Armstrong...EPO in 99 tour?

Anyone who comments on the bogus '99 urine samples who has not read the full report I linked, cannot competently comment on this thread.

You cannot read that report and have any confidence in WADA, the tabloid L'Equipe or the french lab LNDD.

Suitcase of Courage wrote:

No, the supposed Armstrong EPO positives in 1999 were thoroughly discredited by the UCI's special investigator, who basically conclude that there was no evidence of anything and the lab and WADA were corrupt and stonewalled the investigation.

What about these tests that supposedly could find EPO from urine specimens frozen for 6 years, when no other lab could? Why aren't they using this test today? The test was bogus, it was all a fraud.

In this case, the police were the criminals.

yeah dude, he is clean...everybody else is just jealous and all of his ex-teamates are just jealous and want to bring him down. it is all a fraud, everyone in the world is out to get lance!!!

do you know how lame you sound?

Published April 6, 2009 at

http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=34882

Neo-Gestapo knocked on Lance Armstrong's door today. Summary execution to follow

April 6, 2008 - "French doping agency sends Armstrong report to WADA" (1).

This is nothing less than the official launch for the process leading to the summary execution of the greatest cyclist ever.

Lance Armstrong is also ultimate example of blindness

But Lance Armstrong is also ultimate example of the reduction of the ability to see the basic pieces of the puzzle, beginning with those directly related to him.

Although he reacted to previous cases of other champions being falsely accused (see Floyd Landis) he was not able to look beyond the "unfair" media campaign.

He was as blind as to accept to take part in McCain's campaign.

The ultimate sign of loss of ability: he failed to see that he had the second main and final role in the final act of the "all champions dope" script, together with Usain Bolt.

A second role that would only be possible if he would fall in the trap of competing again, to "prove" that he never doped. (3)

Not only will he follow the same fate as Usain Bolt, but also, the latest after his accident, the illuminati decided who will be executed first.

As Lance Armstrong won his last Tour the illuminati doping agenda was still far from the current and very last stage.

A stage which allows only for summary executions, shortly after the neo-Gestapo knocks on the door. (4)

Today it was the door of Lance Armstrong.

Notes

(1)

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/2009-04-06-french-armstrong-report_N.htm

(2) Who, How and Why explained in the initial stages all the way to the ultimate execution

http://doping-conspiracy.blogspot.com/

(3) The trap would no more be required if the current and ultimate terror level, legalizing the trick used to accuse the athlete and to discredit any performances at any time after the moment it took place, had already been reached at the time Lance Armstrong won the Tour the last time.

The trick is to "keep blood samples", using the "doping industry is more advanced than the test industry" justification to cover-up why this is done.

Note that now this technique is used to post-execute athletes that could not be executed at the best possible moment, because at that particular competition the conspirators did not control the tests. Ultimate example: the 100 and 200 world records by Usain Bolt, at the Beijing Olympics.

(4) Search for "at 4 A.M" here;

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=246069

Heres Lances official statement from the USA today story:

I returned home that day after a long training ride to find a man chasing me as I rode up to the house.

Now hear him on this video talk about the man:

http://www.livestrong.com/lance-armstrong/video/5345-update-lances-injury-response-drug/5345/

Chasing him or waiting for him? Small matter? You decide.

Getting hard to keep up with the lies, Lance?

There is a difference between saying the 99 urine samples showed lance used EPO and the 99 urine samples could be used to suspend him.

The independent inquiry correctly put everyone in their place saying that there was no grounds to retroactively suspend Armstrong. But it did not disprove the validity of the tests, simply their validity in regards to a retroactive ban. The independent arbiter does make some scathing remarks in regards to the validity of the tests and the lack of an established protocol for retroactive testing. HOWEVER FAR MORE PHD SCIENTISTS WITH EXPERIENCE IN DRUG TESTING HAVE STATED THE TESTS ARE VALID ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.

Armstrong used EPO in '99. There was synthetic EPO in his samples. Its a fact. It is true that Wada or any other organisation was completely wrong to intimate that they could somehow ban armstrong by changing the rules as they go.

THE only possible argument armstrong could make would be that refrigeration over an extended period of time taints the samples. However it is a statistical impossiblity that if this were the case half of the positive samples would be armstrongs. Not to mention, impossible, for skewed results to present the downward trend (injection, high epo on important day, lower epo, injection, high epo on importnat day, lower epo) Not to mention that the PhD scientist in the article at the root of this thread discredits that hypothesis.

He did EPO in '99. He shouldnt have been suspended for it retroactively.

The fact is that EPO is undetectable in samples this old. If it was detectable, why can't any other lab besides this french one find it? Secondly, if this test is valid and can detect the EPO which no other lab can detect, why isn't it used 4 years later? You'd think with this great new test would be used today, but it isn't. How come a test can magically detect EPO that breaks down unless it is in urine stored in France?

Why are you so ready to believe the "science" which has never been released? Tell me who all these PHD's have seen the data and believe. Name them. Name all the PHD's who believe the story. The lab stonewalled the investigator and gave him no data. Why do you have complete faith in WADA and the lab who have demonstrated gross negligence and corruption? Why would you think a lab who leaks all results to L'Equipe would be above manipulating samples to give some life to their fantasies? Their whole raison d'etre since '99 has been to get Armstrong. Over and over again they failed, so they gin up this little fantasy. Again, they have never proven or released their data.

Armstrong might have used EPO, but the '99 "positives" only prove the french lab and WADA are corrupt.

As I have said here before, the reason many people here insist that Armstrong is a drug cheat has to do more with their own mediocrity than anything Armstrong has done. They might have won their high school meet and ran Div. 1 in college. At some point, they reach a level of competition that leaves them behind. Their ego can't except the fact that there are better athletes. The easy way out is to proclaim everyone better is obviously a drug cheat. Afterall, "how could they beat me? I won the mile at State! I'm the best runner in the world!"

With the sensitivity of drug tests would it really be worth putting someone's urine in your bladder? Surely you would have to flush and rinse your bladder and probably turn off your kidney function to make that work.

It is interesting, and questionable from a statistics standpoint, that of all the tests run only a small overall number proved positive for the synthetic EPO and that nearly half of that small sample were determined to be from Armstrong. We must wonder how, in a year where EPO usage had been mastered by the peloton and when there was no test for it, that so few of the riders were, as indicated by these test results, taking it. These questions combined with the fact that the Armstrong samples were not unknown to the people who collected them, make that 1 in 300 seem a bit off of the mark. It is also interesting that the first group to stray from normal testing protocol, they have admitted to sending one person) would be the French group. Now, can someone tell us how many out of competition tests have been carried out this year, how many of those tests were on Armstrong, and what percentage of the French lab's out of competition tests have been directed at Armstrong. Also, how often does the French lab, or any lab send one person to test?

ceelo wrote:

OJ murdered somebody. Lance rode his bike faster than other people. Great argument.

you didn't understand the argument if you think this refutes it. and it's pretty simple so you must be the type of class A retard I was referring to.

No one ever claimed that EPO was undectable in samples that old. There was simply a statute of limitations introduced into the doping regulations. That a statute of limitations exists does not mean that the science behind the positives is invalid. Just as it does not mean that someone who is proven to have committed a crime after the statute of limitations is innocent.

Synthetic EPO does not break down in the way you are implying according the scientist quoted in the article nor any other anti doping expert that I have heard comment on it. Including the head of Canada's anti doping lab who has defended the french lab, as well as the scientist interviewed in the article that started this thread. The PHD's or MDs that have seen that data and uphold the test are the one in the article. Christian Ayotte the head of Canada's anti-doping lab, the lab that invented developed the test that the whole world uses is the french lab has stood behind their work, i believe their opinion should be worth something. They have never lost a doping case that I am aware of. Pretty good track record. I was also living in Europe at the time this story broke and I saw numerous peopel comment on the validity of the tests. I dont have names. In Europe this story was pretty much accepted and treated as proof that armstrong, the american media treatment was much different.

I think Armstrong is the best cyclist in the world. ON a level playing field he has the best work ethic and best genetic ability.

I can tell you that I was a mediocre professional cyclist after running and raced a bit at the top level in europe, against tour level teams, where i was totally outclassed. I don't have a chip on my shoulder. Lance Armstrong doped or clean is 10 times the athlete I ever was or will be. But I do feel for the cyclists who choose to ride clean and suffer monetary losses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars because of riders who choose to ride dirty. I can say that in the cycling community it is widely accepted without argument that armstrong doped. Its not so much armstrong's doping that bothers me but the doping of other riders who could possibly be beaten by athletes that choose to ride clean. The culture of silence around armstrong bothers me as well.

The doctor of Slipstrem/Chipotle was fired a few years ago for publicly stating that armstrong had doped he has since been rehired. Ever hear of him? Do you think that affected his life negatively, what about Frankie Andreu's career?

I dont think that doping is the be all end all. What armstrong has done for cancer eclipses any bad that he has done. I'm just bothered by this culture of deception and lies and misinformation that puts a black stain on a beautiful sport. hundreds of people have lost jobs over these doping scandals. When the Floyd Landis scandal broke, it put hundreds of cyclist, personel and equipment manufacturers out of work and dozens more had to take pay cuts. People have good reasons to have chips on their shoulders. Being a pro athlete is a hard hard life and the choices that the superstars make effects everyones career.

When a superstar dopes they hurt the chances of every aspiring superstar to follow that dream. Don't act like people dont have a good reason to be angry and bitter if they truly believe that these top athletes are doping.

everyone took EPO in 99

Cycling may just be the dirtiest sport out there, everyone dops, everyone gets away with it, and has for a very very long time. Lance does not dope any more than the rest and still wins.

Hes still a champ, I dont care.

Your entire argument is that if I believe Lance Armstrong is innocent, I must also think OJ is innocent or vice/versa.

Why not, I dunno discuss the issue? Instead of mindlessly insulting someone on the basis of something completely different.

Next we will be aruging the facts and debating the validity of Charles Manson's life Sentences.

meggruns wrote:

everyone took EPO in 99

Cycling may just be the dirtiest sport out there...

Except for Baseball, American Football, Basketball, ...

Dr. Fuentes (Spain) list was full of soccer players. That was the main reason this list was never published and the Spanish cyclists (AC, AV, ...) got away with it. Guess who won the EURO2008 in soccer?

Cycling isn't nor ever was any dirtier than any other professionall sports. Running might be cleaner but only because there is less money. Where there is plenty money (e.g. 100m sprint), there is tons of dope.

meggruns wrote:

everyone took EPO in 99

Cycling may just be the dirtiest sport out there, everyone dops, everyone gets away with it, and has for a very very long time. Lance does not dope any more than the rest and still wins.

Hes still a champ, I dont care.

The fact they caught about 6 guys at last years tour and gave them suspensions only emphasises your point that everyone gets away with it.

baflog jenkins wrote:

The doctor of Slipstrem/Chipotle was fired a few years ago for publicly stating that armstrong had doped he has since been rehired. Ever hear of him? Do you think that affected his life negatively, what about Frankie Andreu's career?

What the hell about Franie Andreu's career?? Don't tell me you are shedding a tear for HIM ?? He admitted to doping, so why on earth does he get a pass?? He is one of the people that took $ from others. And he owes a lot to Lance anyway (being part of a team successfully led by Lance). And post cycling, he was managing a team at one point, and was doing a prime-time announcing gig on OLN. I think he is doing just fine and has gotten a pass for his past drug use and actually gotten places FOR pointing a finger at Lance (not the other way around as you seem to suggest)

If anyone is gonna give Lance shit, then give at least as much to Andreu. We know 100% that he doped.

fair enough eliminate him and insert any of the other people that lose jobs over these kinds of things.

I was simply responding to suitcase of courage's argument that anyone who accuses lance armstrong is some bitter untalented guy. There are real hardworking people who lose their jobs in the wake of all these scandals and they have good reason to be angry over it. Its not just a question of people being bitter they are not as good as armstrong but of people losing their livelihood when sponsors pulling out. I was simply trying to point out that doping scandals have far reaching consequences that go outside sporting results.

and for the record Frankie Andreu lost his job directing one of the best american teams over his admission and has not gotten an equivalently prestigious or well paying directing job since then that I have seen. Whereas armstrong continues to lie without consequence. Although I dont follow as closely as I did before. He is a fantastic human being who goes out of his way to help people.

Andreu should not be getting as much shit as Lance. Coming clean about doping is better than not coming clean.

Great article. I'm not going to join into the argument about whether or not Lance used EPO, but I found that article to be really interesting because it really delved into the science behind it. Pretty cool.

true dat.... at least frankie came clean and was honest