DOES ANYONE SMELL SMOKE? ANOTHER LIBERAL CAUGHT DOING DRUGS...

  • Thread starter Bill Klinton's Cigar
  • Start date



Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:54:31 +0100, "wafflycat"
> <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >Nothing to do with the rights & wrongs of the test directly - but isn't LA
> >on record as saying all those specimens are in storage to be tested at any
> >time in the future to prove he didn't take drugs? Or words to that effect -
> >and is this coming home to bite him on the bum now? Let's face it - there
> >are people who will belive LA never took drugs come what may and there are
> >people who will believe he has, come what may.

>
> That's not really relevant. This was apparently a trial done to
> confirm the accuracy of the EPO test. It was not done as some sort of
> campaign against or for Lance Armstrong. There were other athletes
> specimens involved. The results of the retesting were correlatd to
> information that removed the confidentiality of the specimens and the
> results.
>
> Generally that is prohibited in the U.S. and there is a real issue
> when the profile of the tested individual makes it apparent who was
> tested, even when the primary personal identification has been
> stripped - as in the TT incident last year(or was it the year
> before). L'Equippe has gone considerably beyond that point, evidently
> getting access to material I would presume in most cases to be
> confidential and correlating it back to the specimen and identifying
> the results to the individual. That may be fine if it is part of the
> drug testing process of an event and the athlete has signed the
> necesary release. It isn't, at least not in the U.S., as a result of a
> test or trial, absent a release.


It may be illegal as well under European law. I am most surprised that
l'Equipe managed to get teh documents and that they could publish them
without facing a criminal prosecution.

Working as I do with clinical information, I am well aware of the
confidentiality issues.

...d
 
wafflycat wrote:
> "Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
> > It isn't, at least not in the U.S., as a result of a
> > test or trial, absent a release.
> >
> > Curtis L. Russell
> > Odenton, MD (USA)
> > Just someone on two wheels...

>
> But then again, as the test wasn't actually done in the US, US law is not
> really relevant in this instance.
> Again, this is not referring to the rights or wrongs of the test itself.


Europ[e does ahve privacy laws as well. I am fairly certain that
someone should have their ass kicked.

If it was a trial to test the assay then the samples should have been
correctly anonymised (which they weren't). And the newspaper has no
right to publish that information. This is irrespective of what the
tests actually show (or not).

...d
 
> It may be illegal as well under European law

I expect it will be exempted from the law, because it is "in the French
national interest" to smear Lance...

--
Peter Headland
 
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:20:34 +0100, "wafflycat"
> <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote:
>
>
>>But then again, as the test wasn't actually done in the US, US law is not
>>really relevant in this instance.
>>Again, this is not referring to the rights or wrongs of the test itself.

>
>
> Which I noted at the beginning. OTOH, it is also part of the ethical
> protocols used in the U.S. and I assume that the ethical underpinnings
> of the protocols are generally observed in most European countries.
>
> Whatever Lance Armstrong's guilt or innocence, L'Equipe has no
> standing to talk of taking a moral or ethical highground.
>


It would depend on the consents he gave at the time he gave the samples.
It is generally not acceptable to use human samples for purposes other
than those for which they were given. This is covered in detail for
France in an opinion of the National Consultative Ethics Committee
(CCNE) at http://www.ccne-ethique.fr/english/avis/a_077.htm#deb

It seems quite possible there are legal as well as ethical issues in
France with what has occurred.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon
 
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:54:31 +0100, "wafflycat"
<waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote:

>
>"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Perhaps L'Equipe thinks it is morally acceptable, but on the surface
>> it appears to be a bit less than ethically acceptable, at least in the
>> U.S. Is there a waiver of privacy beyond that required for doping
>> controls?
>>
>> Curtis L. Russell
>> Odenton, MD (USA)
>> Just someone on two wheels...

>
>Nothing to do with the rights & wrongs of the test directly - but isn't LA
>on record as saying all those specimens are in storage to be tested at any
>time in the future to prove he didn't take drugs? Or words to that effect -
>and is this coming home to bite him on the bum now? Let's face it - there
>are people who will belive LA never took drugs come what may and there are
>people who will believe he has, come what may.
>
>Cheers, helen s


I have my suspicions and on Mondays and Fridays I think he probably took
some kind of drugs that may not have been on that year's prohibited list,
or that he may or may not have taken something that aided recovery, if not
performance enhancing, but I don't believe what the UCI lab and L'equipe
did is kosher.

In fact I think what they did is almost criminally negligent and fraudulent
(uh in strict lawyerese, I don't know what they'd call it) and they should
have their asses sued.

And, it was to no apparent benefit to anyone. They are hurting those that
look to Lance, cancer patients, without good cause and good proof.

If they have an open and shut case with proper controls then put it out
there and Lance should hang his head and admit it. After the smoke clears
he can look around and see what people think.

If there's even a slight possibility that someone tampered with the samples
would you still say he cheated? I admit it looks bad on the surface - we
have to be prepared to look below the surface and demand

However this stuff pushes people like myself over to Armstrong's side, even
though I hate what doping does to young athletes.

Furthermore, I'd like to hear from honest ex-pros. Is it true that any
rider who goes past stage 10 without having to quit (or stage 14 or 15) is
on something? Why has Indurain's physician said the Tour is too hard?
Should we go back and DQ previous Tour winners who have been found to have
taken PEDs? Why didn't this lab release these results -during- the Tour and
allow proper sanctions be applied to Lance then?

jj
 
On 24 Aug 2005 05:41:31 -0700, "Bill Klinton's Cigar"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The Pretzel wrote:
>> --
>> Freedom may not be free but it shouldn't be a rip-off.
>> "Bill Klinton's Cigar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > PARIS - Lance Armstrong denied a report Tuesday in the
>> > French sports daily L'Equipe that said the seven-time Tour de France
>> > champion used the performance-enhancing drug EPO to help win his
>> > first Tour in 1999.
>> >
>> > "Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues and tomorrow's
>> > article is nothing short of tabloid journalism," Armstrong
>> > wrote on his Web site Monday night. "I will simply restate what
>> > I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing
>> > drugs."
>> >
>> > L'Equipe devoted four pages to its allegations, with the
>> > front-page headline "The Armstrong Lie." The paper said
>> > that signs of EPO use were found in Armstrong's urine six times
>> > during the 1999 race.
>> >
>> > The governing body of world cycling did not begin using a
>> > urine test for EPO until 2001. For years, it had been impossible to
>> > detect the drug, called erythropoietin, which builds endurance by
>> > boosting the production of oxygen-rich red blood cells.
>> >
>> > The tests on 1999 urine samples were done last year to help
>> > scientists improve their detection methods, the paper said.
>> >
>> > L'Equipe said it matched anonymous urine samples from that
>> > Tour with medical statements signed by doctors, claiming that there
>> > were "characteristic, undeniable and consequent" signs of
>> > EPO in Armstrong's urine tests.
>> >
>> > The newspaper said the tests were carried out by the
>> > national anti-doping laboratory in Chatenay-Malabry. An official at
>> > the lab declined to comment on the report.
>> >
>> > L'Equipe, whose parent company is closely linked to the
>> > Tour, has frequently raised questions about how Armstrong could have
>> > made his spectacular comeback from testicular cancer without using
>> > performance enhancers. L'Equipe is owned by the Amaury Group whose
>> > subsidiary, Amaury Sport Organization, organizes the Tour de France
>> > and other sporting events.
>> >
>> > A former L'Equipe journalist, Pierre Ballester, was
>> > co-author of a book published last year that contained doping
>> > allegations against Armstrong. He wrote the book with Sunday Times
>> > sportswriter David Walsh.
>> >
>> > In the book, "L.A. Confidential, the Secrets of Lance
>> > Armstrong," one of the cyclist's former assistants claimed that
>> > Armstrong once asked her to dispose of used syringes and give him
>> > makeup to conceal needle marks on his arms.
>> >
>> > Armstrong has taken libel action against The Sunday Times
>> > after the British newspaper reprinted allegations in a review of the
>> > book in June 2004. The case will go to trial in London's High Court
>> > in November.
>> >
>> > Armstrong retired from cycling after his record seventh
>> > straight Tour victory last month.
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Rafael "Stanozolol" Palmiero also denied taking performance enhancing
>> > drugs just like Lance Armstrong.
>> >
>> > As the old saying goes, "where there's smoke, there's fire."

>>
>> <ROTFLMAO!>

>
>Keep on laughing and keep sipping on that kool-aid and believe that
>Lance didn't do it. Here are some facts about your favorite drug using
>libturd:
>
>
>Tour Chief: Armstrong Doping 'PROVEN FACT'
>By ANGELA DOLAND, Associated Press Writer
>
>PARIS - The director of the Tour de France said it was a "PROVEN
>SCIENTIFIC FACT" that Lance Armstrong had a performance-boosting drug
>in his body during his 1999 Tour win, and that the seven-time champion
>owed fans an explanation.
>
>In a story Wednesday, Jean-Marie Leblanc praised L'Equipe for an
>investigation that reported that six urine samples provided by
>Armstrong during the 1999 Tour tested positive for the red blood
>cell-booster EPO. The French sports daily on Tuesday accused Armstrong
>of using EPO during his first Tour win in 1999.


Hmmm ... Erythropoietin (EPO) is used by a lot of people
undergoing cancer treatment. Chemotherapy often puts a
big hurt on red blood cell production, and the hurt CAN
be permanent. While EPO can be used as a 'cheat' - it
will increase the amount of oxygen the blood can carry,
which is relevant in endurance sports like running,
cycling and swimming - it is also a legitimate part of
a cancer-treatment program.

Now whether Armstrong NEEDS as much EPO as these tests
allegedly revealed ... you'd have to ask his doctors.
An overdose would be cheating - but possibly fatal to
anyone whose ability to produce RBCs is already very
marginal.

Anyway, it doesn't look like Armstrong is gonna be back
next year. Age is slowly taking its toll and he couldn't
choke down enough steroids or EPO to keep up with the
younger competition. If nothing more than some EPO,
six years ago, turns up ... I'd say we just forget it
and be happy to see someone with severe cancer bounce
back like he did. The 'Discovery Channel' was clearly
setting-up Armstrong for retirement this year, ensuring
enough exposure that he will be a viable sports
commentator and product seller for a long time to come.
 
I submit that on or about 24 Aug 2005 00:47:59 -0700, the person known
to the court as [email protected] made a statement
(<[email protected]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

>Everybody knew that he used drugs, but if drugs were forbidden, the
>tour de France would take a lot of time more.


[quoted **** trimmed]

The idea of Lance, FOB, as a liberal, is laughable. A particularly
pathetic piece of mud-slinging.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:20:34 +0100, "wafflycat"
> <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote:
>
>
>>But then again, as the test wasn't actually done in the US, US law is not
>>really relevant in this instance.
>>Again, this is not referring to the rights or wrongs of the test itself.

>
>
> Which I noted at the beginning. OTOH, it is also part of the ethical
> protocols used in the U.S. and I assume that the ethical underpinnings
> of the protocols are generally observed in most European countries.
>
> Whatever Lance Armstrong's guilt or innocence, L'Equipe has no
> standing to talk of taking a moral or ethical highground.
>

A statement that in general is true of the french :)

<ducks>
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> I submit that on or about 24 Aug 2005 00:47:59 -0700, the person known
> to the court as [email protected] made a statement
> (<[email protected]> in Your
> Honour's bundle) to the following effect:
>
>
>>Everybody knew that he used drugs, but if drugs were forbidden, the
>>tour de France would take a lot of time more.

>
>
> [quoted **** trimmed]
>
> The idea of Lance, FOB, as a liberal, is laughable.


Un...photographable....


I think it was Jonathan Kozol in this month's Harpers who said (in
discussing the future of the Supreme Court) that the old right is now
the center; the old center is now the left. The old left no longer exists.

Steve



A particularly
> pathetic piece of mud-slinging.
>
> Guy
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
> simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken



--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
 
"Ron Olin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:YS_Oe.208082$HI.126375@edtnps84...
> Arnold OPENLY advocated the use of STEROIDS .
>
> oh... but that's different
>


LOL...nice attempt to change the subject!
No matter what Arnold does or does not advocate has absolutly NOTHING to do
with Lance Armstrong or the Tour de France!
 
What I don't understand is why you would use an indeterminate sample
to, as the reports I read said, "perfect EPO screening." Wouldn't one
normally use samples of known origin and results to confirm the
accuracy of a test. How can you test the test using a sample whose
result you don't know?
 
On 24 Aug 2005 21:42:43 -0700, "Fred C. Dobbs" <[email protected]> wrote:

>What I don't understand is why you would use an indeterminate sample
>to, as the reports I read said, "perfect EPO screening." Wouldn't one
>normally use samples of known origin and results to confirm the
>accuracy of a test. How can you test the test using a sample whose
>result you don't know?


They would have to run controls, but the point is the controls would be
those made up fresh. Now for testing urine for EPO within a few days, fresh
controls would be OK. But to test a new, experimental test on samples
stored at -20 C for 5-6 years, the samples should have been made up at the
time of storage in a high, medium and low concentration, also in a
'standard' urine and run in parallel. Of course at the same time, normal
fresh controls would also be run, with similar constitution of the stored
frozen controls. These would help to guage the unknowns as well as the
degradation or alteration of the stored controls.

When the results are in, if the normal fresh controls are significantly
different from the stored frozen controls, then one would argue that the
unknowns would also be skewed a proportional amount.

jj
 
And then the bottom line is that the lab had no scientific "research"
rationale for testing a hundred twenty old samples of unknown
composition.
 
I'm not an oncologist but I'm not sure that EPO is given with
Chemotherapy; after all the purpose of chemo is to prevent all cells
dividing with the aim of knocking out the tumour; it also takes other
rapidly dividing cells with it such as bone marrow and hair. Blood
transfusion is the normal treatment for chemo -induced anaemia; as it
is the mitotic process itself which is affected, so EPO would not help?
 
MartinM wrote:
> I'm not an oncologist but I'm not sure that EPO is given with
> Chemotherapy; after all the purpose of chemo is to prevent all cells
> dividing with the aim of knocking out the tumour; it also takes other
> rapidly dividing cells with it such as bone marrow and hair. Blood
> transfusion is the normal treatment for chemo -induced anaemia; as it
> is the mitotic process itself which is affected, so EPO would not help?
>


http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=8390

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Lanice brought the Tour de France to America. Without him in it I
> doubt we will hear its running though we might hear who wins "might" is
> the word


"we" live in the UK, this being a UK newsgroup, where we have had at
least some semblance of TV coverage of the Tour since the days of
Bernard Hinault at least.

"we" also heard plenty about it when Greg Lemond won.

d.
 
me:
> "we" live in the UK, this being a UK newsgroup


sorry, I should clarify: by "this" I mean uk.rec.cycling, one of the
newsgroups this thread is crossposted to.

d.
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> MartinM wrote:
> > I'm not an oncologist but I'm not sure that EPO is given with
> > Chemotherapy; after all the purpose of chemo is to prevent all cells
> > dividing with the aim of knocking out the tumour; it also takes other
> > rapidly dividing cells with it such as bone marrow and hair. Blood
> > transfusion is the normal treatment for chemo -induced anaemia; as it
> > is the mitotic process itself which is affected, so EPO would not help?
> >

>
> http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=8390
>


Thanks, like I said I'm not an oncologist; I only see the cases who
need transfusions to correct anaemia in the lab.
 
On 24 Aug 2005 05:41:31 -0700, "Bill Klinton's Cigar"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Keep on laughing and keep sipping on that kool-aid and believe that
>Lance didn't do it. Here are some facts about your favorite drug using
>libturd:
>
>
>Tour Chief: Armstrong Doping 'PROVEN FACT'
>By ANGELA DOLAND, Associated Press Writer
>
>
>PARIS - The director of the Tour de France said it was a "PROVEN
>SCIENTIFIC FACT" that Lance Armstrong had a performance-boosting drug
>in his body during his 1999 Tour win, and that the seven-time champion
>owed fans an explanation.


Is it clear that tests done many years after the sample was taken are
reliable?

Is it clear that the samples were reliably stored over that long
period so that it's clear whose sample it really is? These samples did
not have names attached to them, but were instead labelled with a
number. Was record keeping reliable enough to be sure that the sample
is properly matched to Armstrong?

Was contamination of one person's sample with anothers possible given
the lab procedures used? I residue in the testing equipment? False
positives?

Remember the countless false positives showing chemicals at various
sites in Iraq? Which on more refined testing proved to have been only
"false positives?"

One of my cats tested positive for feline leukemia. I had to
quarantine him for six months from my other cats until another test
was done - negative. The first test said - positive - but a certain
percentage of the time that test is false.

If I had trusted the test the first time we would have killed the cat.

Also, this drug was prescribed to Armstrong to treat his cancer. Is it
possible that residues of the drug could be in the 1999 sample from
his prior legal use of the drug to treat his cancer?
 
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> On 24 Aug 2005 05:41:31 -0700, "Bill Klinton's Cigar"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Keep on laughing and keep sipping on that kool-aid and believe that
> >Lance didn't do it. Here are some facts about your favorite drug using
> >libturd:
> >
> >
> >Tour Chief: Armstrong Doping 'PROVEN FACT'
> >By ANGELA DOLAND, Associated Press Writer
> >
> >
> >PARIS - The director of the Tour de France said it was a "PROVEN
> >SCIENTIFIC FACT" that Lance Armstrong had a performance-boosting drug
> >in his body during his 1999 Tour win, and that the seven-time champion
> >owed fans an explanation.


Has anyone else thought it odd that this all went down just days after Lance
met with GWBush?
--
Dion
"Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war."
William Shakespeare