Interview with Ashenden re: Armstrong's '99 Tour samples

"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."

http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Interesting to see the pattern of synthetic EPO isoform data linked to the stages - 100 at the prologue then trailing off a bit after the first stage, back up to 96 after the first rest day and the first day in the mountains before trailing off, and then back up again (95) after stage 12.

Pretty obvious that Armstrong was injecting EPO throughout the '99 Tour.

 

I think it's pretty cut-and-dry: either you believe that there was an active conspiracy which was executed in 1999 but only leaked to the press six years later, or Armstrong actually doped.

The fact that Armstrong, his sponsors and his team were able to deflect this evidence shows just how far up an athlete's butt the American public are willing to climb.

 

Interesting read. Though it still leaves a few question marks. These just came to my mind:
- Why did all the samples from the prologue contain EPO but then there were just a few samples from other stages that did?
- Why has no one linked the other samples to other names?

And after all, these positives do nothing more than the rest of the evidence against Armstrong: they show that he doped but they don't do it in a way that would "stand up in court". It's useless if they can't really nail him for anything and obviously no team cares if he has probably doped or not.

 

Listen, here's the thing. We know that he can't be charged for those positive samples, but we still know that he doped.

Some would argue that, because the evidence can't be officially applied as a means for a sanction, that the doping never occurred. I prefer to live in reality, and argue that this evidence, when combined with other anecdotal accounts, strongly supports the notion that Armstrong used PEDs.

 

If I'm not greatly mistaken I said just that in my post.

"---these positives do nothing more than the rest of the evidence against Armstrong: they show that he doped but they don't do it in a way that would "stand up in court". It's useless if they can't really nail him for anything---"

 

Sorry, that wasn't directed at you.

 

1) Riders had learnt with Festina' affair that gendarme could visit hotels so a lot of riders have no taken with them PEDs. Of course, they came at start line filled of drugs!

2) Castelblanco and Beltran were 2 others names!

For the rest call Hein Verddruggen

 

Armstong has stated that if they were not testing for a substance he and coach B didn't consider it doping. First or second book.

 

Can you believe this bullshit by Assenden? How many sides of his mouth can he talk out of?

I especially like this one...
And you want to make sure that you, for example, weren't looking at urine that has been contaminated with bacteria, or isn't what we call unstable urine, where sometimes the bands shift not because of EPO use, but because of some other factors. So all of these checks and cross checks were put in place with these samples, so the data is valid. The laboratory, I've checked with the people who did the analysis, and I very carefully went through it with them. They're absolutely 100% sure that these results are valid.

Umm...ok. Whatever you say Assenden.

 

You didn't read the article in full did you ? As he details why this is. As mentioned EPO is not taken everyday. 3-4 days is the rountine injection rate. Therefore everyone takes the full boost the morning of the Tour start after the health test. He makes mention that the prologue blood test was at 9.43am where by the other urine tests were late in the afternoon. Meaning the prologue test would be the strongest in terms of EPO results. I'm addrion after one injection EPO can be used for 3-4 days and during that time it tails off in the resujts of the urine test hence another re-injection.

Dickhead.

 

full marks for the link to this article. the scientific equivalent of bashing baby harp seals for the work he does taking coyle to task.

 

What are you talkin about?

If I recall correctly the Tour is longer than 3-4 days so in order to have the full effects of EPO they would've had to take more at some point. And since it stays in your system for 3-4 days (or shows up in tests) that would mean that by all logic they would have given positive tests in other stages too.
My question was why were all the samples taken at the prologue positive but not for example all the ones taken on mountain stages (except Armstrong's). They didn't mention that all the tests wouldn't be positive but since the article mentions that only a minority of the tests were positive it isn't possible that all the tests taken on mountain stages were positive. Now why weren't they?

 

Again Dickhead.

Because mountain stages last for 6-7 hours. There is also (as mentioned in the article) around 1-2 hours from finishing the stage to taking the actual dope control. So 9 hours after taking the EPO or at least 2-3 days plus 9 hours diminishes the prevalence of the EPO in the system. Compare that to injecting straight after the pre-Tour health check then riding for 6 minutes in a prologue then being tested. Think about it.

 

Yes and that's why Armstrong for example showed 100% isoforms after teh prologue BUT on the next day his test still showed 89.7. Now it would've been interesting how low that goes but unfortunately he wasn't tested on on stages 2-7.

Not look at the table, stage 9. He's probably injected EPO on that morning and the percentage seems to be 96.6. The next day he shows 88.7% isoforms. Again we can't see how it goes on from there but any ways we see the same pattern as on with the prologue and stage 1. Armstrong didn't need to take a new dose for stage 10 but EPO still shows in his system. Now explain to me why didn't every tested rider on stage 9 and 10 give a positive test.

If EPO stays in your system for 3-4 days it's pretty meaningless if you have "around 1-2 hours from finishing the stage to taking the actual dope control", even the 6-7 the stage itself takes is meaningless since if you've taken EPO that morning it'll show even on the day after tomorrow.

 

Because the testing was done on the criteria of a positive not if there was "elements" of EPO in the urine. The article states this. Therefore there would have been a lot more “positives” if the criteria were to show traces of EPO in the urine. As for stage 10 injection there are many reasons. One is recovery. Two is it may have been the last opportunity to inject for a few days due to logistical reasons of importing the drug etc. Every rider will take EPO for different reasons. There are consistent tests from Armstrong because he was winning and wearing the yellow jersey which makes him a good subject to test. I’m sorry but you’ll have to ask him on why he took this strategy with his EPO intake. Stop bothering WBT.

 

In 1999 most of the riders had doped less than usual because they can't so easily carried PED.
That had clearly affected the performances of that TDF. Look at the following chart.



That could explains why other riders didn't test so easily positive, they were less fuelled with EPO, so more difficult to detect, even with improved testing.

 

I'd think the same criteria was used when testing Armstrong's samples since the testers had no idea whose the they were... Armstrong's samples after the rest day contain enough EPO. So why don't the other samples show the same thing since as you say the rest day was a great opportunity to take a dose? I assume that the samples don't contain enough EPO because the sample has been taken too long after the EPO dose has been taken (4+ days after), is that correct?

 

One possibility yes. Interesting chart anyway, does the yellow bar represent the power from le maillot jaune? That would mean that even Armstrong's performance was way below the performances from previous and following years.
BTW, do you have access to any data concerning Vireque's or Zulle's performance in 1999 compared to 1998? Since Armstrong rode pretty similiar rides/times in the mountains with those two that would show if he was riding against less doped climbers.

I don't however agree with your assumption that the other riders were "less fueled with EPO". I'd think that they either were using it to the full extent or then they weren't using it at all during the Tour. If they had EPO and there was no risk of getting caught why wouldn't they have used it the normal amount?

 

Seems like pretty solid evidence. Only thing I find odd that is there where only 7 other positive tests apart from Armstrongs. I would have thought everyone else would have been geared up to the max as well.

 

"- Why did all the samples from the prologue contain EPO but then there were just a few samples from other stages that did?"

As someone else stated because there was some fear of the cops showing up at the team bus, so riders "topped-off" before entering France. IIRC, at least one rider has talked about this.

"- Why has no one linked the other samples to other names?"

Because no one else was dumb enough to give a reporter access to his medical files at the UCI with the codes to the samples. It's known that Castleblanco, Beltran, Hamburger and Armstrong were all positive at the prologue because they were the only 4 tested and who is tested each day is public knowledge so we know all 4 of those names.