Originally Posted by DenisMenchov

Yes, we covered pretty much every argument in this debate. I'll let it go if a good mod like you can lock it after this last statement:

Lance didn't dope this year, and he never has doped in his career. He never tested positive on any drug test during his seven tour de france victories, and hasn't tested positive in this TDF. Some people are just born with natural talent...they just have the good genes, and excel in sports. Lance is one of those people. Thankyou,

- DM

Originally Posted by bellweatherman

Armstrong has tested positive for EPO in his 1999 Tour de France sample via retroactive testing done years later. Thus far, it is classified as under research purposes. Just because the UCI has not sanctioned him mean that the test was invalid.

ANYWAY...............

Denis, the thread had reached it's end-of-life! It wasn't even on the 1st two pages anywmore! In fact, it was over 3 days old, when you decided to bring it back from the dead. See the date on reply #297. So, don't accuse me of not letting it go.

Originally Posted by Howzit

Go back to your history Internet bookmarks and search for names such as Eddy Merckx, Fausto Coppi and so on. They won races by times you would not imagine, plus raced almost all year. Not only that, they didnt use a team of mules to nurse them up climbs.



Lance's accomplishments is what made Merckx, Coppi and so on "history" . Why do you hate LA, FYI your buddy Eddy Merckx is apparently a close friend of Lance. I don't think Merckx would befriend a cheat. And don't hate the game just because it's evolved and requires a more tactical approach now. There is more money in the sport, and is argued a lot more competitive than the days of Merckx, Coppi, etc.


I would even put Greg LeMond above Lance as the first American to win 3 times. He raced with a lot more heart, style and courage. Plus the fans actually like him in Europe. He also showed more character of a champion than Lance ever will. LeMond wasnt on strong drugs like Lance is either. LeMond might have taken something, but his medicine cabinet would have paled in comparison to Lances.



Lol, proof would be great, but until then you are just going to be speaking Lance hate gibberish.


If I may correct you; maybe you meant his legacy of most Tour wins in history. Sorry, I just had to correct that one.



The TDF is regarded to be the most prestigious cycling event in grand tour racing. To win it seven times, many regard, as the greatest accomplishment in all sports. If he wins it another time at 37, well, then he wil be known as the greatest cyclist in the world without a doubt, though to most, he already owns that title any way. It would just be an incredible bonus win. I decided to donate $100 to livestrong today.


My official respsonse to the Official Anti-Lance / Howitz FAQ below in the following link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ses_in_cycling



Lance comes up twice in that wiki doping cases:



1st time is because he used a prescribed skin cream and was therefore dismissed for any offenses.



2nd time was about the controversial retest of a urine sample from 1999, which was retested....drum roll...in 2005! This is a good response I read in the problems associated with that test:



"Only 6 labs in the world as of this past March carried out the EPO test. Dr. Catlin said, 'I don't know how other labs do it (the exact procedures they use in carrying out the test), but we don't call a test positive unless we're absolutely sure'. In addition, the March 2003 WADA report evaluating the urine EPO test stated 'in its normal use, this test, apparently, has never been found to give false positive results'.



This is a horrible measurement -> without a definition of "normal use", or an analysys of what "absolutely sure" means, we can't evaluate this test. I'm also always highly suspicious of anyone who provides "this has never been known to provide a false positive" as a point in an argument.



So, we don't know how accurate the test is.



Next point -> there is an established protocol for testing, with two samples to provide redundancy in the event of a positive test (so that the athlete can demand a second test, on the second sample, using a different testing authority if they so desire). This protocol wasn't followed in this case -> the original sample was already used, and this was a case of a second sample being used in a test environment, outside of the normal testing protocol.



Finally, there are privacy issues here -> the samples are supposed to be identified only by number, not by athlete, so that they can only be identified by an authorized party (presumably after the protocols have all been followed properly). The identification was performed by an unauthorized party.



So, we have the case where a sample that existed solely to provide a verification in coordination with a second sample was used outside the established testing protocol and then identified by unauthorized personnel.



Let's say I'm an athlete, who has a vested interest in keeping my public image free of these sorts of allegations of drug use (due to corporate sponsors or, if I don't give a hang about the money, just a desire to be known by the public as an honest competitor). I'm trying to be a good citizen by participating in drug testing programs, for the "good of my sport". Then my samples are used, outside of the established testing process, without my permission, and the results are then published by an unauthorized entity. How am I supposed to respond to this?"


Another good article taken from wiki that explains the problem with the test: https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Lance_Ar..._of_EPO_doping


"The Châtenay-Malabry French national doping screening laboratory, which developed the first EPO tests, says it has been developing new experimental detection techniques and decided to test frozen urine samples taken from Armstrong after several stages of the 1999 tour. The director of the official French anti-doping test laboratory at Châtenay-Malabry, Jacques de Ceaurriz [1] was quoted as saying he had "no doubt about the validity of our results." [2] He said that while being kept for long periods can cause EPO proteins to deteriorate, this would possibly result in negative tests for doped athletes, but not false positives.

It should be pointed out that technically this statement is false. EPO is naturally produced in the body. It is present at low levels in normal human urine, and natural levels in a human doing high-altitude training (a known "trick" of Mr. Armstrong) could be unusually high. Therefore, false positives can be obtained by setting the sensitivity threshold too low. This is especially true if the number of control samples (for calibration purposes) is limited, as is the case with the 1999 urine samples. These calibration issues are a reason EPO wasn't officially tested for earlier. Incidentally, de Ceaurriz stated that his laboratory worked on numbered anonymous samples, and was unaware when he sent his results to WADA/AMA that some of the results concerned Lance Armstrong.

In addition to these accusations, and in response to them, Armstrong has also received open backing from US Cycling [3], individual cycling officials [4], from former Tour winners Eddy Merckx and Miguel Indurain [5], and other public figures.

Supporters argue numerous irregularities in the doping claim: "' Wada (World Anti-Doping Agency) and the US Anti-Doping Agency, they've all defined a process for collecting samples, managing samples, testing the samples, identifying the people who are involved,' said Johnson. ' They have certain rights in the process. None of that has been followed in this case.' Officials from cycling's ruling body (UCI), Wada, the French sports ministry and the Tour de France all agree normal anti-doping proceedings have not been followed. ' This isn't a 'doping positive. This is just a publication in a French tabloid newspaper. That's our perspective,'" added Johnson.'"--BBC

These allegations are still under examination by a number of news and anti-doping organizations.

UCI Statement
On September 9, after a period of investigation, the UCI finally released a strongly-worded official statement condemning the WADA, the French laboratory in question, and the paper L'Equipe, for having failed to provide any official communication, and having failed to provide any data, evidence, or background on the allegations. The UCI stated that it was still "awaiting plausible answers" to its requests to WADA and the laboratory, but also indicated "We deplore the fact that the long-established and entrenched confidentiality principle could be violated in such a flagrant way without any respect for fair play and the rider's privacy." [6]

The accusers themselves, in particular the World Anti-Doping Agency, might face an investigation into their own practices, in connection to their allegations against Armstrong. The UCI stated "We have substantial concerns about the impact of this matter on the integrity of the overall drug testing regime of the Olympic movement, and in particular the questions it raises over the trustworthiness of some of the sports and political authorities active in the anti-doping fight."

On October 5, the UCI announced the appointment of an independent expert to investigate the leaking of doping allegations against Armstrong: "French sports newspaper L'Equipe claims that samples given by the American icon on the 1999 Tour later tested positive. Armstrong has denied the allegations. The International Cycling Union (UCI) has now appointed Dutch lawyer and doping specialist Emile Vrijman to probe how the details were released. The UCI said it 'expects all relevant parties to fully co-operate'. Vrijman is a former director of the National Anti-Doping Agency in the Netherlands (NeCeDo)." [7]



And the finally the damaging blow...Lance is still able to compete at a high level even at 37 to this day, and he isn't testing positive. He is doing what Lemond couldn't do.