Armstrong used EPO in 99?

snyper0311

Not the French!!!???????? Which newspaper/publication wrote this? If you can't beat him, string him up! WHEN the WADA and UCI publish their findings, then we can say that it's fact, until then, it's jsut a bunch of witch hunters gathering their pitchforks and tourches. IF a tabloid prints the truth, we are all screwed because hell has frozen over and the end is near!

Verite

Paging House. Paging House. Where arrrreeeee you? I guess he's out riding that Madone. Oh and yes, I know this is a juvinile post but I couldn't resist.

House

Yes it is immature, sorry if i have a job, train and actually post in other places. Full of oddities. A test from 2001 (according to WADA) is just now being used. No assurances that the sample has been pristine since 1999 (i.e. never tampered with). It just so happens that a French paper (who has been known to go after LA in the past) happens to aquire a sheet that ID's the anonymous samples. It just so happens that of all the tests done on 98 and 99 samples LA's are the only ones positive and the only ones suddenly not anonymous. Way to much here to make any definite decisions, but don't let that stop you.

spokeking

I'm quite sure they'll be pissed, because only Armstrong has ever doped, and they never touch the stuff!

I, personally, think this whole thing is BS. I mean, probably around 95% of the pro peloton use the stuff. You're gonna villify one guy because he won?

whiteboytrash

This is the best I can do in two minutes.... ! :-) Enjoy......

This morning we were all looking forward to the finish in Bonn. However we learned from our Marketing Manager Luuc Eisenga the reports in L’Equipe newspaper (or something like this or did he mean the team standing’s ? Jan’s German us worst than mine !). As I got stuck into my plate of Museli and fruit for breakfast Maste Kessler and Luuc informed us that Lance had tested positive in the 1999 Tour. Gerolsteiner were on the table next to us and naturally the same as us they were surprised just as we were by this report.

The story spread itself through the peleton like wildfire and was the subject of the day ! Each rider had their own opinions and thoughts on the matter and many discussed these with me. At this moment I don’t have all the information and it would be unwise to make further judgment or comment until the full story is received. However I would be disappointed if this report confirms to be true.

MJtje

This is posted by someone on RBR, but I think he's got the facts right:

No. The LNDD was trying to validate a new test so they needed samples they could do both the new and the current test on. They wanted to use it on
samples that had been collected before the current test was announced in
2000 so they could get samples that presumably were clear of any masking
agents. The 1999 "A" samples had already been used up but the "B" samples
were still sitting around in a freezer so they figured they'd use those.
They weren't trying to target Armstrong, they were trying to do research
on a test. That research was done around the end of 2004, not six years
ago. The results we are seeing appear to be from the current, not the new,
test. The lab didn't have any way to link the samples to specific
riders--the samples just have a number on them but they didn't have the
"key." That's also why some news reports say that the lab has refused to
verify that the samples belong to Armstrong: they can't verify it because
they don't have the key. Someone tipped off L'Equipe and that's what they
did. Apparently the numbers and names weren't computerized anywhere and
the key had been tossed long ago, so L'Equipe found the names by scouring
through slips of paper at the FFCT and the UCI to match them up. That's
why the investigation took four months, and why L'Equipe published the
little slips of paper with the identifying numbers and Armstrong's name on
them.

Verite

Ahhh, delusions. The best antidote to reality.

whiteboytrash

WADA have stated and to that similar to the Kelly White affair in athletics (BALCO), that if there is substantial evidence that an athlete has used PEDs then they will take action without the usage of a positive A and B sample. (Kelly White never tested positive to steroids but was stripped of her World Championship medals because of circumstantial evidence against her – she later admitted to her usage.)

What we have here is evidence. WADA will dig deeper, interview and direct a response and take action. It is not over yet and the likes of Miguel Indurain, however a great cyclist he was does not have the legal or the scientific expertise to comment on such a case. As the samples were frozen to protect their integrity and the testing was a direct edict from WADA and UCI policy from 2000. The samples were not tested to drum up a tabloid news story. All L’Equpie did and which any member of the public had access to do themselves was match the testing report from the 1999 Tour de France with the samples results stored by the UCI/WADA. The reason that the lab cannot confirm the L'Equipe report is that the testing is anonymous and they do not know which riders samples they are testing.

Unfortunately for Armstrong is that his B samples (plural) indicate that he was using EPO during the 1999 Tour de France. You cannot argue against direct science. He used EPO. He cheated. End of story.

spokeking

The question remains, how do we know that this sample is an untainted sample from Lance Armstrong? If the French have put this much time and effort into catching him cheating, who's to say they, or someone else didn't put the stuff in the sample? I would be very surprised if a 7 year old (B) urine sample would be hold up in court, when push comes to shove.

VeloFlash

Simple explanation.

The laboratory could not identify the rider relating to any of those positive samples after testing. So how could they beforehand adulterate 12 samples not knowing to whom the key code referred?

It was only months of sleuthing by L'Equipe who could put LA's name to six of them. I understand they are continuing their investigation to identify the other six positive "B" samples but obviously their commercial priority (to increase newspaper circulation and raise advertising revenue) was to identify one or more of those samples to the biggest fish in the peloton.

It is newsworthy but I doubt there would be repercussions for LA with USADA/WADA 6 years after the event. He would now be seen by many through this revelation of being a person with less credit and a reduced endorsement income.

__________________
VF

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

House

Verite- Nice response, that must have taken every ounce of brain power you have. Keep up the good work.

Veloflash- What you say is nice but a lot of things from the past and this story indicate that there is more to this then your simple explanation.

HammerHead

Even the experts can disagree....


http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html

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

Peka

OMFG - performance enhancing drugs being used in cycling It can't be true...


Stretching my memory a bit, but didn't Lance say in "It's not about the bike" that he was given EPO as part of his treatment when he had cancer? How long does it hang around in the body in detectable amounts?

VeloFlash

Doctor Christiane Ayotte, director of the Doping Control Laboratory at Montreal's Institut National de la Recherché Scientifique, says in this article:

"I have been instructing everyone at all of the organizations not to expect to reproduce an EPO adverse finding if more that two or three months has elapsed since the sample was originally taken."

If the French lab have found 12 positive samples out of 70 5 years later (ie more than 2-3 months) then has she considered that her instructions were in error?

According to her that even when frozen that in time the EPO protein degrades to become undetectable. Then how did the French lab using modern EPO detecting methods from urine samples find 12 anonymous positive results?

__________________
VF

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