PDA

View Full Version : L'Equipe: Armstrong positive on dope test


Maajken
Aug 23rd, 2005, 11:38 AM
Lance Armstrong has tested positive for using performance enhancing drugs in 1999 the French newspaper L'Equipe reported Tuesday. The seven-time Tour de France winner reportedly used the banned drug EPO according to new tests of urine samples taken in 1999 when he won his first Tour de France.

Six B-samples taken in 1999 have been found to contain the blood boosting drug EPO (erythropoietin) according to tests from the French lab at Châtenay-Malabry the French sports daily reported.

The A-samples were not saved, so the recent tests had to be taken on the secondary samples.

In 1999 labratories did not yet have the technology to measure for EPO and the A-samples were not saved so the recent tests had to be taken on the secondary samples.

In a statement on Monday, prior to the story's publication, the Discovery-Channel star denied charges of substance abuse calling the L'Equipe claims "tabloid journalism."

"Yet again, a European newspaper has reported that I have tested positive for performance enhancing drugs," read a statement from Armstrong's personal website.

"Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues and [L'equipe"s] article is nothing short of tabloid journalism.

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

After the book "LA Confidential: The Secrets of Lance Armstrong" was published accusing Armstrong of doping, the Tour champion opened libel proceedings against the book's author David Walsh and issued a similar statement denying any doping charges.

The Texas-born 33-year-old retired from Cycling after winning his seventh Tour de France in July.


http://img1.eurosport.com/zones/v4/img/stories/shim.gifEurosport - 23/08/2005

Martian Jeza
Aug 23rd, 2005, 11:39 AM
What a surprise.... NOT !

Lord Nelson
Aug 23rd, 2005, 11:41 AM
exactly, newspapers can say what they want but it is the drug committee that should be taken seriously not these tabloid cheap to nothing newspapers. The committee has no case against Armstrong. :)

Dan the Assassin
Aug 23rd, 2005, 11:45 AM
This is b/s. What have the french got against him? The traces of EPO would have been left over in his system from his cancer treatment.
It seems to me that the french have something against him: Confidis, the team which he had signed for before he got cancer, went back on there word of sticking by him and dumped him from the team whilst he was under going chemo; the french media have continually claimed Armstrong to be a drugs cheat-even though he has taken a supposed 'random' test more times than any other rider. This supposed drug cheat also puts his own money into the sport to improve and do more drug testing-not the actions of a cheat if you ask me.
I wish they would just give him credit for what he really is: "a sporting legend".

GantchaWowwa
Aug 23rd, 2005, 11:47 AM
During 90's ALL the professional cyclists (and many amateurs) assumed Epo. I'd like to think that nowadays the situation is changed, but the average speed of races is superior to that of those years, so I fear they have simply found another type of dope... :rolleyes:

carot
Aug 23rd, 2005, 11:50 AM
This is b/s. What have the french got against him? The traces of EPO would have been left over in his system from his cancer treatment.
It seems to me that the french have something against him: Confidis, the team which he had signed for before he got cancer, went back on there word of sticking by him and dumped him from the team whilst he was under going chemo; the french media have continually claimed Armstrong to be a drugs cheat-even though he has taken a supposed 'random' test more times than any other rider. This supposed drug cheat also puts his own money into the sport to improve and do more drug testing-not the actions of a cheat if you ask me.
I wish they would just give him credit for what he really is: "a sporting legend".
what has EPO to do with cancer? it's a medicin for the kidneys, for people with diabetes not for cancer patients lol. And it's cofidis, not confidis. :tape:

A bit surprised he took EPO, i thought he was on better stuff :D Well they had six more names that were "caught" of course it seems impossible to find those names :rolleyes: probably the rest of the top ten during that year :D

Dan the Assassin
Aug 23rd, 2005, 11:57 AM
what has EPO to do with cancer? it's a medicin for the kidneys, for people with diabetes not for cancer patients lol. And it's cofidis, not confidis. :tape:

A bit surprised he took EPO, i thought he was on better stuff :D Well they had six more names that were "caught" of course it seems impossible to find those names :rolleyes: probably the rest of the top ten during that year :D

Yeah, it increases red blood cells. It says in his book that the drug was contained in some of chemo he was given- I think it would improve oxygen levels in his blood.
How can anyone can say this guy is cheat?

BTW so what if I spelt Cofidis wrong?? They are a bunch of wankers for going back on their word. :mad:

carot
Aug 23rd, 2005, 12:01 PM
I'm not sure about this, but i think the tests that are currently in use can only track the use of EPO for a very short period of time (we're talking days here, not even weeks, let alone months or years) so i doubt it's residu of his chemotherapy.

carot
Aug 23rd, 2005, 12:04 PM
But of course Armstrong remains a legend :D King 7ance :cool:

spudrsca
Aug 23rd, 2005, 12:13 PM
This is b/s. What have the french got against him? The traces of EPO would have been left over in his system from his cancer treatment.
It seems to me that the french have something against him: Confidis, the team which he had signed for before he got cancer, went back on there word of sticking by him and dumped him from the team whilst he was under going chemo; the french media have continually claimed Armstrong to be a drugs cheat-even though he has taken a supposed 'random' test more times than any other rider. This supposed drug cheat also puts his own money into the sport to improve and do more drug testing-not the actions of a cheat if you ask me.
I wish they would just give him credit for what he really is: "a sporting legend".

He puts his own money to improve drug testing isn't a good argument, it's just maybe a bribe so that the uci let him do what he wants. The rider (Mayo) he feared the most has seen his team euskatel under heavy uci scrutineering.
Hincapie who is a sprinter was riding with the best in the hill :rolleyes:
I don't know how you can really think than someone can be 3x stronger after a cancer than he was in good health:tape:

Dan the Assassin
Aug 23rd, 2005, 12:22 PM
He puts his own money to improve drug testing isn't a good argument, it's just maybe a bribe so that the uci let him do what he wants. The rider (Mayo) he feared the most has seen his team euskatel under heavy uci scrutineering.
Hincapie who is a sprinter was riding with the best in the hill :rolleyes:
I don't know how you can really think than someone can be 3x stronger after a cancer than he was in good health:tape:
Right, the reason he was 3 times stronger is because he fucking trained hard.
He was preparing on mountain courses that a normal cyclist would perhaps do 3 times a year; Armstrong did them 3 times a month.
What I dont understand is that during the 1999 tour Armstrong was the most tested rider!!! No-one submitted as many test results then Armstrong,each result was negative.
It seems to me that the french media have a massive witch hunt out against him.

spudrsca
Aug 23rd, 2005, 12:33 PM
He tested positivive on corticoïdes and antidated a prescription of the doctor.
Epo could not be detected in 99. The result of sample positive are anonymous, there are only the number of the sample.
They could say Armstrong was positive because on the prescription of the doctor, there were the number of the sample involved.

jrm
Aug 23rd, 2005, 12:52 PM
Like most said ... hardly a suprise!

The Crow
Aug 23rd, 2005, 12:56 PM
lol 6 are from Lance and of the other 6 they *surprise surprise* have no idea :D

It's not the first time l'equipe is on a witch hunt, so I'll believe it when official drug testing sources confirm it...

gentenaire
Aug 23rd, 2005, 01:11 PM
Yes, Lance had to take EPO during his cancer treatment, but there's no way traces of that would be left in his blood that long after.

I do believe Lance, just like every other rider, took some dodgy substances. Frankly, the speeds at which riders today ride are almost inhuman, I don't think it's possible to ride for three weeks like that without taking any performance enhancers. The line between what's legal and what's not is pretty fine though, so it's very tempting to cross. Besides, if you're not prepared to cross that line, you're not very likely to get a prof contract anyway.

Saying he never tested positive is a weak excuse. The only ones getting caught these days are smaller, lesser known riders who don't have a doctor looking over them, telling them when to take the drugs and how much. When a bigger name gets caught, it's usually not through a blood test but by house searches, border controls discovering all sorts of illegal drugs in the cars of wives or coaches, etc. Big riders simply don't test positive because they're professionals, they know HOW to take drugs and how to deliver negative test results.

Still, I do feel this is a case of the Equipe going on a witch hunt. If they go after Lance, they should go after all the other riders as well. And I'm still convinced that should all riders ride drug free, Lance would still come on top. Lance didn't win 7 tours because he was on dope while the others weren't. They're all taking drugs, so it's still almost a level playing field (not completely since some teams will have access to better and more advanced drugs than others).

Also, I think the Rutger Beke case showed that those EPO tests aren't 100% anyway.

rand
Aug 23rd, 2005, 01:41 PM
lol 6 are from Lance and of the other 6 they *surprise surprise* have no idea :D

It's not the first time l'equipe is on a witch hunt, so I'll believe it when official drug testing sources confirm it...
they did...you can watch that on www.hln.be (http://www.hln.be) in flemish....haven't searched for an english equivalent though ;)

rand
Aug 23rd, 2005, 01:44 PM
I mostly follow Gentenaire's analysis btw....he certainly was a cheat, it's proven by wada now....
but the other ones too, and Lance is clearly subject of a witch hunt....
now the thing is....I still believe CSC and Discovery channel had the best products....

Mercury Rising
Aug 23rd, 2005, 02:55 PM
Not a surprise at all. The next years he probably had better stuff :D

matthias
Aug 23rd, 2005, 03:08 PM
i´m not surprised too

Infiniti2001
Aug 23rd, 2005, 04:39 PM
Armstrong denies '99 doping reports
Posted: Tuesday August 23, 2005 11:38AM; Updated: Tuesday August 23, 2005 11:50AM

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2005/more/08/23/bc.cyc.armstrong.doping.ap/p1_lance_0722.jpg
Lance Armstrong, who won his seventh straight Tour de France last month, has been deflecting doping reports since his first title.
AP


PARIS (AP) -- A French newspaper says Lance Armstrong used the performance-enhancing drug EPO to help win his first Tour de France in 1999, a report the seven-time Tour winner vehemently denied.

L'Equipe devoted four pages to its allegations, with a Tuesday front-page headline "The Armstrong Lie." The paper said that signs of EPO use showed up in Armstrong's urine six times during the '99 race.

"Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues and tomorrow's article is nothing short of tabloid journalism," Armstrong wrote on his Web site. "I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs."

However, the Tour de France's director said Tuesday that L'Equipe's report seemed "very complete, very professional, very meticulous" and that it "appears credible."

"We are very shocked, very troubled by the revelations we read this morning," Jean-Marie Leblanc told RTL radio. However, he cautioned that Armstrong, his doctors and his aides should be heard out before people make any final judgment.

Leblanc also said any disciplinary action appeared unlikely, based on the L'Equipe account. The paper's investigation was based solely on B samples -- the second of two samples used in doping tests. The A samples were used up in 1999 for analysis at the time.

The governing body of world cycling did not begin using a urine test for EPO until 2001. For years, it had been impossible to detect the drug, called erythropoietin, which builds endurance by boosting the production of oxygen-rich red blood cells.

EPO tests on the 1999 B urine samples were not carried out until last year, when scientists performed research on them to fine-tune EPO testing methods, the paper said.

The national anti-doping laboratory in Chatenay-Malabry, which developed the EPO test and analyzed the urine samples in question, said it could not confirm that the positive EPO results were Armstrong's.

It noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only a a six-digit number to identify the rider, and could not be matched with the name of any one cyclist.

However, L'Equipe said it was able to make the match. It printed photos of what it said were official doping documents. On one side of the page, it showed what it said were the results of EPO tests from anonymous riders used for lab research. On the other, it showed Armstrong's medical certificates, signed by doctors and riders after doping tests -- and bearing the same identifying number printed on the results.

The lab statement said it had promised to turn over its results to the World Anti-Doping Agency "on condition that they could not be used in any disciplinary proceeding."

"It will be very interesting to see what UCI does and what the U.S. Cycling Federation does and what Lance Armstrong has to say," WADA chairman Dick Pound said. "If the evidence is seen as credible than yes, he has an obligation to come forward and specifically give his comments, especially after his previous comments that he has never used drugs.

"If anything were found, we couldn't do anything because we didn't even exist in 1999. But it's important that the truth must always be made clear," Pound added.

L'Equipe, whose parent company is closely linked to the Tour, has frequently raised questions about how Armstrong could have made his spectacular comeback from testicular cancer without using performance enhancers. L'Equipe is owned by the Amaury Group whose subsidiary, Amaury Sport Organization, organizes the Tour de France and other sporting events.

A former L'Equipe journalist, Pierre Ballester, was co-author of a book published last year that contained doping allegations against Armstrong. He wrote the book with Sunday Times sportswriter David Walsh.

In the book, L.A. Confidential, the Secrets of Lance Armstrong, one of the cyclist's former assistants claimed that Armstrong once asked her to dispose of used syringes and give him makeup to conceal needle marks on his arms.

Armstrong has taken libel action against The Sunday Times after the British newspaper reprinted allegations in a review of the book in June 2004. The case will go to trial in London's High Court in November.

Armstrong retired from cycling after his record seventh straight Tour victory last month.

French Sports Minister Jean-Francois Lamour said he was deeply saddened by the allegations, though he noted that they were unconfirmed and never could be because of the lost A samples.

"It's a shock to learn this about a great champion," the former Olympic champion fencer said. "This is certainly an element that could tarnish his image."

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

hablo
Aug 23rd, 2005, 05:38 PM
surprise... surprise :rolleyes: :haha:

minboy
Aug 23rd, 2005, 05:39 PM
L'equipe has nothing to do with it. They just revealed results from official labo. This labo didn't know those samples were from L.Armstrong, they just had a number on them. All L'Equipe has done is to match those numbers with the person, which was Lance. Le Monde, french leading and most intellectual newspaper, also published an article about it this morning.

Lance is proven guilty of doping. period.

controlfreak
Aug 23rd, 2005, 05:57 PM
"I never took performance enhancing drugs"

Yeah right. 7 Tours de France? Try 1, Lance, and I might have believed you :haha:

manu32
Aug 23rd, 2005, 06:09 PM
l'équipe est l'organisateur du tour de france.......journal de merde guidé par des intêrets financiers.....ils n'ont rien dit pendant 7 ans et maintenant ils espèrent faire du tirage.....grave.....même si armstrong était probablement dopé.....mais les autres?????

GoClijsters
Aug 23rd, 2005, 06:29 PM
I don't what i have to think about it! i was a big supporter of lance! But now it's too late. Why should they bring the news NOW. Just when he has finished his career??

minboy
Aug 23rd, 2005, 06:42 PM
I don't what i have to think about it! i was a big supporter of lance! But now it's too late. Why should they bring the news NOW. Just when he has finished his career??

Because it is not a "witch hunt" against Armstrong as the american loves to claim. The labo that has made the tests has been doing so in order to check procedures of the EPO test. They checked blood and urine results from 1998 ( Armstrong wasn't even on the Tour that year ) to 2003 ( effective EPO-test began in 2000 ). All they had were samples with numbers on it, which means no names whatsoever. It appeared eventually that some of the positive samples ( 6 of them actually ) were from Lance Armstrong, which was revealed by L'Equipe who matched those "numbers" with the numbers of the "PV's" ( "proces verbal", sorry don't know the english for this ) signed by the riders at the actual time of the tests.
So this wasn't intended against Armstrong in the first place.

I've just seen on TV that L'équipe knew it for quite some time now, but wanted to check EVERYTHING to be sure they weren't doing a mistake.

Stamp Paid
Aug 23rd, 2005, 07:28 PM
Not surprising.

Still the greatest.

-Ph51-
Aug 23rd, 2005, 09:33 PM
Nothing new, nothing surprising :angel:

rightous
Aug 23rd, 2005, 10:10 PM
surprise surprise. Rasmussen for the Tour 2006

Dan the Assassin
Aug 23rd, 2005, 10:18 PM
Fuck off you Lance Armstrong doubters. Lance is one of the greatest sportsman to walk this planet. Sorry to be rude, but you can only be inspired by this man.

Josh
Aug 23rd, 2005, 10:18 PM
Not surprising.

Still the greatest.

Nah!

Tennis Fool
Aug 23rd, 2005, 11:49 PM
I thinks some posters here just don't like Americans. :rolleyes:

Martian KC
Aug 23rd, 2005, 11:55 PM
I'm not surprised if this is true. And I wouldn't be surprised if half of top cyclists use performance enhancing drugs anyways.

spudrsca
Aug 24th, 2005, 06:23 AM
Fuck off you Lance Armstrong doubters. Lance is one of the greatest sportsman to walk this planet. Sorry to be rude, but you can only be inspired by this man.

Yeah, you live in fantasy world.
He had cancer because of abuse of steroïds like many riders of the fellow us junior team.
He worked exclusively with Dr Ferrari who is known for his method of doping.
The famous Dr of the former Gewiss team who won everything one year, a 1-2-3 in the flèche wallone. Berzin who won a giro with this team:lol:

Maajken
Aug 24th, 2005, 07:13 AM
I'm not surprised if this is true. And I wouldn't be surprised if half of top cyclists use performance enhancing drugs anyways.
I'd be surprised if there was 1 toprider who isn't taking them :o

-Ph51-
Aug 24th, 2005, 07:18 AM
We nemen toch ook prestatie verbeterende stoffen :haha:

rand
Aug 24th, 2005, 07:25 AM
Not surprising.

Still the greatest.
greatest what? he wasn't even the greatest cyclist when considered clean...

gentenaire
Aug 24th, 2005, 07:27 AM
Yeah, you live in fantasy world.
He had cancer because of abuse of steroïds like many riders of the fellow us junior team.
He worked exclusively with Dr Ferrari who is known for his method of doping.
The famous Dr of the former Gewiss team who won everything one year, a 1-2-3 in the flèche wallone. Berzin who won a giro with this team:lol:

I wouldn't say he got cancer because of drug abuse, I think that's taking it a bit too far. Also, I still feel Lance is a good inspiration for others. Beating that cancer isn't an easy task and it has made him a lot tougher. You have to be pretty tough to win a TdF. I'll repeat what I said earlier, they all dope. So it's not fair to only target Lance or to call him a cheat. Cyclists simply don't have a choice. If the others dope and you don't, you can forget about ever winning.

Even in amateur cycling, doping is big business.

rand
Aug 24th, 2005, 07:27 AM
Fuck off you Lance Armstrong doubters. Lance is one of the greatest sportsman to walk this planet. Sorry to be rude, but you can only be inspired by this man.
what "doubters" it's PROVEN he cheated....and why would he be one of the greatest sportsmen on this planet anyway? :confused:

gentenaire
Aug 24th, 2005, 07:29 AM
I thinks some posters here just don't like Americans. :rolleyes:

And you base this on what? Know that by knocking down Lance, we're also knocking down the whole Belgian backbone of Lance, the people without whom Lance never would have won a tour.

rand
Aug 24th, 2005, 07:29 AM
I thinks some posters here just don't like Americans. :rolleyes:
I think some people would play the nationality question in any topic....

rand
Aug 24th, 2005, 07:30 AM
surprise surprise. Rasmussen for the Tour 2006
not good enough on time trials, and if he would train on that he wouldn't be as good in the mountains....next year it's another dope)head: Basso....

rand
Aug 24th, 2005, 07:32 AM
And you base this on what? Know that by knocking down Lance, we're also knocking down the whole Belgian backbone of Lance, the people without whom Lance never would have won a tour.
indeed...and we know of at least one pupil of us-postal that is the biggest hope in belgian cyclism....and we all know what this can mean....

Ems__
Aug 24th, 2005, 08:09 AM
wow what a surprise, i bet more than half of these tennis players are too, but who really cares?

The Crow
Aug 24th, 2005, 08:28 AM
what "doubters" it's PROVEN he cheated.

No it isn't. If I'm not mistaking, you're proven to have taken drugs when BOTH of your samples are positive. Since they only have 1 sample left, it cannot be proven 100%. Of course there's more doubt after this news, but that's about it imo.

rand
Aug 24th, 2005, 08:48 AM
No it isn't. If I'm not mistaking, you're proven to have taken drugs when BOTH of your samples are positive. Since they only have 1 sample left, it cannot be proven 100%. Of course there's more doubt after this news, but that's about it imo.
if wada says the results of these tests are right I tend to believe them...it's not one but 6 samples form the same tour that are positive....of course it doesn't qualify as counterexpertise but that's the reason the rich cheats will always win....because as long as a product is not tracable, if it disappears of your body eventually (normally you have a margin of a few years) you'll never test positive....except on old samples, like here...
if even people like Hein Verbrugghen who always supported armstrong start saying he's a cheat, then you know they're sure ;)

Dan the Assassin
Aug 24th, 2005, 09:05 AM
PROVEN
Are you sure about that????? :confused: :confused:

Mon.
Aug 24th, 2005, 09:06 AM
I think the name of the magazine says enough :rolleyes:

rand
Aug 24th, 2005, 09:10 AM
Are you sure about that????? :confused: :confused:
well the international anti-doping agency says so....of course without a counterexpertise you never have a "100%" certitude....but a counterexpertise is one second stale....here they have 6 positive stales taken during three weeks, and the positive ones are all the day before an "important" stage....so yes, you can be quite confident that it would, under normal circunstances mean proof.....juridicall of course it doesn't hold, because the rules stipulate a counterexpertise must be taken immediately after the first positive stale, and here it's obviously not possible.....

Dan the Assassin
Aug 24th, 2005, 09:15 AM
well the international anti-doping agency says so....of course without a counterexpertise you never have a "100%" certitude....but a counterexpertise is one second stale....here they have 6 positive stales taken during three weeks, and the positive ones are all the day before an "important" stage....so yes, you can be quite confident that it would, under normal circunstances mean proof.....juridicall of course it doesn't hold, because the rules stipulate a counterexpertise must be taken immediately after the first positive stale, and here it's obviously not possible.....

I would bet my life that Armstrong is proven not guilty of such allegations.
It looks to me that they have got fuck all evidence against him; it's just tabloid shit.

Maajken
Aug 24th, 2005, 09:23 AM
I would bet my life that Armstrong is proven not guilty of such allegations.
It looks to me that they have got fuck all evidence against him; it's just tabloid shit.
he delivered 6(!!) positive samples during one Tour de France. Those are the facts and the facts frankly don't care whether you bet your life on it or not lol

btw L'Equipe is not a tabloid newspaper, it's the most respected sports newspaper in France

Dan the Assassin
Aug 24th, 2005, 09:28 AM
he delivered 6(!!) positive samples during one Tour de France. Those are the facts and the facts frankly don't care whether you bet your life on it or not lol

btw L'Equipe is not a tabloid newspaper, it's the most respected sports newspaper in France
We will see. You can't say he's guilty until he's charged. ;)
It appears to me though that the french seriously hate Armstrong. :mad:

rand
Aug 24th, 2005, 09:43 AM
We will see. You can't say he's guilty until he's charged. ;)
It appears to me though that the french seriously hate Armstrong. :mad:
they can't charge him, that's why this is so frustrating, they know he's guilty because those 6 samples are worth at least as much as one counterexpertise, but legally it's the one counterexpertise they'd need, and they can't get that 6 years afterwards....

the french do seriously hate armstrong, but in the beginning he was their hero....they started bashing him with the 2003 story of the bags with doping residu in them for which they couldn't charge him either because he refused to go to france for the case....
and then there was the ferrari/simeoni case...the way he kept defending ferrari until the day he was convicted, threatening simeoni along the way....the day ferrari was convicted all of a sudden armstrong was "disappointed in him"....
yes, the french started hating him at some point because of these cases, but it doens't change a thing about the results of anti-doping tests, it explains why l'equipe are on armstrong's back, yes, but not why armstrong DID test positive....6 times!

ClaudiaZ-S
Aug 24th, 2005, 09:55 AM
they can't charge him, that's why this is so frustrating, they know he's guilty because those 6 samples are worth at least as much as one counterexpertise, but legally it's the one counterexpertise they'd need, and they can't get that 6 years afterwards....

the french do seriously hate armstrong, but in the beginning he was their hero....they started bashing him with the 2003 story of the bags with doping residu in them for which they couldn't charge him either because he refused to go to france for the case....
and then there was the ferrari/simeoni case...the way he kept defending ferrari until the day he was convicted, threatening simeoni along the way....the day ferrari was convicted all of a sudden armstrong was "disappointed in him"....
yes, the french started hating him at some point because of these cases, but it doens't change a thing about the results of anti-doping tests, it explains why l'equipe are on armstrong's back, yes, but not why armstrong DID test positive....6 times!

He won 7 times but he cheated only once :lol: I think = 7 victories = 7 years of doping :eek:

-Ph51-
Aug 24th, 2005, 09:57 AM
he delivered 6(!!) positive samples during one Tour de France. Those are the facts and the facts frankly don't care whether you bet your life on it or not lol

btw L'Equipe is not a tabloid newspaper, it's the most respected sports newspaper in France
Plus they OWN the Tour ;)

ClaudiaZ-S
Aug 24th, 2005, 09:59 AM
Without doping, G W Bush beats Armstrong :eek: :lol:

rand
Aug 24th, 2005, 10:05 AM
He won 7 times but he cheated only once :lol: I think = 7 victories = 7 years of doping :eek:
nobody says he cheate only once...by the year that followed aranesp was already on the market, which is more efficient than epo, and is still not detectable, so you can be quite sure someone like armstrong would use that from 2000 on ;)

ClaudiaZ-S
Aug 24th, 2005, 10:07 AM
nobody says he cheate only once...by the year that followed aranesp was already on the market, which is more efficient than epo, and is still not detectable, so you can be quite sure someone like armstrong would use that from 2000 on ;)
;)

Dan the Assassin
Aug 24th, 2005, 12:34 PM
Fuck this. You guys cant say he's guilty until he's charged. End of story. Goodbye.

rand
Aug 24th, 2005, 12:38 PM
Fuck this. You guys cant say he's guilty until he's charged. End of story. Goodbye.
fine by me, keep living in a dream :wavey:

CrossCourt~Rally
Aug 24th, 2005, 04:14 PM
This publication is worse then the STAR ..just amusing tabloid fodder brought on by JEALOUSY.
They probobly detected his CANCER MEDICATION u idiots :lol: :wavey:

minboy
Aug 24th, 2005, 05:16 PM
This publication is worse then the STAR ..just amusing tabloid fodder brought on by JEALOUSY.
They probobly detected his CANCER MEDICATION u idiots :lol: :wavey:

Oh please, you've probably never heard of L'Equipe before.....:rolleyes:
Read it , it's all about actual PROOFS, not opinions nor accusations. Proofs, just proofs.

And i fail to understand how checking anonymous samples can be directed by jealousy of any kind.

As Rand said, keep living in your fantasy world where people can climb a moutain at 25 km/h.

rand
Aug 24th, 2005, 05:26 PM
This publication is worse then the STAR ..just amusing tabloid fodder brought on by JEALOUSY.
They probobly detected his CANCER MEDICATION u idiots :lol: :wavey:
and to be complete, even IF he had used EPO in his cancer medication....the test can detect epo only if it has been used at most 3 days before the test, so unless he had treatment during the tour ( :haha: ) there's no way his cancer medication could have passed for epo....

wta_zuperfann
Aug 24th, 2005, 09:55 PM
I have also heard that EPO is used in cancer treatments so if its presence is proven in his body, it will be of no consequence for the TDF or UCI rankings.

rand
Aug 25th, 2005, 10:44 AM
I have also heard that EPO is used in cancer treatments so if its presence is proven in his body, it will be of no consequence for the TDF or UCI rankings.
read the post above....even if EPO has been used as part of his treatment, there's no way the EPO used then would still be detectable during the toure de france....

Mariangelina
Aug 25th, 2005, 10:54 AM
He's probably guilty... and so are most of his competitors... but is it wrong that I like him anyway and still think cycling is a great sport? :o

I am inclined to think most high-level cyclists are on something (at least my cynical side does, the Tour de France is just so superhuman) and l'Equipe is not a tabloid paper, but the French media has always been irrationally out to get Armstrong, and you can't prove doping with one sample, and those are six years old. I can say I think he probably used EPO in 1999, but there's still rather a lot of "reasonable doubt"

carot
Aug 25th, 2005, 10:57 AM
I love 7ance and cycling too Mariangelina, and i realise all of the top riders are on illegal substances, who cares :D festina was and will always be my favorite team ever :o

Maajken
Aug 25th, 2005, 11:19 AM
yeah, i agree. personally i'm 100% convinced that ALL professional cyclists use performance enhancing drugs (i could widen the field even further and include triathletes aswell), but it doesn't diminish my interest in the sport whatsoever.

I wouldn't be terribly upset if it was proven that my favourite riders aren't clean, i'd only be disappointed they'd be so stupid they got caught lol

rand
Aug 25th, 2005, 11:31 AM
He's probably guilty... and so are most of his competitors... but is it wrong that I like him anyway and still think cycling is a great sport? :o

I am inclined to think most high-level cyclists are on something (at least my cynical side does, the Tour de France is just so superhuman) and l'Equipe is not a tabloid paper, but the French media has always been irrationally out to get Armstrong, and you can't prove doping with one sample, and those are six years old. I can say I think he probably used EPO in 1999, but there's still rather a lot of "reasonable doubt"
6 samples, not one....taken at different times...

rand
Aug 25th, 2005, 11:33 AM
yeah, i agree. personally i'm 100% convinced that ALL professional cyclists use performance enhancing drugs (i could widen the field even further and include triathletes aswell), but it doesn't diminish my interest in the sport whatsoever.

I wouldn't be terribly upset if it was proven that my favourite riders aren't clean, i'd only be disappointed they'd be so stupid they got caught lol
no, but the thing is, they don't all have access to the same products, otherwise it wouldn't change a thing.....now it clearly does....so...
and no, I won't like cyclism less because of doping....but I'd prefer it if my fave's got to the good stuff instead of their competitors :cry:

gentenaire
Aug 25th, 2005, 11:36 AM
I feel the same way, Mariangelina. I still love cycling, I still like Lance.

However, unlike carot, I do care that they're on illegal substances. If young cyclists weren't dropping dead for no reason, I'd probably react like carot, feel they should just do whatever they feel like. However, those products are dangerous!

carot
Aug 25th, 2005, 11:41 AM
yeah, i agree. personally i'm 100% convinced that ALL professional cyclists use performance enhancing drugs (i could widen the field even further and include triathletes aswell), but it doesn't diminish my interest in the sport whatsoever.

I wouldn't be terribly upset if it was proven that my favourite riders aren't clean, i'd only be disappointed they'd be so stupid they got caught lol
oscar camenzind :D

of course those products are dangerous miss gentenaire, but they only risk their own life, so if they want to take that risk... personally i didn't want to take that risk otherwise you'd be talking about King Carot in stead of King 7ance, that goes without saying :cool:

sixfeetfree
Aug 25th, 2005, 11:44 AM
It's odd that they went back to a sample 7 years ago. And it's also odd that every sample back then was anonymous... meaning that there is no possible way to trace ANY sample, they were all numbered. In addition, there wasn't even a test available until 2002 to test for EPO.

So let me get this straight... One of, if not the, most tested athlete in the world, is being accused by L'Equipe to have tested positive for a substance, which has a half life of less than a week, from a sample that is 7 years old, using a test that wasn't developed for 3 years AFTER the sample was taken, which was an anonymous sample to start with? A man who has been tested over and over, with surprise and random testing over a seven year span without any evidence whatsoever of banned substances... and there's still a question?

What about those who have won 5 in a row... are their accomplishments valid since they weren't tested like today's athletes are? While many of you find it difficult to believe, there are those that play by the rules and train for years and years who end up being successful... it sounds as though you are the ones living in a dream world.

Unfortunately there are those that choose to believe the negative, unproven rumors and hearsay versus fact, truth and honesty.

Maajken
Aug 25th, 2005, 12:09 PM
When samples are being tested in a lab, they are always anonymous. L'Equipe didn't do those tests themselves, they were done by a French lab that has always studied the TdF samples. They came up with 12 samples in which traces of Epo were found through no less than 3 different methods. L'Equipe only traced the numbers on those samples back to the records that were drawn up when the riders took the tests and which included their signatures.
Epo survives for about 3 days in normal circumstances, frozen however it can be traced for years

I'll admit it's strange they went back to samples of 1999, 6 years after date, but that doesn't mean these tests aren't valid. It doesn't matter how many times Armstrong has been tested in the past, the results and proof is there. Riders like Virenque and Zulle also never got busted, but does that mean they were clean? Far from it, like we all know...

Gallofa
Aug 25th, 2005, 12:18 PM
Current cycling is not a sport for the human body. As long as the Tour of France is a 20+ days event with 200+ km stages (over 5 of them uphill, for heaven's sake!), there will be doping. I can see how people can ran classics without extra help from drugs, but two weeks events? No way.

It simply can't be a clean sport. Armstrong is the best cyclist, a super-human, but I am sure he's not clean. Nor are any of the others. So... Armstrong is still the best ;).

Is it cheating when it is a level field? Maybe it is, because the better you are, the better drugs you can buy. But you would still need to be the most talented to get the best drugs ;)

rand
Aug 25th, 2005, 12:23 PM
It's odd that they went back to a sample 7 years ago. And it's also odd that every sample back then was anonymous... meaning that there is no possible way to trace ANY sample, they were all numbered. In addition, there wasn't even a test available until 2002 to test for EPO.

So let me get this straight... One of, if not the, most tested athlete in the world, is being accused by L'Equipe to have tested positive for a substance, which has a half life of less than a week, from a sample that is 7 years old, using a test that wasn't developed for 3 years AFTER the sample was taken, which was an anonymous sample to start with? A man who has been tested over and over, with surprise and random testing over a seven year span without any evidence whatsoever of banned substances... and there's still a question?

What about those who have won 5 in a row... are their accomplishments valid since they weren't tested like today's athletes are? While many of you find it difficult to believe, there are those that play by the rules and train for years and years who end up being successful... it sounds as though you are the ones living in a dream world.

Unfortunately there are those that choose to believe the negative, unproven rumors and hearsay versus fact, truth and honesty.
Maajken's point explains most of what you need to know.....and Wada confirmed the results....
for all the times he was tested negative it's very simple too....
from the moment on you know they can trace the product you're using, and you have an enormous money machine behind you, and they just developed a new substance with the same effects as EPO, but that's not tracable by these tests, will you keep using the dated product, no, you go over to ARANESP, or one of the other EPO derivates that appeaed on the market since 2000....that's all the explanation you need....when they'll have developped a test against aranesp you'll probably see plenty of other proof, against armstrong and most of his competitors too.....
nobody speaks about the other "5 in a rows" but we do know some of them were on dope too (for example our 'legendary' eddy merckx.....)
it seems all of a sudden, since armstrong was the one caught, the rules people apply to the other cyclists as calling them dopeheads don't apply anymore....THAT is the very sad part....
and yes, there are cyclists that ride without doping, but they'll never win the tour.....

Josh
Aug 25th, 2005, 12:25 PM
I agree with Gallofa!

Thanks for saving me the trouble to write down what I think! ;)

rand
Aug 25th, 2005, 12:27 PM
Current cycling is not a sport for the human body. As long as the Tour of France is a 20+ days event with 200+ km stages (over 5 of them uphill, for heaven's sake!), there will be doping. I can see how people can ran classics without extra help from drugs, but two weeks events? No way.

It simply can't be a clean sport. Armstrong is the best cyclist, a super-human, but I am sure he's not clean. Nor are any of the others. So... Armstrong is still the best ;).

Is it cheating when it is a level field? Maybe it is, because the better you are, the better drugs you can buy. But you would still need to be the most talented to get the best drugs ;)
not necessarily, you can get to the best stuff by going to specific teams (currently Discovery channel and CSC), you can be one of the most talented cyclists but not wanting to ride for those....

gentenaire
Aug 25th, 2005, 12:53 PM
I agree with Gallofa!

Thanks for saving me the trouble to write down what I think! ;)

Hey, I wrote something quite similar earlier in this thread. Am I on your ignore list now? :mad: ;)

Josh
Aug 25th, 2005, 12:56 PM
This message is not worth your time so we deleted it for you.

Sorry Tine! :o

:p

propi
Aug 25th, 2005, 01:11 PM
So the final result is... let's give them all the same drugs and let's see who's the best :banana::banana:
Vamos, druggies, vamos :bounce: :p
Valverde :worship:

gentenaire
Aug 25th, 2005, 01:18 PM
Sorry Tine! :o

:p

*taking some steroids and whacking Josh on the head*

GoDominique
Aug 25th, 2005, 01:23 PM
Cycling is the dumbest and most boring sport ever anyway.

Dan the Assassin
Aug 25th, 2005, 01:26 PM
Cycling is the dumbest and most boring sport ever anyway.
:confused: :confused: Everyone has different tastes
You obviously don't understand it. :rolleyes:

carot
Aug 25th, 2005, 02:47 PM
Cycling is the dumbest and most boring sport ever anyway.
The dumbest and most boring sport? No, that's tennis! :D

Mercury Rising
Aug 25th, 2005, 03:00 PM
The dumbest and most boring sport? No, that's tennis! :D
So true! :rolleyes: :lol:

Gallofa
Aug 25th, 2005, 05:16 PM
Hey, I wrote something quite similar earlier in this thread. Am I on your ignore list now? :mad: ;)

Probably suffers from the same problem as me... can't be bothered to read through a whole thread before answering :p. Now, whether this is symptomatic of low attention span problems or simply impatience is questionable ;).

gentenaire
Aug 25th, 2005, 05:59 PM
Probably suffers from the same problem as me... can't be bothered to read through a whole thread before answering :p. Now, whether this is symptomatic of low attention span problems or simply impatience is questionable ;).

Maybe I should bump my 'I am leaving the board' thread ;)

rand
Aug 25th, 2005, 08:10 PM
changed my avatar for th occasion :cool:

ClaudiaZ-S
Aug 26th, 2005, 07:37 AM
Armstrong : "It's a french revenge". "for the Irak attack" continued Bush :lol:

rand
Aug 26th, 2005, 11:52 AM
*** Tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc's comments appeared in the French sports daily L'Equipe on Wednesday, a day after the newspaper reported that six urine samples provided by Armstrong during the '99 Tour tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO. "For the first time -- and these are no longer rumors, or insinuations, these are proven scientific facts -- someone has shown me that in 1999, Armstrong had a banned substance called EPO in his body," Leblanc told L'Equipe. "The ball is now in his court. Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the tour. Today, what L'Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled." ***

Kart
Aug 28th, 2005, 04:30 PM
This is sad news if it is true.

Personally I'll reserve judgement for the time being.

JenFan75
Aug 28th, 2005, 06:29 PM
Eww..I'll bet the 6-year-old urine smells really bad by now.