Armstrong blood values at Tour

sudholz

BB,

Thanks very much for the links. No. 2 doesn't seem to work (51-100). Are you able to help?

Cheers again.

S

BikingBernie

sudholz wrote:

No. 2 doesn't seem to work (51-100). Are you able to help?

It's working now!

rockmount

BikingBernie wrote:

It has already been scientifically proven that Armstrong has doped.

No it has not.

shinyhelmut

Well it has been scientifically proven that his urine samples contained EPO, and he has tested positive for cortico-steroids (I think it was).

GyatsoLa

Slightly off topic but I didn't want to start a new thread on this (and it does have a peripheral connection to Lance - one of his lawyers is involved) - but it seems that a new legal obstacle has been raised in the States against doping controls -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/sport ... ml?_r=1&hp

Essentially, the court decision means that athletes in team sports who test positive can hide behind State laws designed to protect workers from being fired cos they have smoked a bit of dope or similar. It'll be interesting to see if it means that some teams start registering themselves in certain States because of it.

andyp

rockmount wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

It has already been scientifically proven that Armstrong has doped.

No it has not.

You're wrong. No-one doubts the science of the tests and samples from Armstrong contained synthetic EPO. However, as the testing was done as part of a scientific research project, they do not constitute a positive test under UCI rules, hence why Armstrong escaped sanction.

BikingBernie

rockmount wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

It has already been scientifically proven that Armstrong has doped.

No it has not.

If that line of argument is followed it might as well be argued that no rider has ever been proven to have been a doper, even when multiple samples provided by them have shown traces of doping products when tested.

In the case of Armstrong’s Epo ‘positives’ the alternative 'explanation' is to argue that the lab and /or others conspired to ‘doctor’ the samples. This is an extraordinary claim demanding extraordinary evidence, and no such evidence has ever been produced. What's more experts such as Ashenden have argued it would not be physically possible to doctor the samples in way that would give the required concentrations of Epo without altering many other parameters in the sample as well. It's also telling that Armstrong refused to have the samples retested under the observation of his own representatives. Nor has Armstrong ever demanded that DNA testing be done, presumably because he knows that this would show that the samples are indeed his.

Plenty of other riders have been sanctioned on the basis of laboratory tests. If the rider at the centre of the revelations about the 1999 Tour samples was a European rider rather than Armstrong, I suspect very few people would even bother trying to argue their innocence. It's much the same when a European rider is even suspected of having been a client of a doping doctor like Fuentes. Everyone quite happily admits that this is good evidence that the rider doped and grounds for excluding them from racing, even if the rider has never tested positive. (As happened to Ullrich, Basso and co prior to the 2006 Tour). On the other hand when it is pointed out that Armstrong was a long-term client of Ferrari, 'the acknowledged expert' in the use of Epo for doping purposes, it is argued that this in no way indicates that Armstrong doped! Talk about having double standards!

Monty Dog

Just to clarify, the original tests were done on a range of samples from the 1999 Tour to test the efficacy of the new test for EPO - which clearly demonstrated that a number of riders had. A lab technician at the Chateau Moubray lab subsequently informed a journalist at L'Equipe. (No one knew the identify of the riders concerned) Said journalist then contacted the UCI with details of the positive sample numbers, of which six were those of a certain Mr Armstrong. This is fact, to which there is no doubt - but because the tests were conducted in 2006, they were too old to make a case. Rockmount, if you wish to share your version of the 'truth' please feel free to share it with us.

BikingBernie

The testing of Armstrong's samples was actually done in December 2004. By then the journalist who broke the story, Damien Ressiot, was already taking an interest in the research results from the lab because an earlier study conducted by the same lab had shown that Epo was in use in the 1998 Tour. The results of this study were published in that most respected on scientific Journals Nature on 8 June 2000.

Early in 2005 Ressiot knew that a second study using samples from the 1999 Tour had also shown a number of positives for Epo. (This study was looking at the long-term stability of Epo in stored samples).

Who the riders were was unknown but given that six of the positive samples were from one rider Ressiot knew this had to be someone high up in the classification, and possibly Armstrong. Ressiot then went to the UCI to ask for Armstrong's doping control forms on the grounds that he wanted to do an article on Armstrong's use of TUE's. (Which made sense given the controversy surrounding Armstrong's corticoid positive from 1999 and the acceptance of a pre-dated TUE by the UCI). Armstrong and his lawyers agreed that the UCI's medical director could give Ressiot the required forms. (Later the medical director was suspended by the UCI for doing this). Ressiot then waited for the research results to be made officially available via WADA / the FFC, put the two together, found that what he had suspected was true and had the findings published in L'Equipe on August 23, 2005.

BikingBernie

feltkuota wrote:

Given that Herreras, Landis and Hamilton were busted along with a few others what about GH... Why then if GH can do all clean is LA continually sniped at?

I'm not arguing that Hincapie was clean. Given the company he mixed with I very much doubt this was the case. That said, did Hincapie go from being a Tour de France also-ran, who took three attempts to even finish the Tour (and then came in one and half hours behind the winner) to being a seven times 'winner'?

It seems to be that if you live a lie as big as Armstrong has, perpetrating 'the biggest fraud in the history of cycling', to paraphrase Greg Lemond, you should expect to be sniped at, especially when you are as ruthless and ego-centric as Armstrong!

rockmount

FFS LA & BB GET A ROOM >> IT MUST BE LOVE !!

flanners1

BikingBernie wrote:

P.s another reason who no one has so far made anything 'stick' against Armstrong is that he ruthlessly uses his power to intimidate and silence those who do speak out. For example, Prentice Steffen (the former doctor at USP who left when it became clear that he was expected to organise a doping 'program' for the team) was told by Armstrong "I have a lot of money, good lawyers, and if you continue to talk, I'll destroy you."

Anyhow, with luck the upcoming Lemond /Trek court case will see a lot more damning evidence regarding to Armstrong’s doping enter the public area. Apparently Lemond has a collection of some very 'interesting' telephone conversations with members of Armstrong’s inner circle. On a similar theme take a listen to the following. It is a taped phone conversation between Greg Lemond and Stephanie McIlvain, Armstrong's personal representative with Oakley. In it she says that she heard Armstrong admitting to using a range of doping products, including Epo, even though she later denied this after she was threatened with being sacked from Oakley (along with her husband) if she failed to back Armstrong at the SCA hearings.

http://www.filefactory.com/file/af44003/n/gregstef_mp3

Also of interest, the hard to find English Translation of L.A. Confidentiel

http://www.filefactory.com/file/81ba27/ ... s_1_50_pdf

http://www.filefactory.com/file/a0ae26g ... 51_100_pdf

http://www.filefactory.com/file/aaa0f2/ ... 01_150_pdf

http://www.filefactory.com/file/81b9c5/n/BigTex_4_pdf

Thanks for the links an interesting book, circumstantial but damning nonetheless!

No wonder Pantani took it so badly he took the flak for the pro peleton while it seems Armstrong et al. got away with it.