Did he or didn't he?

[gldstwmn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/sports/othersports/23cnd-armstrong.html
Armstrong Fends Off New Drug Accusations


PARIS, Aug. 23 - In a major challenge to Lance Armstrong's domination of the Tour de France, the French sports newspaper L'Équipe charged today that the American rider frequently used an illegal performance-enhancing drug in 1999 to win his first of seven consecutive Tours.

Armstrong, 33 years old, who retired July 24 after his latest victory, strongly denied the charge.

He has been under suspicion and investigated a handful of times since his comeback in 1999 from testicular cancer, but has never been proven guilty of doping.

"Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues," he said on his Web site, adding that the "article is nothing short of tabloid journalism."

"I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs."

L'Équipe devoted four pages to its charges, beginning with a front-page banner headline, "The Armstrong Lie." In an accompanying editorial, the newspaper stated flatly that "Lance Armstrong has used EPO," the banned erythropoietin, to increase the red blood corpuscles that carry oxygen to muscles.

"After a long, painstaking and rigorous investigation, L'Équipe publishes today the proof," the editorial continued.

On inside pages, the paper reproduced what it said were EPO tests of frozen urine samples taken from riders during the 1999 Tour.

Six samples that the paper said were taken from Armstrong proved positive for the "indisputable" use of EPO, the paper said. It added that six other samples from riders who were not identified had also proven positive. "It cannot be regarded as a positive test in the strict regulatory sense," the newspaper said, doubting that French sanctions were likely. However, it continued, the World Antidoping Agency or the U.S. Antidoping Agency could act.

The tests were done at the Chatenay- Malabry laboratory outside Paris last year, the specialist doping facility confirmed. No tests for EPO were available in 1999, and the urine samples were tested in 2004 to help scientists refine detection methods, the paper said. It explained that its reporters had matched the six-digit labels identifying each sample with forms filed with the French Cycling Federation during the Tour. Those forms, filled out each time a sample was taken in a drug test, identified the donor by name as well as the six digits on his urine sample.

L'Équipe reproduced both what it said were the results of the laboratory's tests, with sample number, and the forms with the same number and Armstrong's name. To a layman, the laboratory chart was nearly incomprehensible, except for its table of sample numbers. A low number presumably signifying EPO levels could be marked positive in a nearby column while a much higher number could be marked negative.

But Jean-Marie Leblanc, the director of the Tour de France, called the paper's report "very complete, very professional, very meticulous." He said on RTL radio that the charge "appears credible." Leblanc added that disciplinary action seemed unlikely since the tests were based on only the second, or B, urine sample taken during the race. The A sample was tested in 1999 and not frozen.

Both L'Équipe and the Tour de France organization are owned by the Amaury Sports Organisation and work out of the same building.

As he continued to win the Tour de France year in and year out, Armstrong has occasionally been the target of doping suspicions in L'Équipe. These doubts accelerated each time he or his team, previously sponsored by U.S. Postal Service and now by Discovery Channel, has come under judicial inquiry. Investigations in France and Italy have been unfruitful. Armstrong has tested positive for drugs only once, during the 1999 Tour. That finding was wiped out when he produced a medical certificate allowing him to use a banned drug to heal a saddle sore.

But the continuing suspicions have embroiled Armstrong in at least four court suits that are still to be heard. In what seems to be the biggest one, he is suing The Sunday Times of London for reprinting doping charges made in a book, "L.A. Confidential, the Secrets of Lance Armstrong," in 2004. The other cases involve an Italian rider, a former personal assistant who, like Armstrong, is a Texan and an American insurance company that has refused to pay a bonus of several million dollars to the rider because of its doubts about his Tour victory two years ago.

In the month since he retired, Armstrong has been spending his time with his three children, with his companion, the singer Sheryl Crow, and with work for his foundation to combat cancer. On Saturday, he visited President Bush's ranch and rode with him on mountain bikes across the Texas landscape. Armstrong is a member of the President's Council on Cancer and has pressed him for more research funds.

[dissention]

Of course. Only drugs could make someone ride around with Shrub for television cameras like Lance did last week.

[SuzeQuze]

I chose I don't know but I think he probably did it. :distress: I hope not though.

[WELSH WITCH]

He must have, no one can ride up a mountain like that without taking something. He didn't even have one bad day in the Tour de France, everyone has at least one.

But okay, innocent until proven guilty I guess.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Nope... I don't believe he did.

[gldstwmn]

I chose I don't know but I think he probably did it. :distress: I hope not though.

I'm with you.

[gldstwmn]

Of course. Only drugs could make someone ride around with Shrub for television cameras like Lance did last week.

:laugh: Did you notice that Lance rode just a bit behind his majesty?

[GypsySorcerer]

I think he probably did.

[cliffdweller]

Of course. Only drugs could make someone ride around with Shrub for television cameras like Lance did last week.

:laugh: :laugh: :wavey:

Love your avatar by the way :xoxo:

[gldstwmn]

:laugh: :laugh: :wavey:

Love your avatar by the way :xoxo:

Who is that?

[cliffdweller]

Who is that?

It's the youngest kid from Malcolm in the Middle.

[estranged4life]

but being married to a cancer survivor who had taken chemo-therapy that contained a great amount of steroids (For example, To ease the pain of nausea) , I wouldnt be surprised if he did.

Doesnt matter now since he retired anyways.

[dissention]

:laugh: :laugh: :wavey:

Love your avatar by the way :xoxo:

:D

Dewey, the baby is not talking to you through my womb!

Who is that?

It's Dewey from Malcolm In the Middle. He? Is hysterical.

[seeker007nmss]

I say no. If the French came up with it, because the are annoyed at an American dominating their little race, then it can't be true.

[LiquidBlue5000]

It's all Sheryl's fault... the woman is pure evil.... EVIL! :nod:

[irishgrl]

Official: Armstrong Doping a 'Proven' Fact

By ANGELA DOLAND, Associated Press Writer 16 minutes ago

PARIS - The director of the Tour de France said it was a "proven scientific fact" that Lance Armstrong had a performance-boosting drug in his body during his 1999 Tour win, and that the seven-time champion owed fans an explanation.

In a story Wednesday, Jean-Marie Leblanc praised L'Equipe for an investigation that reported that six urine samples provided by Armstrong during the 1999 Tour tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO. The French sports daily on Tuesday accused Armstrong of using EPO during his first Tour win in 1999.

"For the first time — and these are no longer rumors or insinuations, these are proven scientific facts — someone has shown me that in 1999, Armstrong had a banned substance called EPO in his body," Leblanc told the paper.

"The ball is now in his camp. Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the tour," Leblanc said. "What L'Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled."

Armstrong, a frequent target of L'Equipe, vehemently denied the allegations on Tuesday, calling the article "tabloid journalism."

"I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs," he said on his Web site.

L'Equipe reported that six urine samples provided by the cancer-surviving American during the 1999 Tour tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO. The drug, formally known as erythropoietin, was on the list of banned substances at the time, but there was no effective test to detect it.

The allegations surfaced six years later because EPO tests on the 1999 samples were carried out only last year — when scientists at a lab outside Paris used them for research to perfect EPO testing. The national anti-doping laboratory in Chatenay-Malabry said it promised to hand its finding to the World Anti-Doping Agency, provided it was never used to penalize riders.

Five-time cycling champion Miguel Indurain said he couldn't understand why scientists would use samples from the 1999 Tour for their tests. "That seems bizarre, and I don't know who would have the authorization to do it," he told L'Equipe. "I don't even know if it's legal to keep these samples."

L'Equipe's investigation was based on the second set of two samples used in doping tests. The first set were used in 1999 for analysis at the time. Without those samples, any disciplinary action against Armstrong would be impossible, French Sports Minister Jean-Francois Lamour said.

Lamour said he was forced to have doubts about L'Equipe's report because he had not seen the originals of some of the documents that appeared in the paper.

"I do not confirm it," he told RTL radio. But he added: "If what L'Equipe says is true, I can tell you that it's a serious blow for cycling."

The International Cycling Union did not begin using a urine test for EPO until 2001, though it was banned in 1990. For years, it had been impossible to detect the drug, which builds endurance by boosting the production of oxygen-rich red blood cells.

Jacques de Ceaurriz, the head of France's anti-doping laboratory, which developed the EPO urine test, told Europe-1 radio that at least 15 urine samples from the 1999 Tour had tested positive for EPO.

Separately, the lab said it could not confirm that the positive results were Armstrong's. It noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only 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.

On one side of a page Tuesday, it showed what it claimed 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.

L'Equipe is owned by the Amaury Group whose subsidiary, Amaury Sport Organization, organizes the Tour de France and other sporting events. The paper often questioned Armstrong's clean record and frequently took jabs at him — portraying him as too arrogant, too corporate and too good to be real.

"Never to such an extent, probably, has the departure of a champion been welcomed with such widespread relief," the paper griped the day after Armstrong won his seventh straight Tour win and retired from cycling.

Leblanc suggested that in the future, urine samples could be stashed away for future testing as detection methods improve — another possible weapon in the fight against doping.

"We're so tired of doping that all means are good as long as they are morally acceptable," he told L'Equipe.


***********
ok. can someone tell me WHY they would say this NOW? And if Lance needed EPO to win in '99, how do they explain the next 6 wins? These freaks have done their level best to disparage a true champion. The Tour doesnt deserve the talents of an athlete like Lance. He brought new life to that overblown arena of athleticism and they have the GALL to accuse Lance NOW????
ACK......I guess you just gotta consider the source........:shrug:

[SuzeQuze]

...
***********
ok. can someone tell me WHY they would say this NOW? And if Lance needed EPO to win in '99, how do they explain the next 6 wins? These freaks have done their level best to disparage a true champion. The Tour doesnt deserve the talents of an athlete like Lance. He brought new life to that overblown arena of athleticism and they have the GALL to accuse Lance NOW????
ACK......I guess you just gotta consider the source........:shrug:

It does seem like water under the bridge IF it is true. Also, given that the paper has always had it in for Armstrong this seems fishy. I would be apprehensive about believing anything they printed about him knowing that.

[The Tower]

ok. can someone tell me WHY they would say this NOW? And if Lance needed EPO to win in '99, how do they explain the next 6 wins? These freaks have done their level best to disparage a true champion. The Tour doesnt deserve the talents of an athlete like Lance. He brought new life to that overblown arena of athleticism and they have the GALL to accuse Lance NOW????
ACK......I guess you just gotta consider the source........:shrug:
According to what I have heard, the drug testing world has only recently gained the ability to test for this particular substance, which is why the tests are being done now.

:shrug: Who knows?

[DavidMn]

I have to admit, the more accuasations that come out, the more I listen, although I still have faith in Mr Armstrong

[Hippocampus]

I say no. If the French came up with it, because the are annoyed at an American dominating their little race, then it can't be true.

How condescending. :rolleyes:
You didn't help Donald Rumsfeld come up with some of his witticisms regarding "Old Europe" by any chance?


ok. can someone tell me WHY they would say this NOW? And if Lance needed EPO to win in '99, how do they explain the next 6 wins? These freaks have done their level best to disparage a true champion. The Tour doesnt deserve the talents of an athlete like Lance. He brought new life to that overblown arena of athleticism and they have the GALL to accuse Lance NOW????



You know, the Tour de France has existed long before Lance Armstrong first entered the race and will continue to exist long after he's gone. Americans might have been paying a bit more attention to it in recent years because of Armstrong's astonishing winning streak but - sorry to break it to you - it's a worldwide event watched by millions and the Tour (and cyclism in general) certainly has never needed him to give it "new life".

Personally I don't give a rat's behind whether Lance Armstrong took performance enhancing drugs or not but it's obvious that cyclism is plagued by doping. Tons of participants have been tested positive in recent years and I think it's pretty much a given that you need a little extra help to keep up with the others (the other cheaters).

[DavidMn]

How condescending. :rolleyes:
You didn't help Donald Rumsfeld come up with some of his witticisms regarding "Old Europe" by any chance?


France is a nice country. I enjoyed it both times I was there. As for the opinion that the French hate Americans, I had no experience with that. Treat others as you would wish to be treated, that's what I say!!



You know, the Tour de France has existed long before Lance Armstrong first entered the race and will continue to exist long after he's gone. Americans might have been paying a bit more attention to it in recent years because of Armstrong's astonishing winning streak but - sorry to break it to you - it's a worldwide event watched by millions and the Tour (and cyclism in general) certainly has never needed him to give it "new life".

Personally I don't give a rat's behind whether Lance Armstrong took performance enhancing drugs or not but it's obvious that cyclism is plagued by doping. Tons of participants have been tested positive in recent years and I think it's pretty much a given that you need a little extra help to keep up with the others (the other cheaters).I liked France both times I was there. As for the opinion ahared by some that they hate Americans, I treated them as I wanted to be treated, and I had no problems :)

[irishgrl]

You know, the Tour de France has existed long before Lance Armstrong first entered the race and will continue to exist long after he's gone. Americans might have been paying a bit more attention to it in recent years because of Armstrong's astonishing winning streak but - sorry to break it to you - it's a worldwide event watched by millions and the Tour (and cyclism in general) certainly has never needed him to give it "new life".

Personally I don't give a rat's behind whether Lance Armstrong took performance enhancing drugs or not but it's obvious that cyclism is plagued by doping. Tons of participants have been tested positive in recent years and I think it's pretty much a given that you need a little extra help to keep up with the others (the other cheaters).

1) The Tour HAS been around longer than Lance but by virtue of his record setting wins, he has single handedly compelled a much larger viewing audience than previous. Face it: cycling doesnt have the huge numbers of fans that other sports have, and France benefitted mightily from all the many Americans who came over specifically to watch him and root him on.

2) why pick samples from so far back? why not more recent? in fact, why not ALL years he's competed? the test has been around now for what? 4 years? and they choose a sample from 1999?????? something doesnt seem right here. This is the same outfit that has dogged him every year (btw: why publish the results NOW? why not in 2001 when the samples would only have been two years old and not subject to the level of corruption that 6 year old samples could be? Again, something isnt right.

3) how did my original article get pushed to page two when it was before the poll (wondering out loud???)

[dissention]

2) why pick samples from so far back? why not more recent? in fact, why not ALL years he's competed? the test has been around now for what? 4 years? and they choose a sample from 1999?????? something doesnt seem right here. This is the same outfit that has dogged him every year (btw: why publish the results NOW? why not in 2001 when the samples would only have been two years old and not subject to the level of corruption that 6 year old samples could be? Again, something isnt right.

This is not a conspiracy cooked up jealous Frenchmen, dear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong#Allegations_of_drug_use

On August 23 2005, L'Équipe reported on its front page under the headline "The Armstrong Lie" that the cyclist had taken EPO during the prologue and five stages of the 1999 Tour de France and said that it had not technically tested positive because at that point EPO tests were not administered. Lance's website quickly issued the following to answer those new allegations : 8/22/2005 - "Yet again, a European newspaper has reported that I have tested positive for performance enhancing drugs. Tomorrow’s L’Equipe, a French sports daily, is reporting that my 1999 samples were positive. Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues and tomorrow’s article is nothing short of tabloid journalism. The paper even admits in its own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no way to defend myself. They state: “There will therefore be no counter-exam nor regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since defendant’s rights cannot be respected.” I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs." However, the paper actually states that the highly reputed laboratory who made the tests is fully sure of its results.

The results were then confirmed by the director of the French official national anti-doping test laboratory at Châtenay-Malabry, Jacques de Ceaurriz [6]. He explained that his laboratory worked on anonymous samples, thus he was not aware at the time that the positive result was transmitted to the world anti-doping agency that this result concerned Lance Armstrong. He also added that while EPO can, with time, become degraded and thus undetectable in samples, if the testing method detects EPO, then there is no doubt that EPO is present. The study was not conducted by the laboratory in order to bust out racers, but in order to compare results obtained with a new mathematical model with previous methods; Lance Armstrong's 6 samples test positive on all 3 methods evaluated.

Since there are enough frozen extracts left, the next stage is expected to let some independent body test not only the EPO but also (L'Équipe, page three, sixth column) Lance's specific DNA in the same sample.

[irishgrl]

This is not a conspiracy cooked up jealous Frenchmen, dear.
sez yew.

The paper even admits in its own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no way to defend myself. They state: “There will therefore be no counter-exam nor regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since defendant’s rights cannot be respected.”

and then there's this:
Investigations in France and Italy have been unfruitful. Armstrong has tested positive for drugs only once, during the 1999 Tour. That finding was wiped out when he produced a medical certificate allowing him to use a banned drug to heal a saddle sore.

who's to say that THAT particular drug isnt mucking up the results?


As I said before, this smacks of sour grapes.

[Janet]

I think it's possible. I could take a gallon of the **** and still not do what he can do.

[Hippocampus]

1) The Tour HAS been around longer than Lance but by virtue of his record setting wins, he has single handedly compelled a much larger viewing audience than previous.

You'll get no argument from me that Lance Armstrong has captivated the interest of Americans which I believe, incidentally, will rapidly evaporate now that he has retired. And yes the Tour has been around since 1903.



Face it: cycling doesnt have the huge numbers of fans that other sports have

What an outlandish statement. Cycling has a HUGE following in Europe. Many other countries have their own yearly tour (Italy, Spain, Germany, Belgium...). The US doesn't give a hoot either about rugby, soccer or formula one racing and that's fine... Different cultures, different interests. That doesn't mean the rest of the world isn't paying attention.



and France benefitted mightily from all the many Americans who came over specifically to watch him and root him on.

A few extra tourists during the overcrowded summer does not make a "mighty benefit" for France's economy. A mere droplet in the ocean.


2) why pick samples from so far back? why not more recent? in fact, why not ALL years he's competed? the test has been around now for what? 4 years? and they choose a sample from 1999?????? something doesnt seem right here. This is the same outfit that has dogged him every year (btw: why publish the results NOW? why not in 2001 when the samples would only have been two years old and not subject to the level of corruption that 6 year old samples could be? Again, something isnt right.

I have no expertise in blood tests and urine samples and I could only speak hypothetically in regards to your questions which quite frankly negates the point.

As I said before, this smacks of sour grapes.

If you think Lance Armstrong is being singled out then you're wrong. Many have faced similar accusations. Just one interesting example. A few years ago, Richard Virenque, France's high profile cycling champion of the moment was prosecuted and condemned for doping and yet he had NEVER been tested positive. His doctor was caught importing illegal substances and his notes revealed to whom they'd be administered. In the wake of one lousy defense (and one hell of a lousy lawyer), Virenque along with a bunch others were forced to admit their guilt. What does this say? That medical teams really have the means and the knowledge to conceal doping quite effectively.

It's your choice to believe Lance Armstrong is a real squeaky clean hero but considering cycling's widespread cheating and rotten practices, I'm convinced he has more drugs flowing in his veins than blood, especially in light of his incredible performances and the suspicions and accusations which have been following him for a while now.

[bikerchic]

Lance will be on Larry King Live tonight.

[bikerchic]

****Bump****

[gldstwmn]

Lance will be on Larry King Live tonight.

Costas did a great job with this interview. I must admit, I still don't know what to think. Kudos to Larry for asking if he was going to marry Sheryl. :laugh: