# Armstrong's adventures in testing



## Christine

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...S?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Doesn't sound suspicious to me- why *wouldn't* Lance question a stranger lurking at his doorstep? Seems unfair. Besides, a shower isn't going to alter a blood or hair sample.


----------



## godot

off to the doping forum......


----------



## Old_school_nik

*naughty naughty Lance... should have just waited...*

for Mr Tester... wonder how far the AFLD will take this...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/apr09/apr09news3


----------



## pianopiano

*shower interruptus*

A rule is a rule. Applicable to all, even if it seems trivial or silly. Lance really should have known better, and waited 'till later for that shower.


----------



## zero85ZEN

*He's screwed*

I think he just gave them what they (AFLD) need to ban him from competing in the Tour. 

His arrogance got the better of him. I also suspect there probably was a real good reason Lance needed that shower so bad.


----------



## Bianchigirl

He's got too used to getting his own way with the UCI testers.

The AFLD version of events make interesting reading http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news...ng_news&cate_img=145.jpg&cate_rss=news_Sports 

As a professional athlete, the self styled 'most tested' rider should know the protocol inside out - at best it's sloppy and unprofessional, at worst it brings his credibility into question.

The Italians clearly think he'll be sanctioned as they've already changed the route of stage 16 of the Giro - but then they're paying him 2 million euros appearance money (guess that'll be for 'public speaking' like the million he pocketed from the TDU that was intended for Livestrong). Sweet irony being that Versus now can't afford the newly hiked rate for the TV rights


----------



## MG537

Bianchigirl said:


> He's got too used to getting his own way with the UCI testers.
> 
> The AFLD version of events make interesting reading http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news...ng_news&cate_img=145.jpg&cate_rss=news_Sports
> 
> As a professional athlete, the self styled 'most tested' rider should know the protocol inside out - at best it's sloppy and unprofessional, at worst it brings his credibility into question.
> 
> The Italians clearly think he'll be sanctioned as they've already changed the route of stage 16 of the Giro - but then they're paying him 2 million euros appearance money (guess that'll be for 'public speaking' like the million he pocketed from the TDU that was intended for Livestrong). Sweet irony being that Versus now can't afford the newly hiked rate for the TV rights


Yep! Cyclingnews posted the same thing
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/apr09/apr09news3

For a second I looked at my calendar making sure it was past April 1. 

Michael Ashenden in his interview at nyvelocity.com hinted at the same thing. "The self proclaimed most tested athlete should know the drill by now".


----------



## smbrum

zero85ZEN said:


> I think he just gave them what they (AFLD) need to ban him from competing in the Tour.
> 
> His arrogance got the better of him. I also suspect there probably was a real good reason Lance needed that shower so bad.


there is always so much drama around LA. whether he is or isnt the most tested athlete in the world, clearly he has a fair amount experience with testing protocol. It jsut doesnt add up to me. LA is one of those shrewed politician types that rarely messes up like this. Look how long he has been under the microscope but has always managed to evade problems. 

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if Superman has realized he isnt quite as super anymore. Maybe the reality from recent races and training has set in and he knows he cant go to the Giro or TDF and be as competitive as he used to be. He had to know he couldnt leave the testers site and if he did they could sanction him. Is this his way out and saving face??? If he does get barred from competing its a PR gift to continue on with the game...their out to get me, I tested negative and they still wouldnt let me race, etc. Clearly if he cant hack it anymore his ego wouldnt allow him to race the TDF and get hammered. He just strikes me as someone who does everything with a purpose and I think its plausible he could be looking for a way out. But then again, maybe he just screwed up


----------



## al0

Bianchigirl said:


> He's got too used to getting his own way with the UCI testers.
> 
> The AFLD version of events make interesting reading http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=916428&lang=eng_news&cate_img=145.jpg&cate_rss=news_Sports
> 
> As a professional athlete, the self styled 'most tested' rider should know the protocol inside out - at best it's sloppy and unprofessional, at worst it brings his credibility into question.


It raises a couple of interesting questions 

It seems that testing protocol has to be followed from the moment when tester identifies and *authenticates *himself as a tester and expresses request for a sample collection. In this case an initial authentication was not sufficient, so LA has every right to assume that testing request is false and so there is no need to follow protocol.
Both LA and JB claim that supposed tester has no objections regarding shower till tester|s authentication will be completed. AFLD states opposite. AFLD statement in best case is based solely on word of that tester (in the worth case it is completely unfounded). So we have word of single person against words of (at least) 2 persons. Who has to be belived?
So conspiracy theory comes into head - was tester instructed to to arrive with insufficient proof of identity, give a permission for leave for a period needed to obtain proof of testers identity and then deny such permission.
 Then, if I remember correctly (and rules has not changed recently on this matter), you have to completely miss more then one (3?) surprise out/of/competition controls to be banned. I seriously doubt that protocol violation may be considered as more serious infraction then complete miss of the control.


----------



## bigpinkt

al0 said:


> It raises a couple of interesting questions
> 
> In this case an initial authentication was not sufficient, so LA has every right to assume that testing request is false and so there is no need to follow protocol.


Wrong. The tester did present his identification. Armstrong does not have "every right" to assume he, or any other testing request, is false. In fact he must assume the opposite.....unless he does not want to race professionally.



al0 said:


> [*]Both LA and JB claim that supposed tester has no objections regarding shower till tester|s authentication will be completed. AFLD states opposite. AFLD statement in best case is based solely on word of that tester (in the worth case it is completely unfounded). So we have word of single person against words of (at least) 2 persons. Who has to be belived?


It is more then just Johann and Armstrong's word. While he was waiting outside the tester made multiple phone calls (Johann confirms this) to let his superiors know that he was not being let in. As Lance has lied often thought out his career I would tend to believe the tester



al0 said:


> So conspiracy theory comes into head - was tester instructed to to arrive with insufficient proof of identity, give a permission for leave for a period needed to obtain proof of testers identity and then deny such permission.[/LIST] Then, if I remember correctly (and rules has not changed recently on this matter), you have to completely miss more then one (3?) surprise out/of/competition controls to be banned. I seriously doubt that protocol violation may be considered as more serious infraction then complete miss of the control.


Why is it that whenever Armstrong tests positive or behaves like a Jacka$$ the only excuse is a French conspiracy?


----------



## den bakker

So if you get pulled over, ask to see the civilian cops badge and you claim it's fake you have every right to just drive away? 
I hope you are not serious claiming JB is an independent vitness. 4 guys rapes one girl. It's word against word. Are the 4 guys more trustworthy due to sheer numbers? 
Armstrong did not miss the test. He walked away, there is a difference. Rio ferdinand got 8 months for leaving after being asked to be tested. 




al0 said:


> It raises a couple of interesting questions
> 
> It seems that testing protocol has to be followed from the moment when tester identifies and *authenticates *himself as a tester and expresses request for a sample collection. In this case an initial authentication was not sufficient, so LA has every right to assume that testing request is false and so there is no need to follow protocol.
> Both LA and JB claim that supposed tester has no objections regarding shower till tester|s authentication will be completed. AFLD states opposite. AFLD statement in best case is based solely on word of that tester (in the worth case it is completely unfounded). So we have word of single person against words of (at least) 2 persons. Who has to be belived?
> So conspiracy theory comes into head - was tester instructed to to arrive with insufficient proof of identity, give a permission for leave for a period needed to obtain proof of testers identity and then deny such permission.
> Then, if I remember correctly (and rules has not changed recently on this matter), you have to completely miss more then one (3?) surprise out/of/competition controls to be banned. I seriously doubt that protocol violation may be considered as more serious infraction then complete miss of the control.


----------



## bikesarethenewblack

Armstrong himself admitted he took a shower - there is no question if Armstrong walked away from the tester - he did, buy his own admission. That's the problem - weather the tester said he could or not is just noise.

So why would one want to take a 20 minute shower? I can think of lots of reasons, but maybe this:

http://www.passthetest.com/biocleanseshampoo.htm

Maybe it works, maybe not, but stuff like this is all over the place.


----------



## lancezneighbor

al0 said:


> It raises a couple of interesting questions
> 
> 
> Both LA and JB claim that supposed tester has no objections regarding shower till tester|s authentication will be completed. AFLD states opposite. AFLD statement in best case is based solely on word of that tester (in the worth case it is completely unfounded). So we have word of single person against words of (at least) 2 persons. Who has to be belived?





Who has to be believed would seem to be the person who has nothing to gain but is solely trying to do their job. Lance and JB could have something to hide. Look at my username, I was once a fan but now I'm embarrased. Is there a way to change one's username?


----------



## rook

*The "shower" excuse*



Christine said:


> "a shower isn't going to alter a blood or hair sample. "



Yeah, but how do you know Armstrong wasn't altering his blood or urine sample during his so-called "shower" excuse? Nobody knows. And that is the reason why the rule states that the athlete has to remain in direct sight of the tester until the testing is complete.

Rasmussen got busted on this years ago. Where is he now? And the rules have gotten stricter in an attempt to stop athletes that try to alter their own blood and urine to make it look like they are clean.


----------



## morrisond

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all the winners of an stage allowed to go have an shower/get on the team bus right after the stage before testing and media interviews?

What could you really do in 20 minutes to alter the chemistry of your hair and blood?


----------



## bikesarethenewblack

morrisond said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all the winners of an stage allowed to go have an shower/get on the team bus right after the stage before testing and media interviews?
> 
> What could you really do in 20 minutes to alter the chemistry of your hair and blood?


Consider yourself corrected - they are not allowed to go shower before going to drug control. They roll over the line, are observed and go straight to testing. Are you also kidding on 20 minutes? All you had to do was inject yourself with saline and, BINGO, your crit level was below 50%. 

Dude, read up on this stuff. Do yourself a favor - read this 

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Then read this one

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/paul-kimmage

Then post legit stuff - consider yourself educated on the matter.


----------



## iliveonnitro

bikesarethenewblack said:


> Armstrong himself admitted he took a shower - there is no question if Armstrong walked away from the tester - he did, buy his own admission. That's the problem - weather the tester said he could or not is just noise.
> 
> So why would one want to take a 20 minute shower? I can think of lots of reasons, but maybe this:
> 
> http://www.passthetest.com/biocleanseshampoo.htm
> 
> Maybe it works, maybe not, but stuff like this is all over the place.


More likely is an IV drip.


----------



## bigpinkt

_“I’m not saying anything about Lance Armstrong,” said Dr. Gary I. Wadler, a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency. “But if somebody had half an hour to himself, that’s plenty of time to urinate and refill yourself with somebody else’s urine. That way, even if they witness you urinating, it’s not your urine. It happens a lot. It is the rationale behind the no-notice testing.”_


----------



## pacificaslim

If the tester did indeed answer "no" in the area for mentioning any problems with lance or any irregularities in collecting the samples, then they will have a hard time making their complaints stick.


----------



## zoikz

that boy is dirty.


----------



## rook

pacificaslim said:


> If the tester did indeed answer "no" in the area for mentioning any problems with lance or any irregularities in collecting the samples, then they will have a hard time making their complaints stick.



The tester never said "no" to any irregularities in collecting Armstrong's urine samples. That is what Armstrong is claiming. ESPN's report is that the tester did, in fact, cite that there were irregularities in the testing and that Armstrong was absent for a period of almost a half-hour out of the sight of the tester.


----------



## jorgy

While I can buy that the guy showed up without papers that looked official and that the AFLD is, in fact, out to get Armstrong, it's sheer idiocy on his part to give them _anything_ to arouse suspicion. Assuming he really is clean, of course.

While the dope testing attitude and invasiveness has changed since he left in 2005, it was an amateur move to doing anything but stay within the view of the tester.


----------



## z rocks

Shower = delay tactic.
LA = cheetah


----------



## pacificaslim

i'm surprised you anti-lance guys like this since he's your al capone and this is like busting him for tax evasion.


----------



## SwiftSolo

bigpinkt said:


> Wrong. The tester did present his identification. Armstrong does not have "every right" to assume he, or any other testing request, is false. In fact he must assume the opposite.....unless he does not want to race professionally.
> 
> 
> 
> It is more then just Johann and Armstrong's word. While he was waiting outside the tester made multiple phone calls (Johann confirms this) to let his superiors know that he was not being let in. As Lance has lied often thought out his career I would tend to believe the tester
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that whenever Armstrong tests positive or behaves like a Jacka$$ the only excuse is a French conspiracy?


It may be reasonable to refuse to cooperate until you've checked the credentials of someone who wants to take your blood, urine, and hair. Yes, I know that nobody in France would ever do anything illegal or unethical, still, it could be an American disguised as a Frenchman!

Actually, I'm a little surprised that LA does not have a video/audio recording of the incident. He would do well to refuse to talk with these people until someone on his staff has a video camera running. It's a very effective method of neutralizing authoritarian zealots and only delays the proceedings momentarily. It does not, however, address the need to verify credentials.


----------



## bigpinkt

SwiftSolo said:


> It may be reasonable to refuse to cooperate until you've checked the credentials of someone who wants to take your blood, urine, and hair. Yes, I know that nobody in France would ever do anything illegal or unethical, still, it could be an American disguised as a Frenchman!
> 
> Actually, I'm a little surprised that LA does not have a video/audio recording of the incident. He would do well to refuse to talk with these people until someone on his staff has a video camera running. It's a very effective method of neutralizing authoritarian zealots and only delays the proceedings momentarily. It does not, however, address the need to verify credentials.


The tester *DID *present his credentials and the door was slammed in his face. 

It would have been nice to see the video of Lance rushing to the "Shower" to get a bag of saline in his system before the blood test and running to the laundry room to get some Tide for the sample


----------



## SwiftSolo

bigpinkt said:


> The tester *DID *present his credentials and the door was slammed in his face.
> 
> It would have been nice to see the video of Lance rushing to the "Shower" to get a bag of saline in his system before the blood test and running to the laundry room to get some Tide for the sample


Presenting credentials is just a tweak different than verifying credentials. Every illegal alien in the US has credentials (they cost $15 near the border). 

And yes, I am aware that you have witnesses that saw Lance "rushing to the "Shower" to get a bag of saline in his system before the blood test and running to the laundry room to get some Tide for the sample". I know this because I know that you would never speculate on anyones' guilt or innocense until you had all the facts. It's just who you are!


----------



## bigpinkt

SwiftSolo said:


> Presenting credentials is just a tweak different than verifying credentials.


So every time you get pulled over by the cops do you take off for 30 minutes (to dump the kilo of blow in your trunk) while your boyfriend "Verifies" his badge?

There are thousands of OOC tests done each year. Even if Armstrong wanted to "Varify" the testers credentials this does not allow him to disappear for 30 minutes. For someone who makes the false claim of being the worlds "Most tested athlete" this process should be routine for him by now.....which makes his 30 minutes disappearance even more questionable.


----------



## Mootsie

Riddle me this Batman. Why would he be doping this far out from the Giro that he has to hide it?


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Mootsie said:


> Riddle me this Batman. Why would he be doping this far out from the Giro that he has to hide it?


All kinds of reasons. Go find Tyler's doping schedule for his LBL win or listen to the BALCO guy detail his dopers schedules. A lot of the doping is done during training not the race period.

Maybe he had a small extraction of blood recently and is microdosing EPO to quickly restore to normal values or is taking recovery hormones to help in training or...


----------



## SwiftSolo

bigpinkt said:


> So every time you get pulled over by the cops do you take off for 30 minutes (to dump the kilo of blow in your trunk) while your boyfriend "Verifies" his badge?
> 
> There are thousands of OOC tests done each year. Even if Armstrong wanted to "Varify" the testers credentials this does not allow him to disappear for 30 minutes. For someone who makes the false claim of being the worlds "Most tested athlete" this process should be routine for him by now.....which makes his 30 minutes disappearance even more questionable.


Maybe you missed that part where LA claimed he had permission to take a shower? It's certainly possible that he's not telling the truth, but, many of us think we should postpone the hanging until we have the facts. It's kind of a strange principle that we believe in here in America.

Again, I want to assure you that the French have no history that could cause distrust!!


----------



## Zipp0

Mootsie said:


> Riddle me this Batman. Why would he be doping this far out from the Giro that he has to hide it?


Small doses of EPO in order to slowly raise crit levels. The rise would need to be slow enough to attribute it to altitude training or tent because of the biological passport program. There is a short window for EPO detection, so unless he is surprised with a OOC test at just the wrong moment, it would be tough to catch. 

Notice the HCT climbing since December....almost like magic!

http://www.livestrong.com/lance-arm...c8cPost:4d1f78a2-14b5-4790-9dec-b18b3721f0c9/

So that is why.


----------



## Old_school_nik

Mootsie said:


> Riddle me this Batman. Why would he be doping this far out from the Giro that he has to hide it?


I think once you start a plan you have to keep doing it or else your HCT and other markers show wild fluctuations (like Lance's 16% increase in HCT when he started competition in Feb) and that could flag you. 

But I do agree that after cracking your collar bone and being home with just hard training in thw weeks ahead doesn't seem like the most logical time to take pack in extra red blood cells or epo - steroids yes, to heal fast and get back into heavy training...

Nik


----------



## bigpinkt

SwiftSolo said:


> Maybe you missed that part where LA claimed he had permission to take a shower? It's certainly possible that he's not telling the truth, but, many of us think we should postpone the hanging until we have the facts. It's kind of a strange principle that we believe in here in America.
> 
> Again, I want to assure you that the French have no history that could cause distrust!!


You must have missed the part where the tester told him multiple times he did not have permission to leave that he would note his actions in his report, and that the tester was locked outside the house for 30 minutes. The idea that a doctor, who has been doing testing for over 15 years, would agree to let Armstrong out of his sight for 30 minutes is absurd.

If you have evidence of an French conspiracy please share with us.


----------



## lookrider

SwiftSolo said:


> Maybe you missed that part where LA claimed he had permission to take a shower? It's certainly possible that he's not telling the truth, but, many of us think we should postpone the hanging until we have the facts. It's kind of a strange principle that we believe in here in America.
> 
> Again, I want to assure you that the French have no history that could cause distrust!!


Swifty, it says in your profile that you started cycling in 1951. I thought you were born in 1961?

Oh,another thing, you're a big fan of Rocket 7's?


----------



## bikesarethenewblack

SwiftSolo said:


> Maybe you missed that part where LA claimed he had permission to take a shower?


You're kidding, right? No for real - seriously, you are kidding. You must be. Do you really think, for a second, this dude showed up, gave elusive credentials, told Armstrong to go shower, took the tests and then went out and changed the story 100%.

It couldn't possibly be that this is yet another case of circumstantial evidence of Lance doing the dope. I mean, come on, it's naive to think he's not doping. They all dope. most everyone the guy has shared a podium with his seven years has been caught doping. Few by test, most with it on their person.

You do it for this long and a lot of stuff builds around the edges.


----------



## haikalah

"after cracking your collar bone and being home with just hard training in thw weeks ahead doesn't seem like the most logical time to take pack in extra red blood cells or epo - steroids yes, to heal fast and get back into heavy training"

Your timeline is off.


----------



## DMFT

bigpinkt said:


> So every time you get pulled over by the cops do you take off for 30 minutes (to dump the kilo of blow in your trunk) while your boyfriend "Verifies" his badge?
> 
> There are thousands of OOC tests done each year. Even if Armstrong wanted to "Varify" the testers credentials this does not allow him to disappear for 30 minutes. For someone who makes the false claim of being the worlds "Most tested athlete" this process should be routine for him by now.....which makes his 30 minutes disappearance even more questionable.


- Funny you keep saying 30 minutes, 30 minutes, door slammed in his face, etc. etc.
WHERE are these reports? EVERY OTHER media outlet say's it was a 20 minute shower and ZERO mention of a door being "slammed". 

Is it really just your intense dislike of the guy coming through? You seem to keep stretching the truth.


----------



## pacificaslim

Well, how about we take the word of someone who was actually on the phone with them as this all happened, and happens to be the chief of the UCI?

Latest news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/7993738.stm)

The head of world cycling says France's anti-doping agency (AFLD) acted unprofessionally in a drugs test conducted on Lance Armstrong in March.

"Armstrong claimed he was given permission to shower during that period while his manager verified the tester's credentials, a *fact confirmed* by [UCI Chief Pat] McQuaid.
"The tester has to have a specific instruction that the athlete must remain under his supervision from the moment he is notified until the test is concluded," he told the BBC.

"From my understanding, this was not the case. Lance Armstrong had every right to take a shower while his manager (Astana team head Johan Bruyneel) checked with the UCI that these people had the authority to take these samples.

"During that time his manager rang me and I put him on to our anti-doping manager, who confirmed that it (the AFLD) has the authority to take samples."

"The French are not acting very professionally in this case," he said.


Etc...


----------



## DIRT BOY

den bakker said:


> So if you get pulled over, ask to see the civilian cops badge and you claim it's fake you have every right to just drive away?


Yes you do!! You have the right to get to a police station or contact 911 to make sure the officer is legit! I did this after being pulled over by a undercover gang detective for giving him the finger! He came out showed his badge. I aksed for more. He said no, so I slowly drove off. 911 confirmed him name and identity. I pulled over and he knew I was right.

if this guy was totally new or his credentials were not up to par, LA has the right to walk away until verified. You would not? Who knows if this guy was lying?


----------



## bigpinkt

pacificaslim said:


> Well, how about we take the word of someone who was actually on the phone with them as this all happened, and happens to be the chief of the UCI?
> 
> Latest news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/7993738.stm)
> 
> The head of world cycling says France's anti-doping agency (AFLD) acted unprofessionally in a drugs test conducted on Lance Armstrong in March.
> 
> "Armstrong claimed he was given permission to shower during that period while his manager verified the tester's credentials, a *fact confirmed* by [UCI Chief Pat] McQuaid.
> "The tester has to have a specific instruction that the athlete must remain under his supervision from the moment he is notified until the test is concluded," he told the BBC.
> 
> "From my understanding, this was not the case. Lance Armstrong had every right to take a shower while his manager (Astana team head Johan Bruyneel) checked with the UCI that these people had the authority to take these samples.
> 
> "During that time his manager rang me and I put him on to our anti-doping manager, who confirmed that it (the AFLD) has the authority to take samples."
> 
> "The French are not acting very professionally in this case," he said.
> 
> 
> Etc...


Was McQuaid in the room? No, so he cannot confirm anything. The rules are very clear, the rider has to remain in the tester sight at all times. That McQuaid does not know this is stupid. There was another side to this story. The tester, while he was locked out, called multiple people, including his superiors, telling them he was locked out. It was only when he told The Hog that his next call was to the Police that he was let in. 

I guess another $500,000 donation is on the way to the UCI as we speak.


----------



## bigpinkt

DMFT said:


> - Funny you keep saying 30 minutes, 30 minutes, door slammed in his face, etc. etc.
> WHERE are these reports? EVERY OTHER media outlet say's it was a 20 minute shower and ZERO mention of a door being "slammed".
> 
> Is it really just your intense dislike of the guy coming through? You seem to keep stretching the truth.


The Media outlets are quoting the Armstrong press release, the tester report says 30 minutes and said the door was shut in his face as he protested. He made several calls and Johann only opened the door once he said he was calling the police.

The only person stretching the truth is Armstrong, you intense love for the guy is clouding your ability to judge reality.


----------



## pacificaslim

OK, I suppose it's perfectly reasonable for us to take the word of some anonymous guy on an internet forum over that of the freakin' head of all professional cycling.


----------



## Digger28

pacificaslim said:


> OK, I suppose it's perfectly reasonable for us to take the word of some anonymous guy on an internet forum over that of the freakin' head of all professional cycling.


Take away this specific example for one second, are you seriously telling me you think it's okay for an athlete to disappear for 20 mins, while the tester waits? This contravenes one of them most basic testing guidelines of any sport, not just cycling.
And Pat McQuaid, my God, the man just keeps delivering the goods. Must be one of the most corrupt heads of any Sports organisation. And that's quite an achievement when one sees FIFA and the IOC for example. The same Pat McQuaid who decided Lance wasn't answerable to the 6 months rule, prior to the TDU. He is absolutely false in claiming Lance had a right to go shower. Otherwise it negates the reason for a surprise test. Ricco was hounded last year through traffic, and not let out of their sight once they did get him - and rightly so.


----------



## bigpinkt

pacificaslim said:


> OK, I suppose it's perfectly reasonable for us to take the word of some anonymous guy on an internet forum over that of the freakin' head of all professional cycling.


I am quoting the WADA code. You are welcome to read it yourself here

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v2009_En.pdf

The rules around OOC testing have been the same for years. 

*"the Athlete is continuously chaperoned from the moment of notification through Sample Provision."*

McQuaid knows this. That he pretends it is not an issue is yet another example of his, and the UCI's, incompetence.


----------



## DMFT

bigpinkt said:


> The Media outlets are quoting the Armstrong press release, the tester report says 30 minutes and said the door was shut in his face as he protested. He made several calls and Johann only opened the door once he said he was calling the police.
> 
> The only person stretching the truth is Armstrong, you intense love for the guy is clouding your ability to judge reality.



- Wow, YOU must have been there too eehhhh Pink? WTF??? Where are YOUR sources, please.


----------



## DMFT

Digger28 said:


> Take away this specific example for one second, are you seriously telling me you think it's okay for an athlete to disappear for 20 mins, while the tester waits? This contravenes one of them most basic testing guidelines of any sport, not just cycling.
> And Pat McQuaid, my God, the man just keeps delivering the goods. Must be one of the most corrupt heads of any Sports organisation. And that's quite an achievement when one sees FIFA and the IOC for example. The same Pat McQuaid who decided Lance wasn't answerable to the 6 months rule, prior to the TDU. He is absolutely false in claiming Lance had a right to go shower. Otherwise it negates the reason for a surprise test. Ricco was hounded last year through traffic, and not let out of their sight once they did get him - and rightly so.



- Let's go a step further. The "most basic" procedure a tester should follow is to have ALL of his credentials in order and even be accompanied by a Police officer if he/she thinks they may be stalled/avoided. The onus is on THEM to have their ducks in a row.


----------



## blackhat

DMFT said:


> - Let's go a step further. The "most basic" procedure a tester should follow is to have ALL of his credentials in order and <u>even be accompanied by a Police officer if he/she thinks they may be stalled/avoided. </u>The onus is on THEM to have their ducks in a row.


really? why would the police want to get involved in this? it's a civil matter.


----------



## bigpinkt

DMFT said:


> - Wow, YOU must have been there too eehhhh Pink? WTF??? Where are YOUR sources, please.


The AFLD report.


----------



## Digger28

DMFT said:


> - Let's go a step further. The "most basic" procedure a tester should follow is to have ALL of his credentials in order and even be accompanied by a Police officer if he/she thinks they may be stalled/avoided. The onus is on THEM to have their ducks in a row.


That's right, take every word Lance and his crew say as being gospel.


----------



## bigpinkt

DMFT said:


> - Let's go a step further. The "most basic" procedure a tester should follow is to have ALL of his credentials in order and even be accompanied by a Police officer if he/she thinks they may be stalled/avoided. The onus is on THEM to have their ducks in a row.


He had all his credentials in order, Armstrong did not want to honor them. Johann called the head of the UCI and Anne Gripper and told them that they had to honor them. 

The onus is on the *athlete* to follow the instructions of the tester/chaparone. The WADA code is clear about this.


----------



## SilasCL

DMFT said:


> - Let's go a step further. The "most basic" procedure a tester should follow is to have ALL of his credentials in order and even be accompanied by a Police officer if he/she thinks they may be stalled/avoided. The onus is on THEM to have their ducks in a row.


Is there any evidence that their credentials were not sufficient?


----------



## DMFT

blackhat said:


> really? why would the police want to get involved in this? it's a civil matter.



- Wrong. Doping is a criminal offense in France.


----------



## DMFT

bigpinkt said:


> The AFLD report.


Really, I wasn't aware the report was available to the public yet. THAT story has not been posted or attached to any of the reports I've read on : CN, VN, ESPN, FOX, or CNN.

Care to post it yourself?


----------



## DMFT

Digger28 said:


> That's right, take every word Lance and his crew say as being gospel.



THAT is all you have??? C'mon Digger, you can do better. Remember, YOU are right about everything!!  

Remove the Tin-Foil-Hats guy's, it's affecting your everyday life......

THE HAIR SAMPLES CAME BACK CLEAN, SO DID THE URINE, AND SO DID THE BLOOD.... WHAT ELSE YA GOT?


----------



## JayZee

I think it is pretty fair to say that both the tester and Lance screwed up. Who screwed up more is open to debate. The WADA rules do allow the tester to grant permission for a delay for certain reasons, including finishing a workout (which in my view probably doesn't include taking a shower at the end of a workout, but it could arguably), BUT the tester must also ensure that the individual is kept in site at all times. If in fact the tester gave permission (depends on who you believe), then Lance probably was not wrong in taking a shower, but the tester should have requested to keep him in view the whole time and Lance should have known better. What would really help would be some taped phone conversations between the tester and his superiors. Either LA or JB said that it sounded like someone was shouting at the tester on the other end, probably saying something to the effect of "why the ***** did you let LA out of your site ya *****." 

Another issue under the WADA rules is the fact that Lance should not have been allowed to take a leak prior to the test, which if he is like me taking a shower and taking a leak often go together. 

I think the argument that prior to verification of authority LA was not yet being tested and, therefore, the remain in site rule doesn't apply is pretty weak and the rules I have read don't seem to support it. The rules require that upon notification of a test that the tester must inform the athlete of the rules and regulations, including the requirement to stay in view the entire time. It is notification of the test that triggers all the other rules, not verification. If there is some rule that is to the contrary, please point it out.

Anyone interested in reading the rules can fine them here:

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2?pageCategory.id=371
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2?pageCategory.id=250

Maybe the AFLD should have just tested him again the next day (assuming he hadn't fled the country) and make sure that the proper procedures were followed by their tester and LA.

You know, having watched Lance and Contador (and Levi) race this year, I think a French suspension may be the best thing for Lance so he won't have to be embarrassed by Contador (and even Levi) walking all over him at the Tour. Of course I could be wrong. On the other hand, if he can race and he has the form, I will happily cheer him along.


----------



## blackhat

DMFT said:


> - Wrong. Doping is a criminal offense in France.


possession and trafficking is criminal, having a 50+ hematocrit is not. I doubt the gendarmerie would be interested in escorting vampires around either.


----------



## bigpinkt

DMFT said:


> Really, I wasn't aware the report was available to the public yet. THAT story has not been posted or attached to any of the reports I've read on : CN, VN, ESPN, FOX, or CNN.
> 
> Care to post it yourself?


Fox, CNN have all just used Armstrong's press release as a source. In Europe, where cycling is a much bigger sport, you have actual cycling writers who are also talking to the AFLD.

http://www.20minutes.fr/article/318...g-lors-d-un-controle-declenche-un-rapport.php

In case you do not read French it says they closed the door on the tester and made him wait for 30 minutes.

You also may have ignored the many times that Bodry, head of the AFLD has been quoted as saying
* "Mr Armstrong, despite being repeatedly warned by the examiner, did not meet the obligation to remain under direct and permanent observation."*
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news...ng_news&cate_img=145.jpg&cate_rss=news_Sports
* the agency sent a man with 15 years of testing experience who teaches other would-be testers about the job and who has worked at the Tour, the Rugby World Cup and the athletics world championships, *

*only when the tester threatened to call in gendarmes did Bruyneel agree to let testing proceed, and the French official pooh-poohed Armstrong's claim that the tester let him shower. The agency says the tester reported that he repeatedly warned Armstrong that he had to keep him within his sight at all times.*


----------



## JayZee

However, I think the rules place the responsibility of informing the rider of that rule and of ensuring that it is followed on the tester (at least based on my reading of the rules, correct me if I am wrong). The question in my mind is who is telling the truth about whether the tester said LA could leave or not. 

It would also help this discussion if you would cite the rule you are quoting.


----------



## r_mutt

JayZee said:


> However, I think the rules place the responsibility of informing the rider of that rule and of ensuring that it is followed on the tester (at least based on my reading of the rules, correct me if I am wrong). The question in my mind is who is telling the truth about whether the tester said LA could leave or not.



so, this "most tested athlete in history of sport" doesn't know the basic rule about not being able to leave the sight of the tester? 

give me a break!


----------



## bigpinkt

JayZee said:


> However, I think the rules place the responsibility of informing the rider of that rule and of ensuring that it is followed on the tester (at least based on my reading of the rules, correct me if I am wrong). The question in my mind is who is telling the truth about whether the tester said LA could leave or not.
> 
> It would also help this discussion if you would cite the rule you are quoting.


It is not the responsibility of the tester to tell the rider the rules.... ignorance is not an excuse. Besides Armstrong is the worlds "Most tested" athlete. He is, as is every Pro, well aware you cannot leave the site of the tester.


----------



## pacificaslim

bigpinkt said:


> It is not the responsibility of the tester to tell the rider the rules.....


It is according to the head of the UCI in the article I linked to earlier. If he's corrupt, then that is the battle you should be fighting and not the one against a particular athlete. If the athletes can meet with his satisfaction, that is all that should matter: they've met the rules of their sport. They shouldn't have to meet the satisfaction of predatory journalists or anonymous members of an internet forum.

It is ridiculous to allow each and every country to come up with their own set of rules and own testing and expect the athletes to know all the rules and procedures of each and every country he might happen to be in and submit himself to them at any time.

This current non-system is such a crazy violation of basic human rights. In order to compete one has to give up all rights to any sort of privacy and any sort of freedom of movement and spontaneity in one's life. *There has got to be a better way to do this.*

The scientist need to come up with a testing protocol that can be followed that doesn't rely on stalking athletes and requiring them to provide a test at any minute of their lives. Right now they've failed to have such a test and try to make up for it by requiring cyclists to give up rights and live in a manner that no man should have to. It's not acceptable.


----------



## Digger28

pacificaslim said:


> This current non-system is such a crazy violation of basic human rights. In order to compete one has to give up all rights to any sort of privacy and any sort of freedom of movement and spontaneity in one's life. *There has got to be a better way to do this.*
> 
> It's not acceptable.


To the cheats that is.
This is such a doping apologist excuse. Andreas Kloden left T-Mobile because he felt their new internal drug testing was an invasion of his privacy. Andrei Kasechkin, after failing a test for blood transfusion, said it was against his human rights.
Cycling got itself into this mess - the vast majority of cyclists have no issue with the whereabouts system, or the surprise tests, as long as it helps achieve the common goal.


----------



## Digger28

*Tour de France - Armstrong fearful over Tour place*

"There is a very high likelihood they will prohibit me from riding on the Tour,"

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/10042009/58/tour-de-france-armstrong-fearful-tour-place.html


----------



## jorgy

bigpinkt said:


> *"the Athlete is continuously chaperoned from the moment of notification through Sample Provision."*
> 
> McQuaid knows this. That he pretends it is not an issue is yet another example of his, and the UCI's, incompetence.


Ah, but doesn't the word chaperone leave some room for debate as to its meaning? It doesn't say continuously within the tester's eyesight, although that may well be how the rule is often interpreted.


----------



## DMFT

bigpinkt said:


> He had all his credentials in order, Armstrong did not want to honor them. Johann called the head of the UCI and Anne Gripper and told them that they had to honor them.
> 
> The onus is on the *athlete* to follow the instructions of the tester/chaparone. The WADA code is clear about this.



He said, she said.
Still haven't seen the AFLD report.


----------



## JayZee

I am not defending LA, but just pointing out what the rules say as far as the testing procedure. Check out section 5.2 of the WADA international testing procedures: 

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2?pageCategory.id=371 

Also check out section 5.4 for more detail (note that it does allow the athlete to consume food and drink, but warns that they do so at their own risk, it also says no peeing in the shower prior to providing urine sample). Sure LA should know he has to stay in site of the tester, but if the tester says it is okay to go take a shower (if he said that) then I don't don't think Armstrong committed a sanctionable offense for taking a shower while they figure out whether this guy is legit. I am really surprised that they don't send out two people to do the tests - the actual tester and someone who can chaperon the athlete if necessary.

Bottom line is that it appears to me that if LA is telling the truth (and I know many of you wouldn't believe LA if he told you the sky was blue) it was both a mistake of LA and a mistake of the AFLD.


----------



## bigpinkt

JayZee said:


> I am not defending LA, but just pointing out what the rules say as far as the testing procedure. Check out section 5.2 of the WADA international testing procedures:
> 
> http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2?pageCategory.id=371
> 
> Also check out section 5.4 for more detail (note that it does allow the athlete to consume food and drink, but warns that they do so at their own risk, it also says no peeing in the shower prior to providing urine sample). Sure LA should know he has to stay in site of the tester, but if the tester says it is okay to go take a shower (if he said that) then I don't don't think Armstrong committed a sanctionable offense for taking a shower while they figure out whether this guy is legit. I am really surprised that they don't send out two people to do the tests - the actual tester and someone who can chaperon the athlete if necessary.
> 
> Bottom line is that it appears to me that it was both a mistake of LA and a mistake of the AFLD.


Could you cut and paste the parts you feel have the AFLD tester making a mistake. As I read it he followed the rules to the letter, but Armstrong did not.


----------



## SwiftSolo

It occurs to me that the solution to much of this problem is for the tester to have an assistant with a video camera recording the process from the first encounter. The question of what actually happened would be substantially averted with this process. The substantial distrust of the French by many Americans would no longer bring the ethics of the tester into question with a video record.


----------



## rook

bigpinkt said:


> So every time you get pulled over by the cops do you take off for 30 minutes (to dump the kilo of blow in your trunk) while your boyfriend "Verifies" his badge?



LOL! Exactly. Why did Armstrong insist on taking a shower anyway? If he was really legit and not trying to hide something then he should've just waited in front of the tester while they verified everything. But this shower excuse sounds kinda bogus.


----------



## den bakker

SwiftSolo said:


> It occurs to me that the solution to much of this problem is for the tester to have an assistant with a video camera recording the process from the first encounter. The question of what actually happened would be substantially averted with this process. The substantial distrust of the French by many Americans would no longer bring the ethics of the tester into question with a video record.


Interesting, it's the french problem that some americans are paranoid? With LAs fear of being the victim you would think he would have been busy with the camera.


----------



## farm

I seem to recall a big fuss being made when Manuel Beltran was approached by a tester -- I think after a stage of the tour -- and tried to get away. How is this different? One of the main questions here is whether LA is being treated differently, or is asking for different treatment, than any other rider.

This is an entertaining thread.


----------



## pacificaslim

farm said:


> One of the main questions here is whether LA is being treated differently, or is asking for different treatment, than any other rider.


Clearly he is being treated differently (targeted) and clearly he ought to be treated differently. The open question is whether one thinks he ought to be treated worse than the other athletes (as most here do) or with even more respect than the other athletes (as most normal humans would expect a champion to be treated).


----------



## Sherpa23

There used to be a protocol for the drug control before they had a chaperone with you at all times. The rule was that you had to be at drug control within 20 or 30 minutes of notification. You could do whatever you wanted before that and there were certain things that you were expected to do in that time, even as (especially as) a clean rider. I won't go into those things but there were things. Every time I got tested, I knew the drill, and I have always been 100% clean. The team managers used to scare us with stories of false positives. This is around 2000 to 2002.

Now, it's different. Some of the things you can still do but some you can't. I don't know if Lance was taking an IV or anything like that during his 30 minutes but I know with some amount of certainty some of the things that he would have done in that time.

At any rate, I am still scared to this day of a false positive. I don't know. It's just one of those things. However, I am more scared of doing the wrong thing during the control and having my sample classified as tainted, etc. because of walking away from the tester, not peeing in front of him, etc.


----------



## farm

pacificaslim said:


> Clearly he is being treated differently (targeted) and clearly he ought to be treated differently. The open question is whether one thinks he ought to be treated worse than the other athletes (as most here do) or with even more respect than the other athletes (as most normal humans would expect a champion to be treated).



Silly me. I thought it was obvious from my example that the relevant features were behavior following approach by the tester, not something else. I think you misconstrued my point, and you haven't explained how his behavior differs from Beltran's. 

As far as being targeted, was Rasmussen being targeted when they sought out-of-competitions samples?

Also, see Sherpa23's following post.


----------



## pacificaslim

geez, sorry my comments strayed a bit wider than the narrow case you wished to limit them too.

being tested 24 times in less than a year is ridiculous. if everyone isn't being tested that much, then they are targeting armstrong. if everyone is being tested that much, it's a freakin' travesty.


----------



## Guest

I've got no dog in this hunt, but I have a couple observations and a question.

I can't begin to assume to know what Mr. Armstrong was thinking when he decided to shower. Knowing he has a target on his back by returning to cycling, and having an ongoing public feud with the French on nearly everything, I'd assume he knows everything he does will be scrutinized much more so than your average professional cyclist on French soil. I do think Mr. Armstrong enjoys stirring the pot with the French every opportunity he gets, but this strikes me as different. I'll take the leap and take Mr. Armstrong at his word about questioning the validity of the person sent to take samples. I wouldn't let the person in my place, either. But, assuming I am required to stay in their presence, I'd stand in the window or on the deck or someplace where I'm never out of the "supposed" tester's sight line until authority is established or not. If I'm a professional, I know the rules. If I'm Mr. Armstrong and we're discussing doping test protocols, I know the rules word for word and letter by letter. For me, even if I ask for permission to shower and the tester grants it, I know whether it's kosher or not. We're not talking about some cat 3's first victory here. I can't get past the smell test on this one.

The question I have is regarding hair samples and what they are used to determine. I have a teeny theoretical understanding of flushing the system with saline and it's effect on blood and urine. But assuming the worst, how would anything done in half an hour effect the outcome of whatever the hair samples detect.

Bill


----------



## SwiftSolo

farm said:


> Silly me. I thought it was obvious from my example that the relevant features were behavior following approach by the tester, not something else. I think you misconstrued my point, and you haven't explained how his behavior differs from Beltran's.
> 
> As far as being targeted, was Rasmussen being targeted when they sought out-of-competitions samples?
> 
> Also, see Sherpa23's following post.


Until this thing is heard by the authorities, we have no real idea what his behavior actually was--do we. Is it only an American principle that one should pretty much keep their mouth shut until they have the facts?

Who knows--there may be a video and I agree with the notion that any American training in France should be prepared to video any French tester from the onset. There are enough rumors to have at least some level of suspicion--even if it turns out that the rumors are unfounded. Video has a way of causing all parties to become reasonable. It completely solved an Issue that I was having with overzealous OSHA officials on my jobsites. Now, I wouldn't think of meeting with government auditors without a camera and a cameraman.


----------



## den bakker

SwiftSolo said:


> Is it only an American principle that one should pretty much keep their mouth shut until they have the facts?
> 
> There are enough rumors to have at least some level of suspicion--even if it turns out that the rumors are unfounded. .


:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:


----------



## JayZee

Here is section 5.2:

5.2	General
Notification of Athletes starts when the ADO initiates the notification of the selected Athlete and ends when the Athlete arrives at the Doping Control Station or when the Athlete’s possible failure to comply is brought to the ADO’s attention.
The main activities are:
Appointment of DCOs, Chaperones and other Sample Collection Personnel;
Locating the Athlete and confirming his/her identity;
Informing the Athlete that he/she has been selected to provide a Sample and of his/her rights and responsibilities;
For No Advance Notice Sample collection, continuously chaperoning the Athlete from the time of notification to the arrival at the designated Doping Control Station; and
Documenting the notification, or notification attempt. 

Here is section 5.4.1:

5.4	Requirements for notification of Athletes
5.4.1	When initial contact is made, the ADO, DCO or Chaperone, as applicable, shall ensure that the Athlete and/or a third party (if required in accordance with Clause 5.3.8) is informed:

a) That the Athlete is required to undergo a Sample collection;
b) Of the authority under which the Sample collection is to be conducted;
c) Of the type of Sample collection and any conditions that need to be adhered to prior to the Sample collection;
d) Of the Athlete’s rights, including the right to:
i. Have a representative and if available, an interpreter;
ii. Ask for additional information about the Sample collection process;
iii. Request a delay in reporting to the Doping Control Station for valid reasons; and
iv. Request modifications as provided for in Annex B – Modifications for Athletes with disabilities.
e) Of the Athlete’s responsibilities, including the requirement to:
i. Remain within direct observation of the DCO/Chaperone at all times from the point of notification by the DCO/Chaperone until the completion of the Sample collection procedure;
ii. Produce identification in accordance with Clause 5.3.4; 
iii. Comply with Sample collection procedures (and the Athlete should be advised of the possible consequences of Failure to Comply); and
iv. Report immediately for a test, unless there are valid reasons for a delay, as determined in accordance with Clause 5.4.4.
f)	Of the location of the Doping Control Station.
g) That should the Athlete choose to consume food or fluids prior to providing a Sample, he/she does so at his/her own risk, and should in any event avoid excessive rehydration, having in mind the requirement to produce a Sample with a Suitable Specific Gravity for Analysis.
h)	That the Sample provided by the Athlete to the Sample Collection Personnel should be the first urine passed by the Athlete subsequent to notification, i.e., he/she should not pass urine in the shower or otherwise prior to providing a Sample to the Sample Collection Personnel.
___________________________

Anyway, let me be clear, I think Armstrong and JB totally screwed up regardless of whether LA was given permission to shower or not. And I can understand why someone could draw the conclusion that Armstrong knew the risk of being out of the testers sight and decided it was worth the risk in order to not to fail the doping test. However, that is circumstantial evidence at best. Personally, I will wait for more details to emerge. At this point for me it is a just fun exercise in armchair analysis. It will be interesting to read the actual report.


----------



## SilasCL

billium said:


> The question I have is regarding hair samples and what they are used to determine. I have a teeny theoretical understanding of flushing the system with saline and it's effect on blood and urine. But assuming the worst, how would anything done in half an hour effect the outcome of whatever the hair samples detect.
> 
> Bill


Bigpinkt said in another thread that the hair sample is only for detecting DHEA, not EPO.


----------



## al0

bigpinkt said:


> Wrong. The tester did present his identification. Armstrong does not have "every right" to assume he, or any other testing request, is false. In fact he must assume the opposite.....unless he does not want to race professionally.


Sorry, but you definitely misread or misinterpreted what I have written - I'm not sure by negligence or itentionally.

Yes, the tester did present some identification, but this identification was non-standard (according to Bruyneel) and it is why a verification procedure was started. 

There is a difference between identification and authetication. Former is just a claim "I'm BLA-BLA-BLA" and latter is a *proof* of that claim.





> While he was waiting outside the tester made multiple phone calls (Johann confirms this) to let his superiors know that he was not being let in.


Johann probably confirmed the fact of the calls, but not their content.
Anyway, that let us with word of the tester only - his superior was not present there and so can not confirm that the tester was not let in, he can at best confirm that the tester *claimed* not to be let in. That constitutes ia huge difference.


> As Lance has lied often thought out his career I would tend to believe the tester


Any proof, please.




> Why is it that whenever Armstrong tests positive or behaves like a Jacka$$ the only excuse is a French conspiracy?


I'm pretty sure that any celebrity would behave similarly in the similar conditions - how he may know that ther was a real tester and not a papparazzi that pretend to be a tester? You may remember that identification shown looks if not suspicious, but at least unusual.


----------



## al0

H-m-m, would not you want to take shower ASAP after multi-hour training ride?




rook said:


> LOL! Exactly. Why did Armstrong insist on taking a shower anyway? If he was really legit and not trying to hide something then he should've just waited in front of the tester while they verified everything. But this shower excuse sounds kinda bogus.


----------



## al0

None of that sources neither mention "slammed door", nor has reference to AFLD report. 


bigpinkt said:


> Fox, CNN have all just used Armstrong's press release as a source. In Europe, where cycling is a much bigger sport, you have actual cycling writers who are also talking to the AFLD.
> 
> http://www.20minutes.fr/article/318167/Sport-L-attitude-d-Armstrong-lors-d-un-controle-declenche-un-rapport.php
> 
> In case you do not read French it says they closed the door on the tester and made him wait for 30 minutes.
> 
> You also may have ignored the many times that Bodry, head of the AFLD has been quoted as saying
> * "Mr Armstrong, despite being repeatedly warned by the examiner, did not meet the obligation to remain under direct and permanent observation."*
> http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=916428&lang=eng_news&cate_img=145.jpg&cate_rss=news_Sports
> * the agency sent a man with 15 years of testing experience who teaches other would-be testers about the job and who has worked at the Tour, the Rugby World Cup and the athletics world championships, *
> 
> *only when the tester threatened to call in gendarmes did Bruyneel agree to let testing proceed, and the French official pooh-poohed Armstrong's claim that the tester let him shower. The agency says the tester reported that he repeatedly warned Armstrong that he had to keep him within his sight at all times.*


----------



## Digger28

al0 said:


> .
> 
> 
> "As Lance has lied often thought out his career I would tend to believe the tester", this came from Bigpinkt
> 
> "Any proof, please", came from yourself.
> 
> .


He lied about his weight, his height, Simeoni, that Bill Stapleton spoke to Frankie about changing his testimony for the SCA case (eventhough the conversation is on tape), lied about his relationship with Ferrari, lied about knowing if his best friend was working with Ferrari, about not knowing his HCT or his VO2 Max, about not knowing how much he donated to the UCI, initially lied about appearance money for this year's TDU, that he is the most tested athlete in sporting history.
And that list above is literally off the top of my head. Really, you're on very thin ground here asking for proof of Lance telling lies.


----------



## MG537

pacificaslim said:


> Well, how about we take the word of someone who was actually on the phone with them as this all happened, and happens to be the chief of the UCI?
> 
> Latest news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/7993738.stm)
> 
> The head of world cycling says France's anti-doping agency (AFLD) acted unprofessionally in a drugs test conducted on Lance Armstrong in March.
> 
> "Armstrong claimed he was given permission to shower during that period while his manager verified the tester's credentials, a *fact confirmed* by [UCI Chief Pat] McQuaid.
> "The tester has to have a specific instruction that the athlete must remain under his supervision from the moment he is notified until the test is concluded," he told the BBC.
> 
> "From my understanding, this was not the case. Lance Armstrong had every right to take a shower while his manager (Astana team head Johan Bruyneel) checked with the UCI that these people had the authority to take these samples.
> 
> "During that time his manager rang me and I put him on to our anti-doping manager, who confirmed that it (the AFLD) has the authority to take samples."
> 
> "The French are not acting very professionally in this case," he said.
> 
> 
> Etc...


And I'm very sure of the fact that Pat McQuaid would be on the phone with Thomas Campana if some French guy appeared outside Dominique Rollin's door for a surprise test.


----------



## iliveonnitro

SilasCL said:


> Bigpinkt said in another thread that the hair sample is only for detecting DHEA, not EPO.


Fairly certain that a hair sample cannot test for blood doping, thus the blood (/urine) test. Any truth to this?


----------



## bigpinkt

al0 said:


> None of that sources neither mention "slammed door", nor has reference to AFLD report.


The French one say shut the door and both reference the report


----------



## bigpinkt

al0 said:


> Yes, the tester did present some identification, but this identification was non-standard (according to Bruyneel) and it is why a verification procedure was started.


The identification was standard and this was confirmed by the head of the UCI and the head of the UCI doping program who told Johann Lance had to take the test. It is the athletes responsibility to submit to testing, every athlete knows this. It is nothing more then an weak excuse for his actions. 



al0 said:


> Johann probably confirmed the fact of the calls, but not their content.
> Anyway, that let us with word of the tester only - his superior was not present there and so can not confirm that the tester was not let in, he can at best confirm that the tester *claimed* not to be let in. That constitutes ia huge difference.


Johann confirmed he did not let the tester in 


al0 said:


> Any proof, please.


Digger gave a good list. Add to that list the entire charade with Catlin



al0 said:


> I'm pretty sure that any celebrity would behave similarly in the similar conditions - how he may know that ther was a real tester and not a papparazzi that pretend to be a tester? You may remember that identification shown looks if not suspicious, but at least unusual.


This is the "Most Tested Athlete in the world" (another Lance Lie) If he wants to be a professional rider he has to be tested and can't run and hide when a tester shows up.


----------



## bigpinkt

JayZee said:


> Here is section 5.2:
> 
> 5.2	General
> Notification of Athletes starts when the ADO initiates the notification of the selected Athlete and ends when the Athlete arrives at the Doping Control Station or when the Athlete’s possible failure to comply is brought to the ADO’s attention.
> The main activities are:
> Appointment of DCOs, Chaperones and other Sample Collection Personnel;
> Locating the Athlete and confirming his/her identity;
> Informing the Athlete that he/she has been selected to provide a Sample and of his/her rights and responsibilities;
> For No Advance Notice Sample collection, continuously chaperoning the Athlete from the time of notification to the arrival at the designated Doping Control Station; and
> Documenting the notification, or notification attempt.
> 
> Here is section 5.4.1:
> 
> 5.4	Requirements for notification of Athletes
> 5.4.1	When initial contact is made, the ADO, DCO or Chaperone, as applicable, shall ensure that the Athlete and/or a third party (if required in accordance with Clause 5.3.8) is informed:
> 
> a) That the Athlete is required to undergo a Sample collection;
> b) Of the authority under which the Sample collection is to be conducted;
> c) Of the type of Sample collection and any conditions that need to be adhered to prior to the Sample collection;
> d) Of the Athlete’s rights, including the right to:
> i. Have a representative and if available, an interpreter;
> ii. Ask for additional information about the Sample collection process;
> iii. Request a delay in reporting to the Doping Control Station for valid reasons; and
> iv. Request modifications as provided for in Annex B – Modifications for Athletes with disabilities.
> e) Of the Athlete’s responsibilities, including the requirement to:
> i. Remain within direct observation of the DCO/Chaperone at all times from the point of notification by the DCO/Chaperone until the completion of the Sample collection procedure;
> ii. Produce identification in accordance with Clause 5.3.4;
> iii. Comply with Sample collection procedures (and the Athlete should be advised of the possible consequences of Failure to Comply); and
> iv. Report immediately for a test, unless there are valid reasons for a delay, as determined in accordance with Clause 5.4.4.
> f)	Of the location of the Doping Control Station.
> g) That should the Athlete choose to consume food or fluids prior to providing a Sample, he/she does so at his/her own risk, and should in any event avoid excessive rehydration, having in mind the requirement to produce a Sample with a Suitable Specific Gravity for Analysis.
> h)	That the Sample provided by the Athlete to the Sample Collection Personnel should be the first urine passed by the Athlete subsequent to notification, i.e., he/she should not pass urine in the shower or otherwise prior to providing a Sample to the Sample Collection Personnel.
> ___________________________
> 
> Anyway, let me be clear, I think Armstrong and JB totally screwed up regardless of whether LA was given permission to shower or not. And I can understand why someone could draw the conclusion that Armstrong knew the risk of being out of the testers sight and decided it was worth the risk in order to not to fail the doping test. However, that is circumstantial evidence at best. Personally, I will wait for more details to emerge. At this point for me it is a just fun exercise in armchair analysis. It will be interesting to read the actual report.


This is from the regulations on OOC testing

5.4.1 h) …. the Sample provided by the Athlete to the Sample Collection Personnel should be the first urine passed by the Athlete subsequent to notification, i.e., he/she should not pass urine in the shower or otherwise prior to providing a Sample to the Sample Collection Personnel.

5.4.1 e) … the Athlete’s responsibilities, including the requirement to: Remain within direct observation of the DCO/Chaperone at all times from the point of notification by the DCO/Chaperone until the completion of the Sample collection procedure;


----------



## DMFT

*Great post.*



billium said:


> I've got no dog in this hunt, but I have a couple observations and a question.
> 
> I can't begin to assume to know what Mr. Armstrong was thinking when he decided to shower. Knowing he has a target on his back by returning to cycling, and having an ongoing public feud with the French on nearly everything, I'd assume he knows everything he does will be scrutinized much more so than your average professional cyclist on French soil. I do think Mr. Armstrong enjoys stirring the pot with the French every opportunity he gets, but this strikes me as different. I'll take the leap and take Mr. Armstrong at his word about questioning the validity of the person sent to take samples. I wouldn't let the person in my place, either. But, assuming I am required to stay in their presence, I'd stand in the window or on the deck or someplace where I'm never out of the "supposed" tester's sight line until authority is established or not. If I'm a professional, I know the rules. If I'm Mr. Armstrong and we're discussing doping test protocols, I know the rules word for word and letter by letter. For me, even if I ask for permission to shower and the tester grants it, I know whether it's kosher or not. We're not talking about some cat 3's first victory here. I can't get past the smell test on this one.
> 
> The question I have is regarding hair samples and what they are used to determine. I have a teeny theoretical understanding of flushing the system with saline and it's effect on blood and urine. But assuming the worst, how would anything done in half an hour effect the outcome of whatever the hair samples detect.
> 
> Bill



- Very good post. 
:thumbsup:


----------



## DMFT

al0 said:


> Sorry, but you definitely misread or misinterpreted what I have written - I'm not sure by negligence or itentionally.
> 
> Yes, the tester did present some identification, but this identification was non-standard (according to Bruyneel) and it is why a verification procedure was started.
> 
> There is a difference between identification and authetication. Former is just a claim "I'm BLA-BLA-BLA" and latter is a *proof* of that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johann probably confirmed the fact of the calls, but not their content.
> Anyway, that let us with word of the tester only - his superior was not present there and so can not confirm that the tester was not let in, he can at best confirm that the tester *claimed* not to be let in. That constitutes ia huge difference.
> 
> Any proof, please.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that any celebrity would behave similarly in the similar conditions - how he may know that ther was a real tester and not a papparazzi that pretend to be a tester? You may remember that identification shown looks if not suspicious, but at least unusual.



- Another good post, well reasoned.

As al0 mentions...... Who knows is said tester isn't really some psycho stalker freak? If I was a pro & a celebrity of sorts I wouldn't let anyone touch me either until knew for a FACT that individual was legit.

Really, the "Gray area" is all that's left to figure out, that's all.


----------



## DMFT

bigpinkt said:


> The French one say shut the door and both reference the report


So you're using French media looking for a sensational story as proof or fact???
Wow.


----------



## DMFT

bigpinkt said:


> This is the "Most Tested Athlete in the world" (another Lance Lie) If he wants to be a professional rider he has to be tested and can't run and hide when a tester shows up.



Name 1 who's tested more?


----------



## pacificaslim

If one isn't allowed to take a shower first, there wouldn't be a rule telling them they can't urinate in the shower. Apparently one is allowed to shower if given permission, though it seems the tester has to watch.


----------



## rook

DMFT said:


> Name 1 who's tested more?


Carlos Sastre, Cadel Evans, Bernard Kohl.

It is not uncommon for a top rider to be tested over 50+ times, and that truely doesn't even include the Tour de France, which is the only race a year that Armstrong races in. In light of the numerous testing that goes on not being made public, I guess it would be hard to believe that any one of them has tested more frequently than Armstrong, when you ONLY believe Armstrong's claim that he is the most tested.


----------



## DMFT

*That's entertainment!*

- Velosnooze is calling it Showergate. I think it has a catchy ring to it.

Ahhh the trivial things in life.....


----------



## Sherpa23

If you get called to a test upon finishing a race, you don't get to shower first. It's not a big deal to wait a few minutes in cycling clothes to take the test. Before, when the rules said that you had to report to the control within 30 minutes, guys still did not shower. They did certain things in that time but usually showed up still in their kit.

Basically, if you have 30 minutes before a test, i.e. the old days where the rules was that you had 30 minutes to report, you would instantly go and pee. You would pee as much as you could and then, when you had to show up at dope control, you would sit there and drink until you could pee again. The rule wasn't that you had to pee in 30 minutes, the rule was that you had to be at doping control in 30 minutes. You could sit in the quiet room for hours if you needed. In fact, the testers were so used to this that they used to wait to start the protocol, and the test protocol takes forever. I was called to drug testing once and I went straight there, didn't pee first. I sat there all sweaty in my kit, ready to pee. I said that I was ready. They said they would be with me in a couple of minutes. I waited 45 minutes and finally when I couldn't take it any more, we did the protocol, which takes another 10 minutes and then I got to pee. The UCI itself knew that the riders would pee before the test and set the test up that way. The rules are different now to eliminate much of that.

The section that Bigpinkt posted is one of the key additions.


----------



## bertoni

pacificaslim said:


> i'm surprised you anti-lance guys like this since he's your al capone and this is like busting him for tax evasion.


At the root of this is whether or not testing protocols have been ignored or broken. It has nothing to do with who broke them. Michael Rasmussen was disciplined for breaking the rules, why should anybody else be exempt? 

If you believe that someone should be above the law just because of who he is then there is no point to this discussion.


----------



## al0

Digger28 said:


> He lied about his weight, his height,


This hardly may be considered a lie.


> Simeoni,


AFAIK his word ageinst Simeoni word - not 3rd-party evidence. We do not know who was lying.


> that Bill Stapleton spoke to Frankie about changing his testimony for the SCA case (eventhough the conversation is on tape),


The only thing missing is proof that LA was aware of this conversation.


> lied about his relationship with Ferrari,


More exactly, please. As faras I know he has not denied a relationship existence.



> , about not knowing his HCT or his VO2 Max, about not knowing how much he donated to the UCI,


 It may be considered as a (very legitimate) reluctance to reveail them.


> initially lied about appearance money for this year's TDU,


The same, especially as they AFAIK go not to his pocket but to the Livestrong foundation.


> that he is the most tested athlete in sporting history.


I guess he is, at least in the cycling.


> And that list above is literally off the top of my head. Really, you're on very thin ground here asking for proof of Lance telling lies.


As you can (but do not will) see only a couple of the referred cases may be really considered as outright lie - and even this couple only "may", but not "have to".

And you would consider AFLD and their doping laboratory - a list would be much, much longer.


----------



## SilasCL

al0 said:


> And you would consider AFLD and their doping laboratory - a list would be much, much longer.


Can you produce that list or is this just a bluff?


----------



## Bianchigirl

Just like Ricco was targeted - but I expect you cheered when the AFLD caught him, right?


----------



## CoffeeBean2

bigpinkt said:


> The rules are very clear


I believe its also in the rules that this information is to remain confidential until a sanction hearing is underway.

I guess the AFLD is breaking the rules as well...


----------



## CoffeeBean2

rook said:


> Carlos Sastre, Cadel Evans, Bernard Kohl.


Sources, or it didn't happen.


----------



## Digger28

al0 said:


> AFAIK his word ageinst Simeoni word - not 3rd-party evidence. We do not know who was lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A list would be much, much longer.




Your definition of lies is clearly very different to that of other people.
Also, you seem to have a different understanding of what constitutes a 'list', to all the rest of us.
Some of your attempts to defend the 'list' I initially gave, show a person incredibly blinded and a person extremely bereft of background knowledge on the sport.

I honestly could not be bothered going down through the examples I've given in detail - hasten to add that if you want to dismiss them through your blind devotion, then good luck to you. Logic and common sense go out the window when a guy is put on a pedestal like Lance. 

Two things - the money for the Tour Down Under did not go to the LiveStrong org:
As The New York Times reported, Armstrong:
...did not specify the amount of his fee but said Saturday that, contrary to what had been reported here last week, he was not donating the fee to his foundation but treating it as income, the same way he has his other speaking and appearance fees since retirement.
"It’s not simply showing up to a bike race and getting paid to race the bike," he said. "I’m not being paid to race. Is there a fee for other things? Yes, but that’s not any different than what I’ve done for the last three years or four years, actually longer than that."


And in relation to the Simeoni incident. We don't even have to get Simeoni's version of events, where Lance instigated a protest of other riders spitting on him. No, we can just go on Lance's own words to see an example of his lies.

On the day of the stage in 2004:
*"I was protecting the interests of the peloton*. The story of Simeoni is not a fair story...there's a long history there. All (journalists) want to write about is parts of the story. It's a long history...a guy like (Simeoni), all he wants to do is to destroy cycling...and for me, that's not correct. And I when I went back to the group they said 'chapeau'...thank you very much. Because they understand that (cycling) is their job and that they absolutely love it and they're committed to it and don't want somebody within their sport destroying it. *So...for me it's no problem to go on the wheel, to follow the wheel." *


Lance's version in 2008, after four years of questioning why he tried to silence the guy who was exposing his own doctor.

*First off, I did not chase Simeoni down,” *Armstrong said. “I was simply following his wheel. That is the truth of the matter. I never bridged across to Simeoni. He was in front of me, people were attacking, he accelerated, and I stayed on the wheel. We have footage of the race that will back that up. There was never more than bike length between us. There was no gap closed. There’s a big difference between following wheels and closing a gap.” 

Armstrong said he’d naturally expected the peloton to follow, and was surprised to see that the pair had opened a gap when they reached the day’s breakaway a few kilometers later. 

“I was completely shocked when I turned around and there was no one on my wheel,” Armstrong said. “I was fully expecting to see the rest of the group, because I was in the [yellow] jersey. *But Simeoni pulled for two minutes, and I followed his wheel*. That’s racing. 

And what about the zip the lips gesture Lance? Was it about the Omerta?
“People will say that was all about the omerta, the code of silence,” Armstrong said. “That’s nonsense. It’s because Simeoni was yelling at everybody, about everything. We joined the breakaway, and *everyone was working except him*. He was sitting on. I was working with guys in the group. He would not pull, but he was yelling about everything.”


----------



## SwiftSolo

Digger28 said:


> He lied about his weight, his height, Simeoni, that Bill Stapleton spoke to Frankie about changing his testimony for the SCA case (eventhough the conversation is on tape), lied about his relationship with Ferrari, lied about knowing if his best friend was working with Ferrari, about not knowing his HCT or his VO2 Max, about not knowing how much he donated to the UCI, initially lied about appearance money for this year's TDU, that he is the most tested athlete in sporting history.
> And that list above is literally off the top of my head. Really, you're on very thin ground here asking for proof of Lance telling lies.


This sounds like a list that may have come from quite a bit lower than the top of your head! For you to claim certainty that he was lieing on all of these matters is a lie. There simply is no way for you to know.


----------



## bertoni

pacificaslim said:


> Clearly he is being treated differently (targeted) and clearly he ought to be treated differently. The open question is whether one thinks he ought to be treated worse than the other athletes (as most here do) or with even more respect than the other athletes (as most normal humans would expect a champion to be treated).


Thats funny, I wouldn't expect him to be treated any differently than anyone else. I thought thats what rules were for.


----------



## thechriswebb

Nobody here has any idea what actually happened.


----------



## rocco

thechriswebb said:


> Nobody here has any idea what actually happened.



I'm sure there are at least a couple of people here who would are apt to get into a smarmy, 10 post, back and forth argument with you about that. If anyone thinks the Politics Only forum is the most nonconstructive time waster of RBR should check out the Doping forum to get some perspective


----------



## lookrider

*Nice explanation but not applicable here!*



Sherpa23 said:


> If you get called to a test upon finishing a race, you don't get to shower first. It's not a big deal to wait a few minutes in cycling clothes to take the test. Before, when the rules said that you had to report to the control within 30 minutes, guys still did not shower. They did certain things in that time but usually showed up still in their kit.
> 
> Basically, if you have 30 minutes before a test, i.e. the old days where the rules was that you had 30 minutes to report, you would instantly go and pee. You would pee as much as you could and then, when you had to show up at dope control, you would sit there and drink until you could pee again. The rule wasn't that you had to pee in 30 minutes, the rule was that you had to be at doping control in 30 minutes. You could sit in the quiet room for hours if you needed. In fact, the testers were so used to this that they used to wait to start the protocol, and the test protocol takes forever. I was called to drug testing once and I went straight there, didn't pee first. I sat there all sweaty in my kit, ready to pee. I said that I was ready. They said they would be with me in a couple of minutes. I waited 45 minutes and finally when I couldn't take it any more, we did the protocol, which takes another 10 minutes and then I got to pee. The UCI itself knew that the riders would pee before the test and set the test up that way. The rules are different now to eliminate much of that.
> 
> The section that Bigpinkt posted is one of the key additions.


It's ok for *you* to sit around in your kit after riding for 5 or 6 hours, but let me ask you one question.

How many people did you have sniffing your chamois?

See what I mean!


----------



## thechriswebb

rocco said:


> I'm sure there are at least a couple of people here who would are apt to get into a smarmy, 10 post, back and forth argument with you about that. If anyone thinks the Politics Only forum is the most nonconstructive time waster of RBR should check out the Doping forum to get some perspective



Yeah, I tried posting in the politics forum a while back..........I don't even look at that one anymore. I still get a kick out of this one, though.


----------



## rocco

Bianchigirl said:


> The Italians clearly think he'll be sanctioned as they've already changed the route of stage 16 of the Giro - but then they're paying him 2 million euros appearance money (guess that'll be for 'public speaking' like the million he pocketed from the TDU that was intended for Livestrong). Sweet irony being that Versus now can't afford the newly hiked rate for the TV rights



Interesting... Cyclingnews.com reports that "The Giro d'Italia announced on April 8, one day prior to the AFLD news, that the stage had to be altered due to snowfall."




> Giro loses its top
> 
> Organizers of the Giro d'Italia were forced to make last-minute changes to one of the key mountain stages of this year's race. RCS Sport announced Wednesday that the planned route for stage 10 would now take place entirely in Italian territory rather than crossing the border into France, and will not include the planned highest peak, the Col d'Izoard.
> 
> The stage, set to take place on May 19 from Cuneo to Pinerolo, was intended to duplicate the epic stage won by legend Fausto Coppi in the 1949 edition of the race. However, the descent from the Colla della Maddalena (Col de Larche) just over the border in France, has been closed for the winter due to avalanche risks.
> 
> RCS Sport said it was unable to have the travel ban lifted despite a favorable recommendation from officials. It also cited difficulties in settling on radio frequencies to be used by the race in France as a reason to keep the stage inside Italian borders.
> 
> Heavy late winter storms dumped up to 80cm of new snow in the Southern Alps at the end of March, with many roads being closed due to avalanches.
> 
> The organisers had devised an alternative course in December in case the roads were not open for travel. That detour took the race over the Colle dell'Agnello (Col d'Agnel), but this pass, too, is closed for the winter through June.
> 
> The Tour de France was modified to skip the Col de Larche on stage 15 for similar reasons last year, and the race went over the Col d'Agnel instead.
> 
> The new route for the Giro's stage 10 will tack on an additional 10km to an already lengthy stage. Now topping out at 260km, the stage drops the number of classified climbs from five to three. The first climb will come at km 131.9, the Moncenisio (1432m), followed by the climb to Sestrières, now at kilometre 201.7 rather than 195.4.
> 
> Instead of the 55km descent from Sestrières, the race will now detour to take in an additional climb, the Pramartino. the climb is just 918m, but coming at kilometre 252, just 8km before the finish line, it could provide a more suitable finish for the contenders for the overall classification to take time out of their rivals.


Maybe those corrupt *****... er... I mean, "the Italians" AKA RCS Sport had the inside scoop prior to the AFLD news and fixed it but oh wait... I guess that would mean that since the French government won't lift the travel ban covering the original route until June due to the extra heavy snow pack and avalanche risk that means the French are in on the conspiracy... the darned French seemed determined to keep Armstrong from racing in France this year no matter what it takes. LOL!

Maybe it was that evil genius Johan Bruyneel that ordered those heavy late winter storms that dumped up to 80cm of new snow in the Southern Alps at the end of March. LOL.

BTW, This also just in on cyclingnews.com.



> Prudhomme expects Armstrong at the Tour
> 
> By Gregor Brown in Compiègne, France
> 
> The Tour de France's director expects to see Lance Armstrong at the Tour de France this July despite the American's own doubts that he will be allowed to race. Christian Prudhomme told Cyclingnews on Saturday that despite the American's recent trouble with the anti-doping authorities in France, he sees Armstrong participating in this year's Tour.
> 
> "I imagine he will be at the Tour de France and I imagine he will also be at the Giro d'Italia," said Prudhomme to Cyclingnews Saturday.


So much for all the speculation and argument about "the Italians", slammed vs. shut doors and 20 vs. 30 minutes. 

BTW, Please feel free to provide some credible source with information that shows that Armstrong personally pocketed $1 million from the TDU intended for the Livestrong Foundation.

I'm no LA fanboy... in fact when George Carlin began his last HBO special with "I'd like to begin by saying f**k Lance Armstrong... f**k him and his balls and his bicycles and his steroids and his yellow shirts and the dumb empty expression on his face... I'm tired of that a*shole" I laughed my arse off. If he's busted for doping through properly executed testing and reported protocol then so be it. He could go to hell for all I care. However, all of these doping threads with all of the typical unconfirmed speculation by the usual suspects are a joke... a bad joke.


----------



## r_mutt

rocco said:


> However, all of these doping threads with all of the typical unconfirmed speculation by the usual suspects are a joke... a bad joke.


and to bring it full circle once again: http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden


----------



## muscleendurance

he should have said "Im gonna take a quick shower...dont you want to come and hold my c*ck?" or "chris, bring round the garden hose and my soap"


----------



## DMFT

Bianchigirl said:


> Just like Ricco was targeted - but I expect you cheered when the AFLD caught him, right?



- HUGE difference. Mr. Ricco had abnormal values, was targeted, and then caught actually cheating. LA to date has not returned a positive test for any substance since his return. He is being targeted because of who he is. I guess that's just the price you pay.....


----------



## Digger28

CoffeeBean2 said:


> Sources, or it didn't happen.


Source for Lance getting tested 24 times, and it doesn't involve his own personal account.


----------



## rook

DMFT said:


> - HUGE difference. Mr. Ricco had abnormal values, was targeted, and then caught actually cheating. LA to date has not returned a positive test for any substance since his return. He is being targeted because of who he is. I guess that's just the price you pay.....



Actually Armstrong did test positive for EPO and got off on a technicality.


----------



## alexb618

rook said:


> Actually Armstrong did test positive for EPO and got off on a technicality.


devil's advocate... 'not since his return'


----------



## al0

Small but anyway very sizeable part of it may be found in the Landis defense - have you read them?


SilasCL said:


> Can you produce that list or is this just a bluff?


----------



## bigpinkt

al0 said:


> Small but anyway very sizeable part of it may be found in the Landis defense - have you read them?


Landis lost his case, twice, for a reason. Because his defense was filled with lies and misrepresentations. 

Do yourself a favor and read the CAS decision then get back to us on that long list 
http://velonews.com/media/LandisCAS08.pdf


----------



## Digger28

al0 said:


> Small but anyway very sizeable part of it may be found in the Landis defense - have you read them?


And you attach much credence to his defense? Considering it was not given any by three disciplinary (multi national by the way) organisations.


----------



## CoffeeBean2

I'm not the one claiming these other riders are (were) tested more than Armstrong.


----------



## DMFT

*Huh?????*



rook said:


> Actually Armstrong did test positive for EPO and got off on a technicality.


A "Technicality" you say ????? Our dear Scientist M Achenden and coleagues use the "B" samples that were the only "stable ones left" to use as an EXPERIMENT to test "the test" for rEPO and they had ZERO "A samples" to test their findings against the "results" they found. And MA is "certain" using these findings that LA's 99 samples are "positive"

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Wow, sounds like some protocol there. Were these guy's using a Fischer Price Jr. Science kit?


----------



## bigpinkt

DMFT said:


> A "Technicality" you say ????? Our dear Scientist M Achenden and coleagues use the "B" samples that were the only "stable ones left" to use as an EXPERIMENT to test "the test" for rEPO and they had ZERO "A samples" to test their findings against the "results" they found. And MA is "certain" using these findings that LA's 99 samples are "positive"
> 
> ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
> 
> Wow, sounds like some protocol there. Were these guy's using a Fischer Price Jr. Science kit?


Read this interview. Make sure you also see the follow up info on sabotage

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Now please explain how it is not proof that Armstrong used EPO. While you are at it let us know your background and why your level of knowledge of doping methods would be superior to Ashenden. When you are done with that assignment you can do the same for Robin Parisotto's comments


----------



## Digger28

CoffeeBean2 said:


> I'm not the one claiming these other riders are (were) tested more than Armstrong.


Okay I should've been clearer there to be air. My point and question is, do you believe Lance bas been tested 24 times this season?


----------



## bertoni

muscleendurance said:


> he should have said "Im gonna take a quick shower...dont you want to come and hold my c*ck?" or "chris, bring round the garden hose and my soap"


And with that last remark I would like this dead horse of a thread buried.


----------



## robdamanii

bigpinkt said:


> Read this interview. Make sure you also see the follow up info on sabotage
> 
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
> 
> Now please explain how it is not proof that Armstrong used EPO. While you are at it let us know your background and why your level of knowledge of doping methods would be superior to Ashenden. When you are done with that assignment you can do the same for Robin Parisotto's comments


Because according to the rules of the sport, you require a positive A and B sample. There is only a positive B sample. According to the rules, he is negative. Thus, a technicality.

He doped. So what? It doesn't change history any, and only provides fodder for zealots to keep talking about it.

And hell, his name is in the news. Good for him. Any press is good press, as evidenced by his continuing the feud with the French.


----------



## CoffeeBean2

The point is - nobody on this forum can prove or disprove Armstrong's claims of how many times he's been tested.


----------



## zero85ZEN

CoffeeBean2 said:


> The point is - nobody on this forum can prove or disprove Armstrong's claims of how many times he's been tested.


With that logic; nobody on this forum can prove or disprove my claim that I once beat Armstrong up the Ventoux on a training ride.


----------



## pacificaslim

CoffeeBean2 said:


> The point is - nobody on this forum can prove or disprove Armstrong's claims of how many times he's been tested.


He announces the tests publicly. Do you think he'd do so if he was making it all up? He's such a public figure that he'd get caught in a lie if he said a tester came by when he was seen at a different location.


----------



## al0

I have followed that case very closely, have read that decision and dare to say that it is very inconvincing - even testing habdling faults recognized and confirmed by CAS shouzld be enough to dismiss case, not speaking about the faults silently ignored (not refused, merely ignoired) by CAS.

And zou again bring up lies - point out at least one point in the Landis defense where a outright lie was present. As for misinterpretation it is another matter - it is quite normal to have different interpretation for the points of a law.

And witnesses from the French laboiratory have changed their testimonies several times - which definitely may be classified as a lie.

So do favour to all of us and reread not only decisve part but the evidence, and as well reports from process.

But it is of no point to discuss it with you - if somebody want see, he will not see by any circumctances. So I stop this discussion.



bigpinkt said:


> Landis lost his case, twice, for a reason. Because his defense was filled with lies and misrepresentations.
> 
> Do yourself a favor and read the CAS decision then get back to us on that long list
> http://velonews.com/media/LandisCAS08.pdf


----------



## CoffeeBean2

*Lol!*

Touche!


----------



## bigpinkt

al0 said:


> I have followed that case very closely, have read that decision and dare to say that it is very inconvincing - even testing habdling faults recognized and confirmed by CAS shouzld be enough to dismiss case, not speaking about the faults silently ignored (not refused, merely ignoired) by CAS.
> 
> And zou again bring up lies - point out at least one point in the Landis defense where a outright lie was present. As for misinterpretation it is another matter - it is quite normal to have different interpretation for the points of a law.
> 
> And witnesses from the French laboiratory have changed their testimonies several times - which definitely may be classified as a lie.
> 
> So do favour to all of us and reread not only decisve part but the evidence, and as well reports from process.
> 
> But it is of no point to discuss it with you - if somebody want see, he will not see by any circumctances. So I stop this discussion.


You clearly did not follow the Landis case closely if you do no know the lies he told. He lied about his team getting locked out of the B sample testing, he lied about not having his blood values, He even lied after the case telling his supporters he did not settle the $100,000 fine....when he did. The list is long. 

Much of the Landis case was based on lies. The Landis team knew they could say what ever they wanted to the gullible public as USADA would not make their case public until trial. Once the case went to trial, and Landis's lies were exposed, they lost badly twice.


----------



## bigpinkt

pacificaslim said:


> He announces the tests publicly. Do you think he'd do so if he was making it all up? He's such a public figure that he'd get caught in a lie if he said a tester came by when he was seen at a different location.


He invented the term "Worlds most tested athlete" when he was getting only 2-3 OOC tests a year, why should he change now? If he has been tested 24 times then why has he only released the results of 12 of those? So much for the promise of "complete transparency" (Another Lie)


----------



## Bianchigirl

And we know that Armstrong hasn't returned any abnormal values, do we? He hasn't posted half the test results - he claims the AFLD tests were 'clean' yet the information isn't on his site - and the results he have posted seem to have changed since the first time he posted them.


----------



## Digger28

CoffeeBean2 said:


> The point is - nobody on this forum can prove or disprove Armstrong's claims of how many times he's been tested.


My question was more rhetorical than anything. My point being that most Lance fans accept what he says on Twitter and Livestrong as FACT - eventhough this is simply one man talking, with an obvious agenda of self-preservation and to maintain the myth. Yet when someone else says something to the contrary, well, you know the rest.....


----------



## Digger28

DMFT said:


> THAT is all you have??? C'mon Digger, you can do better. Remember, YOU are right about everything!!
> 
> Remove the Tin-Foil-Hats guy's, it's affecting your everyday life......
> 
> THE HAIR SAMPLES CAME BACK CLEAN, SO DID THE URINE, AND SO DID THE BLOOD.... WHAT ELSE YA GOT?


God didn't get the enjoyment of seeing this until now....not right about everything...there are a handful of people on this site who I would bow to in terms of their knowledge on this issue. 
However. when one has read more than two autobiographies, one tends to have strong opinions, and is confident and secure in their views. Education is defined as the act/process of acquiring knowledge and understanding. DMFT, in order for you to do this, you will need to branch out from the aforementioned autobiographies, Twitter and Livestrong blogs. Up to you though, as there are advantages of living in such a bubble. Ignorance can be bliss.

Note: Even if those samples came back as positives, would you believe the testers, or would you say it's yet another example of the French wanting to get Lance?


----------



## Bianchigirl

Again, the only person saying those tests are clean is Armstrong - there is no statement on the AFLD website stating the samples were 'clean'. And since when were 'clean' test results released to the public? Besides, whether the tests were 'positive' or not is not the issue - but disappearing from the sight of the tester for 20-30 minutes, and having to be threatened with the police before the test was taken after repeated warnings to stay in the tester's view _is_ very much the issue and constitutes a possible doping violation.

If the AFLD have nothing, I'm very surprised at them pursuing this as a means of excluding Armstrong from the Tour - they have the 6 positives from 99, they could make a ride conditional on having the remains of those samples retested, they could test him 3 times a day every day of the race, they could find him positive at the Tour and cause him enormous embarassment? So why would they use an incident like this to get him excluded?

I think Armstrong will ride - I hope so as it'll be far more of a humiliation and he'll be far more of a laughing stock riding and failing than getting himself excluded. In fact an exclusion like this is win win for Armstrong: he can blame it all on the 'French' (and that kind of rampant xenophophia plays mighty well with Mr & Mrs Know Nothing in B*mf*ck, Texas - who after all are the ones who will vote for him), he avoids the humiliation of getting beaten, all the 'fanboys' will still claim he would have won easily, the 'haters' will be denied seeing him get beaten and he can ride the Giro as a 'wounded hero' giving comfort and succour to all those earthquake victims who surely believe in miracles.


----------



## zero85ZEN

*Truth*



Digger28 said:


> My question was more rhetorical than anything. My point being that most Lance fans accept what he says on Twitter and Livestrong as FACT - eventhough this is simply one man talking, with an obvious agenda of self-preservation and to maintain the myth. Yet when someone else says something to the contrary, well, you know the rest.....


What is the truth with a capitol "T"? Philosophy, religion, poetry and art have all grappled with it. And it is true that we're not yet all in agreement on anything...yet! LOL.

I just find the real life soap opera(s) surrounding cycling and Mr. Armstrong to be so very interesting in what it reveals of how people can pick and choose their reality to fit what they are comfortable with, or what they want things to be. 

Originally I was a fan of Lance. And I'm talking way back pre-cancer. I kinda liked his brash arrogant 'in your face' attitude and the fact that he backed up his talk with some results. But as his Tour wins increased, and the endemic problem of drugs in cycling became too glaringly obvious not to acknowledge, I came to realize, irregardless of what I might have wanted to believe, that the fairy tale story that was constantly being spun around Armstrong just didn't seem to hold up under the harsh glare of the real world in which we live. What amazes me is how anyone can objectively look at all the evidence surrounding Armstrong's career and not find at least legitimate cause to seriously question the veracity of his claims and explanations for, and regarding, ANYTHING he does or has done.


----------



## Digger28

Bianchigirl said:


> Again, the only person saying those tests are clean is Armstrong - there is no statement on the AFLD website stating the samples were 'clean'. And since when were 'clean' test results released to the public? Besides, whether the tests were 'positive' or not is not the issue - but disappearing from the sight of the tester for 20-30 minutes, and having to be threatened with the police before the test was taken after repeated warnings to stay in the tester's view _is_ very much the issue and constitutes a possible doping violation.
> 
> If the AFLD have nothing, I'm very surprised at them pursuing this as a means of excluding Armstrong from the Tour - they have the 6 positives from 99, they could make a ride conditional on having the remains of those samples retested, they could test him 3 times a day every day of the race, they could find him positive at the Tour and cause him enormous embarassment? So why would they use an incident like this to get him excluded?
> 
> I think Armstrong will ride - I hope so as it'll be far more of a humiliation and he'll be far more of a laughing stock riding and failing than getting himself excluded. In fact an exclusion like this is win win for Armstrong: he can blame it all on the 'French' (and that kind of rampant xenophophia plays mighty well with Mr & Mrs Know Nothing in B*mf*ck, Texas - who after all are the ones who will vote for him), he avoids the humiliation of getting beaten, all the 'fanboys' will still claim he would have won easily, the 'haters' will be denied seeing him get beaten and he can ride the Giro as a 'wounded hero' giving comfort and succour to all those earthquake victims who surely believe in miracles.


Great, great post Bianchigirl...:thumbsup:


----------



## rook

Digger28 said:


> Okay I should've been clearer there to be air. My point and question is, do you believe Lance bas been tested 24 times this season?



I'm not sure Coffeebean is going to budge on this one. If Armstrong says he is the most tested athlete in the world, then it must be true to his supporters. It's just more marketing from the Armstrong camp. Armstrong doesn't even ride the spring classics and he hasn't even when he was winning those Tour de Frances. He basically rode a few events leading up to the Tour and then the Tour itself. Then, he's pretty much done for the season. He was not and never was the most tested athlete. And how would Armstrong even know how many times his fellow competitors were tested? Oh wait a minute. That half a million dollar donation to the UCI president might have given him some good info.


----------



## thechriswebb

muscleendurance said:


> he should have said "Im gonna take a quick shower...dont you want to come and hold my c*ck?" or "chris, bring round the garden hose and my soap"


 ?????


----------



## bigpinkt

The "Most tested Athlete" is nothing more then more media invention by Lance. It appears there are plenty of suckers willing to believe it. 

It is pretty easy to find the number of OOC tests he has has, just go here
http://www.usantidoping.org/what/stats/history.aspx
Plug in your heroes name and you get this

Cycling - 2001
Lance Armstrong - 2 
Cycling - 2002
Lance Armstrong - 1 
Cycling - 2003
Lance Armstrong - 1 
Cycling - 2004
Lance Armstrong - 5 
Cycling - 2005
Lance Armstrong - 3 

Now put in Marion Jones. 
Track & Field - 2000
Marion Jones - 2 
Track & Field - 2001
Marion Jones - 2 
Track & Field - 2002
Marion Jones - 4 
Track & Field - 2003
Marion Jones - 3 
Track & Field - 2004
Marion Jones - 6 
Track & Field - 2005
Marion Jones - 2 
Track & Field - 2006
Marion Jones - 5

Marion beats him....notice how the number of OCC jumped when WADA came in charge. He used to complain about getting OCC all the time but he only would receive 1-2 a year.

You can also go to the UCI and see this his tests from in competition.(podiums, jersey wearer, stage winner)

* 1999 : 15 contrôles urinaires conventionnels (1 positif à la triamcinolone acétonide - corticoïdes, 14 négatifs)
* 2000 : 12 contrôles urinaires conventionnels (tous négatifs)
* 2001 : 10 contrôles urinaires conventionnels, dont 5 avec détection de l'EPO (tous négatifs)
* 2002 : 9 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 8 avec détection de l'EPO (tous négatifs)
* 2003 : 9 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 6 avec détection de l'EPO (tous négatifs)
* 2004 : 8 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 7 avec détection de l'EPO (tous négatifs). 1 contrôle sanguin de détection des hémoglobines de synthèse (négatif)

Check out the 1999 results....so much for "Never Tested Positive" Even the UCi counts that as a positive.

Eric Zabel, Mario Chipollini....all were tested more becuase they raced, and won, more then one race a year. Check out Mario's Palmeres. He is tested after each of these wins, before each GT, and each day in the jersey. 
* World Road Cycling Championships (2002)
* Flag of Italy Italian National Road Race Championship (1996)

* Giro d'Italia: Career: 42 stage wins (Giro record); 3-time points classification winner (maglia ciclamino)
o 1989: 1 stage win
o 1990: 2 stage wins
o 1991: 3 stage wins
o 1992: 4 stage wins; Maglia ciclamino winner
o 1995: 2 stage wins; 1 day in maglia rosa
o 1996: 4 stage wins
o 1997: 5 stage wins; Maglia ciclamino winner
o 1998: 4 stage wins
o 1999: 4 stage wins
o 2000: 1 stage win
o 2001: 4 stage wins; Azzurri d'Italia classification winner
o 2002: 6 stage wins; Maglia ciclamino winner; Azzurri d'Italia classification winner
o 2003: 2 stage wins

* Tour de France: Career: 12 stage wins; 6 days in maillot jaune; 2 days in maillot vert
o 1993: 1 stage win; 2 days in maillot jaune;
o 1995: 2 stage wins
o 1996: 1 stage win
o 1997: 2 stage wins; 4 days in maillot jaune; 1 day in maillot vert
o 1998: 2 stage wins
o 1999: 4 stage wins
* Vuelta a España: Career: 3 stage wins
o 2002: 3 stage wins
* Milan-Sanremo (1.HC): (2002; 2nd 1994, 2001)
* Gent-Wevelgem (1.HC): (1992, 1993, 2002; 2nd 1991)
* Paris-Nice (2.HC): Career: 7 stage wins
* 1992: 3 stage wins
* 1993: 2 stage wins
* 1994: 2 stage wins
* Tirreno-Adriatico (2.HC): Career: 4 stage wins
o 1999: 1 stage win
o 2002: 1 stage win
o 2003: 2 stage wins
* Tour de Romandie (2.HC): Career: 12 stage wins and 1 points classification
o 1995: 2 stage wins
o 1996: 3 stage wins
o 1997: 3 stage wins
o 1999: 1 stage win
o 2000: 2 stage wins; Points classification winner
o 2001: 1 stage win
* Volta a Catalunya (2.HC): Career: 11 stage wins
o 1995: 3 stage wins
o 1996: 2 stage wins
o 1998: 4 stage wins
o 1999: 2 stage wins

Other one-day and stage races

* E3 Prijs Vlaanderen (1.HC): (1993)
* Grote Scheldeprijs (1.1): (1991, 1993)
* Memorial Rik Van Steenbergen (1.1): (1993)
* Three Days of De Panne (2.2): (1992, 1 stage win)
* Four Days of Dunkirk (2.2): (1992, 3 stage wins and Sprint classification)
* Vuelta a Aragon (2.3): Career: 6 stage wins and 1 points classification
o 1996: 2 stage wins; Points classification winner
o 1997: 2 stage wins
o 2001: 2 stage wins
* Vuelta Valenciana (2.3): Career: 6 stage wins
o 1995: 2 stage wins
o 1996: 2 stage wins
o 1997: 1 stage win
o 2000: 1 stage win
* Tour Méditerranéen (2.3): Career: 14 stage wins
o 1993: 2 stage wins
o 1994: 2 stage wins
o 1995: 3 stage wins
o 1996: 1 stage win
o 1997: 2 stage wins
o 1998: 1 stage win
o 2000: 1 stage win
o 2002: 1 stage win
o 2004: 1 stage win
* Giro di Puglia (2.3): (1992, 2 stage wins; 1991, 1 stage win)
* Trofeo Luis Puig: (1995, 1999)
* GP de l'Escaut-Schoten: (1991)
* Giro della Provincia di Siracusa: (2001)
* Regio Tour: (1987)
* Gran Premio della Costa Etruschi: (1998, 2000)
* Tour de Georgia (2.1): (2004, 1 stage win)
* Tour of Qatar (2.1): (2005, 1 stage win)
* Settimana Siciliana (2.3): (1994, 1 stage win)

* Giro della Provincia di Lucca (1.1): (2005)
* Cala Millor - Cala Rajada (1.4): (1999)
* Manacor - Manacor (1.4): (1999)
* Monte Carlo - Alassio (1.4): (1995)

I would post Zabel Palmares but that would make this the longest post ever..... and it still would not change the mind of the believers of the myth.


----------



## CoffeeBean2

Oh, I'd budge if the poster who listed the names of cyclists that have been tested more than Armstrong provided at least links to back it up. Otherwise, the poster is just throwing out names.

BTW, that which has been said about Armstrong supporters can be turned around and said the same of his critics.

For the record, I do have doubts about Armstrong's claims of being totally clean throughout his career. However, I give him the benefit of the doubt because what has been written, posted, etc. is nothing more than innuendo, supposition, and hearsay. I think the re-testing of his '99 samples is the most damning piece of evidence, but I think there are enough clouds over the testing to warrant some doubt, despite Dr. Ashenden's interview.


----------



## lookrider

Bianchigirl said:


> If the AFLD have nothing, I'm very surprised at them pursuing this as a means of excluding Armstrong from the Tour - they have the 6 positives from 99, they could make a ride conditional on having the remains of those samples retested, they could test him 3 times a day every day of the race,


I agree with most of what you said, except in regard to what's above. Those 6
positives only count in the court of public opinion. If LA's treated differently than the others and those positives from '99 are cited as the reason, I think that could open a gigantic door for a lawsuit by LA. They could also test him a lot, but how many times are they going to take blood from him? They obviously can't do that everyday.

It seems like the protocols in use now are fairly effective. Yes, his disappearing act is an obvious violation, but it would seem more diplomatic if the French took the high road and gave him a stern warning, with any such shenanigans in the future resulting in an expulsion. With a rigorous testing schedule until the tour, the authorities would seem to be able to put the kibosh on the only chance of "success" Armstrong has.

They also let him get away with the corticoid positive, but that was then. It seems obvious LA made a huge mistake in coming back, as the world has moved on from his era.


----------



## lookrider

CoffeeBean2 said:


> For the record, I do have doubts about Armstrong's claims of being totally clean throughout his career. However, I give him the benefit of the doubt because what has been written, posted, etc. is nothing more than innuendo, supposition, and hearsay. I think the re-testing of his '99 samples is the most damning piece of evidence, but I think there are enough clouds over the testing to warrant some doubt, despite Dr. Ashenden's interview.


If you say that there is nothing more than innuendo, you'd be wrong. When Pharmstrong tested positive for corticoids in '99, he did not have a TUE. That's a matter of public record and a fact.


----------



## DMFT

Digger28 said:


> God didn't get the enjoyment of seeing this until now....not right about everything...there are a handful of people on this site who I would bow to in terms of their knowledge on this issue.
> However. when one has read more than two autobiographies, one tends to have strong opinions, and is confident and secure in their views. Education is defined as the act/process of acquiring knowledge and understanding. DMFT, in order for you to do this, you will need to branch out from the aforementioned autobiographies, Twitter and Livestrong blogs. Up to you though, as there are advantages of living in such a bubble. Ignorance can be bliss.
> 
> Note: Even if those samples came back as positives, would you believe the testers, or would you say it's yet another example of the French wanting to get Lance?


Don't insult my intelligence Digger. You and a few folks here that have the same views which you are entitled to are just anonymous internet forum posters like the rest of us. 
Why do you keep attacking me by calling me a fanboy or twitter/livestrong follower?

So me 1 post post where I've ever proclaimed LA to be a hero, or absolutely 100% clean?
Try and find it. The only thing that get's me pinched is when armchair scientists such as yourself proclaim to know everything and convict someone, anyone in a court of public opinion without any proof of wrongdoing. If there was "proof" Digger, he would have been convicted/suspended long ago. 

GO RIDE YER BIKE! :thumbsup: THE "NET" IS GETTING TO YOU.


----------



## DMFT

Bianchigirl said:


> If the AFLD have nothing, I'm very surprised at them pursuing this as a means of excluding Armstrong from the Tour - they have the 6 positives from 99, they could make a ride conditional on having the remains of those samples retested, they could test him 3 times a day every day of the race, they could find him positive at the Tour and cause him enormous embarassment? So why would they use an incident like this to get him excluded?
> 
> - AGAIN, those are not "positive samples from 99" THERE WAS NO "A" SAMPLE TO CONFIRM ANYTHING. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. :thumbsup:
> 
> - They (the AFLD) are going after this because it all they have. End of story.


----------



## lookrider

DMFT said:


> Don't insult my intelligence Digger. You and a few folks here that have the same views which you are entitled to are just anonymous internet forum posters like the rest of us.
> Why do you keep attacking me by calling me a fanboy or twitter/livestrong follower?
> 
> So me 1 post post where I've ever proclaimed LA to be a hero, or absolutely 100% clean?
> Try and find it. The only thing that get's me pinched is when armchair scientists such as yourself proclaim to know everything and convict someone, anyone in a court of public opinion without any proof of wrongdoing. If there was "proof" Digger, he would have been convicted/suspended long ago.
> 
> GO RIDE YER BIKE! :thumbsup: THE "NET" IS GETTING TO YOU.


He's partially clean and you're giving him the benefit of the doubt.:lol: :wink: 

It's so noble of you to defend the system!:yikes:

No proof?:lol:.:lol:.:lol:.:lol:


----------



## DMFT

lookrider said:


> He's partially clean and you're giving him the benefit of the doubt.:lol: :wink:
> 
> It's so noble of you to defend the system!:yikes:
> 
> No proof?:lol:.:lol:.:lol:.:lol:



- What do you mean "partially clean" ????? He showers (unlike the French :wink5: ) for 20 to 30 minutes at a time even!!  

If you haven't figured it out, I like poking the apes in the cage with a big ol' stick.


----------



## bigpinkt

DMFT said:


> AGAIN, those are not "positive samples from 99" THERE WAS NO "A" SAMPLE TO CONFIRM ANYTHING. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. :thumbsup:


The samples were positive, no A sample does not change that. It does allow him to escape sanction but it does not change the fact that the samples tested positive.



DMFT said:


> They (the AFLD) are going after this because it all they have. End of story.


Do the rules not apply to Armstrong? Is there one set of rules for him a not everyone else? Why is it in the case of the 99 positives you want the rules followed to the letter but you ignore them when it suits your belief in the myth?


----------



## bigpinkt

CoffeeBean2 said:


> Oh, I'd budge if the poster who listed the names of cyclists that have been tested more than Armstrong provided at least links to back it up. Otherwise, the poster is just throwing out names.
> .


I have given you all the evidence that you need to see that Chipo was tested more. I gave you the protocall for in competition testing, the extensive palmares that would result in multiple tests, and the OOC list. 

Now is it your turn. Provide some evidence, any evidence, that supports the lie that Armstrong is the most tested athlete ever.


----------



## lookrider

DMFT said:


> - What do you mean "partially clean" ????? He showers (unlike the French :wink5: ) for 20 to 30 minutes at a time even!!
> 
> If you haven't figured it out, I like poking the apes in the cage with a big ol' stick.


You say you've never proclaimed Pharmstrong to be 100% clean.

I wonder why you defend him so vigorously when it has been proven beyond a doubt that the authorities charged with enforcing the rules have been at the very least inept, if not, corrupt.

This is why the police have broken more doping cases than the testers.

Why is the default position a defense of Armstrong?

There is more than enough incriminating evidence out there which would give an open minded person pause, and at least such a person would keep silent rather than engage in recriminations to defend LA.

I don't understand this poking the "apes in a cage." It seems like you have a very misdirected sense of justice.


----------



## lookrider

zero85ZEN said:


> What is the truth with a capitol "T"? Philosophy, religion, poetry and art have all grappled with it. And it is true that we're not yet all in agreement on anything...yet! LOL.
> 
> I just find the real life soap opera(s) surrounding cycling and Mr. Armstrong to be so very interesting in what it reveals of how people can pick and choose their reality to fit what they are comfortable with, or what they want things to be.
> 
> Originally I was a fan of Lance. And I'm talking way back pre-cancer. I kinda liked his brash arrogant 'in your face' attitude and the fact that he backed up his talk with some results. But as his Tour wins increased, and the endemic problem of drugs in cycling became too glaringly obvious not to acknowledge, I came to realize, irregardless of what I might have wanted to believe, that the fairy tale story that was constantly being spun around Armstrong just didn't seem to hold up under the harsh glare of the real world in which we live. What amazes me is how anyone can objectively look at all the evidence surrounding Armstrong's career and not find at least legitimate cause to seriously question the veracity of his claims and explanations for, and regarding, ANYTHING he does or has done.


Pretty much strikes to the heart of the matter.


----------



## CoffeeBean2

I never claimed Armstrong was the most tested athlete ever. Rook claimed that Carlos Sastre and Cadel Evans have been tested more. I asked for proof that Sastre and Evans have been tested more.


----------



## CoffeeBean2

"Le Monde's story alleged erroneously that Armstrong's test showed a ratio of 0.2. There is however no such measure for corticoids, only steroids."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cycling-tour-de-france--armstrong-versus-le-monde-1108475.html


----------



## r_mutt

if the glove does not fit, you must acquit.


----------



## DMFT

bigpinkt said:


> The samples were positive, no A sample does not change that. It does allow him to escape sanction but it does not change the fact that the samples tested positive.
> 
> 
> - Wow, you sound soooo sure. Were you there??? What part of : THERE WAS NO POSITIVE "A" TO (now read this part real clearly) CONFIRM THE "B".
> 
> 
> Do the rules not apply to Armstrong? Is there one set of rules for him a not everyone else? Why is it in the case of the 99 positives you want the rules followed to the letter but you ignore them when it suits your belief in the myth?


- Please do show me where I have said "LA has his own rules and should be allowed to ride regardless" I'd love to see it.

WHY are you the type that try's to place words in peoples mouths??? YOU haven't figured out yet that I'm a "rules" kinda guy? In fact, I WOULD NOT BE SHOCKED IF LA WAS KEPT FROM RACING THE TOUR. HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE RULES BETTER.


----------



## rook

CoffeeBean2 said:


> I never claimed Armstrong was the most tested athlete ever. Rook claimed that Carlos Sastre and Cadel Evans have been tested more. I asked for proof that Sastre and Evans have been tested more.



If you would do your own homework and follow the links that bigpinkt posted, then you can verify this stuff yourself. Dear god! Click on the freaking link. Type in the name. DO IT YOURSELF! I told you that you can't look up data that is not published. You CAN look up data on US athlets under USADA rules. I provided you the information you requested. Someone else provided a link. Get off your arse and type the stuff in. Come back and admit that you were wrong. :mad2: Not only is Armstrong not and was never the most tested athlete ever, he wasn't even the most tested cyclist.


----------



## Digger28

DMFT said:


> Bianchigirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the AFLD have nothing, I'm very surprised at them pursuing this as a means of excluding Armstrong from the Tour - they have the 6 positives from 99, they could make a ride conditional on having the remains of those samples retested, they could test him 3 times a day every day of the race, they could find him positive at the Tour and cause him enormous embarassment? So why would they use an incident like this to get him excluded?
> 
> - AGAIN, those are not "positive samples from 99" THERE WAS NO "A" SAMPLE TO CONFIRM ANYTHING. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. :thumbsup:
> 
> - They (the AFLD) are going after this because it all they have. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> I see the way you're conveniently forgetting the other failed test from the '99 Tour. The one from the Prologue, whereby he neglected, for two weeks, to say he needed a TUE for a 'saddle sore'. He was asked on numerous occasions during that Tour, 'do you have a TUE?'....he answered no, as did all his doping forms when they said if you are on any medications for medical reasons. Yet, he tests positive, and produces a post dated prescription from two weeks previously.
> Lies, lies, lies.
Click to expand...


----------



## Digger28

DMFT said:


> The only thing that get's me pinched is when armchair scientists such as yourself proclaim to know everything and convict someone, anyone in a court of public opinion without any proof of wrongdoing.


So do you also believe Michael Ashenden is an armchair scientist?


----------



## Digger28

CoffeeBean2 said:


> Oh, I'd budge if the poster who listed the names of cyclists that have been tested more than Armstrong provided at least links to back it up. Otherwise, the poster is just throwing out names.
> 
> BTW, that which has been said about Armstrong supporters can be turned around and said the same of his critics.
> 
> For the record, I do have doubts about Armstrong's claims of being totally clean throughout his career. However, I give him the benefit of the doubt because what has been written, posted, etc. is nothing more than innuendo, supposition, and hearsay. I think the re-testing of his '99 samples is the most damning piece of evidence, but I think there are enough clouds over the testing to warrant some doubt, despite Dr. Ashenden's interview.


Witness statements and circumstantial evidence are more than enough in a court of law.

What qualifications do you have to have doubts about Michael Ashenden's interview?


----------



## Digger28

CoffeeBean2 said:


> "Le Monde's story alleged erroneously that Armstrong's test showed a ratio of 0.2. There is however no such measure for corticoids, only steroids."
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cycling-tour-de-france--armstrong-versus-le-monde-1108475.html


He tested negative for coritcoids...Fact.
He admits this.
He denied taking corticoids for two weeks.
He specified on his doping forms for two weeks that he had nothing to declare medically.
Then, he hears about the positive from the Prologue, and by magic, he remembers that he has been taking corticoids for a saddle sore, since the Prologue.


----------



## CoffeeBean2

rook said:


> If you would do your own homework and follow the links that bigpinkt posted, then you can verify this stuff yourself. Dear god! Click on the freaking link. Type in the name. DO IT YOURSELF! I told you that you can't look up data that is not published. You CAN look up data on US athlets under USADA rules. I provided you the information you requested. Someone else provided a link. Get off your arse and type the stuff in. Come back and admit that you were wrong. :mad2: Not only is Armstrong not and was never the most tested athlete ever, he wasn't even the most tested cyclist.





rook said:


> I told you that you can't look up data that is not published.


Really? Where?



rook said:


> Come back and admit that you were wrong.


Wrong about what? As I mentioned previously, I never claimed Armstrong is/was the most tested athlete/cyclist.

This all started because you claimed Sastre, Evans, and Kohl have been tested more, and I asked you to prove it. If you can't look up data that is not published, then why did you include Sastre, Evans and Kohl? 

I don't need to click on the links - I'll take bigpinkt's word for it. But, since it'll make you happy: 
1) bigpinkt posted stats for Armstrong from the USADA website, which shows 2-3 (on average) OOC tests per year from 2001 - 2005. However, let's remember that Armstrong spent a significant time in Europe (living in Spain and France) during those years. It would be safe to assume that his OOC numbers would be higher if we were able to factor in other anti-doping organizations' OOC testing.
2) bigpinkt also posted Armstrong's in-competition tests. I've looked around on the UCI website and I can't find this information. I would be grateful if bigpinkt could post a link?


----------



## CoffeeBean2

Digger28 said:


> Witness statements and circumstantial evidence are more than enough in a court of law.
> 
> What qualifications do you have to have doubts about Michael Ashenden's interview?


What do my qualifications, if any, have to do with it? I'm basing my doubts on this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080626100921.htm


----------



## rook

CoffeeBean2 said:


> I don't need to click on the links - I'll take bigpinkt's word for it. But, since it'll make you happy:
> 1) bigpinkt posted stats for Armstrong from the USADA website, which shows 2-3 (on average) OOC tests per year from 2001 - 2005. However, let's remember that Armstrong spent a significant time in Europe (living in Spain and France) during those years. It would be safe to assume that his OOC numbers would be higher if we were able to factor in other anti-doping organizations' OOC testing.
> 2) bigpinkt also posted Armstrong's in-competition tests. I've looked around on the UCI website and I can't find this information. I would be grateful if bigpinkt could post a link?



OK. So, if you can't PROVE that Armstrong isn't the most tested athlete in the world, the by default is he the most tested athlete in the world??? Of course not. You can keep spinning it however you want to, but it is highly unlikely that he is the most tested athlete, let alone cyclist.

As far as Armstrong's drug usage, the article you link actually states that the risk of being caught is very small, even with the current testing of rHuEpo, the specific synthetic version of EPO that was studied in the test. In describing risk/benefit, the article states that, "there is only a small "risk" of being tested positive for rHuEpo doping while athletic performance is greatly enhanced". Why? Because the detection power of the test is poor. When the test DOES detect positives, they are very rarely false (ie, false positives). Therefore, you test positive, you are definitely positive. You test negative, you might have gotten away with it even though you are a druggie. Hence, the statement that the risk of testing positive is quite low. BTW, Armstrong's sample in 1999 tested POSITIVE for EPO.


----------



## Digger28

CoffeeBean2 said:


> I'm basing my doubts on this:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080626100921.htm


 Good luck with that line of defense in court.


----------



## bigpinkt

As one poster said, he like to "poke the apes in the cage". Pretty clear what is going on here


----------



## rocco

r_mutt said:


> and to bring it full circle once again: http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden



I suspect he did too but that doesn't make silly, baseless speculation (IE. regarding RCS Sport) any less silly and baseless. People who feel they need to bolster their argument with BS have no credibility in my book... that applies equally to the accused and the accuser.


----------



## DMFT

Digger28 said:


> So do you also believe Michael Ashenden is an armchair scientist?


Do you believe Michael Ashenden followed 100% Protocol to pronounce ANYONE positive using the methods he used on those 99 experiments?


----------



## Digger28

DMFT said:


> Do you believe Michael Ashenden followed 100% Protocol to pronounce ANYONE positive using the methods he used on those 99 experiments?


I take it that's a loaded question, so, could you point out where he didn't follow protocol....


----------



## DMFT

Digger28 said:


> I take it that's a loaded question, so, could you point out where he didn't follow protocol....



- What's so loaded about that question. A simple "Yes" or "No" is all that's needed. There is no "But".


----------



## Bianchigirl

CoffeeBean2 said:


> What do my qualifications, if any, have to do with it? I'm basing my doubts on this:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080626100921.htm


"Given these and other findings, the researchers conclude that improvements in the current rHuEpo test are necessary, or that alternative tests should be developed."

Which is precisely the research that was being undertaken when the 99 samples were retested in an effort to refine and improve the test.


----------



## Bianchigirl

DMFT, you're a stickler for protocol, huh? Can I assume therefore that you think it'sequally important that protocol be followed in doping controls? Because that's what's at stake here - Armstrong allegedly violated the testing protocols. So, is it OK for him to do that but not for other riders? Or is it OK for Armstrong to do as he pleases but everyone elese must stick rigidly to protocols in any dealing with him.

Either there is a protocol that applies to all or there isn't - can't have it both ways.

As regards the 'testing protocol' you dispute - this from Michael Ashenden:

'One of the things, I guess there's been misinformation in this particular area - is that the samples weren't analyzed properly, *that they were analyzed using a different protocol than what was used in proper dope controls - and that's just not correct.* Obviously in research where the data you come up with is going to govern how you do testing in the future, you're exceptionally careful with these measurements. You want to make sure that you don't make any mistakes. And you want to make sure that you, for example, weren't looking at urine that has been contaminated with bacteria, or isn't what we call unstable urine, where sometimes the bands shift not because of EPO use, but because of some other factors. *So all of these checks and cross checks were put in place with these samples, so the data is valid. The laboratory, I've checked with the people who did the analysis, and I very carefully went through it with them. They're absolutely 100% sure that these results are valid.*


----------



## DMFT

Bianchigirl said:


> DMFT, you're a stickler for protocol, huh? Can I assume therefore that you think it'sequally important that protocol be followed in doping controls? Because that's what's at stake here - Armstrong allegedly violated the testing protocols. So, is it OK for him to do that but not for other riders? Or is it OK for Armstrong to do as he pleases but everyone elese must stick rigidly to protocols in any dealing with him.
> 
> Either there is a protocol that applies to all or there isn't - can't have it both ways.
> 
> As regards the 'testing protocol' you dispute - this from Michael Ashenden:
> 
> 'One of the things, I guess there's been misinformation in this particular area - is that the samples weren't analyzed properly, *that they were analyzed using a different protocol than what was used in proper dope controls - and that's just not correct.* Obviously in research where the data you come up with is going to govern how you do testing in the future, you're exceptionally careful with these measurements. You want to make sure that you don't make any mistakes. And you want to make sure that you, for example, weren't looking at urine that has been contaminated with bacteria, or isn't what we call unstable urine, where sometimes the bands shift not because of EPO use, but because of some other factors. *So all of these checks and cross checks were put in place with these samples, so the data is valid. The laboratory, I've checked with the people who did the analysis, and I very carefully went through it with them. They're absolutely 100% sure that these results are valid.*



- YES or NO Bianchigirl : Did they test an "A" sample to a "B" sample to confirm the findings???

And, can I direct you to my post from about 17 hours ago on the subject of LA and the AFLD doping contol..... That's post # 158 if you can't find it.


----------



## bigpinkt

DMFT said:


> - YES or NO Bianchigirl : Did they test an "A" sample to a "B" sample to confirm the findings???


Did Basso, Ulrich, Valverde, Jones, Leogrande, etc. have A samples?


----------



## bigpinkt

*Toto*


----------



## jorgy

Gotta admit that last line got me. Cuz I've been wondering why the hell he's not in Austin where his kids are. Yea, sure, Lance, your ex-wife supported your decision.


----------



## rook

jorgy said:


> Gotta admit that last line got me. Cuz I've been wondering why the hell he's not in Austin where his kids are. Yea, sure, Lance, your ex-wife supported your decision.



It's not just his ex-wife and ex-girlfiend's that have harsh words to say about him. Even his best friends and old teamates have turned their backs on him. Frankie testified to knowing about Armstrong's drug use. He's had former employees on the USPS team that have stated about their knowledge of Armstrong's EPO use.


----------



## r_mutt

here's a direct link to the toto comic, as it's material most likely with some kind of copyright: http://nyvelocity.com/content/toto/2009/toto-turns-132


----------



## pacificaslim

It's pretty sad to be more interested in what a cyclist does in his shower or what their freakin' ex-wives say about them than what takes place in the races.

The bottom line should be that if the organizations allow the riders to race, then that's it. They're legal, and let's celebrate their efforts. Any problem you have with any particular cyclist being in the race should be a problem with the organizations and not the athletes.


----------



## rook

pacificaslim said:


> It's pretty sad to be more interested in what a cyclist does in his shower or what their freakin' ex-wives say about them than what takes place in the races.
> 
> The bottom line should be that if the organizations allow the riders to race, then that's it. They're legal, and let's celebrate their efforts. Any problem you have with any particular cyclist being in the race should be a problem with the organizations and not the athletes.



...so says a devout LAF club member.


----------



## pacificaslim

Nope. Sure, both of my parents died young (48 and 59) of cancer despite living clean lives, so I appreciate the work Lance has done in that regard. But I came of age when Lemond was breaking into the scene and he was always my favorite. I'm no Lance fan boy. I just think the current system sucks and all the speculation and he said she said needs to go away and we need to develop one fair testing system that is uniform around the world (not by country) and isn't overly intrusive into the lives of the athletes, and then step back and let the officials to do the job of telling us who is clean and can race and who can't. And once they do that, I feel free to route for whomever is in the race, without having to speculate as to if they are clean or not. That is none of my business. My business is who crosses the line first.


----------



## bigpinkt

pacificaslim said:


> It's pretty sad to be more interested in what a cyclist does in his shower or what their freakin' ex-wives say about them than what takes place in the races.


It is all part of the big lie.

What did you want to talk about? How he got 14th in the TT, got dropped on Palomar and the Cipressa?


----------



## bigpinkt

pacificaslim said:


> . I just think the current system sucks a..........the officials to do the job of telling us who is clean and can race and who can't.


The system sucks but we need to rely on it?


----------



## lookrider

*We're talking about bike racing here....*



pacificaslim said:


> It's pretty sad to be more interested in what a cyclist does in his shower or what their freakin' ex-wives say about them than what takes place in the races.


which should be the province of little kids. And we've done a real crappy job here in the States paying attention to kids and cycling. It could be part of a major fitness and health revolution but you look at the roadways and it's terrible; a kid rides a bike to school and there is not much of an infrastructure to support that. Instead we focus on 44 year old kids like myself spending 5k on a bike.

About paying attention to what cyclists are doing in the shower. Unfortunately pro cyclists among other athletes have shown the kind of demented stuff they will do in order to avoid detection. I mean really, catheterizing yourself and injecting someone elses urine into your bladder. Have you seen Hamilton's doping schedule and all of the $hit he's put in his body? Some of these guys are like junkies. It's real sick stuff.

About ex-wives. LA was the guy who wrote a book and went on and on about his "stud wife." You know, she had a very difficult time having those kids and LA is a serial adulterer. Whose fault is that? He's sold us a bill of goods about being a family man, and profited handsomely from that marketing program, then he is crying foul when he's in the tabloids with some young actress at 2 in the morning in a club?




pacificaslim said:


> The bottom line should be that if the organizations allow the riders to race, then that's it.


Obviously, that's not the bottom line and that's the consensus opinion even in Pro cycling. Even guys who have been around, like Vaughters, Van de Velde, Julich, and Millar, LeMond, Kimmage, these guys are disgusted with what has happened to the sport. And the guys like LeMond and Kimmage, are targets of people like Armstrong. The more outspoken someone has been, the harder Armstrong has gone after them. Someone like Bassons was ruined by the Armstong types. Who knows how many Bassons' there are out there.



pacificaslim said:


> They're legal, and let's celebrate their efforts.


Really, because you think we should celebrate them. I'm in the George Carlin camp, I don't want some marketing idiot dictating who should be a role model for society.



pacificaslim said:


> Any problem you have with any particular cyclist being in the race should be a problem with the organizations and not the athletes.


Sorry, the truth has a way of getting out, and that holds true for *everyone* and no one is above it. That's the kind of message that I want put forth. Not some bs about some guy who is lying and cheating and taking drugs who would otherwise be pretty ordinary.

Armstrong had a good pro career before he went completely off the deep end. The guy made his bed and now he has to lie in it. It's kind of crazy how reviled Barry Bonds is, seeing that he had a Hall of Fame career before he decided to become a lab rat. Barry Bonds was a great player.... a 500 home run hitter, .300 average, but he was not a Willie Mays, or a Hank Aarron and with his outsized ego he couldn't be shown up by dopers like McGwire and Sosa.

The bottom line is that LA deserves everything he gets in the way of scrutiny here.


----------



## Gnarly 928

Dunno if this has been mentioned (couldn't read all 185 posts!) but is it kinda a "Lawyer's" argument now about how to define when this Armstrong-test actually began? 

According to the articles I read, the French say he violated the rule (and I'll paraphrase because I am not a lawyer) saying that the athelete must be under constant supervision from start to finish of the test proceedure. And the Armstrong reply is that they didn't let the guy in because they didn't believe him to be a legit tester. The Lance-group's attorneys say that when they did let him in to test, Lance did the test in constant supervision, came up clean. 

So, all you wonderful lawyers, when did the test actually begin? Was it when the tester showed up and said "I am a tester?" or was it when the Lance 'groupies' got confirmation from whoever the hell they checked with that this guy was legit and they let him inside?

Isn't that what the French are whanking about? "Our guy showed up and Lance blew him off for 20 mins"...."Get Lance! We can say the test started when the guy showed up..Nah Nah na Nah na!" We will win this in court..

Not only did they take a sample of Lance's hair, they (the whole bunch of them) are now 'splitting it', Typical deal, once the 'fat-fuc***s' who run things everywhere get involved. "Decide the competative event in court...."

Remember way back when the America's Cup yacht races went to court because a Kiwi found an obscure clause in the rules and came to San Deigo with a 90' "super-yacht" wanting to "beat" the Yanks in their slow, heavy 12 Meter boat? And the Yanks, they said..."Hey..We can play THAT game, so they built a super-fast Catamaran and out-cheated the Kiwis?....Well, the sailing competition got totally lost there. Just like the bike racing is getting lost in this dorky 'feud', this "Lawyer-Match" between Armstrong and the French Tour bosses.. Come on, boys..settle down and race..

He has tested clean, repeatedly..I'm sayin'
Don Hanson


----------



## pacificaslim

bigpinkt said:


> The system sucks but we need to rely on it?


Don't be "that guy," that misrepresents what others say. I very clearly stated that we need to develop one fair system and _then_ let it be what we rely on, instead of all the speculations that people follow now.


----------



## joeqp1

Gnarly 928 said:


> Dunno if this has been mentioned (couldn't read all 185 posts!) but is it kinda a "Lawyer's" argument now about how to define when this Armstrong-test actually began?
> 
> According to the articles I read, the French say he violated the rule (and I'll paraphrase because I am not a lawyer) saying that the athelete must be under constant supervision from start to finish of the test proceedure. And the Armstrong reply is that they didn't let the guy in because they didn't believe him to be a legit tester. The Lance-group's attorneys say that when they did let him in to test, Lance did the test in constant supervision, came up clean.
> 
> So, all you wonderful lawyers, when did the test actually begin? Was it when the tester showed up and said "I am a tester?" or was it when the Lance 'groupies' got confirmation from whoever the hell they checked with that this guy was legit and they let him inside?
> 
> Isn't that what the French are whanking about? "Our guy showed up and Lance blew him off for 20 mins"...."Get Lance! We can say the test started when the guy showed up..Nah Nah na Nah na!" We will win this in court..
> 
> Not only did they take a sample of Lance's hair, they (the whole bunch of them) are now 'splitting it', Typical deal, once the 'fat-fuc***s' who run things everywhere get involved. "Decide the competative event in court...."
> 
> Remember way back when the America's Cup yacht races went to court because a Kiwi found an obscure clause in the rules and came to San Deigo with a 90' "super-yacht" wanting to "beat" the Yanks in their slow, heavy 12 Meter boat? And the Yanks, they said..."Hey..We can play THAT game, so they built a super-fast Catamaran and out-cheated the Kiwis?....Well, the sailing competition got totally lost there. Just like the bike racing is getting lost in this dorky 'feud', this "Lawyer-Match" between Armstrong and the French Tour bosses.. Come on, boys..settle down and race..
> 
> He has tested clean, repeatedly..I'm sayin'
> Don Hanson


It wouldn't make sense from a policy perspective if the test began when a rider was satisfied that the tester was legitimate. If the point of the rule is to ensure constant supervision of the rider during the entire testing procedure, a rider should not be able to compromise any test conducted after they have satisfied themselves of the legitimacy of the tester. As in Armstrong's case, the mere fact that a rider was not under constant supervision will always leave open that possibility that the rider _may _have tampered with their blood or urine. This would contradict the purpose of the rule.


----------



## Gnarly 928

joeqp1 said:


> It wouldn't make sense from a policy perspective if the test began when a rider was satisfied that the tester was legitimate. If the point of the rule is to ensure constant supervision of the rider during the entire testing procedure, a rider should not be able to compromise any test conducted after they have satisfied themselves of the legitimacy of the tester. As in Armstrong's case, the mere fact that a rider was not under constant supervision will always leave open that possibility that the rider _may _have tampered with their blood or urine. This would contradict the purpose of the rule.


 I don't follow. Why doesn't it make sense that the rider can ask and verify who the heck wants his blood and his pee before he submits to the testing? He's not really 'under test' until that guy has proved his identity, right? More lawyers! More, clearer rules! More regulations! Or...

Maybe the answer is to get a little guy and mount him on the shoulder of every athlete in the world...Like in the Mel Gibson "Road Warrior" movie "Beyond Thunderdome" You remember..."Master-Blaster"? The midget riding on the giant's back?...Every rider that wants to ride in the Tour de France can go round for years with a little froggie official on his back, making sure he doesn't cheat...

Sheesh. Don Hanson


----------



## joeqp1

Gnarly 928 said:


> I don't follow. Why doesn't it make sense that the rider can ask and verify who the heck wants his blood and his pee before he submits to the testing? He's not really 'under test' until that guy has proved his identity, right? More lawyers! More, clearer rules! More regulations! Or...
> 
> Maybe the answer is to get a little guy and mount him on the shoulder of every athlete in the world...Like in the Mel Gibson "Road Warrior" movie "Beyond Thunderdome" You remember..."Master-Blaster"? The midget riding on the giant's back?...Every rider that wants to ride in the Tour de France can go round for years with a little froggie official on his back, making sure he doesn't cheat...
> 
> Sheesh. Don Hanson


I think the rider should be allowed to verify the identity of the tester - but this should not allow the rider to simply do as they please until they have verified the tester's identity to their satisfaction. 

I think there would be a presumption that the tester is legitimate once they have shown the standard credentials to the rider. The onus should be on the rider to rebut this presumption by making a reasonable attempt to disprove the legitimacy of the tester's credentials e.g. by phoning a superior official associated with the tester. Only if the rider has managed to rebut this presumption should they be allowed to do as they like and not be under the supervision of the tester.


----------



## mtbbmet

bigpinkt said:


> So every time you get pulled over by the cops do you take off for 30 minutes (to dump the kilo of blow in your trunk) while your boyfriend "Verifies" his badge?


If the cop is asking for hair, blood, and urine? Yes, I would verify who he is and if he has the authority to be taking tests. You would just hand them over I assume?
Keep in mind, this guy ain't from the UCI. I think it's fair to think that he MAY have been unaware that AFLD have the capability to test any pro athlete that is in the country at anytime.
Should he have taken a shower? No. Should he have checked the man's credentials? Yup!


----------



## SilasCL

mtbbmet said:


> If the cop is asking for hair, blood, and urine? Yes, I would verify who he is and if he has the authority to be taking tests. You would just hand them over I assume?
> Keep in mind, this guy ain't from the UCI. I think it's fair to think that he MAY have been unaware that AFLD have the capability to test any pro athlete that is in the country at anytime.
> Should he have taken a shower? No. Should he have checked the man's credentials? Yup!


If the reports about the tester being locked outside are true, then this fails the smell test for me. If Lance was actually concerned about the credentials but had nothing to hide, he would've invited the guy in while Johan called up McQuaid and sorted it out.

As the story stands now it sounds more like the time Vino and Kashechkin just missed the tester because they left the hotel early. A bit convenient for them...just like Lance's story is a bit convenient for him.


----------



## bigpinkt

mtbbmet said:


> If the cop is asking for hair, blood, and urine? Yes, I would verify who he is and if he has the authority to be taking tests. You would just hand them over I assume?
> Keep in mind, this guy ain't from the UCI. I think it's fair to think that he MAY have been unaware that AFLD have the capability to test any pro athlete that is in the country at anytime.
> Should he have taken a shower? No. Should he have checked the man's credentials? Yup!


Weak attempt to confuse the issue

When you get pulled over the standard practice is you hand over your license. When you get tested you give your blood and urine. It would be unusual for a cop to ask you for your Blood and Urine, not unusual for a Dope tester. 

If you got pulled over 24 times in the last 6 months and claimed you were the "Most pulled over driver in the world" would you call the Governor and hide in the trunk if you had nothing to hide?


----------



## DMFT

pacificaslim said:


> Nope. Sure, both of my parents died young (48 and 59) of cancer despite living clean lives, so I appreciate the work Lance has done in that regard. But I came of age when Lemond was breaking into the scene and he was always my favorite. I'm no Lance fan boy. I just think the current system sucks and all the speculation and he said she said needs to go away and we need to develop one fair testing system that is uniform around the world (not by country) and isn't overly intrusive into the lives of the athletes, and then step back and let the officials to do the job of telling us who is clean and can race and who can't. And once they do that, I feel free to route for whomever is in the race, without having to speculate as to if they are clean or not. That is none of my business. My business is who crosses the line first.


x2.
Thus the world is not & will not ever be perfect so this will never happen unfortunately.


----------



## SwiftSolo

bigpinkt said:


> So every time you get pulled over by the cops do you take off for 30 minutes (to dump the kilo of blow in your trunk) while your boyfriend "Verifies" his badge?
> 
> There are thousands of OOC tests done each year. Even if Armstrong wanted to "Varify" the testers credentials this does not allow him to disappear for 30 minutes. For someone who makes the false claim of being the worlds "Most tested athlete" this process should be routine for him by now.....which makes his 30 minutes disappearance even more questionable.


There could be a difference in the odds of me being pulled over and written a bogus traffic citation verses a lunitic fanatic zealot attempting to get blood, urine, and hair samples from Lance. In fact, it is likely one could find the suspects for bogus drug testing right here on the dope forum. Most of you guys know for sure that LA is doping and that you are the only person on earth that is not part of the conspiracy to cover it up.


----------



## DMFT

bigpinkt said:


> Weak attempt to confuse the issue
> 
> When you get pulled over the standard practice is you hand over your license. When you get tested you give your blood and urine. It would be unusual for a cop to ask you for your Blood and Urine, not unusual for a Dope tester.
> 
> If you got pulled over 24 times in the last 6 months and claimed you were the "Most pulled over driver in the world" would you call the Governor and hide in the trunk if you had nothing to hide?



- Now you are a 2-minute expert on American Law Enforcement State-by-State I assume too.
Hey, my X-bosses brother is a CHP seargent.....I know, I know more about law than you!


----------



## bigpinkt

SwiftSolo said:


> There could be a difference in the odds of me being pulled over and written a bogus traffic citation verses a lunitic fanatic zealot attempting to get blood, urine, and hair samples from Lance. In fact, it is likely one could find the suspects for bogus drug testing right here on the dope forum. Most of you guys know for sure that LA is doping and that you are the only person on earth that is not part of the conspiracy to cover it up.


The new excuse for riders who want to avoid OOC testing "I thought it was a crazed fan" Manual Beltran should have used that when he ran across a field to escape the tester.

Pathetic.


----------



## lancezneighbor

bigpinkt said:


> Weak attempt to confuse the issue
> 
> When you get pulled over the standard practice is you hand over your license. When you get tested you give your blood and urine. It would be unusual for a cop to ask you for your Blood and Urine, not unusual for a Dope tester.
> 
> If you got pulled over 24 times in the last 6 months and claimed you were the "Most pulled over driver in the world" would you call the Governor and hide in the trunk if you had nothing to hide?



Haha that is what we need - Lance hiding in the trunk... for good!


----------



## mohair_chair

bigpinkt said:


> Nice to hear about your cop friend. I lived and raced my bike in Europe for 6 years, I know more about bike racing then you.
> 
> Do you only come here to troll?


I thought this thread was about Armstrong messing with a tester? Why would you knowing more about bike racing have any relevance? Besides, you raced in an era where there was minimal testing for minimal substances, so even your experience with doping controls (if any) is not relevant to today.


----------



## DMFT

bigpinkt said:


> Nice to hear about your cop friend. I lived and raced my bike in Europe for 6 years, I know more about bike racing then you.
> 
> Do you only come here to troll?



- Read : SARCASM smart guy.


----------



## pacificaslim

bigpinkt said:


> I lived and raced my bike in Europe for 6 years, I know more about bike racing then you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GcVnhNjWV0


----------



## rook

Look, cycling is all a big scam now. And it is all because of Armstrong. There is absolutely no credibility in this sport. F the rules. There are no UCI rules. There are no national governing rules on sport. It's the Lance Rules in effect.

Lance Armstrong Rules
1) Anybody that faces an out-of-competition can leave the scene while verifying the information that the tester is legitimate.
2) Urine samples cannot be tested at all due to possible contamination for French citizens
3) If a sample should come back positive for a drug, blame the lab that did the work.
4) There is no conflict of interest in paying the head of the cycling federation a half a million dollar donation for "supporting" accurate testing protocols

...feel free to add anything if I forgot something.


----------



## alexb618

5) prescriptions can be back-dated


----------



## Digger28

6) Lance can say what he wants on Twitter about tests, when tested, his version of events etc. If a report surfaces in the media which is negative, this is seen as more examples of the corrupion of L'Equipe trying to bring Lance down - because they are leaking stories.
End Result: Lance wins the PR battle, because if the testing agencies try and give their side of the story, and defend thenselves against allegations of negligence and clandestine activities, it is seen as a leak, and a breach of regulations. Essentially, the testers can't win. As was the case with Floyd. Still people believe the authorities transgressed by leaking Floyd's name to a positive test - yet it was his team Phonak who let it out.


----------



## Old_school_nik

7) You can hold a press conference telling the world about your example-settting fully transparent personal drug testing program being handled by the one of the world's most trusted anti doping experts... and then quietly cancel that plan because, "logistically" it would be too much trouble...


----------



## Circlip

Old_school_nik said:


> 7) You can hold a press conference telling the world about your example-settting fully transparent personal drug testing program being handled by the one of the world's most trusted anti doping experts... and then quietly cancel that plan because, "logistically" it would be too much trouble...


8) Or that as an exceptionally wealthy person, the testing program would cost too much money.


----------



## mtbbmet

bigpinkt said:


> When you get pulled over the standard practice is you hand over your license. When you get tested you give your blood and urine. It would be unusual for a cop to ask you for your Blood and Urine, not unusual for a Dope tester.


Thank you, you proved my point for me. The tester was also asking for hair, which is not part of the normal protocol. So it would be like the cop asking for you license, registration, insurance, and hair sample. What would you say then?

With your big hate on for LA, and your "insider knowledge" I'm kind of starting to think that you might just be Betsy.


----------



## bigpinkt

mtbbmet said:


> Thank you, you proved my point for me. The tester was also asking for hair, which is not part of the normal protocol. So it would be like the cop asking for you license, registration, insurance, and hair sample. What would you say then?
> 
> With your big hate on for LA, and your "insider knowledge" I'm kind of starting to think that you might just be Betsy.


Not Betsy, although I do know her. She is a good person, unlike what some liars would like you to believe. 

The AFLD has been testing hair for 2 years, it is no surprise....Especially if you have one of the best doping doctors in the world, Dr. Ferrari, at your disposal


----------



## lancezneighbor

mtbbmet said:


> Thank you, you proved my point for me. The tester was also asking for hair, which is not part of the normal protocol. So it would be like the cop asking for you license, registration, insurance, and hair sample. What would you say then?
> 
> With your big hate on for LA, and your "insider knowledge" I'm kind of starting to think that you might just be Betsy.


No, it would be more like the cop asking you license, registration, insurance, and breath sample. This happens if there is due suspicion od DWI (DUI) and in the case of being a professional bike racer, there is due suspicion, it's just part of the job. If I was suspicious of the cop, and there have been recent incidences of fake cops, I would keep the window rolled up, be INSIGHT of the person while I called 911 and verified the police officer. I would NOT drive off, out of sight, and show up 20-30 minutes later at the police station stating I was ready to give my breath test. 

As far you you stating people have big hate for Lance, check out my username. Yeah, I used to be proud to live a few houses down from his house outside Austin. There has just been too much that has come out about him. This incident of hiding for at least 20 minutes just does not smell right, no way! Would you YOU have locked yourself away inside your house if you were a pro racer aware of the testing procedure? I am asking with the assumption that you needed to verify the identity, but do that within sight of the test. It's simple. Believe me I wish I could believe Lance but based on the way he has handled himself, I can't anymore.


----------



## Digger28

mtbbmet said:


> Thank you, you proved my point for me. The tester was also asking for hair, which is not part of the normal protocol. So it would be like the cop asking for you license, registration, insurance, and hair sample. What would you say then?
> 
> With your big hate on for LA, and your "insider knowledge" I'm kind of starting to think that you might just be Betsy.


So do you have an issue with Betsy now?


----------



## r_mutt

dick pound weighs in on the situation...http://fry.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/apr09/apr20news&from=rss


----------



## jorgy

Dick Pound is a joke. If he really cared about doping he would have cut off Spain (e.g., de-certify its anti-doping agency and along with it Spanish athletes) for its Operation Puerto shenanigans. He's a washed embarrassment and opening his mouth about Armstrong just draws attention to that fact.


----------



## Bianchigirl

Open question - hands up who thought the AFLD were great for busting Ricco et al in the Tour and for showing up the UCI testing regime (and the refusal to retest the Giro samples) for what it was? Those riders were targeted because of abnormalities - I would have thought posting two entirely different numbers for haematocrit as Armstrong has done was fairly suspicious, coupled with the fact that the UCI allowed him to ride before he'd been in the testing pool for 6 months. Oh and they have 8 scientifically verified samples that say he's cheated at least once in his career.

On the subject of those samples - when Ashenden says they followed the protocol, he means the protocol for testing a sample. They didn't follow the protocol for in or out of competition testing (A and B sample) _because this was a means of verifying and refining the test, not an in or out of competition test_. They used the remaining B samples - which are generally tested to confirm the postivity of the A sample.


----------



## rook

r_mutt said:


> dick pound weighs in on the situation...http://fry.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/apr09/apr20news&from=rss




Looking at the statements, I would have to agree with Mr Pound. He is correct. All athletes need to abide by the rules. Period. Diversions of Armstrong pointing to his own issues of mistrust are one thing, but violating the rules are another. In this case, Armstrong was completely in the wrong for leaving the tester's presence regardless of whatever fact-checking he says needed to be done. He should face the sanctions that any rider who violates this rule should face.


----------



## Coolhand

jorgy said:


> Dick Pound is a joke. If he really cared about doping he would have cut off Spain (e.g., de-certify its anti-doping agency and along with it Spanish athletes) for its Operation Puerto shenanigans. He's a washed embarrassment and opening his mouth about Armstrong just draws attention to that fact.


Plus that porn star name ain't helping. Dick Pound? _Really_? At least call yourself "Richard" or "Rich".


----------



## blackhat

Coolhand said:


> Plus that porn star name ain't helping. Dick Pound? _Really_? At least call yourself "Richard" or "Rich".


dude. you call yourself "<i>coolhand</i>"...google a bit I'm sure you can find the irony.


----------

