Professional Cycling For the Fans - Armstrong claims he nver failed a drug test?

To Mods I am sorry if this has been over covered here however I just finished his book and find myself believing he was doping.


Everyone inside the sport of cycling knows Lance doped. Just like most every European cyclist does. This is standard practice. It levels the playing field. The athletes with true physical gifts still rise to the top.

But Lance was never that good till he got cancer. Lance had drugs that none of the other riders had. That is the real story. Experimental cancer drugs like rsr13 developed by Allos Therapeutics and distributed by a sponsor Bristol Myer ... were far more effective then the EPO and Steroids. I think this is far beyond a standard doping program.

Lance seems to have a lot of republican government connections and relationships these days .... these new allergenic drugs that can make your red blood cells more efficient without raising your hematocrit rate could be a great drug for the US military complex to give to soldiers for battle field applications. I dont think lance and his idiot coaches could do all this themselves.


Why did Lance drop out of the Olympics 12 hours after RSR13 was added to the USOC banned substance list?

Why was RSR13 omitted from the Tour De France banned substance list on Lance's last tour win.... but it was on every other banned substance list of every other major race that season?

Why does everyone keep saying Lance has never failed a drug test? his 1999 and 2000 tour samples came back positive for EPO. He only avoided punishment because they didn't have a "B" sample to compare it too. But the US Government doesn't care about "B" sample crap like the UCI does. To the US Government ... positive with one sample is enough.

Defrauding the US Government (US Postal Service) from a Position of Trust (Owner of the Team)... that sound pretty serious to me.

Moved from Road to Pro.

Yawn

Yawn


Why, because there's actual truth to what he's posted? Oh right, its a " yawn" from me to all the Lance supporters, who cant seem to grasp, or admit that their golden boy, might truely be guilty?

To Mods I am sorry if this has been over covered here however I just finished his book and find myself believing he was doping.


Everyone inside the sport of cycling knows Lance doped. Just like most every European cyclist does. This is standard practice. It levels the playing field. The athletes with true physical gifts still rise to the top.

But Lance was never that good till he got cancer. Lance had drugs that none of the other riders had. That is the real story. Experimental cancer drugs like rsr13 developed by Allos Therapeutics and distributed by a sponsor Bristol Myer ... were far more effective then the EPO and Steroids. I think this is far beyond a standard doping program.

Lance seems to have a lot of republican government connections and relationships these days .... these new allergenic drugs that can make your red blood cells more efficient without raising your hematocrit rate could be a great drug for the US military complex to give to soldiers for battle field applications. I dont think lance and his idiot coaches could do all this themselves.


Why did Lance drop out of the Olympics 12 hours after RSR13 was added to the USOC banned substance list?

Why was RSR13 omitted from the Tour De France banned substance list on Lance's last tour win.... but it was on every other banned substance list of every other major race that season?

Why does everyone keep saying Lance has never failed a drug test? his 1999 and 2000 tour samples came back positive for EPO. He only avoided punishment because they didn't have a "B" sample to compare it too. But the US Government doesn't care about "B" sample crap like the UCI does. To the US Government ... positive with one sample is enough.

Defrauding the US Government (US Postal Service) from a Position of Trust (Owner of the Team)... that sound pretty serious to me.

Great post dude. The problem is, Lance has hidden behind lawyers and suspicions for years & seems to lose credibility, as the years go on & more info leaks out. He has the financial means to make any investigation, pretty much go away, he doesnt want to be exposed as a scam artist. Plus, hes so delusional, that he actually believes, he did nothing wrong. When legendary riders & others start questioning you, fellow riders & teammates come out
against you, and you try making them look bad, all the while knowing youre guilty,
it doesnt make you look credible to alot of folks. But, hes still in denial. He must be taking counsel from Roger Clemens lawyer?

Yawn, because it's been discussed so many times, what is left to be said ?

Why, because there's actual truth to what he's posted? Oh right, its a " yawn" from me to all the Lance supporters, who cant seem to grasp, or admit that their golden boy, might truely be guilty?

yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn.

For effes sake - who gives a flying turd. This has been so beaten to death even the dead horse can feel it.

Yawn, because it's been discussed so many times, what is left to be said ?

this. a million times this.

But Lance was never that good till he got cancer.I would not suggest that LA didn't dope, but this statement is incorrect. Before LA got cancer, he was World Champion, won stage races, won classic one day races, and won TdF stages. LA was a terrific rider practically from the moment he arrived in the peloton.

Lance seems to have a lot of republican government connections and relationships these days .... these new allergenic drugs that can make your red blood cells more efficient without raising your hematocrit rate could be a great drug for the US military complex to give to soldiers for battle field applications.
Lance Armstrong is a real life Captain America!?

Perhaps the OP should read some more, a lot more first.

and my reply from the other LA thread post about theses positive tests so all the facts are represented:

If I recall those positives came years after the samples were taken, and proper procedure and protocols were not followed in handling the samples. There also were no b samples to test. Anything could have been done to those samples after they were taken. I like how people like to leave out details like that.

Let's toss in a few grenades just for fun:

1. Eddie Merckx was busted for PEDs three times, IIRC. That's three more than Lance Armstrong.

2. Greg LeMond has made the argument that because Lance Armstrong beat riders who were known to have used PEDs, Lance Armstrong must have also used PEDs. But, then Laurent Fignon had the temerity to admit before he died to using PEDs. Following LeMond's own logic: LeMond beat Fignon, ergo LeMond used PEDs.

:lol:

Yawn.












Because frankly, I could care less whether any racers dopes, doesn't dope, takes drugs or not, gets caught or not.

Way the Eff Yawn.

Great post dude. The problem is, Lance has hidden behind lawyers and suspicions for years & seems to lose credibility, as the years go on & more info leaks out. He has the financial means to make any investigation, pretty much go away, he doesnt want to be exposed as a scam artist. Plus, hes so delusional, that he actually believes, he did nothing wrong. When legendary riders & others start questioning you, fellow riders & teammates come out
against you, and you try making them look bad, all the while knowing youre guilty,
it doesnt make you look credible to alot of folks. But, hes still in denial. He must be taking counsel from Roger Clemens lawyer?
Incorrect.

Incorrect.

As is most of his garbage, inuendo's and half truths. Lemond.......... has a real hang up with Armstrong.

Fact: Armstrong failed drug tests.
Fact: Armstrong claims that he never failed drug tests.

Fact: Armstrong failed drug tests.
Fact: Armstrong claims that he never failed drug tests.
Exactly!
I just finished reading "Lance" by John Cockson and came away feeling he left huge gaps in his narrative.He did mention Lance's frustration of being dropped by the same guys he used to beat starting from 93-94 when EPO took off. Its clear in order to be competitive you do what the opposition does EPO,drug transfusions and steroids.
Lance with all his training could not overcome riders who were doping so he seeked and found a way to dope as well.His teammates were in the program and its obvious specially after Tyler Hamilton testimony.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20064406-10391709.html

If anyone thinks LA was superhuman to achieve what he achieved against riders who were doping clean is delusional.

Americans unfortunately have a soft spot for hero worshiping and this is why so many have difficulty in accepting their golden boy was a cheat and a liar.

Fact: Armstrong failed drug tests.
Fact: Armstrong claims that he never failed drug tests.

Incorrect. See my points above. If you're going to make an statement like that, don't pluck out the bits of truth you favor and present them out of context to support your argument. Especially when you're accusing someone of cheating or a crime.

Meh - can't you guys find something else to talk about anyway?

Fact: Armstrong failed drug tests.
Fact: Armstrong claims that he never failed drug tests.

It wasn't a test. It was a quiz.

I would not suggest that LA didn't dope, but this statement is incorrect. Before LA got cancer, he was World Champion, won stage races, won classic one day races, and won TdF stages. LA was a terrific rider practically from the moment he arrived in the peloton.

So did: Andy Hampsten/Steve Bauer/half the 7 Eleven cycling team/Etc/etc. he wasn't good enough @ the time to win the TDF, and that was clear. Once he started doping, he "suddenly" became a world class cyclist, capable of pulling off 7 TDF wins. Other CLEAN riders didnt dope, and how'd that work out for them?(none that i know of since LA, had won the tour, til Cadel).

Let's toss in a few grenades just for fun:

1. Eddie Merckx was busted for PEDs three times, IIRC. That's three more than Lance Armstrong.

2. Greg LeMond has made the argument that because Lance Armstrong beat riders who were known to have used PEDs, Lance Armstrong must have also used PEDs. But, then Laurent Fignon had the temerity to admit before he died to using PEDs. Following LeMond's own logic: LeMond beat Fignon, ergo LeMond used PEDs.

:lol:

But, Lemond DIDNT, and hasnt been questioned by other riders/or by a grand jury of doing such. BIG Difference. Never heard of any controversies surrounding Greg doping/not doping, cant say the same for Lance.

Then Mercyx, Fignot, and others should have, at the very least, an asterisk, next to any wins they have, if they've admitted to PEDS, then that would mean they cheated, right? Doesnt matter when it was, or who did it, they cheated. Why not let their record(s) reflect that? Notice how none of that stuff ever comes up though?

Exactly!
I just finished reading "Lance" by John Cockson and came away feeling he left huge gaps in his narrative.He did mention Lance's frustration of being dropped by the same guys he used to beat starting from 93-94 when EPO took off. Its clear in order to be competitive you do what the opposition does EPO,drug transfusions and steroids.
Lance with all his training could not overcome riders who were doping so he seeked and found a way to dope as well.His teammates were in the program and its obvious specially after Tyler Hamilton testimony.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20064406-10391709.html

If anyone thinks LA was superhuman to achieve what he achieved against riders who were doping clean is delusional.

Americans unfortunately have a soft spot for hero worshiping and this is why so
many have difficulty in accepting their golden boy was a cheat and a liar.

We have a winner!!!!! Spot on. Some folks here, seem to fit the bill?

IMHO, I dont think Lance goes down for doping, I think the Grand Jury/Govt will probably get him on fraud, involving the US Postal Team, and so forth. He'll most likely, be forced to pay a huge fine, no mention of his "doping" will come out(so he can save his precious little "image" as a do gooder, who would never break the law), and he'll (hopefully/FINALLY), go away, with what little image/dignity/respect intact, and people will go back to worshipping him again. He wins in the end as far as him admitting to doping goes. He's a ******bag, and will always be one in MY book.

What a thread! Great topic!

It has everything: drugs, sex, political intrigue, international big business corruption and even American haters. Can I get this thing on my Kindle?

Seriously though, I find that reserving judgment until whatever investigation is over and the hammer comes down is the best policy in situations like these. Could Lance have doped? Sure, but not enough real proof has surfaced to show that he did.

Let's toss in a few grenades just for fun:

1. Eddie Merckx was busted for PEDs three times, IIRC. That's three more than Lance Armstrong.

2. Greg LeMond has made the argument that because Lance Armstrong beat riders who were known to have used PEDs, Lance Armstrong must have also used PEDs. But, then Laurent Fignon had the temerity to admit before he died to using PEDs. Following LeMond's own logic: LeMond beat Fignon, ergo LeMond used PEDs.

:lol:
Bringing up Merckx is a straw man fallacy. LeMond's argument is a hasty generalization, and to try to use it to defend Armstrong is a red herring.

Personally, I have opinions on the subject that I do not commit to print because I don't have all the facts. I will share these opinions here, though. Those who claim that Lance could not have doped are naive and those who claim that Lance had to have doped are basing their conclusions on prejudice or hearsay evidence.

I agree, though, that Armstrong's "never failed a drug test" has always been a dodgy response that never really answered the question.

everybody who remained competitive in cycling after the mid-1990’s was doping with EPO and/or other substances. There was a huge increase in performance and those who didn’t dope just had to drop out. But since there wasn’t a test for EPO, the test was whether an athlete’s hematocrit was below a high limit. Above that, you can have serious side effects including dying in your sleep. EPO is produced naturally by our bodies to keep your hematocrit up. If you give yourself the right small amount it is no more dangerous than training at altitude (which cyclists do) and sleeping in a hypobaric chamber (which Lance and others admit doing) to keep your hematocrit up. Anyway, it would be unsurprising to find out ANY professional cyclist doped. And in fact, very surprising if they didn’t.

Besides why would former teammates mention LA was doping.Hamilton could be charged for slander and thrown in jail.Its obvuos US Postal team hired doctors who suprvised doping in such a way that it went undetected. EPO tests were not adequate at the time.One only had to stay below 50 hematocrit level to be "safe"

Dr. Michael Ashenden began his career as an exercise physiologist with the Australian Institute of Sport. After assisting in the development of an EPO test for the Sydney Olympic Games, he left the AIS to focus on battling blood doping. In 2005, Dr. Ashenden was among of group of scientists who questioned the validity of a physiological study (http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/98/6/2191?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Coyle+EF&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT) on Lance Armstrong, a dispute (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sports/othersports/11cycling.html?_r=1&ref=othersports&oref=slogin) that led him to serve as an expert witness in an arbitration case involving Armstrong and a bonus payment for winning the Tour. Dr. Ashenden kindly agreed to speak with us and shed some new light on that controversy. He also helped us analyze the 6 positives from Armstrong's '99 Tour samples with a level of detail never before made public.
Lance Armstrong's '99 samples test positive
AS: So out of the 87 usable samples that they gathered, they got 13 positives and 6 of them belonged to Lance Armstrong.
MA: Depending on which criteria you applied. Yes, six of them failed the definitive criteria. There were another two samples in fact where the EPO was visually there in the gel. You could see it was there, but for one reason or another, the percentage isoforms weren't calculated, or had to be re-analyzed, or it was a little bit too faint to get a definitive result. Yes, there were six samples with EPO in it, and there were another two samples where it was pretty plain to a trained observer that there was synthetic EPO in those as well.

(http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden)
read it all of it here link (http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden)

Dude seriously - are just ignoring my post? The 99 and 2000 samples are not valid because they were not stored or handled properly. Lance might have doped EPO in those years, but you can't use those samples to prove it as they are suspect. Now for effes sake just drop it.

He wins in the end as far as him admitting to doping goes. He's a ******bag, and will always be one in MY book.

I don't think he's a dbag. He might have cheated, but I've run into him a couple of times on the road here in Austin. He's always been very friendly/nice.

He's a ******bag, and will always be one in MY book.

What happened to the nice LemondFanForeve? The one who said he wasn't a Lance hater?

What happened to the nice LemondFanForeve? The one who said he wasn't a Lance hater?

The more I find out about this guy, the more I dislike him. Still dont hate him, just think he's a ******bag.

Dude seriously - are just ignoring my post? The 99 and 2000 samples are not valid because they were not stored or handled properly. Lance might have doped EPO in those years, but you can't use those samples to prove it as they are suspect. Now for effes sake just drop it.
They are not valid for a doping control. This is true. But those samples were collected for research purposes only, and the protocol that was followed was perfectly adequate for those purposes. The samples are in no way suspect and represent definitive proof in a scientific sense, if not a legal sense.

So did: Andy Hampsten/Steve Bauer/half the 7 Eleven cycling team/Etc/etc. he wasn't good enough @ the time to win the TDF, and that was clear. Once he started doping, he "suddenly" became a world class cyclist, capable of pulling off 7 TDF wins. Other CLEAN riders didnt dope, and how'd that work out for them?(none that i know of since LA, had won the tour, til Cadel).Andy Hampsten was a terrific rider from a young age. Steve Bauer was a very strong rider. I don't know what point you're making by comparing LA to them. However, neither of them had won the World Championship, neither of them had won San Sebastian or Fleche Wallone, and neither of them had won a stage of the TdF by age 25, as LA had. Indeed, Bauer never won any of those things, and Hampsten won his only stage of the TdF at age 30 (and a sweet stage it was, too). So when you say that Hampsten, Bauer, and "half the 7 Eleven cycling team" did the same things LA did, that simply is wrong. As I said, I'm not arguing that LA was clean, but the fact is that he was a world-class cyclist before he got cancer. If you want to argue that LA won the TdF only because of doping, have at it, but that his pre-cancer record is outstanding does not seem not subject to reasonable dispute.

Andy Hampsten was a terrific rider from a young age. Steve Bauer was a very strong rider.

Yes they were, capable of winning the TDF though? No, otherwise, they wouldve won it, atleast once. Thats not disrespecting them, they're both fantastic riders, just didnt have what it took to win the tour IMO.


I don't know what point you're making by comparing LA to them.

Well my friend, if you go back to the post you took this from, you'd see that my point in bring Hampsten/Bauer & others into it, was someone claimed that Armstrong "pre dope", was a good rider, and had won some stage races, etc. I simply name dropped them, as they too, were more than capable of winning stages in the tour, as they both had, plus, neither doped(least to my knowledge neither did). I mean Phinney/Grewal/Boyer were all capable of winning stages in the tour.



However, neither of them had won the World Championship, neither of them had won San Sebastian or Fleche Wallone, and neither of them had won a stage of the TdF by age 25, as LA had

Neither of them doped either, to further "enhance" their chances of winning the TDF. Levi Leiphheimer is a fantastic rider, and has won some nice races, but, b/c he didnt dope, I wouldnt put him in the category of riders capable of winning the TDF(without doping).


. Indeed, Bauer never won any of those things, and Hampsten won his only stage of the TdF at age 30 (and a sweet stage it was, too). So when you say that Hampsten, Bauer, and "half the 7 Eleven cycling team" did the same things LA did, that simply is wrong.

No it isnt...NONE of them doped, or were accused of such. Doesnt matter their ages. Hampsten won stage 20 of the Giro that year(85) and was signed to Lemonds team. he was more than capable of winning stages, which was my point. In 88, he won the Giro, he also won the Tour De Swissie.

Bauer too, was more than capable of winning stages in the TDF. as he had in 88.


As I said, I'm not arguing that LA was clean, but the fact is that he was a world-class cyclist before he got cancer.

He might have been, but if that were thew case, then why the need to cheat, to help enhance your chances of winning? surely a "world class xyxlist", wouldnt need to dope, to beat his competition, if he were that good without it?




If you want to argue that LA won the TdF only because of doping, have at it, but that his pre-cancer record is outstanding does not seem not subject to reasonable dispute.


If you want to argue that he didnt, w/o doping, have at it. You can make the case either way, cant you?

Him having cancer is no excuse for doping. If he had cancer, he shouldnt have been riding, stop making excuses for him. There's a mountain of suspicion surrounding the guy, there's a grand jury investigation ongoing, and so forth. Only a matter of time, before we find out the truth.

There's different kinds of cyclists guys.

...I think that pretty well solves that whole argument you guys are having.

Yes they were, capable of winning the TDF though? No, otherwise, they wouldve won it, atleast once. Thats not disrespecting them, they're both fantastic riders, just didnt have what it took to win the tour IMO.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact.




Well my friend, if you go back to the post you took this from, you'd see that my point in bring Hampsten/Bauer & others into it, was someone claimed that Armstrong "pre dope", was a good rider, and had won some stage races, etc. I simply name dropped them, as they too, were more than capable of winning stages in the tour, as they both had, plus, neither doped(least to my knowledge neither did). I mean Phinney/Grewal/Boyer were all capable of winning stages in the tour.

If Grewal and Boyer were so capable of winning stages then why didn't they?


No it isnt...NONE of them doped, or were accused of such. Doesnt matter their ages. Hampsten won stage 20 of the Giro that year(85) and was signed to Lemonds team. he was more than capable of winning stages, which was my point. In 88, he won the Giro, he also won the Tour De Swissie.

Bauer too, was more than capable of winning stages in the TDF. as he had in 88.

In the context of this discussion age absolutely matters. The dispute is whether LA was a world class cyclist pre-cancer. Comparing his accomplishments up to the age of 25 to another riders entire career is pointless. The only result for the other riders you brought up that compares is Hampsten's 1985 stage win. At the point in his career that Armstrong was diagnosed with cancer he has more in the way of major results than your two guys combined.

By the way, the Tour de Suisse is not a major result, it's practice race. And Bauer or anyone else winning a single TdF stage over their entire career doesn't make him 'more than capable', it makes him barely capable.



He might have been, but if that were thew case, then why the need to cheat, to help enhance your chances of winning? surely a "world class xyxlist", wouldnt need to dope, to beat his competition, if he were that good without it?

With that statement you have ruled out Merckx, Anquetil, Fignon and many others from the description "world class cyclist". At any one given time there is a whole field of world class cyclists. Most of them will never win a grand tour. So yes, even the best will sometimes cheat to become the 'best of the best'. Think about Barry Bonds: he was an 8x all star before he turned into roid guy.





Him having cancer is no excuse for doping. If he had cancer, he shouldnt have been riding, stop making excuses for him. There's a mountain of suspicion surrounding the guy, there's a grand jury investigation ongoing, and so forth. Only a matter of time, before we find out the truth.

Again, irrelevant to whether he was a world class cyclist to begin with.

Yes they were, capable of winning the TDF though? No, otherwise, they wouldve won it, atleast once.Really? You're telling me Raymond Poulidor wasn't capable of winning the Tour? A little more bad luck for Anquetil and Poulidor would have won it. He didn't, but he was capable.

Nobody knows what a 25-year-old rider is going to become. Who would have picked Thor to win a mountain stage when he was 25? Who would have picked Jalabert to win a grand tour when he was 25? But if a 25-year-old rider is terrific, as LA and Hampsten were, then who knows what their limits are? Heck, people now are talking about Tony Martin as a grand tour contender, and the only stage race he's won is the Eneco Tour. Lots of riders are given a chance to see if they can become a Tour contender. Not many of the guys given that chance have as good a record as LA through age 25.

They are not valid for a doping control. This is true. But those samples were collected for research purposes only, and the protocol that was followed was perfectly adequate for those purposes. The samples are in no way suspect and represent definitive proof in a scientific sense, if not a legal sense.

They're not valid in any sense. All they prove is that epo was in the sample at the time of the testing(which was YEARS after they were taken). They don't tell how or when it got there. Proper chain of custody wasn't followed. The samples were not handled according to guidelines. Anything from cross contamination to intentional sabatoge could have occurred, for example. Especially over the course of years with no b samples to cross check for errors to boot. And given some of the really weird stories in cycling regarding doping scandals - that's believable.

I don't want to overly defend Armstrong. I think he probably did dope, but those test cannot by any stretch of the imagination be pointed to as concrete evidence that he did.

Why do I always have to do the research for you people? Anyways...


MA: One of the things, I guess there's been misinformation in this particular area - is that the samples weren't analyzed properly, that they were analyzed using a different protocol than what was used in proper dope controls - and that's just not correct. Obviously in research where the data you come up with is going to govern how you do testing in the future, you're exceptionally careful with these measurements. You want to make sure that you don't make any mistakes. 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.

And as far as the fluctuations you speak of, when we took the samples' dates, and matched them with the percentage of isoforms, and overlaid that with the performances during the Tour de France, then a clear pattern begins to emerge. You can see that on some days there's a preponderance of EPO in the urine sample, perhaps on the next day they come down a little bit, then they come back up, which is suggesting you've taken another EPO injection.

You don't have EPO every single day. You might take it every two or three days. So your values go up or down according to when you took those injections and when those urine samples were taken. Now, you overlay all of those data together and you can begin to see a pattern that's consistent with EPO use.

Here's some good stuff:


The possibility of tampering

AS: I guess I should set the background a little bit more now. This study was done for research purposes so the urine was marked with code numbers and there was no way for the testers to know who the samples belong to. It was only through some subterfuge by some French reporters that it was revealed that the six positives belonged to Armstrong.

MA: Well, again, there's been a lot of disinformation about this. The laboratory absolutely had no way of knowing athlete identity from the sample they're given. They have a number on them, but that's never linked to an athlete's name. The only group that had both the number and the athlete's name is the federation, in this case it was the UCI.

The UCI had those documents, and an investigative journalist, Damien Ressiot from l'Equipe, went to the UCI and said, "Can I have copies of Lance Armstrong's doping control forms from the '99 Tour?" Now, the UCI had to go to Lance Armstrong and ask his permission, which he gave them. Now, Lance Armstrong gave permission to the UCI to give these doping control forms to Damien Ressiot. Damien Ressiot took those forms, which have the athlete's name, obviously, and the sample number, so he matched the sample number with the results from the laboratory that had the sample number and the percentage of isoforms. And in that way he linked the percentage of isoforms with the number, the athlete's name, and in that way identified them as Lance Armstrong.

AS: Right. So the lab is carrying out these tests blindly, and you showed me this statistical study of the odds of them tampering and successfully framing Armstrong, and it was 1 in 300.

MA: There was only two conceivable ways that synthetic EPO could've gotten into those samples. One, is that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the '99 Tour, and we've since found out that there were teammates from US Postal in that '99 Tour that have since admitted using EPO while riding for US Postal in that Tour.

The other way it could've got in the urine was if, as Lance Armstrong seems to believe, the laboratory spiked those samples. Now, that's an extraordinary claim, and there's never ever been any evidence the laboratory has ever spiked an athlete's sample, even during the Cold War, where you would've thought there was a real political motive to frame an athlete from a different country. There's never been any suggestion that it happened.

However, Lance Armstrong made that claim. Now, it's very easy to go back and assess the possibility of that scenario. We know the laboratory could not have known which samples belonged to Lance Armstrong. And we also know from the results, how many of Lance Armstrong's samples had EPO in them, and when during the race it occurred. Now the odds of the laboratory randomly selecting Lance Armstrong's samples out of those 87 samples, and let's just do it conservatively, just 6 times, 6 times they got his samples correct out of 87 possible tubes, the odds of that occurring are at least 1 in 300.

So we come back to the original scenario. Either Lance Armstrong used EPO during the Tour, or the laboratory spiked his samples, and we know the probabilty of that happening was at least 1 in 300.

(I needed to reassure myself that tampering was inconceivable, so I did some follow up with Dr. Ashenden. Click here if you're interested in what it would've taken to spike these samples.)

An irrefutable profile

AS: And of course, if you take it to the next level, let's say, not only will they have to spike it, they have to spike it in a way that when positive samples are on concurrent days, the second day has to be a lower percentage. And not only that, when they spike the prologue sample they have to spike it really high because it was after a short effort and it was tested earlier in the day. Now if you take those factors into consideration the odds become astronomical, don't they?

MA: I honestly can't conceive how you could possibly do that. I don't understand how you could inject enough EPO so that the percentage was slightly lower on the next day, it just beggars belief that you could adjust the amount of EPO you put in a sample by such a miniscule amount. And to be quite frank, it doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, it's a fantastic claim in the literal sense of the word, it's not backed up by a shred of evidence at all, and I think it needs to be taken on that merit.

AS: So outside of deliberate tampering, is there any way contamination, degradation, is there any way synthetic EPO appears in urine because of contamination, degradation, bad handling, bad refrigeration, anything?

MA: The short answer is no but I have to clarify that. There is evidence that sometimes if a urine sample is stored unfrozen, there can be some contamination of the sample that shifts the band up towards the area we associate with synthetic EPO. Now, it can still be distinguished but it makes it more difficult. There is a test and this is in place throughout laboratories today, they can determine whether or not the sample has that unstable profile.

That possibility was excluded in all of these samples. So yes, it's conceivable that contamination can shift the band, but it didn't happen in this case, that was definitively excluded. There is no way that synthetic EPO can suddenly appear. It can disappear, you could conceivably have degradation where synthetic EPO could break down, it's not likely but it's conceivable. But in that scenario you've got synthetic EPO disappearing, not appearing. It's breaking a pretty fundamental law of physics to say you can generate a molecule of EPO from nothing.

AS: So based on that, you can definitively say that Lance Armstrong used EPO in the '99 Tour. No doubt in your mind.

MA: There is no doubt in my mind these samples contain synthetic EPO, they belong to Lance Armstrong, and there's no conceivable way that I can see that a lab could've spiked them in a way that the data has presented itself. So there is no doubt in my mind he took EPO during the '99 Tour.

Commodus
Thanks for your post.Lot of people failed to read the entire article which I posted the link.
LA gave 125k "donations" to the same org which is supposed to do the testing.Funny why nobody else but only LA felt "generous"
In my neighborhood its called bribery!

This is becoming OJ Simpson case when overwhelming evidence is overstepped by inept proceedings.

Yes I understand since there are no B samples it proves LA was clean! bunch of BS!

Commodus
Thanks for your post.Lot of people failed to read the entire article which I posted the link.
LA gave 125k "donations" to the same org which is supposed to do the testing.Funny why nobody else but only LA felt "generous"
In my neighborhood its called bribery!

This is becoming OJ Simpson case when overwhelming evidence is overstepped by inept proceedings.

Yes I understand since there are no B samples it proves LA was clean! bunch of BS!


Agreed. Actually guys, I posted that very article before & everyone got all butt hurt & tried to refute that too, and they shot it down too.

IMHO, I dont think Lance goes down for doping, I think the Grand Jury/Govt will probably get him on fraud, involving the US Postal Team, and so forth. He'll most likely, be forced to pay a huge fine, no mention of his "doping" will come out(so he can save his precious little "image" as a do gooder, who would never break the law), and he'll (hopefully/FINALLY), go away, with what little image/dignity/respect intact, and people will go back to worshipping him again. He wins in the end as far as him admitting to doping goes. He's a ******bag, and will always be one in MY book.
WTF?!?!

The very controversies around Armstrong's alleged PED use make that impossible.

You're trying to have it both ways. If only idiots think Armstrong didn't use PEDs, Armstrong couldn't have defrauded anybody by claiming he didn't.

The more I find out about this guy, the more I dislike him. Still dont hate him, just think he's a ******bag.
A distinction without a difference.

A distinction without a difference.

You're missing the obvious. He likes ******bags.

Time for another grenade:

Lance Armstrong rode in a pro peloton that was rife with PED users. He kicked its collective ass to the tune of seven straight TdF victories. If Armstrong did use PEDs, he is one of probably the 3 or 4 best cyclists of all time. If he did not use PEDs, he is simply by far the greatest cyclist of all time.

Deal with it.

Seems as though a lot of folks can't.

Time for another grenade:

Lance Armstrong rode in a pro peloton that was rife with PED users. He kicked its collective ass to the tune of seven straight TdF victories. If Armstrong did use PEDs, he is one of probably the 3 or 4 best cyclists of all time. If he did not use PEDs, he is simply by far the greatest cyclist of all time.

Deal with it.

Seems as though a lot of folks can't.
I like your posts, they're cute. It's like you think you have a clue.

I like your posts, they're cute. It's like you think you have a clue.

Q.E.D.

Can't argue logically, resorts to off-topic ad hominem.

I like your posts, they're cute. It's like you think you have a clue.


Q.E.D.

Can't argue logically, resorts to off-topic ad hominem.

Where do you get a clue? Latin class?