Breaking News-RE:LA EPO

Paolo said:

The documents gotten by l'equipe were recieved from the uci ,NOT the lab in Paris

since the UCI is based in Switzerland, this blows Lances argument of a french conspiracy

Just wondering what ye thought

Lance said he does not trust the lab's test,not the documents. Here are some quotes.

ARMSTRONG: Listen, it's -- somebody violated all the rules of drug testing here. There's no way that I could be suspended or stripped. You have to have a confirmation sample, and we don't have that. And that's -- you know, I wish we did. I really wish we did.

Who opened the samples? What protocol was followed? Nothing. It was all thrown out the door. We cannot build a system of faith and trust in an anti-doping fight if we don't have faith in it. There's no way. If I'm an athlete, if I'm active today, which I'm not, thank goodness, I don't trust that system.

ARMSTRONG: Yes. You get a carbon copy of the test results or the test form that day. I wouldn't have them from 1999. But that's not what was manipulated. What was manipulated was the urine. What was put in the urine? Who was there when--I don't think the papers were manipulated.

thebluetrain said:

Lance said he does not trust the lab's test,not the documents. Here are some quotes.

ARMSTRONG: Listen, it's -- somebody violated all the rules of drug testing here. There's no way that I could be suspended or stripped. You have to have a confirmation sample, and we don't have that. And that's -- you know, I wish we did. I really wish we did.

Who opened the samples? What protocol was followed? Nothing. It was all thrown out the door. We cannot build a system of faith and trust in an anti-doping fight if we don't have faith in it. There's no way. If I'm an athlete, if I'm active today, which I'm not, thank goodness, I don't trust that system.

ARMSTRONG: Yes. You get a carbon copy of the test results or the test form that day. I wouldn't have them from 1999. But that's not what was manipulated. What was manipulated was the urine. What was put in the urine? Who was there when--I don't think the papers were manipulated.

For Sporting Law reasons, a second sample is always taken
but the One sample is good enough for medical personel to draw a conclusion

Forgetting the sporting law aspect which will not apply in this case because a second sample was destroyed, the one and only sample is good enough to draw a conclusion for people like myself who work in this area of medicine.

if the test is proven to have been carried out correctly, then this is good enough to say factually that la doped with epo in 99 with only one test

i repeat that no sporting sanctions can be taken against him because the sporting law states two samples are needed but sporting law and medical facts are two totally different things and stating that lance was found not guilty because of the lack of a second test in sport doesn't mean he is not guilty in the eyes of medicine

thebluetrain said:

Lance said he does not trust the lab's test,not the documents. Here are some quotes.

ARMSTRONG: Listen, it's -- somebody violated all the rules of drug testing here. There's no way that I could be suspended or stripped. You have to have a confirmation sample, and we don't have that. And that's -- you know, I wish we did. I really wish we did.

Who opened the samples? What protocol was followed? Nothing. It was all thrown out the door. We cannot build a system of faith and trust in an anti-doping fight if we don't have faith in it. There's no way. If I'm an athlete, if I'm active today, which I'm not, thank goodness, I don't trust that system.

ARMSTRONG: Yes. You get a carbon copy of the test results or the test form that day. I wouldn't have them from 1999. But that's not what was manipulated. What was manipulated was the urine. What was put in the urine? Who was there when--I don't think the papers were manipulated.

just a quick reply regarding your statement that lance does not trust the lab.

this does not matter as it will be up to lance to prove that this allegation is correct, for which there is no proof

Paolo said:

just a quick reply regarding your statement that lance does not trust the lab.

this does not matter as it will be up to lance to prove that this allegation is correct, for which there is no proof

There was no second sample for which to compare, true. However, there were six samples that were individually found to contain EPO, the UCI have the authority to do something, though I don't think they will.

Ullefan said:

There was no second sample for which to compare, true. However, there were six samples that were individually found to contain EPO, the UCI have the authority to do something, though I don't think they will.

i am unfamiliar with sports law, could the uci punish him with six seperate positives instead of the usual 2 together?

Paolo said:

For Sporting Law reasons, a second sample is always taken
but the One sample is good enough for medical personel to draw a conclusion

Forgetting the sporting law aspect which will not apply in this case because a second sample was destroyed, the one and only sample is good enough to draw a conclusion for people like myself who work in this area of medicine.

if the test is proven to have been carried out correctly, then this is good enough to say factually that la doped with epo in 99 with only one test

i repeat that no sporting sanctions can be taken against him because the sporting law states two samples are needed but sporting law and medical facts are two totally different things and stating that lance was found not guilty because of the lack of a second test in sport doesn't mean he is not guilty in the eyes of medicine

That would apply to a proven (over years) test result that had been in wide use and generally accepted in the medical community. This is a research test in the midst of modification from a quantitative to qualitative analysis process. We also have the WADA community which is actually divided over whether the test results are valid. To make the jump that you have made under these circumstances does not follow logic.

Paolo said:

i am unfamiliar with sports law, could the uci punish him with six seperate positives instead of the usual 2 together?

Yes they have it within their right to punish or sanction I feel, in a case where six individual samples were found with EPO. It's not as if only one sample contained EPO, thus the idea of an annomoly can be ruled out.

They'd need to have the two samples (A and B) together to declare a rider indisputably positive.

They won't punish Lance as he's retired. The damage it could do to their image and the image of cycling might not sound to favourable, either.

Ullefan said:

There was no second sample for which to compare, true. However, there were six samples that were individually found to contain EPO, the UCI have the authority to do something, though I don't think they will.

Lance gave 17 samples during the 99' tour. Because of the duration EPO exists in urine you could not pull 6 samples out of the 17 and get six positives without the other 11 being positive also. Why are there not 17 positive samples from Armstrong. There is no scientific explanation for this.

Paolo said:

The documents gotten by l'equipe were recieved from the uci ,NOT the lab in Paris

since the UCI is based in Switzerland, this blows Lances argument of a french conspiracy

Just wondering what ye thought

Doesn't this just further condem the whole UCI process. Now you have the UCI leaking the results to the press prior to announcing it to the world themselves or the athlete or any of the athlete's represetatives. That certainly explains why everyone was so at the ready to condem LA so quickly after the news came out as they are all complicite in the scandulus way in which this whole story broke.

davidbod said:

Lance gave 17 samples during the 99' tour. Because of the duration EPO exists in urine you could not pull 6 samples out of the 17 and get six positives without the other 11 being positive also. Why are there not 17 positive samples from Armstrong. There is no scientific explanation for this.

It is plausible that it could be acheived through micro-dosing, hydration, rest days, etc. I don't know whether to believe what Lance says, for now it's just PR.

Ullefan said:

It is plausible that it could be acheived through micro-dosing, hydration, rest days, etc. I don't know whether to believe what Lance says, for now it's just PR.

You mean you hope its just PR. Sorry dude its a fact, he gave 17 samples during the 99 tour and there is no possible way only 6 of these could be positive without the others being positive also. Only way is if he waited until the last 6 days of the tour which would make no sense at all since the climb to Sestrier was where he made is big mark on the tour.

davidbod said:

You mean you hope its just PR. Sorry dude its a fact, he gave 17 samples during the 99 tour and there is no possible way only 6 of these could be positive without the others being positive also. Only way is if he waited until the last 6 days of the tour which would make no sense at all since the climb to Sestrier was where he made is big mark on the tour.

If EPO is only traceable in the body for up to three days (less for a cyclist who is constantly rehydrating), then it is entirely possible that 11 could be found negative and 6 positive.
e.g. EPO was taken 2/3 days before prologue, EPO was taken on first rest day, EPO was taken on second rest day (or immediately after prior stage), etc.

davidbod said:

You mean you hope its just PR. Sorry dude its a fact, he gave 17 samples during the 99 tour and there is no possible way only 6 of these could be positive without the others being positive also. Only way is if he waited until the last 6 days of the tour which would make no sense at all since the climb to Sestrier was where he made is big mark on the tour.

Remember to keep the chronology in mind.

The 1999 TDF samples were tested in December 2004 because no test existed for EPO in 1999.
Therefore we don't know how many of the 17 samples taken in 1999 - were tested in December 2004.

The issue is not the number of tests taken - the issue why did LA have EPO in his urine at the 1999 TDF.

limerickman said:

Remember to keep the chronology in mind.

The 1999 TDF samples were tested in December 2004 because no test existed for EPO in 1999.
Therefore we don't know how many of the 17 samples taken in 1999 - were tested in December 2004.

The issue is not the number of tests taken - the issue why did LA have EPO in his urine at the 1999 TDF.

Yes, but my overall point is as you say "we don't know". Were all 17 samples tested? Were only 6 samples tested? And an even bigger question is will we ever know, and if not, why not. There are many unanswered questions, so many that the likes of the comments of people like Le Balnc and others raise more questions than answers. You connect the dots for yourself.

davidbod said:

Yes, but my overall point is as you say "we don't know". Were all 17 samples tested? Were only 6 samples tested? And an even bigger question is will we ever know, and if not, why not. There are many unanswered questions, so many that the likes of the comments of people like Le Balnc and others raise more questions than answers. You connect the dots for yourself.

....but we do know that six of LA's samples contained EPO.
That is the salient point.

The other issues you raise are of interest too but the central question is why did LA's sample contain EPO ?

limerickman said:

....but we do know that six of LA's samples contained EPO.
That is the salient point.

The other issues you raise are of interest too but the central question is why did LA's sample contain EPO ?

Well we can look at the 6 samples in isolation to everything else or we can look at the 6 samples in relation to all of the surrounding evidence as well. I choose the latter. There is much more to this story than just 6 isolated samples which are claimed to contain EPO.

Paolo said:

just a quick reply regarding your statement that lance does not trust the lab.

this does not matter as it will be up to lance to prove that this allegation is correct, for which there is no proof

Paolo, all I did in my origingal post was prove to you that your first post was incorrect. LA is not arguing the fact that the documents were manipulated. You said
"The documents gotten by l'equipe were recieved from the uci ,NOT the lab in Paris

since the UCI is based in Switzerland, this blows Lances argument of a french conspiracy

Just wondering what ye thought"

LA said " --I don't think the papers were manipulated."

davidbod said:

Well we can look at the 6 samples in isolation to everything else or we can look at the 6 samples in relation to all of the surrounding evidence as well. I choose the latter. There is much more to this story than just 6 isolated samples which are claimed to contain EPO.

We can look at the entire context of the LA issue.
There is a substantial amount of verbal/written evidence from a lot of people saying that LA was using PED's.
We now have the physical evidence from six separate samples from the 1999
TDF as well.

limerickman said:

We can look at the entire context of the LA issue.
There is a substantial amount of verbal/written evidence from a lot of people saying that LA was using PED's.
We now have the physical evidence from six separate samples from the 1999
TDF as well.

Just because someone verbally says LA was using PED's or writes that LA was using PED's does that mean it is true?