Armstrong used EPO in 99?

[House]

[/b]
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'.

What have you brought to this forum other then being the grammar police? Why don't you try disputing what I actually said? I'd say you are a joke since all you can do is lay out insults without even being able to make any arguments. From the past? How about the various attempts to bust Lance by the French dispite no evidence. How about all the things listed in my last post that you so masterfully couldn't come up with anything but another immature, childish non-response. You are a troll if you refuse to discuss and only lay out insults. The shoe fits, wear it.

 

[Jon Jonson]

House and Spokeing are right. It is pretty simple. The "French" hate us for our freedoms.
Now care to address Veloflash's observations? Of is s/he a member of the French conspiracy?

 

[Jon Jonson]

Nothing like a typo to ruin an attempt at a witty reply. I meant to say "or", not "of", of course. But the question still stands.

 

[Verite]

What have you brought to this forum other then being the grammar police? Why don't you try disputing what I actually said? I'd say you are a joke since all you can do is lay out insults without even being able to make any arguments. From the past? How about the various attempts to bust Lance by the French dispite no evidence. How about all the things listed in my last post that you so masterfully couldn't come up with anything but another immature, childish non-response. You are a troll if you refuse to discuss and only lay out insults. The shoe fits, wear it.

I think I'll pass on that shoe my good man. Just out of curiosity do you suffer from retrograde amnesia? Do you remember our little exchange on the 'TiMan' thread? I offered arguments there that you've yet to address other than dismissing them as 'all over the place'. But I digress, concerning your "points" that you so proudly refer to, let me just ask you this, do you understand the meaning of the word anonymous? I think not, because your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that a certain party or parties knew that the samples in question belonged to Armstrong. But that's impossible because the samples were, wait for it, wait for it, that's right, ANONYMOUS! Let me explain it to you, anonymous means that the testers had no idea whose samples they were analyzing so they could not have 'framed' Armstrong by contaminating them as you seem to imply in your original post. Also, you're incorrect in your statement that the only samples that were positive were Armstrong's, there were six other positive samples detected. As far as your assertion that the evidence should be questioned because it was L'Equipe that broke the story, could you please strenghten that position by providing evidence of them 'going after' Armstrong in the past? It seems to me that what they are doing and what they have done in the past is simply report on issues related to cycling. Let me just finish with this, you are right about one thing House my man. I really should stop with the insults, its too easy. I think shooting at a barn or at fish in a barrel would be more difficult.

 

[Verite]

What have you brought to this forum other then being the grammar police? Why don't you try disputing what I actually said? I'd say you are a joke since all you can do is lay out insults without even being able to make any arguments. From the past? How about the various attempts to bust Lance by the French dispite no evidence. How about all the things listed in my last post that you so masterfully couldn't come up with anything but another immature, childish non-response. You are a troll if you refuse to discuss and only lay out insults. The shoe fits, wear it.

Oh, and one more thing, its despite not dispite. What sort of grammer cop would I be if I didn't point that one out? Like I said before, its like shooting at a barn.

 

[3_days]

Should we expect that other riders will face similar accusations as a result of positive EPO test results? Where are the papers linking the other 6 positives???

Whether he's dirty or not, doesn't it seem a little suspicious that they "stumbled" onto a positive result linked to Armstrong ...

... and given the widespread alleged use of EPO, doesn't only 6 positives sound a little low ...

 

[VeloFlash]

Should we expect that other riders will face similar accusations as a result of positive EPO test results? Where are the papers linking the other 6 positives???

Whether he's dirty or not, doesn't it seem a little suspicious that they "stumbled" onto a positive result linked to Armstrong ...

... and given the widespread alleged use of EPO, doesn't only 6 positives sound a little low ...

L'Equipe is looking to identify the other 6 samples.

I would speculate that as the 70 "B" samples came from different stages that would have included testing of the stage winner and the yellow jersey it would not be too difficult to guess that if 6 of the 12 had the same identification code it would be related to a high profile rider.

That would have stirred L'Equipe into action.

Remember, the French urine EPO test could only detect the use of EPO within 3 days of administering so if EPO had widespread use a number of the tests on the remaining 58 samples, if they were EPO users, would not return positive if they were taken outside this window.

 

[whiteboytrash]

You are allowing your emotion to distort your viewpoint. 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.

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.

House and Spokeing are right. It is pretty simple. The "French" hate us for our freedoms.
Now care to address Veloflash's observations? Of is s/he a member of the French conspiracy?

 

[huhenio]

So Maradona was not framed in his 3 consecutive "random" tests when the World Cup was held in the U.S. ...

I dont BELIEVE that Armstrong NEVER took and enhancing drug, as much as I dont BELIEVE that the body responsible for testing is not hunting down Armstrong.

It is hard for me to believe either of them.

Anyhow ... he is great.

 

[Chance3290]

I wonder how long **** stays good???

You know the French, they love a product with vintage.
"You fool...take this 2000 away and bring me a '99."

But let's remember the French national motto: "If we cannot beat you, or collaborate with you, then we'll discredit you."

 

[Roadrash Dunc]

You can still love what he has done and his achievements but he broke the rules in the 1999 Tour de France.

Exactly , along with every other main contender no doubt.
I'll remind you of your fine upstanding morals when a string of other high profile riders get nailed in the coming days.
Pantani and Ullrich won the previous 2 years , which are being tested on it seems.
1998 has revleared 40 positive tests.Interesting to see how that pans out.
We'll have to go down to 15th on GC to see a clean rider - we going to retrospectively award a TdF to some guy who finished a few hours off the pace? Thats sensible

 

[Spectatorsport]

From a quite an extensive web search and on Pubmed I found that the half life of EPO is very short from 10 hrs to 24 hrs. Half life is the time it takes for a substance to break down until their is just 50% of the original. If I remember my high school chemistry right. So I would expect EPO would degrade so much it wouldn't be in the system even when frozen. So I'm confused on how the EPO could still be in 'Lance's urine' after almost 5 years and the other samples from other riders. Also in your urine, can you possibly do a DNA test? Since I'm sure there would be some cells (if they haven't been busted from the freezing) there to determine if that sample really is Lance's?

http://www.syntnx.com/anemia.php
http://www.med.howard.edu/pharmacol...oetin_Hemo1.htm
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/SAFETY/2005/Aranesp_PI.pdf#search='erythropoietin%20half%20life'

I also saw another article from http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html , which interviewed the director ( Doctor Christiane Ayotte ) of the top anti-doping lab in Canada, who were very surprised that one could even detect a sample after so much time even when frozen. I wonder if anyone on the boards is more qualified to speak on the subject what the half life of EPO in storage.

Posted on the other forum.

 

[mtnbiker371]

Apparently, EPO doesn't remain in urine for more than a very short time. And it looks like the lab didn't actually re-test 6 year old urine. Rather, they applied a new/modified mathematical model to the original test data from 6 years ago. So this seems like it is all just math. Who knows. I DO wish Lance would say something more on this issue though....

 

[Spectatorsport]

Apparently, EPO doesn't remain in urine for more than a very short time. And it looks like the lab didn't actually re-test 6 year old urine. Rather, they applied a new/modified mathematical model to the original test data from 6 years ago. So this seems like it is all just math. Who knows. I DO wish Lance would say something more on this issue though....

Another poster pointed out in another thread the stuff I posted might be refering to metabolic half life, not 'chemical half life'. I'm not sure. So since the EPO was in the urine, it might not breakdown as fast or at all.

 

[House]

I think I'll pass on that shoe my good man. Just out of curiosity do you suffer from retrograde amnesia? Do you remember our little exchange on the 'TiMan' thread? I offered arguments there that you've yet to address other than dismissing them as 'all over the place'.

Actually I shot them down all over the place but you couldn't accept it so you just kept arguing.

But I digress, concerning your "points" that you so proudly refer to, let me just ask you this, do you understand the meaning of the word anonymous? I think not, because your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that a certain party or parties knew that the samples in question belonged to Armstrong. But that's impossible because the samples were, wait for it, wait for it, that's right, ANONYMOUS! Let me explain it to you, anonymous means that the testers had no idea whose samples they were analyzing so they could not have 'framed' Armstrong by contaminating them as you seem to imply in your original post.

As I said, but you choose to ignore can you assure me that the chain of custody was maintained? No.

Also, you're incorrect in your statement that the only samples that were positive were Armstrong's, there were six other positive samples detected.

A mistake I readily admit, something you ought to learn how to do.

As far as your assertion that the evidence should be questioned because it was L'Equipe that broke the story, could you please strenghten that position by providing evidence of them 'going after' Armstrong in the past? It seems to me that what they are doing and what they have done in the past is simply report on issues related to cycling.

So you are saying the French media has never gone after LA? Never gone through his trash, tried to get into his hotel room, reported info that was false? L'Equipe has never been a part of any of this? Maybe in your world, but not in the real world.

Let me just finish with this, you are right about one thing House my man. I really should stop with the insults, its too easy. I think shooting at a barn or at fish in a barrel would be more difficult.

That's all you have and all you had from your first post that was "not personal" All you have are insults and grammar, if you had anything else you would not have to use these in every argument you have ever made. Thanks for playing. You can now play with yourself, as I have proven, again, that you aren't worth my time.

 

[3_days]

Regarding the other six positives, if the names are ever released, why do I have a feeling that it's gonna be some usual suspects ... (in other words, a list of "known" offenders and more Armstrong allegations).

 

[HammerHead]

I thought the test of the B samples was done in 2004, and the re-analysis was completed just recently to obtain data on their recommended new analysis protocol. I believe I read that somewhere, but there is so much **** in every direction it's hard to keep it straight. If the B samples were tested back in 1999, why would that have been done if the A samples did not come back with a positive.

It would be interesting to find out who on this forum is non-American and thinks he did or didn’t do it, and who is American and thinks he did or didn’t do it.

The only person who really knows 100% is LA. I think if he did, he will never admit to it, and if he didn’t he will never be able to prove it.

 

[VeloFlash]

[snip] If the B samples were tested back in 1999, why would that have been done if the A samples did not come back with a positive.

Who said the "B" samples were tested back in 1999? You are correct that a "B" sample is available to be tested at the request of the rider only if the "A" sample returned a positive.

I can't recall in 1999 that on 12 occasions "A" samples returned a positive and those riders (ie LA 6 times) requested a monitored "B" sample test. Particularly in light of the Festina 1998 doping affair.

BTW, the "A" samples could not have returned a positive for a French urine EPO test in 1999 as it was not introduced until 2001.

It would be interesting to find out who on this forum is non-American and thinks he did or didn’t do it, and who is American and thinks he did or didn’t do it.

I think House is American .... mmmm... but so was the recently redundant Flyer. That was the 2005 re-enactment of the US Civil War.

 

[MJtje]

What does it matter if youre american or not an american, we all have our opinions.........I do think we view the doping problem in europe different then in america.....

I thought the test of the B samples was done in 2004, and the re-analysis was completed just recently to obtain data on their recommended new analysis protocol. I believe I read that somewhere, but there is so much **** in every direction it's hard to keep it straight. If the B samples were tested back in 1999, why would that have been done if the A samples did not come back with a positive.

It would be interesting to find out who on this forum is non-American and thinks he did or didn’t do it, and who is American and thinks he did or didn’t do it.

The only person who really knows 100% is LA. I think if he did, he will never admit to it, and if he didn’t he will never be able to prove it.

 

[MJtje]

Funny to underline my point from previous post......here is how american people are looking towards this LA story (form litke's column on velonews)

A poll on ESPN.com had already generated 35,000 responses by mid-afternoon, with more than 70 percent of the respondents believing Armstrong was clean. Whether his numbers will be even that good on the other side of either pond remans to be seen.

On the site of het laatste nieuws (a belgian newspaper) the reaction was a lot different:

Strip him of all his 7 TDF titles: 43,7% and 51,7 still believe in him......

What does it matter if youre american or not an american, we all have our opinions.........I do think we view the doping problem in europe different then in america.....