Armstrong used EPO in 99?

[MJtje]

Yeah funny: when I come with a video which is on the sporza site from Renno Roelandt of WADA that has seen the material and says LA is positive......everyone starts screaming that that isn't true....

It works both ways.......let's keep it balanced!

So you dismiss the doctor from Canada completely? (sorry her name slips my mind)

 

[House]

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?

Ease up there cisco, I simply asked a question. I have a hard time when people pick to believe one authority and not another. Pantani failed what was the test at the time, Lance did not. The reasons to be sceptical of this are all around and have been mentioned numerous times. Chain of custody, some scientific quesrters say it's wrong, a paper that has had a history of attacking the subject somehow comes up with this info and on and on. A question for you, why do you base your decision on "some scientific quarters" and not (that I have seen) question the salient points that have been made? By the way I find it interesting that in response to a simple question you went on the attack.

 

[Biscayne]

So you dismiss the doctor from Canada completely? (sorry her name slips my mind)

What's to dismiss?

"I don't dispute their findings," Ayotte said. "If there's residual EPO after five yeras, it was properly identified."

It's pretty tough to come up with an interpretation of I DON'T DISPUTE THEIR FINDINGS that is particularly helpful to those desperate for any rationalization that would enable them to preserve the fairy-tale notion of Armstrong.

 

[HammerHead]

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.

I'm not sure this is true. I dont think the new analysis was done on the 1999 tests. Especially since the EPO test was not used in 1999. From what I understand, the EPO test was carried out on the 1999 B samples in 2004. Then the "new" analysis protocol was used to interpret those tests. That makes the tests on 5 year old pee.

Did anyone read the article in (cycling news I think) regarding methods to mask doping. Sounds pretty straight forward and simple.

I'm still on the fence.....

 

[House]

Conveniently ignoring this quote:

"EPO in it's natural state or the synthesized version- is not stable in urine, even if stored at -20 degrees"

I would say that was something that was dismissed...by you as well. The line you quote is defined by two things: 1) Professionalism- she wasn't going to just come out and say her colleagues suck. 2) The word "if" an obvious way of maintaining prefessionalism while saying you disagree.

MJte- Don't know what your deal is, but I was responding to veloflash taking one doctors word and not anothers. Didn't really add much to this except a little bit of a fit, did you?

 

[VeloFlash]

Ease up there cisco, I simply asked a question. I have a hard time when people pick to believe one authority and not another. Pantani failed what was the test at the time, Lance did not. The reasons to be sceptical of this are all around and have been mentioned numerous times. Chain of custody, some scientific quesrters say it's wrong, a paper that has had a history of attacking the subject somehow comes up with this info and on and on. A question for you, why do you base your decision on "some scientific quarters" and not (that I have seen) question the salient points that have been made? By the way I find it interesting that in response to a simple question you went on the attack.

Pantani never failed a dope test that could earn him a 2 year sanction. He failed a safety test that earned him a rest for 14 days.

But he was a TdF winner (1998) when a US rider was not winning so he was fair game to be identified prior to his exclusion from the 1999 Giro from your quarters as a suspected 'dopeur'. US riders could not beat the Europeans cos the Europeans were on the juice. That was the theme of the forums at that time.

However that theme became quite hypocritical from 1999 to 2005 when a (clean) US rider could beat the drugged Europeans.

It is now all fire and brimstone on the (US dominated) forums speculating and demanding answers about chain of custody, security, identification, media conspiracy, tampering, spiking, procedures inconsistent with the anti doping rules, etc.

You say: Chain of custody, some scientific quesrters say it's wrong

Until such time as the organisation that was charged with the control of those samples is asked to officially account about the procedures and evidence of enforcement of those procedures that were in place to ensure the chain of custody was maintained then all talk is speculation and meaningless.

I have seen one scientific quarter say it is wrong and other (plural) quarters say it is correct. I think the Canadian scientist's argument is contradictory. She says EPO protein degrades and must be tested within 2-3 months of collection but then recognises that the 2000-2001 initial validation testing came from samples that were at least older than 12 months.

You say: "a paper that has had a history of attacking the subject somehow comes up with this info and on and on."

If any newspaper in the world had the same information they would have run the story. We would not have had Watergate, the impeachment of Nixon if it were not for some investigative journalism from Bernstein and Woodward of The Washington Post. I don't believe that newspaper had Nixon in their cross hairs prior to evidence emerging about the Watergate break in being linked to the White House.

 

[Verite]

Conveniently ignoring this quote:

"EPO in it's natural state or the synthesized version- is not stable in urine, even if stored at -20 degrees"

I would say that was something that was dismissed...by you as well. The line you quote is defined by two things: 1) Professionalism- she wasn't going to just come out and say her colleagues suck. 2) The word "if" an obvious way of maintaining prefessionalism while saying you disagree.

MJte- Don't know what your deal is, but I was responding to veloflash taking one doctors word and not anothers. Didn't really add much to this except a little bit of a fit, did you?

House, you're some piece of work. Your ability to ignore cohesive arguments and facts that are counter to your viewpoint is astounding. Let me ask you this, how do you know what the Canadian doctor's intent was when she made her statements? It seems to me that she has said that the French lab's methodology is sound. I'll also add that proteins are stable when frozen at -20 degrees. How do I know? Because I do it everyday.

P.S.

You're laughable because while you accuse everyone of personal attacks, they are your favored weapon of choice when you can't come up with a substantive argument.

 

[Verite]

Ease up there cisco, I simply asked a question. I have a hard time when people pick to believe one authority and not another. Pantani failed what was the test at the time, Lance did not. The reasons to be sceptical of this are all around and have been mentioned numerous times. Chain of custody, some scientific quesrters say it's wrong, a paper that has had a history of attacking the subject somehow comes up with this info and on and on. A question for you, why do you base your decision on "some scientific quarters" and not (that I have seen) question the salient points that have been made? By the way I find it interesting that in response to a simple question you went on the attack.

Like you're doing?

 

[sub55]

well I come back to this ... without "any of us" knowing the facts and by that I include all the experts that are commenting on hypothetical scenarios, it is simply speculation.

The real problem is that we are now naming an individual and accusing them of certain things without any form of due process having taken place. Who should be ashamed of themselves for doing that - L'Equipe. If they were truly concerned with this story then they would have gotten the other names and published all of them at the same time. After all if it was so easy to get his name why was it so difficult to get the others?

We seem to be taking as true that L'Equipe has in fact paper work/documents that are not doctored (sorry) and have been certified true. We are taking as fact that the chain of custody/control of the samples can be verified and that in the intervening six years there is no possibility of tampering, relabelling etc.

We don't want to question the above and would rather assume someone is absolutely guilty based upon 1 newspaper article and a lot of people writing comments and opinions on it.

The last time I looked someone was innocent until proven guilty.

 

[House]

Pantani never failed a dope test that could earn him a 2 year sanction. He failed a safety test that earned him a rest for 14 days.

But he was a TdF winner (1998) when a US rider was not winning so he was fair game to be identified prior to his exclusion from the 1999 Giro from your quarters as a suspected 'dopeur'. US riders could not beat the Europeans cos the Europeans were on the juice. That was the theme of the forums at that time.

And what does that have to do with me? All I know is that he was busted for his hematocrit being too high. I have never said he took any specific drug, merely that he was busted. Throwing me in with all Americans is way below what I have seen from you in the past. Very disappointing to see you basing one of your arguments on something like this.

However that theme became quite hypocritical from 1999 to 2005 when a (clean) US rider could beat the drugged Europeans.

It is now all fire and brimstone on the (US dominated) forums speculating and demanding answers about chain of custody, security, identification, media conspiracy, tampering, spiking, procedures inconsistent with the anti doping rules, etc.

Do you not want actual, unimpeachable evidence? Somehow I doubt if you were on trial you would be happy with the evidence against you having this many problems.

You say: Chain of custody, some scientific quesrters say it's wrong

Until such time as the organisation that was charged with the control of those samples is asked to officially account about the procedures and evidence of enforcement of those procedures that were in place to ensure the chain of custody was maintained then all talk is speculation and meaningless.

Which just goes with what I have been saying, you can't declare he is guilty until you have confirmation of this.

I have seen one scientific quarter say it is wrong and other (plural) quarters say it is correct. I think the Canadian scientist's argument is contradictory. She says EPO protein degrades and must be tested within 2-3 months of collection but then recognises that the 2000-2001 initial validation testing came from samples that were at least older than 12 months.

If you have seen many, then please share them with us, don't just quote one. This is a doping forum, a place to provide as much info as possible to help people know about and make decisions about doping. Don't hold out or you will start sounding like Flyer.

You say: "a paper that has had a history of attacking the subject somehow comes up with this info and on and on."

If any newspaper in the world had the same information they would have run the story. We would not have had Watergate, the impeachment of Nixon if it were not for some investigative journalism from Bernstein and Woodward of The Washington Post. I don't believe that newspaper had Nixon in their cross hairs prior to evidence emerging about the Watergate break in being linked to the White House.

The Post did not have him in their cross hairs proves that a paper with a history of attacking the subject coming up with something is not odd??? L'Equipe has been known to run anything and everything that was negative towards Lance whether confirmed or not.

I am not saying and haven't said Lance is guilty or innocent, simply that there are way to many oddities to consider this a cut and dry guilty verdict with what is known right now.

 

[VeloFlash]

Sub55 and House

You are going to have to accept that it is a fact of life that the free media in a free society are the initiating point of publicly revealing all types of illegal and irregular activities that result in formal investigations and then due process.

I am certain that given the long time frame L'Equipe would have considered and reconsidered their French legal position on the evidence they held before reporting. It is standard process for editors to consult lawyers and receive written opinions prior to publishing.

The London Times (?) must have considered their legal position under British law before publishing extracts of 'LA Confidential'. They were selective in their publication compared with the French because of the differences in the law and interpretation of the law.

If L'Equipe have got it wrong then Armstrong will have his day in court which he says will cost him about $US1.5m.

 

[sub55]

Sub55 and House

You are going to have to accept that it is a fact of life that the free media in a free society are the initiating point of publicly revealing all types of illegal and irregular activities that result in formal investigations and then due process.

I am certain that given the long time frame L'Equipe would have considered and reconsidered their French legal position on the evidence they held before reporting. It is standard process for editors to consult lawyers and receive written opinions prior to publishing.

The London Times (?) must have considered their legal position under British law before publishing extracts of 'LA Confidential'. They were selective in their publication compared with the French because of the differences in the law and interpretation of the law.

If L'Equipe have got it wrong then Armstrong will have his day in court which he says will cost him about $US1.5m.

Of course they do ... but do they always get it right? I referenced two cases in the States where respected newspapers published stories that turned out to be either made up or plagerized by the reports.

But ... of course they can publish what they want and if they get it wrong then they may pay the price.

But my point is that to blindly run around and say it MUST be true because they published it ... in my opinion is reaction lacking in maturity. And is not that far off "burning people at the stake" - just because ______ (you fill in the blank).

 

[Biscayne]

If L'Equipe have got it wrong then Armstrong will have his day in court which he says will cost him about $US1.5m.

This is quite comical. Armstrong will not speak to the broad media directly, but he's gotten this pathetic reporter for the local Austin Statesman paper to go on as his mouthpiece. His strategy for how to handle this is transparent. He knows his goose is cooked if he goes to court. He also knows if he doesn't go to court, people will know he's guilty. What to do? Come up with a ready made excuse for why you won't go to court that provides an alternative explanation. Get it out immediately, and hammer it incessently. Within 24 hours the lapdog American media will repeat it as though it's gospel truth and most of the American sheep will nod in agreement.

That rationale? $1.5 mm is too much money, and it would take 2 years, which he will not take away from his family.

Now if we had any decent media left in the U.S. they'd ask the natural question. Lance, the news hits and within a matter of hours you make this statement. How is it that you can give us this estimate of legal costs and time frame for the such a case? In those few hours you consulted your lawyers, and they consulted experts in the French judicial system, who consulted specialists in media and first amendment law and the whipped together a diagram of the various stages of such a suit, and the time frame, then put together an estimate of the trial costs and provided them to you in a matter of a few hours?

Yeah, sure they did. And there's the bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale too.

No, either he invented those figures on his own, or he'd already sat and had his legal team map out such a course and explain to him his options. And he'd have done that even before this news hit. It's not something that can be slapped together in a few days, much less a few hours.

 

[Verite]

Of course they do ... but do they always get it right? I referenced two cases in the States where respected newspapers published stories that turned out to be either made up or plagerized by the reports.

But ... of course they can publish what they want and if they get it wrong then they may pay the price.

But my point is that to blindly run around and say it MUST be true because they published it ... in my opinion is reaction lacking in maturity. And is not that far off "burning people at the stake" - just because ______ (you fill in the blank).

If I am correctly interpreting what you are saying, it seems that you are implying that people who believe the report in L'Equipe are using it as the only basis for their opinion. I would say that that's incorrect. This is just one more item in what is becoming a long, convincing list of both hard and circumstantial evidence. For example, there was the positive corticoid test in '99, the LA Confidential book, and the investigation in France of USPS. Keep in mind that this investigation was based on the fact that they had in their possession products that were performance enhancing. In fact one of those products, Actovegin, is now on the list of banned substances. Also, remember that there are many different individuals, from all over the world, who are alleging, or have alleged, a culture of doping at USPS/Motorola. These people include Emma O'reilly, Prentiss Steffan, and Steven Swart. I'm not sure who posted it but someone brought up the fact that the most simple explanation was probably the most likely. With that in mind I ask you, what's more simple, the fact that Armstrong et al. have been doping or that different people from at least three different continents have all conspired to sully his image by planting evidence and making false accusations.

 

[Biscayne]

I referenced two cases in the States where respected newspapers published stories that turned out to be either made up or plagerized by the reports.

That's right. And how did we know whether they were plagiarized or not? Someone checked up with the sources of the story.

Just like happened almost immediately in this case. Except in this case, the labs weren't imaginary, the samples weren't imaginary, the testing procedures weren't imaginary, the lab technicians weren't imaginary, and the results weren't imaginary. To the contrary, they were all top-class in the world.

So your latest attempt to rationalize away what you refuse to accept, is based on a wholly flawed analogy. Fortunately, there is no end to the rationalizations people can come up with when they've made up their minds and want to believe something regardless of what the basic facts in front of them are.

 

[sub55]

That's right. And how did we know whether they were plagiarized or not? Someone checked up with the sources of the story.

Just like happened almost immediately in this case. Except in this case, the labs weren't imaginary, the samples weren't imaginary, the testing procedures weren't imaginary, the lab technicians weren't imaginary, and the results weren't imaginary. To the contrary, they were all top-class in the world.

So your latest attempt to rationalize away what you refuse to accept, is based on a wholly flawed analogy. Fortunately, there is no end to the rationalizations people can come up with when they've made up their minds and want to believe something regardless of what the basic facts in front of them are.

In as much as you have the facts please list them - the source, where it can be reviewd etc.

 

[sub55]

Former NY Times Reporter Copied, Made Up News Stories
When the Jayson Blair scandal broke in 2003, everybody was saying, "How could he do that?" How could a bright young man, with everything going for him - how could he have falsified or plagiarized dozens of news stories at the revered New York Times and gotten away with it for over a year?
It was an earthquake in the journalism world. 27-year-old Jayson Blair, who had been one of only two African-American editors in the history of the University of Maryland's Diamondback newspaper, and had been hired as a full reporter at the New York Times at an impressively young age, resigned only 6 days after first being accused of copying a story from another newspaper. By the time the tremors stopped, two top editors of the Times had been forced to resign. How could he do that?

The point in mentioning the case of the reporters who made up stories and/or palgerized was to not point to parallels in the specific cases but to rebute the statement that newspapers do "due diligence". Therefore anything printed is true. These two cases clearly demonstrate that this is not the case - due diligence is not always done. To assume it is - is naive.

Those that want to believe Armstrong did/has /continues to use drugs will - those that don't, won't and then there are people who will observe and be patient and wait to see what happens after all the "other agenda's" have washed away and a rationale examination has taken place.

Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't - for me - it's not for me to say one way or the other. I'll wait and see. But I do know that I won't base my decision on what one French newspaper has reported as fact.

 

[VeloFlash]

In as much as you have the facts please list them - the source, where it can be reviewd etc.

It is a WADA accredited laboratory.

Can you provide references to support an argument that the whole testing process is flawed and does not satisfy the required standards? That is a rhetorical question just like your question.

 

[sub55]

... and was there not another WADA accredited lab saying - "Gee I didn't know you could do that?" ?

The issue is not with the "lab results" ... we may be reasonably certain that the results are the results however an expected first question has to be with chain of custody.

But not to get bogged down on the lab as in as much as it should not have know whose sample is whose - therefore one can assume it has no vested interest in the outcomes.

The link is between the results and the "documentation" that connects the dots and/or the people that helped connect the dots. This is the blackhole - who blew the whistle? Were they sought out by L'Equipe? Did they get paid? Did they seek out the newspaper and sell a story? Did L'Equipe get the information out of a garbage can by dumpster diving? Is it odd that Leblanc who in effect works for the company that owns the newspaper comes out with the party line?

These are things that I don't know - but for me those pieces of information may help - until I do, or the UCI comes out and says they have investigated all the alleged facts in the case and this is there determination and the accused person has had an opportunity to respond - until then I won't take any rash positions one way or the other

 

[HammerHead]

Armstrong will not speak to the broad media directly, but he's gotten this pathetic reporter for the local Austin Statesman paper to go on as his mouthpiece.

He's supposed to be on Larry King tonight (I'm pretty sure in person.)

Within 24 hours the lapdog American media will repeat it as though it's gospel truth and most of the American sheep will nod in agreement.

I don't know if this will surprise you or not, but the majority of Americans, upon hearing this, will shrug their shoulders. I think cycling is more popular in the US than it was, but the majority of them don't have a clue. It's all baseball, football, and basket ball. (And Nascar). The American sheep will flip the channel to find out how Junior is doing at Darlington.