chrisvu05

Here you go Bliss and for all of the other people who doubt actovegin's use for road rash click on this link
from Nycomed a manufacturer of Actovegin

read down the blurb about the product. I believe it says and I quote:
"It may also be used in the treatment of skin disorders such as skin grafting (burns, scalds and erosions), impairment of wound-healing (torpid wounds, decubitus) and radiation-induced skin and mucous membrane lesions (prophylaxis and therapy)."

Last time I checked, road rash falls into the first category (burns, scalds, and erosions.

doctorSpoc

gimme a break... big baggies of the stuff to treat road rash... i guess they just bath the rider in the stuff eh? HAHAHA... and i guess the cross country skiers and runners that initially sparked the IOC suspicions were also carrying it for road rash, we all know that road rash is also a big problem in x-country skiing US Postal got all the paper work for it and brought it into the country all on the up and up... why then were they disposing of it by the side of the road?? sorry, that just make any kind of sense... total an utter BS... that is weak man, really weak... c'mon, admit you were stretching it pretty thin there... you need to up your game...

chrisvu05

I wasn't making a statement on how USP used the actovegen, I was just proving that it can be used for road rash. I don't know the details of the story of them dumping it and I wasn't claiming to know why they had it.
I was just merely saying to the first poster that said actovegen was not useful for road rash, that it is in fact a treatment for road rash. I'm no arguing either side to why they had it.

Nd2PdlFstr

Hmmm... I'd like to see the UCI information from that time that states that something as sweeping as "blood doping methods" were banned. The IOC has no bearing on UCI banned substance lists. Don't get me wrong... they tend to follow one anothers' leads on doping. But, to provide that link as "proof" that Actovegin was "considered banned" by the UCI at that time is somewhat misleading.

Further, Lance never admitted to using it at all. In fact... from the very same link you provided:
The whole Actovegin thing is speculation anyway. It's just another "he said, she said" kind of thing. The press says they found Actovegin. USPS claims there was nothing more than medical waste (i.v. bags, gauze, bandages, etc...) in that "mysterious trash" that was dumped.

Thanks for disagreeing like an adult though. Something that the other fellow couldn't seem to do.

BLISS

[QUOTE=Nd2PdlFstr]I can see that doghair has run out of valid responses, so I'll reply to this one instead.


Corticosteroids are the prescribed treatment for saddle sores. If you believe differently, you are simply wrong.

Another fact about Actovegin is that it was not a prohibited substance when that alleged event occured. So... even if Lance used it every single day of the Tour, he did not cheat.

I cycle for a amateur team in Belgium and we have a Doctor that the team use. I have had had saddle sores many times and there is no way the Doctor would ever give a saddle sore cream with a steroid in it to a cyclist

Unless you are a Doctor involved in cycling I know who I believe.

When USP had Actovegen it was not approved for use on humans so they should not have had it or have been using it.
It is still being used by cyclist today in Europe usually mixed with insulin which by chance is the other product the USP were caught with.

Daily Commute

As usual, smoke, but no fire. Try again.

adamastor

No need to fight, I've said it before. Armstrong will never be caught. NEVER ! Legally speaking nobody can attack him. He hasn't got EPO under his mattrass, his doctors are the best, the program is the best.

So he's not guilty. NOT...GUILTY !

No need for this thread to look for the proofs on a legal basis, they are non existent. What needs to be identified is:

- how reliable is the lab of Chatenay Malabry?
- how reliable is the paper l'Equipe? and its enquiry?
- what will the other 3 riders say to the case?
- will other positive riders be named?
- what will other reporters discover?

I am enjoying reading back news, articles in German, Italian, Spanish recognised international papers, including American ones. Please name me one American paper, that really deals with doping in professional cycling. Couldn't find a single one. All of them just copy European articles, and add their " oh we poor Americans" touch, witch hunt, etc ).

Yes I've read Armstrong's books, yes I've read LA Confidential, yes I read la Gazetta dello sport, la Marca, l'equipe, Kicker, NY Times, Sunday Times, Washington Post, etc, I want to read as much as possible about this case, then I'll make up my own mind.

Actually, I'm very close to it. Armstrong not guilty, but blood hell to me he took EPO in 1999...as did the others. Period

Have a nice day

Smoothie104

actovegin helps saturate tissue with oxygen, it helps wounds heal faster, there is a 2% cream made for this. Postal and others, including skiers, and Olympic Swimmers, have been caught with bags of injectable solutions, the road rash stories are a convenient cover for a "dual use" medication. The team manager on Postal at the time was Mark Gorski, he was on the 1984 Olympic team that openly blood doped, and talked freely of it, becuase it was not illegal at that time. They won 9 medals, but to be fair, they were simply doing what everyone else was doing.

waltergodefroot

They won 9 medals because the Eastern block countries weren't there...

Dolomiti

Are actual percentage numbers of every individual sample 'conlcusions', or are they 'raw data'?

Why would it? Their actions weren't ment for publishing.

If it wasn't, they would have been fired already.

I've never heard that one before.
Source?

They weren't exactly just friends. He was a cycling doctor, known to help riders properly use drugs such as EPO. Armstrong and him worked together for his professional cycling career for years.

TexasGuy

Fight Cancer
Be the world's fastest cyclist
Win the TDF 7 times in a row
Marry a rock star


Who wouldn't be jealous and want to make up stories in a lame attempt to smeer him.

Daily Commute

Read the detailed New York Times article I posted here.

Bottom line: The test is subjective, and requires interpretation. Your post shows that you know nothing about the test you think is valid.

stonecrd

Doping and athletes will always be there as long as there is competition and the athelete can justify that he needs to do it because others are doing it.

The issue to me is the ethics involved of a regulating body giving a blood sample and data to a newspaper. What was the motive? How sleazy is it to violate a persons privacy like this, blood is tissue and courts have ruled that you own this and control all of the rights to it. What other testing did they do with the blood, did they check for aids, hepatitus or other diseases. This is the bigger issue to me an seems to always get lost in the discussion

johno

Actually, it was just the test results from a urine sample. But, this is in violation of the safeguards that both WADA and UCI set up to protect riders from false accusations. A doping accusation is very prejudicial: true or not, it harms the rider. Consequently, one should reasonably sure before tossing accusations around. So say both the UCI and WADA. Yes, I am also concerned at how quickly due process was chucked out. The current mess is neither fair, nor thorough.

I don't really blame the newspaper, it's in business to make money, and it's a sports newspaper which is hardly a hotbed of journalistic objectivity. They're supposed to stretch the truth. However, a lot of confidential information has been misused here, and even the EPO test itself has fallen under a cloud of suspicion for false positives - especially false positives resulting from mishandled samples. (witness the Beke case)

The trouble with this case is, no one wins. There is enough data floating around to cast suspicion on LA, enough things wrong with the EPO test and sample handling to cast doubt on the data, and enough disturbing coincidences regarding the circumstances of the test and subsequent information leaks to cast doubt on the assertion that this was not a planned attack. But nothing has been absolutely proven, one way or another.

And WADA, normally the pit bull terrier of anti doping efforts, tossed this one like a hot potato and is quietly trying to slip out the door. I wonder why...

Dolomiti

Probably because they didn't exist in 1999?

That doesn't look like the L'Equipe article to me. It has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You said that they didn't post the raw data, which is a lie. And if you read the original article, you would know that.

Yes, that is why there is a huge margin of error before declaring a positive. People naturally only produce well less than %40 of the type of EPO that they tested for, yet they only declare positives on +80%.

Why do you say that? Because I think a test... actually three tests in one... is reliable, as it has been used for years?

^*^BATMAN^*^

[QUOTE=doctorSpoc] we all know that road rash is also a big problem in x-country skiing QUOTE]

Actually, seriously it is. You think there is snow all year round? Being as how I AM a competitive X-country skiier, I may know this. There is something called roller skis(short skis on wheels) and we go on roads with them, really hurts when you fall.

Second, doctorspoc, you said that all the peleton dopes, just no one challenges anyone to find them like LA does.. So what is your real name, I want to see you results from the last time you raced in the pro peleton.......

99% of this is all speculation. Unles you were there, you dont know for sure. Then again, this is the interent, you can say pretty much whatever you want.

"you can prove anything with statistics.......78% of people know that......"

doctorSpoc

What a joke... after all of his huffing and puffing (and hugging LA's nu++s) it turns out that it's likely Verbruggen himself (UCI president) that handed L'Equipe the documents they needed to link Armstrong to his samples (the papers that Armstrong and team director Bruyneel sign when the Urine sample was given in 1999)... doesn't sound like malace, just stupidity...

Wow, didn't know that WADA protocols allow for it to retest samples eight years after they were given... lucky for Armstrong WADA didn't exist when these sample were given.. doesn't seem like they have a real process on the books for this though...

Pound and Verbruggen should just get it over with... strap on the gloves and go twelve rounds... these guys lock horns, like every other day...

https://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8892.0.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
Pound says Verbruggen gave critical info to L'Equipe
By Charles Pelkey
news editor, VeloNews
This report filed September 15, 2005

World Anti-Doping Agency president Dick Pound says UCI president Hein Verbruggen was the probable source of documents linking anonymous urine samples to Lance Armstrong revealed three weeks ago by the French newspaper L'Equipe.

In conference call with reporters on Thursday, Pound referred to an as-of-yet-unreleased letter from Verbruggen that acknowledges that he had given reporters at least one document that provided i>L'Equipe with the critical information linking six samples that had tested positive for EPO to the seven-time Tour winner.

"It is obvious where the information came from," Pound said. "Mr. Verbruggen said to us that he had shown to all six documents signed by Mr. Armstrong and his team to the journalist, and that he had given that reporter a copy of at least one of those files."

In expose' titled "Armstrong's Lies" L'Equipe provided images of documents linking the numbered-but-anonymous samples, taken during the 1999 Tour de France, to documents containing those same numbers signed by both Armstrong and team director Johann Bruyneel.

The UCI has since announced that it intends to investigate the matter, but emphasized that much of its focus would be on tracking down the source of the leak.

Pound, who said that WADA has no jurisdiction in a case that occurred prior to its November of 1999 creation, said that the doping agency would assist the UCI in its investigation, but had "no interest" in participating if the leak issue was the UCI's sole focus.

WADA's international anti-doping protocols allow for the retesting of blood and urine samples for up to eight years after an event. Pound said that the Armstrong case underscored a need to develop procedures that would "allow us to get at the truth" while protecting an athletes right to challenge test results.

In the Armstrong matter, the positive results came from the re-testing of so-called "b samples," the only ones available, since the original "a samples" were destroyed at the time the original tests were carried out.

At the time, there were no tests available for the detection of EPO. The UCI began using a French-designed urine test at the 2001 Tour de France.

adamastor

Now I'm starting to enjoy this. The title of this thread "UCI lashes out against the WADA and French Paper" is beginning to look ridiculous.

News:

Dick Pound, head of WADA, who was under heavy attack by Verbruggen, head of UCI, is fighting back, according to l'Equipe online www.lequipe.fr . In a press conference today, he confirms Verbruggen gave the information about the names of the positive riders himself to l' Equipe.

Pound:
«...M. Verbruggen nous a dit qu'il avait montré toutes les formules de Lance Armstrong à L'Equipe, au journaliste, et qu'il a même donné une copie d'au moins un des dossiers»
[Mr Verbruggen told us he showed all formula about LA to l'Equipe, to the journalist, and that he even gave a copy of at least one case.]

Here the full news thread in French
https://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20050915_173000Dev.html

Shame, coz now the full case will deviate from the true protagonists, Armstrong, Hamburger, etc who were (or maybe not ) EPO positive in 1999, to a fight between Pound and Verbruggen...

Let's see how this evolves

Have a nice day

doctorSpoc

i'm very familiar with dry land traing methods... but why would they bring it to the actual competitions on snow... the group that had it in the meds lists were swimmers as well... weak!!

You can say that about anything!!

is the world really a sphere? i've never been into space and seen it for myself so I don't know.. i'm just taking others word for it.

is there really a country call Irak? I don't know I've never been there.. it be just an invention, could be some some huge conspiracy to divert 100s of billions of dollars out of the American economy...

ALMOST everthing we take as fact and deal with on a daily basis, put to your test will result to the same conclusion you reached about the LA evidence.. I don't know for sure that this is true... everything around us has a probability of being true... the fact of the matter is that we look at our would and the things we hear, read, even see with our own eyes sometimes and we put it though our filters and we determine if we believe it or not... but if we use your criteria we would not believe anything unless we see it with our own eyes, do the test ourselves etc... does that make sense?? we look at the available evidence (even if the evidence is incomplete) and we can and do make a determination. Even legal systems work the same way, although the process is just written down and systematic. but bottom line, we can all use our own brains and look at the info and make a determination and this discussion board is set up for us to share info and our ideas with others... so that is what we do here...

Keith99

Just to be clear, I'm with Doc on this one. I'm just fine tuning a bit.

How do we know Lance Armstrong exists? Or for that matter the Tour de France. Couldn't it just be a video hoax? So I guess unless we have actualy been there for the Tour we all have to shut up.

Taking it a bit farther. How many of us know France exists? I'm borderline. I have been to England twice and one time took the Hovercraft over and spent a day and a night in France. But it was overcast at the time I never recall seeing the French shore from England. Maybe they just looped back to an isolated section of England that was part of some great hoax.

Of course this is absurd, but it still could be true if I am limited to just what I saw.

Chucklehead

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...p05/sep15news3

Daily Commute

The New York times article is the most detailed account of how an EPO test is done that I've seen. If you have a better one, let us know. It says that the raw data of the test is, in part, a set of bars created when the treated urine is exposed to a magnet. If you show me a picture of that from L'Equipe, as well as the notes interpreting the graph, I will withdraw my comment. Otherwise, you owe me an apology for acusing me of telling a "lie."

Edit: Is this what you were talking about? If so, that's just the conclusion, not the raw data.

Clarification: The bars are created when the treated urine is exposed to an electrical field. I said magnet. Yes, magnets can create electrical fields, but the NYT article made no mention of magnets.

genec

So by implicating "a lot of others," basically you have put them all on the same plane or standard... so based on that standard, Armstrong still won over the others.

In other words "everybody does it," OK, but Armstrong still beat everybody... were his drugs just better, or what was the difference?

Dolomiti

In part, you say. 'part of the test' does not equal 'the test'.

doctorSpoc

tell me you are not serious right? so if someone records the temperature from a thermometer they need to show you a picture of the thermometer because reading 20 degrees on it and writing that down is not raw data??? [shaking my head] ??? ??? ??? ??? hey man, you stumped me I don't know how to comment on that one... please tell me you are not serious.