Lance's Doping Scandal

[DJ]

Just came over the Late news tonight (Wed 31st May) that the Dutch Authority
that has been handling the claim from the French that Lance Armstrong was
involved with doping in the 1999 Tour de france, has cleared him from using
any substance to help him win the great race.
Good news finally for Lance, I'll bet he's releived now that his name is
cleared.

So to the Froggies who made up this scandal.....now will you beleive that he
is a Champion?

Onya Lance!!

DJ

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
"DJ" > wrote:

> Just came over the Late news tonight (Wed 31st May) that the Dutch Authority
> that has been handling the claim from the French that Lance Armstrong was
> involved with doping in the 1999 Tour de france, has cleared him from using
> any substance to help him win the great race.

Actually, I think you'll find it found there was no way he could be
convicted of an offence, which we all knew already. And that secrecy was
breached, which we knew already. But there was no finding on the
validity of the tests, nor was there any finding that the positive
samples weren't Lance's. If it were a cager in court, we'd say he got
off on a technicality.

--
Shane Stanley

[DJ]

"Shane Stanley" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "DJ" > wrote:
>
>> Just came over the Late news tonight (Wed 31st May) that the Dutch
>> Authority
>> that has been handling the claim from the French that Lance Armstrong was
>> involved with doping in the 1999 Tour de france, has cleared him from
>> using
>> any substance to help him win the great race.
>
> Actually, I think you'll find it found there was no way he could be
> convicted of an offence, which we all knew already. And that secrecy was
> breached, which we knew already. But there was no finding on the
> validity of the tests, nor was there any finding that the positive
> samples weren't Lance's. If it were a cager in court, we'd say he got
> off on a technicality.
>
> --
> Shane Stanley

To be honest, as I'm not really into racing, i do enjoy TDF for the racing
aspect and not the political aspect.
I'm not aware of all that has happened except that the French media had
accused Lance of doping, and it has taken this long to find otherwise.

I don't Understand the points system that comes with International cycling.
Is it like all the races that they've gained a place or won that they get
points that they can use for the big races such as TDF?

Sorry for my ignorance or if I have asked a stupid question.

If that is correct, then I guess I can understand the french getting upset
but all in all, Lance came from near death, to win 6 TDF's which proves he's
a phononenom and force to be dealt with but to accuse someone of and putting
them through unneccesary scrutiny without proof is unacceptable...but
then...have the french every followed the rules?

Cheers DJ

[Bleve]

DJ wrote:

> If that is correct, then I guess I can understand the french getting upset
> but all in all, Lance came from near death, to win 6 TDF's which proves he's
> a phononenom and force to be dealt with but to accuse someone of and putting
> them through unneccesary scrutiny without proof is unacceptable...but
> then...have the french every followed the rules?


7, actually.

He won 7 TdF's. In a row, retired on top, unbeatable. Of course the
French hate him.
He's not French.

[Donga]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> Actually, I think you'll find it found there was no way he could be
> convicted of an offence, which we all knew already. And that secrecy was
> breached, which we knew already. But there was no finding on the
> validity of the tests, nor was there any finding that the positive
> samples weren't Lance's. If it were a cager in court, we'd say he got
> off on a technicality.

.... except there is no evidence he committed any offence, only French
jealousy and suspicion that Armstrong was so much better than any other
riders. A quite different matter from a cager running someone down,
leaving the scene and then claiming to have been in a "dissociative
state". I'm not in your "we", Shane.

Donga

[oely]

Donga Wrote:
> Shane Stanley wrote:
> > Actually, I think you'll find it found there was no way he could be
> > convicted of an offence, which we all knew already. And that secrecy
> was
> > breached, which we knew already. But there was no finding on the
> > validity of the tests, nor was there any finding that the positive
> > samples weren't Lance's. If it were a cager in court, we'd say he
> got
> > off on a technicality.
>
> .... except there is no evidence he committed any offence, only French
> jealousy and suspicion that Armstrong was so much better than any
> other
> riders. A quite different matter from a cager running someone down,
> leaving the scene and then claiming to have been in a "dissociative
> state". I'm not in your "we", Shane.
> Donga

I havent read the report released by the Dutch guy so i cant really
comment on it.

One thing im not convinced of is this issue that its purely France vs
Armstrong. Its not France = Tour de France = Non French Armstrong wins
= France Hates Armstrong. Armstrong likes to take this route in his
very jingoistic "jean francois" way. (That comment cast him in a poorer
light to me than any doping rumours) His personanility by nature means
he's never going to be that well liked in general. Obviously not all of
France is in love with him but he also got massive amounts of respect
and support from them. The issue i think casts people like Dick Pound,
WADA and the UCI in a poorer light. They seem to have most problem with
him, and were/are determined disregard and void their own drug testing
policies to target him.


--
oely

[Shane Stanley]

In article om>,
"Bleve" > wrote:

> Of course the French hate him.
> He's not French.

What nonsense. Do you hate him because he's not Australian?

The French conspiracy theory is just so much spin.

--
Shane Stanley

[Donga]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> In article om>,
> "Bleve" > wrote:
>
> > Of course the French hate him.
> > He's not French.
>
> What nonsense. Do you hate him because he's not Australian?
>
> The French conspiracy theory is just so much spin.

Shane, put up or shut up. What evidence have you got? You sound like
the killer squid.

Donga

[Shane Stanley]

In article . com>,
"Donga" > wrote:

> except there is no evidence he committed any offence

There *is* evidence; it's a question of whether it's evidence that can
be used (a subject not settled despite the latest finding). The tests
were done and findings were leaked -- if that wasn't the case, this
inquiry would have said so.

Did you suspect the rider whose wife was found with a car loaded with
stuff a couple of years back? Of course you did, yet in objective terms
the evidence was much, much slimmer, and nothing could be done there
either.

--
Shane Stanley

[Bleve]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> In article om>,
> "Bleve" > wrote:
>
> > Of course the French hate him.
> > He's not French.
>
> What nonsense. Do you hate him because he's not Australian?

They (gross generalisation) love certain French riders despite their
being done for EPO etc (remember '98, Festina? anyone come to mind?)
but all over the road (you watch your Tour DVDs one day, count them) is
Lance EPO, Lance cheat etc. Never convicted. Not French though ... If
he was, they'd shrug and say "it's part of the sport" like they did in
'98. No-one spits on Virenque, do they?

Now, you go to the cricket, and listen to the same idiot LCD's (lowest
common denominator) ****canning foreign crickers, and tell me that "we"
don't have the same problem here. Witness the pursuit of the Sri
Lankan spin bowler who kept getting done for chucking. If it was Warny
(Warney! Warney!) would that happen?

Xenophobia, chum. It's very real, and LCD's are everywhere.

[Bleve]

DJ wrote:

> I don't Understand the points system that comes with International cycling.
> Is it like all the races that they've gained a place or won that they get
> points that they can use for the big races such as TDF?

UCI (the governing body of road racing) set points for races, and
winning or placing in those races earns riders points. Teams (this may
have changed a bit since the pro-tour came into effect last year) get
invited to bigger races based on how many points they have amongst
their riders. IMO this is not an altogether bad way to do it, flawed,
but there's not much better that I can think of. so, yes, you're
pretty-much right, up to about 2 years ago anyway. I'm not sure how it
works now with the pro-tour. I don't think the organisers of the
pro-tour know how it works either :)

> Sorry for my ignorance or if I have asked a stupid question.
>
> If that is correct, then I guess I can understand the french getting upset
> but all in all, Lance came from near death, to win 6 TDF's which proves he's
> a phononenom and force to be dealt with but to accuse someone of and putting
> them through unneccesary scrutiny without proof is unacceptable...but
> then...have the french every followed the rules?

Professional cycle racing has a history of bending the rules a lot,
sometimes to make the spirit of the race shine through when a bylaw may
have been contrary to the spirit, and other times, just plain corrupt
or demented. Witness the boomgate incident in the Paris-Roubaix this
year as a classic case of arbitary, demented and inconsistant rule
applying!

[Shane Stanley]

In article . com>,
"Bleve" > wrote:

> They (gross generalisation) love certain French riders despite their
> being done for EPO etc (remember '98, Festina? anyone come to mind?)
> but all over the road (you watch your Tour DVDs one day, count them) is
> Lance EPO, Lance cheat etc. Never convicted. Not French though ... If
> he was, they'd shrug and say "it's part of the sport" like they did in
> '98. No-one spits on Virenque, do they?

Oh, there are plenty of one-eyed French, as there are Australian and
American. But I'm sure you'll find they're in the minority -- which is
not what your term "the French hate him" implies.

> Now, you go to the cricket, and listen to the same idiot LCD's (lowest
> common denominator) ****canning foreign crickers, and tell me that "we"
> don't have the same problem here.

I'm not suggesting we don't, but it's still a minority. Please, please,
tell me I'm not deluding myself ;-)

> Witness the pursuit of the Sri
> Lankan spin bowler who kept getting done for chucking. If it was
> Warny (Warney! Warney!) would that happen?

I suspect Armstrong is getting the Warne benefit of the doubt.

--
Shane Stanley

[Bleve]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Donga" > wrote:
>
> > except there is no evidence he committed any offence
>
> There *is* evidence; it's a question of whether it's evidence that can
> be used (a subject not settled despite the latest finding). The tests
> were done and findings were leaked -- if that wasn't the case, this
> inquiry would have said so.

Not necessarily. The inquiry's scope may not have been to determine if
the test results were flawed or not, but rather, if they were even
worth investigating. It seems that they weren't, as there was no
process in place to ensure a fair analysis of the results of the test.
Process exists for a number of reasons (of which I'm sure you're
familiar), not the least of which is accountability and some assurance
that the samples are in fact, the correct samples.

> Did you suspect the rider whose wife was found with a car loaded with
> stuff a couple of years back? Of course you did, yet in objective terms
> the evidence was much, much slimmer, and nothing could be done there
> either.

Rumsas was kicked out, wasn't he? I thought he was? He was done for
EPO at the '03 Giro anyway :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raimondas_Rumsas

[Shane Stanley]

In article . com>,
"Bleve" > wrote:

> Not necessarily. The inquiry's scope may not have been to determine if
> the test results were flawed or not, but rather, if they were even
> worth investigating.

AI believe they were very limited.

> Rumsas was kicked out, wasn't he? I thought he was?

The Tour was over when she was found. He was eventually arrested and
convicted in court (suspended sentence, I think), but I don't think
there was any UCI sanction for it so he kept on riding.

> He was done for EPO at the '03 Giro anyway

Right. Most of us believed there was _evidence_ he was doping at the
Tour the year before, but until he got caught at rhe Giro there was no
_proof_.

--
Shane Stanley

[Bleve]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Bleve" > wrote:
>
> > Not necessarily. The inquiry's scope may not have been to determine if
> > the test results were flawed or not, but rather, if they were even
> > worth investigating.
>
> AI believe they were very limited.

Can you explain this a bit further, I'm afraid I don't fully understand
what you're saying.

> > Rumsas was kicked out, wasn't he? I thought he was?
>
> The Tour was over when she was found. He was eventually arrested and
> convicted in court (suspended sentence, I think), but I don't think
> there was any UCI sanction for it so he kept on riding.
>
> > He was done for EPO at the '03 Giro anyway
>
> Right. Most of us believed there was _evidence_ he was doping at the
> Tour the year before, but until he got caught at rhe Giro there was no
> _proof_.

The evidence was circumstantial, which is (or at least shouldn't be in
most cases) not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

It's -very- odd that even with all the stuff going on around him, he
was still using in '03, when he must have known he was being watched
closely - same thing goes for Hamilton, who had been warned about funny
test results for some time before he eventually got done at the Vuelta.

[MikeyOz]

Shane Stanley Wrote:
>
> The French conspiracy theory is just so much spin.
> Shane Stanley

I don't think its soo mcuh to do with cycling, its just they are
"French"

lets face it, it really should be the Tour of Germany, anyways :)


--
MikeyOz

[Shane Stanley]

In article m>,
"Bleve" > wrote:

> Um ... I'm not sure. It's not the minority of the ones doing the
> "Curtley Ambrose is a hack" chant at the WACA, or "Muralli's a black
> ****er chucker" at the MCG, that's for sure.

But we aren't all at the 'G.
>
> Maybe, but let's say he is. If someone was to say they had a copy of a
> video of Warny[1], when he took his 200th wicket, and and he was
> chucking[2], but they then lost the video, the match and series was run
> & won, and no-one complained at the time despite all wanting to catch
> him out and watching closely at the time would that make any difference
> to his 500 test wickets? Would it even rate as news? Now imagine if it
> was filmed in England and it was an ashes tour, would the Poms make a
> song & dance about it? You bet! Now, change Warne to Armstrong, and
> England to France (and chucking to doping[3] .. of course ...). Throw
> in a war that the US and the French were at odds over to add to the
> volatile mix while you're at it.

I'm not disagreeing. In fact, I'm saying something similar -- the
"video" appears to have been found. Fans can ignore it, but that doesn't
make it go away.

So what did you make of the Ferrari connection?

--
Shane Stanley

[Bleve]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Donga" > wrote:
>
> > Shane, put up or shut up. What evidence have you got?
>
> It's all been printed -- Armstong's test slips and the test results. It
> won't stand up in a court or, probably, a Court of Sport hearing because
> the tests were carried out on the basis of confidentiality, which was
> clearly breached. But that only makes the evidence ineligible; it
> doesn't make it disappear off the face of the earth.
>
> Armstrong, if you look carefully, has never denied that they were his
> slips. He's played to anti-French sentiments, claimed innocence, and
> questioned the tests, if in vague terms. But he's never said there's no
> evidence (as opposed to proof).
>
> No-one believed Tyler Hamilton was guilty either; that was also supposed
> to be a French conspiracy.

I don't think that's true. A lot of people suspected Hamilton, which,
with hindsight, is interesting if you watch Hollentour again. He'd
also been under investigation for some time as his results had been
questionable - see the 2004 olympics etc.

> I don't really know whether Armstrong doped, despite the EPO test and
> all the other circumstantial evidence. And doper or not, he was still a
> stunning athlete. (So was Marco Pantani, for that matter.) But he's also
> human, susceptible to the same temptations as anyone else.
>
> There was a drug he'd seen work miracles with other riders, he then
> moved to start "training" with the doctor behind them, Michele Ferrari,
> he was on the comeback, and there was no test for it. How many people
> would say no in such a situation?

A lot. EPO was neither new, or unknown at the time, and with Festina
and TVM in '98 *very* fresh in the minds of a lot of riders, and the US
Postal service's rigourous anti doping stance, it would have been very
foolish.

Maybe Ferrari was doping, maybe he wasn't, but Ferrari worked with a
-lot- of riders. who's to say he was systematically doping them all?

[Bleve]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> In article m>,
> "Bleve" > wrote:
>
> > Um ... I'm not sure. It's not the minority of the ones doing the
> > "Curtley Ambrose is a hack" chant at the WACA, or "Muralli's a black
> > ****er chucker" at the MCG, that's for sure.
>
> But we aren't all at the 'G.
> >
> > Maybe, but let's say he is. If someone was to say they had a copy of a
> > video of Warny[1], when he took his 200th wicket, and and he was
> > chucking[2], but they then lost the video, the match and series was run
> > & won, and no-one complained at the time despite all wanting to catch
> > him out and watching closely at the time would that make any difference
> > to his 500 test wickets? Would it even rate as news? Now imagine if it
> > was filmed in England and it was an ashes tour, would the Poms make a
> > song & dance about it? You bet! Now, change Warne to Armstrong, and
> > England to France (and chucking to doping[3] .. of course ...). Throw
> > in a war that the US and the French were at odds over to add to the
> > volatile mix while you're at it.
>
> I'm not disagreeing. In fact, I'm saying something similar -- the
> "video" appears to have been found. Fans can ignore it, but that doesn't
> make it go away.

The analogy falls down a bit when it's compared to blood samples (mea
culpa), as they can be contaminated, tampered with etc. It's a lot
harder (but not impossible) to tamper with video.

> So what did you make of the Ferrari connection?

I don't think it proves anything except that Armstrong's trying to make
money promoting CTS (he's a part owner) and that he gave Ferrari the
benefit of the doubt until he was convicted.

[Shane Stanley]

In article om>,
"Bleve" > wrote:

> Can you explain this a bit further, I'm afraid I don't fully understand
> what you're saying.

According to cyclingnews, "Vrijman said that his investigation will
cover the accuracy of the test results from the French anti-doping lab
at Châtenay-Malabry and how they were made public." No mention of
whether the samples' owners were correctly identified or not.

> The [Rumsas] evidence was circumstantial, which is (or at least shouldn't be in
> most cases) not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Exactly. Circumstantial, but still evidence, and enough for most people
to have very strong doubts. Yet he still, at that stage, hadn't failed a
test.
>
> It's -very- odd that even with all the stuff going on around him, he
> was still using in '03, when he must have known he was being watched
> closely - same thing goes for Hamilton, who had been warned about funny
> test results for some time before he eventually got done at the Vuelta.

Maybe they used the wrong doctor. As Lance's mentor Michele Ferrari once
said: "If I was a rider and I knew of a non-detectable performance
enhancing product, I'd use it." That's a good description of EPO in 1999.

--
Shane Stanley

[Bleve]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> In article om>,
> "Bleve" > wrote:
>
> > Can you explain this a bit further, I'm afraid I don't fully understand
> > what you're saying.
>
> According to cyclingnews, "Vrijman said that his investigation will
> cover the accuracy of the test results from the French anti-doping lab
> at Châtenay-Malabry and how they were made public." No mention of
> whether the samples' owners were correctly identified or not.

Ok, so the scope wasn't such that it checked the ownership of the
samples, just that the test was legit?

> > The [Rumsas] evidence was circumstantial, which is (or at least shouldn't be in
> > most cases) not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
>
> Exactly. Circumstantial, but still evidence, and enough for most people
> to have very strong doubts. Yet he still, at that stage, hadn't failed a
> test.
> >
> > It's -very- odd that even with all the stuff going on around him, he
> > was still using in '03, when he must have known he was being watched
> > closely - same thing goes for Hamilton, who had been warned about funny
> > test results for some time before he eventually got done at the Vuelta.
>
> Maybe they used the wrong doctor. As Lance's mentor Michele Ferrari once
> said: "If I was a rider and I knew of a non-detectable performance
> enhancing product, I'd use it." That's a good description of EPO in 1999.

Ok, I have to take exception to this line of thought. I know a couple
of coaches in Victoria who have some doubts about their past racing
careers and doping, but that doesn't mean that the riders they coach
are doping. What one person would *consider* doing is irrelevant to
what another, even if closely allied, would do.

[Bleve]

Bleve wrote:

> Ok, I have to take exception to this line of thought. I know a couple
> of coaches in Victoria who have some doubts about their past racing
> careers and doping, but that doesn't mean that the riders they coach
> are doping. What one person would *consider* doing is irrelevant to
> what another, even if closely allied, would do.

Before you ask for proof, Carey Hall was done for steroids after the
1991 worlds and banned for 2 years. Carey Hall is Kathy Watt's partner
and the coach for Kathy Watt Cycle coaching.

Cited here :
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr200696.pdf

That doesn't mean that Kathy Watt was or is doping.

[Absent Husband]

So how long are the effects of EPO detectable by test?? And how
longterm is the performance-enhancing effect of EPO??

What I'm saying is - let's assume that LA won his first couple of TdF's
using EPO. Then stopped because otherwise he would get busted.

Does that not mean he still won another 5 TdF's sans EPO?????????????

And does that not mean he probably wasn't using EPO in the first
place?????

Cheers,
Abby

[Donga]

Shane Stanley wrote:
>As Lance's mentor Michele Ferrari

What is the evidence MF was Armstrong's mentor? Armstrong disputes
this.

Donga

[Damian]

Donga wrote:
> Shane Stanley wrote:
> >As Lance's mentor Michele Ferrari
>
> What is the evidence MF was Armstrong's mentor? Armstrong disputes
> this.
>
> Donga

Have a read of the book "Lance Armstrong's War". Ferrari plays a much
bigger part in there than Lance's books would have you believe.

Damian

[Shane Stanley]

In article . com>,
"Bleve" > wrote:

> A lot of people suspected Hamilton

What -- without proof? Goodness ;-)

> Maybe Ferrari was doping, maybe he wasn't, but Ferrari worked with a
> -lot- of riders. who's to say he was systematically doping them all?

Right, and he had a lot of clients. Of course, many of them joined him
just after he got sacked as Gewiss team doctor over the EPO business.
Sheer coincidence.

--
Shane Stanley

[Bleve]

Absent Husband wrote:
> So how long are the effects of EPO detectable by test??


A couple of days, I believe.


And how
> longterm is the performance-enhancing effect of EPO??

A week, maybe more? The effects it may have on training need to be
taken into account too.


> What I'm saying is - let's assume that LA won his first couple of TdF's
> using EPO. Then stopped because otherwise he would get busted.
>
> Does that not mean he still won another 5 TdF's sans EPO?????????????

You can look at this a number of ways, I object to your assumption, but
let's run with it anyway.

> And does that not mean he probably wasn't using EPO in the first
> place?????

No. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. *IF* LA was on it,
what's to say everyone else was too?

The only way you can tell would be if you had a positive test, that was
proovably from him, carried out in a secure and verifiable way.

If you're going to assume he was on it, then I think it's fair to
assume every cyclist in the '99 TdF was on EPO, in which case the
playing field was level and it's a moot point. If it couldn't be
detected at the time, and all the teams knew about it ... then they'd
be crazy not to, right? Millions of dollars at stake, fame, fortune
.... I don't believe this to be the case, but it's just as valid as your
initial assumption.

[Shane Stanley]

In article . com>,
"Bleve" > wrote:

> > Maybe they used the wrong doctor. As Lance's mentor Michele Ferrari once
> > said: "If I was a rider and I knew of a non-detectable performance
> > enhancing product, I'd use it." That's a good description of EPO in 1999.
>
> Ok, I have to take exception to this line of thought. I know a couple
> of coaches in Victoria who have some doubts about their past racing
> careers and doping, but that doesn't mean that the riders they coach
> are doping. What one person would *consider* doing is irrelevant to
> what another, even if closely allied, would do.

Point taken; for all I know, there aren't too many old-timers who raced
at a high level and didn't dabble -- that was the nature of the sport.
But we're talking here about a *doctor*, of whom the riders became
*patients* -- a very expensive doctor by all accounts, one at the time
just sacked over EPO, and one still publically *defending* if not
promoting drug use as per above. Why did riders flock to him after he
was sacked for his comments on EPO? Doctor shortage?

Now I *am* sounding like the giant squid...

--
Shane Stanley

[oely]

Donga Wrote:
> Shane Stanley wrote:
> >As Lance's mentor Michele Ferrari
>
> What is the evidence MF was Armstrong's mentor? Armstrong disputes
> this.
>
> Donga
Dan Coyles book talks extensively about the relationship. Armstrong
disputes working with him after Ferrari was found guilty of sporting
fraud in relation to Simeoni (or whatever it was he was found guilty
of). Armstrong stopped the relationship, publically at least. Its no
secret they were working together before then.

I think Ferrari has now been absolved of the charges. But thats yet
another story...


--
oely

[Absent Husband]

My final 2-cents (because I know you are all waiting for it!!
*laughs*).

I reckon that Lance was clean. I may be naive, but there is only mild,
circumstancial evidence of any wrongdoing. And let's face it, if
someone hated you enough, they could probably find mild, circumstantial
evidence of you doing pretty much anything... (well, almost!!).

And also for the record, I barrack for Basso... *grins*

Hopefully I'll never get so good that I beat Simoni on a mountain
stage. Coz then he might reckon I'm not quite right either...
:rollseyes:

Cheers,
Abby

[Euan]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> In article >, "DJ"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Just came over the Late news tonight (Wed 31st May) that the Dutch
>> Authority that has been handling the claim from the French that
>> Lance Armstrong was involved with doping in the 1999 Tour de
>> france, has cleared him from using any substance to help him win
>> the great race.
>
>
> Actually, I think you'll find it found there was no way he could be
> convicted of an offence, which we all knew already. And that secrecy
> was breached, which we knew already. But there was no finding on the
> validity of the tests, nor was there any finding that the positive
> samples weren't Lance's. If it were a cager in court, we'd say he got
> off on a technicality.

Actually I know that you're wrong. There's plenty on the validity of
the tests, I direct you to 4.14 of the report:

4.14 Regarding the methods and procedures used for analysing the
aforementioned urine
samples from the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France, the representatives of
the LNDD
also stated that:

1. the analyses results had been obtained, using a part of the mandatory
screening measurement procedure only;

2. only a single (measurement) standard had been used; no negative and
positive control samples had been used;

3. three different interpretation methods for r-EPO appear to have been
used: i.e. a visual method, the so\u2013called \u201cdirect urine
test\u201d, applying the so-called \u201c80% BAP Standard\u201d158 and
the new \u201cmathematical model\u201d;

4. only \u201cB\u201d samples had been used, as \u201cA\u201d samples
containing sufficient urine had not been available. Consequently, there
is no urine sample available any longer which could function in a manner
similar to the manner in which the so-called \u201cB\u201d sample is
required to function during a regular doping control procedure;

5. a number of the aforementioned \u201cB\u201d samples apparently had
already been used \u201cfor other research purposes\u201d prior to this
research being investigated and consequently had been listed in the
research reports as \u201cmissing\u201d159. There was insufficient
documentation available to be able to determine whether or not other
urine samples had been opened for other purposes as well prior to the
current research;

6. it is impossible to reproduce a chain of custody and it is clear that
for many, if not all, of the urine samples the chain of custody was
violated;

7. it could not prove, let alone guarantee that there had been a strict
temperature control with regard to the urine samples from the 1999 Tour
de France and whether they had continuously been stored at \u201320°C,
after their arrival at te LNDD in 1999, given that some of these urine
samples had been opened without any record being maintained of when they
had been opened and for what purpose and given that these urine samples
would likely have been thawed if some of their contents had previously
been used for research purposes. No records of the storage temperature
for these samples during the past six years were available, and

8. the stability test, a mandatory requirement since January 15, 2005,
before an urine sample can be qualified as constituting an Adverse
Analytical Finding, had not been conducted1.




There's a lot more in the same vein. Lance Armstrong has to be the most
tested athlete in history and he's come up squeaky clean. What gives
you the right to question his integrity when time and time again the
allegations levelled against him are proven false?

Get a new hobby.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
Euan > wrote:

> There's plenty on the validity of
> the tests, I direct you to 4.14 of the report:

Yep, you're right, although most of it is procedural. I hadn't seen that
part of the report.

> Lance Armstrong has to be the most tested athlete in history and he's
> come up squeaky clean.

The sad truth of the matter is that many of the recent cases of athlete
doping cases involve people who have never failed a test. Robert Millar,
all the runners in the BALCO case -- they never failed a test. Time and
again, it's said that only idiots fail drug tests. (In fact, Lance did
fail a test once, but that's beside the point.)

> What gives you the right to question his integrity when time and time
> again the allegations levelled against him are proven false?

I guess the fact that they haven't been proven false. I don't know
whether he doped or not; I honestly waver. But I'm amazed at those who
are convinced -- either way. There's lots of circumstantial evidence,
and to believe one way or the other means either dismissing it all out
of hand or accepting it all. I don't buy into either camp, and I find it
sad when people react as if it's a personal affront to suggest other
than what they believe.

> Get a new hobby.

Thanks for the gratuitous advice.

--
Shane Stanley

[Euan]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> In article >,
> Euan > wrote:
>
>
>>There's plenty on the validity of
>>the tests, I direct you to 4.14 of the report:
>
>
> Yep, you're right, although most of it is procedural.

Without due process in science you have nothing.

>>Lance Armstrong has to be the most tested athlete in history and he's
>>come up squeaky clean.
>
>
> The sad truth of the matter is that many of the recent cases of athlete
> doping cases involve people who have never failed a test. Robert Millar,
> all the runners in the BALCO case -- they never failed a test. Time and
> again, it's said that only idiots fail drug tests. (In fact, Lance did
> fail a test once, but that's beside the point.)

Did he? Armstrong's had an A and a B sample returned positive? News to me.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

[cfsmtb]

oely Wrote:
> For anyone with the motivation and time heres the report. Its long, 130
> odd pages.
>
> http://www.velonews.com/media/report1999.pdf

Maybe one day I'll attempt to read it, currently trying to get through
a small mountain of AustLII material.. :o


--
cfsmtb

[rooman]

Bleve Wrote:
> Bleve wrote:
>
> > Ok, I have to take exception to this line of thought. I know a couple
> > of coaches in Victoria who have some doubts about their past racing
> > careers and doping, but that doesn't mean that the riders they coach
> > are doping. What one person would *consider* doing is irrelevant to
> > what another, even if closely allied, would do.
>
> Before you ask for proof, Carey Hall was done for steroids after the
> 1991 worlds and banned for 2 years. Carey Hall is Kathy Watt's partner
> and the coach for Kathy Watt Cycle coaching.
>
> Cited here :
> http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr200696.pdf
>
> That doesn't mean that Kathy Watt was or is doping.
very true, and I'm sure many of us have sat in on discussions at bike
cafe's with seasoned vet riders ( and some not so vet. riders) who
certainly have seen it all and some who have done it all in their
day...

I believe in essence the sport is now graphically cleaner than it was
10-15 and 20 years ago...sure there will be attempts by cheaters to
enhance performance illegally, that unfortunately happens in all
competitive sports, and will continue...

IMHO, Armstrong didnt dope and was challenged because the system was
and is weak to permit such challenges, Hamilton did trangress- didnt
heed the warnings and got caught , and is protesting still in the face
of the indication to many , that he had an inside helper on his frozen
B sample to keep the Gold medal.

I always laugh at the scene of Neil Stevens in his Festina being
intereview for TV when their scandal broke with a "who me, nah, we
didnt know nuffin" statement as his EPO swollen jaw bones glared out
the bleeding obvious-

In athletics in the US up to the mid-eighties, Steroid use was
rife...how do I know this, my extended family in the US are all track
and field backgrounds and some are current very high profile coaches
and they have given clear statements to "authorities", they were
expected to take steriods at College by their coaches to "get the
competitive edge". The BALCO scandal more recently was the tip of an
iceberg of Ross Ice shelf proportions...huge jaw bones and sudden
cardiac arrests were the common result to many elite althletes and
sports stars of the 70's, 80's and 90's.

Cardiac arrests of young athletes in their mid thirties and late
twenties are also clear warnings which go unheeded by many steroid
abusers, warning signs that the walls of the heart are seriously
thickened by steriod abuse and can cause dramatic and sudden tragic
consequences to seemingly fit people.
Nothing is unexplained, it is more likely just "concealed" or
"muddied".


--
rooman

[Kathy]

e.
> Nothing is unexplained, it is more likely just "concealed" or
> "muddied".
>
>
Yeah just got to remember Tom Simpson.
But if they can't prove it it didnt happen. Thinking any other way will
just send you nuts

Dave

[Bleve]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> In article . com>,

> Now I *am* sounding like the giant squid...

It was the zionist nazis, while faking another moon landing!

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
Euan > wrote:

> Did he?

Yes, for a steroid I believe. He subsequently produced a medical
certificate for an ointment and that was the end of the matter. (And
yes, there's debate over whether the ointment in fact contained any of
the found substance).

--
Shane Stanley

[Euan]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> In article >,
> Euan > wrote:
>
>
>>Did he?
>
>
> Yes, for a steroid I believe. He subsequently produced a medical
> certificate for an ointment and that was the end of the matter.

No it's not, you're still using it to back up your suspicion about Lance
Armstrong. If that's all you've got, you've got nothing.

Innocent until proven guilty, many have tried for many years to prove
him guilty and failed. Conclusion, he's innocent.

Why do you find it so hard to accept that?
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
Euan > wrote:

> If that's all you've got, you've got nothing.

Correct.
>
> Innocent until proven guilty, many have tried for many years to prove
> him guilty and failed. Conclusion, he's innocent.
>
> Why do you find it so hard to accept that?

As I said, the weight of circumstantial evidence can't just be dimissed
out of hand. It may all be wrong, but it has to be considered. And
contrary to suggestions, not all the questioning comes from France --
think Greg LeMond.

The recent raids in Spain suggest that all the talk of the sport having
been cleaned up are wide of the mark. Frankly, I don't see how anyone
without inside knowledge can point to any individual rider and declare
in total confidence that he's clean. It's a crying shame, but that's
what happens when people turn a blind eye for so long.

--
Shane Stanley

[rooman]

Here's the report, all 132 pages of it!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/2006/jun06/vrijmanreport.pdf

...makes an interesting read, if you are into dutch lawyer speak, but
basically says there is no chain of custody in all the samples to
prevent anyone from adulterating them on numerous occasions, that there
is no proof of any doping, that basic equity is non existent by WADA and
LNDD and that WADA breached just about every rule in the book to "get
Lance" publicly hung...and that L' Equippe is a scandal mongering
rag...

hmmm I like that summary.....

notice no shouting either!!


--
rooman

[Euan]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> In article >,
> Euan > wrote:
>
>
>>If that's all you've got, you've got nothing.
>
>
> Correct.
>
>>Innocent until proven guilty, many have tried for many years to prove
>>him guilty and failed. Conclusion, he's innocent.
>>
>>Why do you find it so hard to accept that?
>
>
> As I said, the weight of circumstantial evidence can't just be dimissed
> out of hand.

Well we'll have to agree to differ. Given the amount of investigation
Lance has been subjected to over the years that more than counters the
circumstantial IMO.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

[rooman]

Euan Wrote:
> Shane Stanley wrote:
> > In article ...snip
> >
> >
> > As I said, the weight of circumstantial evidence can't just be
> dimissed
> > out of hand.
>
> snip....
>
> QUOTE]
>
> Shane, what weight of circumstance?????, I only see that that he won
> the tour 7 times?, and thus incurred the wrath of those with interests
> against him for that!
>
> there is only one LA, but thousands of disgruntled loosers of all types
> from riders to media journos and other interests, all out to get him,
> and all out to use their influence to corrupt the process...as the
> report says, there was no chain of custody to prevent access to taint
> all samples for all riders under this reviww, not just LA, and that has
> been the case for many....everyone is too quick to hang...especially the
> French Media and WADA, and some of the guilty too!
>
> -Extraordinary accusations like this require extraordinary proof- (LA's
> quote)


--
rooman

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
rooman > wrote:

> > Shane, what weight of circumstance?????, I only see that that he won
> > the tour 7 times?, and thus incurred the wrath of those with interests
> > against him for that!

The allegations are out there if you want to look; whether you believe
them, or even just pause to think about them, is up to you. Does the
long connection with Ferrari at least raise eyebrows with you?
>
> > there is only one LA, but thousands of disgruntled loosers of all types
> > from riders to media journos and other interests, all out to get him,
> > and all out to use their influence to corrupt the process.

So Lance can't be judged without watertight evidence, yet you're willing
to label anyone who has questioned him as a "looser" and corrupt. Are
you using the same standards of proof?

--
Shane Stanley

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
Euan > wrote:

> Well we'll have to agree to differ.

Fine.

(I was thinking about what you said about him being one of the most
tested athletes, BTW, and I wonder if it's true. Given that most testing
is in-competition -- out-of-competition testing is pretty recent in
cycling -- I wonder if riders who race more might actually have been
tested more often. Not that it proves anything.)

--
Shane Stanley

[rooman]

Shane Stanley Wrote:
> In article >,
> rooman > wrote:
>
> > > Shane, what weight of circumstance?????, I only see that that he
> won
> > > the tour 7 times?, and thus incurred the wrath of those with
> interests
> > > against him for that!
>
> The allegations are out there if you want to look; whether you believe
> them, or even just pause to think about them, is up to you. Does the
> long connection with Ferrari at least raise eyebrows with you?
> >
> > > there is only one LA, but thousands of disgruntled loosers of all
> types
> > > from riders to media journos and other interests, all out to get
> him,
> > > and all out to use their influence to corrupt the process.
>
> So Lance can't be judged without watertight evidence, yet you're
> willing
> to label anyone who has questioned him as a "looser" and corrupt. Are
> you using the same standards of proof?
>
> --
> Shane Stanley
Ferrari has had recent clearance, all very late and after much damage
was done to him and by association many others...meanwhile Simeoni runs
off with his tail between his legs...

no I am not applying double standards, but those who allege are...they
are too willing to jump down Armtrong's successes because they dont
have them , or their interests arent furthered by them....and too many
dopers within cycling have tainted the air way to much and therefore
many are too willing to see into allegations for more than what they
are...allegations...no valid, substantiated, auditable proof...thus in
all senses, legal, moral, equitable...no offence...just a sore and bent
anger of the accusers!

you seem to have a bee in your bonnet over LA too, so like Euan, we
will have to agree to disagree....

statistically I would venture to suggest that LA is probably the *most*
drug tested noted athlete in the past 10 years, he was profile, he was
ever present and too many people were ready to try and set him up, get
rid of him or nobble him...they didnt succeed because he didnt
dope...and they were too clumsy in their efforts and rush to hang him.

let it rest...there is no further to go..move on LA has, and for the
benefit of cycling, so should WADA, Dick Pound and France


--
rooman