French offer Armstrong a re-test of his 1999 Tour sample



RdBiker said:
Well obviously he can't let them test the samples because they show a positive. So the question really is how is he gonna avoid this. What will his excuse be?
Excuse is : they don't need to retest my ****, everyone already knows that there is EPO! it's time to move on.
 
RdBiker said:
Well obviously he can't let them test the samples because they show a positive. So the question really is how is he gonna avoid this. What will his excuse be?


Possibly a legal point that no matter what the outcome the results can not be used as a legal basis for excluding him.
This is just a theory since I am not schooled in international sports law.
 
The ASO should tell Armstrong to agree to have his '99 samples retested or he won't be invited. Put him between a rock and a hard place.
 
Apparently he has already refused to submit the 1999 samples to retesting. The cyclingnews article with his full response is here. No surprises I guess.

IMHO this exposes Armstrong to... doubts. After all, he has little to lose. I believe his return to racing was a bad decision.
 
Powerful Pete said:
Apparently he has already refused to submit the 1999 samples to retesting. The cyclingnews article with his full response is here. No surprises I guess.

IMHO this exposes Armstrong to... doubts. After all, he has little to lose. I believe his return to racing was a bad decision.

I think more to the point he spent so much time suing everyone telling them how clean he is he has to have them tested.... if he didn't do that I don't think anyone would give a ****....
 
As I posted before I am sure he has anticipated all this but he did hedge his bet to some extent. First of all you have a die hard fan base with some,so take this and wrap it in a creamy layer of noble cause (cancer research).
Now, add in additional fan base by gently sprinkling with other famous retired riders creating a spicey scenario for a re-match of sorts.
If you can create enough momentum you have a sellable product.
I am not going to pass judgement either way except to comment that if you chocolate coat a turd you still have turd.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
 
I would pretty much have gone the same route as Lance - when brought down to brass tacks the offer was really "we can't do anything with the results - we just want to retest them".

Lance had nothing to gain and everything to lose - even if every sample was tested and clean as a whistle do you really think the nay sayers would roll over say he is innocent? Based on the sentiment on this forum - no chance.

Doping is at that point where if someone wins by more than 5m and doesn't collapse after the line ala Nicole Cooke style then they're labelled dopers.

There is diddly squat anyone can do (legally) with the samples anyway so forget them and enjoy the spectacle of Lance (whether you're smiling or grimacing!). Whether famous or notorious Lance you can't deny that Lance is the most of the decade...

Did I just say that? Urgh - I think I taste a little vomit in my throat....
 
Eldron said:
I would pretty much have gone the same route as Lance - when brought down to brass tacks the offer was really "we can't do anything with the results - we just want to retest them".

Lance had nothing to gain and everything to lose - even if every sample was tested and clean as a whistle do you really think the nay sayers would roll over say he is innocent? Based on the sentiment on this forum - no chance.

Doping is at that point where if someone wins by more than 5m and doesn't collapse after the line ala Nicole Cooke style then they're labelled dopers.

There is diddly squat anyone can do (legally) with the samples anyway so forget them and enjoy the spectacle of Lance (whether you're smiling or grimacing!). Whether famous or notorious Lance you can't deny that Lance is the most of the decade...

Did I just say that? Urgh - I think I taste a little vomit in my throat....
Bush said that along with Congress passing the $700billion bail out of the US financial markets Lance would have his samples retested.
 
One doubt remains in LA's comeback: what will the American press say or do? If a few "real" american investigators try to dig out the old 99 samples story, they might actually damage LA's reputation in the States. Very very dangerous move from him to decide to come back.

Legally speaking, he's got nothing to fear:

1) UCI is on his side (yes, it is)
2) ASO have kicked out ASO boss P. Clerc, big anti doping fighter
3) 99' samples are B samples only
4) 8 prescription, so no chance for anyone to go back and condemn
 
Lance Armstrong is not Barry Bonds, as such he has great politics in the states. People stand to make to too much money (media outlets as well) off this "comeback" for some rogue reporter to re-hash old stories in attempts to tarnish Armstrong's reputation here. Without a smoking gun, Armstrong might as well be wearing teflon...
 
I don't understand. Do they need his permission to retest the samples? They didn't the first time, so couldn't they just test them again and see what they come up with?
 
a few questions:

What is with the doping labaratories and their infatuation with ****?

Why have they kept nine year old frozen **** from a dude who's retired from the sport?

How many frozen bottles of **** do they have?

How old is the oldest bottle of frozen **** that they have?

Is there a frozen **** museum that I can go see?

Where do they keep this frozen ****? A frozen **** meatlocker? Would that be a pisslocker?

Can they test Eddy Merckx's **** from his last Giro win?

Why just offer to test the 99 samples, why not 2000-2005 too?

:confused: :confused: :confused: please excuse me, suddenly I need to use the pisser...
 
Bikeridindude said:
a few questions:
Why have they kept nine year old frozen **** from a dude who's retired from the sport?
research purposes and judicial reasons inc ase of LA would tried to sue someone...;)

Bikeridindude said:
Why just offer to test the 99 samples, why not 2000-2005 too?
Other years were tested too, some LA **** didn't have hEPO inside. probably because of the use of soap powder !
 
K'Ching said:
I don't understand. Do they need his permission to retest the samples? They didn't the first time, so couldn't they just test them again and see what they come up with?

the testing the did of the 1999 samples were supposed to be anonymous and just for research purposes... i.e. no sanctions, no naming names...

a reporter noticed numbers beside the positives in the list of results of the retesting from 1999 and guessed correctly that this number might be the same as the number on the paper work that an athlete signs when they give their sample (aka ****). the punch line is that Lance himself allowed the linking of him with anonymous results... the reporter contacted Lance and lied and said that he was doing a story to show conclusively that he had no special permission to use EPO in 1999 related to his cancer... many people thought he did...and Lance gave the reporter permission to look at his paper work which showed no TUEs... BUT also showed the index number that could be matched with tested samples. so anonymous samples became non-anonymous samples... at least Lance's did.

they have no right to retest these samples based on the agreement/contract with the riders at that time... some time later they changed it so that they can now retest at a later time when new tests are developed... like they are doing with the TdF blood samples right now... but they have no legal right to retest the 1999 samples and name or sanction anyone...

they also only have B samples so even if they had the right to retest they couldn't declare positives since a positive test is a "non-negative" A sample (an A sample that contains EPO) and a "non-negative" B sample (a B sample that contains EPO).

as much as a self proclaimed Lance hater as i am... he's in the clear... he beat the test and they really need to let it go... and on top of that there is a UCI sanction report that say that chain of custody was not followed to the letter so... now he can and has said that basically how do we know these weren't spiked... he hasn't even from the start brought into question that the sample didn't contain EPO... only that he has no idea how it got there... as much as everyone knows he's guiltier than sin.. he's in the clear and they seriously need to give it a rest...
 
Everyone personal opions aside. DoctorSpoc has a point. There is nothing to be gained by this, except more headlines for a paper. I just hope that Lance is clean when he goes to the tour this year, because they methods of testing have gotten better.

Mainly because I don't think cycling could handle it. Such a high profile case would be disasterous.
 
linenoiz said:
Everyone personal opions aside. DoctorSpoc has a point. There is nothing to be gained by this, except more headlines for a paper. I just hope that Lance is clean when he goes to the tour this year, because they methods of testing have gotten better.

Mainly because I don't think cycling could handle it. Such a high profile case would be disasterous.
Lance's credibility outside US is null... when he tests negative that is the farce for everyone. So don't be worried if he fails a test.
 

Similar threads