Lance likely guilty but gets off on a technicality…

[andy mac]

UCI: No sanction for Armstrong over EPO charges
By Rupert Guinness
The Daily Telegraph
This report filed March 2, 2006

Lance Armstrong will not face any penalty stemming from allegations that he used EPO in the 1999 Tour de France, according to the UCI.

The UCI has told The Daily Telegraph that it did not dispute the test results published last year in the French newspaper L'Equipe

"The UCI does not deny the validity of the six forms printed in L'Equipe," said UCI president Pat McQuaid. "The six tests which were printed in L'Equipe were among the 15 given out by (Dr. Mario) Zorzoli."

Zorzoli, the UCI's chief medical officer, stepped down this week after admitting to giving the L'Equipe journalist 15 examples of the tests; erythropoeitin (EPO) was found in six of them.

Armstrong retired after a record seventh Tour win last year. Many critics were calling for a retrospective penalty such as stripping Armstrong of the 1999 title. But McQuaid said there was no way to sanction Armstrong, despite the UCI's current regulations permitting retrospective testing.

McQuaid said the UCI stand would remain the same if new protocols for retrospective drug testing were introduced by the World Anti-Doping Agency.

McQuaid also cited an agreement by riders in the 1999 Tour that their blood samples would only be tested for research, and then only under an assurance of confidentiality.

"There is no recourse," McQuaid said. "The procedure used for these samples was one used for research purposes and didn't follow the protocol for samples tested for possible disciplinary proceedings. There was no protocol so the results cannot be proven nor accepted as proven."

[chrisroph]

"There was no protocol so the results cannot be proven nor accepted as proven."

This hardly evidence of guilt.

[Tom]

I'm not an Armstrong apologist but there's a whole chain of custody thing when you're doing disciplinary testing that's different than that for scientific research and it's probable that if somebody looked they'd find a break in the chain, or at least make the UCI spend a ton of money defending the chain. UCI probably figured it wasn't worth the trouble and they might as well direct their efforts towards what's going on now and not something in the distant past.

Besides, everybody'll forget who this Armstrong guy was in a year or two.

[andy mac]

where's the scientific proof that age deminishes the samples??


and:

"On Armstrong’s part in relation to the test results, a condition set by the French laboratory was that the could not be used for disciplinary purposes."

[loctite]

"There was no protocol so the results cannot be proven nor accepted as proven."

This hardly evidence of guilt.

So naive, if you truly new anything about the sport you would know he's guilty as sin. IMHO!

[weiwentg]

"There was no protocol so the results cannot be proven nor accepted as proven."

This hardly evidence of guilt.

well, it's evidence of guilt, but it's hardly conclusive evidence, because it's not procedurally correct (need a B-sample to test).

[chrisroph]

Naive, come on. How do you "know" he's guilty. You may suspect he is, but that is hardly "knowledge." Do I think or suspect he and others have done EPO and/or transfused their own blood? I won't answer in a public forum. But suspicions are far from proof or knowledge.

[Fixed]

bro a long long time ago ....... a man was innocent till proven guilty

[saab2000]

bro a long long time ago ....... a man was innocent till proven guilty

word

[nobrakes]

Shadenfreud is alive and well when it comes to LA's suspected guilt of EPO use. Who really knows? Was he the only one? Some people just want to see LA hang simply because they don't like his kind of personality, I prefer Fixed's point of view. What L'Equip did was the lowest form of bad journalism, and they should be the ones who are condemned.

[toaster]

Lance and Tyler are both people you want to like. They are also professional bike racers and do things we working folk who ride a bike for fun don't.

What exactly they do, we're not sure of. But certainly alot of time is spent wondering.

Richard Virenque is the same story except being French we don't have to like him.

[Ti Designs]

And how 'bout Bode? Oops, wrong thread...

[gone]

because this is exactly the outcome I predicted when this "story" first broke:

1. those who believe Armstrong doped would use this as "proof"
2. no B sample so Armstrong would claim tampering
3. cycling would spend several months once again being dragged through the mud.

As is always the case with professional cycling, it's hard to decide if this is a tragedy, a comedy or a travesty. Oh well, on to more important topics like the UCI vs. the grand tours.

[93legendti]

The title of this thread could just as easily read: "Lance likey innocent but he is exposed to suspicion based upon insufficent evidence." The UCI requires TWO positives to be "guilty". Let's assume that is for a reason. If only ONE sample is positive, is that a "technicality"? In the law, that would be tantamount to the prosecuter being unable to make out a prima facie case and the matter would not survive a motion for summary dismissal/disposition on the merits. In other words, the lack of 2 positive samples is not a procedural issue, but a substantive issue. Now, the chain of custody issue and whether or not the sample was tampered with by anyone not connected to the UCI is a procedural issue that can also go to the merits, since there is simply no way of knowing if the sample is in the exact condition it was when given by Lance in 1999.

BTW, I would google the Canadian DR. who works for the UCI, USA or Canadian Cycling body. He related after this "story" broke that the freezing of the samples for 6 years renders the results completely worthless.

FWIIW, I could really care less if Lance doped or not. If they all do it, then no harm no foul--the playing field was level. If they do not all do it, I can't believe one team's Dr. is SO much better than the other teams' Dr. for beating the tests, such that Tyler at USPS tested clean and at PHONAK he tested positive, with the only change being a different doctor. YMMV.

[xcandrew]

I agree with 93LT, the thread title is completely inaccurate. Lance would only be getting off on a technicality if the testing was done for doping control and something got screwed up in the testing, such as rules were not followed for sample handing, etc. The intention for this particular testing was for research, so there could never be a guilty/not guilty or "off a technicality" result in the first place.

Like someone else mentioned, because this was research and not doping control, there were no chain of custody procedures in place for these samples - meaning an unbroken paper trail in the handling from the samples from the original collection of the sample to the time of the result. Requirements would include signed and dated seals, documentation for each transfer, etc. These legal requirements are to avoid any allegations of tampering or other misconduct. Even in my work as an enviromental scientist, all our soil and water samples need to follow chain of custody procedures...

[Kevan]

let me kick the dead horse a couple times too.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . I admit I don't really like the guy anymore, but the stuff has been sitting in a freezer for SIX YEARS. Go look at anything in YOUR home freezer that's been there for six years and I bet it won't be in too good a shape, either.

SIX YEARS. Freezer burn. Nobody watching over it to make sure it isn't tampered with. No "B" sample. Results trumpeted by a publication that has made absolutely no secret that they would like to see Lance hang. A publication that used pretty blatant dishonesty in getting ahold of the "A" sample tests.

Why are we even debating this? The test results are worthless for so many reasons . . .

BBD

[93legendti]

. . . I admit I don't really like the guy anymore, but the stuff has been sitting in a freezer for SIX YEARS. Go look at anything in YOUR home freezer that's been there for six years and I bet it won't be in too good a shape, either.

SIX YEARS. Freezer burn...BBD

Had to stop laughing before I could post--it reminded me of the time my wife made rice krispie treats after she first moved in--with butter that had been sitting way back in my fridge for 4 years (I was a bachelor--what can I say). Sadly, I didn't figure it out until AFTER I had eaten a few too many of the treats--ugh! Anyway, great point!

[divve]

Just like everyone else I don't know the truth.....however, I fail see a relevance in comparing their freezer with a household item. As for the sample, normally they're sealed at the time of submission. Whether the seal is 100% effective in detecting tampering is another issue and a separate one from whomever is "watching". Not to mention that the reliance on the latter is a highly dubious practice to begin with.

[sspielman]

Well...here is more evidence that there is nothing wrong with the Lance Armstrong immune system.....

[Dave B]

I used to fight tooth and nail (verbally) anyone who would say somethign bad about Lance and doping.

I guess I am just tired of people wanting him to be a cheater.

Honestly if you hate him and think he cheats, fine

If you beleive him that he is clean, fine.

I am a 5th grade science teacher who teaches 100+ kids a day. I use Lance in my class as an example for science in sport. His unique physiology and how he uses technology.

If you would look at all of the information he has at his disposal and the effort that goes into his team and himself, I think more people would understand.

Michale Schumacher probably would not be AS successful if he raced for a team with out the technology and money behind it.

Is he a perfect human being? No, of course not. He is however retired, or at least until he comes back, so let the man live in peace.

I am sure there are more people we can trash.

How about republicans! :beer:

If you take life to seriously, you are going to miss out on a couple of really funny jokes!

[toaster]

Dude, your heroes have feet of clay.

Just because there's money and science behind the advances or successes doesn't eliminate the human factor.

[Grant McLean]

Anyone remember when Lance was on Larry King? What struck me as
strange was that I think he said that he'd never use EPO because after
having cancer, he just wouldn't put a drug like that into his body.

Didn't he take EPO as part of his cancer treatment?

-g

[William]

;)

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/nigelhomer/alaska/dead_horse.jpg

[93legendti]

...I am sure there are more people we can trash.

How about republicans! :beer:

If you take life to seriously, you are going to miss out on a couple of really funny jokes!


Or Al Qaeda loving democrats! :beer:

If you take life to seriously, you are going to miss out on a couple of really funny jokes!

[William]

Or Al Qaeda loving democrats! :beer:

If you take life to seriously, you are going to miss out on a couple of really funny jokes!

"OMG!! HE SAID AL QaEDA!!!!"

Excuse me sir, step this way with me....NOW.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/images/vp20021024_v4820-07-floridasdo-515h.jpg


William ;)

[bluesea]

The most essential question that has not been asked thus far:




WHO GIVES A DAMN?