In today's L'Equipe: Armstrong took EPO

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:22:23 GMT, "B. Lafferty" wrote:


"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.

To post a comment which seems on the surface that you're trying to add this
circus, but which, upon closer reading, shows how ludicrous it all is
puzzles me.

Armstrong never paid for any specific equiment, Brian, nor would he have
anyway to recommend any. To use that kind of moronic comment tells me
you're grabbing at straws.

However your last comment 'it's the greatest sporting fraud in history'
contains delicious irony. Yes, the French are committing fraud in issuing
this dodgy announcement, with equivocal results (LA:"The paper even admits
in its own article that the science in question here is faulty.")

Good job, lol. You've lost all credibilty.

jj

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:33:33 +0200, "Robert Chung"
wrote:

Jet wrote:

What's interesting is the quote. ""I've never used prohibited products,
either EPO or anything else.", vs "I will simply restate what I have
said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs.
I never took any illegal performance enhancing drugs".

Reading your exegesis is entertaining, but at some point you should
realize that you're basing your analysis on something that was originally
said in English by Armstrong, then translated into French by French
journalists, then translated back into English by yours truly.

Exactly. There wasn't any 'analysis', just that it's not really clear just
what he said, word-for-word.

It's of mild interest for those trying to read between the lines. It's
often been commented that he's never given a clear or unequivocal
statement. In addition there's some thought that he did use performance
enhancing materials, but at the time they were not specifically prohibited.

By having multiple quotes either in print, or on a newsgroup, an Armstrong
defender could say 'well we don't really know exactly what he said'. An
Armstrong detractor could view them all as separate quotes.

I don't think we're ever going to be able to dig up any new truth, though
the reporting may cause some harm to Armstrong. None of the other multiple
tour winners had completely sterling pasts wrt doping, that I'm aware, and
what has been reported is certainly more substantial than this crap.

jj

Jet wrote:

One might argue that if they tested 100 other riders samples from the 1999
race with the new 2005 test - whatever that is - that these tests might all
be positive.

From what I understand, they tested samples for all of the riders from
the '99 tour anonymously. They had 12 positives, and when they looked
up the codes for the positive ones, 6 of them turned out to be LA...

--
Regards, Dave

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:37:43 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:


Deal with it. Armstrong's done. Stick a fork in him and turn him over.



HELLO HELLO, POT? YEAH, THIS IS KETTLE. GUESS WHAT? YOU'RE
BLACK!!!!

Jet wrote:

[quote comparison snipped]

Certainly he didn't fail the 1999 EPO test.

Dude, pay attention: there was no EPO test in 1999.

One might argue that if they tested 100 other riders samples from the
1999 race with the new 2005 test - whatever that is - that these tests
might all be positive.

The exact number of samples isn't clear from the article, but they show a
scan of the original test summary and there are at least 70 samples
visible in the photo. Eleven of those 70 are positive, six of them are
Armstrong's. The twelfth positive must be on another page, so we know
there were more than 70 samples taken and we also know that not all of
them were positive.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:45:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty" wrote:

Armstrong never paid for any specific equiment, Brian, nor would he have
anyway to recommend any. To use that kind of moronic comment tells me
you're grabbing at straws.

You're wrong. Check previous comments by Vergruggen.

Who's he, the Kazakhstan UCI Liaison? He only works with, Salvodelli and a
few others. ;-)

OTOH, if you know any comments by Hein Verbruggan concerning Armstrong's
power to purchase specific equipment, don't be coy, post them.

As far as 'giving it up, dude', I'm neither strongly for or against
Armstrong, though I see real problems the way UCI and WADA do business.

jj

"Jet" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:45:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty" wrote:

Armstrong never paid for any specific equiment, Brian, nor would he have
anyway to recommend any. To use that kind of moronic comment tells me
you're grabbing at straws.

You're wrong. Check previous comments by Vergruggen.

Who's he, the Kazakhstan UCI Liaison? He only works with, Salvodelli and a
few others. ;-)

OTOH, if you know any comments by Hein Verbruggan concerning Armstrong's
power to purchase specific equipment, don't be coy, post them.

"Armstrong finances the new blood tests. We needed a machine for this and
that was quite expensive."
http://www.cyclingpost.com/tour/article_00715.shtml



As far as 'giving it up, dude', I'm neither strongly for or against
Armstrong, though I see real problems the way UCI and WADA do business.

Note that WADA certifies labs. It does not itself do testing. I find it
interesting that it is usually governmental authorities, usually French or
Italian, who come up with the goods--not the UCI.

Robert Chung schreef:

and we also know that not all of
them were positive.

No, but they are just waiting for the improved new science analysis in 2012.

B. Lafferty wrote:
BTW, I wonder how Ms. Crow is doing this morning.

Curses. I had a side bet going about how long you'd go before you
mentioned her. I took 30 minutes and under, and it appears from the time
stamp that you went 34 minutes. Damn you. I feel like Fignon in 1989.

On 23 Aug 2005 04:01:17 -0700, wrote:


Jet wrote:

One might argue that if they tested 100 other riders samples from the 1999
race with the new 2005 test - whatever that is - that these tests might all
be positive.

From what I understand, they tested samples for all of the riders from
the '99 tour anonymously. They had 12 positives, and when they looked
up the codes for the positive ones, 6 of them turned out to be LA...

Well at least this is new information...

jj