French pwning Armstrong?

mididoctors

Kléber wrote:

They can do DNA tests to ensure the samples match. The only issue is that the samples would have been sealed when the athlete gave them over, now they have been opened. So there could be allegations of tampering by aliens, bored lab stuff or angry beret-wearing Gauls but even so, perhaps the sharpest minds could check the contamination to see if its carbon dating is from 1999 or, say, 2006.

I'd like to see the response from Mr Transparency.

I very much doubt carbon dating is not a possible method or that accurate

micron

Of course the retesting won't happen.

But what is happening is that Armstrong is being pinned time and time again to 1999. The Second Coming depends on Armstrong controlling the timeline, that everything begins in 2009 and we forget the past. Proving he is clean in 2009 will prove he was clean in 1999. By raising the 1999 samples, the AFLD are reminding everyone of the Armstrong who has linked repeatedly to doping. That what might once have sounded vaguely plausible begins to sound, in our more cynical times, somewhat laughable.

That boy's mother should have told him that when you have a scab, don't pick it because it never gets better...

Patrick1.0

micron wrote:

Of course the retesting won't happen.

That's for sure, and rightly. Testing and the fairness of testing should follow the same basic guidelines for all. God knows what is in that nine year old sample. What about the 2000 urine samples? The 2001 urine samples? Should it be Lance's duty to retest them all? Prove he's clean by retesting all these samples that have been kept in a French laboratory. I wouldn't do it if I was him, would you?

It doesn't really add up, why, if he was taking epo in 99, is it not present in his samples from later tours? Why would you only preserve and retest one set of samples from one specific year? If it was me, I don't know about Lance, I'd tell them where to go with their offer and I think you all would in that situation.

method

Patrick1.0 wrote:

micron wrote:

Of course the retesting won't happen.

It doesn't really add up, why, if he was taking epo in 99, is it not present in his samples from later tours?

Why would you only preserve and retest one set of samples from one specific year?

To answer the two questions above:

Because they got a lot smarter with their use, micro dosing?

Because this sample was positive, so they kept it....

It isn't a serious offer, they know he won't accept, for whatever reason.

blazing_saddles

Like I said, interesting how his "fans" want to avoid this phantom re-test, even though a non-negative result is unsanctionable and a negative would pull a huge rug out from under the Lance knockers.

I am just watching the BBC news reporting this on the box. More tabloid hacks?

I wonder, with the spectre of the CERA re-tests hanging over his "clean up my image in the new clean cycling world," whether he's re-considering his return?

One things for certain, just because he dismisses the offer, doesn't mean the media will let it go. Someone just switched the s**t fan back on and the CERA lads have pointed it straight in his direction.

Btw: Nice closed thread.........for four children. Perhaps that's why they are known as fanboys?

musto_skiff

What I don't understand is that if his 1999 tests showed EPO why he wasn't disqualified then ... was EPO not on the banned list in 1999?

Bronzie

musto_skiff wrote:

What I don't understand is that if his 1999 tests showed EPO why he wasn't disqualified then ... was EPO not on the banned list in 1999?

There was no sanctioned urine test for EPO in 1999 - it wasn't approved for use until 2000 or 2001 IIRC.

The 1999 samples were kept and used in a supposedly anonymous research project to validate the accuracy of the urine test in 2005. Except Equipe managed to get hold of the rider's sample references and linked 6 failed samples to Armstrong. As the tests were done so long after the samples were taken and the chain of custody over the samples was questionable, nothing could ever be made to stick.

musto_skiff

Bronzie wrote:

musto_skiff wrote:

What I don't understand is that if his 1999 tests showed EPO why he wasn't disqualified then ... was EPO not on the banned list in 1999?

There was no sanctioned urine test for EPO in 1999 - it wasn't approved for use until 2000 or 2001 IIRC.

The 1999 samples were kept and used in a supposedly anonymous research project to validate the accuracy of the urine test in 2005. Except Equipe managed to get hold of the rider's sample references and linked 6 failed samples to Armstrong. As the tests were done so long after the samples were taken and the chain of custody over the samples was questionable, nothing could ever be made to stick.

So in 1999 EPO wasn't a controlled substance ... so he didn't break any rules.

Seems to me he was a doper but never broke the rules as the 50% limit that they brought in was a stupid rule.

All pros in any sports will push the rules to the limit; br winners are usually on the limit in any sport.

Seems to me LA was doping but always operated just within the rules and so never failed test.

So whilst people may get on his back about doping the real villans are the people who were running the sport creating a regime where dooping was permitted within limits.

Many have confessed to doping in the LA years, many were caugh but LA wasn't caught he played by the rules, he didn't make them.

I don't like what I have read about him, I think he doped but he didn't break the rules ...

method

musto_skiff wrote:

Bronzie wrote:

musto_skiff wrote:

What I don't understand is that if his 1999 tests showed EPO why he wasn't disqualified then ... was EPO not on the banned list in 1999?

There was no sanctioned urine test for EPO in 1999 - it wasn't approved for use until 2000 or 2001 IIRC.

The 1999 samples were kept and used in a supposedly anonymous research project to validate the accuracy of the urine test in 2005. Except Equipe managed to get hold of the rider's sample references and linked 6 failed samples to Armstrong. As the tests were done so long after the samples were taken and the chain of custody over the samples was questionable, nothing could ever be made to stick.

So in 1999 EPO wasn't a controlled substance ... so he didn't break any rules.

Seems to me he was a doper but never broke the rules as the 50% limit that they brought in was a stupid rule.

All pros in any sports will push the rules to the limit; br winners are usually on the limit in any sport.

Seems to me LA was doping but always operated just within the rules and so never failed test.

So whilst people may get on his back about doping the real villans are the people who were running the sport creating a regime where dooping was permitted within limits.

Many have confessed to doping in the LA years, many were caugh but LA wasn't caught he played by the rules, he didn't make them.

I don't like what I have read about him, I think he doped but he didn't break the rules ...

Don't read that "There wasn't a sanctioned test for..." to be the same as "It's not a banned substance.."

Bronzie

musto_skiff wrote:

So in 1999 EPO wasn't a controlled substance ... so he didn't break any rules.

It was a controlled substance, but there was no reliable test for it.

You seem to be taking Ferrari's line that "any method that cannot be detected cannot be doping". Very slippery slope.

musto_skiff

Bronzie wrote:

musto_skiff wrote:

So in 1999 EPO wasn't a controlled substance ... so he didn't break any rules.

It was a controlled substance, but there was no reliable test for it.

You seem to be taking Ferrari's line that "any method that cannot be detected cannot be doping". Very slippery slope.

No I'm not.

I am saying I suspect LA doped as it would seem did most of the pelaton.

Pros in any sport will operate to the limits of the rules.

The stiuation was created by the rule makers. It was a dark & dirty period for the sport and we had dirty riders and weak administrators all afraid of bringing down the house of cards and with it stopping the cash flow.

The rules allowed EPO use when they set the 50% limit, riders were given a very poor choice at that point.

cougie

Musto - no - its never been allowed to use EPO. Even back in 1999.

The blood limits of 50% were set because basically they couldnt detect EPO to begin with, and the theory was that some people could get to 50% naturally anyway. Would you have preferred no limit and let the riders turn their blood into jam ?

musto_skiff

NO of course not.

I'm not advocating doping I like everyone else wants to watch a clean competition I can believe in.

All I am saying is that the sports administrators need to take some responsibility for the situation.

When you have a performance enhancing drug you cant directly detect you're in a right old mess.

Yes the athletes should have followed ethical paths but I can understand why some didn't. I'm not supporting that choice but I can understand why people would do it ...

When were they able to accuratly test for micro dosing of EPO?

cougie

Curse those sports administrators for just administrating and not spending all day in the lab working out possible tests to all possible drugs. Grrrrr !

calvjones

To be fair to Musto, the administrators have been complicit in doping (or at least hugely negligent) for decades.

cougie

Is it just cycling though - or isnt it the way of all sports. I cant believe football with its film star wages doesnt have a bad problem with PEDs. The players have all that disposable income - and a better turn of speed or more endurance makes you a more valuable player.

Basically - the battle against drugs is always going to be a difficult one - and the cheaters always have the edge. The testers just get small breakthroughs now and then - it takes a while to catch up with the new drugs. By which time the savvy have moved on.

musto_skiff

calvjones wrote:

To be fair to Musto, the administrators have been complicit in doping (or at least hugely negligent) for decades.

That's all I'm saying; some athletes made poor choices, all I am saying is that those choices should not have been available.

It seems these forums are populated by people who live perfect lives and have never been tempted to do somthing unethical ... it's human nature that if people are offered the opportunity of greatness and wealth that some people will be willing to cross to the dark side for the rewards.

Some will have the strength to resist or will be willing to settle for their best with the satisfaction of racing clean.

cougie

To be fair - the thought of paying 6000 euros to finish higher up the field in a club 10 hadnt really occurred to me.

Most of us are so far removed from the world of professional sport that it is easy for us to cast stones I agree.

musto_skiff

cougie wrote:

Most of us are so far removed from the world of professional sport that it is easy for us to cast stones I agree.

I have competed at national & world championships level in another sport at amateur level and observed rule breaking & cheating by ordinary people ... the temptations and preasures to a pro to do that must be 10 fold.

The human spirit can often be weak and as such we have to create a society to help people function in an acceptable fashion; that is why we have laws, a legal system and a Police force; people cant ALWAYS be relied on to do the right thing ....

cougie

Impressive Musto. Was that sailing then ?

musto_skiff

cougie wrote:

Impressive Musto. Was that sailing then ?

Yep.

Turtle Travel

Armstrong opposed to retests (surprise surprise)

http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/other/ ... 73122.html

Steve Tcp

You know what Musto, I agree entirely with you and wouldn't dare to say "if I was a cycling pro in the nineties I'd never have taken drugs", because that would be to simply ignore external pressures and circumstances, many of which I haven't got a clue about but I know exist. What I really struggle with though, the really distasteful bit for me, is the layers of lies and denials. I'd like to think that, if caught cheating, I'd at least have the courage to face the consequences of my own actions.

Back at Lance I'm in the "he's got nothing to lose" camp. Why? Because I think those positives in 99 were real (and the negatives too only just crept under an arbitrary cut off point), and if that was confirmed it changes nothing in my eyes, and then LA's team can legitimately claim to the age of the samples and all of the other variables we've discussed on this thread as the cause of the failed tests. If they turn out to be negatives though, then it does change things for the better, at least in my perception of LA, although at that point of course the doggedly anti Armstrong amongst us will use those variables relating to the samples to poo poo the validity of the negatives too. So perhaps he can't win, except in the publicity stakes when he really is doing very well indeed.

flattythehurdler

And they still, as many know, can't pick up cleverly micro-dosed epo.

micron

or HGH or IGF or a bunch of other stuff.

musto_skiff

So what are we to do?

All the Lance bashing is just a symptom of the above issues.

BTW what is IGF.

I'm not really bothered about the LA did he didn't he debate; what I find more distastefull is how he lead the peloton to turn on those who 'fessed up to their doping like Simeoni.

mididoctors

musto_skiff wrote:

BTW what is IGF.

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin-like_growth_factor_1