Armstong dopes AGAIN

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

  1. Capt.Injury

    Capt.Injury New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    0
    The comment about defending France in the WWs is not necessary with this issue. That is an issue far different then any sporting issue.

    Now I keep reading there is a copy of these numbered files of samples available at various French agency, and L'Equipe has revealed this documents they found. IS there some type of link to see these papers they are referring to that someone can provide?

    I htink the part that is scrutinized the most is the fact their are 12 total "positive" test, but only 6 has been found out. This is very skeptical to many because it would be only logical to presume that all the 1999 records are together, or if they were thrown away, found in the same bags.

    If you have a page of records of such urine samples, you would imagine the page would look like this

    Sample Rider Team
    PROLOGUE
    000001A Lance Armstrong USPS
    000001B Lance Armstrong USPS
    000002A Alex Zulle Banesto
    000002B Alex Zulle Banesto
    000003A Rik Verbrugghe Lotto-Mobistar
    000003B Rik Verbrugghe Lotto-Mobistar
    000004A
    ...... These Samples would be those of the randomly Selected
    ...... Teams Tested.
    ......
    000033B

    Stage 1
    100001A Jaan Kirsipuu Casino
    ......
    ......
    So On

    The names I included would be The Stage Winner, Yellow, Green, and White Jersey holder (Or the person wearing i.e. Zulle after Stage 1)

    The skepticism thus is if you find the pages with the appropiate data on it, how can you not already find at least 1 other person on it with a positive test. Sounds suspicious. Could it because the other riders are French or maybe members of French Teams? ITs perfectly logical to see why it does look like a witchhunt. As long as the test are reliable, this doesn't take away the results of them though, showing the traces of EPO in 6 samples belonging to Armstrong.

    You can understand why many members in the cycling community are reacting like Indurain, and are quite puzzled. There is a ton of mistrust between the Cyclists and the Governing Body. The test is under great scrutiny as it has already been shown that it can provide false positives, as found out recently. I would image that over the next 3-4 years we will find out more details about the test, and possibly EPO. Maybe with more detailed testing, you might can find presence of it up to a couple of months later. ITs just a wait and see approach.

    WBT: to clarify your statement, its been found a fact that Traces of EPO has been found in 6 samples of Armstrong in the 1999 TDF. But, BY the UCI rules, Armstrong has not broken the rules of the Tour, because with out a confirmed positive test on a second sample, it can not be ruled as a positive test in the eyes of the sanction bodies (I.E. Tyler's Olympic Gold). You are welcome to and in many people's eyes justified in believe and voice the opinion of he did take EPO and if you desire to use the word, "Cheated", but in techincal sense, he has not been found guilty of doping.

    It will certainly interesting to see how this unfolds over the next few days, because im sure this is a story that will be completely balloon, forcing some type of confirmation from a Governing Body and or the Lab on the Test. The longer it takes for this confirmation, the more it will look like its a "witchhunt" on Armstrong. Releasing the names of the other 6 samples will help the creditibility of the report by L'Equipe in the eyes of the public. UCI has a reason to hide a positive test on Armstrong. Eventhough Cycling is big in Europe, and its not just about Armstrong, UCI wants to expands its horizons around the world, and no current athlete is more identified with its sport then Armstrong is to Cycling ( Obviously especailly in North America). If these allegation is true, the money generated by the American, Canadiens and other countries would quickly disappear if these tests are confirmed, and could cost the Cycling Industries a good bit of money.
     


  2. MJtje

    MJtje New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is what I found on RBR

    The %basic from Armstrong's samples:
    Prologue, 3 Jul 1999: 100
    1st stage, 4 Jul: 89.7



    9th stage, 13 Jul: 96.6
    10th stage, 14 Jul: 88.7


    12th stage, 16 Jul: 95.2
    14th stage, 18 Jul: 89.4


    Presumably, other samples were taken (since he wore yellow from the 8th
    stage on) and they were under the cut-off.


    > I'd like to see the distribution of the quantity (% basic) that they
    > are using to select positif/negatif.


    The article says that 80% +- 5%. In
    http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/equipe23aug05.jpg you can actually see
    one value of 81.3 that they didn't flag in column B (although it met their
    criteria for columns A and C) so it looks like in this case they were
    using 85% as the cut-off. In the other thread, Owens says that %basic in
    normal blood is around 40.
    THe original threshold value was 80%. You can see at
    http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/equipe23aug05.jpg
    that they labeled a 81.3% value as "unclassified". They've been pretty
    conservative in the analysis, having in mind that the 80% rule is
    considered a low sensitivity criteria.


     
  3. musette

    musette New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    The test results (even leaving aside the link between the numbered samples and LA which the lab had nothing to do with and which was made by L'Equipe based on alleged records to which the lab did not have access) were flawed in a more fundamental way.

    As has been described in this thread, the very reason that the lab was testing was not to determine the EPO content of individual riders' blood, but to further "test run" (so to speak) an EPO test. In that sort of an environment, the test results were not intended to be of individual riders' blood as such, but to have different samples available to run through the test. That intent for the testing further calls into question the validity of the results as applied to a given numbered sample. And that's before the dubious link made by L'Equipe between a given numbered and any rider in the peloton.

    A WADA-approved Canadian laboratory interviewed by Velonews has the following to say:

    ""We are extremely surprised that urine samples could have been tested in 2004 and have revealed the presence of EPO," Ayotte said in an interview with VeloNews on Tuesday. "EPO - in its natural state or the synthesized version - is not stable in urine, even if stored at minus 20 degrees.".... "I have been instructing everyone at all of the organizations not to expect to reproduce an EPO adverse finding if more that two or three months has elapsed since the sample was originally taken.""


    http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html
     
  4. liamo

    liamo New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    .


    You are being xenophobic in your cultural stereotyping- L'Equipe is a French newspaper, not representative of over 60 million people (it is bought by about 350,000 of them)
    Why this US vs France/WW2 v Gulf War 2 type of stuff has to be brought up every time Lance Armstrong is mentioned is beyond me - yes there are people in France gunning for Armstrong, as there are elswhere, just as there are many French people who support and admire him. L'Equipe has certain journalists who, from their writings, have a problem with Armstrong, (see the petty article of July 19th on the Casartelli commemoration) and there is a tendency to be chauvinistic regarding French cycling, but that is fairly standard journalistic behaviour, rather than anything particular to them.
    Could we keep mass generalisations regarding nations out of this? It adds nothing to the debate.
     
  5. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the same article Ayotte went on to say:

    "I don't dispute their findings," Ayotte said. "If there's residual EPO after five years, it was properly identified...."
    [size=-1]
    The same article goes onto say:

    Ayotte, director of the World Anti-Doping Agency-certified lab closest to WADA headquarters in Montreal, questioned the assertion of Doctor Jacques de Ceaurriz, director of the Châtenay-Malabry lab, who said that his method for detection of EPO is "absolutely reliable," even if the sample is five years old.[/size]

    [size=-1]"One of two things happens," De Ceaurriz said. "Either EPO, which is a protein, degrades as time passes and becomes undetectable. In that case we have a negative test result or, as in this case, the EPO persists as it is. We have therefore no doubt about the validity of our results."

    http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html
    [/size]
     
  6. Capt.Injury

    Capt.Injury New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Mjtje for posting those links

    Since I never took much in-depth French, before i comment, what would be the translation for "Serie Labo"? Once I figure that part out then Ill comment
     
  7. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lab series... i.e. groups of tests.


     
  8. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ummm...you need to quote her comments in full then understand what she means. Here are the comments:

    "I don't dispute their findings," Ayotte said. "If there's residual EPO after five years, it was properly identified. We are not that lucky here."

    "We are extremely surprised that urine samples could have been tested in 2004 and have revealed the presence of EPO," Ayotte said in an interview with VeloNews on Tuesday. "EPO - in its natural state or the synthesized version - is not stable in urine, even if stored at minus 20 degrees."

    Having done research and attended conferences when serious researchers debate each others studies, let me translate: When she says" I wont dispute their findings, she is saying I won't come out and say they are liars or falsified their results because that is unscientific and unprofessional."

    When she says, we are not that lucky here, she means "we have tried hundreds of times and cannot do so, so we are very skeptical of these results. and if they are saying they can identify EPO after seven years of freezing, scientifically I am surprised and feel they are probably full of shit but I wont say that on the record."

    When she then goes on to say that not she but that "WE" are very surprised that EPO was identified since IT IS UNSTABLE IN URINE EITHER NATURALLY OR SYNTHETIC HETHER FROZEN OR NOT" she is saying--this is a basic, a given why are these dudes trying to make us believe otherwise... And furthermore she means "WE" talking about her entire lab who does the work and will back her up 100%--and you can lay money on it, if there's a need they will be if not already are Lance's experts for any hearings.
     
  9. Roadrash Dunc

    Roadrash Dunc New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Youre no different in that respect from anyone else.You are jumping to conclusions - the fact remains , these positive tests cannot be verified.
    L'Equipe just want to smear Armstrong , they dont care about protocol or whether he actually did or didnt take EPO in 99.

    Theyve done their job and got their man , but i dont think they understand just what theyve started.Pandora's box has been opened.
    Pro Cycling reports that 40 positive results have been taken from the 98 Tour.
    Well there goes a certain dead cyclists Giro-Tour double.
    Ulrich was 2nd , Julich 3rd that year.

    How far back are we going? Ullrich won in 97 , Riis the year before and in 95 Indurains last win.EPO was apparently being used as far back as Lemonds era - he was adamant something big happened in the drug scene the year after his last win.

    So are all Big Migs wins tainted? Afterall , he beat people like Virenque and Zulle and Rominger , all dodgy individuals.Bugno and Chiacpucci werent squeaky clean either.

    So , L'Equipe are conforming what cycling fans already know : that pro cycling id riddled with drugs and their Natl Sport is gonig to be dragged through the public muck for no apparent reason - if you want to improve a drug test , by all means do so , but how is dishing dirt , dirt that cannot be 100% proven , on races this long ago helpful?

    Whilst we are at it , shall we go back to Hinault and have a sniff of his piss.Do you think the French would like that? Do you think thats neccessary?
     
  10. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed it’s a counter argument but what Doctor De Ceaurriz is saying who is on the level as Ayotte (Ayotte is no more senior or a superior) is that if the samples were ruined by freezing them then they would bring a negative result. Deterioration does not generate EPO positives. I will copy once again:

    "One of two things happens," De Ceaurriz said. "Either EPO, which is a protein, degrades as time passes and becomes undetectable. In that case we have a negative test result or, as in this case, the EPO persists as it is. We have therefore no doubt about the validity of our results."

    Interestingly enough what Ayotte has confirmed is that their laboratory believe the samples are Armstrong’s and not of any other individual thus confirming the L'Equipe report on the cross referencing.

     
  11. meehs

    meehs New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly! You hit the nail squarely on the head. Armstrong may very well have used EPO (same as every other rider who had a low crit level at race time). Supposedly there were multiple riders' samples that have tested positive. But somehow L'Equipe got ahold of the results for LA's sample along with all of the documentation to tie them back to LA. Where's the documentation for the other riders? Oh wait! Yeah! We're just trying to nail the one guy, who cares about the others! :rolleyes:
     
  12. ds0709

    ds0709 New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  13. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    Youre no different in that respect from anyone else.You are jumping to conclusions - the fact remains , these positive tests cannot be verified.

    - No they cannot be verified with a corresponding A sample but there a 6 B samples which are positive. You can do the maths.

    L'Equipe just want to smear Armstrong , they dont care about protocol or whether he actually did or didnt take EPO in 99.

    - All L'Equipe have done is match anonymous EPO positives from a WADA approved laboratory with the testers code from the Tour de France. L'Equipe has not been involved in the testing protocol. The have duty and due care to report the facts like any other media organisation would, which they have done.

    Theyve done their job and got their man , but i dont think they understand just what theyve started.Pandora's box has been opened.
    Pro Cycling reports that 40 positive results have been taken from the 98 Tour. Well there goes a certain dead cyclists Giro-Tour double.
    Ulrich was 2nd , Julich 3rd that year.

    - Maybe you’re right. I hope so. This may bring out the truth similar to that of the Festina affair of 1998. Retrospective testing is a very good thing as it act as a deterrent for drugs cheats as they know if they are using substances that cannot be traced by current drugs tests they may be caught in the future. (eights years in the maximum as by WADA guidelines)

    How far back are we going? Ullrich won in 97 , Riis the year before and in 95 Indurains last win.EPO was apparently being used as far back as Lemonds era - he was adamant something big happened in the drug scene the year after his last win.

    - The reason 1999 tests were conducted was in relation to the new edict by the UCI and WADA. They used this as a starting point to retrospectively test samples for EPPO. This however was not the reason Armstrong positive came about but both organisations had a draw a line in the sand somewhere.

    So are all Big Migs wins tainted? Afterall , he beat people like Virenque and Zulle and Rominger , all dodgy individuals.Bugno and Chiacpucci werent squeaky clean either.

    So , L'Equipe are conforming what cycling fans already know : that pro cycling id riddled with drugs and their Natl Sport is gonig to be dragged through the public muck for no apparent reason - if you want to improve a drug test , by all means do so , but how is dishing dirt , dirt that cannot be 100% proven , on races this long ago helpful?

    Whilst we are at it , shall we go back to Hinault and have a sniff of his piss.Do you think the French would like that? Do you think thats neccessary?


    - Jacques Anquetil,
    Didier Rous, Richard Virenque, Laurent Brochard and many other French cyclists have admitted EPO usage. Laurent Fignon and Laurent Jalabert have indirectly admitted usage. So the French know about EPO and that why they are doing more than any other nation to stop the usage of prohibitive substances. They take it seriously. Yes most of the admissions were after server pressure but maybe that’s what it takes to rid the sport of this disease.

     
  14. Scotty_Dog

    Scotty_Dog New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    3
    This is the most truthful, yet self-damning thing that you have ever posted.
    Bravo!
     
  15. sopas

    sopas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    2
  16. meehs

    meehs New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    0


    Ummmm.... Yeah. The LA supporters and those desperate to see him as guilty like yourself and MJtje. Did you even read the VeloNews article that the link was provided for? The lab itself is questioning the validity of a tests on six year old frozen urine samples and they have no idea how L'Equipe could have got their hands on the not only the results but also the documents that supposedly tie LA to the results. At very least this casts a bit of a shadow over the "evidence" that you, MJtje and others are so anxious to point to as definitive proof.

    Once again the LA worshipers and the LA haters are equally blinded by their emotions towards the man. And neither side can see it.
     
  17. musette

    musette New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Given the period of time the EPO test has been around (not in 1999, but it has been around for several years now), it seems somewhat inappropriate for the testing to have occurred only now. Ayotte makes the point that she thinks there was second round of testing back in the earlier days of the EPO test (which may not have been positive), and that this may be the third round using a more novel (and therefore unproven) "qualitative" interpretation. ;)
     
  18. tinks

    tinks New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just have to point out that the scientist quoted on velonews is Canadian and had absolutely no involvement in the testing of the Armstrong samples. [/pedantic]
     
  19. meehs

    meehs New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct! Sorry. Didn't mean to mislead.
     
  20. davidbod

    davidbod New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey WBT there appear to be as many Scientists doubting the claims as there are supporting it. The whole point is you don't hang your hat on something like this while the science doesn't support it. We know that L'Equipe has no ethical high ground here, so I'm not at all suprised that they would sensationalize this. What really bothers me and apparently lots of other Scientitsts is that the lab in question has gotten themselves involved in something that is ethically dubious and more to the point vilolates scientific protocol. You don't conduct a research test, leak it to the press and then stand on your soap box telling the world how clever you are before it stands up to scientific muster. It completely calls into question the objectivity of the lab and taints he whole process.

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug24news2

    The last sentence from the article:
    "There are similarly opposing opinions among other top scientists worldwide, and while the Armstrong camp remains fairly quiet on this matter beyond a short statement of denial, the debate looks set to heat up. "
     
Loading...
Loading...