PDA

View Full Version : LNDD 1999 Tour Test Results



Duncan Murphy
24-08-2005, 02:56 PM
:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :?:

EricB
25-08-2005, 11:32 AM
For those of you interested, l'Equipe is a serious sport magazine, not a tabloid like the Sun or Daily Mirror as suggested by some.
The ancestor of L'Equipe was called l'Auto (anyone interested in the early Tours de France knows this journal).
They report the work of the team of JACQUES DE CEAURRIZ, director of a research laboratory on doping detection in France. They have detected a form of EPO through a new test on several numbered samples, anonymous at the time of the analysis (note these samples were used for research purpose). The lab is very confident about the results (surely this form of EPO is undetectable through traditional anti doping methods). It happened that the samples studied come from Lance's urine collected during the Tour de France 1999.
What's wrong in informing us about the result?

ChrisB
25-08-2005, 01:22 PM
Anyone mind if I move this to the general chat forum?

Duncan Murphy
25-08-2005, 09:58 PM
I think the point Eric is that:

1) The EPO test doesn't appear to be that reliable after the case of Belgian triathlete Rutger Beke who tested positive but was later found to
excrete proteins naturally that the test looks for. Therefore they have been hastily trying to improve the test and check on the likelyhood of such false positives. They tested the 1999 samples as they wanted to check against some samples that they expected to contain indications of synthetic EPO abuse.

2) Various Canadian and German experts have cast doubt on whether the tests could be reliably performed on samples that have been stored for such a long time.

3) I would suggest that L'Equipe is fairly tabloidish when it comes to reporting on cycling, in particular when it comes to highly successful riders who aren't French (clearly these two things are now synonymous).

4) The correlation between the positive samples and the riders who gave them has been provided only by the "investigative journalism" of the newspaper based on the sample numbering. The test results were supposed to be anonymous. It is possible that the people working at the lab, in their loathing for Armstrong, deliberately made it easy for the paper to match up the sample numbers using publically available information or even tipped them off about how to do it. Who knows, they could have even switched the numbering to impliate Armstrong.

Having said all that I personally don't believe his "I've never taken drugs" line. I don't think someone as manically driven as him would have made it through the EPO era just shrugging off the fact that most of his competitors were gaining an advantage by using drugs.

Finally, roll on the return of Dave Millar - at least he had the balls to admit he was a cheat.

EricB
26-08-2005, 09:31 AM
Duncan, I think that you rely on second hand comments on articles of l'Equipe, I suggest you try to read it first hand.

1: The EPO test you are refering to is not the one used by the lab in question. Again, this lab is currently developping a brand new test to detect synthetic EPO. They are doing pure research on anonymous samples. Unless you are an expert on the topic and have read their paper (and I don't think that it has been published yet !) you cannot say the "test is not reliable". Remember that the researchers from this lab are well respected and are very confident about their result.

2: I have read their articles. Anyone in the scientific community would be suspicious of such claim without the published info on methodology and experiment used. The scientific community is also very competitive and they naturally doubt any results coming from competing labs !
The samples in question (6 !) have been frozen before testing so:
- either the synthetic EPO was degraded and test would be negative as if there has never been any cheating
- either the synthetic EPO remain stable in that case test would be positive.

3: How many times have you read l'Equipe first hand ? There have been several articles published in l'Equipe on this recent news: granted some were pretty simplistic and others quite informative. Your comment is offensive but I prefer to laugh about it. The reason why the French (and the Brit to some extent !) pro riders are not successful in road racing may simply due to "pharmacological" reasons !

4: Duncan, You are stepping into "tabloid speculation" territory now!

Millar could hardly deny being a cheat, because of the EPO vial stored in evidence in his apartment !

I suggest that you take the time to read L'Equipe you will notice that despite being a fair bit "Franchouillard" (but even the BBC sport section is patriotic nowadays!) it is very informative and a long way fairer and a lot more serious than the Tabloid press.

racyrich
26-08-2005, 11:02 AM
From reading the numerous reports on cyclingnews.com and other forums it seems the doubt on the authenticity of this test result stems from the fact that no one has ever established that the findings from urine frozen 5 years ago are the same as if it was tested at the time.
Until such control experiments are conducted there has to be doubt that the substances in the urine remain wholly unchanged.

EricB
26-08-2005, 11:29 AM
From reading the numerous reports on cyclingnews.com and other forums it seems the doubt on the authenticity of this test result stems from the fact that no one has ever established that the findings from urine frozen 5 years ago are the same as if it was tested at the time.
Until such control experiments are conducted there has to be doubt that the substances in the urine remain wholly unchanged.

That's why for the samples which are negative, you will always have the suspicion that they might be because synthetic EPO may have been degraded and have "disappeared".
The problem is different for a positive sample: The lab has found a form of synthetic EPO in 6 samples of urine that have been frozen for 6 years. Now can a molecule of natural EPO be modified into a synthetic EPO during cryogenic processing or storage ?????
I doubt it, but I may be wrong.

Whippet
26-08-2005, 11:55 AM
I don't think that anything is new with this, the same allegations were directed at Fignon in the 80's when he blew everyone away to win the Tour in '83 and '84 anfter non-descript rides previously.

I'm not a great fan of Armstrong, but a lot of people forget that he was a talented rider before cancer and to give him his due, it takes some doing to totally rebuild fitness. I guess that is where the problem lies, nothing like this has happened before on this level and there is the assumption that it can't be done without doping. So every stone is being turned to try to find anything to discredit him.

Barky
26-08-2005, 01:23 PM
Fignon even recorded an interview to say that the racing is less fun to watch now that there are more drug tests, that was after his racing career and he was organising a race (perhaps Paris Nice but not sure). I think we all know that whoever they are they take up the maximum of what is allowed legally, and then depending on whether the guys in blazers turn up, they tuck into their own special cocktail for the day. I'm in no doubt that Armstrong has dabbled at some point, but if everybodies taking stuff, would he not have won anyway. Has l'Equipe ever done a 4 page spread on Tricky Rickies exploits?

Whippet
26-08-2005, 01:38 PM
Fignon even recorded an interview to say that the racing is less fun to watch now that there are more drug tests, that was after his racing career and he was organising a race (perhaps Paris Nice but not sure). I think we all know that whoever they are they take up the maximum of what is allowed legally, and then depending on whether the guys in blazers turn up, they tuck into their own special cocktail for the day. I'm in no doubt that Armstrong has dabbled at some point, but if everybodies taking stuff, would he not have won anyway. Has l'Equipe ever done a 4 page spread on Tricky Rickies exploits?

True, he spent years doping, got caught, denied it all, owned up, got banned AND is still a hero in France. They haven't taken away any of his Polka-Dot jerseys as it is mooted that they will do to Armstrong (the Yellow won in '99) depending on these findings.

Duncan Murphy
26-08-2005, 03:10 PM
Eric, I get the cycling articles translated for me by a friend who is a professional linguist as newspapers aren't interested in cycling here.

If it is such a quality publication how is it that they vilify Armstrong so much and yet other riders who have actually tested positive hardly get a mention. There are supposed to be 6 other positive tests from 1999 and they aren't even interested in finding out who they were!

I have no doubt that if the lab says the test works then it does (for fresh samples). However I don't think you can say it's black and white and that the samples either contain synthetic EPO or don't. Other scientists have said they believe it possible for samples to degrade over time and produce a positive test. I am also suspicious about how it was they were able to determine the identity of the riders when they were supposed to be anonymous. We have no guarantee about the accuracy of this leaked information.

My comment about French riders not being highly successful these days is not intended to be offensive but it is none the less true. It's been a long while since the French won a grand tour.

EricB
26-08-2005, 03:57 PM
I do not buy L'Equipe every day but I can say that overall, from what I have read, it covers very well cycling events all over the world. Remember it is not a journal covering just cycling, they are pretty good at covering not so popular sports or international championships of all sorts. So please get a first hand opinion: read it.
errr. .. the only sports it does not cover very well is cricket or snooker no offence for you amateurs of these sports but I do not blame it :wink:
L'equipe has never been afraid to print spicy stuff on Virenque (is it the one you refer to Colin?) or any other guy who was "unfortunate" enough to get caught.
oh and by the way ... Fignon is not a hero in France, nor is Virenque. Not in my network of friends anyway !
The list of stars/heroes who have for sure put things illegal in their bodies is long however: Tom Simpson/Anquetil/ ...
The point Colin makes is a valid one, if they all take performance enhancers then the best still wins.
Whippet, there is no national pride issue here and although the law is bound to change, nobody will ask Armstrong to give his trophies back whatever they found.
Cheats will always be heroes in some ways for some: think about Tom Simpson, Pantani et al.
The problem is the credibility of sport: I tend to believe that there are nowadays some genuine strong young guys however and they stand little chance to win anything at the moment without using illegal performance enhancers. Is that fair ?

Badger
26-08-2005, 04:06 PM
I do not buy L'Equipe every day but I can say that overall, from what I have read, it covers very well cycling events all over the world. Remember it is not a journal covering just cycling, they are pretty good at covering not so popular sports or international championships of all sorts. So please get a first hand opinion: read it.
errr. .. the only sports it does not cover very well is cricket or snooker no offence for you amateurs of these sports but I do not blame it :wink:
L'equipe has never been afraid to print spicy stuff on Virenque (is it the one you refer to Colin?) or any other guy who was "unfortunate" enough to get caught.
oh and by the way ... Fignon is not a hero in France, nor is Virenque. Not in my network of friends anyway !
The list of stars/heroes who have for sure put things illegal in their bodies is long however: Tom Simpson/Anquetil/ ...
The point Colin makes is a valid one, if they all take performance enhancers then the best still wins.
Whippet, there is no national pride issue here and although the law is bound to change, nobody will ask Armstrong to give his trophies back whatever they found.
Cheats will always be heroes in some ways for some: think about Tom Simpson, Pantani et al.
The problem is the credibility of sport: I tend to believe that there are nowadays some genuine strong young guys however and they stand little chance to win anything at the moment without using illegal performance enhancers. Is that fair ?

like Wiggins perhaps?

hedgehopper
26-08-2005, 04:27 PM
badger, you only have to look at your avatar of an kermesse racer to see how dabbling in pot belge can affect you !!!

EricB
26-08-2005, 04:34 PM
Duncan, your friend must have a lot of free time as there are always a lot of articles around everyday in the paper version of l'Equipe.
Do you refer to the internet Equipe or the paper ?
True that Armstrong is getting a lot of bashing at the moment. But so did many other riders (including French ones!) in the past.
The 6 positive samples you refer to are reported to be from the same rider ... i.e. Mr. Armstrong ! They were collected at 6 different stages of the Tour 99 and were all containing a synthetic form of EPO.
Point taken about the French road cyclists ... i don't really care anyway... By the way, When was the last Brit to win a grand tour ?!!!!

Eric

:wink:

Badger
26-08-2005, 05:24 PM
Duncan, your friend must have a lot of free time as there are always a lot of articles around everyday in the paper version of l'Equipe.
Do you refer to the internet Equipe or the paper ?
True that Armstrong is getting a lot of bashing at the moment. But so did many other riders (including French ones!) in the past.
The 6 positive samples you refer to are reported to be from the same rider ... i.e. Mr. Armstrong ! They were collected at 6 different stages of the Tour 99 and were all containing a synthetic form of EPO.
Point taken about the French road cyclists ... i don't really care anyway... By the way, When was the last Brit to win a grand tour ?!!!!

Eric

:wink:

Nicole Cooke

Badger
26-08-2005, 05:27 PM
badger, you only have to look at your avatar of an kermesse racer to see how dabbling in pot belge can affect you !!!

you should see me on a bad day :)

Duncan Murphy
26-08-2005, 07:27 PM
Do you read what they actually write Eric?

"Au total, douze échantillons ont été analysés par le célèbre laboratoire dans ce but exclusivement expérimental, six d'entre eux étaient la propriété du Texan, six de coureurs non identifiés."

Even with my French I can understand that :)

Obviously I don't get every article translated, I generally look at the web site and if I see an interesting article that I would like a proper understanding of (my French only allows me to get a rough idea of the article) I get a translation from the proper paper.

BTW I like Cricket, Snooker and Darts :lol:

I think Wiggins like Millar doesn't have the mental strength to be a top roadie, the Giro prologue was perfect for him and he was nowhere to be seen. You wouldn't catch Chris Boardman worrying about whether his wife was about to give birth :wink:

Rogers Brother
26-08-2005, 08:08 PM
From reading the numerous reports on cyclingnews.com and other forums it seems the doubt on the authenticity of this test result stems from the fact that no one has ever established that the findings from urine frozen 5 years ago are the same as if it was tested at the time.
Until such control experiments are conducted there has to be doubt that the substances in the urine remain wholly unchanged.

That's why for the samples which are negative, you will always have the suspicion that they might be because synthetic EPO may have been degraded and have "disappeared".
The problem is different for a positive sample: The lab has found a form of synthetic EPO in 6 samples of urine that have been frozen for 6 years. Now can a molecule of natural EPO be modified into a synthetic EPO during cryogenic processing or storage ?????
I doubt it, but I may be wrong.

There is a possibility of false positives and false negatives as substances degrade (That's how Modal got off because her scientists proved a false positive)

EricB
27-08-2005, 07:53 AM
Do you read what they actually write Eric?
"Au total, douze échantillons ont été analysés par le célèbre laboratoire dans ce but exclusivement expérimental, six d'entre eux étaient la propriété du Texan, six de coureurs non identifiés."

Even with my French I can understand that :)

Good effort mate, but you need to progress a little to get it fully!
70 samples from the tour 1999 were analysed by this lab out of which 12 samples came positive: 6 belonging to Mr Armstrong (yes 6 !) and 6 unidentified. That does not mean 6 other riders (it may be just one).

EricB
27-08-2005, 08:27 AM
There is a possibility of false positives and false negatives as substances degrade (That's how Modal got off because her scientists proved a false positive)

That's true for multiple indirect markers methods (Parisotto et al., 2000). I don't think it applies on gel electrophoresis techniques which separates natural EPO from exogenous EPO (Lasne and Ceaurriz, 2000). These techniques are very reliable, problem they are effective only when performed on samples taken within 2 days after last injection (whereas the effects of EPO can last up to 2-3 weeks apparently).
The new results were obtained through the use of a new technique developped by Ceaurriz's team and its details are not known (published) yet.

Duncan Murphy
27-08-2005, 10:34 AM
Good effort mate, but you need to progress a little to get it fully!
70 samples from the tour 1999 were analysed by this lab out of which 12 samples came positive: 6 belonging to Mr Armstrong (yes 6 !) and 6 unidentified. That does not mean 6 other riders (it may be just one).

Yes this is possible, generally they test the leader, stage winner and some random riders. Cipo won 4 stages in a row, David Etxebarria won 2 and Tom Steels won 2 if I remember correctly so it is likely there are a fair number of samples from them.

I just read that they found 40 positive samples out of 70 tested from 1998 is which amusing! Pity they can't release a full list of names, wonder if big Jan is/was clean?

racyrich
30-08-2005, 10:02 AM
What we also need to know is whether every sample of Armstrong's that year was tested. As yellow jersey I'm sure he was tested more than 6 times. The 6 quoted all seem to be from days he won or was placed on stages.
If they were all tested, were 100% of them positive? If not it's all rubbish.
And if not every sample was tested it's also still rubbish!

BTW, I'm no Lance fan.

EricB
30-08-2005, 11:19 AM
What we also need to know is whether every sample of Armstrong's that year was tested. As yellow jersey I'm sure he was tested more than 6 times. The 6 quoted all seem to be from days he won or was placed on stages.
If they were all tested, were 100% of them positive? If not it's all rubbish.
And if not every sample was tested it's also still rubbish!

BTW, I'm no Lance fan.

All samples from Mr Armstrong given to the test are reported to be positive.
Puy-du-Fou, (prologue),
Montaigu - Challans (1re),
Grand-Bornand - Sestrières (9e),
Sestrières - L'Alpe d'Huez (10e),
Saint-Galmier - Saint-Flour (12e)
Castres - Saint-Gaudens (14e),
Six antidoping tests in a race for one rider is already a lot.
And even if there has been other samples taken from "Armstrong Tour 1999" the fact that they have not been analysed by the lab does not infirm the results.
The lab has forwarded all results to WADA. Let's wait for their reaction.

This is no rubbish, this is a big mess I am afraid.

EricB

ChrisB
30-08-2005, 11:27 AM
It's unfortunate that the whole thing has the smell of a witch-hunt about it. Lots of positives - but only Armstrong named. New test - no details released yet. This is just plain wrong. The test should be published and peer-reviewed before anyone was named.

Brad Lamb
30-08-2005, 01:47 PM
This whole affair has been a farce from day one.
What happened is the lab in question have been researching ways (or methods) of detecting synthetic EPO use in the samples provided by athletes (not just cyclist's). Naturally the labs have to 'test' their testing equipment/procedures otherwise they have no way of knowing whether it worked or not. To do this they asked for (or were provided) samples from cyclist's as they knew that there would be a good chance that these samples would contain synthetic EPO as it was common knowledge that EPO use was rife in pro cycling during the 90's as well as knowing that in 99 a test for EPO had yet been found. From the labs point of view, a positive sample was not important. It was the confirmation that they had at last improved the testing procedure and EPO could finally be detected. Moving on, when the labs testing equipment found that 12 of the B samples tested contained synthetic EPO things became interesting as it appears the test worked. However at this stage the lab were not provided with the official documents that the athlete signs - only numbers on the actual sample, so they had no way of knowing who the samples belonged to. Meanwhile, an L'equipe journalist (a chap called Ressiot) 'learnt' of the these tests carried out by the lab and was 'provided' with the labs test card. All Ressiot needed now was the official document held by the UCI, French sports ministry and the French cycling federation so he could cross check them with the labs documents. Interestingly Ressiot was leaked these documents by the UCI, which questions LA's claim of a French anti American conspiracy as the UCI are based in Switzerland. When Ressiot discovered that LA's document matched the labs document he had a news story that was going to buy him many many Colnago C50's!! Strangely, this test carried out by the lab was conducted in December 04 and Ressiot knew shortly after. No one knew in December 04 that LA was going to retire after the Tour 05 so why this story (from a journalist's point of view) wasn't published then and not some 8 months later? Why did the UCI leak the documents when they themselves did not know that LA's sample would be one (or six!!) of the positive's. Also, on the basis that the lab tested 70 samples and if you count the 6 LA positives and assume that the other 6 belonged to 6 individuals - were only 7 riders doped in tour 99?
When you have someone like LA who has expressed emphatically he has never taken performance enhancing/banned products/EPO you can't blame a newspaper for running this story even in the absence of the full facts.

Duncan Murphy
30-08-2005, 02:03 PM
Perhaps they ran the story now instead of back then as they figured they were less likely to get taken to court by LA now he is retired.

As he said to Marco Pantani "one day when this is all over we'll be laughing and drinking margaritas in the sun". I guess that time is now.

EricB
30-08-2005, 03:18 PM
Agreed Brad.
Exposing this so late is bad just for Armstrong's reputation:
But he can drink his margaritas in the Sun: he will keep his money instead of engaging law suits because his trophies are safe and he can not be banned:
he is retired and the results are not coming from an official antidoping test !!!!!
Does anyone believe that EPO is not used any more by the peloton ?
If Armstrong was not clean in 1999 do you think he was in the following years? He was certainly not slower!
The average speed for the Tour is still going up.
Isn't that suspiscious?
In a way, his wins are only valid if all competitors were dopped, at least it would demonstrate that he was the strongest of the lot.

Brad Lamb
30-08-2005, 03:20 PM
This is a bit irrelevant but L'Equipe and the Tour are both part of the Amuary Group. I suppose if LA hadn't retired or they had run the story prior to the Tour 05 start then we would have had another Festina type scandal or at least a tour with a tainted image.

It does look like an LA witch hunt because L'Equipe have stated that they do not have the name(s) of the other rider(s) who tested positive. If this is true, then the UCI have only leaked documents with LA's details on, which leads to the following questions: -

1. Bearing in mind that Ressiot only had numbers and no names, why did the UCI only provide him with LA's documents?
2. Has the UCI known all along that LA has doped and were waiting for someone/something to come along with 100% proof so they could finally 'get their man'?
3. Why just LA? If doping still exist's in the peloton why pick on one rider?

Interesting times ahead for pro cycling?

Alan Lawrence
30-08-2005, 03:50 PM
This is a bit irrelevant but L'Equipe and the Tour are both part of the Amuary Group. I suppose if LA hadn't retired or they had run the story prior to the Tour 05 start then we would have had another Festina type scandal or at least a tour with a tainted image.

It does look like an LA witch hunt because L'Equipe have stated that they do not have the name(s) of the other rider(s) who tested positive. If this is true, then the UCI have only leaked documents with LA's details on, which leads to the following questions: -

1. Bearing in mind that Ressiot only had numbers and no names, why did the UCI only provide him with LA's documents?
2. Has the UCI known all along that LA has doped and were waiting for someone/something to come along with 100% proof so they could finally 'get their man'?
3. Why just LA? If doping still exist's in the peloton why pick on one rider?

Interesting times ahead for pro cycling?

....maybe because LA is American and not French. :?: :wink:

EricB
30-08-2005, 04:00 PM
You can hardly suspect the French pro tour riders to dope with their current results !
:lol:

Duncan Murphy
30-08-2005, 05:44 PM
Maybe those French riders would be racing in the ERRL if they weren't doping :lol:

I reckon all that the EPO test has done is stop riders taking it during stage races. Instead they just use it to train harder like Dave Millar and then get a tip off for any out of competition tests. Btw, yes they did find a vial in his house but he could have still easily denied it was his and that he'd used it. Tyler Hamilton is still trying to pretend he's a chamelon or something :D , Rumas blamed his grandma and VDB his dog for goodness sake. I say good for Dave for being the only rider to ever come clean.

Brad Lamb
30-08-2005, 06:03 PM
On the UCI website today (it can be read in English) the UCI have declared that (quote) "it is pursuing its global assessment of the situation" (whatever that means!) and (quote) "whilst regretting, once more, the breach of confidentiality......"

Assuming L'Equipe are telling the truth when they claim not to have the name(s) of the 6 remaining positive samples, it's a bit rich for the UCI to 'regret' the breach of confidentiality when it was breached by them!

Also, the UCI have their presidential elections in September and even this has become farcical. There are reports of abnormalities in the procedure in choosing a candidate, which favours certain individuals....

This whole L'Equipe episode has exposed (again) how corrupt and chaotic the sport of professional cycling really is. It's becoming as bad as football!

EricB
30-08-2005, 06:06 PM
Maybe those French riders would be racing in the ERRL if they weren't doping :lol:

I reckon all that the EPO test has done is stop riders taking it during stage races. Instead they just use it to train harder like Dave Millar and then get a tip off for any out of competition tests. Btw, yes they did find a vial in his house but he could have still easily denied it was his and that he'd used it. Tyler Hamilton is still trying to pretend he's a chamelon or something :D , Rumas blamed his grandma and VDB his dog for goodness sake. I say good for Dave for being the only rider to ever come clean.

David was leaving on his own in his appartment in Biarritz and I don't think he had a pet at the time. He probably could not even blame a cleaner to have left this thing there ! :oops:
Yes he could have said "... not mine, never seen it before" but who would have believed him ?

Brad Lamb
31-08-2005, 04:46 PM
I say good for Dave for being the only rider to ever come clean.

The problem with your argument Duncan, is DM did not technically come clean. In January 2004, the Cofidis scandal broke with the arrest of the soigneur, Bogdan Madejak, and the former Cofidis rider, Marek Rutkiewski. Sometime after, Philippe Gaumont was arrested in which he confessed and admitted he had taken drugs. In Gaumont's testimony he named several Cofidis riders of doping, which included DM. DM responded emphatically by claiming Gaumont was a BS'er and this was a Gaumont problem not a Cofidis problem. Previous to this, DM had claimed that due to his racing style and the fact that he peaks for certain objectives - was the only way he could ride clean. DM only confessed when he was caught following the police raids in his home. Would Willy Voet have written his book "Breaking the Chain" had he not been caught on the Belgium/French border in 98?
The war on drugs in sport is likely never to be won. Charles Yesalis, who is a Epidemiologist in Pennsylvania State University, claims to have details of the latest wave of performance-enhancing products used by athletes today. Naming a list of new blood-oxygen expanders to a group of toxicologist's, not one toxicologist had heard of them. That's how fast things are moving. EPO is probably not being used today by the top pro's in the peloton for reasons above. It's worth noting (although completely pointless) that when Frigo was thrown of the Tour 05 following his wife/girlfriend getting caught with all that EPO - he was over 20 mins down on LA at the time!

Wielrenner
31-08-2005, 06:05 PM
I've never really understood why Millar kept that vial after he had used it. There was one theory going about saying that perhaps he hoped to get caught. Funny way of cheating, or does that add to the thrill?

I'm not surprised that the toxicologists know nothing about the new products. It is in the interests of the manufacturers to use human guinea pigs to get feedback on their products. Why risk damaging that relationship by advertising your product to a group of people who could eventually stop a source of testing/income.

You only have to look at the introduction of EPO in the early 90s. Why did all those young Dutch cyclists suddenly start dying. Nobody knew at the time, or if they did, it was not in their interest to say why.

Who wins these days? The guy with the best chemist!!!!

Duncan Murphy
31-08-2005, 09:00 PM
Yes, Millar did come up with a lot of rubbish stories before he finally admitted doping and there was a lot of evidence against him but he never actually failed a drugs test so I don't see how he could have been sanctioned by the UCI without his confession. I suppose he might have been sent down for breaking various French laws though. He could have also lied and said that he'd used if for different races and held onto his rainbow jersey possibly.

Hamilton's career is as good as over and I doubt he'll race for a top team again but he's not going to admit anything is he? I reckon he transfused old Tugboat's blood into himself :lol:

They can nearly grow artificial lungs now so perhaps I will be able to get a bigger set sometime soon :wink:

ChrisB
06-09-2005, 04:34 PM
How about this, then:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/4219934.stm

Coming out of retirement just to piss the French off? Fantastic 8)

Alan Lawrence
06-09-2005, 04:38 PM
How about this, then:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/4219934.stm

Coming out of retirement just to piss the French off? Fantastic 8)

....good on Lance and he'll do it as well. :!: :wink:

EricB
06-09-2005, 04:43 PM
How about this, then:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/4219934.stm

Coming out of retirement just to piss the French off? Fantastic 8)

Poor chap ... A desperate publicity stunt to please his xenophobic fans.
Let's hope he gets an invitation for the Tour 2006.
I am sure all French will be delighted to have him back. But this time we have to make sure he stays in France a few months before the Tour so that UCI officials can check what he puts in his body.

Duncan Murphy
06-09-2005, 09:23 PM
Please tell me it's not true, arrrggggghhhhh :cry:

On the upside big Jan says he'd like to ride the ToB next year, I'll have to get busy making that lifesize pork pie costume :wink:

http://www.t-mobile-team.com/cms/tmoteam/en/archive/news/templateId=renderInternalPage/yearID=2005/monthID=8/itemID=72418/id=41212.html

EricB
07-09-2005, 01:33 PM
Yes Fantastic.
Dick Pound (WADA) does seem to have little doubts about the results and he ain't French. :wink: Have a look at this (sorry it's in French, no doubt that will be relayed in english newspapers):
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20050905_205513Dev.html
Let's hope they do DNA testing on the incriminated samples now!

ChrisB
07-09-2005, 04:03 PM
Pound and Armstrong have a history, though, don't they?

Duncan Murphy
07-09-2005, 09:51 PM
Pound doesn't take doping lightly does he, if he had his way they'd all be shot for their first offence :wink:

Old Jean-Marie turned against Armstrong pretty quickly also

Brad Lamb
16-09-2005, 09:57 AM
Although its not his fault and if certain press reports are accurate, LA has confirmed he will not return to the TdF next year. Thank goodness we've been spared another TdF tedium!

Barky
16-09-2005, 01:27 PM
The more I read about all this the more it looks like a witch-hunt. Have a look at cyclingnews.com, whether or not he's guilty, they were going to get information to 'prove' he was anyway. Also if he was tested extensively during 2000 with the French investigation (involving EPO testing and frozen samples) did he manage to win the Tour again without any EPO? So if anything, you have to commend his wins since there's been a test for EPO, which still makes him a 5 time tour winner.

Duncan Murphy
16-09-2005, 02:23 PM
The interesting thing I think is that there was no noticable drop in his performance after 1999. If he was doped up on EPO in 99 and then was clean once they introduced the test then you'd expect his performance levels to drop off. So either he was clean in 1999 and still is or he has found a replacement wonder drug that is not detectable yet (which is quite possible I guess given his wealth, think BALCO).

racyrich
16-09-2005, 03:13 PM
Oh dear, how naive!
What do you think these riders do in the 3 weeks between the Dauphine and the Tour?
Other than let blood, recover, and be all set up for some homologous blood doping?

Duncan Murphy
16-09-2005, 07:31 PM
Well they can detect homologous transfusions so I wouldn't have thought they'd be risking that. It's only autologous ones that they have a problem with.

Even if you manage to hide away for 3 weeks whilst your body reproduces the cells, surely if you reinfuse them in a middle of a stage race your blood parameters are going to take some sudden strange hikes? What about making rider medical test results and records available to the public, then if you had wildly oscillating values through the season but they couldn't prove you were doping your reputation would be sufficiently damaged anyway.

ChrisB
31-05-2006, 01:48 PM
Innocent after all. Shame on all you nay-sayers :evil:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/5033672.stm

racyrich
31-05-2006, 04:57 PM
Seems to me it only criticizes the release of the findings, as they don't constitute a valid dope test. It doesn't say the findings were wrong.

So nothing's changed.

ChrisB
31-05-2006, 05:09 PM
But Vrijman, who headed the Dutch anti-doping agency for 10 years and later defended athletes accused of doping, said on Wednesday that his report "exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France".

:?: Can't get much more explicit than that, can you?

racyrich
31-05-2006, 06:36 PM
I stick by my original interpretation.


Vrijman said the laboratory had analysed the samples only as part of a research programme for the detection of EPO, so there was no way of confirming the tests.

Wada will respond in due course once it has fully reviewed the report

A World Anti-Doping Agency statement

"If you look at how the result was obtained it was so different from the analysis procedure required by Wada... it doesn't even qualify as a finding," he said.

So he's not contesting they found some evidence, just that it's not valid as a positive test.

ChrisB
31-05-2006, 10:08 PM
So if it's not valid as a possible test, then how can he be considered to have tested positive?

racyrich
01-06-2006, 09:11 AM
No one ever has considered this a positive test. It was always just an academic exercise in investigating possible historic EPO use. With the lab blind to the samples' donors. It was the journalist who made the connection to LA, with some rather dubious assistance from the UCI.
LA was never in any danger of being officially sanctioned. But he was in serious danger of losing his credibility, and I still fail to see how this report changes that.

Nick E
01-06-2006, 12:21 PM
No single cyclist has ever inspired me after so much has happened and Lance still does.

After all the downs in his life he still stands firm on the whole doping issue, the tests were conducted in such a way that they could not be admissable as a valid test.

I think he's clean, i think once in a lifetime someone does something truly remarkable and miraculous, it's only human nature to find a flaw.....somewhere!

Brad Lamb
01-06-2006, 02:28 PM
No single cyclist has ever inspired me after so much has happened and Lance still does.

After all the downs in his life he still stands firm on the whole doping issue, the tests were conducted in such a way that they could not be admissable as a valid test.

I think he's clean, i think once in a lifetime someone does something truly remarkable and miraculous, it's only human nature to find a flaw.....somewhere!

I think you've missed Richard's (Hare) extremely good point.

The fact that the testing protocol, in the claims made by L'equipe, were not adhered to, is irrelevant. The laboratory that carried out the initial tests, were only doing so as a means of testing their equipment. The laboratory, at the time of the tests, were not privileged to any information on who provided these samples, other than being given a list of serial numbers that accompanied each sample. The fact remains that synthetic EPO was found in a sample that was later discovered to have been provided by Armstrong. Therefore, the only doubt in these claims, made by L’equipe, involves the actual molecular science of a sample of urine that has been frozen for the length of time that took place in this case, and whether it is (or is not) possible for synthetic EPO to form in a sample that was clean in the first place.

Is a criminal innocent if a case collapses in court, because the authorities charged with accomplishing justice, fail to adhere to procedure?

Although this cannot be applied to Armstrong, as there is yet no absolute proof, it is worth noting as Richard pointed out, that people are certainly justified in questioning his credibility!

ChrisB
01-06-2006, 02:41 PM
The fact remains that synthetic EPO was found in a sample that was later discovered to have been provided by Armstrong.

If this were true, then I think things would be a lot more clear cut than they appear at the moment.

Nick E
01-06-2006, 11:13 PM
I didn't miss the point. I just beleive in innocent until proven guilty.

Question his credibility anyone can do but to prove it? Surely someone would've done so by now.

There must be a trust in the judicial system somewhere or else everything falls apart. They've yet to prove otherwise.

EricB
23-06-2006, 09:16 PM
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20060623_121041Dev.html

For those who can read French: time to catch up with "Armstrong's Feuilleton" in l'Equipe ... It is on again! :wink:

Barky
24-06-2006, 08:36 AM
So this time it's whether or not Frankie Andreu's wife heard him say he took doping products in the first part of his career, while he was doped up lying in a hospital bed? Merckx admitted taking doping products for his career, 'Trick Dicky' is a hero in L'equipe's pages, it IS a witch-hunt by a newspaper trying to increase their circulation, and you're falling for it. I think most people accept that a huge number of top athletes in all sports take some dodgy products, that's life wher there's money involved.

EricB
24-06-2006, 11:16 AM
Personally I read l'Equipe because not only I can understand what's in it but also because it reports accurately sporting results, and it is also generally well informed and interesting.
"Tricky dicky" was certainly not encensed in L'equipe during the Festina crisis, Colin. Granted L'equipe was very kind with him when he came back, but do people have to shoot the chap trying a come back after having been caught using illegal performance enhancers and having been punished for it, while other successful cheats get away with it (Anquetil, Delgado, Pantani, ...)?
Can't wait for the day the drug tests will catch up with all the cheating techniques ... but can that happen if people turn away from history and accept the current situation?

Barky
24-06-2006, 07:03 PM
http://www.veloriders.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=40171&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

The guy who 'knows' is a former world pro pursuit champ, we should remove them all from the history I suppose, I saw some stupid stuff when I got to a decent level, shortly afterwards deciding that it's just a hobby for me. So I'm well aware it goes on, just I find l'equipe's fascination with bringing down one particular rider as a witch-hunt, if he's done anything he's no more dishonest than virtually everybody who's been a star in the past and the present. How's the new life anyway Eric?