AFLD v Armstrong
markwalker
Posts: 953
Curious report on cyclingnews today about Armstrong see below
"Lance Armstrong's behaviour during his 24th anti-doping control since returning to the sport may have landed the American in hot water with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD).
L'Equipe has reported that AFLD, which conducted the March 17 out-of-competition test, submitted a report to the International Cycling Union (UCI) and WADA on March 30. The report apparently details the abnormal behaviour observed before and during the surprise visit from the French agency."
Its like a teaser for a new series of a favourite TV program. He's like JR without the likeable bits but whats coming next......
"Lance Armstrong's behaviour during his 24th anti-doping control since returning to the sport may have landed the American in hot water with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD).
L'Equipe has reported that AFLD, which conducted the March 17 out-of-competition test, submitted a report to the International Cycling Union (UCI) and WADA on March 30. The report apparently details the abnormal behaviour observed before and during the surprise visit from the French agency."
Its like a teaser for a new series of a favourite TV program. He's like JR without the likeable bits but whats coming next......
0
Comments
-
I wanna post in this thread before it goes to 18 pages long :roll:0
-
The AFLD turned up for a test, Armstrong signed the clipboard for the paperwork and then apparently slammed the door in the face of the tester and locked him out for half an hour, before reappearing for the test. Armstrong just said that he came back from a training ride, found the tester waiting and whilst Bruyneel checked the paperwork, took a shower. But testers aren't supposed to let the candidate out of sight for obvious reason.
Dodging by Armstrong or just taking a shower? More here. Interesting to note that Bruyneel has a hotline to McQuaid.0 -
This thread has been a long time appearing. Everyone afraid of the big, bad moderators? :roll:
On that subject, better post a source on that 30 minute lockdown!
http://autres-sports.le10sport.com/une- ... -_201865_a
Of course, 30 minutes behind a locked door will have little meaning to some and all the meaning in the world, to others.
A worrying aspect of this constant saga, is that "reputable" cycling news sites are now chosing to use Lance's twitter as their main source of reporting.
Journals are often no longer quoted.
I like this from Kleber's link:-
Bruyneel said he called UCI chief Pat McQuaid to make sure the AFLD had the authority to test Armstrong out of competition.
Should this be of any concern to the transparent twosome?"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
A long time coming? CFA only posted up a link, via his/her twitter (how ironic, eh?) about 11 hours ago. Maybe CFA is afraid of something as well.
I don't see any cycling news sources using Armstrong's twitter as their "main" source - not sure this sort of hyperbole is really needed, is it?
I don't have a problem with the idea of Bruyneel calling McQuaid to check on AFLD's authority - but you would have though Armstrong and Bruyneel would know who was allowed to test him (LA), and where. I also wonder if all DSs have this sort of access to McQuaid and Gripper - somehow I doubt it. But McQuaid I can understand to an extent - I imagine he basically spends most of his day wandering around UCI HQ knocking stuff over, but Gripper has better things to do with her time...Le Blaireau (1)0 -
But surely if he knew the protocol was that the tested athlete needs to be observed for the entirety of the time between notice of and completion of a test he could have qualified the testers status without leaving him outside?
I see no problem with them ringing the UCI for clarification but surely Pat McQuaid isnt the right person? Quite bizare.0 -
Perhaps some are just reluctant to post threads about Armstrong's dodgy activities because this typically leads to personal attacks, accusations of mental instability, 'anti-Americanism' and so on from his disciples!Blazing Saddles wrote:This thread has been a long time appearing. Everyone afraid of the big, bad moderators? :roll:
Anyhow, I thought the other part of that report was just as interesting...
Speaking to the NYVelocity.com website, Australian sports scientist Michael Ashenden, who assisted in the development of urine testing for erythropoietin (EPO), has refuted claims made about mishandling of the samples.
"One of the things [...] is that the samples weren't analysed properly, that they were analysed using a different protocol than what was used in proper dope controls - and that's just not correct," said Ashenden.
"All of these checks and cross checks were put in place with these samples, so the data is valid," he continued. "The laboratory, I've checked with the people who did the analysis, and I very carefully went through it with them. They're absolutely 100 percent sure that these results are valid."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... /apr07news
See also:
"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden
Of course, Ashenden is not alone...
UCI experts do not believe in Armstrong
It may be that Lance Armstrong never officially tested positive, but according to Robin Paris Otto, one of UCI's anti-doping experts and the man who in 2000 developed the first analytical method for the detection of EPO, there is evidence that the opposite is true.
...He adds that the results which showed that the American was doped in1999 must be considered to be valid from a scientific point of view . "The methods used were valid. It is clear that the question mark concerning whether Armstrong was doped really is more of a legal than scientific nature. So there is scientific evidence that he was doped in1999 and that he took epo. To deny it would be to lie. "
http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_paren ... yhed=171280 -
Yes Aurelio,
that was another interesting article, I still find it difficult to believe that there are people who have read all of this stuff who still think hes clean!
Mark0 -
his haircut is very short at the moment isn't it..."I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, how good is that"
--Jens Voight0 -
Maybe the door was a glass one and part of his new fully transparent attitude.0
-
-
This could be very damaging for the sport if the mainstream media pick up on it.
Not that I suspect they will, it isnt like that have in the past. Bit of a Lance love in really.0 -
It could be a serious thing, slipping away from the tester will count for more than an Ohuruogu-esque "no show".
But the AFLD will review things and there's not much else to go on for now.
Bruyneel said some suspicious people had been seen outside the house, so the tester had to wait whilst he checked whether the tester was for real.0 -
Can I ask a genuine question. Disregarding his behaviour towards testers etc for a moment. Is there anything that he could do in half an hour that would provide a negative test as opposed to half an hour before giving a positive test?0
-
Kléber wrote:It could be a serious thing, slipping away from the tester will count for more than an Ohuruogu-esque "no show".
But the AFLD will review things and there's not much else to go on for now.
Bruyneel said some suspicious people had been seen outside the house, so the tester had to wait whilst he checked whether the tester was for real.
So he signed the paperwork saying he'd given the test and THEN went off to check if he was for real or not? With the head of the UCI? That' s rather a lapse in protocol for the "most tested athlete in the world"."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
-
thanks. got a picture of him returning to the door foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog now0
-
From that link...Kléber wrote:
Robinson said the simplest solution to stop tampering is to urge vigilance by sports officials who collect urine samples.
``Pay attention,'' he said. ``And make sure athletes wash their hands first.''
What a joke! As if riders who have become accustomed to catheterising themselves in order to fill their bladders with clean urine would shy away from poking a few grains of wash power down their 'Jap's eye' prior to giving a sample. :shock:0 -
i assumed they had to eat it.... :oops:
one of the fundamentals of 'surprise' testing has to be the surprise element. it does seem to be strange behaviour that people will jump upon as 'evidence'. not very savvy from the PR king0 -
Of course, with half an hour to play with he could have just used the old 'catheterisation' method instead. The cynic might claim that such methods would hardly be novel for LA, what with those tales of urine substitution and the 'baby piss' that USP riders provided for testing at the Tour, even after spending 6 hours plus sweating their way through mountain stages.camerone wrote:i assumed they had to eat it.... :oops: 0 -
DaveyL wrote:A long time coming? CFA only posted up a link, via his/her twitter (how ironic, eh?) about 11 hours ago. Maybe CFA is afraid of something as well.
I don't see any cycling news sources using Armstrong's twitter as their "main" source - not sure this sort of hyperbole is really needed, is it?
..
If you check out the date of the French journo release, it says April 4th.
Must be all that time trawing "The Hindustani Times" for juicy stories.
You, yourself have cited CFA's twitter as the link. CN's mentions LA's twitter twice and a one line UCI response.
It's another non-starter.
I'm fairly sure that by now, that even if the AFLD came up with a positive, Lance would shout French conspiracy and those fairy tale believers would swallow it, regardless.
Better to stick to the Pais Vasco and Classics."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
My point was that it also took CFA a while to post it up.
My other point was that I don't see any cycling news sources using Armstrong's twitter as their "main" source. Main being the key word, because without it your point has no value.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Kléber wrote:
"Soap" as in, biological detergent. Not sure most people use that when they go for a shower
Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Perhaps (like me) everyone was in Flanders. I have certainly never seen such numbers riding the sportive, and for the first time in 4 rides I was unable to find a way though all the pedestrians on the Koppenberg!DaveyL wrote:My point was that it also took CFA a while to post it up.0 -
I'm sure they'd all just snapped their chains.... :-)
CFA posted several times on the 5th April too, before posting a whole load of stuff yesterday. But basically we wouldn't be having this discussion if ian hadn't gone AWOL, as it would've been up here like a shot....Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Kléber wrote:
Yes, the enzymes break down the hormones.DaveyL wrote:"Soap" as in, biological detergent. Not sure most people use that when they go for a shower
We'll see what the AFLD reports but this just looks like another PR mess up, surely they knew you can't do this with a tester?
I'm not that fussed about this story - he's done worse. What does bother me is the fact that Bruyneel seems to have a hotline to McQuaid. Is this normal for a run-of-the-mill ProTour DS? Does Pat have a special HogPhone in his office?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL wrote:I'm not that fussed about this story - he's done worse. What does bother me is the fact that Bruyneel seems to have a hotline to McQuaid. Is this normal for a run-of-the-mill ProTour DS? Does Pat have a special HogPhone in his office?
Its not like trying to get in touch with the Pope or Barack Obama. If I felt the need, I could have the number in about 3 minutes- at least two friends have it.
If, as a DS, you are ponying up large sacks of cash to the federation for licenses, bio-passport programmes etc., access to the head-man mightn't be that unreasonable - it certainly wouldn't be in business, given some of the sums involved.
I was far happier about the fact that Bruyneel didn't seem to have Gripper's number.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
markwalker wrote:Curious report on cyclingnews today about Armstrong see below
"Lance Armstrong's behaviour during his 24th anti-doping control since returning to the sport may have landed the American in hot water with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD).
L'Equipe has reported that AFLD, which conducted the March 17 out-of-competition test, submitted a report to the International Cycling Union (UCI) and WADA on March 30. The report apparently details the abnormal behaviour observed before and during the surprise visit from the French agency."
Its like a teaser for a new series of a favourite TV program. He's like JR without the likeable bits but whats coming next......
This is all really pretty pathetic. A bunch of people whose every breath hinges around
what Lance might or might not do, say or not say, Infer or not infer, to be or not to be.
This sounds like a lot of you guys. Scratching for every little scrap of information about someone. Here in the states we use the word "stalker" to describe this kind of adulation(for lack of a better word). Usually ends up in court and some sort of restraining order.
Keep scratching, if that's your obsession.
Dennis Noward0 -
And yet you were still moved to comment on it Dennis... "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0
