NY Times - Cyclists are said to back claims Armstrong doped
Comments
-
josame wrote:BarryBonds wrote:I dont see what all the fuss is about, Armstrongs the legend and hes never been found guilty of anything.
sounds like bitterness and sour grapes to me.
I almost replied before noting your name
v good
He's a TROLL. See his other post in Cake Stop calling for a leftie hippy cycle ride in central London to protest about global capitalism. He does have some refreshing new ideas grant him that.Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
Think how stupid the average person is.......
half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.0 -
So............when are the Feds going to raid Armstrong's mansion?
He's had plenty of time to change PCs, shred any incriminating evidence and spring clean the bathroom cabinet.
Or not.0 -
Tusher wrote:So............when are the Feds going to raid Armstrong's mansion?
He's had plenty of time to change PCs, shred any incriminating evidence and spring clean the bathroom cabinet.
Or not.
Theyll let him know before hand and then sit in the hallway for half an hour whilst he "showers"0 -
David Beckham wearing a Live Strong bracelet on the Pitch? Looks like it.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... -lose.html
Galaxy Shirt doesn't readily show any yellow accents at sleeve ends.
http://www.soccer.com/images/Catalog/Pr ... 222968.JPG
And no reason to wear a long sleeve under shirt at a game in Los Angeles.0 -
cajun_cyclist wrote:David Beckham wearing a Live Strong bracelet on the Pitch? Looks like it.
nope.
http://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/106633 ... ages-Sport0 -
Tusher wrote:So............when are the Feds going to raid Armstrong's mansion?
He's had plenty of time to change PCs, shred any incriminating evidence and spring clean the bathroom cabinet.
Or not.
the drugs will all be found there. U guys must be happy with the news today re the pick on cycling news0 -
This? Novitsky takes the wee-wee?
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6374/Novitzky-US-Postal-Service-investigation-officials-reported-as-being-in-France.aspx0 -
ratsbeyfus wrote:
the French are also bound by law, not only in being clean, but in what there legal basis is to help this crowd
websites like velolibel are forgetting AFLD has only the right to report two things + or -. AFLD has no further role.0 -
So the AFLD test the B-samples for rEPO, and give the results to Novitsky. What's not to like? Surely LA would love this opportunity to show Novitsky that he didn't take EPO in '99. Unless of course...0
-
ratsbeyfus wrote:So the AFLD test the B-samples for rEPO, and give the results to Novitsky. What's not to like? Surely LA would love this opportunity to show Novitsky that he didn't take EPO in '99. Unless of course...
Haven't they already been tested? I seem to recall hearing about that once or twice.
Are you saying those tests were crap so they need to do them again? What are they going to do differently this time around?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Dave_1 wrote:Tusher wrote:So............when are the Feds going to raid Armstrong's mansion?
He's had plenty of time to change PCs, shred any incriminating evidence and spring clean the bathroom cabinet.
Or not.
the drugs will all be found there. U guys must be happy with the news today re the pick on cycling news
I thought we were meant to be the ones with the tinfoil hats on, Dave, not you.
As for the rest, I can barely type this post as I'm dancing a jig round the room out of sheer joy at the news.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
But don't these blood/urine/hair samples now become evidence & therefore able to be tested for a range of substances/DNA? After all, they were freely given
0 -
micron wrote:But don't these blood/urine/hair samples now become evidence & therefore able to be tested for a range of substances/DNA? After all, they were freely given
So, what? They've taken the samples and *haven't* tested them for anything yet? Or is it that the Yanks will do the testing properly?
Hey look, I can do the winky thing as well!Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL wrote:ratsbeyfus wrote:So the AFLD test the B-samples for rEPO, and give the results to Novitsky. What's not to like? Surely LA would love this opportunity to show Novitsky that he didn't take EPO in '99. Unless of course...
Haven't they already been tested? I seem to recall hearing about that once or twice.
Are you saying those tests were crap so they need to do them again? What are they going to do differently this time around?
The A samples were tested in 99 for the things they could find in '99 (not rEPO as it couldn't be detected then). A batch of B samples from the 99 tour were tested again in 2005 for rEPO. 12 samples were found to be positive. Of these 12 positive samples, 6 were later found to be from LA. As the tests were not carried out for catching drug cheats, but for research purposes, LA can still claim that he 'has never tested positive for PEDs.' I don't think they need testing again, but I can see why Novitsky might.0 -
So why might Novitzky want them re-tested?Le Blaireau (1)0
-
I hope you lot are going to appologise once Armstrongs samples are clean!
This enthusiasm for knocking one of the worlds greatest sportsmen is quite sad especially when hes a cancer survivior and works so hard raising money for cancer charities. Honestly why would anyone whod been through that pump this shi t into their body. FFS0 -
DaveyL wrote:So why might Novitzky want them re-tested?
Coz the circumstances under which the B samples were originally tested (e.g. without LA's knowledge/consent) might make the results obtained from those tests inadmissable. Just a guess.0 -
ratsbeyfus wrote:DaveyL wrote:So why might Novitzky want them re-tested?
Coz the circumstances under which the B samples were originally tested (e.g. without LA's knowledge/consent) might make the results obtained from those tests inadmissable. Just a guess.
And scientifically speaking invalid of course.0 -
BarryBonds wrote:ratsbeyfus wrote:DaveyL wrote:So why might Novitzky want them re-tested?
Coz the circumstances under which the B samples were originally tested (e.g. without LA's knowledge/consent) might make the results obtained from those tests inadmissable. Just a guess.
And scientifically speaking invalid of course.
Hurrah, Finchy's back.
0 -
yes ive come to mock the aflicted. thats you ratbreath0
-
-
euugh. Cat food?0
-
DaveyL wrote:So why might Novitzky want them re-tested?
The 99 samples (or any other frozen samples) might not be evidence for a doping suspension but that is not what Novitsky would want them for.
If he tries to bring a criminal case, presumably as part of it he would need to demonstrate that Armstrong was doping.
Any further analysis of samples may be helpful to him and I assume could be used as evidence in court, even if no individual piece of that evidence would be enough to trigger a doping suspension under WADA rules (which requires every box to be ticked), it could paint a picture which would assist the case (particulalry if supported by expert testimony from, say, Michael Ashenden, that any handling or storage issues made no difference to the results).0 -
it must be the flouride in the water ????????????0
-
The irony is that if a court can be convinced there was doping, then this can be used by WADA and others to slap a doping ban. But that's just a general remark, were Novitzky to prove this in court it might not be suitable for WADA.0
-
Surely LA will be having this schect stirrer followed?...see what he gets up to with US tax dollars.0
-
Steve2020 wrote:DaveyL wrote:So why might Novitzky want them re-tested?
The 99 samples (or any other frozen samples) might not be evidence for a doping suspension but that is not what Novitsky would want them for.
If he tries to bring a criminal case, presumably as part of it he would need to demonstrate that Armstrong was doping.
Any further analysis of samples may be helpful to him and I assume could be used as evidence in court, even if no individual piece of that evidence would be enough to trigger a doping suspension under WADA rules (which requires every box to be ticked), it could paint a picture which would assist the case (particulalry if supported by expert testimony from, say, Michael Ashenden, that any handling or storage issues made no difference to the results).
OK, so what "further analysis" might that be?
And why might the original tests not be legally (I assume Ratsy omitted that word) admissible (due to not being an A and B sample but a single test) but new tests on the same *single* sample *be* legally admissible?
Surely concerns about scientific validity are irrelevant given we only have one sample. Either this is fine from a legal perspective or it isn't. I don't see what any more testing will bring to the case.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL wrote:OK, so what "further analysis" might that be?
And why might the original tests not be legally (I assume Ratsy omitted that word) admissible (due to not being an A and B sample but a single test) but new tests on the same *single* sample *be* legally admissible?
Surely concerns about scientific validity are irrelevant given we only have one sample. Either this is fine from a legal perspective or it isn't. I don't see what any more testing will bring to the case.
I don't see why any of the tests would be legally inadmissible - the evidence would just be stronger or weaker depending on whether there were two samples etc.
Without knowing what was tested for the first time round and what was stored, it is hard to speculate on why they might test again. All we know about the first samples is that they didn't lead to a doping positive (unless the Tour de Suisse incident is true).
But even if there is no single test which is enough to support a sporting sanction, if a series of samples have something suspicious about then (perhaps evidence of masking products, proscribed substances present but below the threshold, plasticisers, unusual blood values etc etc) then it is easy to imagine the prosecution expert standing up and saying, taken together, the chances of all these results not resulting from some kind of doping are very small. Then it would be for the defence lawyer to attack that by saying things like there were no B samples, false positive, bad storage, protocols not followed etc). And then a judge or a jury could makes its mind up.
So to me it seems pretty obvious why they might want to re-test if they are trying to be thorough. Time will tell whether they do and whether they find anything.0 -
BarryBonds wrote:ratsbeyfus wrote:DaveyL wrote:So why might Novitzky want them re-tested?
Coz the circumstances under which the B samples were originally tested (e.g. without LA's knowledge/consent) might make the results obtained from those tests inadmissable. Just a guess.
And scientifically speaking invalid of course.
Can you elaborate on why Lance's knowledge or consent to the testing impacts upon the scientific validity of the results? (rather than, say, the ethics of carrying out the tests)
Or do you think some other feature of the circumstances under which the retests were done renders them scientifically invalid? Which one(s)?
[If you think the answer is in Vrijman's report, it would be nice if you spelled it out rather than just referring to the report generally.]0 -
Steve2020 wrote:I don't see why any of the tests would be legally inadmissible - the evidence would just be stronger or weaker depending on whether there were two samples etc.
If the tests are not legally admissible then why was he not prosecuted in 2005? A conspiracy? It would be "evidence" from a normal court's point of view but not enough to convict, from a WADA point of view. But if they are admissible now, why bother re-testing?Steve2020 wrote:Without knowing what was tested for the first time round and what was stored, it is hard to speculate on why they might test again. All we know about the first samples is that they didn't lead to a doping positive (unless the Tour de Suisse incident is true).
Exactly. So my question still stands - what tests are they going to do now to show this is a positive, *over and above* what has already been done?Steve2020 wrote:But even if there is no single test which is enough to support a sporting sanction, if a series of samples have something suspicious about then (perhaps evidence of masking products, proscribed substances present but below the threshold, plasticisers, unusual blood values etc etc) then it is easy to imagine the prosecution expert standing up and saying, taken together, the chances of all these results not resulting from some kind of doping are very small. Then it would be for the defence lawyer to attack that by saying things like there were no B samples, false positive, bad storage, protocols not followed etc). And then a judge or a jury could makes its mind up.
And they can already do this with the results they already have.Steve2020 wrote:So to me it seems pretty obvious why they might want to re-test if they are trying to be thorough. Time will tell whether they do and whether they find anything.
Again, I cannot see what can be *added* by doing more testing on the same samples.
- there would either have to be something new in the tests that lends more legal or scientific validity to what has already been done.
- they would have to test for some substance undetectable in 1999, but why wouldn't AFLD have done this already if they thought there was a chance of a positive.
- In any case, such a positive would only add to the fact these samples are *already* "positive" and the caveats that apply to the established positive would apply to a new one as well.
Legal question - would there be a statute of limitations on any "crime" that would be implied by these 1999 positiives?Le Blaireau (1)0
