Lance on CNN Larry King Live

[MJ Ray]

Even though I'm sick of this group discussing Lance now he's
been pensioned off, I just watched most of Lance's appearance
on CNN at work after a tip-off from the TdF blog. He explained
himself and his complaints about the story, including that
these experimental tests should get the cyclists' permission
and be confidential. He also said it was his last interview
about the topic, which is probably good because it didn't seem
like there's much new in this. Is this as bland as it sounds,
or was CNN being kind? Anyone got more profound observations?

 

[trg]

"MJ Ray" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> Even though I'm sick of this group discussing Lance now he's
> been pensioned off, I just watched most of Lance's appearance
> on CNN at work after a tip-off from the TdF blog. He explained
> himself and his complaints about the story, including that
> these experimental tests should get the cyclists' permission
> and be confidential. He also said it was his last interview
> about the topic, which is probably good because it didn't seem
> like there's much new in this. Is this as bland as it sounds,
> or was CNN being kind? Anyone got more profound observations?
>

Here's the transcript-

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/25/lkl.01.html

 

[B. Lafferty]

"MJ Ray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Even though I'm sick of this group discussing Lance now he's
> been pensioned off, I just watched most of Lance's appearance
> on CNN at work after a tip-off from the TdF blog. He explained
> himself and his complaints about the story, including that
> these experimental tests should get the cyclists' permission
> and be confidential. He also said it was his last interview
> about the topic, which is probably good because it didn't seem
> like there's much new in this. Is this as bland as it sounds,
> or was CNN being kind? Anyone got more profound observations?
>
>

Press Release--Galveston, Texas
Office of Rep. Tom DeLay
For Immediate Release
August 26, 2005

Rep. Tom DeLay will introduce proposed legislation in Congress making it a
crime to do any of the following:
1. Tap telephones in criminal investigations without the written consent of
the investigative target.
2. Make public the results of any DNA or other forensic testing without the
written consent of the investigative target.
3. To conduct without prior written consent forensic testing potentially
implicating the target in any wrong doing.
4. Obtain financial or other business and/or personal records of an
investigative target without the target's written consent.

Representative DeLay stated, " It is absurd that anyone would be subjected
to any investigation and attendant inconvenence without their consent. To
ask anyone to answer questions and charges without their prior consent is
preposterous. Such unauthorized intrusions on personal privacy are anathema
to all Americans in the pursuit of wealth and fame. I will not stand for
investigative interference in the lives of any citizen of this great
Republic."

 

[Milliano]

It appeared to me that he was asked some hard questions. Yet they
didn't make him answer. He would make a great politician. When asked
about subject A, he would respond by attacking subject B. He seemed to
spend more time complaining about the fact that the test shouldn't have
been leaked than anything else. He thought of every possible indirect
argument he could and used them all well.

So... his actual explanation. Unlike what so many were saying, he
didn't argue that the documents weren't real, but rather just argued
that the test results were incorrect.

Looking at the L'Equipe article, the test results look legitimate to
me...

He argued that he should have tested positive 17 times, not 6. But if
you look at the results, there are many tests that were either
inclassifyable, or else the % was well above what any non-EPO using
person would have (under %40) but also under the %85... that huge
margin of error. There probably were far many more doped samples than
found positive.

I said he would make a great politician because it seems like the
public believes him.

"theyre out to get me"
"someone put epo in my samples"
.... and so on.

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Milliano" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It appeared to me that he was asked some hard questions. Yet they
> didn't make him answer. He would make a great politician. When asked
> about subject A, he would respond by attacking subject B.

Your point is well taken. I can see opposing counsel during examination at
trial saying to the judge, "Move to strike the witness' answer as being
unresponsive to the question. Your Honor, please direct the witness to
answer the question. Can we have the court reporter read the question back
for the witness?"



>He seemed to
> spend more time complaining about the fact that the test shouldn't have
> been leaked than anything else. He thought of every possible indirect
> argument he could and used them all well.
>
> So... his actual explanation. Unlike what so many were saying, he
> didn't argue that the documents weren't real, but rather just argued
> that the test results were incorrect.
>
> Looking at the L'Equipe article, the test results look legitimate to
> me...
>
> He argued that he should have tested positive 17 times, not 6. But if
> you look at the results, there are many tests that were either
> inclassifyable, or else the % was well above what any non-EPO using
> person would have (under %40) but also under the %85... that huge
> margin of error. There probably were far many more doped samples than
> found positive.
>
> I said he would make a great politician because it seems like the
> public believes him.
>
> "theyre out to get me"
> "someone put epo in my samples"
> ... and so on.
>

 

[D. Ferguson]

On 26 Aug 2005 06:33:36 -0700, "Milliano"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It appeared to me that he was asked some hard questions. Yet they
>didn't make him answer. He would make a great politician. When asked
>about subject A, he would respond by attacking subject B. He seemed to
>spend more time complaining about the fact that the test shouldn't have
>been leaked than anything else. He thought of every possible indirect
>argument he could and used them all well.
>
>So... his actual explanation. Unlike what so many were saying, he
>didn't argue that the documents weren't real, but rather just argued
>that the test results were incorrect.
>
>Looking at the L'Equipe article, the test results look legitimate to
>me...
>
>He argued that he should have tested positive 17 times, not 6. But if
>you look at the results, there are many tests that were either
>inclassifyable, or else the % was well above what any non-EPO using
>person would have (under %40) but also under the %85... that huge
>margin of error. There probably were far many more doped samples than
>found positive.
>
>I said he would make a great politician because it seems like the
>public believes him.
>
>"theyre out to get me"
>"someone put epo in my samples"
>... and so on.


Not saying he did or didn't do anything but the way he presented was
exactly that of a person who could be guilty or innocent.

If you didn't do something and your detractors came up with evidence
that could be forged, and you have no recourse, then what do you say?
"I didn't do it"
After that, everything you say appears to be dodging the question. You
attack everything surrounding it because there is no way to defend
what has been stated as you have no sample to have tested and you
cannot prove they tampered with the evidence.

It's standard op to punch holes in the credibility of the person
accusing you when there is no way to prove they have presented bogus
evidence.

 

[[email protected]]

D. Ferguson wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2005 06:33:36 -0700, "Milliano"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >It appeared to me that he was asked some hard questions. Yet they
> >didn't make him answer. He would make a great politician. When asked
> >about subject A, he would respond by attacking subject B. He seemed to
> >spend more time complaining about the fact that the test shouldn't have
> >been leaked than anything else. He thought of every possible indirect
> >argument he could and used them all well.
> >
> >So... his actual explanation. Unlike what so many were saying, he
> >didn't argue that the documents weren't real, but rather just argued
> >that the test results were incorrect.
> >
> >Looking at the L'Equipe article, the test results look legitimate to
> >me...
> >
> >He argued that he should have tested positive 17 times, not 6. But if
> >you look at the results, there are many tests that were either
> >inclassifyable, or else the % was well above what any non-EPO using
> >person would have (under %40) but also under the %85... that huge
> >margin of error. There probably were far many more doped samples than
> >found positive.
> >
> >I said he would make a great politician because it seems like the
> >public believes him.
> >
> >"theyre out to get me"
> >"someone put epo in my samples"
> >... and so on.
>
>
> Not saying he did or didn't do anything but the way he presented was
> exactly that of a person who could be guilty or innocent.
>
> If you didn't do something and your detractors came up with evidence
> that could be forged, and you have no recourse, then what do you say?
> "I didn't do it"
> After that, everything you say appears to be dodging the question. You
> attack everything surrounding it because there is no way to defend
> what has been stated as you have no sample to have tested and you
> cannot prove they tampered with the evidence.
>
> It's standard op to punch holes in the credibility of the person
> accusing you when there is no way to prove they have presented bogus
> evidence.

"The best defense is a good offense."

N.

 

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>It appeared to me that he was asked some hard questions. Yet they
>didn't make him answer. He would make a great politician. When asked
>about subject A, he would respond by attacking subject B. He seemed to
>spend more time complaining about the fact that the test shouldn't have
>been leaked than anything else. He thought of every possible indirect
>argument he could and used them all well.
>So... his actual explanation. Unlike what so many were saying, he
>didn't argue that the documents weren't real, but rather just argued
>that the test results were incorrect.
>Looking at the L'Equipe article, the test results look legitimate to
>me...
>He argued that he should have tested positive 17 times, not 6. But if
>you look at the results, there are many tests that were either
>inclassifyable, or else the % was well above what any non-EPO using
>person would have (under %40) but also under the %85... that huge
>margin of error. There probably were far many more doped samples than
>found positive.
>I said he would make a great politician because it seems like the
>public believes him.

He clearly says that there are certain protocols that have to be followed
when you do a test. Many of them were not followed. So that alone puts
in question the results of the tests. That's pretty clear. He also said
he did not dope. What more did you want from him?
---------------
Alex

 

[[email protected]]

The protocols you speak of are for tests that will ultimately be used
as evidence in a punitive manner (if found to be positive).

These tests were being used for pure research...Someone just leaked the
results. The people who conducted these tests are not going to be
funking around with the samples, as they have no idea what sample
belongs to whom.

Also, Armstrong does not own the samples and the owners of them can do
what they wish. The fact that the results were leaked a full year
after the tests were conducted, shows that at least some privacy and
security effort was in place.

While Armstrong can spend his days chasing the guy who leaked the
sample codes to the press, we can debate the results.

 

[Jay Beattie]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> D. Ferguson wrote:
> > On 26 Aug 2005 06:33:36 -0700, "Milliano"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >It appeared to me that he was asked some hard questions. Yet
they
> > >didn't make him answer. He would make a great politician.
When asked
> > >about subject A, he would respond by attacking subject B. He
seemed to
> > >spend more time complaining about the fact that the test
shouldn't have
> > >been leaked than anything else. He thought of every
possible indirect
> > >argument he could and used them all well.
> > >
> > >So... his actual explanation. Unlike what so many were
saying, he
> > >didn't argue that the documents weren't real, but rather
just argued
> > >that the test results were incorrect.
> > >
> > >Looking at the L'Equipe article, the test results look
legitimate to
> > >me...
> > >
> > >He argued that he should have tested positive 17 times, not
6. But if
> > >you look at the results, there are many tests that were
either
> > >inclassifyable, or else the % was well above what any
non-EPO using
> > >person would have (under %40) but also under the %85... that
huge
> > >margin of error. There probably were far many more doped
samples than
> > >found positive.
> > >
> > >I said he would make a great politician because it seems
like the
> > >public believes him.
> > >
> > >"theyre out to get me"
> > >"someone put epo in my samples"
> > >... and so on.
> >
> >
> > Not saying he did or didn't do anything but the way he
presented was
> > exactly that of a person who could be guilty or innocent.
> >
> > If you didn't do something and your detractors came up with
evidence
> > that could be forged, and you have no recourse, then what do
you say?
> > "I didn't do it"
> > After that, everything you say appears to be dodging the
question. You
> > attack everything surrounding it because there is no way to
defend
> > what has been stated as you have no sample to have tested and
you
> > cannot prove they tampered with the evidence.
> >
> > It's standard op to punch holes in the credibility of the
person
> > accusing you when there is no way to prove they have
presented bogus
> > evidence.
>
> "The best defense is a good offense."

I could have done without this part of the interview:

"Listen, I've said it for seven years. I've said it for longer
than seven years. I have never doped. I can say it again. But
I've said it for seven years. It doesn't help. But the fact of
the matter is I haven't. And if you consider my situation: A guy
who comes back from arguably, you know, a death sentence, why
would I then enter into a sport and dope myself up and risk my
life again? That's crazy. I would never do that. No. No way."


The "I came back from a death sentence" line was delivered with a
kind of phony humility and just did not ring true. Taking EPO
would not be risking his life, and in fact, EPO administered
under a doctor's supervision may be therapeutic. And hell, if I
came back from the dead, I would be doing all sorts of stupid
**** -- at least for a while. The
dump-the-wife-and-get-with-Sheryl deal already sets him up for
that argument. Armstrong needs more witness prep and a better
hook. Maybe he could get someone to say that EPO encourages tumor
growth and no cancer survivor in his right mind would touch the
stuff. That would be a nice tie-in that could be stated with
authority and without appearing to curry sympathy. I also assume
that he gets all sorts of non-sports related testing to follow up
with his cancer treatment. I would waive the privilege and let
my doctors speak for me, if they had something good to say. He
needs to surround himself with people who exude credibility and
authority (pretty much excludes GWB). -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Also, Armstrong does not own the samples and the owners of them can do
> what they wish. The fact that the results were leaked a full year
> after the tests were conducted, shows that at least some privacy and
> security effort was in place.

I'd want to know if that's really the case... that once you supply a sample,
it may be used in *any* way wished. That might be the case, but I doubt it.
Drug testing is always going to be a compromise, and part of that compromise
will involve what the athletes are willing to sign their lives away for.
Perhaps they did, but I wouldn't make that assumption.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[[email protected]]

Remember this one thing: If anything "bad" happened here, it was not
the re-testing. It was the breech of confidentiality, And honestly, I
actually hope they find and punish the person that created the breech.
I think we can all agree that its good to keep refining the techniques
and test proceedures. Being able to test for EPO going back more than
3 days is HUGE. and they need to keep doing more tests like this to
solidify the credibility and reliability of the the methods.

At the same time, I can imagine that a lab worker might get a bit sick
of seeing Lance on TV all the time, playing up his golden boy image,
when they personally know he's dirty...The temptation to leak the
results must have been very strong.

The fact that 6 samples came up as positive is interesting, as there
were probably about 6 stages where Lance could have greatly benefitted
from the help that EPO offers.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/avoid_positive
explains how the riders are being far more selective about how often
and how much dope they give themselves in a dose.

 

[Casey Kerrigan]

In article <[email protected]>, Jay Beattie
<[email protected]> wrote:


> I could have done without this part of the interview:
>
> "Listen, I've said it for seven years. I've said it for longer
> than seven years. I have never doped. I can say it again. But
> I've said it for seven years. It doesn't help. But the fact of
> the matter is I haven't. And if you consider my situation: A guy
> who comes back from arguably, you know, a death sentence, why
> would I then enter into a sport and dope myself up and risk my
> life again? That's crazy. I would never do that. No. No way."
>
>
> The "I came back from a death sentence" line was delivered with a
> kind of phony humility and just did not ring true. Taking EPO
> would not be risking his life, and in fact, EPO administered
> under a doctor's supervision may be therapeutic. And hell, if I
> came back from the dead, I would be doing all sorts of stupid
> **** -- at least for a while. The
> dump-the-wife-and-get-with-Sheryl deal already sets him up for
> that argument. Armstrong needs more witness prep and a better
> hook. Maybe he could get someone to say that EPO encourages tumor
> growth and no cancer survivor in his right mind would touch the
> stuff. That would be a nice tie-in that could be stated with
> authority and without appearing to curry sympathy. I also assume
> that he gets all sorts of non-sports related testing to follow up
> with his cancer treatment. I would waive the privilege and let
> my doctors speak for me, if they had something good to say. He
> needs to surround himself with people who exude credibility and
> authority (pretty much excludes GWB). -- Jay Beattie.
>

The part I didn't like about the interview was how Lance kept going on
an on about how he, or his representative, wasn't present when the
sample was opened or present during the testing. Lance said this
prevents him from defending himself. The problem is that the athletes,
or their representatives, are never present when the A sample is
present. They are only present if the B sample is tested. That part of
his argument seemd like it was aimed at people outside the sport who
don't know aobut the testing process. He was trying to win the PR war
and not really addressing legitimate concerns.

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Mike Jacoubowsky <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> Also, Armstrong does not own the samples and the owners of them can
>> do what they wish. The fact that the results were leaked a full year
>> after the tests were conducted, shows that at least some privacy and
>> security effort was in place.
>
> I'd want to know if that's really the case... that once you supply a
> sample, it may be used in *any* way wished. That might be the case,
> but I doubt it. Drug testing is always going to be a compromise, and
> part of that compromise will involve what the athletes are willing to
> sign their lives away for. Perhaps they did, but I wouldn't make that
> assumption.
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

From *current* UCI regs :

Property of Samples

167. The Samples collected under these Anti-Doping Rules shall become the
property of the UCI upon collection.

and

Sample transport

171. The Anti-Doping Inspector shall be responsible for:

- storing the Samples prior to transport;

- sending the Samples with accompanying documentation to the laboratory;

- sending the Sample collection session documentation for the laboratory and
the Anti-Doping Commission in accordance with the Procedural Guidelines.

I suspect that the only party legally able to complain, then, is the UCI,
presuming that the same rule was in place in all the relevent years.

The now baneful cry of "chain of custody" seems to point to both the UCI
inspector and the laboratory. However, there is no actual indication of a
feeble or faulty chain of custody.

Here, however, the old rules should be consulted, but just imagine how the
following would affect our current little debate :

Duty of confidentiality

292. Persons carrying out a task in Doping Control are required to observe
strict confidentiality regarding any information concerning individual cases
which is not required to be reported under these Anti-Doping Rules.

It is NOT clear, any lawyer would know, what "strict confidentiality" means.
It's just a fact - two (or more) points of view will arise.

Lastly, what is to be done with the results of testing, whenever that
testing is conducted ?

Public disclosure

293. Public disclosure shall be made by the Anti-Doping Commission or the
National Federation as described in article 295.

This seems to suggest that, had the UCI requested the laboratory to conduct
novel measurements, then a result which indicated a positive result is
necessarily to be published. It could be that the UCI, in order not to
appear the bad guy, facilitated a leak through a newspaper. No one wiser.
I trust that is not the case.

Again, these are the new rules - I was too lazy to look at the old ones.
But feel free to do that, if you like.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[TM]

"Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Armstrong needs more witness prep and a better
> hook.

I wish it were true, but look at how well his act plays here.

 

[MJ Ray]

D. Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's standard op to punch holes in the credibility of the person
> accusing you when there is no way to prove they have presented bogus
> evidence.

Lance does have the problem that he must ultimately answer "yes" to
"Did you ever take EPO?" which makes it a tough debate for him.

 

[gds]

MJ Ray wrote:
>
> Lance does have the problem that he must ultimately answer "yes" to
> "Did you ever take EPO?" which makes it a tough debate for him.

Why is that a problem? He has answered "yes." And unless folks think he
was faking cancer he had a perectly good reason for that answer.

I have no inside view to the "truth" but it certainly seems that going
back to 1999 samples at this point in time is unfair whatever the
truth. Unfair because there is no way to rebut the story. The only way
to be able to do that would be to have separately stored 1999 samples
under the control of a neutral 3rd party all of this time.

 

<[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> Remember this one thing: If anything "bad" happened here, it was not
> the re-testing. It was the breech of confidentiality, And honestly, I
> actually hope they find and punish the person that created the breech.
> I think we can all agree that its good to keep refining the techniques
> and test proceedures. Being able to test for EPO going back more than
> 3 days is HUGE. and they need to keep doing more tests like this to
> solidify the credibility and reliability of the the methods.
>
> At the same time, I can imagine that a lab worker might get a bit sick
> of seeing Lance on TV all the time, playing up his golden boy image,
> when they personally know he's dirty...The temptation to leak the
> results must have been very strong.
>
> The fact that 6 samples came up as positive is interesting, as there
> were probably about 6 stages where Lance could have greatly benefitted
> from the help that EPO offers.
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/avoid_positive
> explains how the riders are being far more selective about how often
> and how much dope they give themselves in a dose.
>

The stage were the following :

Stage Prologue July 3 - Puy du Fou (positif level 100) - Yellow
Stage 1 July 4 - Challans (Positif level 89.7)
Stage 9 July 13 - Sestrieres (Positif level 96.6)
Stage 10 July 14 - Alpe d'Huez (Positif level 88.7)
Stage 12 July 16 - Saint Flour ( Positif level 95.2 )
Stage 14 July 18 - Saint Gaudens (Positif level 89.4)

In short, it is clear that :

1 ) He took for the prologue and stage 1
2) Then for stage 9 and 10 (Alpes)
3) Then for stage 12 and following (Pyrennees)

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:30:27 +0200, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>It is NOT clear, any lawyer would know, what "strict confidentiality" means.
>It's just a fact - two (or more) points of view will arise.

Perhaps. But there would be a broad range of actions that would be
seen as clearly in violation of strict confidentiality by almost all
persons involved and I would suggest that at the point aholder of
private health information knew that an action would result in a
person being publically identified to a result outside of the normal
release channels would fit that situation.

OTOH, it is possible that there was not a breach of confidentiality.
In the U.S. you can follow the protocols, yet a naive medical person
or technician can release a profile identifiable by a segment of the
community, such as the TT affair (a brief unpleasant association of
Tammy and the word affair).

I don't know enough about the somewhat parallel tracks of the control
of support documents and the testing to know whether a legal and even
ethical juxtaposition of the two at some point could result in a legal
presentation of these results. If at that specific point both were no
longer privacy information, it is possible. Generally it would be
someone running open data to penetrate the private identifiers.

Most of the rbr denizens are aware of what the use of several search
engines can bring up. Run two-three browsers on double monitors and
you can put together a considerable number of real and imagined webs
of 'information'.

What is lacking is an immediacy of results that would permit follow-up
testing of Lance Armstrong at that point in time, to determine if
there were reasons that what he had passed through had a continuing
impact on the results of these tests. If we are talking the PR war,
that is the easy answer, as it is clearly true. If there is the
smallest question of the efficacy of the test or applicability or that
it could be skewed by a long-term treatment in the somewhat immediate
past, this is all that would be needed to win the PR war. My dollar
says that's where you will see the arguments finally settle.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Clitteigh]

The head-in-the-sand naivete of the posters here rivals that of those
who believe [and still do] Bushie and the WMD story!

Let's review:

(1) Lance claims his cancer had spread to his brain and lungs. So far,
no other person who's had such a 'miracle cure' ANYWHERE has come
forward with THEIR story.

(2) He's won seven straight TDFs, against the BEST cyclists the
world can furnish - many of whom ya would imagine would also use roids
- anything - to try to win that thing just once!

(3) To anyone with an IQ above an ashtray, it all seems to add up to a
well-planned and well-executed scam by Lance and a group of [heretofore
nameless] sports agents who huddled a few years ago to craft and propel
a spurious tale of triumph and heroism into a multi-million-dollar
enterprise! I know the Big Liar himself urges all Amur-cans to buy the
story!

(4) I will take your orders for a chance drawing on a 120-year-old
East River bridge at: http://www.hartcrane.net

+++++++++++++++++++++++

MJ Ray wrote:
> Even though I'm sick of this group discussing Lance now he's
> been pensioned off, I just watched most of Lance's appearance
> on CNN at work after a tip-off from the TdF blog. He explained
> himself and his complaints about the story, including that
> these experimental tests should get the cyclists' permission
> and be confidential. He also said it was his last interview
> about the topic, which is probably good because it didn't seem
> like there's much new in this. Is this as bland as it sounds,
> or was CNN being kind? Anyone got more profound observations?