Amstrong doping allegations

[Druga Runda]

again

The International Cycling Union (UCI) did not begin using a urine test for EPO until 2001, though it was banned in 1990. For years, it had been impossible to detect the drug, which builds endurance by boosting the production of oxygen-rich red blood cells.

Jacques de Ceaurriz, the head of France's anti-doping laboratory, which developed the EPO urine test, told Europe-1 radio that at least 15 urine samples from the 1999 Tour had tested positive for EPO.

Separately, the lab said it could not confirm that the positive results were Armstrong's. It noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only a six-digit number to identify the rider, and could not be matched with the name of any one cyclist.

However, L'Equipe said it was able to make the match.

at least he won the tour another 5 times after the tests begun just to prove them he could do it without it just as well...

I personally hate when those sensationalists stain a great effort like that just because some idiot inside the publishing house hates the guy.

What if someone set the numbers up for example during past 6 years that the samples were sitting in some lab, as at the end the tour and the magazine are in the same business group? Meh... can't have the sportsman enjoy his victories but they have to try and get the story out from 1999!!! What are their explanations for Amstrong wins after 2001?

 

[fallguy]

They cant stand an American owning them at their own race.

 

[dizietsma]

In no way does this stretch armstrong's credibility.

 

[Sxotty]

When I saw it at first I thought it would be current or something, but when I saw it was long ago history I just thought it was kinda funny to bring it up now, even if he did do it then. And they do not sound terribly credible in any case.

 

[Crisidelm]

When I saw it at first I thought it would be current or something, but when I saw it was long ago history I just thought it was kinda funny to bring it up now, even if he did do it then. And they do not sound terribly credible in any case.

Not exactly: they (re)tested recently those samples taken during the 1999 Tour, which were somehow conserved. So the samples are old but the tests and result are brand new.

 

[Geo]

Not exactly: they (re)tested recently those samples taken during the 1999 Tour, which were somehow conserved. So the samples are old but the tests and result are brand new.

And how do we know the chain of custody on those old samples for the last six years? And how do we know that the numbering was kept consistent between the original ones and when they decided to pull the old ones out for this purpose?

 

[Crisidelm]

And how do we know the chain of custody on those old samples for the last six years? And how do we know that the numbering was kept consistent between the original ones and when they decided to pull the old ones out for this purpose?

You're acting like it's a trial It is not. Armstrong would not "lose" the victories of his even if it was proved beyond any reasonable doubt that he made use of prohibited stuff.
The most important thing is to see if these antidoping test methods (3 different ones I reckon) work. Sure, debates will follow, but that's normal.

 

[HaLDoL]

You're acting like it's a trial It is not. Armstrong would not "lose" the victories of his even if it was proved beyond any reasonable doubt that he made use of prohibited stuff.
The most important thing is to see if these antidoping test methods (3 different ones I reckon) work. Sure, debates will follow, but that's normal.

Of course he could lose his victorie of 99, there are enough athletes who were busted after they won a gold medal and they all had to give them back.

True or not, the myth Armstrong is damaged.

 

[Crisidelm]

Of course he could lose his victorie of 99, there are enough athletes who were busted after they won a gold medal and they all had to give them back.

True or not, the myth Armstrong is damaged.

No, that's simply not possible. In 1999 such tests were not legally recognized, and furthermore now he can't be tested once more (as it's an Armstrong's right to ask for a different sample of his to be tested).

 

[incurable]

It's cycling. They all dope.

No surprise there ...

 

[HaLDoL]

No, that's simply not possible. In 1999 such tests were not legally recognized, and furthermore now he can't be tested once more (as it's an Armstrong's right to ask for a different sample of his to be tested).

If the organisation of the Tour decides that they have enough evidence to prove Armstrongs guilt, they can and they will 'recall' Armstrongs victory.
They have a strong case, all 6 of his urine samples were positive, this is something the organisation cannot ignore.
So, they can pull his victory but they can't suspend him for taking EPO, because they need a second sample for that (as you said). Even if they don't take away his victory, it's damaged anyway.

 

[PatrickL]

I read the L'Equipe article and i have to say that the proofs are stunning and simply not dismissable.
Oh and for the guy that said it s because he is american, you should remember that french caught Richard Virenque around that time and he was condemned

 

[Crisidelm]

If the organisation of the Tour decides that they have enough evidence to prove Armstrongs guilt, they can and they will 'recall' Armstrongs victory.
They have a strong case, all 6 of his urine samples were positive, this is something the organisation cannot ignore.
So, they can pull his victory but they can't suspend him for taking EPO, because they need a second sample for that (as you said).

No, the organisation of the Tour has to respect the UCI rules and the UCI rules simply don't allow that. In short, he was tested back at the time, like any other, and not found doped. That's about it (and a recent TAS decisions over a similar fact confirmed it). Also because then they should have tested the same way EVERY other rider of that '99 Tour: that's simply not possible today anymore.

 

[Sxotty]

The information I have seen does not come across as very reliable at all for many different reasons.

First as was mentioned the chain of custody,
2nd as was mentioned the numbers are not attached to a given name and they only have some mythical way of knowing. (In other words some guy who labled it swears when he did the labeling they were from armstrong).

I also do not know enough about the test procedure, or the method of storage for the samples to know whether things could have degraded over time.

Finally, it would be put into better perspective if they actually had the names attached and stated what other athletes did a similar thing at the time.

When you read what they were willing to do to cheat it was crazy, the condom full of piss up the bunghole and a tube superglued down the bottom of penis, ouch sounds painful...

 

[PatrickL]

You have bad information.
The Laboratory that made the tests had only the numbers because they were not looking for cheaters but using the samples for research purpose. But when it appeared that there were positves results a research was made in the archives to find who it was. And it was discovered that 6 of theses positive samples were from Armstrong. You have all the pictures available in the Newsspaper

 

[digitalwanderer]

I dunno, after all the chemo and shit he's been thru I could sort of see him having a "better living thru chemistry" attitude....it works for me.

 

[IbaneZ]

It's cycling. They all dope.

No surprise there ...

'

Excactly.

But i guess Armstrong is some kind of saint in the US and of course the first response is; "Bah, stupid French fools"

Lets sue the bastards will probably be the first counter attack.

Don't get me wrong. LA seems to be a nice guy, and i hope he's clean, but like "incurable" said, it's cykling.

 

[Farid]

Everybody and their uncles dope in cycling. Old news. Only gullible persons believe in legit PR stuff.

@ Fallguy, good joke! No french dude won the TDF since Napoleon or something.

Although, I'd stress that most of the doping substances used in cycling are just helping metabolisms to quick recover after repeated efforts. In other words, being doped alone will never win you the TDF.

 

[Sxotty]

Finally, it would be put into better perspective if they actually had the names attached and stated what other athletes did a similar thing at the time.

When you read what they were willing to do to cheat it was crazy, the condom full of piss up the bunghole and a tube superglued down the bottom of penis, ouch sounds painful...

Like I said b4 I am not saying he did not do it, I am saying it would be a more balanced bit of journalism if they also included the rest of the folks that came up positive at the time.

I am not going to jump up and down and say he did/is evil or whatever b/c I don't really care to much bunch of fruity guys in lycra anyway

 

[digitalwanderer]

Actually I think it's sort of silly to think that ANY of the best of their sport aren't doping somehow or other. (With the exception of course being Michael Jordan who was just a natural god amongst men

)