# French Offer Armstrong the Opportunity to Retest 99 Samples



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

A little DNA test to prove whose samples they are, Catlin standing by as the very epitome of upstanding anti doping rectitude - what's not to like? While he's at it, he can publish whatever's in the Ferrari files. 

The definitive way, surely, to set all those nasty doping rumours to rest and prove, once and for all, that the King is Clean (and his comeback is totally transparent').

Flying pigs are so pretty, aren't they  

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news..._of_his_1999_Tour_samples_article_269049.html


----------



## OctaBech (Aug 12, 2008)

An interesting move which I hope will be welcomed.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

This will set ALL those nasty doping rumors to rest and prove, once and for all, that the King is Clean? 

Really? Why do I find that hard to believe?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> This will set ALL those nasty doping rumors to rest and prove, once and for all, that the King is Clean?
> 
> Really? Why do I find that hard to believe?


Hard call, balance the very likely reality (which Lance of course knows) that there is EPO in those samples with the chance that the EPO has degraded (this was a concern with testing them the first time around) with time and either no results or negative result.

For me a far more interesting proposition would be to set up a panel of agreed upon experts to look at the various blood parameters from all his tests over his career that should be sitting in the UCI medical files, and see what they say about blood manipulation.


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

Whether or not he doped, if he doesn't agree to this won't he be failing to meet the guidelines he set for himself in this comeback, about total transparency and completely open testing?


----------



## ECXkid04 (Jul 21, 2004)

why does everybody want Lance to get caught so badly? I'm 100% in favor of catching all of the cheats, but if they stripped Lance of a title or titles, who wants them to go to Ullrich?? Plus, it would ruin American cycling FOREVER. They were all drugged up back when Lance was at his prime... I say, ignorance is bliss; I'd rather not know.


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

I wouldn't trust the labs further than you can throw them on this. I of course don't know what type of chain of custody they keep but how many years have these samples been sitting around frozen. If they come back negative people will say they degraded, if they come back positive then the samples were tampered with. Lose/Lose situation which ZERO to gain.


----------



## j__h (Jun 16, 2006)

jupiterrn said:


> I wouldn't trust the labs further than you can throw them on this. I of course don't know what type of chain of custody they keep but how many years have these samples been sitting around frozen. If they come back negative people will say they degraded, if they come back positive then the samples were tampered with. Lose/Lose situation which ZERO to gain.


Yup, it's almost been a full decade. Offering to retest is like beating a dead horse at this point, there will be no definitive answers even if the test are carried out.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

I say bring it on Lance! 

Select the lab WADA-accredited lab of your choice and the observer of your choice (those are the conditions of the offer) and get this behind you. Make sure the urine and any eventual EPO is yours through DNA confirmation. If you were clean, the samples are clean. If not...

I hope he proves me wrong when I say that it is almost a sure bet that Lance will chicken out.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

ECXkid04 said:


> why does everybody want Lance to get caught so badly?


I think the emphatic denials in the face of multiple reasons to believe he was playing the game just like everyone else rubs a lot of people the wrong way.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

philippec said:


> I hope he proves me wrong when I say that it is almost a sure bet that Lance will chicken out.


Although I usually defer to your instincts when it comes to the politics of racing, I am going to disagree with you on this one. I don't doubt that Armstrong doped. But, he was able to avoid detection in the past and I think that he believes that he has some way to avoid detection in the retesting of any existing samples. My theory on Armstrong's dpoing is that it was a carefully done and as high tech as everything else in Armstrong's pursuit of the Tour de France. He may believe that whatever he did still is not detectable. Or, he may already have experts lined up to challenge any positive on custody grounds or chemical changes that may have occurred in the samples over the past nine years. In any event, I don't think that Armstrong does anything without being five or six steps ahead of everyone else. He would not have decided to resume his racing career without his figuring out in advance how to deal with this.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

Let's be pragamtic, everyone. OF COURSE Lance is NOT going to accept this offer. His best arguments are passage of time -- nearly a friggin decade for crying out loud when the WHOLE PELOTON IN 1999 WAS A TRAVELING PHARMACY -- and chain of custody. So he's going to reject it as another French attempt to "destroy the sport" and putting the ball in ASO's court. ASO already said he could race as long as Astana keeps its nose clean through June 2009. It would be up to ASO to reverse course on this, which I admit is possible, but not likely -- they would be effectively targeting Armstrong.


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

MarkS said:


> Although I usually defer to your instincts when it comes to the politics of racing, I am going to disagree with you on this one. I don't doubt that Armstrong doped. But, he was able to avoid detection in the past and I think that he believes that he has some way to avoid detection in the retesting of any existing samples. My theory on Armstrong's dpoing is that it was a carefully done and as high tech as everything else in Armstrong's pursuit of the Tour de France. He may believe that whatever he did still is not detectable. Or, he may already have experts lined up to challenge any positive on custody grounds or chemical changes that may have occurred in the samples over the past nine years. In any event, I don't think that Armstrong does anything without being five or six steps ahead of everyone else. He would not have decided to resume his racing career without his figuring out in advance how to deal with this.



If he was doping, he no doubt was ahead of the game considering he never tested positive, aside from the saddle cream debacle. The difference between '99 ( and possibly 2000) and every other other year that he won the Tour, is that a test for epo wasn't developed until just before the Sydney Olympics. Who knows whether or not these guy knew that blood samples were being stored and might be subjected to future testing, but any rider with a good support team of doctors could get away with using epo as long as they kept their hematocrit under 50%, because until the test was developed, epo was undetectable....and certain forms of it still are from what I understand.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Of course, they could make this retesting a condition of Armstrong's participation in the Tour de france - which would all be in the spirit of transparency and credibility which Armstrong so heartily espouses (falls on the floor laughing uncontrollably)


----------



## danielc (Oct 24, 2002)

Why haven't they offered to test samples from 99 all the way to 2005? Three year old samples would be fine if they were stored at -80C.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> Of course, they could make this retesting a condition of Armstrong's participation in the Tour de france - which would all be in the spirit of transparency and credibility which Armstrong so heartily espouses (falls on the floor laughing uncontrollably)


But they're not, so it's all academic.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Bianchigirl said:


> which Armstrong so heartily espouses (falls on the floor laughing uncontrollably)


lol-ing!


----------



## Cyclo-phile (Sep 22, 2005)

One only has to look at the Landis case to see that LNDD has chain of custody issues. I'm with jupiterrn on this..... results can be argued as innacurate no matter how they turn out. I wouldn't willingly let LNDD near my samples if it were me.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Because Lance likes to do things like say he's going to have the best anti-doping program even though his plan is only vaporware at this point. You think you're anti-doping program is good? Well mine is gonna be better. LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! Well, dude, put up or shut up.

And I'm not a Lance hater. But when there's a cloud of suspicion around you and you're willing to talk the talk, well, you need to walk the walk, too.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Of course what this does, rather brilliantly, is challenge the Official Armstrong Timeline - the Second Coming is entirely dependent on us forgetting everything pre-2009 and this offer/challenge takes control of the timeline, hooks it to 1999 and keeps Armstrong tied to doubt and doping.

What he hasn't realised is the way that times have moved on - that what might once have played as mildly plausible seems, in these cynical times, absolutely laughable. All the more reason why he should have stayed off the bike and organised charity rides and looked presidential. He isn't gaining anything from this except to open up several cans of nasty worms. He's like a little boy with a scab - I guess his mother never told him that if he keeps picking it, it'll never get better...


----------



## zphogan (Jan 27, 2007)

Uhh..he'll never, never, in a million years agree to re-testing those samples. As stated in previous posts this is just a lose-lose scenario for Lance with zero to gain.

Oh, he's gonna win No. 8 also. Long live the King!


----------



## interested (Sep 21, 2005)

MarkS said:


> Although I usually defer to your instincts when it comes to the politics of racing, I am going to disagree with you on this one. I don't doubt that Armstrong doped. But, he was able to avoid detection in the past and I think that he believes that he has some way to avoid detection in the retesting of any existing samples. My theory on Armstrong's dpoing is that it was a carefully done and as high tech as everything else in Armstrong's pursuit of the Tour de France. He may believe that whatever he did still is not detectable. Or, he may already have experts lined up to challenge any positive on custody grounds or chemical changes that may have occurred in the samples over the past nine years. In any event, I don't think that Armstrong does anything without being five or six steps ahead of everyone else. He would not have decided to resume his racing career without his figuring out in advance how to deal with this.


I think you are right about the high-tech approach. LA is among the riders suspected of using advanced enzymes to mask EPO usage. Basically the riders applied a little enzyme to their fingertips and then pee at their fingertips when delivering the urine sample. The enzyme then destroyed any EPO (both natural and synthetic) in the sample. See fx:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/?id=2006/epo_protease

Such urine samples show so low EPO values or non at all, that (AFAIK) they cannot come from an individual fit enough to race, but due to technicalities of the present AD system, they cannot be used to sanction riders.
Some of LA's urine samples are rumored to be among the many "no EPO at all" samples. In that case they are indirect proof of LA's doping, but not proof enough to be used legally. Armstrong may even have had access to masking agents specific enough to target only synthetic EPO or other PED's.

OTHO, don't forget that some of his early urine samples allready have retrotested positive for EPO. It is noteworthy that these samples (from 1999) soon will reach the 10 year statute of limitation that saved Bjarne Riis from being stripped of his TdF victory after he admitted using EPO. After the next TdF these positive samples can no longer be used against LA.

Regarding LA's thoughts about retrotesting before returning to racing, then it appear that he doesn't rely on his old AD samples being clean, he has simply "donated" money to the UCI for years:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/sep/16/cycling.cycling
That "donation" strategy seems to work, since UCI's McQuaid personally have guaranteed that no retrotesting will take place:

"McQuaid added that there was no point in looking back at past seasons [regarding LA's comeback], and wondering if performances were clean or not. "We have to move forward," he said."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/sep08/sep10news1

So it seems no official retrotesting will take place. Even if McQuaid gets kicked out of UCI at the next election by the many national UCI chapters that are unhappy about his leadership it will be too late to use the positive 1999 LA samples.

-- 
Regards


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

interested said:


> It is noteworthy that these samples (from 1999) soon will reach the 10 year statute of limitation that saved Bjarne Riis from being stripped of his TdF victory after he admitted using EPO. After the next TdF these positive samples can no longer be used against LA.


Eight years, not ten. We're already past that.


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I think the emphatic denials in the face of multiple reasons to believe he was playing the game just like everyone else rubs a lot of people the wrong way.



well put and without attacking the guy like many seem to like to do. 

As I have said before anyone who has read all the evidence, ie; Betst Andreau, others on his team getting busted the trials transcripts.... would be conviced he was using some type of PED or system...

Nik


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

but Bordry has said that Lance can pick the WADA-accredited lab of his choice so LNDD need not be the one to test the samples.... I'm all for this newly espoused (by Lance "I'll show you transparency, Simeoni" Armstrong) transparency. Time to put up, or shut up Lance.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

philippec said:


> but Bordry has said that Lance can pick the WADA-accredited lab of his choice so LNDD need not be the one to test the samples.... I'm all for this newly espoused (by Lance "I'll show you transparency, Simeoni" Armstrong) transparency. Time to put up, or shut up Lance.


So hypothetically, let's say Lance agrees to do this, and the tests come up negative. No EPO found. Are you prepared to admit that he isn't a doper? Because if you aren't, what is the point? It's foolish to believe that 1) Lance would ever agree to do this, and 2) it would change anyone's mind.

Oh how I wish he would just go away!


----------



## Chili Fries (Jul 4, 2008)

zphogan said:


> Long live the King!


 This thread is about Lance not Eddy.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

interested said:


> I think you are right about the high-tech approach. LA is among the riders suspected of using advanced enzymes to mask EPO usage. Basically the riders applied a little enzyme to their fingertips and then pee at their fingertips when delivering the urine sample. The enzyme then destroyed any EPO (both natural and synthetic) in the sample. See fx:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/?id=2006/epo_protease
> 
> Such urine samples show so low EPO values or non at all, that (AFAIK) they cannot come from an individual fit enough to race, but due to technicalities of the present AD system, they cannot be used to sanction riders.
> Some of LA's urine samples are rumored to be among the many "no EPO at all" samples. In that case they are indirect proof of LA's doping, but not proof enough to be used legally. Armstrong may even have had access to masking agents specific enough to target only synthetic EPO or other PED's.


After Jeff Spencer, USPS Chiropractor, was caught dumping PED during the 2000 Tour, All of the team memebers samples from the Tour were looked again. They were found to have urine that was so clean it was like that of a child.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

As expected Lance fell back on the widely discredited Vrijman report. Weak.

Feel free to email Higgins with your thoughts




> From: Mark Higgins [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 7:07 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Statement from Lance Armstrong
> ...


----------



## bornin53 (Sep 3, 2005)

*Chemical Changes?*

Do you actually think that a clean, EPO free sample can chemically change over time so that EPO could later be present in the sample?

Boy, if that's true Amgen is wasting a lot of money producing EPO that hard way. I think I'll sell my house and use the proceeds to buy as much Amgen stock as I can. They can collect vast quantities of clean urine now and in 9 years they'll have EPO!

If Armstrong thought the samples would be clean, he'd agree to the testing in a heartbeat. He won't agree because he knows the test results would be positive.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

*Predictably.....*

Lance runs away:

http://www.eurosport.fr/cyclisme/armstrong-repousse-l'afld_sto1715773/story.shtml

Chalk one point for Lance's new "transparency"


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

philippec said:


> Lance runs away:
> 
> http://www.eurosport.fr/cyclisme/armstrong-repousse-l'afld_sto1715773/story.shtml
> 
> Chalk one point for Lance's new "transparency"


En Anglais:

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/02102008/58/armstrong-rejects-call-doping-retest.html


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

He clearly never saw the WADA response to the Vrijman report (aka whitewash) which strongly questioned its methodology and objectivity.

But the more he and McQuaid spout the 'forwards not backwards' mantra, the more he obfuscates the events of the past, the less willing he is to talk about 199-2005 the more he seems to be hiding something. That's the trouble with having a monstrous ego, sometimes it prompts you to make poor decisions.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Bianchigirl said:


> He clearly never saw the WADA response to the Vrijman report (aka whitewash) which strongly questioned its methodology and objectivity.
> 
> But the more he and McQuaid spout the 'forwards not backwards' mantra, the more he obfuscates the events of the past, the less willing he is to talk about 199-2005 the more he seems to be hiding something. That's the trouble with having a monstrous ego, sometimes it prompts you to make poor decisions.


I doubt that it's a question of ego when it comes to Lance.
It's more a question of image and a very profitable one at that. 
If that image is tarnished in any way, then stock in the LA brand goes down.This means that companies like Nike, Oakley, Trek etc. will not be willing to pay as much to plaster his image next to their products.
IMO if he were honest he would authorize tests to be done on any and all 2005 samples. The numbers on those samples could be matched to the numbers stored in Switzerland thus forever clearing his name. But that's a big IF.


----------



## yater (Nov 30, 2006)

bornin53 said:


> Do you actually think that a clean, EPO free sample can chemically change over time so that EPO could later be present in the sample?
> 
> Boy, if that's true Amgen is wasting a lot of money producing EPO that hard way. I think I'll sell my house and use the proceeds to buy as much Amgen stock as I can. They can collect vast quantities of clean urine now and in 9 years they'll have EPO!
> 
> If Armstrong thought the samples would be clean, he'd agree to the testing in a heartbeat. He won't agree because he knows the test results would be positive.


Lot's of people would love to see Lance test positive. Who's to say those people haven't had access to the samples in the past 9 years?


----------



## iamnotfilip (Jul 9, 2007)

yater said:


> Lot's of people would love to see Lance test positive. Who's to say those people haven't had access to the samples in the past 9 years?


:mad2: 

Sorry for maybe sounding a bit racist, but I think common sense works differently in America then it does in most of the rest of the world. I think this is a product of Americans being taken for spins by their politicians for decades, and hence the heart of the matter often seems to be overlooked.

Most people who are against Lance have more of a problem with his hunt for fame and fortune based on lies, and the inhumane approach to others who would like to tell the truth. I absolutely agree that it would be hard to argue for anyone that Lance wasn't the best GT rider in the last decade (or more), considering most of his rivals don't look any better when it comes to the issue of doping. Many doped, it was that kind of culture, that kind of sport, I cannot even blame him for doing it.

But the problem is being just the best GT rider of the decade was not good enough for Lance. He wanted fame, fortune and Hollywood booty. And he uses his Live Strong campaign (which everyone commends him for) to deflect criticism for other issues. Which brings me back to my original point, and why it works.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

yater said:


> Lot's of people would love to see Lance test positive. Who's to say those people haven't had access to the samples in the past 9 years?


That is the OJ defense, the police planted the evidence.


----------



## sbindra (Oct 18, 2004)

*When Will People Accept a Guy is Clean?*

So there's this cyclist, let's say he's not LA but a guy in the peloton.

Some say he was on EPO in the 1999 TdF and want to test his old samples. Presumably the EPO would give him an advantage over the others and let him win. They could not test for EPO in 1999. But then he went on to win 6 more times beating everyone else and never had a blood sample come back for doping.

This cyclist has spent nearly 90 days wearing the yellow jersey and won 22 stages plus the race on 7 occasions. My understanding is the yellow jersey wearer, stage winner and then of course the overall winner is tested. This cyclist has likely been tested more than 100 times at the TdF itself. Not to mention the hundreds of other doping tests at races other than the TdF and the out of competition tests.

Yet this cyclist and his team are such a group of freaking geniuses that this cyclist has been doping the entire time but they manage to outsmart the lab, WADA, the IOC and every other doping governing body for 7 YEARS and HUNDREDS OF TESTS.

Could Lance be a doper? Sure, absolutely but after 7 years and hundreds of tests, the guy has always come out clean.

It's rather remarkable that Europeans consider themselves so progressive on human rights issues as compared to Americans (I do agree its true) when even in America, what the French are doing would be considered wrongful prosecution.

Even in America, the State is not permitted to keep digging absent new evidence. LA is right, this issue was resolved in 2005. There is nothing new here.


----------



## r_mutt (Aug 8, 2007)

sbindra, you're right, ferrari was not smart enough to beat drug testing. as a matter of fact, no one can beat the tests. epo is easily detectable.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

sbindra said:


> So there's this cyclist, let's say he's not LA but a guy in the peloton.
> 
> Some say he was on EPO in the 1999 TdF and want to test his old samples. Presumably the EPO would give him an advantage over the others and let him win. They could not test for EPO in 1999. But then he went on to win 6 more times beating everyone else and never had a blood sample come back for doping.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fredrik1 (Nov 26, 2002)

*The problem with cycling*

Let's not fool ourselves. Nothing of value will come out of retesting these or other several years old samples. The UCI, WADA, the teams and the rest need to focus on catching riders that are doping today and in the future. They also need to promite cycling. Chasing after riders that doped or possibly doped in the past will only degrade the value of cycling. I am an avid fan of cycling so let's hope that they all get their current and future houses in order. Yes, I am talking about all the parties.


----------



## 97G8tr (Jul 31, 2007)

The usual 'Lance must go down' crowd. *sigh* Why don't we just move on and get over it.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

97G8tr said:


> The usual 'Lance must go down' crowd. *sigh* Why don't we just move on and get over it.



breaking news......this is the doping forum......part of LA's comeback is allegedly being transparent with regard to doping........there are many credible doubts as to whether LA was clean............. even LA realizes this, proven by the fact that LA has enlisted prominent drug tester Don Caitlin to run a testing program on LA........even LA realizes that if it is proven to the general public that he was/is doping, it will tarnish his legacy, especially since that legacy is, that through willpower you can achieve basically anything.....


If you are so tired of the doping controversies go to the knitting and sewing forums and take a nap... Are you being held hostage in the doping forum?


----------



## yater (Nov 30, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> That is the OJ defense, the police planted the evidence.


That doesn't mean it's not valid. Why would any American rider trust a French lab to hold a sample for 9 years?


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

yater said:


> Why would any <strike><b>American rider</b></strike> <i><b>French lab</b></i> trust a <strike><b>French lab</b></strike> <i><b>American rider</b></i> to <strike><b> hold a sample for 9 years</b></strike> <i><b>ride clean</b></i>?


There, fixed it for you , nothing like throwing blanket generalisations right back to the sender.

By the way, please expound on your original hypothesis -- I'm curious.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

yater said:


> That doesn't mean it's not valid. Why would any American rider trust a French lab to hold a sample for 9 years?


Why would they not?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

r_mutt said:


> sbindra, you're right, ferrari was not smart enough to beat drug testing. as a matter of fact, no one can beat the tests. epo is easily detectable.


EPO is out of your systems in 3-5 days, but its effects last for over a month. Micordosing is not detectable at all. 

Yet another reason "Never Tested Positive" means nothing.


----------



## yater (Nov 30, 2006)

philippec said:


> By the way, please expound on your original hypothesis -- I'm curious.


You know damn well what I'm saying.


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

lookrider said:


> breaking news......this is the doping forum......part of LA's comeback is allegedly being transparent with regard to doping........there are many credible doubts as to whether LA was clean............. even LA realizes this, proven by the fact that LA has enlisted prominent drug tester Don Caitlin to run a testing program on LA........even LA realizes that if it is proven to the general public that he was/is doping, it will tarnish his legacy, especially since that legacy is, that through willpower you can achieve basically anything.....
> 
> 
> If you are so tired of the doping controversies go to the knitting and sewing forums and take a nap... Are you being held hostage in the doping forum?


Not to pick a fight but where has Lance said through will power you can accomplish anything. That just makes he seem like the Tony Robbins of cancer. Attitude and willpower has a lot to do with recovery but even people with great attitude and strength still die of cancer and some of the biggest a-holes in the world survive. It is the whole mind body spirit thing and he gives a lot of credit for his recovery to his nurses and doctors (and no not Dr Ferrari). As far as will power in sports goes well I would not be one to judge that because I will tell you straight up, if it hurts I stop. On EPO or no he has accomplished a lot with his foundation on awareness and funding and some of those things might not be there today if he had not been sick. I wish someone as visible as him was around while my mother was sick to show at least you can survive and lead a life after cancer. Sorry for being personal but just my 2 cents.


----------



## r_mutt (Aug 8, 2007)

i think he's saying that the french as a people aren't trustworthy. 

ok...


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> Why would they not?


Aren't we talking about a lab that has chain of custody issues _on record_?


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Funny about the reference to OJ. For me, revisiting the '99 samples debacle is just like revisiting the Nicole Simpson/Ron Goldman murder case. Yuck.

The problem I have with the '99 samples is that they were never intended for testing in any official context. The riders agreed to allow storage of the samples with the agreement that they were to be used as research guinea pigs only, without attribution. The researchers handled them as such, meaning that were handled without care. Plus there seem to be "statute of limitations" rules of some kind, making the whole thing trebly moot at this point.

No official finding of fault can be found due to the original agreement. No scientific finding of fault can be found due the lack of handling security. Even if they found fault, there's nothing material that could come of it. 

Even if you believe l'Equipe that there is sufficient proof to convict LA in the court of public opinion, there is no official finding possible that can agree with that premise. So why bother making the argument? Why does AFLD bother to make the offer? Lance can stonewall forever, well within the confines of the rules. Unless he has a visitation from On High, nothing's going to change all that.

Jeezus, I wish we could just get over this and move on.

JSR


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

only too well.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

JSR said:


> Jeezus, I wish we could just get over this and move on.JSR


Agreed. This is all mental masturbation. I said yesterday (before Lance issued his press release) that Lance would tell the French Doping Authorities to take a hike. Sure enough he did. And does anyone honestly think ASO is going to condition his entrance to the Tour on retroactive frozen urine sample testing??? :idea: 

Let's move on to bigger and better topics, like Amigo de Birillo, who has some 'splainin to do.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Aren't we talking about a lab that has chain of custody issues _on record_?


Could you provide this record? 

Floyd attempted to fool people into thinking this but two arb panels rejected his smoke and mirrors defense.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> Could you provide this record?
> 
> Floyd attempted to fool people into thinking this but two arb panels rejected his smoke and mirrors defense.


Don't be naive. You know what I'm talking about and I've got better things to do with my time. Here's a link where you can find it yourself.

http://www.tas-cas.org/recent-decision


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Don't be naive. You know what I'm talking about and I've got better things to do with my time. Here's a link where you can find it yourself.
> 
> http://www.tas-cas.org/recent-decision


I would be naive if I only listen to the Landis teams version. 

The fact is the CAS decision found Landis' claims of "chain of custody" issues to be unfounded. They wrote that the lab "Complied with the concepts of the found in the WADA technical documents" they further wrote that there was no evidence that the sample had left the controlled area or had been tampered with. 

Floyd made many wild accusations about the lab and the testers, many of which people use in forming their incorrect opinion of the lab. but the panel said

"The Panel has found no evidence at all to sustain any of these serious allegations," the decision read. "Moreover, the Panel is surprised that such serious allegations should be pursued in the closing brief when it must have been clear at the end of the hearing that there was no evidential basis from expert testimony or otherwise to support them."

Chain of custody/evidence was yet another part of the Landis defense that did not hold up in court. Despite this people still grasp to it like it is fact. For them it is easier to believe that there was some conspiracy that resulted in Lance's samples containing EPO then to believe that it is there because he took EPO.


----------



## yater (Nov 30, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> *Chain of custody/evidence was yet another part of the Landis defense that did not hold up in court*. .


What court?


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

I actually have a problem with LA's approach to his cancer awareness/fundraising as well. He is the absolute worst possible example for early detection, which remains the single biggest factor in survival, yet I have never seen him quoted as saying waiting until he was coughing up blood to seek treatment was the most brain dead stupid thing possible. I understand the mindset, having ridden with a broken pelvis among other things, but since he is alive only because of the best treatment money could buy and pure dumb genetic luck, the message of don't be a moron like me would be far more helpful than the will power beats cancer BS, because it doesn't. But it doesn't fit his view of himself I guess.

No surprise at all that LA refused the retest. They already came out positive once, or 6 times rather, and while he may be an arrogant self righteous pr!ck he's not that freaking stupid. Age of samples, as pointed out earlier, is completely irrelevant since deterioration over time would only DECREASE the chances of detection, unless you are from the old spontaneous generation skool of biology.


P.S. Micro-dosing is only undetectable as long as your name isn't Roberto Heras. Variability in pharmacodynamics is a real b!tch sometimes.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

yater said:


> What court?


CAS = COURT of Arbitration in Sport


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Ok, honest answers.*



jupiterrn said:


> Not to pick a fight but where has Lance said through will power you can accomplish anything.


It's implicit in his message. Also many times he has advised to "fight like heck" or words to that effect..



jupiterrn said:


> That just makes he seem like the Tony Robbins of cancer.


A lot of the attraction to LA is that he is an inspirational figure...



jupiterrn said:


> Attitude and willpower has a lot to do with recovery but even people with great attitude and strength still die of cancer and some of the biggest a-holes in the world survive.


True, he has even pointed this out himself, and does seem kind of humble about his ability to overcome cancer and survive.



jupiterrn said:


> It is the whole mind body spirit thing and he gives a lot of credit for his recovery to his nurses and doctors (and no not Dr Ferrari).


Yes he does. Strangely, it seems that his successful cancer treatment might lead him to have a very pragmatic approach towards the use of PED's. The guy is nothing, if not pragmatic and driven...



jupiterrn said:


> As far as will power in sports goes well I would not be one to judge that because I will tell you straight up, if it hurts I stop.


That's probably the intelligent thing to do. Honestly I don't stop, because I have other issues, one of which is a lack of focus in life. I find life much simpler when working out or running or riding so it's kind of therapeutic for me.. On the other hand, when I need to study, my mind will play all kinds of tricks to distract me from the task at hand... The breathing, or the effort, or the ache, you can compartmentalize that. I always found the working out, a little bit of an escape from reality...



jupiterrn said:


> On EPO or no he has accomplished a lot with his foundation on awareness and funding and some of those things might not be there today if he had not been sick.


Yes, that's true.



jupiterrn said:


> I wish someone as visible as him was around while my mother was sick to show at least you can survive and lead a life after cancer. Sorry for being personal but just my 2 cents.


That's ok, I didn't find it to be personal in a bad way at all... I'm sorry to hear about your mother. Life can be incredibly difficult and I'm sorry your mother had to go through the pain and suffering, and that you had to witness that....


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

terzo rene said:


> I actually have a problem with LA's approach to his cancer awareness/fundraising as well. He is the absolute worst possible example for early detection, which remains the single biggest factor in survival, yet I have never seen him quoted as saying waiting until he was coughing up blood to seek treatment was the most brain dead stupid thing possible. I understand the mindset, having ridden with a broken pelvis among other things, but since he is alive only because of the best treatment money could buy and pure dumb genetic luck, the message of don't be a moron like me would be far more helpful than the will power beats cancer BS, because it doesn't. But it doesn't fit his view of himself I guess.
> 
> No surprise at all that LA refused the retest. They already came out positive once, or 6 times rather, and while he may be an arrogant self righteous pr!ck he's not that freaking stupid. Age of samples, as pointed out earlier, is completely irrelevant since deterioration over time would only DECREASE the chances of detection, unless you are from the old spontaneous generation skool of biology.
> 
> ...


Wow, It's really great to hear such an unbiased and objective assesment of LA. Is your love spread pretty evenly over all winners in all walks of life?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Wow, It's really great to hear such an unbiased and objective assesment of LA. Is your love spread pretty evenly over all winners in all walks of life?


You're really hung up on this winners, anecdotal nonsense. 

Did you happen to see that little Rainman clip of "winner," Bill Gates lying his way thru the deposition? The transcript was even better.

PM me your address so I can send you a copy of From Lance to Landis....


----------



## Lance#8in09 (Sep 13, 2008)

Bianchigirl said:


> Of course what this does, rather brilliantly, is challenge the Official Armstrong Timeline - the Second Coming is entirely dependent on us forgetting everything pre-2009 and this offer/challenge takes control of the timeline, hooks it to 1999 and keeps Armstrong tied to doubt and doping.
> 
> What he hasn't realised is the way that times have moved on - that what might once have played as mildly plausible seems, in these cynical times, absolutely laughable. All the more reason why he should have stayed off the bike and organised charity rides and looked presidential. He isn't gaining anything from this except to open up several cans of nasty worms. He's like a little boy with a scab - I guess his mother never told him that if he keeps picking it, it'll never get better...


He didn't bring up the old subject of the 99's tests, others did so it certainly was not him picking a scab, rather someone else picking his scab. Using your logic he should stay off his bike and not try to race again simply because people who have tried to out him for a decade and couldn't, want to try once again. And of course we have lots of confidence in how those samples have been safeguarded and secured for 10 years don't we? 

Maybe Lance has chosen not to let others rule his life and decide what he does and does not do on the bike. You can choose to let your life be guided by and intimidated by others actions, Lance walks his own walk. I'll respect that over someone who sheepishly hides from their critics any day. Mellow Johnny is back, and I think its great that he is basically saying FU to all the legions who have tried to defame him for a decade.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Lance#8in09 said:


> He didn't bring up the old subject of the 99's tests, others did so it certainly was not him picking a scab, rather someone else picking his scab. Using your logic he should stay off his bike and not try to race again simply because people who have tried to out him for a decade and couldn't, want to try once again. And of course we have lots of confidence in how those samples have been safeguarded and secured for 10 years don't we?
> 
> Maybe Lance has chosen not to let others rule his life and decide what he does and does not do on the bike. You can choose to let your life be guided by and intimidated by others actions, Lance walks his own walk. I'll respect that over someone who sheepishly hides from their critics any day. Mellow Johnny is back, and I think its great that he is basically saying FU to all the legions who have tried to defame him for a decade.


"Hubris." Both you and Lance Armstrong might want to look up the word.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Lance#8in09 said:


> And of course we have lots of confidence in how those samples have been safeguarded and secured for 10 years don't we?


Absolutely -- and, may I add, more confidence in the labs than in Armstrong's assertions of riding "clean".


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> Wow, It's really great to hear such an unbiased and objective assesment of LA. Is your love spread pretty evenly over all winners in all walks of life?


 I've got the wall st 30:1 leverage crowd and every politician covered with a far more intense love.

I don't consider the personality assessment to be anything other than a statement of the natural state of affairs with any world class athlete. Success at that level requires putting yourself ahead of absolutely everything and everyone else. In any other context even most of his defenders would likely say even worse about a similar person they had to deal with on their job. So in that sense yes I feel the same about every "winner" - I can't think of any I would want to meet in person but I can come up with many I would leave the room as quickly as possible and avoid like a Wall St hoodoo.


----------

