 |
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
I assumed it was a lab but what I mean was who commissioned the testing and for what purpose.? |
From what i understand, the lab was actually testing their testing method/process/machine. They chose these samples because EPO was not being tested back in 1999, but it is now common knowledge that it was widely used then. So they had a better chance of finding positive results.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
[SIZE=1]
By Angela Doland
ASSOCIATED PRESS
7:27 a.m. August 23, 2005
PARIS – A French newspaper says Lance Armstrong used the performance-enhancing drug EPO to help win his first Tour de France in 1999, a report the seven-time Tour winner vehemently denied.
L'Equipe devoted four pages to its allegations, with a Tuesday front-page headline "The Armstrong Lie." The paper said that signs of EPO use showed up in Armstrong's urine six times during the '99 race.
Advertisement
"Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues and tomorrow's article is nothing short of tabloid journalism," Armstrong wrote on his Web site. "I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs."
However, the Tour de France's director said Tuesday that L'Equipe's report seemed "very complete, very professional, very meticulous" and that it "appears credible."
"We are very shocked, very troubled by the revelations we read this morning," Jean-Marie Leblanc told RTL radio. However, he cautioned that Armstrong, his doctors and his aides should be heard out before people make any final judgment.
Leblanc also said any disciplinary action appeared unlikely, based on the L'Equipe account. The paper's investigation was based solely on B samples – the second of two samples used in doping tests. The A samples were used up in 1999 for analysis at the time.
The governing body of world cycling did not begin using a urine test for EPO until 2001. For years, it had been impossible to detect the drug, called erythropoietin, which builds endurance by boosting the production of oxygen-rich red blood cells.
EPO tests on the 1999 B urine samples were not carried out until last year, when scientists performed research on them to fine-tune EPO testing methods, the paper said.
The national anti-doping laboratory in Chatenay-Malabry, which developed the EPO test and analyzed the urine samples in question, said it could not confirm that the positive EPO results were Armstrong's.
It noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only a a six-digit number to identify the rider, and could not be matched with the name of any one cyclist.
However, L'Equipe said it was able to make the match. It printed photos of what it said were official doping documents. On one side of the page, it showed what it said were the results of EPO tests from anonymous riders used for lab research. On the other, it showed Armstrong's medical certificates, signed by doctors and riders after doping tests – and bearing the same identifying number printed on the results.
The lab statement said it had promised to turn over its results to the World Anti-Doping Agency "on condition that they could not be used in any disciplinary proceeding."
L'Equipe, whose parent company is closely linked to the Tour, has frequently raised questions about how Armstrong could have made his spectacular comeback from testicular cancer without using performance enhancers. L'Equipe is owned by the Amaury Group whose subsidiary, Amaury Sport Organization, organizes the Tour de France and other sporting events.
A former L'Equipe journalist, Pierre Ballester, was co-author of a book published last year that contained doping allegations against Armstrong. He wrote the book with Sunday Times sportswriter David Walsh.
In the book, "L.A. Confidential, the Secrets of Lance Armstrong," one of the cyclist's former assistants claimed that Armstrong once asked her to dispose of used syringes and give him makeup to conceal needle marks on his arms.
Armstrong has taken libel action against The Sunday Times after the British newspaper reprinted allegations in a review of the book in June 2004. The case will go to trial in London's High Court in November.
Armstrong retired from cycling after his record seventh straight Tour victory last month.
|
Thought I would find an English story so I could assess what we are talking about. So a journalist claims to be able to match an anonymous urine sample to be Armstrong. The lab says this is not possible.
No denial but I'll wait on this one a bit. More stuff will come out and I see no reason to reach a conclusion one way or the other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
The lab says this is not possible.
|
Not exactly.
quote:
The national anti-doping laboratory in Chatenay-Malabry, which developed the EPO test and analyzed the urine samples in question, said it could not confirm that the positive EPO results were Armstrong's.
It noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only a a six-digit number to identify the rider, and could not be matched with the name of any one cyclist. |
They say they could not match them. But it seems to me they did not try since it's not their job and they had no reasons to do so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richelieu
Not exactly.
They say they could not match them. But it seems to me they did not try since it's not their job and they had no reasons to do so. |
hmmm -- I read "could not confirm" as in they actually would not be able to confirm, as in it was not possible. But I can see how it might just be that they would not comment and therefore WOULD not confirm.
Either way, I will stay tuned.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
And the more I see... the more I'm thinking it's time to just ban a bunch of people to get ONE message across...
CHILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
I figured you would be along
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
Another take on why the testing was done in the first place
quote:
L'Équipe said they (the lab) had been refining their detection methods. One prominent antidoping expert, however, suggests the analysts were deliberately seeking to target Armstrong.
"Scientists have had their doubts about Armstrong for a long time," says Jean-Pierre de Mondenard, a sports doctor in Paris who once worked for the Tour, detecting riders' drug use. "They were fed up with being fooled. Armstrong's seven victories were a defeat for the battle against doping." |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richelieu
With or without performance enhancement substances, these guys still would need to bust their ***** off IMO.
As for L'Equipe, i have absolutely no doubts in this day and age that it is possible that they forged the documents they presented. I can't see how they can go on with the story if they are not willing to submit those to scrutiny. |
Well time will tell-- perhaps someone else forged some documents before showing them to the press. I think it would not be hard for someone to change a few digits in a 6 digit number
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
Oh and I see there is no urine left to be tested so there is nothing left that Armstrong could point to and exonerate himself .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And as a reminder, from 2001, when EPO was detectable, Armstrong never tested positive for it or any other substance, and he was posting even stronger victories. This doesn't jive with notions of him doping prior to that. |
It's common knowledge that almost every athlete/trainer at that level is ahead of the testers when it comes to doping. The year Ben Johnson tested positive at the Olympics he had already passed 17 controls with flying colors.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Winston
"But Ben Johnson set a new World Record! And he survived a serious bout of stutter. Those we're just the IOC testers constantly out to get him. And you know what, the guy's retired. I wish people would just leave him alone." |
Very different-- as a Canadian I felt serious disappointment over the Ben Johnson affair. He was caught . He was doping .
Lance Armstrong was tested on season and off randomly for years. Was there doping available that would be undectable even if tested within hours? I don't know the answer.
The unfortunate thing is that, aside from the Armstrong case, we have gotten to a situation where we ASSUME they are all doping. Anyone good at a sport, we figure they must be on the juice. The odd thing is that there have been folks with exceptional talents all through history.
Would an unjuiced home run hitter have hit as many homers against an unjuiced pitcher?
As for Armstrong, the source of this story is an organization that has been hostile to him from the beginning. They can hardly be considered unbiased and their methodology here sucks. On any current day allegation, an athlete can say "take my blood, I'm clean"-- On this one there is no possibility to do that.
Last edited by Flubber on 24-08-2005 at 23:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
yes...
usually when and old sample is tested and it says you're guilty, you can't use that same sample to say you are innocent |
Don't be dumb. The whole idea of a "B" sample is to have it on hand for retesting so that people can dispute testing methodology, impartiality etc.
Here Armstrong is faced with a situation where "hey it was anonymous so the urine wasn't linked to you but some numbers matched so its yours and oh by the way there is nothing left to be sent to another lab or whatever. "
If some of these scientists were as "out to get" Armstrong as some stories claim, is it out of the realm of possibility that some results were faked.
I still want to know how the media got their hands on the test results and Armstrong's certificates. That stuff is usually not public, is it?? If not, someone broke with ethics to provide it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html
It's highly unlikely--even, perhaps, impossible--that EPO could still be reliably detected after 5 years. This throws further doubt on the validity of these charges. It certainly doesn't make sense that they retested the urine last year. |
Thanks Boris-- I just read the whole thing and the interestign part to me was about the development of "qualitative" rather than "quantitative" standards.
So the top canadian expert says that the samples degrade within 3 months hey ?? Questions abound it would seem .
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-08-2005 01:56
|