AFLD v Armstrong
Comments
-
Here you go then...sicrow wrote:I always work on innocent until proven
"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden
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 -
When the biggest name in the sport misses a test, it's news. Visit cyclingnews.com, L'Equipe or the The Hindustani Times and it's there. We're just discussing it, and what it means, just as we're discussing crosswinds for Wevelgem or Pozzato's tactics for last Sunday but you seem to pop up and have a go at forum members rather than give us your take on the AFLD, on procedures, on the McQuaid hotline.0
-
aurelio wrote:
Here you go then...sicrow wrote:I always work on innocent until proven
"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden
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=17128
Not everyone's "proof" is "proof" for everyone. Doubts exist on both sides of this question
and doubt is enough to prove nothing. Hmmmmm, did that even make sense?
Dennis Noward0 -
aurelio wrote: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.
How come they didn't get around to proving it then ?? and you guys would be out of an obsession
.. who said that, internet forum people ?0 -
rockmount wrote:aurelio wrote: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.
How come they didn't get around to proving it then ?? and you guys would be out of an obsession
Good one. I liked that.
Dennis Noward0 -
dennisn wrote:I don't buy it. You guys are on this "Lance" subject for the sole purpose of slamming Lance or some other rider that you feel MIGHT have doped, not really talking Pro Race
as the forum title would suggest. Now if this forum section were named Anti Race then
you would be in the right place. As for me being here "to wind up fellow members". No, not really(well, maybe a little), I'm here to say I think you're wrong. And a little tit for tat.
Dennis Noward
Irony overload!
Dennis, if you took some time to open other threads in this forum that don't have the word "Lance" in the subject line, you'd see we talk about pro racing quite a lot.0 -
Armstrong's replied now with a press release. It's all fine except for a dig at the French at the end. You'd expect him to want to calm things rather than stir things up but then again I think he thrives when he feels under pressure, he needs adversaries and demons to conquer. Ugly perhaps but understandable but it's all a long way from raising awareness of cancer and the treatment options available.0
-
He will, however, be at the Giro because he's promised to meet survivors of the earthquake - clearly extending his remit to all purpose miracle worker.
Sorry to be so cynical but the man is a...not very nice man who'd do anything for a bit of positive publicity in my very humble opinion0 -
Same as that other link.
"This is just another example of the improper behavior by the French laboratory and the French anti-doping organizations."
I see Floyd has been roped in as domestique script writer.
If the ASO have any mind to withold a Tour invitation, I'd say Mr Armstrong had given them probably cause, with that one sentence."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:If the ASO have any mind to withold a Tour invitation, I'd say Mr Armstrong had given them probably cause, with that one sentence.
That really would be a kick in the balls wouldn't it? 8) They stopped Cipollini riding for less...
Would love that... Really would show that the Tour is bigger than one rider. Alas with turnout falling and viewers in the States disapearing there's not much chance of that.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
afx237vi wrote:dennisn wrote:I don't buy it. You guys are on this "Lance" subject for the sole purpose of slamming Lance or some other rider that you feel MIGHT have doped, not really talking Pro Race
as the forum title would suggest. Now if this forum section were named Anti Race then
you would be in the right place. As for me being here "to wind up fellow members". No, not really(well, maybe a little), I'm here to say I think you're wrong. And a little tit for tat.
Dennis Noward
Irony overload!
Dennis, if you took some time to open other threads in this forum that don't have the word "Lance" in the subject line, you'd see we talk about pro racing quite a lot.
Question for you Dennis, how much pro cycling do you watch/follow. Are you seriously intrested in the racing? Not having a go, you obviously like the local racing but ive never really seen any participation in any other thread that wasnt doping related. Your entitled to your opinon but so are others and that doesnt make them obsessed because they discuss a news story.
Wouldnt it be nice if Lance could do what everyother rider seems to be able to do without much fuss. Isnt this the second incident with the AFLD that his been publicly critical of in recent history.Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0 -
richard wants a baum wrote:afx237vi wrote:dennisn wrote:I don't buy it. You guys are on this "Lance" subject for the sole purpose of slamming Lance or some other rider that you feel MIGHT have doped, not really talking Pro Race
as the forum title would suggest. Now if this forum section were named Anti Race then
you would be in the right place. As for me being here "to wind up fellow members". No, not really(well, maybe a little), I'm here to say I think you're wrong. And a little tit for tat.
Dennis Noward
Irony overload!
Dennis, if you took some time to open other threads in this forum that don't have the word "Lance" in the subject line, you'd see we talk about pro racing quite a lot.
Question for you Dennis, how much pro cycling do you watch/follow. Are you seriously intrested in the racing? Not having a go, you obviously like the local racing but ive never really seen any participation in any other thread that wasnt doping related. Your entitled to your opinon but so are others and that doesnt make them obsessed because they discuss a news story.
Wouldnt it be nice if Lance could do what everyother rider seems to be able to do without much fuss. Isnt this the second incident with the AFLD that his been publicly critical of in recent history.
How much do I watch? As much as I can. Hard to get bunches of it here in the States.
No participation in other threads? Got to defend myself on that one, although not sure how to. Seems like I wrote bunches today alone.
As for obsessed? Well, you've got to admit that the least bit of Lance info has most of the same guys here and hovering around like flies on sh*t. Quickly too.
Am I seriously interested in racing? I have worked with the local race club for 30 odd years. Been a USCF official for about the same lenght of time. Been a course marshall,
standing at some lonely intersection, more times than I can count. Even raced a bit. not trying to brag, but you asked, and that's how it was and still is.
Opinions? You have yours and I have mine but don't think that you can "discuss" all this without someone questioning you and your reasons for all the "bad mouthing"(for lack of better words).
Dennis Noward0 -
dennisnOpinions? You have yours and I have mine but don't think that you can "discuss" all this without someone questioning you and your reasons for all the "bad mouthing"(for lack of better words).
I dont mind you questioning them but you talk about forum members like you know them, calling them pathetic & obsessed etc. etc. Yet you what there doing, forming opinons based on LA public statements and information commonly avalible in mags and internet sites etc. Maybe argue why we are wrong and why your right instead of your opinons on us.Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0 -
Kléber wrote:When the biggest name in the sport misses a test, it's news. Visit cyclingnews.com, L'Equipe or the The Hindustani Times and it's there. We're just discussing it, and what it means, just as we're discussing crosswinds for Wevelgem or Pozzato's tactics for last Sunday but you seem to pop up and have a go at forum members rather than give us your take on the AFLD, on procedures, on the McQuaid hotline.
i agree its newsworthy and merits discussion. the thread moves off topic when people use the opportunity as always to whel out a load of historic articles from some expert in his field of urine drinking to say he thinks LA definately doped.
we are talking about the incident the other day not 1999. seems some people cannot help themselves0 -
yes we are talking about the incident the other day and on that alone there appears to be enough to question his integrity and honesty (this for Dennis)
For Armstrong to publicly state that he wasnt aware that the french Government and Labs were entitled to do tests raises several questions which in the context of Armstrongs status as the "most tested sportsman in the world" are even more surprising
1Maybe Armstrong has the memory and mental capacity of a goldfish and had simply misunderstood / forgotten the rules?
2Maybe Bruyneel also has the same limitations? (thank goodness they remebered Pats number phew)
3Maybe Armstrong and co think if they says it's so it is. And they must believe that the audience which is all of us are retarded fawning wannabes that hang on his every word.
Now there is some good reason to believe that option 3 is the right one and to help this principal along we know from a long well documented FACTUAL history that armstrong makes statements as FACT that are not but suit his PR at the time and that FACTS and statements that undermine his version of truth are often quashed and hidden by legal or physical bullying.
Its true Dennis that hes never been found legaly guilty of cheating but it appears that the scientific evidence is there.
Its true hes never been found guilty of bullying or "unsportsmanlike "behaviour but even his most ardent fans must recognise that he does. I am prepared to accept that in some cultures that is a mark of stregth and leadership.
Which is why hes a hot topic of conversation and i suspect a lot of people want him to be caught because they dislike him. not because hes used drugs but because hes a nasty little c ock0 -
By 'they' I assume you mean the UCI, the ones with the power to sanction Pharmstrong. The answer is simple and two-fold.rockmount wrote:
How come they didn't get around to proving it then ??aurelio wrote: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.
Firstly, as those positive results were derived from a research project, rather than a UCI sanctioned doping test, not all of the criteria needed to declare a legally 'positive' result were met. For example, there were no separate 'B' samples. Now from a scientific standpoint this is hardly significant, given that the number of positive samples taken on different days prove that Armstrong doped to a greater degree of statistical significance than any 'B' test on a single sample would. Also, such 'B' test confirmation is no longer needed under WADA rules, but it was back then.
Secondly, the UCI might still have investigated the matter more fully than it did but it is clear that their primary concern was to do everything they could do to protect their icon of 'Global cycling'. (As they did when they accepted a pre-dated TUE when Armstrong tested positive for corticoids). Hence that hatchet job on the LNDD that was commissioned by Verbruggen, the notorious Vrijman report, described by WADA as being 'so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical'.0 -
Er, no. In doping cases the level of proof required is to the 'comfortable satisfaction' of the investigatory panel. Even in criminal cases any doubts raised against the case of the prosecution must be 'reasonable'. By your line of reasoning any ‘doubt’ raised, no matter how irrelevant or fantastic, would be enough to counteract any claim to ‘the truth’ in any field, so making all knowledge unattainable.dennisn wrote:Not everyone's "proof" is "proof" for everyone. Doubts exist on both sides of this question and doubt is enough to prove nothing. Hmmmmm, did that even make sense?
Perhaps your viewpoint reflects your own cultural background. For example, there is all that anti-rationalist 'the truth is whatever you want it to be' cultural relativism that seems to infect American 'academia'. This is something that George Orwell had the insight to recognise is a potential pathway to totalitarianism, making this a central theme of '1984'. (See below). Off topic a little maybe, but not totally given Armstrong's taste for 'Orwellian' revisionism, as with the way he has tried to re-write the 'Simeoni' incident. Still, if any 'truth' is as valid as any other, why not just make up those 'truths' that serve your own ends?
Similarly, you live in a country where many people seriously argue that dinosaur fossils cannot be taken as evidence of the true age of the Earth, or the existence of earlier forms of life, being placed in the Earth by 'God' to test people's faith in Biblical fairy-stories! Again, such attitudes undermine the rationalist principle that you must base what you believe on the the balance of the available evidence. Appropriately enough, peoples 'faith' in Armstrong often appears to have almost religious overtones, whilst the 'rationalist' approach, given all the evidence against him, is surely to accept that he doped!
(O’ Brien). ‘Do you remember,’ he went on, ‘writing in your diary, ‘ “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four”?’
‘Yes,’ said Winston...
‘How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’
‘Four.’
‘And if the party says that it is not four but five-than how many?’
‘Four.’
The word ended in a gasp of pain...
‘You are a slow learner, Winston,’ said O’Brien gently.
‘How can I help it?’ he blubbered. ‘How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two make four.’
‘Sometimes Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all three at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane...
(Winston) ‘But how can you control matter?...You don’t even control the climate or the law of gravity. And there are disease, pain, death-...’
O’ Brien silenced him by a movement of the hand. ‘We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull.....There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation,- anything...You must get rid of these ninteenth-century ideas about the laws of nature. We make the laws of nature.’
(Winston)‘But the whole universe is outside us. Look at the stars! Some of them are a million light-years away. They are out of our reach for ever.’
What are the stars? said O’ Brien indifferently. ‘They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could block them out. The earth is the centre of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it’.0 -
Yeah what Aurelio wrote.
Its kind of what i was fumbling to try and say.0 -
markwalker wrote:Yeah what Aurelio wrote.
Its kind of what i was fumbling to try and say.
i preferred the nasty little c0ck to be honest......... abit less 'chris eubank'0 -
Armstrong has cleared it up now and there is nothing more to say on the matter. He has more witnesses than the testing guy, who is French I might add, and therefore LA is correct.
How can anyone believe in giant reptiles being the dominant creatures on earth? Fossils :roll:0 -
Quite!SunWuKong wrote:Armstrong has cleared it up now and there is nothing more to say on the matter. He has more witnesses than the testing guy, who is French I might add, and therefore LA is correct.
How can anyone believe in giant reptiles being the dominant creatures on earth? Fossils :roll:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en&v=-qmglGWMsdk&gl=US0 -
Even the BBC has picked up on this story....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/7991866.stm
It seems to report everything that Armstrong had to say on the matter, but very little from the AFLD. Language issues at the BBC?0 -
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
From that story:iainf72 wrote:
'Armstrong never tested positive and was cleared by a Dutch investigator appointed by UCI.'
As ever, the PR spin masks the reality. :roll:0 -
Maybe, but I would argue that it is still important to try to ensure that the version of the past that goes into the history books accurately reflects the reality of what actually happened.iainf72 wrote:You can't change the past.
The frightening thing, he reflected for the ten thousandth time as he forced his shoulders painfully backward (with hands on hips, they were gyrating their bodies from the waist, an exercise that was supposed to be good for the back muscles) - the frightening thing was that it might all be true. If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened - that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death?
The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed - if all records told the same tale - then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink’.
From '1984' by George Orwell.0 -
Have you ever been a lawyer investigating scientific protocols? Do you know Vrijman? I doubt it, I bet you suck at being a lawyer investigating dope testing labs and you're just bitter you never made it through your law degree. Besides Vrijman is Dutch and not French and therefore correct.0
-
iainf72 wrote:
How about they make him spend 30 minutes in the shower, when his Monte Carlo ITT start time arrives? :roll:"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
aurelio wrote:
From that story:iainf72 wrote:
'Armstrong never tested positive and was cleared by a Dutch investigator appointed by UCI.'
As ever, the PR spin masks the reality. :roll:
the statement in italics i am afraid IS the realilty. Ie it really happened. he never gave a positive test that was proved positive and not in some way found to be inadmissible. And he was cleared by a Dutch investigator appointed bt the UCI.
i was going to quote some Orwell but thought people might be bored of it by now.0 -
Nonsense! Armstrong tested positive for corticoids and the UCI then accepted a pre-dated TUE from him, despite Armstrong stating only days earlier that he had no such TUE! The test done was positive, even if the UCI broke it's own rules so that they wouldn't have to bring sanctions against him! (They did much the same when Laurent Brochard tested positive after he 'won' the world RR championships).camerone wrote:the statement in italics i am afraid IS the realilty. Ie it really happened. he never gave a positive test that was proved positive and not in some way found to be inadmissible. And he was cleared by a Dutch investigator appointed bt the UCI.
As to the Vrijman report, it had nothing to do with 'clearing' Armstrong of anything. For one the UCI again refused to bring any charges against him, so there was nothing to clear him of. Secondly, the report focused on the fact the lab results could not be used to sanction Armstrong as the protocols required for this were not followed. (And they were not followed purely because the lab was conducting a legitimate research project, expanding on earlier research that had been published by them in that most respected of all scientific journals, Nature). The fact that Armstrong's samples had Epo in them was practically ignored.0
