Armstrong used EPO in 99?

[whiteboytrash]

Your translation is superb!

Thank you ! No need to go back to German classes for me ! I actually learnt German at the Goethe institute in Munich and during my times there I was lucky enough to go to the same nightclub big Jan dropped his ecstasy tablet ! What a night !

 

[HoWheels]

The press is finally starting to catch on to this story in the USA (12 hours later ...)

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&n..._RTRIDST_0_SPORTS-CYCLING-ARMSTRONG-C-COL.XML

-a

 

[whiteboytrash]

Miguel Indurain says the accusations of doping made by French paper L'Equipe against Lance Armstrong are part of a campaign to discredit the American.

The Spaniard, a five-time Tour de France winner, also questioned the legality of claims against Armstrong.

"They have been out to get him in France for a number of years," Indurain told the website todociclismo.com.

"He's the one who knows about it, but it seems wrong that they are starting to dig over tests from years ago."

rmstrong has been plagued by accusations of drug abuse from elements of the French media since he won the first of his record seven Tour titles in 1999 after recovering from testicular cancer.

But L'Equipe has now claimed signs of the blood-boosting drug EPO have been detected in samples of Armstrong's urine from the 1999 race.

There were no tests for the drug then, but the paper claims samples have recently been retested by the specialist anti-doping laboratory outside Paris.

The Texan has always maintained he has never taken performance-enhancing drugs.

The International Cycling Union said there were no positive drug tests from the urine and blood samples taken on the 2005 Tour de France, when Armstrong took his seventh win.

Indurain, who won the Tour five straight times between 1991-1995, added: "It's all very strange. I don't know to what extent it is legal to keep specimens like this.

"Anything about Armstrong is news these days, but the question is whether all this is true or not.

"There are question marks over the reliability of the test (for EPO) and there are a lot of doubts about the whole thing."

Germany's Jan Ullrich, the 1997 Tour winner who was also second three times to Armstrong, told German television: "I heard about it, but these are speculations so you can't really say anything about it.

"It's been six years, and, if it's true, I would of course be disappointed.

"But I can't say anything on it right now. Lance is the greatest of our time and maybe somebody's trying to put him down. I don't know what it's about, so all of this is very speculative."

Swiss Alex Zuelle, who finished second behind Armstrong in the 1999 Tour, said: "I won't say anything about it because my career as a professional is over.

"I'm not Armstrong. All of this is speculation. Sometimes they have proof, then they haven't ... I'm not interested in it anymore.

"For me, the Tour is over and done with; it's just too many years back."

The press is finally starting to catch on to this story in the USA (12 hours later ...)

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx%3Ftype%3DsportsNews%26storyID%3D2005-08-23T135411Z_01_DIT327124_RTRIDST_0_SPORTS-CYCLING-ARMSTRONG-C-COL.XML

-a

 

[whiteboytrash]

Drug body to scrutinise Armstrong



The boss of the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) says the organisation is looking into the latest doping claims against cycling legend Lance Armstrong.

French paper L'Equipe claimed signs of EPO were found in samples of the seven-time Tour de France winner's urine from the 1999 race.

Armstrong has denied the claims but Wada president **** Pound said: "It's a pretty serious story if it is true.

"We've not decided what we'd do because I've not looked at all the details."

Pound said Wada would not be able to make a judgement until it had seen all the evidence.

"We will look at the information available and then we will decide the best way to get as much light on this as possible," he said.

Tests on the samples from the 1999 race were carried out in 2004 because cycling's governing body did not start using a urine test for EPO until 2001, L'Equipe said.

Pound said the issue is a matter for the International Cycling Union (UCI) and USA Cycling, noting that Wada had not yet been formed when the samples were taken.

"But what is good for me is it's a lesson to anybody using drugs that we may not catch you on day one, but sooner or later, the truth will come out," said Pound.

"Now the riders involved have a serious responsibility to explain how it is that the substance got into the system."

Wada was launched in November of 1999, four months after the samples would have been taken from Armstrong during his first Tour de France triumph.

Armstrong says the L'Equipe article is part of a "witch-hunt".

He added: "I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs."

The press is finally starting to catch on to this story in the USA (12 hours later ...)

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx%3Ftype%3DsportsNews%26storyID%3D2005-08-23T135411Z_01_DIT327124_RTRIDST_0_SPORTS-CYCLING-ARMSTRONG-C-COL.XML

-a

 

[VeloFlash]

LA would have been on the phone to his lawyers asking them to check whether he is in technical breach of his endorsement contracts and whether this L'Equipe revelation will impact on the numerous lawsuits he has running at the current time (ex personal assistant Anderson, insurance claim, 'LA Confidential' publishers, etc).

Could be expense and income costly for him.

 

[snyper0311]

No, WADA stated in late 1999 early 2000 that they have a test for EPO but they need more time to develop it so it was water tight. They made an announcement that they would be retrospectively back dating their testing from 1999 onwards. The UCI adopted this policy as well and made a statement to the same effect. This is probably why he didn't test positive in 2000 because he knew there was a valid EPO test.

So it all above board and was announced back in 1999 and was official policy of WADA and the UCI. It’s only now that L’Equipe have undertaken the cross referencing of the names of the riders tested and the coloration to the urine sample test result. So its not the French who are after him its just procedure that the UCI and WADA have followed.

Now if you're calling WADA and the UCI witch hunters and have the problem then I think you better slow down as you may have the problem !

Not the French!!!???????? Which newspaper/publication wrote this? If you can't beat him, string him up! WHEN the WADA and UCI publish their findings, then we can say that it's fact, until then, it's jsut a bunch of witch hunters gathering their pitchforks and tourches. IF a tabloid prints the truth, we are all screwed because hell has frozen over and the end is near!

 

[Verite]

Paging House. Paging House. Where arrrreeeee you? I guess he's out riding that Madone. Oh and yes, I know this is a juvinile post but I couldn't resist.

 

[House]

Paging House. Paging House. Where arrrreeeee you? I guess he's out riding that Madone. Oh and yes, I know this is a juvinile post but I couldn't resist.

Yes it is immature, sorry if i have a job, train and actually post in other places. Full of oddities. A test from 2001 (according to WADA) is just now being used. No assurances that the sample has been pristine since 1999 (i.e. never tampered with). It just so happens that a French paper (who has been known to go after LA in the past) happens to aquire a sheet that ID's the anonymous samples. It just so happens that of all the tests done on 98 and 99 samples LA's are the only ones positive and the only ones suddenly not anonymous. Way to much here to make any definite decisions, but don't let that stop you.

 

[spokeking]

I wonder what Jan's and Basso's reaction will be......... ?

I'm quite sure they'll be ******, because only Armstrong has ever doped, and they never touch the stuff!

I, personally, think this whole thing is BS. I mean, probably around 95% of the pro peloton use the stuff. You're gonna villify one guy because he won?

 

[whiteboytrash]

This is the best I can do in two minutes.... ! Enjoy......

This morning we were all looking forward to the finish in Bonn. However we learned from our Marketing Manager Luuc Eisenga the reports in L’Equipe newspaper (or something like this or did he mean the team standing’s ? Jan’s German us worst than mine !). As I got stuck into my plate of Museli and fruit for breakfast Maste Kessler and Luuc informed us that Lance had tested positive in the 1999 Tour. Gerolsteiner were on the table next to us and naturally the same as us they were surprised just as we were by this report.

The story spread itself through the peleton like wildfire and was the subject of the day ! Each rider had their own opinions and thoughts on the matter and many discussed these with me. At this moment I don’t have all the information and it would be unwise to make further judgment or comment until the full story is received. However I would be disappointed if this report confirms to be true.

I'm quite sure they'll be ******, because only Armstrong has ever doped, and they never touch the stuff!

I, personally, think this whole thing is BS. I mean, probably around 95% of the pro peloton use the stuff. You're gonna villify one guy because he won?

 

[MJtje]

This is posted by someone on RBR, but I think he's got the facts right:

No. The LNDD was trying to validate a new test so they needed samples they could do both the new and the current test on. They wanted to use it on
samples that had been collected before the current test was announced in
2000 so they could get samples that presumably were clear of any masking
agents. The 1999 "A" samples had already been used up but the "B" samples
were still sitting around in a freezer so they figured they'd use those.
They weren't trying to target Armstrong, they were trying to do research
on a test. That research was done around the end of 2004, not six years
ago. The results we are seeing appear to be from the current, not the new,
test. The lab didn't have any way to link the samples to specific
riders--the samples just have a number on them but they didn't have the
"key." That's also why some news reports say that the lab has refused to
verify that the samples belong to Armstrong: they can't verify it because
they don't have the key. Someone tipped off L'Equipe and that's what they
did. Apparently the numbers and names weren't computerized anywhere and
the key had been tossed long ago, so L'Equipe found the names by scouring
through slips of paper at the FFCT and the UCI to match them up. That's
why the investigation took four months, and why L'Equipe published the
little slips of paper with the identifying numbers and Armstrong's name on
them.

 

[Verite]

Yes it is immature, sorry if i have a job, train and actually post in other places. Full of oddities. A test from 2001 (according to WADA) is just now being used. No assurances that the sample has been pristine since 1999 (i.e. never tampered with). It just so happens that a French paper (who has been known to go after LA in the past) happens to aquire a sheet that ID's the anonymous samples. It just so happens that of all the tests done on 98 and 99 samples LA's are the only ones positive and the only ones suddenly not anonymous. Way to much here to make any definite decisions, but don't let that stop you.

Ahhh, delusions. The best antidote to reality.

 

[whiteboytrash]

WADA have stated and to that similar to 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.)

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. The reason that the lab cannot confirm the L'Equipe report is that the testing is anonymous and they do not know which riders samples they are testing.

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.

Ahhh, delusions. The best antidote to reality.

 

[spokeking]

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.

The question remains, how do we know that this sample is an untainted sample from Lance Armstrong? If the French have put this much time and effort into catching him cheating, who's to say they, or someone else didn't put the stuff in the sample? I would be very surprised if a 7 year old (B) urine sample would be hold up in court, when push comes to shove.

 

[VeloFlash]

The question remains, how do we know that this sample is an untainted sample from Lance Armstrong? If the French have put this much time and effort into catching him cheating, who's to say they, or someone else didn't put the stuff in the sample? I would be very surprised if a 7 year old (B) urine sample would be hold up in court, when push comes to shove.

Simple explanation.

The laboratory could not identify the rider relating to any of those positive samples after testing. So how could they beforehand adulterate 12 samples not knowing to whom the key code referred?

It was only months of sleuthing by L'Equipe who could put LA's name to six of them. I understand they are continuing their investigation to identify the other six positive "B" samples but obviously their commercial priority (to increase newspaper circulation and raise advertising revenue) was to identify one or more of those samples to the biggest fish in the peloton.

It is newsworthy but I doubt there would be repercussions for LA with USADA/WADA 6 years after the event. He would now be seen by many through this revelation of being a person with less credit and a reduced endorsement income.

 

[House]

Verite- Nice response, that must have taken every ounce of brain power you have. Keep up the good work.

Veloflash- What you say is nice but a lot of things from the past and this story indicate that there is more to this then your simple explanation.

 

[HammerHead]

Even the experts can disagree....


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

 

[Peka]

OMFG - performance enhancing drugs being used in cycling It can't be true...


Stretching my memory a bit, but didn't Lance say in "It's not about the bike" that he was given EPO as part of his treatment when he had cancer? How long does it hang around in the body in detectable amounts?

 

[VeloFlash]

Even the experts can disagree....


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

Doctor Christiane Ayotte, director of the Doping Control Laboratory at Montreal's Institut National de la Recherché Scientifique, says in this article:

"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."

If the French lab have found 12 positive samples out of 70 5 years later (ie more than 2-3 months) then has she considered that her instructions were in error?

According to her that even when frozen that in time the EPO protein degrades to become undetectable. Then how did the French lab using modern EPO detecting methods from urine samples find 12 anonymous positive results?

 

[Verite]

Verite- Nice response, that must have taken every ounce of brain power you have. Keep up the good work.

Veloflash- What you say is nice but a lot of things from the past and this story indicate that there is more to this then your simple explanation.

House you really are a joke. As I've said all along, even when confronted with evidence you refuse to accept the obvious. Would you care to elaborate on the 'things from the past and this story' that indicate that there is more to this? Oh, and by the way, its 'than' not 'then'.