Armstrong used EPO in 99?

Discussion in 'Doping in Cycling' started by HoWheels, Aug 22, 2005.

  1. VeloFlash

    VeloFlash New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reference?

    Unless the lab and L'Equipe issue statements providing all the information you believe is essential to throw a light on your black hole then you will continue chasing your tail.

    The UCI appears to be the only entity empowered to start an investigation. But as LA has donated dope testing equipment to the UCI they may be reluctant to be seen biting the hand that feeds them. :)

    Failing procuring any information maybe you could fly to France (I am presuming you don't live there) and knock on a few doors and bang on a few desks.
     


  2. sub55

    sub55 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    or, the alternative as suggested by your response appears to be is to pass judgement based upon one newspaper article?

    Remind me to look you up when we need a good lynching to happen.
     
  3. House

    House Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    0
    I answer you point by point and this is your only response???? Very disappointing, at least in the saddle cream discussion you actually tried to make some salient points. You yourself said that "all talk is speculation and meaningless" without knowing the chain of custody was maintained. Apparently when you reailsed what you wrote you decided to change tacts to this. Ask Dan Rather and CBS News about considering legal positions in advance. Still waiting for those other sources and the contradiction of your Post example explained. If you would rather just stick with what you wrote above, be my guest.
     
  4. VeloFlash

    VeloFlash New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you want to argue about due process and rights USA v France then closer to home I would suggest that incarceration without trial and judgement at Guantanamo Bay is not a shining example of the application of the international rules of law and human rights.

    It makes any allegations against L'Equipe look comparatively like a church picnic.
     
  5. VeloFlash

    VeloFlash New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    "You yourself said that "all talk is speculation and meaningless" without knowing the chain of custody was maintained."

    My statement: "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."

    So unless you have evidence that the chain of custody was broken what is the point of speculating about the possibility it may have been broken.

    Firstly read CyclingNews where they speak in the plural. I will check on my "history" to find another forum's references to particular quotes by industry experts criticising the good Canadian scientist's opinions which, if you read a prior Biscayne post on this thread (#103), she has now gone into damage control from the professional criticism by saying or retracting:

    "I don't dispute their findings," Ayotte said. "If there's residual EPO after five years, it was properly identified."
    So what is your argument? If The Washington Post was going for Nixon's jugular over a period of time then the subsequent reporting of the Watergate break-in connection to the White House would have no credibility or should not have been published?

    Remember Woodward and Bernstein were not relying on publicly accountable evidence that could be admissible in a court of law. They were relying upon an undisclosed informant, "Deep Throat", who they met at all times clandestinely and whose identity was only released after 30 years. The source of evidence by L'Equipe has more standing on that front.

    You are trying to offer an unsustainable plea that as L'Equipe had been in pursuit of Armstrong over a period of years any "evidence" produced of LA's doping violations must be considered suspect. Is the WADA accredited lab involved in this conspiracy too?
     
  6. House

    House Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) Your answer to the issue about Chain of Custody shows how closed minded you are on the topic. Since their is no proof that there was a break in the chain there is no point speculating, while ignoring the fact that there is no proof that the chain is pristine, thus you shouldn't speculate otherwise. You are suddenly picking and choosing what is appropriate to speculate on and what isn't...and conveniently what is ok fits your side. It seems logical that a predigious WADA approved facilty like this one in France (like the one in Canada by the way) would be quick to say that the chain was pristine if it was true, why haven't they? You speculate on things that there is no proof on but tell others not to do the same. Try looking in the mirror.

    2) As I said (but you are now ignoring, like the Pantani stuff, etc.) She is commenting in a professional way, not ripping her colleagues but saying a key word "if." In other words she still questions it.

    3) You tried to argue that L'Equipe's constant attacks were ok because they equate to the Post and Watergate, but then admitted that the Post wasn't out to get Nixon. You contradict yourself. Now you try to argue the other way. Contradiction.
     
  7. Verite

    Verite New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are assuming that L'Equipe was out 'to get' Armstrong. Once again I'm going to ask you for proof of that. I don't want your opinion, I want you to give us all proof that this newspaper was out to get Armstrong. Of course you won't because you can't and you know it. All you can do, and all you've been doing, is using double-talk to attempt to support your incredibly weak arguments. By the way, since you claim to be an expert on any and all things ever published by L'Equipe that means you must speak french so when you reply to me please respond en francais. Et ne t'inquiete pas. Je parle francais donc je comprendrai tout ce que vous allez dire. Un chose de plus, t'est vraiment con.
     
  8. VeloFlash

    VeloFlash New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your logic or illogic has lost me here. I have never speculated. You have by saying we need confirmation of "this" (meaning chain of custody). You are not satisfied it has been maintained because it relates to the credibility of an American Hero and, in assisting to discredit, the lab should have presented parallel statements with L'Equipe, or quickly thereafter, about the chain of custody history of LA samples as evidential support [rolleyes]. Is this correct?

    She said "I don't dispute their findings," Ayotte said "If there was residual EPO there after 5 years, it was properly identified."
    Where does the word "if" make it conditional if she now says she does not dispute their findings. Contrast to her previous stand where she claimed the EPO protein quickly degraded and was undetectable after 3 months plus, in her opinion, the 2004 findings were the application of a newer mathematical model on old 2000 or 2001 testing results. Now she must concede it was not the application of a newer mathematical model to old data but an actual analysis of 5 year old samples.
    No I did not. Whether The Washington Post or L'Equipe would have credibility, using your argument, to publish damning evidence was totally dependent upon their past behaviour towards the "victim." L'Equipe should not publish because of their past anti Armstrong position. Pretty dopey logic.
     
  9. sub55

    sub55 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    tell ya'what ... we've all stated our positions, argued back and forth and doesn't seem as if any of us are going to surrender, so lets wait and see how this all unfolds and maybe when the dust all settles we'll see if any of knew what the heck we were talking about.

    Unless of course you want to say "sorry" now in which case I humbly accept your apology. :)
     
  10. holli

    holli New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    If I understood everything right they don't try to find EPO from the samples. They look for changes EPO causes in urine. It's true that EPO has very short half-life and that might be one reason why there wasn't more positive results. It also depends on a question which this Canadian was answering, because if they asked could EPO be found from five year old samples she'd definitely answer no because EPO as protein would be undetected after 6-12 months of storage even in -20c.

    I'm waiting for more information, other than something provided by newspapers.
     
  11. pantani_lives

    pantani_lives New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Armstrong's whole career is based on doping. It's a public secret. He will never get a sanction, because he paid the UCI for protection and because WADA and USADA are protecting him too.

    What L'Equipe wrote is true, what Simeoni said is true. People who don't want to see this are brainwashed by seven years of bad taste propaganda.

    He should be disqualified for every race since 1999. As long as this doesn't happen, cycling is a hypocrite sport.
     
  12. huhenio

    huhenio New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2005
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    1
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

    To try a new EPO testing technique .... who in his right mind would use a 7 year old sample? - NPR -

    If you are just "testing" a new lab method , there are plenty perfecly non controversial EPO positives - like medicated patients under EPO - to perform the new test with.

    If the spamles are unstable and the EPO protein breaks down .... what in heaven's name prevents the "unbiased" scientists to get fresh samples that would yield absolute positive and absolutely negative?

    They where "just testing" after all. Dont come here and tell me that there is a world shortage of samples.

    How convenient that the key for matching samples with the cyclists "leaked" - pun intended - to the world to know the sample owner.

    This is crooked from the beggining.

    And lastly ... If there such obvious slack on security - the key ppl, the key - and the names leaked ... what prevents "unkown" hands to get a hold on the samples - or results for all that matters - and contaminate them?

    For me ... it is all so crooked that make me want to pee all over the place.

    If Armstrong cheated is only for him to know at this point.

    I hope that this crappy fanzine sold enough copies to cover the expenses for the libel lawsuits to come.
     
  13. House

    House Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    0
    Velo- your rebuttal skills have gone downhill fast, you are approaching Flyer level. It's pretty sad that you've fallen to crap like that considering how enjoyable it was to debate you in the past. Now you are down to contradicting yourself, ignoring accusations you made that were refuted and playing dumb. I guess my role in this discussion is over having obviously driven you to the bottom of the barrel. I guess we'll chat in the next thread.
     
  14. Borg

    Borg New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0

    Beautifully put Biscayne!!! Don't forget his chastisement of Filipo Simeoni last year...
     
  15. tsm26

    tsm26 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a suggestion for everyone on the side of L'Equipe. Please don't write in almost every post something attacking the entire American public, and saying things like "American sheep" and that we are all stupid. It doesn't help your case that Europeans on message boards are often just out to attack Americans any time they can. "When in doubt discount their comments because they are an American" The funny thing is that I am leaning toward the report being true and have been since the beginning. I have no loyalty to Lance, and never enjoyed his personality. It is an insult to someone like me who lived in Ukraine for several years, and has a German grandmother, and family who knows many European languages to have the same people attack us. Let me tell you from first hand knowledge that Europe and America are both full of idiots, neither has a monopoly. Stop the generalizing or the poster just comes off as being bitter, "intellectual", envious jerks.
     
  16. 3_days

    3_days New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    The reality of cycling being what it is ... Simeoni acts like a tool ...

    It's hard to like a guy who points at the whole peloton and says, "I'm the only clean rider here!!!"
     
  17. VeloFlash

    VeloFlash New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    After witnessing many posts by many debaters critical on your generally inane posts in response, this comment is a bit rich coming from you.

    Would you like me to list the posters?

    But back to LA, particularly on the Larry King TV interview which the US audience, as evidenced on other forums, are swooning over his performance.

    Tell me, House or anyone, what is the LA deliberate omission in this report of part of his interview that is designed to mislead the cycling naive interviewers and audience?

    Armstrong also questioned the science behind years-old samples. He said he had provided a total of 17 "B" samples in 1999.

    "So why are six of them positive and the other 11 aren't? I'm saying there were 17 samples. So, if the drug would stay around for two, three, four weeks, we have 17 samples given, and only six of them positive. What happened to the other 11?"
     
  18. VeloFlash

    VeloFlash New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can only attack 97.85% of the US public.

    My authority is here:

    http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blrevocation_cleese.htm

    Edit: Sorry I forgot my :). Americans (97.85%?) are known to have problems with humour other than their own.
     
  19. VeloFlash

    VeloFlash New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you alone know something that is incontrovertible that throws a different light on this whole affair and deserves an apology from the unbelievers?
     
  20. HammerHead

    HammerHead New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
Loading...
Loading...