Trouble ahead for Lance Armstrong

[EKE BBB]

LE MENSONGE ARMSTRONG

[Claude]

For (shorter) news reports in english go to http://news.google.com/ and search for "lance armstrong"

Edited August 23, 2005 by Claude

[brownie]

Truth is catching up with him at long last!

One more Texas liar will have to face the truth!

The l'Equipe frontpage is a KILLER here!

[tjobbe]

two good-fellows on the bicycles

[BERIGAN]

Usually, where there's smoke there's fire and all that, BUT if this is all about a sample being retested 5 years later, not the smoking gun....

Armstrong denies doping claims

23/08/2005 10:22 - (SA)

Paris - Seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong denied ever taking performance-enhancing drugs, in response to a report published on Tuesday by the French daily L'Equipe that he was proven to have taken an endurance-boosting hormone during his first Tour de France triumph in 1999.

"Yet again, a European newspaper has reported that I have tested positive for performance enhancing drugs," Armstrong said in a statement on his personal website.

"Tomorrows LEquipe, a French sports daily, is reporting that my 1999 samples were positive. Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues and tomorrows article is nothing short of tabloid journalism."

Frozen urine samples

With a headline splashing "Armstrong's Lie" on its front page, the newspaper reported that Armstrong's use of the banned blood booster EPO (erythropoeitin) was revealed in tests by a French laboratory of frozen urine samples taken during his first Tour triumph.

Armstrong said: "The paper even admits in its own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no way to defend myself.

They state: 'There will therefore be no counter-exam nor regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since defendants rights cannot be respected.'

"I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs," said the 33-year-old cyclist, who retired in July after his record seventh Tour title.

L'Equipe said traces of EPO had been found on six different occasions in Armstrong's 1999 urine samples by the national doping testing laboratory of Chatenay-Malabry near Paris.

EPO can boost performance by 30%.

The urine samples, taken in 1998 and 1999, were tested in 2004 by the laboratory, which itself fine-tuned the testing system, according to the report.

No indication was given in the story for the delay in revealing the results or about any preservation or safeguarding methods regarding the samples.

Edited August 23, 2005 by BERIGAN

[brownie]

Berigan valiantly rises to the defense of another Texan liar.

Lance Armstrong will not be prosecuted for this and can continue to deny he ever used performance-enhancing drugs all he wants.

But the proof is out in the public this time.

By the way, when the new tests were done, the frozen urine tests were picked at random from the several available without the researchers knowing there were some samples from Armstrong. When EPO was found in several, the researchers then matched the samples to identify who they belonged to! EPA was found in six samples from Lance Armstrong!

That Armstrong used the substances has been an open secret for several years. It has now been scientifically proven.

[Claude]

As the Monde article says, EPO was used by many racers in 1998/99 and could not be detected at that time. If laboratories checked more racer's urine samples they would find many traces of EPO and not only Armstrong would be convicted of doping. In fact, the "clean" athletes were a minority back then.

But as the headline indicates, it is more about Armstrong's continous lie on this subject, and not about sanctions.

Edit: message was written before reading brownie's reply.

Edited August 23, 2005 by Claude

[Dr. Rat]

My own feeling on this has always been that Armstrong doped. Of course he doped, because everybody doped.

But there's something . . . unhealthy? in the European fixation on the topic. There is definitely a witch-hunt feel to it. Who cares very much if he doped? Who cares very much if he lied about it? The newspapers sound like the Clinton-obsessed tabloids here in the US back in the heyday of Monica Lewinski.

Reasonable people didn't care whether he had sex with that woman, and didn't care if he lied about it later.

As for Armstrong, unless and until somebody can show that he doped when the competition refrained . . . it just doesn't matter.

--eric

[couw]

the fixation is likely related to the bad state french cyclism is in and certainly also to the fact that Armstrong is not part of the true tradition of the sport, which lies in the gloomy classics in early february or late september on bumpy roads in little towns where people live that are related less than three degrees away to the folks driving by. Armstrong sought out the most prestigious and went for that and only that. Not necessarily the best way to win the hearts of the European press corps that grew up with the sport and knows it from much more up close than distant Texas and who is by default in favour of the underdog.

[Dr. Rat]

the fixation is likely related to the bad state french cyclism is in and certainly also to the fact that Armstrong is not part of the true tradition of the sport, which lies in the gloomy classics in early february or late september on bumpy roads in little towns where people live that are related less than three degrees away to the folks driving by. Armstrong sought out the most prestigious and went for that and only that. Not necessarily the best way to win the hearts of the European press corps that grew up with the sport and knows it from much more up close than distant Texas and who is by default in favour of the underdog.

←

This, though, he's been relatively honest about, hasn't he? I think I remeber some American journalist asking whether he thought himself the "greatest cycler ever" and he mentioned exactly this (Something like "I'm not really a cyclist in the sense that people like Delgado or Indurain are. I just do the tour.")

--eric

Edited August 23, 2005 by Dr. Rat

[couw]

the fixation is likely related to the bad state french cyclism is in and certainly also to the fact that Armstrong is not part of the true tradition of the sport, which lies in the gloomy classics in early february or late september on bumpy roads in little towns where people live that are related less than three degrees away to the folks driving by. Armstrong sought out the most prestigious and went for that and only that. Not necessarily the best way to win the hearts of the European press corps that grew up with the sport and knows it from much more up close than distant Texas and who is by default in favour of the underdog.

←

This, though, he's been relatively honest about, hasn't he? I think I remeber some American journalist asking whether he thought himself the "greatest cycler ever" and he mentioned exactly this (Something like "I'm not really a cyclist in the sense that people like Delgado or Indurain are. I just do the tour.")

--eric

←

his honesty doesn't change the fact that he is not deeply rooted in the scene, does it? So it doesn't change a thing about the sentiments and fixations.

[brownie]

My own feeling on this has always been that Armstrong doped. Of course he doped, because everybody doped.

I would say 'almost everybody'. And now that the times are changing, there's a healthy group of young participants in cycling competitions which want to get rid of the doping influence.

Armstrong has not helped them and continues - despite the mounting evidence - to maintain that he is clean.

There was a similar situation with French cycling darling Richard Virenque - a less brilliant and less intelligent cyclist than Armstrong - who was accused of similar wrongdoings and constantly denied it until he was faced with the evidence.

At least, Virenque recognised he had indeed cheated. He returned to the Tour de France for a couple of years and remained the darling of part of the French cycling fans until he retired last year.

[RDK]

I'm not big on cycling, but aren't the athletes tested for drugs before/during/after the race? Is so, why wasn't anything detected - and more importantly, reported - any time during Armstrong's last seven victories? It seems odd to report it only now. And yes, I understand that there were allegations before, but was there ever any documented proof? And if there was proof, why was Armstrong (or anyone else who doped) allowed to race in the first place?

[Dan Gould]

The fact is Ray that as Armstrong says, he's never failed a drug test. I think there is much to what couw says about Armstrong not being a part of the "true tradition" and when you also consider the apparent depth of Brownie's hatred (comparing Armstrong to Bush, another "lying Texan" is both silly and telling) it is apparent what motivates the reports as well as the European commentary.

[couw]

The developments in the doping business are faster than in the detection business. Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour, the detection of this substance was only possible in 2001, I believe, at least as officially recognised by the cycling union. The results now published are from samples taken at random from stored frozen urin "backup" samples covering multiple years. When an illegal substance is found, there is a second sample or a blood sample, which then also has to be tested positively, before any measures are taken. Of course this is not possible for samples taken 6 years ago: the first sample was tested and nothing was found wrong. Only now they check the second sample with a new detection scheme and do find something wrong.

There can be no replication of the test results (first and second sample) and so Armstrong gets away scott free. Just shitty that from the many random samples taken, 6 of those tested positive belong to Armstrong. So although no real backup samples are available to take measures according to the rules, there is still some doubling of results that is "interesting" to say the very least.

[couw]

The fact is Ray that as Armstrong says, he's never failed a drug test.  I think there is much to what couw says about Armstrong not being a part of the "true tradition" and when you also consider the apparent depth of Brownie's hatred (comparing Armstrong to Bush, another "lying Texan" is both silly and telling) it is apparent what motivates the reports as well as the European commentary.

←

It is of course also Armstrong's self-made image of the dope-free crusader for a clean sport. His little speech against all the cynics and the sceptics at the end of this year's tour somehow lost lots of its impact. He told us to believe in the athletes, that there are no secrets, and that it's all just about hard work. Sure Lance...

[Dan Gould]

The fact is Ray that as Armstrong says, he's never failed a drug test.  I think there is much to what couw says about Armstrong not being a part of the "true tradition" and when you also consider the apparent depth of Brownie's hatred (comparing Armstrong to Bush, another "lying Texan" is both silly and telling) it is apparent what motivates the reports as well as the European commentary.

←

It is of course also Armstrong's self-made image of the dope-free crusader for a clean sport. His little speech against all the cynics and the sceptics at the end of this year's tour somehow lost lots of its impact. He told us to believe in the athletes, that there are no secrets, and that it's all just about hard work. Sure Lance...

←

Actually, in this country, Armstrong's self-made image is that of the man who beat cancer and won the Tour. The rest of it means little or nothing.

[brownie]

Thanks, couw for taking care of the answers.

I have no personal hatred against Lance Armstrong, he is a great champion, no doubt. I just want to state that I am against any hypocrisy. Armstrong has built an image of himself as a Mr. Clean! That's hypocrisy personified. The truth is slowly emerging, even if it takes longer because the doping tests have to adjust each year to the developments of the doping techniques.

I have had first hand informations (very private and very offtherecord) from inside Armstrong team several Tours ago on what was going on (and posted something along those lines back on the old BNBB).

The new case will once again blacken the image of cycling. The sport does not need that.

I'll also add that it's another sad facet we have of the US press shying away from the story and keeping on its blinders when facing Armstrong. It says a lot on the current state of the media!

[Jim Alfredson]

The results now published are from samples taken at random from stored frozen urin "backup" samples covering multiple years. When an illegal substance is found, there is a second sample or a blood sample, which then also has to be tested positively, before any measures are taken. Of course this is not possible for samples taken 6 years ago: the first sample was tested and nothing was found wrong. Only now they check the second sample with a new detection scheme and do find something wrong.

So if nothing can be done, why test these old samples for a second time, 6 years after the fact?

[couw]

The fact is Ray that as Armstrong says, he's never failed a drug test.  I think there is much to what couw says about Armstrong not being a part of the "true tradition" and when you also consider the apparent depth of Brownie's hatred (comparing Armstrong to Bush, another "lying Texan" is both silly and telling) it is apparent what motivates the reports as well as the European commentary.

←

It is of course also Armstrong's self-made image of the dope-free crusader for a clean sport. His little speech against all the cynics and the sceptics at the end of this year's tour somehow lost lots of its impact. He told us to believe in the athletes, that there are no secrets, and that it's all just about hard work. Sure Lance...

←

Actually, in this country, Armstrong's self-made image is that of the man who beat cancer and won the Tour. The rest of it means little or nothing.

←

Yes, but that's only because in your country the Tour means little or nothing more than that it's the ditty that Armstrong won several times over. See, in the eyes of some people over here, the guy has been eating away at a Yurpeen tradition and goes on to polish himself up to be some Saint. Well, he ain't.

[Jim Alfredson]

Yes, but that's only because in your country the Tour means little or nothing more than that it's the ditty that Armstrong won several times over. See, in the eyes of some people over here, the guy has been eating away at a Yurpeen tradition and goes on to polish himself up to be some Saint. Well, he ain't.

←

I guess I have the answer to my question.

Jealousy is a bitch, ain't it?

[tjobbe]

....So if nothing can be done, why test these old samples for a second time, 6 years after the fact?

←

according to some media its a "regular" behaviour to verify older probes with more sofisticated test methods. In that case it was a random pick although its a little bit strange that it went public.

The doping test methods are normally always one step behind those who develop the drugs and know how to mask them for the projected testing, so its a race that the labratory can only win if the athelete has not followed properly the advice of their doctors....

The name of the game is: "how can I get around being tested positive" and the opposite side tries everything to win either....

Cheers, Tjobbe

[Jim Alfredson]

But again, they've been able to detect this drug since 2001. So why now? Seems just a wee bit vengeful, doesn't it?

[brownie]

The results now published are from samples taken at random from stored frozen urin "backup" samples covering multiple years. When an illegal substance is found, there is a second sample or a blood sample, which then also has to be tested positively, before any measures are taken. Of course this is not possible for samples taken 6 years ago: the first sample was tested and nothing was found wrong. Only now they check the second sample with a new detection scheme and do find something wrong.

So if nothing can be done, why test these old samples for a second time, 6 years after the fact?

←

Because the technique now being used was not available back then.

Out of the 12 samples that tested positive now, six were traced to Lance Armstrong. The identification of the samples was not the purpose of the tests.

It was the journalists team from the sports newspaper 'L'Equipe' that was able to ascertain the identifications of the samples.

It can be added that 'L'Equipe' is part of the organising committee of the Tour de France race and the newspaper is perfectly aware that the revelations will tarnish the image of the Tour. They went ahead anyway!

[couw]

The results now published are from samples taken at random from stored frozen urin "backup" samples covering multiple years. When an illegal substance is found, there is a second sample or a blood sample, which then also has to be tested positively, before any measures are taken. Of course this is not possible for samples taken 6 years ago: the first sample was tested and nothing was found wrong. Only now they check the second sample with a new detection scheme and do find something wrong.

So if nothing can be done, why test these old samples for a second time, 6 years after the fact?

←

They wanted to test their methods and also wanted to get a grip on how widespread the use of this stuff was. EPO has been one of the most used substances that has skewed many sports results in many disciplines. The results of this Tour-test are pretty shocking. This may mean that in future there will be more samples stored, maybe also blood, I don't know. It all may seem silly, but getting away with using shit just because it cannot be detected and it doesn't technically count anymore once it can be, will not help in cleaning up the sport and the athletes. Meanwhile, there is too much money going around in this sport to allow for it to be decided in secretive shadows. An more importantly - and as brownie pointed out - the sport has taken many blows already in the past. It does not need Armstrong to play its hero, not if he turns out to be another wolf in sheep's wool.