UCI Lawyer says Armstrong should be cleared of EPO accusation!!

[whiteboytrash]

The same article had an interesting quote about LA not wanting to take a DNA last year to prove his innocence..... **** Pound tells the story....

“When the story about Lance Armstrong’s urine tests from 1999 showed up in the media last year I told him: Lance if you’re the superhero you say you are and the tests with EPO aren’t yours I don’t understand why you don’t do a DNA test that can prove your innocence. It’s much cheaper than filing lawsuits and paying expensive lawyers to help you. Believe me, I’m a lawyer and know what it costs. But he wasn’t interested in that,” says Pound.

Interesting story about Mister Vrijman, the lawyer who wrote the UCI report. In yesterdays German newspaper "Die Welt" ( article is at http://www.welt.de/data/2006/07/13/956886.html ).

The German paper quotes the Danish paper "Politiken" (sorry i don't speak Danish..) and Vrijman admits that he suplied Katrin Krabbe (a German runner who was positive) with false doping kits in order to proof that the labatories are not working correct and to challenge their credibility. It worked: Krabbe won the case because Vrijman prooved that the labatory made mistakes in the procedure. He did this during his presidency of the Dutch national doping agency Necedo.

Interesting that a man like that wrote the "independent" report about Armstrong. It doesn't mean that Armstrong has doped, but it says a lot about how seriuos the UCI is in the fight against doping...
"Als Verfasser des entlastenden Berichts dient Emile Vrijman, ein Jurist aus den Niederlanden. Wie weit es allerdings mit dessen Unabhängigkeit her ist, enthüllte nun die dänische Zeitung "Politiken". Nicht nur, daß der Niederländer von der UCI für seine Dienste bezahlt wurde und ein alter Bekannter des ehemaligen UCI-Präsidenten und Armstrong-Fans Hein Verbruggen ist. In dem "Politiken"-Interview, aus dem die Wada dankbar Teile zitierte, gestand Vrijman zudem ein, 1992 der des Dopings beschuldigten deutschen Leichtathletin Katrin Krabbe aus der Bredouille geholfen zu haben.

function Ads_PopUp() {}

http://red.ads.t-online.de/dat/bgf/trpix.gif?&rdm=07622109&dlv=1,173,3740,168,1683&kid=168&chw=4438-4168-&tcs=&bls3=100000B&uid=1&dmn=.dip0.t-ipconnect.de&scx=1440&scy=900&scc=32&jav=1&sta=,,,1,,,,,,,0,2,0,10092,5162,5161,11,0&iid=3740&bid=1683
In seiner Funktion als Vorsitzender der Niederländischen Antidopingagentur Necedo besorgte Vrijman Krabbe damals auf Anfrage falsche sogenannte Doping-Kits, angeblich "um zu bewiesen, daß die Glaubwürdigkeit aller internationalen Antidopingstandards bedroht war, wenn es für Außenstehende möglich war, Katrin Krabbes Urinproben zu manipulieren". Der Plan ging auf, Krabbe wurde wegen "Fehlverhaltens bei den Antidopingprozeduren" nicht belangt."

 

[Scotty_Dog]

The same article had an interesting quote about LA not wanting to take a DNA last year to prove his innocence..... **** Pound tells the story....

“When the story about Lance Armstrong’s urine tests from 1999 showed up in the media last year I told him: Lance if you’re the superhero you say you are and the tests with EPO aren’t yours I don’t understand why you don’t do a DNA test that can prove your innocence. It’s much cheaper than filing lawsuits and paying expensive lawyers to help you. Believe me, I’m a lawyer and know what it costs. But he wasn’t interested in that,” says Pound.

You, **** Pound, and others have flawed logic regarding a DNA test. I'll explain it for you all.

A DNA test would have proven or disproven that the samples were in fact from Lance Armstrong. The DNA test would not prove he was guilty of using EPO in 1999 because of the following reasons:

1) the EPO test used unfounded protocol
2) the EPO test had no control sample
3) the EPO test had no second sample
4) the samples had no chain of custody
5) the false results were illegally presented as positives

There was no reason to take a DNA test. The EPO testing itself was flawed and in question, not the origin of the samples.

 

[cyclingheroes]

The same article had an interesting quote about LA not wanting to take a DNA last year to prove his innocence.....

I don't like the idea that people have to proof their innocence.

 

[whiteboytrash]

Thing is I agree with you...... however yesterday was telling proof that DC doped for seven years.... you will never tell me different... it was so obvious its not funny....

You, **** Pound, and others have flawed logic regarding a DNA test. I'll explain it for you all.

A DNA test would have proven or disproven that the samples were in fact from Lance Armstrong. The DNA test would not prove he was guilty of using EPO in 1999 because of the following reasons:

1) the EPO test used unfounded protocol
2) the EPO test had no control sample
3) the EPO test had no second sample
4) the samples had no chain of custody
5) the false results were illegally presented as positives

There was no reason to take a DNA test. The EPO testing itself was flawed and in question, not the origin of the samples.

 

[discobean7]

Thing is I agree with you...... however yesterday was telling proof that DC doped for seven years.... you will never tell me different... it was so obvious its not funny....

You can't prove your innocence since you can't prove a negative. No rider can prove that they've never doped. I can't prove that I've never doped. Hell I can't prove that I've never robbed a bank. All you can say is that you've never been caught. As for this years tour post-Puerto with strange performances; even Phil Liggett this morning said that he thought some riders had been "scared off their typical preparation" and that he "thought we were seeing the first clean tour in years". Some paraphrasing, but you get the idea.

 

[tcklyde]

... even Phil Liggett this morning said that he thought some riders had been "scared off their typical preparation" and that he "thought we were seeing the first clean tour in years". Some paraphrasing, but you get the idea.

People said that in 1999, too. The only reason that this Tour might be slightly cleaner is that there has been an interruption in supply. Provided there are no more busts, we can all rest assured that in 2007 everyone will be doped to hilt like normal.

 

[discobean7]

People said that in 1999, too. The only reason that this Tour might be slightly cleaner is that there has been an interruption in supply. Provided there are no more busts, we can all rest assured that in 2007 everyone will be doped to hilt like normal.

Forget 2007. I think a few teams were scared off their doping right before the tour, while other teams continued doping. That's what caused the strange results during the first 10 stages. At some point the teams got the "all clear" and now we are starting to see a swing in the performances. I would expect to see Leipheimer going for chunks of time in the Alps, with Hincapie and Popo battling it out in the lead group. T-mob and Phonak will continue to ride just as well. I would also expect to see some very good ITTs from Discovery. When we see this we'll know that the UCI has dropped the ball again and were back to a peloton with "two speeds" once again.