Armstrong used EPO in 99?



limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
110
63
MJtje said:
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......

Of course, there will be a proportion of Americans who will believe he's clean.
There are some Europeans who believe that he's clean too.
The salient word is "belief".

The test results published by L'Equipe prove that he doped in 1999.

People can choose to ignore the proof.
They used the lack of proof defence - up until L'Equipe dropped the payload.

Now that there is proof - they still choose to "believe".
 

HammerHead

New Member
Jun 10, 2003
112
0
0
I think you've got it wrong with "choose to believe" and LA. That was the official Tyler defense :p
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
In short EPO was not tested for in 1999.

VeloFlash said:
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.

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

man910

New Member
Sep 27, 2003
6
0
1
Just to be an a-hole, it's "grammar", not "grammer". :)

Verite said:
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.
 

Bigclimber

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
10
0
0
limerickman said:
Of course, there will be a proportion of Americans who will believe he's clean.
There are some Europeans who believe that he's clean too.
The salient word is "belief".

The test results published by L'Equipe prove that he doped in 1999.

People can choose to ignore the proof.
They used the lack of proof defence - up until L'Equipe dropped the payload.

Now that there is proof - they still choose to "believe".
limerckman, help me out here. Does the scientific community have absolute, unequivocal proof that the samples are able to be tested after 7 years and no false positives will result due to long term storage? Can we be absolutely guaranteed that the samples have not ever been tampered with and the chain of custody record is clean? Do we know these things?
 

3_days

New Member
Jul 13, 2005
158
0
0
MJtje said:
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......

Don't get too carried away with the numbers from any ESPN poll ...

Out of ESPN's 35,000 voters, I bet most of them voted on their way to the most recent NFL fantasy football stats - I doubt any real percentage knows what the Giro is, who Mario Cippollini is, could name three TdF teams or any other rider on Team Discovery ...
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
BC in short:

There are counter arguments but what Doctor De Ceaurriz is saying from the WADA accedited lab from outside Paris is that if the samples were ruined by freezing or if they had degenerated then they would bring a negative result.

Deterioration does not generate EPO positives.

"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."

Bigclimber said:
limerckman, help me out here. Does the scientific community have absolute, unequivocal proof that the samples are able to be tested after 7 years and no false positives will result due to long term storage? Can we be absolutely guaranteed that the samples have not ever been tampered with and the chain of custody record is clean? Do we know these things?
 

ccski

New Member
Jun 3, 2005
10
0
0
This has just been on German radio did not get all of it but this is the message

The cycle racing world union UCI examines possible sanctions against seven the route winner Lance Armstrong. "our lawyers are examineing the procedure and the possibilities of expressing sanctions", so UCI speaker Carpani.


Leblanc went on to say of the lax attitude to doping of the UCI "for the first time someone showed me that Armstrong had 1999 a forbidden substance in his body", said Leblanc. So far it has been only "rumors and assumptions I have been deceived. We all were deceived
 

Spectatorsport

New Member
Jun 21, 2004
18
0
0
whiteboytrash said:
BC in short:

There are counter arguments but what Doctor De Ceaurriz is saying from the WADA accedited lab from outside Paris is that if the samples were ruined by freezing or if they had degenerated then they would bring a negative result.

Deterioration does not generate EPO positives.

"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."

So does Doctor De Ceaurriz confirm that the positive samples are Lance's, since I was reading reports that the lab itself could not confirm or deny that they were Lance's (since they don't have that documentation showing his 6 digit # with his name only the French Paper has).

Also in regards to the testing of the 1999 B samples, wasn't it suppose to help refining the test? Since there have been false positives before. I know he is very confident in his methodology as are other labs, but there are almost an equal number of labs that aren't sure if the results are reliable.
 

Biscayne

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
30
0
0
VeloFlash said:
the recently redundant Flyer ...

hehehehe. that would be the understatement of the year.

Has anyone got the full text of the L'Equipe article? So much speculating and who's even bothered to read the full article before spouting off? I'd be most appreciate to anyone who's got access to the article and could post it here.
 

sub55

New Member
Sep 18, 2003
73
0
0
Seems to me that ... all of the stories which includes the L'Equipe one are nothing more than spectulation, and accusation

There has been no official findings, there has been no official review of the "evidence" - there has been no due process. So, for anyone to say that the article published in France must be true is rather frightening.

Until such time as that happens, all you have is a newspaper that has attempted in the past to cast doubt on a certain rider, using its ability to publish a story - do so.

Have there not been two cases recently in the States were respected newspapers published stories that they claimed to be true and then found out afterwards that - opps our reporter made it all up.
 

blobloblo

New Member
Aug 24, 2005
15
0
0
sub55 said:
Seems to me that ... all of the stories which includes the L'Equipe one are nothing more than spectulation, and accusation

There has been no official findings, there has been no official review of the "evidence" - there has been no due process. So, for anyone to say that the article published in France must be true is rather frightening.

Until such time as that happens, all you have is a newspaper that has attempted in the past to cast doubt on a certain rider, using its ability to publish a story - do so.

Have there not been two cases recently in the States were respected newspapers published stories that they claimed to be true and then found out afterwards that - opps our reporter made it all up.
You know some things can be true without being "official":rolleyes: In this case all l'equipe did was to link a positive test to a name using the "procès verbaux de contrôle de Lance Armstrong sur lesquels figurent des numéros correspondant aux échantillons positifs". That's basically the paper that registers dope tests. Numbers of the paper and of the samples correspond
 

VeloFlash

New Member
Feb 26, 2003
704
0
0
Spectatorsport said:
So does Doctor De Ceaurriz confirm that the positive samples are Lance's, since I was reading reports that the lab itself could not confirm or deny that they were Lance's (since they don't have that documentation showing his 6 digit # with his name only the French Paper has).
No lab accredited for dope testing has any paperwork that identifies the donor of the samples. It was gumshoe work by L'Equipe that sleuthed that info from other locations.

Also in regards to the testing of the 1999 B samples, wasn't it suppose to help refining the test? Since there have been false positives before. I know he is very confident in his methodology as are other labs, but there are almost an equal number of labs that aren't sure if the results are reliable.
From CyclingNews 24 Aug 2005:

However, Wilhelm Schänzer, head of the IOC doping lab in Cologne, supports the findings of the LNDD. "Urine samples can be kept in storage temperatures of between -20 and -40 degrees for years," he said. "The results are scientifically valid for me. If Mr. Ceaurriz says they are positive, then you can be assured that it's right."
 

txags92

New Member
Aug 3, 2005
37
0
0
If I told you that a sample of your urine had been sitting in a freezer for 5 years, and that EPO broke down in urine to non-detectable levels even when frozen in about 3 months, and then I told you a test of your sample revealed EPO in your urine...what is the absolute first and simplest conclusion that you could think of to explain why a substance that breaks down in three months or less would show up in a sample that is 5 years old? Anybody?? Anybody?? Buehler??? Buehler??? Umm...that maybe the epo in the sample wasn't 5 years old??? So how would newer epo get into a sample that is 5 years old? Does the same company that owns the lab also own the newspaper? The same newspaper that has had investigators breaking into hotel rooms trying to find evidence of LA doping for years? Could those same investigators possibly know where the lab stored the samples? Could they possibly get ahold of some epo? Would they do it to sell a bunch of newspapers and to salvage the honor of all the europeans trounced by LA for 7 years?

The thing that sticks out like a sore thumb to me is this...if everybody claims that LA and the whole rest of the peleton were on EPO in 1999, then why did only 12 of 70 samples come back positive, including ALL 6 of LA's? That means that only 6 of 64 samples (9%) besides LA were positive...how is that possible if 90% or more of the peleton was on EPO? Or were only 12 samples spiked? We will never know, but I do believe in the simplest explanation probably being the right one...
 

mtnbiker371

New Member
Jul 16, 2004
19
0
0
51
txags92 said:
If I told you that a sample of your urine had been sitting in a freezer for 5 years, and that EPO broke down in urine to non-detectable levels even when frozen in about 3 months, and then I told you a test of your sample revealed EPO in your urine...what is the absolute first and simplest conclusion that you could think of to explain why a substance that breaks down in three months or less would show up in a sample that is 5 years old? Anybody?? Anybody?? Buehler??? Buehler??? Umm...that maybe the epo in the sample wasn't 5 years old??? So how would newer epo get into a sample that is 5 years old? Does the same company that owns the lab also own the newspaper? The same newspaper that has had investigators breaking into hotel rooms trying to find evidence of LA doping for years? Could those same investigators possibly know where the lab stored the samples? Could they possibly get ahold of some epo? Would they do it to sell a bunch of newspapers and to salvage the honor of all the europeans trounced by LA for 7 years?

The thing that sticks out like a sore thumb to me is this...if everybody claims that LA and the whole rest of the peleton were on EPO in 1999, then why did only 12 of 70 samples come back positive, including ALL 6 of LA's? That means that only 6 of 64 samples (9%) besides LA were positive...how is that possible if 90% or more of the peleton was on EPO? Or were only 12 samples spiked? We will never know, but I do believe in the simplest explanation probably being the right one...
For the record...I am behind LA 100% on this. Having said that...It is true EPO would not show up in 5 year old samples. I don't believe the lab said they retested 5 year old samples...but rather they applied a new/improved mathematical model to the data they collected in 1999. I don't think new tests were actually administered to the old samples. In any event, I don't believe Lance used EPO. And I certainly don't trust the motivations of the French when it comes to this crusade they have against him.
 

VeloFlash

New Member
Feb 26, 2003
704
0
0
txags92 said:
The thing that sticks out like a sore thumb to me is this...if everybody claims that LA and the whole rest of the peleton were on EPO in 1999, then why did only 12 of 70 samples come back positive, including ALL 6 of LA's? That means that only 6 of 64 samples (9%) besides LA were positive...how is that possible if 90% or more of the peleton was on EPO? Or were only 12 samples spiked? We will never know, but I do believe in the simplest explanation probably being the right one...
The 6 positive samples of LA were there because he was the Yellow Jersey holder and/or stage winner and was subject to more tests than any other individual rider.

Edit: In 1999 he won 4 stages and held the Yellow Jersey for 15 days.

He won the Prologue, Yellow Jersey holder to stage 2
He won stages 8, 9 & 19 and held the Yellow Jersey from stages 8-20

Also there is only a 2 to 3 day window of opportunity after administering under the French urine testing procedure to detect use of EPO. It is likely that a proportion of the other 58 samples tested may be outside this window.

CyclingNews reports: The tests were performed on samples taken from Armstrong after his victory in the 1999 Tour prologue, and after stages 1, 9, 10, 12 and 14 of that year's race. L'Equipe alleges that retrospective analysis by the Laboratoire national de dépistage du dopage de Châtenay-Malabry (LNDD) reveals traces of synthetic EPO.

Some diligent person has checked and concluded those were demanding stages, except for the prologue, where it would appear EPO was boosted.
 

House

Banned
Aug 9, 2004
850
0
0
VeloFlash said:
No lab accredited for dope testing has any paperwork that identifies the donor of the samples. It was gumshoe work by L'Equipe that sleuthed that info from other locations.

From CyclingNews 24 Aug 2005:

However, Wilhelm Schänzer, head of the IOC doping lab in Cologne, supports the findings of the LNDD. "Urine samples can be kept in storage temperatures of between -20 and -40 degrees for years," he said. "The results are scientifically valid for me. If Mr. Ceaurriz says they are positive, then you can be assured that it's right."
So you dismiss the doctor from Canada completely? (sorry her name slips my mind)
 

Borg

New Member
Jan 27, 2004
79
0
0
Jon Jonson said:
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?

Oh nooo! We have George Bush on the line. "Hate us for our freedoms"...you have less freedom than the French. Man... Yanks (to generalise obtrusely) are a brainwashed bunch.
 

VeloFlash

New Member
Feb 26, 2003
704
0
0
House said:
So you dismiss the doctor from Canada completely? (sorry her name slips my mind)
No.

Everyone is quoting her as an authority. There are threads started on other forums with reference to her Velonews article as if it is the only authority.

I am just providing balance to show that opinion is divided.

House, were you one of the multitude of Americans who expressed views on forums that Pantani, a European, was guilty of doping when he had not failed a doping test? An unsafe hct level is not a doping test failure.

If so, why are you complaining about the current treatment of LA when there does exist some evidence that appears acceptable in some scientific quarters?
 

Biscayne

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
30
0
0
If L'Equipe was really "out to get" Armstrong, they would have cut a deal with a major U.S. daily (like the NY Times or USA Today or The Sporting News) for a reprint in English and broad distribution in the U.S. As it stands, the U.S. is where Armstrong's endorsements are, etc. If somebody was "out to get him," that's the first thing they would have done.

Is there animosity? I'm sure there is. Armstrong mocked, demeaned, dismissed and impugned the European media his entire career. Imagine how you'd feel if you simply did your job and reported the news of USPS dumping the Activegin and insulin vials, only to have your professionalism attacked and your character impugned by Armstrong. I think anyone would bear some animosity. And, after years of having someone attack your professionalism and character and arrogantly mock you as a bunch of wrong-way Corrigans, and wag his finger in your face and say, "I'm so friggin' good at this you'll never catch me, you bunch of buffoons. You'll never be able to prove it, and I can get the people to dismiss you." Damn straight when the reporters finally nail his ass to the wall, there's going to be some attitude attached to it, and there will be a sense of satisfaction that he got what he had coming, and that he made his own bed.

It's very popular to talk about how horrible it is that anyone would dare question Armstrong's character. Yet nobody says squat about Armstrong's relentless and meanspirited attacks on other people's characters, many of whom were simply doing their jobs.

VeloFlash said:
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.