Mayo Positive For EPO

[Maison]

what about you ignoring the other post in this thread that show that those saying the lab did something wrong are completely out to lunch?... if you've read my posts and wayne666 you'll see that the labs didn't do anything wrong.. the only thing that they might have done is leak the results of the 1999 test but without the links to the names of the riders. [edit.. but even that is not that bad.. it's research and no name were associated so... but the UCI contracted the research so they should have determined if it could be released or not] and i say might because someone from WADA, UCI or the lab might have leaked it... there is no conclusive proof the lab did leak the document. please tell us what the lab did wrong? what we know for sure is that they didn't provide a link from armstrong to his samples, the UCI did that with LAs permission, so please enlighten us?

How am I ignoring those posts when I commented that Limerickmans post sounded like **** Pound saying he knew his tests were foolproof so he did not feel the need to actually confirm this with testing and he simply reported his response? You see how I was not discussing LA or 1999 or leaks of any sort but about Limerickmans twited logic as to how we "know" the lab hasn't done anything wrong????

 

[helmutRoole2]

Mayo and all other talented climbers have been killed off by the postal brigade and other big corporate teams doping scam. Imagine how it must feel to dropped by the blue brigade leading LA up the final climb like it was a flat rd sprint, sickening.

Amazingly, some are still out there. Rasmussen is a good example of a flylight climber still hammering the peloton, but, I've got to think that might have been an example of Rasmussen being doped and others being relatively clean, meaning no blood doping.

The real question is, clearly some teams or individual riders managed blood doping, so how did they do it? Vino couldn't. Possibly all of ASO/WADA/UCI's resources were tied up in that venture.

I think the ASO is serious about cleaning up the sport. And, if they pull out all the stops -- allow investigative snooping, target testing, "invasions" of privacy and institute a "one missed out of competition test = sanctions" -- I think they'll go a long way to achieving that. At least bringing the levels back down to pre-EPO days.

 

[musette]

The independent arbitration panel report with respect to the LA matter pointedly rebukes LNDD for the many things they did wrong. Read that! (yellow smilies for DC supporters are more appropriate)

 

[limerickman]

Using your reasoning, if there was any impropriety on Contador's part (i.e., if he doped) during the TdF, he would be disqualified. Therefore, since he was not disqualified, he did not dope.

I don't know if Contador doped.

I do know that there was no impropriety on the part of LNDD with regard to the
results of the 1999 TDF rEPO tests.

Both issues are mutually exclusive.

 

[violette]

Now, what do you think is going to happen to Floyd Landis?? We haven't heard anything in a while...

 

[helmutRoole2]

Now, what do you think is going to happen to Floyd Landis?? We haven't heard anything in a while...

Who knows. Start a thread and throw it out there.

 

[limerickman]

How am I ignoring those posts when I commented that Limerickmans post sounded like **** Pound saying he knew his tests were foolproof so he did not feel the need to actually confirm this with testing and he simply reported his response? You see how I was not discussing LA or 1999 or leaks of any sort but about Limerickmans twited logic as to how we "know" the lab hasn't done anything wrong????

The presence of rEPO in six separate urine samples taken from Mr Armstrong during the 1999 TDF is proof that the testing for the detection of rEPO works.

 

[Wayne666]

You also forget the very important official rule that B samples for As that are negative are not permitted to be used for any means other than general experiment without names attached, and obviously are not intended to purportedly link any cyclist to those samples. That is basic WADA principle, intended to protect cyclists from unfair treatment after their As are negative.

I believe you're confused.

It was the UCI (Zorzoli specifically, I believe) who inappropriately gave Ressiot access to more of Armstrong's document than he should have been permitted to see.

There is no evidence LNDD tested known samples for the retro '99 testing.

 

[Wayne666]

The independent arbitration panel report with respect to the LA matter pointedly rebukes LNDD for the many things they did wrong. Read that! (yellow smilies for DC supporters are more appropriate)

I've read it. It wasn't an arbitration panel, it was mostly a report by a Mr. Vrijman, a lawyer who makes his living defending caught dopers. Who was appointed by Verbruggen, who was and is a doping apologist.

The vast majority of the objections were that the lab didn't follow protocol so Armstrong couldn't be considered to have doped. Well, no ****! The lab never intended to follow protocol or for the specific results to become public knowledge so they didn't follow protocol. There was no need for such a report to "completely exonerate" Armstrong, to use Vrijman's words if the criteria was a lack of protocol.

 

[saluki]

When the LNDD finds something, they are shoddy. When they don't find anything then Armstrong claims his clean tests prove he was clean. You cannot have it both ways.

Have you ever created a post without a cut at Armstrong in it. Is your objective in life to bore people to death? I have never seen such a plodding, brain dead, obsessed, repetitive moron of a poster in my life.

 

[Maison]

The presence of rEPO in six separate urine samples taken from Mr Armstrong during the 1999 TDF is proof that the testing for the detection of rEPO works.

Once again what does that have to do with my post???? Nothing.

 

[mitosis]

Have you ever created a post without a cut at Armstrong in it. Is your objective in life to bore people to death? I have never seen such a plodding, brain dead, obsessed, repetitive moron of a poster in my life.

Geez mate, do you ever post without a personal attack.

I'd love to see you on the sporting field - couple of well placed sledges and you'd be frothing at the mouth.

 

[nns1400]

Have you ever created a post without a cut at Armstrong in it. Is your objective in life to bore people to death? I have never seen such a plodding, brain dead, obsessed, repetitive moron of a poster in my life.

Hey, Bro Deal isn't boring! Knock it off. Save that stuff for doc house.

 

[wineandkeyz]

I don't know if Contador doped.

I do know that there was no impropriety on the part of LNDD with regard to the
results of the 1999 TDF rEPO tests.

Both issues are mutually exclusive.

Yes the two issues are mutually exclusive. But in other threads, you have insinuated that Contador doped, even though there is no evidence of such. Yet you insist on giving LNDD a pass, even though the lab has proven itself to be as leaky as a submarine with screen doors.

The lab's results constantly end up on the front page of L'Equipe BEFORE riders and teams are notified. It's only a matter of time before someone conducts an investigation, and that lab you hold as hallowed ground has its doors shut and bolted.

 

[doctorSpoc]

Yes the two issues are mutually exclusive. But in other threads, you have insinuated that Contador doped, even though there is no evidence of such. Yet you insist on giving LNDD a pass, even though the lab has proven itself to be as leaky as a submarine with screen doors.

The lab's results constantly end up on the front page of L'Equipe BEFORE riders and teams are notified. It's only a matter of time before someone conducts an investigation, and that lab you hold as hallowed ground has its doors shut and bolted.

i'd say it's just as possible that the leaks are coming from WADA as they are coming from the lab... maybe even more so... since i don't think WADA trust the UCI to be on the up and up with positives.. if they leak that a rider has tested positive for X then it means that UCI can't possibly bury it... who knows, what if someone in the UCI is the leaker... money is money and if money is the motivator there is no reason to exclude a leaker in the UCI as a posibility... there is just no complelling evidence that the leak is even coming from that lab.. IMO its even less likely than not that it is from the lab...

 

[bannerrefugee]

wineandkeyz vbmenu_register("postmenu_3439695", true);

the lab has proven itself to be as leaky as a submarine with screen doors.




So they leak

Is the lab work legitimate?

 

[limerickman]

Yes the two issues are mutually exclusive. But in other threads, you have insinuated that Contador doped, even though there is no evidence of such. Yet you insist on giving LNDD a pass, even though the lab has proven itself to be as leaky as a submarine with screen doors.

I haven't insinuated anything about Alberto Contador.

And LNDD has retained it's accreditation as a research facility and as a test centre.

The info was leaking by UCI to the media by the way. (see below).

The lab's results constantly end up on the front page of L'Equipe BEFORE riders and teams are notified. It's only a matter of time before someone conducts an investigation, and that lab you hold as hallowed ground has its doors shut and bolted.

The fact of the matter is that LNDD retain the confidence of the IOC/WADA/UCI : the LNDD facility retains it's accrediation.


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php...ep05/sep18news2

The UCI anti-doping chief Dr Leon Schattenberg announced in the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, that it was him who gave one of the 1999 Tour de France doping control protocols to a journalist of L'Equipe, who used it to reveal Lance Armstrong's alleged use of EPO in the paper on August 23.

Schattenberg said that the journalist came to the UCI headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland just a few days before the 2005 Tour de France ended.
According to the Dutchman, the journalist wanted to know whether Armstrong was allowed to use testosterone after his illness with cancer.
The Federation replied that this was not the case; and to prove it, Armstrong himself allowed the journalist to see one of his doping test protocols - of which the code number was used by L'Equipe to identify one of the positive samples tested retrospectively by the French laboratory in Châtenay-Malabry.

 

[Crankyfeet]

i'd say it's just as possible that the leaks are coming from WADA as they are coming from the lab... maybe even more so... since i don't think WADA trust the UCI to be on the up and up with positives.. if they leak that a rider has tested positive for X then it means that UCI can't possibly bury it... who knows, what if someone in the UCI is the leaker... money is money and if money is the motivator there is no reason to exclude a leaker in the UCI as a posibility... there is just no complelling evidence that the leak is even coming from that lab.. IMO its even less likely than not that it is from the lab...

Now, I think I understand the Landis case. He paid them off in advance. But some jackass leaked the result. No wonder he was ******.

 

[Wayne666]

i'd say it's just as possible that the leaks are coming from WADA as they are coming from the lab... maybe even more so... since i don't think WADA trust the UCI to be on the up and up with positives..

I thought it was known that the L'Equipe reporter Ressiot has a mole at the LNDD? Don't think it could be UCI as they appear to have been blind-sided several times.

 

[poulidor]

I thought it was known that the L'Equipe reporter Ressiot has a mole at the LNDD? Don't think it could be UCI as they appear to have been blind-sided several times.

What know LNDD on a positive? Testosterone has been found in sample Nr 1234567890.
LNDD send a fax to UCI with this information.
UCI seek the athlete's name linked with the key 1234567890.
Send faxes to his team, his federation and to WADA.
One mole in LNDD can only give at best a positive case for T, maybe technicians could not know if it's cycling or badmington athletes.