Armstong dopes AGAIN

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

  1. MJtje

    MJtje New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Spanish federation explains


    Fulgencio Sanchez Montesinos, the president of the Spanish cycling federation (RFEC) has explained the legal action his organisation has taken over the UCI presidential elections, which causes most of the UCI management committee to leave Madrid on Monday.
    Sanchez Montesinos said he was puzzled by the UCI's abrupt departure. "I can't understand the reason," he told Cyclingnews. "Mr. Verbruggen is free to change the plans of the management committee. [The meetings were] scheduled to take place here and he thought it was opportune to change it; it's his problem. We actually didn't do anything at all for his change of plans."

    However, Sanchez Montesinos conceded that the RFEC's action in a Swiss court on Friday might have something to do with it. The RFEC presented a judicial petition to the court to have UCI president Hein Verbruggen prevented from running the meeting that will elect his successor, on the grounds that Verbruggen is not a neutral party. A decision is expected today.

    "I guess that could be the reason," said Sanchez Montesinos. "But in this case the Spanish Federation is doing its duty. There is a Spaniard candidate [Gregorio Moreno] who is standing [for UCI president] with our approval... Maybe what we did wrong was to allow a Spanish candidate to stand for president of the UCI. We asked for information about the electoral process. As there were no answers, we logically used the law to keep on demanding that information. And there's no other reason."

    So what will happen now with the Friday meeting that was supposed to select a new UCI president? "We don't know," said Sanchez Montesinos, "because actually we don't have any news about how things will go at that meeting because there are no electoral rules, there is nothing that allows us to know what we will do. Apparently, there will be a congress with the main purpose of the presidential elections among the candidates. We don't know how that congress will be held. There must be a neutral person in charge of the congress."

    Fulgencio Sanchez said the UCI committee's departure would not affect the event. "The stampede will not affect the world championships," he told Reuters. But the UCI elections are a different matter. "I wouldn't be surprised if the congress didn't even take place in Madrid," he added.

    "It seems that there is a terrible fear of this person [UCI president Hein Verbruggen], but I'm not afraid of him. They have been surprised that I have dared challenge him ... I've no fear whatsoever of any reprisals that will be taken against the RFEC or Spanish cycling."

    LOL, how come it doesn't suprise me that Verbruggen is some sort of maffia don:p He is allready the president for more then 20 years, has numerous contacts in the media and knows lots of riders personally.......NO WAY that verbruggen is going to tell anyone the truth!

    Reminds me of a interview mart smeets had with verbruggen were verbruggen said he got a yellow jersey from lance which said: ''hein youre one of us keep defending the sport''

    What does LA mean with one of us........


     


  2. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep its all happening in Madrid and I'm not talking about the cycling ! at the 1997 Worlds Verbruggen allowed Brochard to put in a dodgy backdated medical certificate after testing positive... he knows what it takes and only allows a certain amount of positives per year... the rest ? well thats up for the French Police, customs and newspapers to sort them out.... Verbruggen does defend the sport but he defends it from a position knowing full well that the peleton has to dope to surive.....

     
  3. thebluetrain

    thebluetrain New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,074
    Likes Received:
    0
    Report: Ban of French lab called for after Lance leak

    Associated Press
    PARIS -- Two prominent sports leaders have asked the World Anti-Doping Agency to suspend a French laboratory and investigate who leaked documents leading to a report that Lance Armstrong used banned substances during the 1999 Tour de France.

    Denis Oswald, president of the Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF), and Sergei Bubka, IOC athlete's commission chief, made the request in a joint letter, the French sports daily L'Equipe reported Wednesday.

    In the letter to WADA's executive committee in Montreal, they accused the Chatenay-Malabry laboratory of violating "confidentiality regulations" and called for an investigation to identify who handed over the documents.

    "According to the world code, that laboratory should have ensured the anonymity of the samples used in their research, or asked the athletes concerned for permission to perform [post] analyses. It's not a question of protecting anyone, but of applying the rules," Oswald said, according to L'Equipe.

    Last month, L'Equipe published evidence allegedly showing that six of Armstrong's frozen urine samples from 1999 came back positive for endurance-boosting EPO when they were retested last year.

    Seven-time Tour de France winner Armstrong denied ever using banned drugs, and said he was the victim of a "witch hunt."

    According to L'Equipe, WADA's scientific director Olivier Rabin said no rules had been broken nor any standards breached.

    Last week, WADA chairman Dick Pound accused the president of cycling's world governing body (UCI), Hein Verbruggen, of supplying the documents.

    Pound said he received a letter from Verbruggen saying he had provided L'Equipe with forms indicating that Armstrong had tested positive for EPO during his first Tour victory.

    UCI denied the charge and said the reporter had acquired "confidential documents which he was able to consult at the UCI after receiving, under false pretext, the authorization of Lance Armstrong."

    L'Equipe said it matched Armstrong's name to six forms marked with coded numbers.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=2168440
     
  4. Ullefan

    Ullefan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    WADA Chief continues debate with UCI

    By Mark Zalewski, North American Editor

    The president of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) held a press conference Tuesday following the annual meeting of its executive committee. On the agenda for the day was approval of the prohibited substance list for 2006, the 2006 budget, FIFA's compliance issues with WADA and others. Not on the agenda was anything involving Lance Armstrong or the UCI. However, that was certainly not off limits for the assembled press.

    When asked about the UCI's president's comments asking WADA to sanction its own chief, Pound replied jokingly, "I thought about sanctioning myself and decided against it! "[laughs] "After full consideration of all the issues." Following some awkward silence, another reporter asked how Pound would like to see the 'bickering' between WADA and the UCI be resolved. "It's really a matter for the international federation to resolve," Pound said. "This [case] was a sample given for doping control purposes, during either the 1998 or 1999 Tour de France. These are showcase events for the UCI. They are the ones responsible for imposing whatever sanction can be imposed in accordance with their rules. WADA doesn't impose sanctions at any time, all we do is say we think there was a doping infraction - go and deal with it. If we don't think they dealt with it properly we can go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and seek what we think would be the proper outcome."

    As for the back-and-forth between his organization and the UCI, Pound replied, "We have indicated that we are prepared to help with any information in our possession, provided they are going to do a complete and thorough and complete investigation, and not simply look at how this information found its way into the public. We hope that the investigation will be full and complete but it is not full and complete at this point, so we will have to wait and see what it will be, and then decide what, if anything, we should do about it on our own."

    Pound was then asked why he thinks the UCI is expecting documents from or action on the part of WADA in regards to the Tour de France cases. Pound expressed his uneasiness about the situation, saying, "Yes, it is quite unusual. We didn't even exist in 1998 - we weren't formed until after all of these events took place in 1999. We tried to provide, to the best of our abilities, all of the information we had. I am unable to answer questions as to what may be in the minds of the UCI, what may be in the minds of the labs, or what may be in possession of the labs. We are concerned about the generally accusatory approach to what we may have done. We are a bit nervous about the way this is going. While we want to be helpful in the context of a full investigation, we are not there to participate in something that amounts to a search as to how the information made its way into the public domain."
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep22news2
     
  5. JohnO

    JohnO New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting remarks from Pound.

    That's PR-ese for "I'm not providing anything". By agreeing to help, they appear cooperative, but by then attaching an arbitrary condition to such help, they evade it entirely, as they can always claim that their condition (complete and thorough and complete) has not been met.

    *ahem* one of the reasons, if not the primary reason that it isn't full and complete is that you have not disclosed your involvment. (see above)

    1999 has little to do with the UCI's request, because the documents the UCI is after don't date to 1999, they date to 2004 and 2005, and WADA's involvment in the LNDD experiment. And this one: "tried to provide, to the best of our abilities" leaves a lot of wiggle room later on. He could have said - we provided all information that we had relating to the request. If something nasty comes out later, they can always say - we tried to provide...

    Keep in mind that we're dealing with an attorney here, not an athlete, and attornies (at least good ones) don't make public statements without a purpose.

    Actually, Dick is right on this one - he's afraid to give up documents because the inquiry might be targeting him. Isn't that ironic - he may be on the receiving end of a witch hunt. Hey, Dick - you might call Lance for advice. He's had plenty of experience dealing with witch hunts.

    Or it could be that Pound has something to hide, which is why he's stonewalling the investigation.

    And no one has explained where the rest of the doping sheets came from - only one has been officially accounted for.

    Hint to the UCI: if you can't beat them, join them. Just tell WADA that you're actually on their side, and you just want to clear them by making sure that no leaks are possible with their email and paper document transfer systems, so you need to see all communications with LNDD for 2004 and 2005.

    Worth a try, it worked for Ressiot...
    .
     
  6. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    All I can say is, the above is a very intelligent analysis and I agree %100.
    er 100%...
    Good call, dude!!!!!!!!
     
  7. micron

    micron New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    1
    oh, please, just get a room you two...
     
  8. TrekDedicated

    TrekDedicated New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,111
    Likes Received:
    1
    For crying out loud, LA is gone. Let this topic die.
     
  9. JohnO

    JohnO New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    We did, but limerickman and whiteboytrash were making too much noise in the next room...
     
  10. zapper

    zapper Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey watch out you might get edited....
     
  11. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    The noise was the both of us trying to shut musttee up..... it was hard work but we had to take drastic action by shutting down thepaceline.com....
     
  12. JohnO

    JohnO New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Touche! good to get a bit of levity into this rather contentious discussion...

     
  13. MJtje

    MJtje New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rogge wants new investigation into Armstrong (cyclingnews)

    IOC chairman Jacques Rogge wants a new investigation in the Armstrong case to conclusively determine if he used doping substances or not. With this, Rogge wants to end the fighting between the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and the International Cycling Union (UCI). On top of that, two IOC members have also asked for a sanction against the WADA lab that analysed Armstrong's samples.

    Jacques Rogge is tired of the quarrelling between the UCI, WADA and the IOC and shared his opinion with a journalist from Belgian Newspaper De Morgen. "We have to respect the assumption of innocence. It's not up to the athlete to prove he's not guilty, it is up to the sporting bodies to prove that he is. I'm in favour of a thorough independent investigation, accepted by all parties," the IOC boss said. "The IOC wants to retro-actively have the urine samples examined but first WADA has to determine the procedures to do this. Only then the discussion will stop."

     
  14. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    Millar linked with Spanish team

    British cyclist David Millar is being tipped to ride for Spanish team Saunier Duval after serving out his drugs ban.

    Millar was suspended for two years for using EPO, but will be eligible to make a comeback in June 2006.

    And Saunier chief Mauro Gianetti told cycling website Procycling that a deal had been done to sign the 28-year-old Scot ahead of the next Tour de France.

    "As far as we're concerned, the deal is in place. It should be a matter of days before something is signed," he said.

    Millar says he has been studying a number of offers, but Saunier Duval could beat the rest to his signature.

    "We've been interested in Millar since before the Tour de France. Now we are very confident," he said.

    Millar's two-year ban ends on 23 June, just nine days before Le Tour.

    That means the British road race championship on 25 June could be his first comeback race and the only opportunity for Millar to prove his form.

    "I've been training very hard and I hope to make a successful return to racing in 2006," said Millar.

     
  15. JohnO

    JohnO New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    In related events, Pope Benedict XVI announced that he was going to ask God to investigate the current EPO testing conflict. The Pope added: "Well, he is the Supreme Creator. He will get to the bottom of this very quickly".

    But seriously, this is turning into a circus. The current LA situation involves Armstrong, WADA, L'Equipe, the LNDD lab, the UCI, and the 1999 Tour de France. It does not involve the Olympics.

    Why is Rogge concerned about Lance and the 99 Tour? He should be more concerned with finding a reliable EPO test for the upcoming Olympics, or false positives in the most recent Olympics that used the old LNDD EPO test.



     
  16. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    The EPO tests - instituted at Chatanay-Malabry - do work and did work.

    The test, the detection of EPO in urine, detected EPO in six separate samples
    given by Lance Armstrong at the 1999 TDF.
    (It needs to be re-iterated that the same samples were deemed to be clean under the UCI test - false negative).

    You earlier cited the Beke case to put forward your defence of the six samples of LA's urine containing EPO.

    I suggest that you read the Beke case more carefully before you (and others) attempt to ridicule the test at Chatanay-Malabry and WADA.

    The Beke case and the Beke defence concerning the detection of EPO did not
    question the result that EPO was found in Beke's samples as tested by WADA.
    The Beke defence accepted that EPO was found in the sample taken and tested by WADA.

    What Beke contested was how the EPO found in the sample, materialised.
    Beke was able to prove that under physical exertion, he (Beke) produced EPO
    naturally and that the sample - if taken - would show EPO in that sample.
    In establishing his defence, Beke had to undergo a series of tests, under controlled conditions.
    Beke also had to allow WADA medical personnel full access to his physiological
    and medical data to substantiate the defence.

    The bottom line here is that all EPO, whether synthetic or naturally occuring, is detected by the WADA test used at Chatanay-Malabry.
    Therefore the test works and the test is reliable.
    The issue for Armstrong whether her can establish if his six samples are synthetic or naturally occuring.


    Armstrong, if he were to contest the validity of the result of the Chatanay-Malabry tests, would be required to make similar disclosures like Beke in order to mount his defence.
    It should be noted that Armstrong hasn't (at the time of writing) mounted a defence to the WADA results, except making public statements about "the french" and "conspiracies".
     
  17. JohnO

    JohnO New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Peltre and Thormann, in the 2003 report, identify four trouble areas with the EPO test, not one. Two can unquestionably produce false positives, two are a bit more subjective.

    As you mention, proteinuria can trigger a false positive if the athlete produces it under heavy exercise. This was the Beke defence.

    A false result can also come from non EPO proteins that can trigger a positive by being incorrectly tagged as EPO proteins.

    From the Cyclingnews.com story, in reference to the nonspecific proteins:

    Yes, all EPO will be detected by the test, and a few things that aren't EPO as well.

    The other two areas of concern involve interpretation of the results, and variability of the results. Both can change from lab to lab. The LNDD EPO test is not a cut and dried litmus test, there is considerable human judgment involved in the process. What happens if one lab accuses, and another clears? Is this a doping test, or a lottery?

    So there are still very valid concerns about the accuracy of the test. Beke used one false positive method as his defence, so far no one has used the other (nonspecific proteins), or has asked more than one lab to perform the test to bring out any variances in interpretation. Those would all be valid lines of investigation for anyone accused of EPO doping by the current LNDD test.

    As for Armstrong, he doesn't have to do anything. The LNDD experiment was unofficial, and outside the rules of doping control. With no admissable evidence, there is no case to prosecute or defend. This case is being tried in the court of public opinion, and rules of evidence were chucked at the start.

    Even considering the unofficial data that L'Equipe published, there are enough questions at this point to throw serious doubt on even the L'Equipe accusation. To wit:

    Which test was used in the 2004-2005 experiment from which L'Equipe accused Lance? The faulty LNDD test, or a new experimental one? That is one of the questions submitted to WADA by the UCI, that WADA has declined to answer.

    The origin of one doping sheet has been verified, although it was obtained under false pretenses. Yet the accusation states six positives and eleven negatives by LA. Where did the other 14 sheets come from? If they can't be explained, how can their authenticity be confirmed?

    Why did WADA continue to prosecute EPO positives when their own experts had expressed concerns about the accuracy of the test back in 2003? Why did WADA make a change to the interpretation of the EPO test in 2004 without performing any scientific validation on that change?

    And the big one - exactly what were WADA's instructions to LNDD when they commissioned the 2004-2005 experiment? (another question submitted by the UCI, and so far unanswered) Did they specify the faulty test and 1998-1999 TDF samples? All that is known is that WADA did fund the experiment, presumably WADA authorized the use of the 98 and 99 TDF samples (we do know that the only other legal authorization - from the athletes - was not obtained) and WADA is declining to discuss their involvment at this time, for reasons unknown.


     
  18. VeloFlash

    VeloFlash New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    There were two conditions present that caused the analysis of Beke's results to be interpreted as a positive.

    He had a genetic condition of exercise induced urinary protein loss. This produced proteins that resembled on analysis synthetic EPO but are now identified as Alfa1-ACT.

    Also, most importantly, the samples were contaminated by bacteria allegedly by not being maintained at the correct temperature. The bacteria destroyed most of the naturally occurring EPO in the samples.

    The bacteria contamination was the main culprit by causing chemical reactions that interpreted as a positive whereas previous tests where exercise induced urinary protein loss was likely to have occurred had proven negative.
     
  19. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    Answers from French sports ministry

    In the aftermath of the printed allegations that Lance Armstrong used EPO to achieve the first of his seven Tour victories, the director for Sports within the French Ministry for Sports has provided journalists with more information on the case last week. In an interview given between two conferences at the meeting of the European Sports ministries in Liverpool, UK, on Wednesday, September 21, Dominique Laurent said that contrary to what had been previously stated by some officials, an athlete's urine samples, if already tested, could indeed be retested by a laboratory without the consent of the athlete.

    "The laboratory is not obliged to ask the riders for their permission beforehand," Laurent said. "It may examine urine samples on its own initiative, because once the samples have already been tested, they're not owned by the rider anymore."

    Asked if it was the French ministry for Sport and Youth that commanded the retrospective testing, Laurent replied, "No, it was WADA [the World Anti-Doping Agency - ed.] asked the laboratory for an an investigation in order to improve the test. The ministry finances anti-doping research with about 20 million Euros a year, but it is not in our competence to see how the research is being done."

    She also confirmed that another testing could be performed on the samples. "If Lance Armstrong wants a counter-expertise, he can get it," Laurent added. "The is enough urine left for such an investigation: We have communicated this to the UCI in a letter last week. Let Armstrong prove his innocence."
     
  20. MJtje

    MJtje New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    He simply can't.....that's why the LA camp is very quiet.........



     
Loading...
Loading...