# Is Armstrong The World's Greatest Drug Cheat Or...



## Akirasho (Jan 27, 2004)

... are the French *INSANE!!!???!!!*

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug23news2

*French sports newspaper l'Equipe has alleged that analysis of samples provided at the 1999 Tour de France by Lance Armstrong indicates the use of EPO.

Quoting Armstrong's 1999 and 2001 denials of use of EPO or other doping substances, l'Equipe then says, "Recent analysis of samples dating from the American's first Tour de France victory demonstrate that Lance Armstrong had already consumed doping products." 

The tests were performed on samples taken from Armstrong after his victory in the 1999 Tour prologue, and after stages 1, 9, 10, 12 and 14 of that year's race. L'Equipe alleges that retrospective analysis by the Laboratoire national de dépistage du dopage de Châtenay-Malabry (LNDD) reveals traces of synthetic EPO.

Lance Armstrong has been quick to issue a statement refuting the claims. "Yet again, a European newspaper has reported that I have tested positive for performance enhancing drugs," said the seven-time Tour winner. "[Today's] L'Equipe, a French sports daily, is reporting that my 1999 samples were positive. Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues and [the] article is nothing short of tabloid journalism.

"The paper even admits in its own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no way to defend myself. They state: 'There will therefore be no counter-exam nor regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since defendant's rights cannot be respected.'

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

Given that no UCI sanction seems to be possible, the initiative in testing the 1999 samples using a test that has been available since 2001 appears to have been taken by the LNDD and not at UCI or WADA level.*

... ok, maybe not ALL French... but I suspect that these guys are still looking for Hitler as well!


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

*Look behind you!*

You are about to jumped by 50 guys who are going to pummle you for writing about doping in the pro peloton forum........

However, to answer the question in your title, I'd have to say the answer is No, because nothing has been proven. Greatest cyclist?, that one is easy, but proving he cheats is too complicated beyond the realm of this forum. Besides, cannon fodder is easy to produce and once produced gets fired back at you.

Now smile and say "Cheese!"


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

This will be interesting when all the facts come out. Cycling4all.com's report makes it sound like the lab was blinded to the samples and found 12 positives from the '99 tour using the new techniques not available at the time. Turns out 6 of those were from Armstrong, the other rider(s) have yet to be identified. I guess we don't know how many samples they had available, but if the test is reliable I'm surprised they didn't find way more than 12 positives test in '99. Even more interesting would be if they have samples from '98 or earlier.


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

*Agree with you Barry.*

Given that no UCI sanction seems to be possible, the initiative in testing the 1999 samples using a test that has been available since 2001 appears to have been taken by the LNDD and not at UCI or WADA level.

I find it hard to understand that the UCI and WADA do not look at old samples given that new techniques are available. Besides LA, there are probably others that might come back as suspect.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

cannondale_boy said:


> Given that no UCI sanction seems to be possible, the initiative in testing the 1999 samples using a test that has been available since 2001 appears to have been taken by the LNDD and not at UCI or WADA level.
> 
> I find it hard to understand that the UCI and WADA do not look at old samples given that new techniques are available. Besides LA, there are probably others that might come back as suspect.


WADA requested the re-testing in the light of recent cases of false positives to tighten up the test and stop such reoccurences. The tests were blind and it was WADA who identified Armstrong when the results were submitted to them.

Looks like Armstrong shouldn't have pissed off Dick Pound....


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Bianchigirl said:


> WADA requested the re-testing in the light of recent cases of false positives to tighten up the test and stop such reoccurences. The tests were blind and it was WADA who identified Armstrong when the results were submitted to them.
> 
> Looks like Armstrong shouldn't have pissed off Dick Pound....


According to cyclingnews.com, it was L'Equipe who identified Armstrong by matching the unidentified sample numbers of the latest test results to the sample numbers of the 1999 tests. Where did you see that WADA identified Armstrong?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

I think there are two issues. One is validation of the test by the Lab, which would seem easy enough, take a bunch of high level cyclists give them a placebo or EPO and test them to see if the test is reliable. It's not hard to do, although perhaps expensive and time-consuming.

Going back to test old-samples isn't going to provide any validation of the test, but assuming the test is reliable it does show who was using EPO which should interest the UCI.


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

*IF your LA.....*

If your LA and they have your frozen samples your either 

1) Scared to hell that someday new technology will come out to indicate what is in the cyclists frozen samples.. (maybe this is the new technology)

or 

2) Know your clean and continue to sue the pants off anyone that says you aren't!!


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

When the French start testing samples that include a former French winner like Fignon or Hinault then I might take them seriously.


----------



## JTS628 (Apr 22, 2003)

--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.--

regardless of whether there are sanctions, I don't think Armstrong will walk away from this unscathed, anymore than Palmeiro enjoys the same stature he did prior to his positive. regardless of why Armstrong's samples were tested, and not say Pantani's, doesn't negate the test results (assuming the methodology was correct).


----------



## nwilkes (Jun 21, 2004)

I'd believe it if:
1) They identified the sources of the other 6 samples.

2) They didn't qualify the results, because they aren't "...positive in the strict regulatory sense...".

3) The test's questionable reliability has been _absolutely_ fixed. 

That seems to be reasonable for any diagnostic query.


----------



## FTF (Aug 5, 2003)

I think anyone who blindly dismisses the possibility of Lance being a doper is far to caught up in nationalistic pride. Any top athlete could be a doper, not just lance, the motive is there, and so are the methods. But I'm all cynical like that.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

giovanni sartori said:


> When the French start testing samples that include a former French winner like Fignon or Hinault then I might take them seriously.


They wanted to go back and test samples at a point when riders were still "safe" to use EPO. I believe the test came on board in the Olympics in 2000, consequently '99 makes sense, plus who knows when they started saving the B samples, '99 may be all they had. Interesting to see who else shows up positive; Zuelle, Cipollini, Virenque?

Well you're safe in your beliefs since EPO did not exist when Hinault was racing and probably not when Fignon was around either, it was the mid 90's by the time it made it into the peloton according to most things you read (with Gewiss getting the jump on most other teams). Given that relatively few tests are carried out, and that stage winners or leaders in the various categories are regularly tested the only probable frenchmen would be Virenque. So if Virenque is positive will you take them seriously?


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> This will be interesting when all the facts come out. Cycling4all.com's report makes it sound like the lab was blinded to the samples and found 12 positives from the '99 tour using the new techniques not available at the time. Turns out 6 of those were from Armstrong, the other rider(s) have yet to be identified. I guess we don't know how many samples they had available, but if the test is reliable I'm surprised they didn't find way more than 12 positives test in '99. Even more interesting would be if they have samples from '98 or earlier.


Where there new techniques used to enhance the test's ability to detect usage or where they trying to refine their methods to reduce or eliminate false positives? Cyclingnews says, "the collaboration between the French Ministry of Sports and WADA was aimed at validating the EPO testing method, which has recently come under fire for false positives".


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

rocco said:


> Where there new techniques used to enhance the test's ability to detect usage or where they trying to refine their methods to reduce or eliminate false positives? Cyclingnews says, "the collaboration between the French Ministry of Sports and WADA was aimed at validating the EPO testing method, which has recently come under fire for false positives".


I just don't get it, how can you evaluate a test's reliability if you don't know the status of the samples? Isn't reliability established by comparing what the test says to what is known? How could they possibly know which '99 samples should be positive and which should be negative to determine if the test is reliable?


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> They wanted to go back and test samples at a point when riders were still "safe" to use EPO. I believe the test came on board in the Olympics in 2000, consequently '99 makes sense, plus who knows when they started saving the B samples, '99 may be all they had. Interesting to see who else shows up positive; Zuelle, Cipollini, Virenque?
> 
> Well you're safe in your beliefs since EPO did not exist when Hinault was racing and probably not when Fignon was around either, it was the mid 90's by the time it made it into the peloton according to most things you read (with Gewiss getting the jump on most other teams). Given that relatively few tests are carried out, and that stage winners or leaders in the various categories are regularly tested the only probable frenchmen would be Virenque. So if Virenque is positive will you take them seriously?


I always wondered about Riis and his tour victory in 96. Although he had won a stage before and was a top ten rider, he kind of came out of nowhere to win in 96. He was riding for telecom then, but had spent a few years with the Gewiss team before that. It would be interesting if it was possible to go back to 96. Riis was always an intelligent rider and is now one of the best DS, it just makes me wonder about what he brought from Gewiss.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I just don't get it, how can you evaluate a test's reliability if you don't know the status of the samples? Isn't reliability established by comparing what the test says to what is known? How could they possibly know which '99 samples should be positive and which should be negative to determine if the test is reliable?


 That is what has been puzzling me since I read the original article.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

They probably didn't call him Mr. 60% for nothing 

Personally I doubt any cyclist winning in the mid to late '90s was doing it clean, if they were they were almost certainly the exception rather than the rule. I mean there was a culture of endemic doping and finally a really effective drug came along that offered large increases in performance.


----------



## chrisbaby (Feb 20, 2004)

*A Witch-hunt*

I think this sums up nicely what is going on...


Angry Mob: We've found a witch, may we burn her?
Sir Bedevere: Bring her forward. How do you know she is a witch?
Angry Mob: Well, she looks like one
The Witch: They dressed me up like this.... and this isn't my nose, it's a false one.
Sir Bedevere: Did you dress her up like this?
Angry Mob: NO...No.... a bit, a bit. We did do the nose
Sir Bedevere: The nose....?
Angry Mob: And the hat, but she is a witch. Look she's got a wart.
Sir Bedevere: What makes you think that she is a witch?
Peasant #1: What, she turned me into a newt.
Sir Bedevere: A newt?
Peasant #1: ........... i got better.
Angry Mob: BURN HER ANYWAY!!!! BURN HER!!!!"
Sir Bedevere: Quiet, quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Angry Mob: There are??? Are there??? Tell us. Tell us. Do they hurt?
Sir Bedevere: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
Peasant #1: Burn them!
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn apart from witches?
Peasant #1: More witches! [Peasant gets slapped]
Peasant #2: Wood!
Sir Bedevere: So, why do witches burn?
Peasant #3: Because they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good! So how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant #1: Build a bridge out of her!
Sir Bedevere: Ahh, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
Peasant #1: Oh ya.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me, Does wood sink in water?
Peasant #1: No, no, it floats. Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What also floats in water?
Peasant #1: Bread
Peasant #2: Apples
Peasant #3: Very small rocks
Peasant #1: Cider
Peasant #2: Gravy
Peasant #3: Cherries
Peasant #1: Mud
Peasant #2: Churches
Peasant #3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A duck!
Sir Bedevere: Exactly! So, logically.....
Angry Mob: If she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore?
Angry Mob: A Witch!
Sir Bedevere: And...
Angry Mob: BURN HER!!!


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

*As I posted on "Wherefore art thou All Doped..."*



Dwayne Barry said:


> I just don't get it, how can you evaluate a test's reliability if you don't know the status of the samples? Isn't reliability established by comparing what the test says to what is known? How could they possibly know which '99 samples should be positive and which should be negative to determine if the test is reliable?



I think everyone is looking dirty on this one including Armstrong. It's an interesting way to validate a test. Instead of creating clarity it's creating a mirky mess. It all seems disorderly. It's like the ending of the Wild Bunch where there's a big shootout and everyone gets killed.

Since this was just an "experiment" why don't they go ahead list all the names of those involved and reveal who was interpreted as being negative, inconclusive and positive. I believe doping is a real problem but I'm not sure this is helping to elevate the reputation of the apparatus that is supposed to counter it. Aye yie yie!

Man some of these threads need to merged into one here...


----------



## nwilkes (Jun 21, 2004)

Akirasho said:


> *
> The tests were performed on samples taken from Armstrong after his victory in the 1999 Tour prologue, and after stages 1, 9, 10, 12 and 14 of that year's race. L'Equipe alleges that retrospective analysis by the Laboratoire national de d鰩stage du dopage de Chⴥnay-Malabry (LNDD) reveals traces of synthetic EPO.
> *


I thought the half life of EPO was very short (<1 week) and the benefits aren't realized until 2-6 weeks after administration. Why would an athlete use EPO for two weeks straight during a tour (as opposed to way before)? What exactly are they testing for in the urine, anybody know? This article is frustatingly inconclusive.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

nwilkes said:


> I thought the half life of EPO was very short (<1 week) and the benefits aren't realized until 2-6 weeks after administration. Why would an athlete use EPO for two weeks straight during a tour (as opposed to way before)? What exactly are they testing for in the urine, anybody know? This article is frustatingly inconclusive.


Well probably a lot of small doses keeps a nice high red blood cell count which is what is desirable. You have to remember in '99 there was no test for EPO so you could use it at will using whatever protocol is optimal. If the reports about what happened to Pantani after he broke his leg in Milan-Turin are true, it would suggest that if you've become dependent on artificial EPO to maintain your RBC count and suddently stop, scary things can happen as your body is no longer producing EPO naturally, much like what happens with folks who take anabolic steroids and their natural testosterone production.


----------



## KenS (Jan 28, 2004)

*That's the point*



Dwayne Barry said:


> I just don't get it, how can you evaluate a test's reliability if you don't know the status of the samples? Isn't reliability established by comparing what the test says to what is known? How could they possibly know which '99 samples should be positive and which should be negative to determine if the test is reliable?


You certainly don't eliminate the problems of reliability and false positives by going to samples of unknown status. Scientifically, this is just garbage.

Ken


----------



## KenS (Jan 28, 2004)

*nitpicky point: reliability vs. validity*



Dwayne Barry said:


> I just don't get it, how can you evaluate a test's reliability if you don't know the status of the samples? Isn't reliability established by comparing what the test says to what is known? How could they possibly know which '99 samples should be positive and which should be negative to determine if the test is reliable?


Technically, reliability refers to repeatibility. So a test would have high reliability if it always produced the same result with a particular sample.

Validity is concerned with the accuracy of classification. If the test indicates EPO use then EPO use occurred.

So one could test a sample a dozen times and always get the same result (high reliability) but the result could be wrong (poor validity).

In any case, one doesn't go to samples of unknownable status to establish the validity of classification (the false positive problem).

Ken


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

KenS said:


> You certainly don't eliminate the problems of reliability and false positives by going to samples of unknown status. Scientifically, this is just garbage.
> 
> Ken


Right, I should have thought about this more. Doing what they did to test validity or reliability seems silly, but if the test is both than this at least interesting because it shows who was doping in the '99 Tour.


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

KenS said:


> Technically, reliability refers to repeatibility. So a test would have high reliability if it always produced the same result with a particular sample.
> 
> Validity is concerned with the accuracy of classification. If the test indicates EPO use then EPO use occurred.
> 
> ...


Far too logical for a message board. Get out. This is for nationalistic zealots and people consumed with bashing Lance. Next you'll be bringing Popper into the discussion.


----------



## KenS (Jan 28, 2004)

*Giovanni--sorry about that*



giovanni sartori said:


> Far too logical for a message board. Get out. This is for nationalistic zealots and people consumed with bashing Lance. Next you'll be bringing Popper into the discussion.


How about this...

Lance should be stripped of every title he ever won because he drinks candy-ass lite lagers. You would have to be on drugs and suffering from neurotic repression to drink stuff like that. Now David Millar drinks hardy ales and has come clean. Come on, Lance, confess and, please, move on to better beer.

Better?


----------



## esbike (Jul 4, 2005)

*unfair to Lance*

I think even if Lance is guilty this is a major screw job. There are no A samples left to clear him or convict him. What about the six other positives from that year? Shouldn't we know their names? And while we are at it, they should test every last urine sample they have from whenever they started keeping them. Indurain, Riis, Ullrich, Pantani, they all need to be tested. Also, they need to test everyone from the 2000 tour for the same reason. You can't just retrospectively test one guy because you don't like him.

Questions that are unanswered: how the hell did he win five more times after the EPO test was developed? What was his hematocrit in '99 while he was "doping"?

This opens a huge, huge can of worms for WADA. Is storage of samples now going to be the standard, with the possibility of retrospective testing when that new tests are developed? When will some be considered to have won a race cleanly? Will we have to wait for years for a clear winner???!!!






Dwayne Barry said:


> They probably didn't call him Mr. 60% for nothing
> 
> Personally I doubt any cyclist winning in the mid to late '90s was doing it clean, if they were they were almost certainly the exception rather than the rule. I mean there was a culture of endemic doping and finally a really effective drug came along that offered large increases in performance.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

esbike said:


> I think even if Lance is guilty this is a major screw job. There are no A samples left to clear him or convict him. What about the six other positives from that year? Shouldn't we know their names? QUOTE]
> 
> The lab had the samples from the '99 Tour to work with, given that Lance won that year, a significant portion of the samples will be his. Most of the other riders you name didn't ride that year. The lab tested what they had, and released their results of the positive tests not knowing who the samples belonged to. L'equipe was the one who matched the positive test results to the riders by going back to documents they had. I would assume we'll find out who the other rider(s) were at some point.


----------



## Americano_a_Roma (Feb 10, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Well probably a lot of small doses keeps a nice high red blood cell count which is what is desirable. You have to remember in '99 there was no test for EPO so you could use it at will using whatever protocol is optimal. If the reports about what happened to Pantani after he broke his leg in Milan-Turin are true, it would suggest that if you've become dependent on artificial EPO to maintain your RBC count and suddently stop, scary things can happen as your body is no longer producing EPO naturally, much like what happens with folks who take anabolic steroids and their natural testosterone production.


Based on the wishy-washy pseudoscientific terms in which most of the popular press writes, it seems like they are looking for specific isoforms of EPO. The references I've read to "different charges" between the various isoforms make me wonder if they're doing mass spec anaysis, 2D PAGE or what, I don't know. VeloNews also has an article in which a canadian scientist questions whether EPO would still be intact after 8 years, even if kept in the freezer. All in all, though, the fact that no fewer than 6 of the 12 positive samples they found came from Armstrong seems pretty damning to me; one or two positive samples could be a wonky test (and there's no B sample to verify), but 6 is just too many.

On another note, this story is getting huge play here in Europe; it was the 3rd story on the evening news here in Italy, after the Gaza pullout and Iraq. I think a lot of Eurpoeans feel vindicated, there's a sense of "I knew it!"


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

*I thought that all Europeans allready know all pro cyclists*

Dope? Seriously, I have read in a few places (Lance Armstrong's War, Eurosport etc) that most Europeans know and don't really care so much that all Pro dope - case in point Virenque, Museauw, etc

I guess its still a big story....

Nik







Americano_a_Roma said:


> Based on the wishy-washy pseudoscientific terms in which most of the popular press writes, it seems like they are looking for specific isoforms of EPO. The references I've read to "different charges" between the various isoforms make me wonder if they're doing mass spec anaysis, 2D PAGE or what, I don't know. VeloNews also has an article in which a canadian scientist questions whether EPO would still be intact after 8 years, even if kept in the freezer. All in all, though, the fact that no fewer than 6 of the 12 positive samples they found came from Armstrong seems pretty damning to me; one or two positive samples could be a wonky test (and there's no B sample to verify), but 6 is just too many.
> 
> On another note, this story is getting huge play here in Europe; it was the 3rd story on the evening news here in Italy, after the Gaza pullout and Iraq. I think a lot of Eurpoeans feel vindicated, there's a sense of "I knew it!"


----------



## Americano_a_Roma (Feb 10, 2005)

Old_school_nik said:


> Dope? Seriously, I have read in a few places (Lance Armstrong's War, Eurosport etc) that most Europeans know and don't really care so much that all Pro dope - case in point Virenque, Museauw, etc
> 
> I guess its still a big story....
> 
> Nik


They do "know", in the sense that everybody always shrugs and says "ah, all them pros are on the juice"...I mean if Boonen or Pettacchi were to get busted it would be a big story and cause for some head shaking, but Lance is fairly roundly disliked due to his well documented Tour-centricity, plus his less-than-cuddly personality. There was already a "damn him, he only wins 'cuz of the drugs" mentality; this is seen a proof of what everybody already "knew". And despite him never returning a positive test since 2000, this is gonna brand him as a doper in a lot of people's minds.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

And more recently what may rub a lot of people the wrong way is Armstrong's adamant anti-doping claims. It's one thing to keep your mouth shut about it and dope like everyone else, it's another to talk a big anti-doping game yet dope like everyone else.

Personally, I've always assumed he doped early in his career. I also think he probably stopped (or used it quite judiciously) with EPO at least once these tests came on board. Anybody remember when he started using the Altitude tent? I bet it was after '99 
I wouldn't be surprised if his wins over the last few years were "clean" of at least EPO which seems to be the one drug that really matters.


----------

