There are 17 'B-Samples' and only 6 of them are positive. Obviously he cheated then. I hope Dick Pound and every French0man from L-Equipe and the tour die ina fire as they are completetly full of sh!t. Why is it that only 6 out of 17 tests are positive?
Not to be weird or anything, but I think this discussion might go a little more smoothly if we could keep our nationalistic impulses under our big ugly hats. This seems to me to be between Lance and L-Equipe. I believe Lance, but then, who wants to see heros tarnished? You may now return to your regularly scheduled French and American bashing.
So you would truly guess that it took them this long to get the information that they present on Armstrong's tests? Also, what about 2000-2005? I do think that maybe they should have been a little more comprehensive in their statements about Armstrong before blurting out their findings like an ADD child with the right answer in kindergarden.
Yes, this is a urine test. The blood test (red blood cell count) was easy to dupe so many riders cheated. That's part of the rational in testing the 1999 samples... not so much to nail a cheater but supposedly for research purposes.
I think the idea is to be ready if: You develop a test for it or He bends over to tie his shoelace and a bottle of it falls out of his shirt pocket or He forgets to pay his supplier and the guy turns him in or He turns up on page 321 of Jose Canseco's next book. It actually goes farther-- modern doping policies commonly ban substances not yet discovered-- you are not allowed to take x, y , z "or anything designed to evade this policy."
(1) "I trust the lab" is not a valid response. The issues are beyond trust. We don't need ridiculous examples to see the dubioius nature of these results. (2) Try google.com (3) The veracity of the documents must be verified as well as the "matching". L'Equipe is not a credible source, so I would demand another agency, a scientific organization and not a news organization, do the investigation. You avoid the most obvious possibilities. The techniques are correct, but the urine is not Lance's. Or proteins are added to the samples after the fact. Both are easy to accomplish. These samples have been passed around for 6 years. Look at the Tour Director himself. We are dealing with men of low character. His statements were irresponsible and reckless. "trust" does not enter into issues of science. You have to prove yourself or you have to be quiet. The technique is very much in question. The use of 5 year old samples (test was in 2004) stored at -20C has been called into question by numerous scientists. -80C is the preferred temperature for long term storage. Here is an article about a Flemish athlete who was accused of using EPO and was later acquited: http://www.insidetri.com/news/fea/2889.0.html Writing on his website, Beke was ecstatic. "Today is a great day for me. After 10 painful months, the appeal court (Flemish Disciplinary Commission) has come to the conclusion that I have NOT taken EPO last year in September. With the help of scientists, I have proven that I can test positive on the existing WADA EPO test without ever taking any EPO. This is what happened in Knokke and explains why I have been falsely accused. Even the director of the French WADA lab (the lab that invented the EPO test) has admitted that I am innocent." It would seem all EPO tests are not so conclusive, oui? How is it that someone had access to both the number codes on the anonymous samples and the number codes on documents prepared when the samples were taken? This isn't supposed to happen. I am certainly better informed than you. 2 or 3 days is a very conservative estimate. Some say 3 to 7 days. Some say 2 weeks. You can find varying estimates if you bother to look. Lance was tested after the following stages (and one more which is undetermined): prologue - won *positive* stage 1 - yellow *positive* stage 2 - yellow stage 8 - won stage 9 - won, yellow *positive* stage 10 - yellow *positive* stage 11 - yellow stage 12 - yellow *positive* stage 13 - yellow stage 14 - yellow *positive* stage 15 - yellow stage 16 - yellow stage 17 - yellow stage 18 - yellow stage 19 - won, yellow stage 20 - yellow Why all the non-positives? Can you explain the lack of a positive in stages 13 and 11? If we go with your 2-3 day estimate, why are there 1 day gaps within a cluster of consective positives? It doesn't compute. And 2-3 days is not realistic. You will have EPO in the urine for longer than that. He won on #8, but was negative. So let's say he doped before #9. He tests positive on #9 and #10, but not #11. So he dopes before #12, but why no positive on #13 or #15? Hmm. This is a very serious hole in these results and makes the results themselves sound like junk science. You have to explain these things instead of making snap judgements, like Mr. LeBlanc did. I'm full of information, and every bit of it questions the credibility of your arguments. We are talking about doping here. Yes, a minute quantity of corticosteroid was found in his urine on one day. The quantity was very small and could not have helped him, but of course you fail to mention that because you are so biased and blind. That result was dismissed, but if you want to call that a "positive" we can play along, but we are talking about doping here, not skin cream. If we believe that Armstrong doped in 1999, what about all the other years? Why were all of his tests negative? Why did his performance get better as the testing frequency went up? The best you can say is that you don't know, but this kind of "evidence" from L'Equipe should give immediate pause to anyone who is not biased.
Of course you have to trust the lab. How do you prove that Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon if you don't trust the NASA ? You, quote me someone. The photocopies in the PDF make it very clear. The matching is correct. Leblanc has been backing Armstrong up from the beginning, and it's the first time he don't support LA. You can find tons of declarations with Leblanc saying "Armstrong's such a great champion, bla bla". And is Dick Pound also irresponsible and reckless ? The confusion is linked to a bacteria that can tangle the tests. The director of the french WADA lab, considered by Beke himself as the one you can trust when you talk about EPO, is the one who made the tests for Lance Armstrong. So you trust him when he says Beke's innocent and you don't trust him when Armstrong is positive ? I trust him in both cases. This is called investigation. I've read everywhere that riders all knew they could take EPO 4 days before the controls without being positive. Concerning the sample for the 13th stage, the test (with the 3 methods) is not positive. But it can be "undetermined" that is to say, e.g., positive by 2 methods and undetermined by the third. The hypothesis suggested by experts is that LA took a treatment before the Tour (positive the first 2 days), then a treatment to prepare himself for the Alps (corresponding to the tests of the 9th and 10th stages), and the last one to prepare himself for the Pyrennees (12th and 14th stages). Why is the 13th stage control not positive ? It's the only point where there is still a bit of mystery in this case. That's not much. Talk about being biased. The result has never been dismissed, it was a positive test (UCI did not even deny it) justified by some salve a posteriori. That is to say illegally. In all the other years, he knew that EPO was going to be tested. And his performance did not get better, I don't know what makes you think that.
LOL. You don't have to believe in the moon landing. I don't really care. It has no relevance to this discussion. We are talking about a strict scientific test. Compare this event with another one involving a strict scientific test. LOL, I can show you documents that "prove" that you have nine convictions on child molestation. You have to do a little better than that. Having pictures of 2 pieces of paper with the same number does not tell me that the numbers are correct. And having a match does not tell me that the urine has not been tampered with, or that it is even Lance's urine to begin with. Do you really want me to explain to you why Leblanc was irresponsible? Is that really necessary? 'proven scientific fact'. LOL. Don't insult my intelligence. The whole world is laughing at Leblanc. Are you characterizing Pound's comments and Leblanc's comments as being the same? LOL. They are so different it's ridiculous. Leblanc is a clown who has embarrassed himself and shamed the Tour. I don't make time for trust. I want solid, irrefutable evidence. Thats' very nice. And who told you this? The riders themselves? LOL. No sir! If the test is reliable, then why is stage 13 missing? Stage 13 had the longest climb. A real scientist would try to answer this question before publishing. What about stage 8? Why does he take EPO for the prologue, but not for the time trial in stage 8? Why does he take EPO for the prologue, but not for the time trial in stage 19? He won all of the time trials, including stage 8 and stage 19. What about stage 15? Stage 14 is positive, but stage 15 is still in the Pyrenees and the test is negative. What about stage 16? It is still in the Pyrenees, but not positive. If you believe that 12, 13, and 14 are positive, then you must believe in the 3 day rule. 8 was not positive, but 9 was positive, so you must expect 10 and 11 to be positive too. But 11 was not positive. Another mystery. Mysteries on 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 19. Why does Lance want EPO for some days in the Pyrenees, but not others? Lots of mysteries. This is a joke, right? The minute quantity of steroid found would not have provided any sort of advantage and was explained by the cream. This has nothing to do with doping and is just a sideshow to divert attention from the question at hand which is doping. Doping is what would provide a real advantage, not steroids. Of course it got better. 1999 winning time was 91:32:16 (20 stages, 3607 km) 2003 winning time was 83:41:12 (20 stages, 3350 km) <--- fastest TDF ever 40.9 km/hr 2004 winning time was 83:36:02 (20 stages, 3429 km) <--- the most dominating performance of his career, imo 2005 winning time was 86:15:02 (21 stages, 3607 km) <--- including Lance's fastest time trial ever Armstrong and his teams invested thousands of dollars on improved technology. His bike and his clothing and helmet were more aerodynamic every year. Each year his bike became lighter by using more carbon fiber and less metal.
Well, 5 "LOLs", I'm glad you had a good laugh. But I see you can be comical too : Seriously, don't ask me to prove you the guiltiness of Armstrong if you believe in a conspiration. That's simply impossible, just like it's impossible to prove that men walked on the moon to some crazy punk who will always tell you "but how do you know it was not a plot ?" etc etc ... Anyhow, all the trials he is involved in will prove he lied to everybody. Especially the one with SCA, the insurance company from his native Texas. here's a good article : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/26/MNG9PEDPOS1.DTL and another one (might not work): http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/cycling/articles/2005/08/26/expert_no_reason_to_doubt_lab
J-B, let's be fair. L'equipe is not NASA. We know we landed, because the Soviets gave that race up. Even assuming your lack of trust in institutional "truth" wouldn't it therefore be objectively necessary to apply that possibility to this situation? I.e. the Tour/L'equipe is motivated by profit to create new strand of truth? If you only apply the conspiracy stuff to one side, then we need to stop the conversation. Over the past couple years we/USA have learned not to put full faith in the press, especially one source. If you believe in one source credibility, I want to introduce to my dear friend, Mr. Curveball. I suspect/hope this lesson will be exported to France shortly. As for our current press, well, there is a reason soccer fans have to come to these boards for info. Most US press is clueless when it comes to non big four sports. They(some) pass guilt by association, others pass innocence just because they dislike the French; both are wrong. Notice your two sources are SF(BB) and Dallas(RP.) Well, baseball is egregiously doped, but that in no way should cast any doubt on another sovereign sport. There are some serious problems with the L'equipe methodology and even more serious holes in the results as astutely demonstrated by Mario. I think what alot of us are saying is, this whole thing doesn't smell right. Listen, if LA is guilty, I will believe it. But until some legitimate "institution" says LA is guilty, I am going to, rightfully, question very poor methodology and highly suspicious motives from a urine sample taken six years ago on what appears to be a unaccredited scientific procedure. Do you not agree with this logic? Also, looking at the circumstantial evidence, doesn't the context appear weird to you? I.e. Cancer, then right afterwards juicing his body from "six stages", plus Mario's evidence and then winning the next six clean? Also, I want to thank you for posting. You are helping me refine my arguments to the Euros in Germany.
So the company sees an angle to get out of paying a $5million obligation and that's proof instead of being smart business?
My sentiments exactly. This is a guy who rides past other pro cyclists like he's on a motorcycle, many of whom have later tested positive and admitted they doped. I don't see how he could ride clean and thrash the competition like he does. At the end of the day, I still admire him for his sheer, unrelenting power of will, which is what won him the tour in the first place.
Yes... 1) Ignore all of the well documented advances in technology that he has made over the years. 2) Ignore the millions of dollars (yes, it is millions) he and his team have spent on new equipment, a wind tunnel, state of the art computers, physiologists, mechanical engineers, bike designers, and physicists. 3) Ignore all of the revolutionary changes he has made to his cycling technique and equipment since his cancer. 4) Ignore that he trains harder than anyone on the Tour (ask riders that have trained with him on US Postal and Team Discovery that have gone to other teams). 5) Ignore his well documented super-human aerobic capacity, long leg muscles, extraordinarily high aerobic threshold, low lactic acid buildup, and unbelievably quick recovery from lactic acid buildup. 6) Ignore that his heart is 1/3 larger than normal. 7) Ignore that his power-to-weight ratio is probably the best in the Tour's history. 8) Ignore all of the inconsistencies in the evidence, including strange gaps in positives. 9) Ignore that storing urine samples at -20C for 5 years throws the test results into great doubt. 10) Ignore the history of L'Equipe's smear campaign against Lance Armstrong. 11) Ignore that it was L'Equipe driving and reporting these results, and not a world governing body . 12) Ignore that Lance was a great rider before his string of victories in Le Tour. 13) Ignore that he was World Cycling Champion in 1993. 14) Ignore that he won stages in the TDF in 1993 and 1995. 15) Ignore that in 1996 he was ranked #1 in the World just prior to being diagnosed with testicular cancer. Yes, he obviously must have doped.
See, you're not an engineer, and probably not a man of science. You don't understand that roughly 80% of the energy used to move a bike on a flat surface is used to combat air resistance. Changes to the aerodynamics of the rider's clothing and helmet make a tremendous difference. Don't believe it? This is so well documented it's silly to debate. There are publicly available studies everywhere. Why do you think drafting is so important in cycling? Lance also has probably the lightest bike on the tour. A few grams make a tremendous difference when you are climbing a steep mountain for 40 km. There is nothing funny about my statement. It is only your response that is funny. Winning the TDF is more about technology, science, intelligence, and teamwork than guts. Prior to the 2005 TDF, Lance was challenged to lose 5 lbs without reducing his power-to-weight ratio. 5 lbs is a huge amount in cycling. You see at this level of racing, every pound, every watt, every inch is carefully calculated to provide every possible advantage to the cyclist. You keep bringing up the moon project as if that is in any way a good analogy to this situation. It isn't. Stop now. What you need to do is to examine and explain all of the inconsistencies in the evidence, which you have failed to do, and quit relying on trust and hearsay. Let me help you. One could say that even though the test is unreliable in finding every instance of doping, when the outcome is judged to be positive then it is reliable. The problem with this is that the length of time (5 years) for storage and the storage temperature (-20C) throw all of the results into doubt. Now, putting aside the results for a minute, if we look at the larger picture of L'Equipe and their constant vendetta against Armstrong, we must be very suspicious of these results, especially of the timing. We cannot say conclusively that Lance did not dope, nor do we have irrefutable evidence that he did. In cases like this, the responsible person does not publish the results, nor does he make wild claims he cannot back up.