nickelodeon

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
I wonder, how reliable is a 6 year old urine sample?

Actually, if preserved properly...quite reliable.

I also wonder who has been the custodian of the urine samples from all the Tour riders, and how do they keep them protected?

Bingo! Chain of command issues and tamper seals etc are a HUGE issue.

Lastly, I wonder why all the other urine and blood tests on Lance NEVER has shown any drugs?

Well...in the case of EPO, there has not been a reliable test to use so I can see where this would bring up doubts. However, the man has been tested more than any other professional athlete during the last 6 years and not one time has he ever had a positive or tested positive for indicators. Everyone should just leave the man alone. He is a freaking world class athlete. Enjoy his accomplishments and give him the praise he deserves.

[MavKikiNYC]

Confusing article.

Why were they testing again? Were they trying to prove that Armstrong had used drugs? Or just practicin' ?

L'Equipe said it matched anonymous urine samples from that Tour with medical statements signed by doctors, claiming that there were "characteristic, undeniable and consequent" signs of EPO in Armstrong's urine tests.

Huh? Anonymous samples? Matched to medical statements? Signed by WHICH doctors?


BTW, Cap......what's going on with that lawsuit?

[MavKikiNYC]

Here's some additional, info, but......still confusing. And fishy.

August 23, 2005
Armstrong Fends Off New Drug Accusations
By SAMUEL ABT

PARIS, Aug. 23 - In a major challenge to Lance Armstrong's domination of the Tour de France, the French sports newspaper L'Équipe charged today that the American rider frequently used an illegal performance-enhancing drug in 1999 to win his first of seven consecutive Tours.

Armstrong, 33 years old, who retired July 24 after his latest victory, strongly denied the charge.

He has been under suspicion and investigated a handful of times since his comeback in 1999 from testicular cancer, but has never been proven guilty of doping.

"Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues," he said on his Web site, adding that the "article is nothing short of tabloid journalism."

"I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs."

L'Équipe devoted four pages to its charges, beginning with a front-page banner headline, "The Armstrong Lie." In an accompanying editorial, the newspaper stated flatly that "Lance Armstrong has used EPO," the banned erythropoietin, to increase the red blood corpuscles that carry oxygen to muscles.

"After a long, painstaking and rigorous investigation, L'Équipe publishes today the proof," the editorial continued.

On inside pages, the paper reproduced what it said were EPO tests of frozen urine samples taken from riders during the 1999 Tour.

Six samples that the paper said were taken from Armstrong proved positive for the "indisputable" use of EPO, the paper said. It added that six other samples from riders who were not identified had also proven positive. <u>"It cannot be regarded as a positive test in the strict regulatory sense," the newspaper said, doubting that French sanctions were likely.</u> However, it continued, the World Antidoping Agency or the U.S. Antidoping Agency could act.

The tests were done at the Chatenay- Malabry laboratory outside Paris last year, the specialist doping facility confirmed. No tests for EPO were available in 1999, and the urine samples were tested in 2004 to help scientists refine detection methods, the paper said. It explained that its reporters had matched the six-digit labels identifying each sample with forms filed with the French Cycling Federation during the Tour. Those forms, filled out each time a sample was taken in a drug test, identified the donor by name as well as the six digits on his urine sample.

<u>L'&Eacute;quipe reproduced both what it said were the results of the laboratory's tests, with sample number, and the forms with the same number and Armstrong's name. To a layman, the laboratory chart was nearly incomprehensible, except for its table of sample numbers. A low number presumably signifying EPO levels could be marked positive in a nearby column while a much higher number could be marked negative.</u>

But Jean-Marie Leblanc, the director of the Tour de France, called the paper's report "very complete, very professional, very meticulous." He said on RTL radio that the charge "appears credible." Leblanc added that disciplinary action seemed unlikely since the tests were based on only the second, or B, urine sample taken during the race. The A sample was tested in 1999 and not frozen.

Both L'&Eacute;quipe and the Tour de France organization are owned by the Amaury Sports Organisation and work out of the same building.

As he continued to win the Tour de France year in and year out, Armstrong has occasionally been the target of doping suspicions in L'&Eacute;quipe. These doubts accelerated each time he or his team, previously sponsored by U.S. Postal Service and now by Discovery Channel, has come under judicial inquiry. Investigations in France and Italy have been unfruitful. Armstrong has tested positive for drugs only once, during the 1999 Tour. <u>That finding was wiped out </u>when he produced a medical certificate allowing him to use a banned drug to heal a saddle sore.[/b]

But the continuing suspicions have embroiled Armstrong in at least four court suits that are still to be heard. In what seems to be the biggest one, he is suing The Sunday Times of London for reprinting doping charges made in a book, "L.A. Confidential, the Secrets of Lance Armstrong," in 2004. The other cases involve an Italian rider, a former personal assistant who, like Armstrong, is a Texan and an American insurance company that has refused to pay a bonus of several million dollars to the rider because of its doubts about his Tour victory two years ago.

In the month since he retired, Armstrong has been spending his time with his three children, with his companion, the singer Sheryl Crow, and with work for his foundation to combat cancer. On Saturday, he visited President Bush's ranch and rode with him on mountain bikes across the Texas landscape. Armstrong is a member of the President's Council on Cancer and has pressed him for more research funds.

[MavKikiNYC]

Fishier and fishier......

Who're you gonna trust---a Texan named Lance, or some Frog-f*cker named Jean-Marie?

Armstrong doping storm moves from science into law
Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:00 PM BST10
Printer Friendly | Email Article | RSS


By Francois Thomazeau

PARIS (Reuters) - As is often the case when doping allegations are made, the debate over whether seven times Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong took EPO in 1999 is rapidly moving from the scientific sphere into the legal.

Whatever the truth of the matter, and Armstrong strongly denies any wrongdoing, the report in L'Equipe that the American's urine samples contained the banned blood-boosting substance is very unlikely to lead to any retroactive sanctions.

Officials from the organisations involved - cycling's ruling body, the World Anti Doping Agency, French sports ministry officials and Tour de France organisers - agree normal anti-doping proceedings have not been followed.

Jacques De Ceaurriz, the head of the Chatenay-Malabry laboratory which conducted the tests, made it clear they were carried out for only scientific purposes and had no legal value because only one sample was tested.

According to WADA rules, no sanction can be taken against an athlete if one sample, rather than the normal two, shows traces of a banned substance.

The samples have been frozen since being taken during the 1999 tour, the first won by Armstrong. A test to detect EPO did not exist at the time.

Armstrong, who has denied ever taking performance-enhancing drugs during his career and has never failed a dope test, summed up the legal implications on Wednesday.

"Ethically, how can you put a guy's name or prosecute a guy like that when he has no defence?

"I know two pieces of the WADA code that are very important. <u>Number one, if an athlete only has one sample left, it is strictly mandated that that sample must always remain anonymous.</u>

<u>"If any WADA-accredited laboratory wants to use that sample, for experimentation or scientific research, they must have the approval of the athlete.</u>

"So right there, you have two serious violations of the new WADA code," he said.

REPEATED ALLEGATIONS

Armstrong, who has had to face repeated doping allegations by French media since his first victory in 1999, hinted he might not take legal action over the French newspaper report. He is currently suing the authors of a book alleging he took drugs.

"Who do you take action against in this case? Is it WADA? Is it the (French sports) ministry? Is it L'Equipe? Is it the laboratory? Who is it? They're all at fault there," he said.

The Texan, a cancer survivor deeply involved in working with others suffering from the disease, said he had better things to do with his money than indulge in another costly court battle.

Armstrong is currently involved in a legal case against a Texas insurance company who have refused to pay him bonuses he was entitled to after his 2002, 2003 and 2004 Tour victories after arguing the legitimacy of the wins could be questioned.

<u>Regardless of their scientific validity, the way in which the results of the tests on Armstrong's 1999 samples have been obtained is in breach of anti-doping procedures.</u>

WADA chief Dick Pound said Armstrong might have to "give explanations" about the tests but said the agency could not "do anything concrete" for the time being.

Pound passed the baton to the UCI, saying it was up to the world cycling body to act. UCI chief Hein Verbruggen said there was "nothing official" and it was waiting to find out whether the report was true.

As for Tour organisers, they insisted they had no power to ban or suspend an athlete on doping offences because UCI and WADA were the only institutions entitled to take action.

Tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc suggested retroactive sanctions might be the future weapon against doping.

"This case brings a new element in the fight against doping - retroactive testing, which is now possible and could, in my opinion, be used as another tool," he said.

RETROACTIVE SANCTIONS

<u>Leblanc agreed, however, that current WADA or UCI rules made it impossible to sanction a rider retroactively.</u>

Comparisons have been made in France with the BALCO doping case which led to American sprinters being banned for taking the THG steroid.

The athletes did not fail dope tests for the steroid at the time of racing as it was unknown. They were banned after tests were carried out in secret.

Tour de France deputy director Christian Prudhomme said the big difference was that in the BALCO case, U.S. athletes were banned after being shown undeniable evidence of testing which had been properly carried out. Some also confessed.

By comparison, confusion rather than clarity surrounds the L'Equipe accusations.

Armstrong quoted "four or five anti-doping experts around the world that have gone on the record and said this is crazy".

De Ceaurriz, the man who devised the EPO test, insists he is one hundred percent sure the tests were valid.

The problem is that the French scientists tested bottles bearing numbers on them, not names, and these names would never have been leaked if proper protocol had been followed.

[capitalcity]

BTW, Cap......what's going on with that lawsuit?

mums the word.

This June my wife and I talked with Allison when she brought her mom and two year-old to the store. She didn't have much to say other than her and Mike "are doing the best they can" ... we basically took that to mean she didn't really want to talk about it.


edit: - just noticed cnn.com has a banner pimping a Larry King/ Bob Costas interview with Litigious Adulterer. Tonight 9est

[MavKikiNYC]

Wow, it seems like even though an overwhelming majority of respondents believe Lance Armstrong, they still believe his reputation has been damaged. I guess the slimy French will have to be content with that.

Lance Armstrong is a hero to many. But new doping allegations against the seven-time Tour de France champion have surfaced with a report in a French newspaper. The tour's director said "we were all fooled," but Armstrong says he's the victim of a "setup." Who do you believe?

Do you believe Armstrong's denial of drug use?

• Yes 84%

• No 16%

How much have doping allegations damaged his reputation?

• Not at all 57%

• A little 31%

• A lot 12%

Total Votes: 205,618

[MavKikiNYC]

======= Allons Enfants de la Patrie ===========


PARIS, France --

Lance Armstrong's record setting seventh Tour de France victory,
along with his entire Tour de France legacy, may be tarnished
by what could turn out to be one of the greatest sports scandals
of all time. Armstrong is being quizzed by French police after
three banned substances were found in his South France hotel room
while on vacation after winning the 2005 Tour de France.

The three substances found were toothpaste, deodorant, and soap
which have been banned by French authorities for over 75 years.

Armstrong's girlfriend, American rocker Sheryl Crowe, is quoted
as saying, "We use them every day in America, so we naturally
thought they'd be ok throughout Europe."

Along with these three banned substances, French authorities also
physically searched Armstrong and found several other interesting
items that they had never seen before, including a backbone and a
testicle.

[Drbio]

HA HAA HAAAAAA!!!!!

Good one kiki.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
Confusing article.

Why were they testing again? Were they trying to prove that Armstrong had used drugs? Or just practicin' ?

Huh? Anonymous samples? Matched to medical statements? Signed by WHICH doctors?


BTW, Cap......what's going on with that lawsuit?

the lawsuit was dismissed
-------------------------
Judge Dismisses Claim Against Armstrong
By Associated Press

2:53 PM PDT, September 9, 2005

AUSTIN, Texas — A state judge on Friday dismissed fraud and breach of contract claims filed against Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong by one of his former personal assistants.

Mike Anderson, who worked for Armstrong for about two years, has been in a legal fight with the retired cycling great over promises he claims Armstrong made to help him start a bike shop.

State District Judge Margaret Cooper informed Armstrong's and Anderson's lawyers of her decision by letter. A formal ruling will be filed later. Armstrong attorney Tim Herman said the ruling "totally vindicates" Armstrong.

Anderson's claim of mental distress had previously been dismissed.

Anderson's attorney, Hal Gillespie, said he will appeal and indicated his client is willing to pursue the matter for a long time.

"It's a disappointing ruling, but in about a year, we'll be right back," Gillespie said.

Anderson still has a legal claim pending that he should have been paid more than his $3,000 monthly salary for the work he did. Herman said he will ask the court to dismiss that as well.

Anderson created a stir when he filed the lawsuit, claiming he found a banned substance in Armstrong's apartment in Spain, a charge Armstrong has denied.