Did he or didn't he?

[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........

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

...
***********
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........

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]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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........

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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]

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

How condescending.
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]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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_A...ns_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]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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]

Originally Posted by bikerchic

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.