If an officer flashes a badge at me and told me that it's ok for me to leave my vehicle when I asked to go take a piss while pulled over, I think it's pretty much common sense not to leave my vehicle to be planted evidence.

In Lance's case, his vehicle is his body.. he should know better to stay within sight of the inspector until the credentials are varified and samples are given to satisfaction. Whether to provide samples before or after the varification could be decided by Lance, but stay within sight of the inspector is probably the safest approch to avoid confusion.

Sounds like he said/she said:

The WADA code article in question states, "when initial contact is made, the ADO [anti-doping official], DCO [doping control officer] or Chaperone, as applicable, shall ensure that the Athlete and/or a third party (if required in accordance with Clause 5.3.8) is informed.... of the Athlete's responsibilities, including the requirement to... remain within direct observation of the DCO/Chaperone at all times from the point of notification by the DCO/Chaperone until the completion of the Sample collection procedure."

Earlier this week, Armstrong responded to news that the AFLD had raised objections to the incident. He issued a statement saying that he was approached by the and team manager Johan Bruyneel were attempting to verify the validity of the person requesting the samples and Armstrong was permitted to leave.

"We told the tester we wanted to check with the UCI to confirm who he was and to make sure he wasn't just some French guy with a backpack and some equipment to take my blood and urine.

"Johan stayed with him and in his presence called the UCI to find out what was going on. We asked if it was OK for me to run inside and shower while they made their calls and the tester said that was fine."

The AFLD statement directly contradicts, this, saying that, "Mr Armstrong, despite being repeatedly warned by the examiner, did not meet the obligation to remain under direct and permanent observation."

Typical Frenchman, just wanted to see his wiener.

oui oui

Funny how this wasn't mentioned until now. If that really had been the case, the Frenchies would have screaming bloody murder 3 weeks ago.

Too bad, so sad, you're going to lose "your" race once again.

:D

By "an officer" do you mean a uniformed officer in a squad car or Starsky & Hutch (yes, I'm old) wearing leather jacket, bell bottoms and sneakers?


http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/s....8d6cafa1.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030202461.html

This is Lance's side of the story. Since you all worship Lance, you are all assuming that what he says is fact. I'd like to hear the other side of the story. If the tester also verifies this to be true, I agree with your statement and think the tester is as much to blame as Lance.

Edit: And now we have heard the other side... "The AFLD's statement said the tester "repeatedly" warned Armstrong that he needed to remain under direct observation."

Barese Rider wrote: >Lance brings back bad old memories<

What bad memories? The "evidence" he doped was only uncovered a few of years ago, after he retired. For whatever reasons, the Tour organizers have always had it in for Lance - I would think Lance has some bad memories of the French!

Does it matter? would you give any one a chance to doubt that you might be guilty if you're innocent?
Is France still under the Napoleonic Code?

am i the only one who thinks taking a shower and leaving the room when youre supposed to be giving blood/hair/urine samples is shady?

even if you arent sure of the guys credentials... you should at least give him the benefit of the doubt and determine if he is official. Besides.. a guy thats been tested 23 times in the last few months should know this by heart...

Says a lot about the race fan vs. the organizers and no talent bureaucrats running the show, doesn't it?

Nope.

My Democratic Senator told Obama to shove his budget. Because he's listening to the phone calls and reading his email and he likes his job. Which he is well aware he will lose in the next election if he does not toe the line.

So he is.

Careful now...I have a big stack of race cards and I'm way under my quota for the month. ;)


http://www.justlanded.com/english/Fr...-French-police

I have several bridges to sell anyone here that thinks LA doesn't know the rules here to the letter. He broke them for whatever reason. Lolz, transparency.

I'm with you on the budget RW. Oh well. You cast your vote and you take your chances. I like everything else he's done so far. We'll see.

WADA rules? yes. USADA rules? yes. AFLD rules? no.

Just to be clear, I am in the other half.

But what about the one ball aspect? That isn't a point of curiosity for you? I'd stare at that.

ADAA? maybe

http://blog.martian.co.nz/wp-content...0/addablog.jpg

Blood and hair I don't see how. Urine, there is lot's a rider out of sight for 5 minutes can do, which is the reason for the rule. I'm sure Lance is well aware of both the rule and the things that can be done. (That does not mean he has ever used any of the urine tricks, but anyone who even talks to real pro cyclists a lot would know many of the tricks).

Now if the tester said it was OK he blew it.

Where things are now the Testing organization is in a nasty spot. Since they have blood and hair it would seem the urine is of minor consequence, unless there is something that I am unaware of. So if they do too much they seem petty, but they do have to do something. If they do nothing the next person with a technical violation will scream unfair. Personally I'd go with a formal reprimand (actually if things are as they seem to both Lance and the tester) and perhaps added tests (perhaps nothing to Lance, but important to any second level rider who is doping and not getting the testing attention).

Saline solution via IV
New blood via IV
Several masking agents via IV
Plasma expander

What hes doing wont be detected via hair BTW.



LA knows the rules and took a risk by doing what he did. He deserves whatever happens. Protocol is protocol and LA screwed up. He knows the dance and this is noting more than a "he said, she said" situation. He will not be in the TdF this year mark my words.

Hair I can't figure out a way. Hair has a great virtue, what shows is what was there when the hair grew. Hairs great lack is many things do not show.

Blood is the middle ground. Many tests are ratios. Add the other item or even take something to mask or break down an illegal.

Urine is the easiest. Cathater, out goes the bad piss,in goes the good piss. Sample clean. (Be sure to keep a sample of your own, avoid the embarassment of being clean but pregnant).

And for some things just the 20 minutes could be enough for things to get back ot the legal range.

High crit via epo will not be detected with a hair sample!!!

Here's the thing, AFLD is not disputing the samples. They are NOT saying the samples
are tainted, positive, his ex wife's or anything about them. What they are saying is that he
broke the protocol.
I jokingly said it's Lance's word (and possibly Johan's) against the AFLD tester. Without concrete
evidence of what really happened in terms of whether the tester agreed Lance could take the shower
or not I can't see how this would stand up in CAS where it will end up anyway. The sad thing
to me is by the time CAS hears the case it might be too late for this years Tour.
As related by LA it's petty, as related by AFLD it's a violation of protocol. You make up your
own mind as to which is correct.

Marty

It seems quite simple to me. Show up with the appropriate credentials, produce said credentials, hold your subject within legal boundaries and take the test.

If this guy had the right credentials how could Lance or his coach object? He has had 24 of these unannounced test. Why challenge this guy?

Some guy shows up on my door step and can't clearly identify himself he get a clear view of a closed door.