In today's L'Equipe: Armstrong took EPO

http://lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/DOPAGE_ARMSTRONG.html

(My loose translation of the juicy bits)

"I've never used prohibited products, either EPO or anything else."

Despite this claim, often repeated and sometimes accompanied by "it's up
to you journalists to figure out if I'm lying or telling the truth,"
L'Equipe is today able to contradict the seven-time winner of the Tour de
France. Recent analyses of samples taken during Armstrong's first Tour
victory in 1999 show that he had taken doping products.

After four months of investigation, and one month after his seventh
victory and his retirement from professional cycling, the facts are
indisputable: the leader of the Discovery Channel and US Postal teams had
regularly used illegal doping products in 1999 during competition and lied
about it. Six samples, taken after the prologue, 1st, 9th, 10th, 12th, and
14th stages have been analysed by the national doping laboratory and found
to contain the signature of EPO.

Armstrong did take EPO for one of its approved medical uses, to help
his recovery during cancer treatment, but there is a question whether
this was an unfair advantage for his subsequent cycling achievements.

Robert Chung wrote:

After four months of investigation, and one month after his seventh
victory and his retirement from professional cycling, the facts are
indisputable

Well maybe, but a leak by the French Sports Ministry to a newspaper
doesn't amount to indisputable facts. The French authorities have long
been out to "get Armstrong" and the fact someon within the ministry
leaked these tests shows they are not exactly unbiased.

It all amounts to very little in the end as the results... if they can
be confirmed, cannot be used to sanction Armstrong - except through
press leaks. In l'Equipe they even mention that the science is far from
certain. Still it achieved its aim - it made me go and buy a copy of
l'Equipe.

"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
http://lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/DOPAGE_ARMSTRONG.html

(My loose translation of the juicy bits)

"I've never used prohibited products, either EPO or anything else."

Despite this claim, often repeated and sometimes accompanied by "it's up
to you journalists to figure out if I'm lying or telling the truth,"
L'Equipe is today able to contradict the seven-time winner of the Tour de
France. Recent analyses of samples taken during Armstrong's first Tour
victory in 1999 show that he had taken doping products.

After four months of investigation, and one month after his seventh
victory and his retirement from professional cycling, the facts are
indisputable: the leader of the Discovery Channel and US Postal teams had
regularly used illegal doping products in 1999 during competition and lied
about it. Six samples, taken after the prologue, 1st, 9th, 10th, 12th, and
14th stages have been analysed by the national doping laboratory and found
to contain the signature of EPO.



Interesting that the UCI labs never picked up the drugs. The equipement
Armstrong's money paid for must be defective. To paraphrase Greg Lemond,
it's the greatest sporting fraud in history.

For me, this intent of this article is clear from the following: On
page 2
of L'Equipe is pictures of the results of the test, plus an impressive
chart, with Armstrong's "irregular" numbers circled in red. However,
nowhere
in the article is there an explanation of what these numbers mean, and
how
they deviate from the norm. In other words, they accuse by presenting
evidence that is not explained. Sounds like the French press needed a
new Dreyfus.

-ilan

Robert Chung a écrit :

http://lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/DOPAGE_ARMSTRONG.html

(My loose translation of the juicy bits)

"I've never used prohibited products, either EPO or anything else."

Despite this claim, often repeated and sometimes accompanied by "it's up
to you journalists to figure out if I'm lying or telling the truth,"
L'Equipe is today able to contradict the seven-time winner of the Tour de
France. Recent analyses of samples taken during Armstrong's first Tour
victory in 1999 show that he had taken doping products.

After four months of investigation, and one month after his seventh
victory and his retirement from professional cycling, the facts are
indisputable: the leader of the Discovery Channel and US Postal teams had
regularly used illegal doping products in 1999 during competition and lied
about it. Six samples, taken after the prologue, 1st, 9th, 10th, 12th, and
14th stages have been analysed by the national doping laboratory and found
to contain the signature of EPO.

wrote:
On page 2 of L'Equipe is pictures of the results of the test, plus an
impressive chart, with Armstrong's "irregular" numbers circled in red.
However, nowhere in the article is there an explanation of what these
numbers mean, and how they deviate from the norm. In other words, they
accuse by presenting evidence that is not explained. Sounds like the
French press needed a new Dreyfus.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/equipe23aug05.jpg

The numbers circled in red are the flask numbers which are keyed to
collection forms with Armstrong's name and the same flask numbers. As Ilan
has said, there's no explanation of what the test result numbers mean.

"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On page 2 of L'Equipe is pictures of the results of the test, plus an
impressive chart, with Armstrong's "irregular" numbers circled in red.
However, nowhere in the article is there an explanation of what these
numbers mean, and how they deviate from the norm. In other words, they
accuse by presenting evidence that is not explained. Sounds like the
French press needed a new Dreyfus.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/equipe23aug05.jpg

The numbers circled in red are the flask numbers which are keyed to
collection forms with Armstrong's name and the same flask numbers. As Ilan
has said, there's no explanation of what the test result numbers mean.


From the very beginning of the urine EPO test, it was made clear that the
test looked for the presence of EPO (or perhaps EPO fragments) that migrated
differently during gel electrophoresis (can separate proteins by size and
electrical charge). Natural EPO tendend to have significantly less of what
are termed "basic" fragments (as in acidic and basic). I am not certain but
I seem to remember that natural EPO was substantially less than 40% basic.
The recombinant EPO is produced by cell lines that are different than the
human kidney from which natural human EPO is produced and although the
protein is identical, or nearly so, the cell lines make "post-translational
modifications" to the protein that make it more "basic" compared to natural
EPO. Column B clearly shows this.

Column A almost certainly means Yes/No as to whether it looks like bands are
migrating to the "basic" part of the gel more so than normally expected.
Column B is just a numerical verification of A using some type of
densitometry.

Kyle can add more details but the technique they use has been made public
previously.
-Mike

In any case, it seems that the French press has not jumped on the
anti Lance band wagon. This article in Liberation seems to accuse
L'Equipe as much as Armstrong:
http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=318805

-ilan

Robert Chung a écrit :

http://lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/DOPAGE_ARMSTRONG.html

(My loose translation of the juicy bits)

"I've never used prohibited products, either EPO or anything else."

Despite this claim, often repeated and sometimes accompanied by "it's up
to you journalists to figure out if I'm lying or telling the truth,"
L'Equipe is today able to contradict the seven-time winner of the Tour de
France. Recent analyses of samples taken during Armstrong's first Tour
victory in 1999 show that he had taken doping products.

After four months of investigation, and one month after his seventh
victory and his retirement from professional cycling, the facts are
indisputable: the leader of the Discovery Channel and US Postal teams had
regularly used illegal doping products in 1999 during competition and lied
about it. Six samples, taken after the prologue, 1st, 9th, 10th, 12th, and
14th stages have been analysed by the national doping laboratory and found
to contain the signature of EPO.

Meanwhile the usual suspects line up for comments:

Merckx: "I take Lance's word over any journalist's."
Leblanc : "Shocked!"
Simeoni: "Now see."
Voet : "I knew him before and after the disease. It was a different person. He
should explain how he rides up Alpe d'Huez at 25 kmh"

Mike Owens wrote:

Kyle can add more details but the technique they use has been made public
previously.

The current Wada method is described in
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/d...2004epo_en.pdf
No mention of the "Classement mathematique" criteria.

It's not clear either -at least to me- whether they used the current
EPO test or an enhanced, and unpublished, one that corrects the flaws
identified in Rutger Beke's case (even if the tests were made before
Beke's false positive, which is my understanding).

Jenko