Beltran positive EPO

[adamastor]

Holy ****. A post about Beltran being positive and 5 billion pages of "is Lance innocent...".

Methinks nobody cares about whether any of the pros take drugs - it's all about whether Lance took drugs.

Here are a few facts that may allow some people to sleep at night (and reduce the post count on cyclingforums by several million).

- Lance has retired.
- Lance will never test positive because he has retired.
- We will never know if he tok drugs because Lance keeps his mouth shut and he has retired.
- Lance has retired.

This is worse than "did the lunar landings actually happen", "does santa claus actually exist" and "did George Bush arrange the Twin Tower terrorist act".

Get over it already.

As a "non-American" it was already terrifying to me to see a guy like George W. Bush leading your country (I don't care what he does in your country, I'm just worried about his actions/non actions abroad).

To me, a guy like Lance Armstrong is a danger to your nation, maybe not today, but in 10, 20, 30 years. If he really goes into politics (and he sould be bloody good at it), he might become an American president. And, knowing how he "cruised through cycling without ever being caught", this is SCARY. So, let him live his life, I'm sure he's doing splendid things for cancer research etc, but let's never forget where he came from.

Now to your comments:

- Lance is retired (but still going strong in tabloids)
- Lance will never test positive because he has retired. (who knows, what technology will bring us over the coming years. maybe you'll be able to detect EPO simply from a video? A lot of "theories" around power uphill etc might become proven statements. Oh yes, and the 1999 "B" samples are still existing. They're in the hands of French authorities. UCI might never ban him, but who knows if in future, according to a French new law, the B samples case will be reopened, and LA condemned in France. Shame, he wouldn't be allowed to go to Cannes anymore, without being arrested. Marion Jones was convicted, without ever testing positive, remember?")
- We will never know if he tok drugs because Lance keeps his mouth shut and he has retired. (he keeps his mouth shut, but will the others? Andreu already talked, but you have Beltran, Benoit Joachim, Bruyneel even, hehe, Ferrari might confess one day in Italy...this would bring up the spectre of "let's go for LA again". By whom? Those he decided to sue for instance "Sunday Times, Walsh, SCA, etc l'Equipe, oooops no he never went for l'Equipe, too dangerous, because they have the proof !"

Because of all this, I have chosen not to shut up. Sorry.

 

[Crankyfeet]

Lance is not safe yet. Riis had retired. People talk. The truth has an uncanny ability to work its way to the surface. Any deal he's made with witnesses or cohorts to gag the truth is vulnerable in the future.

 

[Tim Lamkin]

Except that amateurs are doping in Cat 2 in America at least... and that it's paradoxical to end cycling so that cycling can avoid coming to an end.

Works for me...bet there would be some great price on some good equipment...sadly doping will never stop, ten years for now those of you who are left on this forum will be talking the same smack about doping...just different names and teams....nothing will change

 

[ad9898]

Lance is not safe yet. Riis had retired. People talk. The truth has an uncanny ability to work its way to the surface. Any deal he's made with witnesses or cohorts to gag the truth is vulnerable in the future.

Unless of course the truth is he never doped, in which case your world would come crashing down, bring out the prozac .... waits for the playground insults... one ball, dickcheese etc.... yawn

 

[Crankyfeet]

Unless of course the truth is he never doped, in which case your world would come crashing down, bring out the prozac .... waits for the playground insults... one ball, dickcheese etc.... yawn

Since he can never prove that he didn't dope... I can't see that world-crashing-down event thing happening...

 

[TheDarkLord]

Here are a few facts that may allow some people to sleep at night (and reduce the post count on cyclingforums by several million).

What makes you think that we are losing sleep over this?

 

[TheDarkLord]

I hope it's not like the kind of music you like on youtube...filmed on your couch...

ROTFL!!! You really are/were in top form!

 

[Ashley.S.Olsen]

Unless of course the truth is he never doped, in which case your world would come crashing down, bring out the prozac .... waits for the playground insults... one ball, dickcheese etc.... yawn

hi there. i like you are style.

 

[Crankyfeet]

hi there. i like you are style.

You would... considering you and ad9898 are the same person....

 

[Bro Deal]

Unless of course the truth is he never doped, in which case your world would come crashing down, bring out the prozac .... waits for the playground insults... one ball, dickcheese etc.... yawn

Talking about Prozac, I heard that Prozac was found in Beltran's hotel room.

 

[nns1400]

Talking about Prozac, I heard that Prozac was found in Beltran's hotel room.

He's gonna need it now...

 

[TheDarkLord]

He's gonna need it now...

Indeed. After all, he may no longer get that job as a security guard at a video store in the backblocks of Madrid.

 

[limerickman]

I stated in my post that I was giving LA credit for his prescription for corticoids (TUE = therapeutic use exemption). But a year ago, I read David Walsh's book From Lance to Landis Inside the American Doping Controversy in the Tour de France, Ballatine Books 2007, and on pages xii - xv and 130 - 134, the author raises legitimate questions about the authenticity of LA's TUE for corticoids. in other words, there appears to be some controversy around the subject, in my opinion.

my recollection of the 1999 sample controversy was that the UCI has always kept a quantity of B samples for future testing use. Since there was no test available for EPO in 1999, they eventually did the testing once EPO testing had developed and matured to see if "retroactively", the lab could test the effectiveness of current EPO testing using their stored samples. it wasn't until the Le Monde investigative journalist put the rider name to the samples that LA's name was exposed along with a few other riders.

Way back when the 100+ report was published re: the validity of testing the 1999 B samples, I printed it and read it in its entirety. It has been several years, but my recollection of the report is that its author spent much of it denying the validity of the protocol of only using B samples. He was correct from the perspective of WADA/UCI rules that require a positive A & B sample. But i don't remember if the report ever addressed how EPO was in the blood to begin with. again, i am relying on a fading memory, so if someone knows for sure if that report addressed more than testing protocols.

so, I can see your point of LA never "officially" being sanctioned for a doping violation. in fact, i think i made that point in my original post.

You do know I'm sure that the dope test forms completed by the testers and signed by Armstrong : had TUE sections blackened out.

The speculation was that the UCI/ASO had in fact permitted Armstrong to take EPO as part of his follow up treatment from cancer.

And you are correct about the independent report by Vrijman in to the Chatenay-Malabry 1999 TDF samples.
The Vrijman report did not ascertain how rEPO metabolised in the six B samples which were stored at Chatenay-Malabry.

Given that rEPO cannot metabolise of it's own volition, no one including Vrijman can ascertain how rEPO metabolised in the six samples, tested.
(rEPO cannot be added to a urine sample : rEPO can only metabolise in urine
when it - rEPO - has been ingested in to the donors body and is extracted from the body of the same donor).

Either the donor ingested rEPO...............or the rEPO somehow, fantastically metamorphisised in the 6 separate samples tests.

Oh what a tangled web, we weave... etc

 

[thoughtforfood]

Holy ****. A post about Beltran being positive and 5 billion pages of "is Lance innocent...".

Methinks nobody cares about whether any of the pros take drugs - it's all about whether Lance took drugs.

Here are a few facts that may allow some people to sleep at night (and reduce the post count on cyclingforums by several million).

- Lance has retired.
- Lance will never test positive because he has retired.
- We will never know if he tok drugs because Lance keeps his mouth shut and he has retired.
- Lance has retired.

This is worse than "did the lunar landings actually happen", "does santa claus actually exist" and "did George Bush arrange the Twin Tower terrorist act".

Get over it already.

..hows the wife?

 

[thoughtforfood]

Unless of course the truth is he never doped, in which case your world would come crashing down, bring out the prozac .... waits for the playground insults... one ball, dickcheese etc.... yawn

Yea, maybe he never doped. In all honesty, I think there is less than a 1% chance of that, but if you believe really hard and cross your fingers, maybe that will be true. As for my world centering around whether Lance doped, no this is just a hobby for me, I do many other things.

Now, here is the insult you appear to need: I am sure you came up with this while you were shrimping santorum tinycock, but suggesting that Lance could have won the Tour without doping is soooo 2003....(kind of faltered on the ending, I am not angry with you, so my form is off....I guess you really just don't rate me giving full effort)

 

[thoughtforfood]

Holy ****. A post about Beltran being positive and 5 billion pages of "is Lance innocent...".

Methinks nobody cares about whether any of the pros take drugs - it's all about whether Lance took drugs.

Here are a few facts that may allow some people to sleep at night (and reduce the post count on cyclingforums by several million).

- Lance has retired.
- Lance will never test positive because he has retired.
- We will never know if he tok drugs because Lance keeps his mouth shut and he has retired.
- Lance has retired.

This is worse than "did the lunar landings actually happen", "does santa claus actually exist" and "did George Bush arrange the Twin Tower terrorist act".

Get over it already.

You are posting about us posting about Lance by posting about Lance....they must not have irony in SA. Maybe when Craigslist gets there, it will have a case or two of irony with it.

 

[Trek_Athlete]

Since he can never prove that he didn't dope... I can't see that world-crashing-down event thing happening...

I agree with you. I made this point already. It is true, there is no way Lance can EVER prove he never doped. Apparently, no one can prove he did either.

 

[adamastor]

I agree with you. I made this point already. It is true, there is no way Lance can EVER prove he never doped. Apparently, no one can prove he did either.

Let's put it like this. Boonen DID take cocaine, but would not be banned by UCI as it isn't against doping regulations (out of competition, blablabla)...still, it is proven he did drugs.

Same for sexy Lancy, there's proof there was EPO in his blood, but technically speaking...he didn't dope.

The Vrijman report did not check, if the evidence was true or false, it simply confirmed according to UCI rules, all was clean.

Same as for the SCA case,lawyers agree to say there was a minimal chance for SCA to get back their money, as technically speaking the contract with Lance was clear: if would receive the money, if declared winner of TDF. There was never a disclosure about "with" or "without" cheating. Hence, DOH !

 

[Leafer]

I agree with you. I made this point already. It is true, there is no way Lance can EVER prove he never doped. Apparently, no one can prove he did either.

It's common sense, Trek. When there is so much evidence from so many sources implicating a rider in doping - ex-teammates saying he doped, ex-soigneurs saying he doped, numerous ex-teammates caught doping (Beltran makes it, what, 5 or 6 ex-Posties/Disco's now?), working with a known doping doctor, riding for a DS who came up through a doping (Saiz) program who then hires a doctor from that team who has previously been linked to doping, finding EPO in multiple B samples, etc etc - then the only reasonable and logical conclusion is that said rider was most likely doping. In LA's case, the reason that most people who follow cycling are now convinced that he was doping is because, given the depth and breadth of evidence, there really is only one logical, reasonable conclusion that can be made.

That's the reason that Lance can't ever prove he didn't dope - there's no way that he can explain away all of the evidence that is now out there. One or two allegations in isolation could be dismissed, perhaps, but all the stuff that's come out cumulatively? Not a chance. There's way too much to be able to explain away/dismiss convincingly.

It always sucks to discover that your favorite rider was doping - I refused to believe it about Pantani at first, myself. But there comes a time when you can't ignore the evidence, and that has nothing to do with being a fan or not, or "believing" anything for that matter - it just is, whether you like it or not.

 

[Bro Deal]

Apparently, no one can prove he did either.

The retrotested urine proved that fairly conclusively. It is one of the things that makes the Beltran situation interesting. His retrotested urine from the 1999 prologue was also positive for EPO, and now he has been busted for EPO years later it lends further credence to the retrotesting.

The problem with Lance homers is that they insist on "beyond a shadow of a doubt" evidence. There is really nothing other than video that would satisfy them. Even that might not be enough. They would probably claim the video was doctored. There is more than enough evidence to produce a "beyond a reasonable doubt" conclusion.