Armstrong used EPO in 99?



limerickman

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

..........his own words put him in this bind initially.
It was only a matter of time until the physical evidence materialised.

Good post, Mic.
 

micron

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
598
1
0
limerickman said:
..........his own words put him in this bind initially.
It was only a matter of time until the physical evidence materialised.

Good post, Mic.

thanks limerickman - sometimes it helps to be able to go to the primary sources instead of depending on heavily edited translations.

you may also be interested in this information from the UCI on the actual number of tests Armstrong had in the TdF to 2004:

1999 15 tests (Armstrong alleges he gave 17 in his Larry King interview) (urine)
2000 12 tests (urine)
EPO test finally put into use by UCI at Tour of Flanders
2001 10 tests including 5 specific EPO tests (urine)
2002 9 tests including 8 for EPO (urine)
2003 9 tests including 6 for EPO (urine)
2004 8 tests including 7 for EPO (urine), 1 blood test for EPO

It's interesting that not every sample was routinely tested for EPO - so with micro dosing you could still evade the test.

It's also interesting that for the 'most tested athlete in the world', he doesn't seem to have had significantly more tests in those races than any of the other jersey holders would have done....Voeckler would have had more tests in the 2004 race than Armstrong, for example.
 

VeloFlash

New Member
Feb 26, 2003
704
0
0
micron said:
thanks limerickman - sometimes it helps to be able to go to the primary sources instead of depending on heavily edited translations.

you may also be interested in this information from the UCI on the actual number of tests Armstrong had in the TdF to 2004:

1999 15 tests (Armstrong alleges he gave 17 in his Larry King interview) (urine)
2000 12 tests (urine)
EPO test finally put into use by UCI at Tour of Flanders
2001 10 tests including 5 specific EPO tests (urine)
2002 9 tests including 8 for EPO (urine)
2003 9 tests including 6 for EPO (urine)
2004 8 tests including 7 for EPO (urine), 1 blood test for EPO

It's interesting that not every sample was routinely tested for EPO - so with micro dosing you could still evade the test.

It's also interesting that for the 'most tested athlete in the world', he doesn't seem to have had significantly more tests in those races than any of the other jersey holders would have done....Voeckler would have had more tests in the 2004 race than Armstrong, for example.
When I read the LA claim of 17 tests on the Larry King interview I thought it was beyond the realms of possibility.

The stage winner, the GC leader (Yellow Jersey) and some riders (number?) at random get tested each stage.

Armstrong was GC leader for 15 stages which also coincided with his 4 stage wins. It is beyond the statistics of chance that out of nearly 200 riders for 2 of the remaining 6 stages the random sample selector, presumably computer based, selected him twice.
 

micron

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
598
1
0
VeloFlash said:
When I read the LA claim of 17 tests on the Larry King interview I thought it was beyond the realms of possibility.

The stage winner, the GC leader (Yellow Jersey) and some riders (number?) at random get tested each stage.

Armstrong was GC leader for 15 stages which also coincided with his 4 stage wins. It is beyond the statistics of chance that out of nearly 200 riders for 2 of the remaining 6 stages the random sample selector, presumably computer based, selected him twice.

apparently the other 4 are: Virenque, Hamburger, Beltran and (possibly) Castelblanco.

So, we have 2 known dopers (Virenque and Hamburger), a future teammate of both Armstrong and Ullrich (and an ex-teammate of Indurain) and an ex-Kelme rider...

Guessing there won't be a passionate defence of Virenque...
 

3_days

New Member
Jul 13, 2005
158
0
0
2 questions:

How possible is it that the B samples tested weren't actually Armstrong's?

Is it even possible that the sample could have been "tainted," as some people have alleged? (My understanding is that it would be completely impossible, even for a knowledgeable bio-chemist, to alter a clean sample and create a credible positive sample.)
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
110
63
micron said:
thanks limerickman - sometimes it helps to be able to go to the primary sources instead of depending on heavily edited translations.

you may also be interested in this information from the UCI on the actual number of tests Armstrong had in the TdF to 2004:

1999 15 tests (Armstrong alleges he gave 17 in his Larry King interview) (urine)
2000 12 tests (urine)
EPO test finally put into use by UCI at Tour of Flanders
2001 10 tests including 5 specific EPO tests (urine)
2002 9 tests including 8 for EPO (urine)
2003 9 tests including 6 for EPO (urine)
2004 8 tests including 7 for EPO (urine), 1 blood test for EPO

It's interesting that not every sample was routinely tested for EPO - so with micro dosing you could still evade the test.

It's also interesting that for the 'most tested athlete in the world', he doesn't seem to have had significantly more tests in those races than any of the other jersey holders would have done....Voeckler would have had more tests in the 2004 race than Armstrong, for example.

So his claim to be the most tested athlete on the planet, seems to be more embellishment on LA's part.
This business about testers turning up on his door step at all hours is merely his version of events.

The more one reads LA's words and LA's claims - and compares his version to what the UCI/Walsh/L'Equipe/WADA/O'Reilly/Swart/Anderson/LeMond/Betsy Andreu all say, the wider the gulf becomes.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
110
63
3_days said:
2 questions:

How possible is it that the B samples tested weren't actually Armstrong's?

Is it even possible that the sample could have been "tainted," as some people have alleged? (My understanding is that it would be completely impossible, even for a knowledgeable bio-chemist, to alter a clean sample and create a credible positive sample.)

The documentation - which LA signed when he gave the same - links his name to the sample.

If there is a doubt as to the origin of the sample - should LA claim that the sample tested isn't his - they can do a DNA test and check the result against LA's DNA to put the identity issues beyond all doubt.

I haven't read LA claiming that the sample wasn't his.
 

VeloFlash

New Member
Feb 26, 2003
704
0
0
3_days said:
2 questions:

How possible is it that the B samples tested weren't actually Armstrong's?

Is it even possible that the sample could have been "tainted," as some people have alleged? (My understanding is that it would be completely impossible, even for a knowledgeable bio-chemist, to alter a clean sample and create a credible positive sample.)
The answer is flexible and depends on which side of the Atlantic you live.
 

3_days

New Member
Jul 13, 2005
158
0
0
VeloFlash said:
The answer is flexible and depends on which side of the Atlantic you live.
Not necessarily. I mean, forgetting UCI/WADA procedural mandates for a second, if chain of custody can be established, then I'm not sure that the evidence from the test results isn't persuasive.

Again, if the issue is the reliability of the test, we have large contingent of medical experts who stand behind it as an accurate way to detect EPO use.

However, if the issue concerns the reliability of the six samples, the only questions that remain are: who's are they? have they, or could they have been, altered?

From what I've read here and elsewhere, there can be no false positive with the degradation of the sample - the EPO can only dissipate to undetectable levels in an untainted sample. Of course, this assumes that the sample could not have been altered.

In addition, I understand that you can't simply add traces of EPO to a sample to conspire and "create" a false positive- the readings will be skewed and the fraud would be obvious. True?

Finally, the issue of procedure, and the rules adopted by the UCI, etc. are clear in this case: Without A samples, and because the protective measures which are afforded to a rider when using B samples weren't employed, the B samples cannot be used to sanction LA.
 

VeloFlash

New Member
Feb 26, 2003
704
0
0
3_days said:
Not necessarily. I mean, forgetting UCI/WADA procedural mandates for a second, if chain of custody can be established, then I'm not sure that the evidence from the test results isn't persuasive.
I have not seen any person or entity put there hand up to see if this "evidence" will be tested in the courts. LA has backed away from litigation on expense, time and he is now retired, WADA says it is impotent and that leaves only UCI.

Possibly from all those legal actions that LA has running one of the opposing parties may use it as evidence. But the rules of evidence in those cases may not require the A and B sample procedure. That was only the UCI, at the time, imposed rules. Just evidence, which could be subpoenaed, that a sample of urine contained evidence of EPO and could be identified to LA. DNA sampling would also be of assistance for identity.
Again, if the issue is the reliability of the test, we have large contingent of medical experts who stand behind it as an accurate way to detect EPO use.

However, if the issue concerns the reliability of the six samples, the only questions that remain are: who's are they? have they, or could they have been, altered?
I am sure if the evidence is to be tested in Court this would be the thrust of LA's lawyers.

From what I've read here and elsewhere, there can be no false positive with the degradation of the sample - the EPO can only dissipate to undetectable levels in an untainted sample. Of course, this assumes that the sample could not have been altered.

In addition, I understand that you can't simply add traces of EPO to a sample to conspire and "create" a false positive- the readings will be skewed and the fraud would be obvious. True?
Don't know.

Finally, the issue of procedure, and the rules adopted by the UCI, etc. are clear in this case: Without A samples, and because the protective measures which are afforded to a rider when using B samples weren't employed, the B samples cannot be used to sanction LA.
Only if the UCI proceeds against LA, which I doubt. Look how they handled the corticosteroids issue in 1999.
 

tomUK

New Member
Oct 20, 2003
341
1
0
47
i have a few questions;

What about the '00, '01, '02, '03, '04 and '05 tests? Have they been tested? If so, why do they not show signs of EPO? Are the drug takers ahead of the testers?

I recall David Millar admitting to taking EPO. Does anyone know as to the dates when he took it? Was he tested within a 4 week period of that?

Also, this year there was a dis-qualification of one ride (sorry, don't recall his name), His wife was bringing a stash of EPO to him. Has any of the dopers whom got caught for EPO use given any idea as to how they avoid it showing up on the tests?

It would be good to see Armstrong take a lie detector test. Somehow I don't think he'd pass. If the case ever made a court room it would be interesting to see Kristen take the stand and swear a solomn oath (from what I understand she is a pretty commited Catholic and I can't see her lying). Would she still be required to testify even in light of the hush money, I mean divorce settlement?
 

MJtje

New Member
Feb 6, 2005
1,125
0
0
Haha thrust me LA WILL pass the lie-detector........I thought he was pretty convincing at times during the Larry king interview.....

As for the Millar case he doped with (epo) during that last TT of the 2003 TDF which he won.....and they tested him after that........suprise suprise he didn't come positive..

So the dopers are ahead of the testers......
Read this and you will understand it's easy to beat the test: link

tomUK said:
i have a few questions;

What about the '00, '01, '02, '03, '04 and '05 tests? Have they been tested? If so, why do they not show signs of EPO? Are the drug takers ahead of the testers?

I recall David Millar admitting to taking EPO. Does anyone know as to the dates when he took it? Was he tested within a 4 week period of that?

Also, this year there was a dis-qualification of one ride (sorry, don't recall his name), His wife was bringing a stash of EPO to him. Has any of the dopers whom got caught for EPO use given any idea as to how they avoid it showing up on the tests?

It would be good to see Armstrong take a lie detector test. Somehow I don't think he'd pass. If the case ever made a court room it would be interesting to see Kristen take the stand and swear a solomn oath (from what I understand she is a pretty commited Catholic and I can't see her lying). Would she still be required to testify even in light of the hush money, I mean divorce settlement?
 

3_days

New Member
Jul 13, 2005
158
0
0
tomUK said:
It would be good to see Armstrong take a lie detector test. Somehow I don't think he'd pass. If the case ever made a court room it would be interesting to see Kristen take the stand and swear a solomn oath (from what I understand she is a pretty commited Catholic and I can't see her lying). Would she still be required to testify even in light of the hush money, I mean divorce settlement?
I've never taken PED's and I wouldn't take a lie detector test either - At least in US courts, and still years after their invention, there's a reason why the lie detector test results aren't admissable over objection.
 

Spectatorsport

New Member
Jun 21, 2004
18
0
0
http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-armstrong-doping&prov=ap&type=lgns

So I guess the UCI isn't going to proceed.

Quote"
Cycling body says it has no doping evidence against Lance Armstrong
September 9, 2005

Photo
AP - Aug 25, 10:47 pm EDT
More Photos
AIGLE, Switzerland (AP) -- The governing body of world cycling said Friday it had no evidence of doping against Lance Armstrong and was unable to express any judgment regarding recent doping allegations.

``The UCI has not to date received any official information or document'' from anti-doping authorities or the laboratory reportedly involved in the testing of urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France, the UCI said."