Armstrong produced 30 more watts in 2005 than 1999

House

How many "fluke" a drug test? Stick to trying to highjack threads, finding google articles to repeat over and over, talking smack about the track(while being too much of a pussy to accept the challenge issued to you), talking smack about Gatorade (merely one product mentioned in that post, but as usual you edit to suit, though in this case you merely show how little knowledge you have of sports nutrition), being too much of a coward to accept challenges to your statments, making up quotes from people who disagree with you (in other words lying, you do it all the time, editing to make things sound the way you want them too, obsessing (you know talking shit about people in threads they aren't even involved in), avoiding discussing what has actually been said and having your claimed history proven a fraud over and over.

VeloFlash

No, I am not using "Flyer" style arguing.

You are saying "Do you mean the corticoid creme that tested for below the illegal amount?".

The UCI banned list indicates glucocorticosteroids as prohibited period without a doping violation threshold. So if you are saying there is a level at which use of glucocorticosteroid is acceptable under UCI doping rules you have been misinformed.

In support of this fact, USPS, according to Emma O'Reilly, arranged for a backdated prescription to attempt to sanitise the use of glucocorticosteroid. Why go to this trouble if, as you claim, it was below the doping violation threshold?

A prescription, genuine or backdated, does not substitute for a TUE certificate arranged and approved before the use of the prohibited substance to conform to the UCI anti-doping rules.

Fact is LA failed a drug test without a TUE for this drug and should have been sanctioned.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

House

Velo it is Flyer-style because you have one woman who claims it happened so it must have happened, no other proof and no listening to those who say it didn't. That is why I say it's Flyer-like. You have chosen the one thing that makes it say what you want it too.

3_days

I don't want to hijack the thread but I didn't want to start a whole new one ...

Can any of you guys hook me up with a good link which explains major topics for UCI drug testing mandates - which may include arguments which support more stringent testing and explains the loop-holes in the current testing process ...

Also, and although I know it's tough to avoid, I don't want any sites that name riders specifically. I've stated that I refuse to take sides on this issue - so I'd rather read opinions on the science of testing and recommendations for a better system.

VeloFlash

House, without Emma O'Reilly's disclosure of the behind the scenes arrangements to produce a back dated prescription and the allegation LA was using the glucocorticosteroid in his last race prior to the TdF the other facts do not alter.

The inalterable facts are:

1. You do not fail a drug control test if you have exemption for that drug with a TUE. Armstrong failed the drug test for glucocorticosteroids as it was not listed on his TUE.

2. According to the banned substances list glucocorticosteroids have no threshold.

3. Without precedent and in breach of the anti doping rules, the UCI accepted a prescription as a substitute for a TUE to preserve Armstrong in the yellow jersey. All Emma O'Reilly did was disclose how that prescription was arranged by USPS. The prescription, genuine or backdated, should not have saved Armstrong from a doping violation and sanction.

For all forms of cycling to be an eligible sport and compete in the 2004 Athens Olympics the UCI was required to sign up to the WADA code. UCI was the last international sporting federation to sign and were reluctant to be subordinate to WADA and wanted to maintain total control over its own anti doping measures. The 1999 LA exoneration could not be repeated by the UCI post 2004 with the ability of WADA to intervene.

It has been reported that LA has a list of medications on his TUE that are banned substances. It has been reported that he uses asthma medications. I would speculate that having only one teste after his cancer illness would provide the grounds and TUE acceptability for otherwise illegal testosterone boosting medications.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

House

From a VeloNews interview with Walsh:


and every other article I have found about that twst says the exact same thing.

In response to what you say:

1) So there has never been a mistake, you know like when something gets leaked by a "source at a lab" that someone has tested positive. Which is what happened. Did that source have access to his list of TUE's?

2) Just basing what i said on what every article I have ever seen has said about the incident. Please show me the UCI rule on that.

3) The only proof of this is Emma O'Reilly. I find it hard to believe that something so big would never get out (unlike any other big story). Of course she is impeachable since according to Walsh "The reason she can speak now is that she was never part of the doping culture" (Wait, wasn't Lance doing it when she was with the team and didn't they talk about it? Oh, just Walsh contradicting himself to make whatever point he wants to make)

Too many holes for me to say it is a fact that it happened that way. Could it have happened? Possibly, but no concrete proof, just some "he said, she said" "heard it from some guy who knows someone who heard."

VeloFlash

This is the Velonews extract of what David Walsh precisely stated in that interview on 18 June 2004:

"Well for starters he did test positive in 1999, but that test was nullified because they came up with a medical exemption after the fact. Lance had said that he didn't have any medical exemptions, but after the positive test an exemption appeared and the UCI then said they had seen the prescription before."

Velonews 13 June 2004 reports:

"While traces of the corticosteroid triamcinolone, a banned substance found in some medicines and creams, were found in his urine during the 1999 Tour, the UCI did not sanction Armstrong in the matter, saying that he had used the cream Cemalyt to treat a skin allergy, and that it had been given a copy of the prescription for the cream.


"'The UCI declares with the utmost firmness that this was an authorized usage, and does not constitute a case of doping,' the governing body said in a statement."

Can you understand, House?

According to UCI, Armstrong was not banned because the UCI had been given a prescription for the cream. Not because the banned substance was below a threshold limit (which did not exist). He failed the test but a prescription, not a TUE exemption as required in the rules, exonerated the drug violation.

So when you say "Did that source have access to his list of TUE's?" it is irrelevant as the UCI had agreed, through their statement, that there was a doping violation and they relied on a prescription not to sanction LA. If LA had it listed on his TUE there would not have been a violation in the first place.

Any report you have read that there was a threshold is incorrect. Armstrong failed because there was no threshold and this unprecedented production of a prescription served to save the Yellow Jersey.

The UCI had stated they had been given a copy of the prescription. They did not report that LA had not failed the drug test because it was listed and approved prior to the drug test on his TUE. All Emma O'Reilly reported was how this prescription was arranged. A prescription does not substitute for a TUE drawn up and approved in accordance with the rules.

The UCI banned list of substances can be found on their website. Here is an extract relating to glucocorticosteroids:

S9. GLUCOCORTICOSTEROIDS
All glucocorticosteroids are prohibited when administered orally, rectally, intravenously or intramuscularly. Their use requires a Therapeutic Use Exemption approval.

Note: No threshold.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

House

Ok, so he had it in his urine legally, according to the UCI, the only report of him failing a test came from newspapers who got that info from some lab. The contradicting opinion is from Emma. Where is the concrete proof? Thank you for getting the info on corticosteroids, i was using what the reports about it said. Which of course further invalidates what some newspaper said happened in the first place. It's one woman (who's rep is somehow scrubbed clean by Walsh despite what he offers as "proof" of Armstrongs doping) vs. the UCI.

HammerHead

Man, now I'm not even sure if I've been doping. I guess I can't prove it either way. At least I think I have never doped.

So Flyer, at what level do you think the sport is clean. I suppose you will say that even at the cat 4 level there are dopers. No one is safe from the ubiquitous evil. There was a couple out on beach cruisers the other night. The woman looked pretty fast. A little too fast. At the grocery store I saw a guy carrying three bags in one hand, I can only do two. Must be a doping.

Where do you draw the line, because clearly you are suspicious of everyone. Some kind of maniacal conspiracy theory. Those that are faster than you are dopers? I'm just curious to what extent you see these ghosts. Threatening hob goblins around every corner. Are you a cyclist? Do you even own a bike? You must be a joy on a local group ride.

Flyer, are you doping? Can you prove it. Will you provide third party laboratory data? Will it matter? Have you paid them off? Do you have financial interest? Why are you so knowledgeable on doping? You seem to know all the secrets of how to evade detection.

Is it your own personal mission to lash out at the cycling community (or anyone who will listen)? Will you always hide behind the keyboard and pontificate and posture and prosecute? Have you ever met any of the people you reference? Have you ever spoken to them? Have you ever personally witnessed anything of anything? Are you lonely? Were you teased as a child? Are you hen pecked? Do you have a despotic boss? I'm curious as to the origin of your seething hatred. I can smell the stink of envy and bitterness in every word you type.

Are you simply provoking? Any attention is good attention? Sometimes people are just generally miserable and the only way they have figured out to get human interaction is by picking fights. Most successful are those that choose topics that surround opinion, without opportunity of clear proof. That’s what makes an argument impossible to win. That’s what prolongs the argument. What a miserable existence.

__________________
I'm only truly happy when I'm anaerobic.

VeloFlash

No, it was not in is urine legally.

There would be no lab report if LA showed a positive result which was exempted through a TUE.

There is no contradicting opinion from Emma O'Reilly. The UCI refers to a "prescription", Emma O'Reilly also refers to a "prescription". No TUE only a "prescription" which does not satisfy exemption under the Rules.

It could only be in his urine legally if he had submitted a TUE listing that banned substance and it was approved. The UCI bent, more like ignored, the rules to protect the Yellow Jersey. Concrete proof exists in the UCI announcement when compared to the TUE process to gain exemption. A prescription is not an approved TUE. It is not a simple process (prescription v TUE) as stipulated in this extract of the Rules of the content and supporting documentation for approval of a TUE:

41. A Rider may not apply to more than one Anti-Doping Organization for a TUE. The application must list any previous and/or current requests for permission to use an otherwise Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, the body to whom that request was made, and the decision of that body.

42. The application must include a comprehensive medical history and the results of all examinations, laboratory investigations and imaging studies relevant to the application. Any additional relevant investigations, examinations or imaging studies requested by the TUEC will be undertaken at the expense of the Rider.

43. The application must include a statement by an appropriately qualified physician attesting to the necessity of the otherwise Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in the treatment of the Rider and describing why an alternative, permitted medication cannot, or could not, be used in the treatment of this condition.

The dose, frequency, route and duration of administration of the otherwise Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in question must be specified.

The prohibited substances list specifically states that the use of glucocorticosteroids requires Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) approval.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

House

Two comments:

1) I have enjoyed this conversation because we can discuss this like adults and disagree like adults, a refreshing change on the doping forum. Thanks.

2) I have yet to see the UCI specifically mention someones TUE when a test comes up, usually they say they have a doctors exemption or a prescription. I think you are arguing the way it was released not what occured.

VeloFlash

Thanks.

The listing on an approved TUE exempts a positive test. The rider must present his/her approved TUE to doping control if required to provide specimens.

Putting it another way. 70% of pro riders are reported to be on (obviously TUE approved) asthma medications. That would mean about 3 out of 4 dope results would return a positive for a prohibited asthma medication. But you do not hear about these "positive" results because of the exemptions provided by the TUE's. The results are nullified. This did not occur in the LA/glucocorticosteroid matter.

The rules provide only for exemptions through TUE's, not doctors' exemptions or prescriptions.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"