Armstrong used EPO in 99?

3_days

Regarding the other six positives, if the names are ever released, why do I have a feeling that it's gonna be some usual suspects ... (in other words, a list of "known" offenders and more Armstrong allegations).

HammerHead

I thought the test of the B samples was done in 2004, and the re-analysis was completed just recently to obtain data on their recommended new analysis protocol. I believe I read that somewhere, but there is so much crap in every direction it's hard to keep it straight. If the B samples were tested back in 1999, why would that have been done if the A samples did not come back with a positive.

It would be interesting to find out who on this forum is non-American and thinks he did or didn’t do it, and who is American and thinks he did or didn’t do it.

The only person who really knows 100% is LA. I think if he did, he will never admit to it, and if he didn’t he will never be able to prove it.

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

VeloFlash

Who said the "B" samples were tested back in 1999? You are correct that a "B" sample is available to be tested at the request of the rider only if the "A" sample returned a positive.

I can't recall in 1999 that on 12 occasions "A" samples returned a positive and those riders (ie LA 6 times) requested a monitored "B" sample test. Particularly in light of the Festina 1998 doping affair.

BTW, the "A" samples could not have returned a positive for a French urine EPO test in 1999 as it was not introduced until 2001.

I think House is American .... mmmm... but so was the recently redundant Flyer. That was the 2005 re-enactment of the US Civil War.

__________________
VF

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

MJtje

What does it matter if youre american or not an american, we all have our opinions.........I do think we view the doping problem in europe different then in america.....

MJtje

Funny to underline my point from previous post......here is how american people are looking towards this LA story (form litke's column on velonews)

A poll on ESPN.com had already generated 35,000 responses by mid-afternoon, with more than 70 percent of the respondents believing Armstrong was clean. Whether his numbers will be even that good on the other side of either pond remans to be seen.

On the site of het laatste nieuws (a belgian newspaper) the reaction was a lot different:

Strip him of all his 7 TDF titles: 43,7% and 51,7 still believe in him......

limerickman

Of course, there will be a proportion of Americans who will believe he's clean.
There are some Europeans who believe that he's clean too.
The salient word is "belief".

The test results published by L'Equipe prove that he doped in 1999.

People can choose to ignore the proof.
They used the lack of proof defence - up until L'Equipe dropped the payload.

Now that there is proof - they still choose to "believe".

HammerHead

I think you've got it wrong with "choose to believe" and LA. That was the official Tyler defense

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

whiteboytrash

In short EPO was not tested for in 1999.

man910

Just to be an a-hole, it's "grammar", not "grammer".

Bigclimber

limerckman, help me out here. Does the scientific community have absolute, unequivocal proof that the samples are able to be tested after 7 years and no false positives will result due to long term storage? Can we be absolutely guaranteed that the samples have not ever been tampered with and the chain of custody record is clean? Do we know these things?

3_days

Don't get too carried away with the numbers from any ESPN poll ...

Out of ESPN's 35,000 voters, I bet most of them voted on their way to the most recent NFL fantasy football stats - I doubt any real percentage knows what the Giro is, who Mario Cippollini is, could name three TdF teams or any other rider on Team Discovery ...

whiteboytrash

BC in short:

There are counter arguments but what Doctor De Ceaurriz is saying from the WADA accedited lab from outside Paris is that if the samples were ruined by freezing or if they had degenerated then they would bring a negative result.

Deterioration does not generate EPO positives.

"One of two things happens," De Ceaurriz said. "Either EPO, which is a protein, degrades as time passes and becomes undetectable. In that case we have a negative test result or, as in this case, the EPO persists as it is. We have therefore no doubt about the validity of our results."

ccski

This has just been on German radio did not get all of it but this is the message

The cycle racing world union UCI examines possible sanctions against seven the route winner Lance Armstrong. "our lawyers are examineing the procedure and the possibilities of expressing sanctions", so UCI speaker Carpani.


Leblanc went on to say of the lax attitude to doping of the UCI "for the first time someone showed me that Armstrong had 1999 a forbidden substance in his body", said Leblanc. So far it has been only "rumors and assumptions I have been deceived. We all were deceived

Spectatorsport

So does Doctor De Ceaurriz confirm that the positive samples are Lance's, since I was reading reports that the lab itself could not confirm or deny that they were Lance's (since they don't have that documentation showing his 6 digit # with his name only the French Paper has).

Also in regards to the testing of the 1999 B samples, wasn't it suppose to help refining the test? Since there have been false positives before. I know he is very confident in his methodology as are other labs, but there are almost an equal number of labs that aren't sure if the results are reliable.