# Armstrong's Lawsuit(s)



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Where are they? I suspect a couple of inconvenient facts put the kabosh on them.

1) There is enough urine remaining to be retested.
2) There are other labs that apparently do the test and could test the samples.

Better to just blame it on the French. I suspect the only lawsuit we'll see is if that Dutch lawyer they appointed to independently investigate the affair trys to get his hands on Armstrong's samples to be retested by another lab. And then Armstrong will be fighting tooth and nail NOT to have them tested.


----------



## cmatcan (Oct 6, 2005)

if youre referring to the same samples that allegedly tested positive, though, who's to say that they weren't tampered with? they did, afterall, sit virtually unprotected for years. this is always going to be a he-says/she-says situation.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*tampered.*



cmatcan said:


> if youre referring to the same samples that allegedly tested positive, though, who's to say that they weren't tampered with? they did, afterall, sit virtually unprotected for years. this is always going to be a he-says/she-says situation.


tampering would be difficult if not impossible in the sense you're describing. no one knew how 6 year old urine with the signs of synthetic epo use would look previously so...this saboteur would need to have known not only how to make stored urine appear to show the signs of having been produced by someone using synthetic epo (that rules out pretty much everyone, everywhere), but they'd also have to have done it consistenly on each of the samples from LA that tested positive. that's in addition to having to know how to identify LA's samples, and get to them. Beyond that, he'd have to have known that they'd ultimately be tested and that ressiot would put the pieces together matching the samples to LA and printing them or it would all have been wasted effort. tampering is not a plausible defense.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

cmatcan said:


> if youre referring to the same samples that allegedly tested positive, though, who's to say that they weren't tampered with? they did, afterall, sit virtually unprotected for years. this is always going to be a he-says/she-says situation.


They could've been tampered with, but whoever did that at the lab got awfully lucky. That researcher managed to nail Armstrong and Bo Hamburger (who has since tested positive) just by their rider number. So unless a researcher had the motive of getting positive tests, which has no logical explanation behind it, it looks as though the samples were positive.

Like Dwayne said, if Armstrong wanted to protect his legacy, wouldn't he be suing? And it's a he said she said along the same lines as when you are in traffic court. The cop says you did something, and his word has more value than your's as you are trying to cover your ass.

Silas


----------



## cmatcan (Oct 6, 2005)

makes sense. you both have good points actually. but silas, i bet the guy in your avatar would disagree with ya!


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

cmatcan said:


> if youre referring to the same samples that allegedly tested positive, though, who's to say that they weren't tampered with? they did, afterall, sit virtually unprotected for years. this is always going to be a he-says/she-says situation.


Skipping the issue of is it even possible to spike a urine sample for rhEPO. If it took a reporter using documents he obtained from the UCI to figure out which of the Lab's samples were Armstrong's, how on earth would the would-be villain have had the information to even identify Armstrong's samples for tampering? On most days Armstrongs' sample was the only one that tested positive.


----------



## RodeRash (May 18, 2005)

*My GF's An Atty . . .*

She is, her pals are, my friends are. I'm just an Eng. Prof. retired -- who likes to look at arguments and parse texts. 

Here's the "legal view" -- 

Lance . . . You're a bazillionaire, national phenom, 7 Tours in the bag. 

Atty's and litigation are $$$pendy . . . Mega $$$pendy. Whatever it is you might win, you'll lose more in the publicity, the press, the cost of the litgation, the time and involvement required to pursue all this crap. 

The crapola is no longer flying about . . . 

Grab Sheryl, the kids . . . get out on the boat . . . slather on some sunscreen. 

You've "arrived" . . . don't drive back to the "scene" to see what the press thinks about the alleged 'evidence" . . . 

The "press" can kiss your sunscreen slathered buttocks. 

--- and you're STILL a bazillionaire, 7 time Tour winner . . .


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

The press may have gotten the ball rolling. Ultimately, however, it's up to the UCI whether they want to dig deep enough, in order to verify the data in question.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

"Verification" would be difficult without a B sample; the whole purpose of which is to make mixed up samples, tampering, human error twice a hard.

Procycling had a long piece of the testing in the latest issue. What was very disturbing to me was that the main lab was now claiming they knew Beke's and the kenyan dude's samples were false positive the minute they same them. Either they are lying about that or they were perfectly willing to let them both get their lives and careers destroyed and say nothing about the erroneous results (until they proved their innocence through other routes and the expenditure of several thousand Euros). Either way it is difficult to have confidence in anything that comes out of there, regardless how accurate the test or how high their odds of being right just based on randomly choosing someone.

I guess once your boss has stated repeatedly in public there is no chance of error or false positive it takes more than the usual ethical and moral fortitude to stick you neck out and contradict them.


----------



## Blue Sugar (Jun 14, 2005)

What a jerk Armstrong is. I'd like nothing more than for him to blow his millions on lawyer fees. He's an insult to cyclists, Americans, and even manages to make Texas look bad. A class A A-hole.




Dwayne Barry said:


> Where are they? I suspect a couple of inconvenient facts put the kabosh on them.
> 
> 1) There is enough urine remaining to be retested.
> 2) There are other labs that apparently do the test and could test the samples.
> ...


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*and?*



Blue Sugar said:


> What a jerk Armstrong is. I'd like nothing more than for him to blow his millions on lawyer fees. He's an insult to cyclists, Americans, and even manages to make Texas look bad. A class A A-hole.



1)So what, he is rich and really does not seem to or need to care......

2)I think Americans and Texas do not need Lance to make them look bad or worse. Thats a loser attitude that has been around way before Lance

3)I agree that he might just be a A hole. However, so what? Its not the person, its the cyclist. Please dont try the great athletes are great people thing here. It is a flop.


----------



## Sven_bike (Sep 30, 2005)

*Not so hard, really*



blackhat said:


> tampering would be difficult if not impossible in the sense you're describing. no one knew how 6 year old urine with the signs of synthetic epo use would look previously so...this saboteur would need to have known not only how to make stored urine appear to show the signs of having been produced by someone using synthetic epo (that rules out pretty much everyone, everywhere), but they'd also have to have done it consistenly on each of the samples from LA that tested positive. that's in addition to having to know how to identify LA's samples, and get to them. Beyond that, he'd have to have known that they'd ultimately be tested and that ressiot would put the pieces together matching the samples to LA and printing them or it would all have been wasted effort. tampering is not a plausible defense.


Take some urine from another rider's sample from the 1999 Tour that has returned the results you want. Or someone's sample that you know was using in 1999. How hard can that be? That’s why the rider is allowed to be present when the B-sample security seal is opened. So he can verify that it hasn’t been tampered with. 

And if the reporter could get the numbers, it is probable that others were allowed access to them as well.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Sven_bike said:


> Take some urine from another rider's sample from the 1999 Tour that has returned the results you want. Or someone's sample that you know was using in 1999. How hard can that be? That’s why the rider is allowed to be present when the B-sample security seal is opened. So he can verify that it hasn’t been tampered with.
> 
> And if the reporter could get the numbers, it is probable that others were allowed access to them as well.


While this is in the realm of possibility, it doesn't seem very probable for a few reasons.

What would be the lab worker's motive?

Why would Armstrong test positive along with other riders?

How would they get the numbers without the UCI knowing? The UCI has since said that the reporter got to the numbers with LAs and the UCIs permission, so there is a record of how he got to see them.

Like I said, it's possible, feel free to believe whatever you like, but in the court of public opinion he has been tried and found guilty.

Silas


----------



## Terrapin (Aug 1, 2002)

The fact that he's suing nearly everyone, including his $36,000 a year former masseuse, and NOT the lab tells me ALL I NEED TO KNOW!


----------



## Sven_bike (Sep 30, 2005)

SilasCL said:


> While this is in the realm of possibility, it doesn't seem very probable for a few reasons.
> 
> What would be the lab worker's motive?
> 
> ...


Motive? Come on, dude. The lab worker may not care about Armstrong, but I can think of a million reasons he may help.

And the reporter only got one of the numbers with the permission of the UCI. How did he get the numbers for the other samples? There is a record of how he got only one.

I'm not saying Armstrong didn't dope. But this just doesn't smell right. How many papers do you have to sell to make an accusation that could never stand up in court worthwhile? 

There is no way to prove this one way or the other. This is the reason Armstrong won’t sue.

Your original thread said, _“tampering would be difficult if not impossible.”_ Now it just _“doesn't seem very probable.”_ Sounds to me like you just _want _ Armstrong to be guilty.


----------



## Nathan_P (Jul 28, 2004)

Since when do people believe the word of a French Tabloid's investigation?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Nathan_P said:


> Since when do people believe the word of a French Tabloid's investigation?


Please read this:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=43025

this:
http://www.boston.com/sports/other_...equipes_allegations_raise_cycle_of_questions/

and this:
http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-09-07/news/smith.html

and please tell me again about these french tabloids?

Silas


----------



## Nathan_P (Jul 28, 2004)

Well, the first one just reinforced what I said, and the second one just repeated what has been said over and over again, he said they said etc. My point in this is, if it had been a French rider or any other nationality, there would have been no retest. Nothing. It would have been accepted. Europe just can't believed that someone from unsophisticated America could win. Since when are urine samples kept for SEVEN years? I bet no other samples are kept that long.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Nathan_P said:


> Well, the first one just reinforced what I said, and the second one just repeated what has been said over and over again, he said they said etc. My point in this is, if it had been a French rider or any other nationality, there would have been no retest. Nothing. It would have been accepted. Europe just can't believed that someone from unsophisticated America could win. Since when are urine samples kept for SEVEN years? I bet no other samples are kept that long.


Did you read the 3rd one? The gist is that USA cycling has a vested interest in LA's success, even financially. Those are the people calling it a tabloid. No fair cycling journalists have called L'Equipe a tabloid, because it's not.

Hmmm, is this really about unsophisticated America? I was not around for the Lemond days, but my impression is that no one in europe holds anything against him. As for no other samples being kept around, other riders from the '99 tour also tested positive and their names were published as well.

Try to learn more about these issues before you pass off your Lance-centric opinion as fact.

Silas


----------



## Nathan_P (Jul 28, 2004)

He just never seemed like a doper to me, and it has always seemed like the French have had a vendetta out against him. I have read both of his books, and it has always seemed like he was at least a decent guy, maybe not the most refined, but not someone you'd expect to be doping etc. Oh yeah, nice avatar/subtitle, Hincapie's a cool guy.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*ok 1999*



SilasCL said:


> Did you read the 3rd one? The gist is that USA cycling has a vested interest in LA's success, even financially. Those are the people calling it a tabloid. No fair cycling journalists have called L'Equipe a tabloid, because it's not.
> 
> Hmmm, is this really about unsophisticated America? I was not around for the Lemond days, but my impression is that no one in europe holds anything against him. As for no other samples being kept around, other riders from the '99 tour also tested positive and their names were published as well.
> 
> ...


Sure, lets look at 1999. Virenque was NOT welcome to ride. He rode. IN FACT, he rode because he did NOT admit to doping. In fact, he won yet another confection emblazened spotted jersey. Wow, he sure could climb huh?

THEN, he ADMITS to doping. THEN he joins another team. THEN he wins on Ventoux at the TDF less than 3 years later WHILE the CROWD yelled DOPER DOPER DOPER at Lance while they PRAISED Virenque, the guy who ADMITTED DOPING. This was AFTER HE FABRICATED HIS BUTTOCKS OFF FOR SEVERAL YEARS......

So, YET AGAIN a french race, french doped riders, riding in France, in a race steeped in french tradition that just so happens to finish in Paris the french capital. I have no joy in Lance Armstrong, but I do have a bit of an issue with the tabloid thing. Lets face it, Le quipe is not a journalistic bastion. Its a tabloid. JUST LIKE THERE ARE AMERICAN TABLOIDS. In fact, I BET, TABLOIDS ARE IN EVERY PRINTED LANGUAGE.

SO now that we have a firm grasp on journalism and the whole idea that it JUST MIGHT NOT be a crazy French thing against Armstrong, its possible to see that view point. Itr is not improbable. As to the sophistication in America, well now, you crossed the line. In fact, if I recall, some French do that a whole lot during wars.I suppose this is what we will get since you couldnt get it done in Angola  or the TDF you have to bother everyone else here.

I do tire of cowardice no matter where it is from.

Oh yes, I WAS AROUND during the "Lemond Days". The only possible way an individual could NOT see that there was a PALPABLE resentment towards Lemond during the Hinault FIASCO would have been in a NARCOTIC INDUCED COMA. They LOATHED LEMOND. Until Hinault got the fifth victory, good ol fun loving Hinault seemed to have this nack for well, NOT LIKING GREG EITHER. He lacked the character to say it. Oops, thats just an opinion....


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Nathan_P said:


> He just never seemed like a doper to me, and it has always seemed like the French have had a vendetta out against him. I have read both of his books, and it has always seemed like he was at least a decent guy, maybe not the most refined, but not someone you'd expect to be doping etc. Oh yeah, nice avatar/subtitle, Hincapie's a cool guy.


I agree, he's a bit arrogant but not all bad.

Then again, I don't think dopers are all bad. They're a bit dissappointing in terms of character, but plenty of people lie and cheat to get ahead, it's not like they're murderers!

Hincapie's my favorite rider, the guy just knows how to hammer. I'm hoping he finally picks up a really big win next year.

Silas


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

ttug said:


> Sure, lets look at 1999. Virenque was NOT welcome to ride. He rode. IN FACT, he rode because he did NOT admit to doping. In fact, he won yet another confection emblazened spotted jersey. Wow, he sure could climb huh?
> 
> THEN, he ADMITS to doping. THEN he joins another team. THEN he wins on Ventoux at the TDF less than 3 years later WHILE the CROWD yelled DOPER DOPER DOPER at Lance while they PRAISED Virenque, the guy who ADMITTED DOPING. This was AFTER HE FABRICATED HIS BUTTOCKS OFF FOR SEVERAL YEARS......
> 
> So, YET AGAIN a french race, french doped riders, riding in France, in a race steeped in french tradition that just so happens to finish in Paris the french capital. I have no joy in Lance Armstrong, but I do have a bit of an issue with the tabloid thing. Lets face it, Le quipe is not a journalistic bastion. Its a tabloid. JUST LIKE THERE ARE AMERICAN TABLOIDS. In fact, I BET, TABLOIDS ARE IN EVERY PRINTED LANGUAGE.


So, french fans boo armstrong = french newspaper has no credibility? You lost me on that one. Please go into further detail, not using USA Cycling or LA as a reference as to why L'Equipe is a tabloid. I would like to know.

Save doping hypocrisy for another thread, it warrants discussion but has little to do with the topic at hand.

As for my stance on America, I think you misunderstood. I was quoting another poster, who had said that the motive is that no one in Europe wanted to see the unsophisticated American win, my point being that this issue has nothing do with Europe vs. America.

Lastly, how could I forget about Lemond and Hinault. Pretty dumb, so obviously there is some resentment there. How about Hincapie as an example? He gets recognized in Belgium for his cycling success there, and has never had any negative press in europe that I've seen. He's just a nice guy. Point being, this is not Europe vs. America.

Silas


----------



## Koop (Oct 23, 2005)

*Huh?*



Blue Sugar said:


> What a jerk Armstrong is. I'd like nothing more than for him to blow his millions on lawyer fees. He's an insult to cyclists, Americans, and even manages to make Texas look bad. A class A A-hole.


Maybe it's just me but I don't get it. Why are you so angry?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Ok, how about that?*



SilasCL said:


> So, french fans boo armstrong = french newspaper has no credibility? You lost me on that one. Please go into further detail, not using USA Cycling or LA as a reference as to why L'Equipe is a tabloid. I would like to know.
> 
> Save doping hypocrisy for another thread, it warrants discussion but has little to do with the topic at hand.
> 
> ...


Tghe issue of hypocrisy and "journalism" are not at all unrelated. Your idea of tabloid is a bit American centric. Tabloids in the USA, are just that, garbage, with the humorous exception of the Weekly World News which should have its own category.

A Tabloid (IMO) is not always a trashy thing to read. Its just a basic paper that in many many instances lacks credibility and does virtually nothing to correct that. In fact. most retractions are based upon litigation, hardly the source of the pursuit of journalistic excellence. Thats more along the lines of, wow, we went too far that time. 

I wonder how many papers Lequipe sold when Richard admitted use versus the Armstrong "scoop". Gosh, thats a tough one huh? Thats called pandering and oh yeah, TABLOIDS are great at that. In fact, some "respected" papers do it as well
Big George does get Kudos in Belgium. They like him alot. BUT, Belgium is NOT France. They are 2 very different worlds despite sharing French as a near common language. (Wouldnt want our Flemish speaking Belgian folk to get sore).

So yes, Lequipe is a tabloid and George is a class act. Americans like to see Americans win. I would bet big money that the French would love to see a French TDF champion. I mean, it is a guess............  

Look, its not an American or Euro thing to want a person from your country to win. Its been around a few thousand years and is hardly a news flash.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

ttug love your rants and can't take them at all seriously - Equipe, an older and more venerable newspaper than many that are published in your fair country a _tabloid_ because it has _no credibility_? Laughed my cute lil socks off - thank you so much for cheering up a dull day in England.

But, quite seriously, you are talking out of your arse on this one - might pay you to actually _read_ Equipe for the last, say, 20 years in order to formulate opinions at first hand instead of filtered through x amount of spin - it's that sort of reliance on 4th hand 'evidence' that can make people look, well, unsophisticated....


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*wow*



Bianchigirl said:


> ttug love your rants and can't take them at all seriously - Equipe, an older and more venerable newspaper than many that are published in your fair country a _tabloid_ because it has _no credibility_? Laughed my cute lil socks off - thank you so much for cheering up a dull day in England.
> 
> But, quite seriously, you are talking out of your arse on this one - might pay you to actually _read_ Equipe for the last, say, 20 years in order to formulate opinions at first hand instead of filtered through x amount of spin - it's that sort of reliance on 4th hand 'evidence' that can make people look, well, unsophisticated....


Producing bad journalism for an extended period of time does not make it "established". Its just bad journalism. LeQuipe has an incredible political spin. I understand that you have had time with the jingoistic (thought I would kill this word as you do) practice of not liking a TABLOID because it prints rumors. Rumors are first hand. They just happen to be worthless. Much like Lequipe.  

I know that in the UK Lequipe must be wonderful reading as I know that in the UK, bastions of greatness like the Guardian certainly supply the most sublime of journalistic practices. Be still my beating heart.  

I in no way shape or form stated that there were better papers or tabloids in any country. I stated that TABLOIDS were pretty much everywhere where one can find a printed language. If you insist on having an opinion, thats just great. It would help however if you read what was posted. Of course, if you think LeQuipe is good reading, how could I expect more???


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

ttug said:


> Producing bad journalism for an extended period of time does not make it "established". Its just bad journalism. LeQuipe has an incredible political spin. I understand that you have had time with the jingoistic (thought I would kill this word as you do) practice of not liking a TABLOID because it prints rumors. Rumors are first hand. They just happen to be worthless. Much like Lequipe.
> 
> I know that in the UK Lequipe must be wonderful reading as I know that in the UK, bastions of greatness like the Guardian certainly supply the most sublime of journalistic practices. Be still my beating heart.
> 
> I in no way shape or form stated that there were better papers or tabloids in any country. I stated that TABLOIDS were pretty much everywhere where one can find a printed language. If you insist on having an opinion, thats just great. It would help however if you read what was posted. Of course, if you think LeQuipe is good reading, how could I expect more???


No point reminding you that without Equipe (in its previous incarnation l'Auto) there would be no Tour for your boy Lance to dominate.

Thank you for making it blatantly clear that you've never picked up a copy of Equipe in your life, much less read a word of it.

Next thing you'll be trying to argue that the Sunday Times is a tabloid too...but then your Guardian comment really says it all - bless your insularity, ttug, it does give me a good laugh...


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*thanks so little*



Bianchigirl said:


> No point reminding you that without Equipe (in its previous incarnation l'Auto) there would be no Tour for your boy Lance to dominate.
> 
> Thank you for making it blatantly clear that you've never picked up a copy of Equipe in your life, much less read a word of it.
> 
> Next thing you'll be trying to argue that the Sunday Times is a tabloid too...but then your Guardian comment really says it all - bless your insularity, ttug, it does give me a good laugh...


I had a physics prof who had the best view of this. He said that if you took a pile of manure and cut it into 500 piles, you had 500 piles of manure. To the best of his knowledge, Manure was the only thing that retained that quality. I would offer LeQuipe as well.....

I take great comfort in giving you a good laugh. I assure you, its the first thing I think of everytime I read LeQuipe....


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

terzo rene said:


> What was very disturbing to me was that the main lab was now claiming they knew Beke's and the kenyan dude's samples were false positive the minute they same them.


It may be that the lab's only job is to report test results based on the established protocol and they may not be allowed to "interpret" their findings until an arbitration hearing if at all.


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

*Correcting the Fiction*

A few facts about LA and his questionable association with Dr. Michele Ferrari.

In three tests undertaken by Dr. Edward F Coyle in 1993 (<I>“Improved muscular efficiency displayed as Tour de France champion matures”</I>) LA’s anaerobic threshold was tested as 4.02 to 4.5 l/min but his wattage was tested at 5.0l/min being above threshold. In 1993 the paper discloses his tested wattage above threshold was 374. It has been stated elsewhere his 1993 wattage at threshold was 340.

However, his recent figures for power at threshold as disclosed in Daniel Coyle’s book (<I>“Lance Armstrong’s War”</I>) are first test March 2003 = 430 watts, final test in June 2003 in preparation for 2003 TdF = 470 watts, first test in training camp in March 2004 for 2004 TdF = 470 watts and final test for 2004 TdF = 493 watts. These tests were conducted by Dr Michele Ferrari on a 1km hill near Girona and the resultant average would be less than if conducted in a lab.

In 11 years the increase in wattage at threshold was 153 watts or an incredible 45%!

Dr Michele Ferrari pioneered microdosing of EPO to avoid test detection. Filippo Simeoni broke the omerta code by disclosing this protocol.

Microdosing requires being in a location that is outside the tentacles of the testers so the big shot can be administered without the peril of being tested in the following days. Then subsequent microdosing maintains the hct level without the risk of failing an EPO test.

In Coyle’s book it is revealed LA and Dr Ferrari travel each year in the early training camp period to Tenerife in the Spanish Canary Islands off the coast of Africa. It is claimed the purpose of this week long trip is <I>“sleeping high and training low, which naturally boosts red blood-cell counts.”</I> In contradiction, LA has an altitude tent. There is a long list of recent studies undertaken that there is no benefit to hct levels by altitude exposure.

The book also informs that LA has an exclusive arrangement with Dr Michele Ferrari and he spends cumulative months per year with LA. Ferrari cannot “prepare” other TdF contenders. The other questionable Italian doctor on the doping suspect list is Luigi Cecchini, the other disciple to Francesco Conconi. Ferrari was convicted by the Italian courts of sporting fraud whereas the case against Cecchini was dropped through lack of evidence. Cecchini had no exclusivity arrangement and tended to Tyler Hamilton, Mario Cippolini, Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Veloflash said:


> Ferrari was convicted by the Italian courts of sporting fraud whereas the case against Cecchini was dropped through lack of evidence. Cecchini had no exclusivity arrangement and tended to Tyler Hamilton, Mario Cippolini, Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Cecchini been the trainer for CSC the past couple years as well? With all the talk about Bjarne's management skill, few mention that they have one of the leading doctors assisting in doping.

Silas


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

*Trainer not Doctor*



SilasCL said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Cecchini been the trainer for CSC the past couple years as well? With all the talk about Bjarne's management skill, few mention that they have one of the leading doctors assisting in doping.
> 
> Silas


Riis avoids the tainted association by saying that Cecchini is engaged as a trainer and not as a doctor.

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/7015.0.html

USPS (prior to Discovery) had a separate team doctor and Ferrari was engaged also as a trainer. I have not heard of any team or rider picking up Ferrari after his exclusivity ended with the termination by LA in late 2004 after Ferrari's conviction. But then, according to writer Coyle, he was seen in Girona at the same time as LA returned after abandoning Paris-Nice in 2005.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Mr 60%*



Veloflash said:


> Riis avoids the tainted association by saying that Cecchini is engaged as a trainer and not as a doctor.
> 
> http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/7015.0.html
> 
> USPS (prior to Discovery) had a separate team doctor and Ferrari was engaged also as a trainer. I have not heard of any team or rider picking up Ferrari after his exclusivity ended with the termination by LA in late 2004 after Ferrari's conviction. But then, according to writer Coyle, he was seen in Girona at the same time as LA returned after abandoning Paris-Nice in 2005.


Yes, Mr 60% is clean clean clean...........


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

I don't think it's reasonable to attribute those differences to doping. Coyle's measurements were taken in the off-season and consequently most of the difference is probably simply due to Armstrong being in-shape vs. out of shape. The number I've seen for power gains attributed to EPO use are in the range of 5-15%.


----------

