Armstrong used EPO in 99?



MJtje

New Member
Feb 6, 2005
1,125
0
0
HUH, are you serious as IF we attack the american posters around here saying there stupid........:confused:

It's more the American posters that are making this a European (note french) versus American thing......(LA helps with that BS saying BS like I have a long history witht the french.......MEDIA that is!!!!!!!!)

Youre right: stop the generalizing!!!!!!!!!


tsm26 said:
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.
 

Ullefan

New Member
Jul 14, 2004
727
0
0
MJtje said:
HUH, are you serious as IF we attack the american posters around here saying there stupid........:confused:

It's more the American posters that are making this a European (note french) versus American thing......(LA helps with that BS saying BS like I have a long history witht the french.......MEDIA that is!!!!!!!!)

Youre right: stop the generalizing!!!!!!!!!
Forget it MJtje, it's futile, just google the news articles on LA, you'll find so many that are saying that its a american versus europe thing.
 

blobloblo

New Member
Aug 24, 2005
15
0
0
Just to get some things straight:
The lab's orginal intent was to refine a testing method for EPO. In partnership with the AMA, they have tested samples of 1998 and 1999. In 1998 they found 40 positive samples, in 1999 12. They didn't use 2000 samples: they can't access them because of a doping investigation. They don't use those of 2001 onwards because by then EPO detecting methods had been put in place and riders knew how not to get caught.
They used "B" samples because the "A" samples had already been used in 1999. Tests, like all doping tests, are anonymous. The lab didn't know who they were testing. The AMA asked them to make the tests, to know more about how riders take dope.
L'Equipe managed to get the official proceedings from the 1999 tests. There are numbers on them and on the samples that are used to identify riders.

This is taken from the newspaper "LeMonde". (yes it's french, but it has nothing to do with l'Equipe and isn't very anti-american).




huhenio said:
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.
 

blobloblo

New Member
Aug 24, 2005
15
0
0
MJtje said:
HUH, are you serious as IF we attack the american posters around here saying there stupid........:confused:

It's more the American posters that are making this a European (note french) versus American thing......(LA helps with that BS saying BS like I have a long history witht the french.......MEDIA that is!!!!!!!!)

Youre right: stop the generalizing!!!!!!!!!
Soo right, there's truly a lot of anti-french and anti-american feelings mixed with all this.
 

3_days

New Member
Jul 13, 2005
158
0
0
VeloFlash said:
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.
I actually laughed out loud at this one - I agree with all of it except the beer ... seriously, that stuff you guys drink is gnarly mucus and **** combined with grain alcohol.

And, for the 2.15%, There's more evidence to show Bush fixed the election than WADA will ever get on Lance ...
 

VeloFlash

New Member
Feb 26, 2003
704
0
0
House snorted about references to statements contrary to the Canadian scientist, Ayotte:

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.

Michael Ashenden, who helped develop the EPO blood test, said:

Ashenden also said samples that were properly frozen would yield accurate test results even after six or seven years.

http://www.boston.com/sports/other_...5/08/26/expert_no_reason_to_doubt_lab/?page=2

Schanzer, a well known German doping specialist, said (translated):

"During my researches I have found how stable epo is. When urine is stored between minus 20 and minus 40 degrees, we have no problem in detecting epo also after two or three years. The French have more experience with the testing method and are assuming five years."

http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/0,1518,371112,00.html
 

House

Banned
Aug 9, 2004
850
0
0
Velo- sadly you have drifted into Flyer territory. Responding to posts without answering the comments and then when called out more then once, finally responding to one of the things (still ignoring the rest) adding snide remarks. Pretty sad. I have lost a lot of respect for you.
 

VeloFlash

New Member
Feb 26, 2003
704
0
0
House said:
Velo- sadly you have drifted into Flyer territory. Responding to posts without answering the comments and then when called out more then once, finally responding to one of the things (still ignoring the rest) adding snide remarks. Pretty sad. I have lost a lot of respect for you.
House, I can live with your criticisms. You are the most subjective debater on any Forum. Daily Pelotons have pigeon holed you.

I did ask you a specific question back at post #137. Why have you ignored? The only answer is not consistent with your bias and agenda?

They are starting to come out of the woodwork. CyclingNews today:

Ron Jongen, a former soigneur with the US Postal team until 2000, has expressed further allegations concerning the 1999 Tour de France, and possible doping practices within the American squad. Armstrong's masseur told Dutch newspaper Limburgs Dagblad that he was present when team director Johan Bruyneel made comments about the riders' hematocrit levels before the 1999 Tour de France prologue.

At the last team meeting before the race, the 42-year old Dutchman from Kerkrade recalled, "Bruyneel said: they're just under 50 [Jonathan Vaughters noted this too - ed.]. When he saw that I heard what he said, he put his finger on his lips immediately: I wasn't supposed to say anything about it." While Jongen said that he was still on good terms with Armstrong (having e-mail contact as recently as at the 2005 Tour de France), the former masseur also talked about "strange, very strange things that went on in France that summer."

Jongen also recalled that three Spanish doctors visited the team's hotels in a green station wagon. "It was the only car that wasn't branded US Postal," the former soigneur said. "All the team cars parked in front of the hotels, but this car always parked at the rear entrances. The strange thing was that these doctors always slept on another floor," Jongen added, also saying that these doctors followed the team also at the Vuelta, but that they used the main entrance then.
 

House

Banned
Aug 9, 2004
850
0
0
Perhaps if you wrote in English I might have understood the question better, but perhaps it was merely a mistake made on live TV? Nah, not in your world of avoiding, making declarations without proof, using insults to cover up. As I said I have lost respect for you. I will allow to go on with your little game without me, you're not worth it anymore.
 

Verite

New Member
Aug 7, 2005
14
0
0
House said:
Perhaps if you wrote in English I might have understood the question better, but perhaps it was merely a mistake made on live TV? Nah, not in your world of avoiding, making declarations without proof, using insults to cover up. As I said I have lost respect for you. I will allow to go on with your little game without me, you're not worth it anymore.
House, I'm still waiting for a response from you. En francais s'il vous plait.
 

Verite

New Member
Aug 7, 2005
14
0
0
House said:
Perhaps if you wrote in English I might have understood the question better, but perhaps it was merely a mistake made on live TV? Nah, not in your world of avoiding, making declarations without proof, using insults to cover up. As I said I have lost respect for you. I will allow to go on with your little game without me, you're not worth it anymore.
This is typical House. When unable to make a counter-argument he immediately becomes condescending and states that he is through with the debate. In reality, he is unable to make any meaningful counter-argument because there is none to be made. In other words, he's wrong and he knows it. Like I said earlier House, you're a joke.
 

VeloFlash

New Member
Feb 26, 2003
704
0
0
House said:
Perhaps if you wrote in English I might have understood the question better, but perhaps it was merely a mistake made on live TV? Nah, not in your world of avoiding, making declarations without proof, using insults to cover up. As I said I have lost respect for you. I will allow to go on with your little game without me, you're not worth it anymore.
I can only interpret that as running up the white flag. Attempting to insult my English rather than address the debate certainly supports your implied position of weakness.

House said: but perhaps it was merely a mistake made on live TV?

Very specific and emphatic by Armstrong. Also grabbed on many Forums by naive and uninformed pro LA supporters as contributory evidence to a set up. And you may recall Armstrong faltered when asked in the interview about the EPO test (now known universally to be the French urine test) on the 1999 samples:

KING: Is EPO picked up blood or urine?

ARMSTRONG: I don't know. I mean, we're talking about a urine control here, but I suspect -- yeah, I suspect they could find it in the blood too. But I would be -- I'd be speculating if I said that.



But Armstrong was knowingly being dishonest about the suspicion of 6 out of 17 B samples turning up positive, as you know but have muted yourself as it is contrary to your US patriotism fuelled bias and agenda.

You are conducting yourself in a parallel manner as when Tyler Hamilton was found positive. What is your position on Tyler Hamilton now?

Or you implied that as Jan Ullrich was a product [proved false] of the sports corrupt East German system he was a suspect doper. Guilt by unproved association. But any provable and suspect LA association, like Dr. Michelle Ferrari, is explicable.
 

Paolo

New Member
Aug 28, 2005
67
0
0
HI
I am new to the forum and have read with interest the opinions on lance armstrongs positive.

there seems to be two main camps here (For & Against)

I have worked as a doctor for 9 years in the UK and have read articles about the French Urine test and actually seen it in action.
I suppose it is not surprising that some people are trying to blame the test but i can categorically say that the test works.

The only Question to be answered in this case is whether the test works?
people have told the moral arguments about a second chance(B sample) and with this in mind there is very little chance he will be sanctioned by the uci,wada etc....

The arguments put forward against the test are pretty poor.
one is the sample could have degraded over 7 years
Let me explain:

say for example there are two hypotetical situations
this is taking in to account that the theories of a conspiracy are untrue
(which imo they are and allegations which could never be proven by lance)

Theory 1:Lance gave a sample that contained EPO. If this happened and the sample degraded over time as some say, the epo would breakdown and disappear thus giving a negaitive, despite the sample containing epo originally.

Theory 2:Lance Gave a clean sample. Since no epo was contained in the sample in the first place any breakdown in the structure of the clean urine would still contain no epo traces.

if as lance and his fans say that the sample cannot be guaranteed for seven yrs then he should still have produced a negative either way
this is an indisputable medical FACT

This situation reminds me of Olga Yegorova who was allowed to run in 2001 in edmonton where she was let off by the iaaf according to P Radcliffe on a technicality.

Maybe i am talking to the wall trying to convince people of the validity of the test

Thanks
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
110
63
Paolo said:
HI

Theory 1:Lance gave a sample that contained EPO. If this happened and the sample degraded over time as some say, the epo would breakdown and disappear thus giving a negaitive, despite the sample containing epo originally.

Theory 2:Lance Gave a clean sample. Since no epo was contained in the sample in the first place any breakdown in the structure of the clean urine would still contain no epo traces.

Six separate Armstrong 1999 TDF urine samples were found to have traces of synthetic EPO.



Paolo said:
HI
if as lance and his fans say that the sample cannot be guaranteed for seven yrs then he should still have produced a negative either way
this is an indisputable medical FACT

Exactly.
All tests would have been negative regardless.

If he never used PED's as he has always claimed - how come six separate samples contained EPO ?


Paolo said:
This situation reminds me of Olga Yegorova who was allowed to run in 2001 in edmonton where she was let off by the iaaf according to P Radcliffe on a technicality.

Maybe i am talking to the wall trying to convince people of the validity of the test

Thanks

Yegorova was allowed to get away on a technicality but her subsequent performances had zero credibility.
I always admired Paula's stance on this - she displayed a placard at Edmonton accusing Yegorova of cheating.


Paolo said:
Maybe i am talking to the wall trying to convince people of the validity of the test

Thanks

The test's credibility is not in question : it was adopted by all governing bodies prior to 2004 Athens Olympic Games.

If you recall a lot of international sporting bodies approved the test.
Unless sporting bodies ratified the test and accepted the tests validity, they were precluded from participating at Athens.
The UCI left it to the last minute to ratify it's acceptance of the test (rumour has it that many of the teams in cycling didn't want the UCI to approve it).
When the UCI approved it - this made it mandatory for cyclists to be subject to the test at Athens.

mr Armstrong decided that he wanted to look after his kids instead of going to Athens, I might add.
 

VeloFlash

New Member
Feb 26, 2003
704
0
0
mr Armstrong decided that he wanted to look after his kids instead of going to Athens, I might add.
And if I further recall WADA were lobbying for the retention of samples to be provided at Athens 2004 and future Olympics for 8 years for further testing when new drug detection procedures were introduced.

That would have caused some concerns for any athlete who knew they were ahead of the anti-doping game in 2004, particularly if they were looking to commercially bank on their past successes.

The re-testing of the 1999 TdF samples proved to be a dry run of that proposed policy. It now appears the 1999 re-testing was undertaken at the request of Canadian headquartered and internationally funded WADA and was not some sinister and clandestine French plot.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
110
63
VeloFlash said:
And if I further recall WADA were lobbying for the retention of samples to be provided at Athens 2004 and future Olympics for 8 years for further testing when new drug detection procedures were introduced.

That would have caused some concerns for any athlete who knew they were ahead of the anti-doping game in 2004, particularly if they were looking to commercially bank on their past successes.

The re-testing of the 1999 TdF samples proved to be a dry run of that proposed policy. It now appears the 1999 re-testing was undertaken at the request of Canadian headquartered and internationally funded WADA and was not some sinister and clandestine French plot.

Correct : the "mind the kids" excuse was his get out from being subjected to more stringent testing.
 

tmctguer

New Member
Sep 9, 2003
201
0
0
i hope the lab publishes the complete methodology they used to handle and test the samples. if that same methodology is used today to successfully catch EPO users, then why wouldn't it work to detect EPO in properly stored samples?

Armstrong is standing behind the drug tests of '00 - '05 that were clean to support his position that he did not use performance enhancing drugs in '99. at least in my mind, if the tests they performed on the '99 samples pass the "proper science" test and are consistent with the methods & procedures used for the '00 - '05 tests, there is little reason to doubt the results of tests performed on the '99 samples.

the ethical issues behind leaking out information is a separate issue entirely. ethical questions are being used by many people, including Armstrong, to suggest the existence of a conspiracy theory against him (e.g., an unethical lab technician, poor lab practices, anti-american sentiment in france, jealousy in france about their state of cycling).

the only one worthy of discussion is whether the lab may have accidentally or purposely tainted the samples. in response to this allegation, the lab should be able to show the chain of custody of the samples, the storage methodology, and the testing methodology to sufficiently address these questions. once again, if the lab routinely tests blood & urine samples for athletic competitions, there is little reason to suggest that suddenly, their methods & procedures are questionable.

armstrong is the ONLY one who really knows whether he illegally used EPO. the scientists can only show test results that appear to show he did. unfortunately, armstrong has everything to gain by denying the allegations. hence the need for science to explain what tests they performed and how they handled the samples.

at this point, i support the scientists and assume armstrong is guilty of using EPO in '99. i will do so until such time as a more plausible argument is proposed by a non-biased source that explains how the science was flawed.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
110
63
LA may well the only person for sure who knows if he - or did not - take PED's.
Unfortunately for him, the tests show that he had a PED in his sample.
So his words - if they ever had credibility - are now redundant.

With regard to the custody and methodolgy for the retention of samples, as i have already explained all international sporting bodies were required to sign up to the WADA testing for major sports events like the Olympics.
In signing up to the test, the international bodies were allowed several years to consult, interogate and to test, the methodology.
In fact WADA spent a considerable amount of time working with all the sporting bodies to ensure that all of the concerns raised were addressed.
 

micron

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
598
1
0
tmctguer said:
i hope the lab publishes the complete methodology they used to handle and test the samples. if that same methodology is used today to successfully catch EPO users, then why wouldn't it work to detect EPO in properly stored samples?

Armstrong is standing behind the drug tests of '00 - '05 that were clean to support his position that he did not use performance enhancing drugs in '99. at least in my mind, if the tests they performed on the '99 samples pass the "proper science" test and are consistent with the methods & procedures used for the '00 - '05 tests, there is little reason to doubt the results of tests performed on the '99 samples.

the ethical issues behind leaking out information is a separate issue entirely. ethical questions are being used by many people, including Armstrong, to suggest the existence of a conspiracy theory against him (e.g., an unethical lab technician, poor lab practices, anti-american sentiment in france, jealousy in france about their state of cycling).

the only one worthy of discussion is whether the lab may have accidentally or purposely tainted the samples. in response to this allegation, the lab should be able to show the chain of custody of the samples, the storage methodology, and the testing methodology to sufficiently address these questions. once again, if the lab routinely tests blood & urine samples for athletic competitions, there is little reason to suggest that suddenly, their methods & procedures are questionable.

armstrong is the ONLY one who really knows whether he illegally used EPO. the scientists can only show test results that appear to show he did. unfortunately, armstrong has everything to gain by denying the allegations. hence the need for science to explain what tests they performed and how they handled the samples.

at this point, i support the scientists and assume armstrong is guilty of using EPO in '99. i will do so until such time as a more plausible argument is proposed by a non-biased source that explains how the science was flawed.

I'm interested in a couple of things Armstrong has said:

1) The attestation that he had 17 tests at the 99 Tour and yet only 6 were positive - Armstrong only gave 15 tests in that Tour.

2) In a short interview in Equipe in 1999, Armstrong is asked 'have you used substances like cortisone or EPO in your cancer recovery' to which Armstrong categorically states 'No, never' - yet in chapter 4 of 'It's not about the bike' (published 2000) he states that EPO was indeed part of his recovery.