on a positive note they had to change the Giro route so it doesn't go into France now.

That piece of paper that they both signed saying there was nothing amiss about the testing might have a part to play on this. He had not been tested by these guys before (and no, I would not stand for some random person sticking me with a needle in my arm, he'd have to be legit), and I would think that the tester is the guy responsible for guiding the athlete along the correct protocols. Lance just rides a bike. That's all he can be expected to be when he is approached by a tester.

Now this is France and not the US, but in the US, this would be entrapment. A government official cannot tell you to break a law (or that it's okay to break a law) and then turn around and nail you for it. I would be surprised if French law didn't have something analogous to this.

Nope, ignorance is not a defense.

Section 3 - Responsibilities

3.3. Athlete
• Request the presence of an Athlete Representative, if desired.
• Report for doping control as soon as possible, and within the specified time frame.
• Be escorted from notification to sample provision.
• Be responsible for any food or beverage consumed prior to sample provision.
• Be familiar with the sample collection process.
• Be responsible at all times for his/her own sample(s) from provision to final sealing.
• Observe the procedure and ensure there are no irregularities.
• Declare any medications as specified on the doping control documentation.
• Provide a TUE certificate if applicable.
• Make comments relating to the sample collection process on the doping control documentation, if applicable.
• Sign documentation as requested by the DCO.

All they have to do is create some reasonable doubt in the minds of ASO, which shouldn't take much, and they'll exclude him from the race to err on the side of caution. viola = AFLD victory.

I'm really surprised that they haven't doctored a sample yet. I bet they could find tons of people who would take EPO just so they could produce positive samples. A rider could never defend against that, unless you can appeal for a secondary test. You'd always be tainted after that though no matter what the outcome of the B sample is.

It makes you wonder why we're just now hearing about it if the test was 2-3 weeks ago. Why wait til it comes back negative? Seems to me if you come out the day after the test and say he was evasive THEN he test positive you'd have a real story. This just looks like well, we didn't catch him this time but lets make the most of it anyway.

I thought when I first read about this story it said the tester wrote in the section that asked if there was anything out of the ordinary about the test he answered "no"...

Anyone else see that story, I can no longer find it...


Edit...Found it...

It looks like Armstrong said he wrote "no"...

"Armstrong says he asked the tester if he could go inside the house to shower while they waited to hear from UCI and the tester agreed. According to Armstrong, the tester wrote "no" on the section of the testing that asks if there was anything irregular about the test."

Im not about to give some drival on Lances guilt or not.. I could care less and rate it as less important than whether some BF poster worries whether hes looks like a fred when he wears his Lance jersey.

Even if I wanted to what could I say to those who believe in the Easter Bunny ? I could probably never change their mind and if I could I for one would never want to bust their bubble.

cyclingnews, velonews, l'Equipe, New York Times, Wikipedia...its all out there.

Start here

I wish I could afford EPO. I'd dope like a monkey and never look back, have no regrets, laugh at the authorities and do the hands-free watusi every time I coasted across the finishing line.

Sigh.

^^^

YOu could do it on the cheap, just mix an 8 ball with your water bottles. Don't know how an old mans heart would hold up to it though. :)

It sure did get quiet in here after the he said/he said was exposed.

Don't believe everything everyone tells you folks and don't always assume that just because your favorite person tells you something that makes it a fact. I actually like Lance Armstrong the cyclist. However, I've learned that no athlete or politician or [insert occupation here] is always telling the 100% truth if it means they could lose their job to do so.

Is Lance telling the truth? Is the tester? Who knows? We never will. And that is his whole defense.

My latest theory: Lance is doping. He knew it was just a matter of time before getting caught. When the lab guy showed up to get samples, Lance, while knowing he would test clean on this day, took the opportunity to create the small dispute over testing protocol. His tests come back clean but then he gets kicked out of the races so never has to get a positive test in the future.

Lance retires never having tested positive and his reputation in place. Most of the world will think he should not have been kicked out while A-Rod is still playing baseball & Barry Bonds gets to have the HR record.
The French who don't like Lance get to kick him out their Tour.
Lance gets to cry persecution and claim the French authorities don't want to cure cancer.

It's a win all around. Heck, maybe Lance and the French authorities are in on this together.

Seriously...

Actually, more likely that Lance was doping (maybe, probably, on and off) his entire career, comes back and is now perfectly clean. It's really a no-loss situation for him. He comes back after a 3 year break and if he can't win the tour, he has the perfect excuse. If he comes close, then he can say that he didn't need the dope. Meanwhile, he gets tested 40 billion times, always coming up clean because he is clean (this time around), and slowly scrubs his name of this doping stuff.

Just speculation. But it makes more sense than to go back to the lion's den when the lion has had three more years to make up new tricks for catching him.

That's not exactly how it went down. The way it actually went is, the tester asked Armstrong if he could hold it while Armstrong was creating the sample and Armstrong said no. This incensed the tester and the rest is history.
:lol:

or...the guy is plain clean that nobody seems to believe. I am not saying that LA hasn't taken every possible performance enhancing substance throughout his career that feathers the edge of legality "like every other cyclist during that time period". You would have thought that Armstrong as clever as he is would have been tripped up at least "once" after being tested hundreds of times after winning the TdF 2 X's in a row.
A further thought is this. Why should Lance go back into the lion's den other than to promote his brand? Because heads up...clean to clean...he thinks he has the best shot at winning.

I agree with you, he really is under no pressure and just gets to ride for other racers. I don't understand why he would do anything to create this.....just let them test you billion times and don't complain or resist and you come out the winner.

Did you really cite Wiki as a credible source? What, you couldn't find anything in the National Enquirer?

Considering Floyd ran 'the wiki defense' it seems pretty appropriate.

Lance has some great zingers on Twitter:

lancearmstrong: Was winning the Tour seven times that offensive?!?
about 21 hours ago from TwitterBerry

lancearmstrong: Just took a shower. Got it down under 10 mins. Whew.
about 12 hours ago from TwitterBerry

lancearmstrong: LMAO!!! http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/
about 10 hours ago from web

:roflmao2:

Yeah....LA decides to return to professional competition, arguably the most scrutinized athlete alive....and decides to go ahead and dope...right.

ok

Are you a moron or deliberately being obtuse? I'll repost for you.

Are you telling us you are incapable of following the links to the original stories? Or incapable of using google?

:rolleyes: