Lequipe report on Armstron doping

[cs124]

Anyone speak french?

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/DOPAGE_ARMSTRONG_2.html

Actually, probably just a beat up...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug23news2

[MartyE]

not a beat up this time. It appears that the 1999 B samples
were tested for EPO and 12 samples turned up positive,
six of them were Armstrongs.
more info here:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php...ug05/aug23news3

Wada and Le Blanc feel that LA is positive,
UCI since it cannot verify, is doing nothing about it.

Marty

[JasonF]

Let's assume for arguments sake that some of the '99 samples are positive. IIRC, an effective test to detect EPO was in use by 2001. That would mean that the 01-05 victories were "clean" in that EPO was not detected in his system. Furthermore, he was as dominant (if not more so) in his later tours than the early wins.

In the end, it just does not matter if you're the French majority. They are certain that his victories are tainted, and he will never be able to convince them otherwise. In an earlier thread, I wrote about a Parisian friend of mine who is convinced Lance was and is doping. He believes that Armstrong has been able to escape positive results because his coaches and doctors can mask their use. My friend is also a senior executive at a major pharmaceutical company, and has a pharmacology background. It still boggles my mind he is so adamant in the face of dozens and dozens of negative tests. True or not, you will never be able to convince someone this "certain" that he is wrong.

[bostondrunk]

Given that EPO is used in cancer patients, wonder if it is possible that the 1999 sample would show traces of prior use from medical treatment?
Not that I believe Lance doesn't/hasn't doped, but just wondering about this particular finding..

[znfdl]

I beleive that he is retired, guess the French just can't let things go.

[tch]

then you are probably cynical/skeptical/realistic (choose your verb) enough to believe most of the peleton dopes. [After all, if Lance were the ONLY one doping, his performance would FAR, FAR exceed his co-competitors]. And if a large number of other riders dope, then Lance is still the strongest and best at the Tour in an apples-to-apples comparison.

More simply, I have no real idea if LA doped. But if he did, he can't be the only one. Either way, he's starting from the same place as his competition.

[MartyE]

I should clarify that All B samples were retested,
no just Lance's.
But it does seem funny that only LA was named.

Marty

[Johny]

Positive is positive. It is just a fact. Nothing more and nonthing less.

P.S. Of course Lance knows that in 1999, they did not test for EPO.

[my2cents]

from what i could tell, the only new thing about this test is that the b samples were compared to samples from people who may have used epo and that 12 b samples matched up to these other possibly-used-epo samples. who were these may-have-used-epo people? what kind of messed up science is this -- 'lance is positive because his sample looks similar to a sample from someone who may, or may not, have used epo'?

until a second lab can vailidate the findings

and to the person who wrote 'positive is positive' -- i think the recent findings clearly question and debunk that whole philosophy (see link in the cyclingnews article). a test that doesn't properly account for (all?) possibilities of false postives ain't worth **** and wada and the french and others are more than happy to implement tests that they know can produce false positives simply because (1) they don't want to wait for better tests to evolve, (2) can't wait for better tests to evolve, (3) aren't concerned about fairness -- they just want to 'get' people, (4) didn't know there were problems with the tests until after the fact (in part because they don't let outside labs validate the tests).

anyway, i don't really know what to make of this report except to say that the 'science' behind it seems very incomplete to me. and therefore, for the time being, i will choose to believe lance and the 'proven' science that says there is no evidence to doubt lance's version of things so far.

[jeffg]

Positive is positive. It is just a fact. Nothing more and nonthing less.

P.S. Of course Lance knows that in 1999, they did not test for EPO.

Is it really that simple? L'Equipe itself, whose objectivity has seemed strained in the past, admitted that it could not be a positive test "in the strict regulatory sense." Then what is it? And why is this coming out after LA's retirement for crying out loud? They had seven years to nail him and failed, and now "all of a sudden" new reports come out based on a test available since 2001 and for which no sanction can be expected.

To me, this redefines petty. Maybe LA did, maybe he didn't. But I don't trust these folks any more than any cyclist claiming never to have doped.

Why don't we just celebrate Tricky Ricky, forget about Zülle's admitted years of EPO use, and just continue to hound LA? Pathetic ...

[BarryG]

I should clarify that All B samples were retested,
no just Lance's.
Does anyone know how many riders' samples were retested and of those, how many positive/negative? Lance's positive seems almost meaningless to me unless they retested a large number of riders.

[Louis]

This is from the NYT article on the situation, and doesn't make any sense to me:

"The French national anti-doping laboratory that carried out the tests said in a statement that it could not confirm that the results obtained by L'Equipe belonged to Armstrong, since they were submitted anonymously."

If that's the case, how can they even name LA?

Explanation from the CNN site:

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.

[boulder_courier]

Given that EPO is used in cancer patients, wonder if it is possible that the 1999 sample would show traces of prior use from medical treatment?
Not that I believe Lance doesn't/hasn't doped, but just wondering about this particular finding..

"traces of prior use" ? Not to get into a long complicated biology discussion, but simply EPO is produced by the kidneys and binds to receptors in the bone marrow to produce RBC. Everyone produces EPO. Your hematacrit or % RBC is directly proportional to your EPO level in healthy individuals. A cyclist who tests positive has an abnormal hematacrit.

Taking EPO in response to chemotherapy side effects would have not affect a test 2 years later.

[Bobbo]

This is from the NYT article on the situation, and doesn't make any sense to me:

"The French national anti-doping laboratory that carried out the tests said in a statement that it could not confirm that the results obtained by L'Equipe belonged to Armstrong, since they were submitted anonymously."

If that's the case, how can they even name LA?

Accuracy in this case, is not the object; smearing one's name by dredging up 7 year old BS is the object (L'Equipe, not the NYT).

[gdw]

It's rather sad that the French press is so petty.

[Fixed]

It sells copy. That all they care about. Cheers

[ergott]

Does anyone know how many riders' samples were retested and of those, how many positive/negative? Lance's positive seems almost meaningless to me unless they retested a large number of riders.

According to the artice, all of the B samples from that years tour.

[MartyE]

As stated all B samples were tested, 12 postive 6 for Armstrong.
The lab doing the testing did not know who the samples were from,
they were all number coded. L'Equipe from what I have read
matched the number code on 6 of the positive samples to
number coded documents from Armstrongs medical file.
(do they use the same number?)

Marty

[Dr. Doofus]

shocked

just

shocked



(insert something about E-Ritchie and horses)

its euro pro racing

you're only as good as your masking agent

or

only as good as what you're taking that they don't test for yet

if more than one tested positive, then out with the names and start taking trophies out of living rooms -- don't leave it at one guy

just cause they're french doesn't make 'em Javert

it may be sour grapes

it may be the late emporer really had/has no yellow clothes

stay tuned....

[my2cents]

assuming someone correctly matched 6 of these new 'positives' to lance, what is he 'positive' of/for? what was the new test? like i said above, i don't get it but it seems like the only thing this new test did was compare the samples from the tour to 'other' samples and that lance is possibly positive of possibly having a profile similiar to someone who possibly used epo. i must be missing somehting 'cause that ain't science and it is barely worthy of comment.

[William]

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/j/e/jet202/shocked.jpg

William ;)

[spiderlake]

**** Pound (WADA) weighed in with some commentary available at the following link:

http://www.news24.com/News24/Sport/More_Sport/0,,2-9-32_1758644,00.html

In a nutshell, here are a few comments from the article.

"It's a pretty serious story if it is true," Pound told AFP. "We have not decided what we would do because I have not looked at all the details."

"We will look at the information available and then we will decide the best way to get as much light on this as possible."

"That took place before the Word Anti-Doping Agency even existed so it's a matter for the international federation and possibly for national federation to investigate," Pound said.

"But what is good for me is it's a lesson to anybody using drugs that we may not catch you on day one, but sooner or later, the truth will come out."

"Now the riders involved have a serious responsibility to explain how it is that the substance got into the system."

[Needs Help]

It still boggles my mind he is so adamant in the face of dozens and dozens of negative tests.
Anyone who was ever been caught doping had previously passed dozens of tests. Doping tests have always lagged behind those who create new forms of performance enhancing drugs.

And if a large number of other riders dope, then Lance is still the strongest and best at the Tour in an apples-to-apples comparison.
There is some truth to that, but that presumes all riders are using the same dope. As far as we know, Lance has better pharmacologists than the other riders.

[e-RICHIE]

[QUOTE=Dr. Doofus]
(insert something about E-Ritchie and horses)
QUOTE]


this is bicycle racing:
http://www.greenwayarts.org/archives2.htm
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065088/
the sooner you get it, the sooner you'll no longer
be phased when you hear about drugs in sport.

[Johny]

from what i could tell, the only new thing about this test is that the b samples were compared to samples from people who may have used epo and that 12 b samples matched up to these other possibly-used-epo samples. who were these may-have-used-epo people? what kind of messed up science is this -- 'lance is positive because his sample looks similar to a sample from someone who may, or may not, have used epo'?

until a second lab can vailidate the findings

and to the person who wrote 'positive is positive' -- i think the recent findings clearly question and debunk that whole philosophy (see link in the cyclingnews article). a test that doesn't properly account for (all?) possibilities of false postives ain't worth **** and wada and the french and others are more than happy to implement tests that they know can produce false positives simply because (1) they don't want to wait for better tests to evolve, (2) can't wait for better tests to evolve, (3) aren't concerned about fairness -- they just want to 'get' people, (4) didn't know there were problems with the tests until after the fact (in part because they don't let outside labs validate the tests).

anyway, i don't really know what to make of this report except to say that the 'science' behind it seems very incomplete to me. and therefore, for the time being, i will choose to believe lance and the 'proven' science that says there is no evidence to doubt lance's version of things so far.

If it is real science, you can always figure out what causes the problem i.e. what causes false positives. This guy, Rutger Beke, who cleared his name for testing positive of using EPO could demonstate that even under watch (not using EPO), his body produces some proteins which can be recognized by the EPO test (for some technical details, go back to read my other posts in a previous thread).

Now, regarding the procedure in question ("The testing of the LNDD involved three parameters: (A) visual interpretation, (B) percentage of isoforms (indicating EPO use when present in values greater than 80 percent, with a margin of 5 percent) and (C) mathematical modelling. Only the samples positive in each of the three parameters were interpreted as positive, with a number of other samples found inconclusive."), (A) and (B) are pretty straightforward; (C) is not clear to me but sounds reasonable
(if they reveal the math part, maybe we (together with Fly) can discuss this in more details).

[Fixed]

I wish Pound would fade away.Cheers :beer:

[Andreu]

Last week of August = Slow news week in France?

[george]

The French are JEALOUS, the French are on a WITCH HUNT, the French just don't know when to stop and ackowledge that the strong super human American (that comes around once in a generation or two) that has dominated THEIR race for the last seven years! ;)

[jerk]

they don't get it and their memories are short. bjarne riis is a national hero now and five years ago he was a pariah the queen of denmark refused to meet with.

jerk

[e-RICHIE]

they don't get it and their memories are short. bjarne riis is a national hero now and five years ago he was a pariah the queen of denmark refused to meet with.

jerk


the queen of denmark?!

[jerk]

the one and only.

[e-RICHIE]

the one and only.

dang. i figured there had to be at least two.

[jerk]

well that depends on what part of copenhagen you are in, how many krona are buring a hole in your pocket and a working knowledge of abba songs.

jerk

[Dr. Doofus]

jerk rides sloping french bike

couple of times

now expert on queens



should doof dump gunnar?

(or will fodo start belting show tunes?)

[e-RICHIE]

well that depends on what part of copenhagen you are in, how many krona are buring a hole in your pocket and a working knowledge of abba songs.

jerk


take a chance on me
ok?

[Dr. Doofus]

take a chance on me
ok?

arghhh

ye 'ave a woman's hands ritchie

tis been a long time at sea

arrrrrgggghhhhhh

[Dekonick]

Is she:

the dancing queen?

[BumbleBeeDave]

Richie can be pretty dangerous when provoked. Keep it up and this could be your Waterloo! ;)

BBDave

[e-RICHIE]

Richie can be pretty dangerous when provoked. Keep it up and this could be your Waterloo! ;)

BBDave


BBDave-issimo..
as pal jerk says,
your *(#/ is too short.
hey - thanks for reading.
e-RICHIE©™®

[hybridbellbaske]

Mamma Mia- you guys have it all wrong- Abba are Swedish- not Danish!

[e-RICHIE]

Mamma Mia- you guys have it all wrong- Abba are Swedish- not Danish!

later for that.
hedningarna rocks abba back to the
way left of any musical timeline ever.

[Louis]

Could this thread possibly become even more irrelevant?

Poor Lance. I feel so sorry for him…

[93legendti]

Positive is positive. It is just a fact. Nothing more and nonthing less.

P.S. Of course Lance knows that in 1999, they did not test for EPO.

Here's another view:

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

"...Doctor Christiane Ayotte, director of the Doping Control Laboratory at Montreal's Institut National de la Recherché Scientifique, said that the L'Equipe story, outlining charges that seven-time Tour de France winner had used EPO at the 1999 edition of the race, raised several important scientific and ethical questions, beginning with the assertion that France's anti-doping lab had tested frozen urine samples five years after the fact.

'We are extremely surprised that urine samples could have been tested in 2004 and have revealed the presence of EPO,' Ayotte said in an interview with VeloNews on Tuesday. 'EPO - in its natural state or the synthesized version - is not stable in urine, even if stored at minus 20 degrees.'

...'EPO is a protein hormone and it is not stable in urine, even when kept frozen,' she said. 'This has long had implications for any plan we've had to keep samples and specimens for long periods of time with the hope that we might, some day, retest those samples for a new substance.'...

Ayotte said. '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.'..."

[andy mac]

maybe, just maybe, deep breath, lemond does know more than most on this forum what's going on...?

(does anyone know if lance really, really loves dogs?)

[Kane]

In an earlier thread, I wrote about a Parisian friend of mine who is convinced Lance was and is doping. He believes that Armstrong has been able to escape positive results because his coaches and doctors can mask their use. My friend is also a senior executive at a major pharmaceutical company, and has a pharmacology background. It still boggles my mind he is so adamant in the face of dozens and dozens of negative tests. True or not, you will never be able to convince someone this "certain" that he is wrong.

Objectively:
Very few test positive for drugs.

Intuititively:
All the riders are on drugs, especially Lance. The senior executive knows that the tests are years behind the drugs. The difference between bike riders and baseball players is that bike riders have sophisticated medical support to hide the use of drugs. A large portion of baseball players tend to be a relatively ignorant uneducated group of people who went straight to baseball with little or no education. Palmero took a drug that had a test developed for it at least a decade before. He is an idiot. McGuire was at least smart enough to take the 'Fifth Amendment'.

To be fair it is a safe bet that all the football players are drugged on something. Here is a good guess. The Forty-Niner player who died, probably did some kind of upper and it wasn't just coffee.

All 'Pro athletes take drugs and lots of them!!

[Johny]

Here's another view:

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

"...Doctor Christiane Ayotte, director of the Doping Control Laboratory at Montreal's Institut National de la Recherché Scientifique, said that the L'Equipe story, outlining charges that seven-time Tour de France winner had used EPO at the 1999 edition of the race, raised several important scientific and ethical questions, beginning with the assertion that France's anti-doping lab had tested frozen urine samples five years after the fact.

'We are extremely surprised that urine samples could have been tested in 2004 and have revealed the presence of EPO,' Ayotte said in an interview with VeloNews on Tuesday. 'EPO - in its natural state or the synthesized version - is not stable in urine, even if stored at minus 20 degrees.'

...'EPO is a protein hormone and it is not stable in urine, even when kept frozen,' she said. 'This has long had implications for any plan we've had to keep samples and specimens for long periods of time with the hope that we might, some day, retest those samples for a new substance.'...

Ayotte said. '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.'..."

In the same link:

Ayotte, director of the World Anti-Doping Agency-certified lab closest to WADA headquarters in Montreal, questioned the assertion of Doctor Jacques de Ceaurriz, director of the Châtenay-Malabry lab, who said that his method for detection of EPO is "absolutely reliable," even if the sample is five years old.

"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."

Ayotte, who has not had the opportunity to speak with De Ceaurriz since publication of the L'Equipe story, said that there would have been no logical reason for the lab to have held on to the samples without testing them for as long as it has.

"The lab in Paris, which originally developed the test, would have - should have - retested these samples in 2000 or 2001, in order to develop and validate their methods at the time," she said. "My interpretation is that retesting itself must have been conducted in 2000 or in 2001, but the results were reviewed using the new mathematical model that is now being developed in Paris."

[cs124]

Here's another view:

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



Very interesting story...this whole "urinegate" affair just gets more and more rotten.

[Big Dan]

Very nice...........

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166602,00.html

[GoJavs]

Wow...It's all over the net too. It's an AP story, so it will spread like wildfire whether it was a misquote or a mistranslation from French to English. This is unfortunate. For all that I resisted the Armstrong bandwagon the last couple of years, 1999 was actually a year that I cheered Armstrong every second...

Wasn't that year the year of the infamous quote: "So are you calling me a doper or a liar"?

[spiderlake]

An interesting opinion piece from Associated Press Sports writer, Jim Litke can be viewed at:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer/ap.asp?category=2080&slug=CYC%20Jim%20Litke

It is interesting, to me at least, the wide range of reactions to these allegations. A VeloNews article at http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8741.0.html, reveals some great commentary. I will paste in the comments but please take a moment to read the entire article.

Comments/Reactions from the Velonews article listed above:

Jean Marie Leblanc (Director, Tour de France): The whole confuses me and we are quite shocked. I refuse to jump to conclusions until we hear from Lance Armstrong, his doctors and, of course, his attorneys. If true, the UCI has an option to impose sanctions... as does the organization of the Tour itself. This is a serious case. These are serious charges and, if anything, confirm that the fight against doping will be a long one.

Laurent Fignon (Two-time winner of the Tour de France): I don't give a ****. 1999? This is ancient history. What does this prove and what does this solve? What interests me now is keeping the next generation of cyclists clean and drug-free.

Olaf Ludwig (Director Sportif T-Mobile): It surprises me to hear it, but so for a long time nothing is safe, is very difficult it to judge of this thing.

Hein Verbruggen (Current president of the UCI): We have to wait to see whether any of this is true. Then and only then can we consider what sanctions we might impose and whether that is a further setback for cycling. None of this is good news, but for the moment is an issue to be decided between Lance Armstrong and the French.

Daniel Baal (former president of the French Cycling Federation and UCI management committee member): The myth of Lance Armstrong really has no more credibility if this is true. These results should quiet even the loudest defenders of Mr. Armstrong... because, at least initially, the results are difficult to refute.

Raymond Poulidor (three-time runner-up and five-time third place finisher of the Tour de France): This is ridiculous. Why not retroactively test all the back to 1903?

Richard Virenque (seven-times Tour de France King-of-the-Mountains winner and admitted doper) The whole thing is, to me, a little bizarre; to have "positive" results crop up years after the fact. It is even more amazing, since the EPO test method has now been legal for more than three years. Why did they wait until after he retired to announce this?

Eric Boyer (team manager Cofidis): This is a major story. From the looks of it, the journalists did their work, but it's also an indication that the UCI did not do its work. Why didn't they use the means that have been at their disposal for many years? Perhaps it was, from the beginning, a fraud undertaken with the blessings of the UCI. That would certainly explain Armstrong's arrogance and overwhelming confidence... that the whole thing has been a show.

Most interesting, to me at least, is the vast difference in reaction between riders and "management". I liked Laurent Fignon's comment the best.

[KKevin]

Raymond Poulidor, if we are going to start doing retroactive tests why dont they test as far back as they can. IN FACT why dont they start with Hinault.

[Lost Weekend]

Ha Ha, what are the French trying to do? Piss off Armstrong so he comes out of retirement and kicks all their arses yet again.

[93legendti]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug24news2

"...The test has recently come under fire after Belgian triathlete Rutger Beke, who tested positive late last year, proved that he could give a "positive" result without using EPO at all..."

[darylb]

Objectively:
Very few test positive for drugs.

Intuititively:
All the riders are on drugs, especially Lance. The senior executive knows that the tests are years behind the drugs. The difference between bike riders and baseball players is that bike riders have sophisticated medical support to hide the use of drugs. A large portion of baseball players tend to be a relatively ignorant uneducated group of people who went straight to baseball with little or no education. Palmero took a drug that had a test developed for it at least a decade before. He is an idiot. McGuire was at least smart enough to take the 'Fifth Amendment'.

To be fair it is a safe bet that all the football players are drugged on something. Here is a good guess. The Forty-Niner player who died, probably did some kind of upper and it wasn't just coffee.

All 'Pro athletes take drugs and lots of them!!



Either this post is completely tongue in cheek or you are just bitter due to your insecurity caused by an apparent lack of accomplishment in athletics or in general. Either way, absurd generalizations like the several you posted are absolute indicators of ignorance and possibly envy. This in defense of all of the clean and educated athletes on this board and in this world.

Have a nice day.

[Roy E. Munson]

[

[chrisroph]

What role does "mathematical modeling" have in all of this? Is that like Pound's logic; we know all cyclists use drugs and Lance is a cyclist so he uses drugs too?

[Silverthump]

As a regulator in the US Pharmaceutical industry for the last 20 years I can tell you, to test samples that are 7 years brings confounding variables into the sample that make the results unequivacolly questionable and they could not be considered controlled or validated. EPO is unstable after 7-20 days and were basing this craps on 7 year old samples researched by a French newspaper?

If the French would have been this determined to defend their homeland they wouldn't be considered experts in "surrender" and we wouldn't have lost countless American soldiers in two world wars.

Let's dig up Babe Ruth and Joe Dimagio and test their bodies for steroids!

[bostondrunk]

Quite possibly the dumbest quote I have ever read on this forum. Right, pro cyclists in Europe are all highly educated rocket scientists who trained an hour a day after classes and in their spare time.

I think he was referring to the medical staff, not the riders themselves. I agree with him. While wasting time in a book store yesterday (I should have been drinking...), I was reading a few pages of canseco's book (what an idiot).......and its funny to read about him and McGuire hiding in the bathroom together to inject each other...
Cyclists have the highly trained doctors to stick the urine filled condoms up their arse before the drug tests...... :p :butt:

[Roy E. Munson]

Good point

[Dekonick]

Urine filled condom?

For a high profile rider (ie LA) doesn't someone actually watch them whip it out and piss?

Using someone else's urine could lead to some interesting results...

Lance... Let me be the first to congratulate you on your pregnancy.... :rolleyes:

[znfdl]

What role does "mathematical modeling" have in all of this? Is that like Pound's logic; we know all cyclists use drugs and Lance is a cyclist so he uses drugs too?

Mathematical modeling is quite important. If one incorporates statistical results in an equation and the statistics are biased in a manner then the resulting equation is bogus.

In chemistry, which is not my field, they use a Taylor series expansion for a number of calculations. If the Taylor Series expansion is not performed properly then the resulting equations would be biased.

Now let's take a look at an EPO test, if the mathematical model were to be performed on current urine samples, you would have a mathematical model derived for that purpose. Now as someone stated that EPO is only stable for 7-20 days and the urine sample is 6 years old, then one would have to create a mathemaical model for a current sample and one that would have been aged (6 years). I would be highly shocked if the two models for now and 6 years ago were the same. Until a test / mathematical model is created for 6 year old samples in my eyes the test is bogus.

Otherwise I can sum this up by :argue:

[93legendti]

Urine filled condom?

For a high profile rider (ie LA) doesn't someone actually watch them whip it out and piss?

Using someone else's urine could lead to some interesting results...

Lance... Let me be the first to congratulate you on your pregnancy.... :rolleyes:

Like the Seinfeld episode where J. Peterman told Elaine she was menopausal!

[Fixed]

N.P.R. reports the head of the T.D.F. says no question, Lance did use E.P.O. to win the 99 tour.Cheers

[bostondrunk]

Either this post is completely tongue in cheek or you are just bitter due to your insecurity caused by an apparent lack of accomplishment in athletics or in general. Either way, absurd generalizations like the several you posted are absolute indicators of ignorance and possibly envy. This in defense of all of the clean and educated athletes on this board and in this world.

Have a nice day.

Actually, I totally agree with his post. What will it take for people to wake up and realize that 99% of pro athletes use, or have used, some form of performance enhancing drugs? You may not like the thought of that, but its the truth.
Read Willy Voight's (sp?) book Breaking the Chain. Funny read about all this drug stuff..

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . Jean Marie LeBlanc. And Mr. LeBlanc has medical, immunilogical, and/or molecular biology degrees from what university? . . . .

The TdF is owned by the Amoury Sports Organization, which is in turn owned by the Amoury Group, which also owns--Surprise!--the L'Equipe newspaper. Can you say, "conflict of interest?" . . .

BBDave

[William]

Raymond Poulidor (three-time runner-up and five-time third place finisher of the Tour de France): This is ridiculous. Why not retroactively test all the back to 1903?

...or at least back to when the Tour was last won by a Frenchmen. :rolleyes:

When was that again??


William :rolleyes:

[Tom]

So I'm sitting in a room with about 100 other computer geeks half listening to a presentation on System Administration for Linux on zSeries and zVM and I burst out laughing at your Queen of Denmark exchange.

Thanks. Thanks a lot.

[SGP]

i am alot less bothered by a pro athlete taking epo, steroids or what ever to do his job, than a pro athlete getting busted for dealing coke on his cell phone and then having his lawyers, the da and the nfl work out a deal so he can do his jail time in the off season! then he gets out and whines that he was targeted because he was famous. ofcourse he has a team mate who's face went right from the highlight real on court tv to every nfl product and broadcast...

all that aside, i think this attack on armstrong is stupid. (it does not help the sport, unless the results of all the non french riders are thrown out it will not help the french win their own race.)

[e-RICHIE]

So I'm sitting in a room with about 100 other computer geeks half listening to a presentation on System Administration for Linux on zSeries and zVM and I burst out laughing at your Queen of Denmark exchange.

Thanks. Thanks a lot.


jerk and i will be doing a few short mid-week runs
in the catskills during 'cross season. don't forget
to order the prime rib; it's medium rare.

[darylb]

What will it take for people to wake up and realize that 99% of pro athletes use, or have used, some form of performance enhancing drugs? You may not like the thought of that, but its the truth.


It is no secret that performance enhancing drugs are used but 99% of pro athletes, give me a break. Too broad a stroke. NFL linemen, probably a very high percentage in my opinion but what choice do they have? Quarterbacks, my guess is a much, much lower percentage but probably not completely innocent.

Everyone loves to mention baseball but I am guessing the percentage in baseball is not nealy as high as some are suggesting. Anyone who is using Conseco's numbers is using some form of enhancement themselves. I am sure there is some presence of drugs in most all sports but if you are suggesting that pretty much all pro athletes use them, then you must be ......... well, drunk. :D

As a former pro athlete, I can say with confidence that your 99% figure is way off the mark. I was not a pro cyclist but I would be willing to bet that not even 99% of pro cyclist, or athletes of any specific sport use drugs.

My ire from the other post mainly came from the proclamation that baseball players were ignorant and uneducated. Conseco .......... ok, you got me there but to make such a statement like that about baseball players is way off base ............ and ok, a little close to home. And what exactly is the graduation rate of pro cyclist anyway?

A fully awake,
darylb

[e-RICHIE]

I was not a pro cyclist but I would be willing to bet that not even 99% of pro cyclist, or athletes of any specific sport use drugs.


this is kinda silly; we beat this one around every 4 months.
what IS a drug? if it's not on the banned list but it is from
the pharmacy is it ok? i don't care either way, but i DO think
these guys are not racing on powerbars or food from the local market.

they shoot horses, don't they?

[JohnS]

It is no secret that performance enhancing drugs are used but 99% of pro athletes, give me a break. Too broad a stroke. NFL linemen, probably a very high percentage in my opinion but what choice do they have? Quarterbacks, my guess is a much, much lower percentage but probably not completely innocent.

Everyone loves to mention baseball but I am guessing the percentage in baseball is not nealy as high as some are suggesting. Anyone who is using Conseco's numbers is using some form of enhancement themselves. I am sure there is some presence of drugs in most all sports but if you are suggesting that pretty much all pro athletes use them, then you must be ......... well, drunk. :D

As a former pro athlete, I can say with confidence that your 99% figure is way off the mark. I was not a pro cyclist but I would be willing to bet that not even 99% of pro cyclist, or athletes of any specific sport use drugs.

My ire from the other post mainly came from the proclamation that baseball players were ignorant and uneducated. Conseco .......... ok, you got me there but to make such a statement like that about baseball players is way off base ............ and ok, a little close to home. And what exactly is the graduation rate of pro cyclist anyway?

A fully awake,
darylb
Only 99% of the ones who WIN! :beer: :) :banana: :p :cool: ;) :D

[bostondrunk]

Rememer, in pro sports, its not a sin to use drugs, only a sin to get caught.

And Second place is the first loser.

And the dude that said winning isn't everything, has never won anything.

[e-RICHIE]

Rememer, in pro sports, its not a sin to use drugs, only a sin to get caught.

i rememer that daily.

[RichMc]

this is kinda silly; we beat this one around every 4 months.
what IS a drug? if it's not on the banned list but it is from
the pharmacy is it ok? i don't care either way, but i DO think
these guys are not racing on powerbars or food from the local market.

they shoot horses, don't they?

Zactly.

As with cycling and almost every other sporting endeavor, from the weekend player to the pro, there are those who are trying to use every edge possible, according to the rules. The spirit of the law does not concern them. The obstacle is only the letter of the law. You name it, whatever the sport someone is looking for the edge in equipment, performance enhancers and testing. It's all only a matter of degree as to how far over or under the line the competitor is. Is it fair that a wrestler or boxer does whatever they can to lose water prior to a "weigh in" so they can make their weight class? There should be standards, rules and tests that are equally and fairly applied but there will always be those who will push it.

[William]

Deltoids bigger then his own head.
http://mr-olympia-2003.ronnie.cz/Img/System/coleman.jpg

This guy doubles as a hang glider.
http://www.ronnie.cz/_img/Clanky/1540_3.jpg

It's all just good genetics. :rolleyes:


William

[JohnS]

I remember watching on Canadian TV a few years ago a show about a Canadian female skier(?) who got busted for steroid doping. She said with a straight face that she'd never done anything, but her face was full of acne. Then she said that since she couldn't compete there anymore, she was going to go into powerlifting. I burst out laughing.

[spiderlake]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage/0,5481,16373748,00.html

Summary of the article is that LA has the potential to lose the '99 title. From the article:


"Race director Jean-Marie Leblanc confirmed yesterday it was within the Tour's rules to retrospectively disqualify riders found guilty of doping after reports Armstrong used illegal blood booster EPO in the 1999 race, the first of his record seven consecutive wins."

[William]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage/0,5481,16373748,00.html

Summary of the article is that LA has the potential to lose the '99 title. From the article:


"Race director Jean-Marie Leblanc confirmed yesterday it was within the Tour's rules to retrospectively disqualify riders found guilty of doping after reports Armstrong used illegal blood booster EPO in the 1999 race, the first of his record seven consecutive wins."

...let's say they pull the win? Then what?

Lance gets p!ssed off, comes out of retirement, kicks "A" for win number 8*, and they're right back where they were p!ssing and moaning.

FWIW, if he is definitivley (rigourous, sound scientific testing) proved guilty of doping, pull the plug. Until then it sounds like sour grapes and half-baked claims.

William

[JohnS]

It sounds like they're cutting off their nose to spite their face. if they discredit LA now, for something done 7 years ago, it's going to look really petty. It won't improve the public's image of cycling, only put it further in the gutter. I'm not saying that he's innocent, just that it looks like sour grapes.

[Dekonick]

Are they going to take away Jacques Anquetil's wins?
Merckx's? or just '99 and '00 (the 00 is made up...) so there wont be an American with more wins than a Frenchie?

Say...does this mean that Jan will be given the '99 title?

Doh! I thought he(Jan) was absent from '00 not 99...but you are right!

What about Pantani? They gonna go dig up the Pirate's grave to test? Hinault?

It is just sad that anyone would have access to urine/blood that is that old much less test it and report 'findings'

I guess the French are really out for 'blood'

[93legendti]

Are they going to take away Jacques Anquetil's wins?
Merckx's? or just '99 and '00 (the 00 is made up...) so there wont be an American with more wins than a Frenchie?

Say...does this mean that Jan will be given the '99 title?

No, Jan wasn't there...injury or something. Jan won the Vuelta that year. Zuelle was 2nd.

[Fixed]

what can you say? I think his wins will stay.It sells copy

[darylb]

this is kinda silly; we beat this one around every 4 months.
what IS a drug? if it's not on the banned list but it is from
the pharmacy is it ok? i don't care either way, but i DO think
these guys are not racing on powerbars or food from the local market.

they shoot horses, don't they?


I suppose I should go shopping for sun glasses with a bit less of a reddish tint but I guess I was refering to the big stuff that we all like to bat around. Point taken. Is this an appropriate place for a banana?

I'm going back to my half full glass of gatorade.

[e-RICHIE]

I suppose I should go shopping for sun glasses with a bit less of a reddish tint but I guess I was refering to the big stuff that we all like to bat around. Point taken. Is this an appropriate place for a banana?

I'm going back to my half full glass of gatorade.


you did see the movie, eh?

[Big Dan]

maybe is time to sell that stock............. :D

[GoJavs]

If Armstrong's TDF 99 is taken back for any reason, Laurent Dufaux makes the podium! Yoo-hoo! I knew he could do it...Two of the infamous '98 Festina guys would be on the podium! Wait, is that a good thing? :crap:

[Johny]

If Armstrong's TDF 99 is taken back for any reason, Laurent Dufaux makes the podium! Yoo-hoo! I knew he could do it...Two of the infamous '98 Festina guys would be on the podium! Wait, is that a good thing? :crap:

In any case, dopers win. :p

[Fixed]

What is Greg Lemond thinking now? I just thought how far back can they go 10 years? Cheers

[darylb]

you did see the movie, eh?


I have not seen "They shoot horses, dont they?" if that is what you are refering to.

Since you have spoken of it more than once in the thread, Ill make the effort to pick it up. I am always game for a little bit of enlightenment.

[e-RICHIE]

I have not seen "They shoot horses, dont they?" if that is what you are refering to.

Since you have spoken of it more than once in the thread, Ill make the effort to pick it up. I am always game for a little bit of enlightenment.

yeah - get the movie.
here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065088/
http://www.imagesjournal.com/issue08/reviews/theyshoothorses/text.htm
it's 70s era i think - but the subject matter is the dance marathons from the early part of the 20th century (before my time! dnovo? keno? was any forumite around then???!!!) in which couples would use extreme measures in order to "survive" the ordeal and be the last standing, dancing man and woman in the contest. i surmise(d) that it was a way in the depression era years for folks to make some extra money. the similarity between what they did and what i believe is commonplace in a sport like pro cycling is something i cannot shake. i have always believed that cycling at "that" level is inhumane and that no trained athlete can ride/race that many miles over that long a season without some mother's little helpers (hey- can you hum the theme song from "valley of the dolls" now?). i digress. maybe my point is that i simply don't care how they do what they do because i like the sport nonetheless. if i didn't, i could've walked away years ago. my point is also that i never "get" why anyone is surprised by any news that involves drugs in (our) sport. not-that-it-matters but there are likely less than 100 pros worldwide that make more money than the average college graduate. the other 300 or so are just making a living and rueing the day that it ends for them and they return to a factory or to the farm. it is a european-to-the-core sport and drugs and it go back generations. only recently with all the success from english speaking folks do we receive so much sensationalized press about lance, and epo, and hgh, and all the rest. it isn't anything new at all. heck - i used a fair amount of bach's rescue remedy* during my better years and i'm only a cat 2 with a day job.
well, i've exceeded my weekly word count and i know that climb will bring that to my attention before happy hour ends. so i bid you, as they use to say on the last page of the program from ringling bros. circus, au revoir!
e-RICHIE©™®



* http://www.herbalremedies.com/resrem10ml.html
source=google&engine=adwords!32&keyword=%28rescue+remedy%29&match_type=

[BBB]

That is such a good post. It manages to comment on the issue as a whole without speculating directly on the did he or didn't he question.

As for cycling at that level being inhuam, I love the bit in Hell on Wheels after the TT. Erik Zabel is sitting in the back of a van and comments that he could only average 42-43kmph and adds, "Do you know how bad that is?"

[Johny]

A funny report (vs. e-richie's comments):

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8750.0.html

"Upon hearing the news of a new round of doping allegations against Lance Armstrong, Jan Ullrich - finishing up the Tour of Germany - reacted with typical reserve and caution.

Should the allegations turn out to be true, Ullrich said, he would be "very disappointed" in Armstrong, hastily adding, however, that this was not the first time French media have attempted to discredit the seven-time Tour de France winner. Ullrich said he remains skeptical of the allegations outlined in Tuesday's edition of L'Equipe.

While Germany's top cycling star remained somewhat reticent, one of the country's biggest newspapers, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, was not. In a commentary published Wednesday Süddeutsche columnist Thomas Kistner challenged Ullrich to take a firmer stand.

"If Ullrich were serious about standing up against doping," Kistner wrote, "he would sue Lance Armstrong," for the damage the American has done to the German's career. After all Armstrong, Kistner implied, has cheated Ullrich out of becoming one of the greatest cyclist of all times, keeping him from winning the Tour five or more times.

The paper followed up the commentary with an exploration of the chances a hypothetical case of Ullrich v. Armstrong might have.

The first problem, according to the paper, would be to put a price tag on the damage Ullrichs career has taken, if indeed Ullrich had been cheated by Armstrong. Ullrich's manager Wolfgang Strohband quickly dismissed such speculation.

"This is all very vague, we are not thinking about it," Strohband told the paper. "It is impossible to put something like that into numbers. Forget it."

The sports marketing expert Klaus Kaercher, manager of the Olympic speed skating champion Anni Friesinger, agreed with Strohband.

"Ullrich was always immensely popular in Germany, despite the fact that he was always second," Kaercher pointed out.

As a national sports idol his market value has been at the upper end of the spectrum since 1997. Of course, Kaercher added, as a consistent winner, his value would have been even higher.

Kaercher added that it was not only Ullrich who is damaged, should it be true that Lance Armstrong's victories were fraudulent. The damage would be to all of cycling and hence to everyone involved in it.

"The entire sport would be much more marketable if it didn't have such a dirty image," Kaercher observed. "Now the sport has yet another affair - and a very spectacular one. For potential sponsors that means cycling means cheating and they will prefer to put their money back into classical advertising in the future."

The fact that everyone in cycling is damaged, according to Kaercher, makes the matter of a civil suit against Armstrong extremely complicated.

"Just who is going to sue whom?" Kaercher asked. "Who is damaged and who is a damager? Where does this end?"

For Ullrich, Kaercher concludes, there is not much to be gained by a lawsuit, financially or otherwise. Ullrich's manager Strohband agreed.

"I am not going to burden myself with a lawsuit," Strohband says.

So - unlike from France - Armstrong has nothing to fear from Germany."

[Needs Help]

heck - i used a fair amount of bach's rescue remedy* during my better years and i'm only a cat 2 with a day job.

Rescue Remedy Bach Flower essences help center the emotions until the crisis is past.

lol.