was not sponsored by a dodgy news agency and 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 testing was undertaken by a UCI/WADA approved testing laboratory for a new EPO test on old samples which they knew would be clean from EPO masking agents. The motivation or the intention was to not uncover EPO usage at the 1999 Tour de France. In fact the laboratory sent the results to WADA stating they do not know the identity of the athlete nor do they want sanctions to come against the athletes due to the fact that their tests were conducted in the context of research. Neither L’Equipe nor the laboratory knew the samples belonged to Armstrong.

    The fact that the positive results happened to belong to Armstrong would have 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 and no bias being shown by any group including the newspaper.

    How can a degraded 7 y.o sample prove anything?

    The samples were frozen therefore their integrity was maintained. The samples were not tested to prove Armstrong used EPO. It was merely a coincidence that a routine test to vailidate the new EPO test happened to bring up positives against the samples. The labtory used the samples as they knew they were frozen and were valid.

    French MO, try to nail a guy who can't defend himself with manufactured, unverifiable evidence.

    The evidence is clear, 6 samples had EPO traces in them Not one but six ! Armstrong can defend himself by telling us why this has occurred. He has chosen not to do this. They are not trying to nail a guy with manufactured unverifiable evidence they are just reporting fact. You can see the evidence for yourself. Now without emotion tell me its not true or the science is dodgy. If it is, then all drug testing is dodgy and such sweeping generalisations should be kept for the confines of pub conversations and the like. Not for the realms of courts of law or sporting judiciaries.
     
  20. MJtje

    MJtje New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well spot on: only things to add

    How come renno roelandt of WADA tells on sporza that he has seen the results and that labpeople have used 3 methods that all support a positive. He was asked the question if he thought LA positive: he was sure of it!!!

    Here if you don't believe me; this is another dutch/belgian poster on another forum who read the same thing:

    There's a short video interview on sporza with Dr. Renno Roelandt of the WADA about the entire affaire. According to him it's pretty safe to say that Armstrong used doping, because his 6 samples with exogenous EPO were from the key points in the race, like the big mountain stages. Which kinda adds up. Also, that he did three 'shots' during the Tour overall which then resulted in the positives. That's info I hadn't read anywhere else yet, but I assume Roelandt has some inside info if he goes into such detail.

    Someone already mentioned here that the lab may have waited to bring out the news after the Tour, and he/she could be very right: when asked about it, Roelandt said that "there was a rumour going around about Armstrong here (the WADA), and someone even informally informed me that he would get caught during this Tour. Of course, that's all 'professional gossip' for what it's worth. But I assume the lab knew it for a while already and waited for the Tour to finish to bring out the news."

    Which another poster replied that maybe that's the reason why LA got so many suprise test this tour.......makes you wonder????

     
Loading...
Loading...