# Armstrong vs. French - Why bother anymore?



## SlowMo (Apr 18, 2006)

Read this earlier on VeloNews: 
http://www.velonews.com/article/90320/lance-armstrong-says-he-is-outraged-over-claims-that-he

Why? Why even bother worrying about these guys anymore? I like it when Armstrong races. I realize he might be arrogant to some, but hey, everyone has their quirks. But come on already. He's taken how many tests; over and over and over again. Geminitely, give the guy a freakin' break. 

Why does everyone still contend the Tour de France is the race of all races? If it wasn't for the history of this race, what else is there? I wish every pro team would protest and forego it this year. I'm not categorizing every French fan nor anyone who attends this event, but it's apparent the organizers as well as all the reporters are simply biased. I'm now rooting for him to thump everyone this year. It might be a far stretch, but I've got my Lance chant started now. 

I realize I'm jumping around the topic a bit here, but I'm tired of these guys.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

this belongs in the doping forum, bud.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Phony outrage.


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

Everyone guns for #1, and it seems like there are some who; regardless of evidence; has convinced himself that he's GOTTA be doping. I can almost agree - look at MLB and all these "superstars" which all used steroids. 
Regardless of this theory, I'm rooting for Lance. He's been cooperative, and he's a hell of an athlete. I can understand his attitude, considering the discrimination he's been given. I'd probably be acting considerably worse if it were me. Heck, I wish I could even be half the athlete he is! Maybe I wouldn't mind being scrutinized. /shrug





Creakyknees said:


> this belongs in the doping forum, bud.


Yes it does...


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Phony outrage.


Reading through this thread, there is nothing phony about my outrage lookrider!!
:mad2:


----------



## joel2old (Feb 22, 2008)

its the world today! bring everything and everybody down so one feels better about one's self. i'm sick of it. if people minded there own business and just left others alone it would be a step in the right direction.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Moved- have fun guys!


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*I understand you.*



Digger28 said:


> Reading through this thread, there is nothing phony about my outrage lookrider!!
> :mad2:


It's Pharmstrong's outrage that is phony and the idolaters are eating it up.

'If everybody would just mind their own business, I could sniff Pharmstrong's chamois till I find eternal bliss.' :lol: :lol: :lol: :yesnod: :yikes:


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

The French could care less about inviting protour teams. Isn't it just last year that they nearly made it a national race because of the UCI bickering?


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

I like Lance, but he has to understand that he must take the same tests out-of-competition that the other riders take. He hasn't raced in over two years, so he can't claim to be the most tested athlete now or even ever.


----------



## Frith (Oct 3, 2002)

Don't think it's got anything to do with the French. They're leading the way in testing cyclists and cycling is leading the way in drug testing in sport.
This is a good thing!


----------



## PJay (May 28, 2004)

*the french are really afraid...*

the french are really afraid...of getting beat yet again by someone with only one *ut.
it makes them look like they have even fewer.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

PJay said:


> the french are really afraid...of getting beat yet again by someone with only one *ut.
> it makes them look like they have even fewer.


He was dropped on Palomar, finished 14th in the TT, dropped at MSR. Not many are afraid of the old man anymore.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> Not many are afraid of the old man anymore.


I know one "fan" running on the side of the road who is probably not going to get too close to Armstrong again.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> I know one "fan" running on the side of the road who is probably not going to get too close to Armstrong again.


Are you kidding? He got exactly what he wanted. Confirmation that Armstrong saw him. Did you see the smile on his face? There are also people in this world known as masochists.

Normal people aren't going to go to such trouble to make fools of themselves.


----------



## BuenosAires (Apr 3, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> He was dropped on Palomar, finished 14th in the TT, dropped at MSR. Not many are afraid of the old man anymore.


Yeah, everyone knows your results in February determine how you'll do in the Tour.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

BuenosAires said:


> Yeah, everyone knows your results in February determine how you'll do in the Tour.


The problem with your contention is that Pharmstrong is acknowledged to be in the best shape of his career at this point in the season by far, compared with previous years.

The increased vigilance of the authorities makes it much less likely that he's going to be able to go to doping camp in the mountains pre tour to find his form.

It's amazing that people who are riders really believe that a guy in already amazing shape is going to have such a gigantic increase in the quality of his performances as if he can just turn it on or off in a matter of 10 or 12 weeks. Who among us has personally experienced this?

This kind of crap is only possible with recovery from illness or *doping.*


----------



## danielc (Oct 24, 2002)

20 minute shower...sheesh. If i did an 'all day' training ride I'd be in there until the hot water runs out..which is 5 min at my house!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

BuenosAires said:


> Yeah, everyone knows your results in February determine how you'll do in the Tour.


Milan San Remo was March 22, not February. Armstrong went backwards on The Cipressa.


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Even though I am a brown belt in Lance Fanboyism I laughed at "Pharmstrong."


----------



## BuenosAires (Apr 3, 2004)

lookrider said:


> The problem with your contention is that Pharmstrong is acknowledged to be in the best shape of his career at this point in the season by far, compared with previous years.
> 
> The increased vigilance of the authorities makes it much less likely that he's going to be able to go to doping camp in the mountains pre tour to find his form.
> 
> ...


The problem with your contention is that Armstrong is not a Classics rider and has historically not been a contender in Milan-San remo. Only 40 or so riders made the break and he was not one of them. Like i said, that is insignificant when talking about the Tour which happens in July.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

BuenosAires said:


> The problem with your contention is that Armstrong is not a Classics rider and has historically not been a contender in Milan-San remo. Only 40 or so riders made the break and he was not one of them. Like i said, that is insignificant when talking about the Tour which happens in July.


He did not "Make the break" because he was dropped on the climb. I watched it live. There was a moto with a camera focused on Armstrong as much of the field rode around him up the climb. Great climbers like Mark Cavendish dropped him.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> He did not "Make the break" because he was dropped on the climb. I watched it live. There was a moto with a camera focused on Armstrong as much of the field rode around him up the climb.


Oh, don't you worry, he'll be a new man come July!:lol:


----------



## lalahsghost (Aug 27, 2007)

lookrider said:


> Oh, don't you worry, he'll be a new man come July!:lol:


Like Steve Austin/Lee Majors? CYBORGSTRONG!


----------



## mtbykr (Feb 16, 2004)

rook said:


> I like Lance, but he has to understand that he must take the same tests out-of-competition that the other riders take. He hasn't raced in over two years, so he can't claim to be the most tested athlete now or even ever.



You don't think he understands it? I seriously doubt that every other rider has been tested 24 times in the last few months. He didn't complain about the test, or how many he had to take....they just wanted to verify the guy was who he said he was, what's the problem with that?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

mtbykr said:


> .they just wanted to verify the guy was who he said he was, what's the problem with that?


gulp! this kool aid's yummy!  

I don't think anyone that's been tested as much as LA needs a half hour to verify that the vampire is legit.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbykr said:


> Iseriously doubt that every other rider has been tested 24 times in the last few months. He didn't complain about the test, or how many he had to take....they just wanted to verify the guy was who he said he was, what's the problem with that?


Plenty have take that many tests. The UCI did over 3800 tests for the passport. Many of the top riders will be tested 50 times a year. 

Armstrong did complain about the test on his twitter the same day. He also wined about being persecuted in an interview. As for just wanting to verify who the guy is. The Tester produced his identification, to which Johann closed the door for 30 minutes. It was only when the tester threaten to call the police that he opened the door.


----------



## mtbykr (Feb 16, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> Plenty have take that many tests. The UCI did over 3800 tests for the passport. Many of the top riders will be tested 50 times a year.
> 
> Armstrong did complain about the test on his twitter the same day. He also wined about being persecuted in an interview. As for just wanting to verify who the guy is. The Tester produced his identification, to which Johann closed the door for 30 minutes. It was only when the tester threaten to call the police that he opened the door.



I'm far from a lance fanboy, but you seem to only want to believe the testers side of the story. We won't ever know what really happened unless someone has video or something. I am not a doping expert (although there seem to be quite a few 'homeschooled' doping experts on here) so I don't know what could be done in 20 minutes to clean him up, but even if he was able to clean his urine and blood...what could he possibly alter in his hair? Does 'just for men' clean your hair? Maybe the french just want to clone lance so they can have someone that will finish near the top of their own race.

Maybe LA was doping and he had to do this to test clean, we'll never know though. Either way it's a pretty cheap way to end a career, even though we all know the french don't want him back


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbykr said:


> I'm far from a lance fanboy, but you seem to only want to believe the testers side of the story. We won't ever know what really happened unless someone has video or something. I am not a doping expert (although there seem to be quite a few 'homeschooled' doping experts on here) so I don't know what could be done in 20 minutes to clean him up, but even if he was able to clean his urine and blood...what could he possibly alter in his hair? Does 'just for men' clean your hair? Maybe the french just want to clone lance so they can have someone that will finish near the top of their own race.
> 
> Maybe LA was doping and he had to do this to test clean, we'll never know though. Either way it's a pretty cheap way to end a career, even though we all know the french don't want him back


I believe the tester because he has no motivation to lie, Armstrong has 20 million (his annual income)

There is also little difference in the stories. 

-They both agree that they kept him outside. Johann says for 20 minutes, the tester says for 30. If you read the WADA code there are specific time frames/limits for tests so the testers all wear watches and make notes of various times. I believe the 30 minutes

-They both agree that there was a conflict. Johann says that while he had the tester locked outside the Doctor made multiple phones calls in an angry tone. 

-They both agree that the tester presented identification....Johann and Lance chose not to accept it, although it was completely valid....even the head of the UCI verified it was valid

It appears they do not agree if permission to take a shower was granted. Why would a Doctor, with 15 years of Dope testing experience, break one of the cardinal rules of testing? 

Johann has not denied the testers claim that he only opened the door when he threaten to call the cops. Considering that they keep him outside for 30 minutes while he dialed his superiors then it seems likely that he would make that threat.

Regarding his attitude, Lance says no box was checked. Does anybody really think if you keep the tester locked out for 30 minutes he isn't going to say anything? The AFLD, responding to Armstrong's Twitter and interviews, said the day after the test that Armstrong had been ornery.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

mtbykr said:


> I I am not a doping expert (although there seem to be quite a few 'homeschooled' doping experts on here) so I don't know what could be done in 20 minutes to clean him up, but even if he was able to clean his urine and blood...what could he possibly alter in his hair? Does 'just for men' clean your hair?



On the last day of April 2002, I heard a knock at the door. I knew who it was and I knew what he was there for. ‘Mr Chambers, you have been selected for a random test.'
By then, I was fully on the programme. By February, I had taken a complete cycle of THG and by March I was racked with severe stomach cramps.

*In April, I had pumped THG, EPO and a growth hormone into my body 17 times.* I was s******g myself.
I was told some of the drugs were no worse than coffee, all part of the programme, according to Victor Conte.
Not once did I hesitate to take anything prescribed to me. 

*I was on the lot, knocking them back almost every day: THG, EPO and HGH, then stocking up with insulin and Liothyronine.*
HGH changed my body shape, improving muscle definition and reducing body fat, but it is not the wonder drug it is made out to be. I can see it being used in other athletes and I know who they are.
EPO causes the blood to thicken, so I was given iron, vitamin E, folic acid, selenium, vitamin C, B1, B2, B6 and B12 to counteract the possibilities of it clotting.
I was feeling fitter than ever, I was in the gym lifting weights like they were going out of fashion and, of course, I was in there more often.
My weight shot up from 88.63kg to 98.63kg. My personal best for squats went from 180kg to 230kg. I could eat four pancakes with cream and strawberries on top and drink two glasses of orange juice for breakfast.


By the time I returned to England in April, however, the stomach cramps had caused me to miss three meetings. I was worried, but I continued with the programme.
*I was sat at home massaging The Cream, which is the drugs masking agent, into my arms when the knock on the door came. *The Cream leaves a white residue, taking about an hour to disappear and smells a little bit like burnt almonds. I don’t remember a feeling of panic as I calmly walked to the door, but the residue on my arms was clearly visible as I was wearing a sleeveless vest top.
I opened the door and an official-looking man spoke His words chilled me to the bone. We walked into the lounge; *the tube of THG lay on top of the television and the faint smell of almonds permeated the air.*He was a dour man, not too talkative and he did not leave my side until I had peed into his canister. 
ictor had warned me about this first test. I thought I was ready. I thought I could be cool. Instead, I was sweating like a bull.
Eventually, I handed it over to him and stared at the canister like it was some radioactive substance. 

He noticed my reaction and said: ‘Don’t worry, son, it’s only a little urine.’
The moment he left, I called Victor. ‘I’ve been tested,’ I blurted into the phone. I was on the point of tears.
‘I was rubbing The Cream in when he came to the door, it was on my fingers and could . . .’
Victor cut me off mid-sentence, relaxed me, told me it would be OK. I admitted I was taking THG and EPO and there was an uncomfortable silence at the end of the phone.
We checked dates and he said: ‘Dwain, you have been following the calendar day by day, haven’t you?’ I had.
I began breathing normally again. *He berated me for answering the door to the tester and I apologised. *I had taken EPO nine times that month and yet opened the door to someone I had never seen before. That was stupid. There is an easy way around the system and one that is fool proof.
Quite simply, you hide.


----------



## Mashmaniac (Jun 21, 2004)

> Don't think it's got anything to do with the French. They're leading the way in testing cyclists and cycling is leading the way in drug testing in sport


I'm leading my way by not ever purchasing any French manufactured cycling gear in my lkife again. Adios Mavic.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Don't mess with Texas!*



Mashmaniac said:


> I'm leading my way by not ever purchasing any French manufactured cycling gear in my lkife again. Adios Mavic.



Wake up kid!

They start inculcating you kids early down there, huh?:lol: 

PM me your address and I'll send you a gift copy of From Lance to Landis.

Your hero was doping before you were born. Sorry.

Time to grow up.


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

Digger28 said:


> On the last day of April 2002, I heard a knock at the door. I knew who it was and I knew what he was there for. ‘Mr Chambers, you have been selected for a random test.'
> By then, I was fully on the programme. By February, I had taken a complete cycle of THG and by March I was racked with severe stomach cramps.
> 
> *In April, I had pumped THG, EPO and a growth hormone into my body 17 times.* I was s******g myself.
> ...


Digger, what's this from? I assume an account of Balco clinic but who's and in what book? Thanks!

Nik


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Old_school_nik said:


> Digger, what's this from? I assume an account of Balco clinic but who's and in what book? Thanks!
> 
> Nik


Sorry!
Dwain Chambers the British Sprinter. His book is out soon, but it was serialised in the Daily Mail newspaper in the UK about 6 weeks ago.
Here's the link for that specific article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...ers-Masking-agent-visible-tester-knocked.html

Refreshing to see that outlandish denials are not just exclusive to cycling. This is what he instructed his lawyer to say at the time of the initial test:
Whilst the IAAF and UK Athletics procedure is still to provide any conclusive decision, my client wants to clarify that he will not accept nor tolerate any accusations or implications that this was a wilful or calculated attempt on his behalf to deceive the authorities.

"In his eight years in international athletics he has never been tempted to succumb to illegal methods of enhancing a performance. I can also confirm that the `B' sample has not as yet been tested.

:thumbsup:


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

I wonder if you were a big celebrity in a country that hates you if you would get a little sick of starngers with needles and a clip board showing up in your driveway. I would NOT let anyone stick me that I dont immediately recognize. Thats really common sense when you think about it. It ALWAYS seems to be a french problem. More and more Floyd doesnt seem that crazy.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*They hate him?*



bigmig19 said:


> I wonder if you were a big celebrity in a country that hates you if you would get a little sick of starngers with needles and a clip board showing up in your driveway. I would NOT let anyone stick me that I dont immediately recognize. Thats really common sense when you think about it. It ALWAYS seems to be a french problem. More and more Floyd doesnt seem that crazy.


Expressing skepticism about people like LA and GWB equals hatred? I'd equate that more with an enlightened viewpoint. Nice nuanced view on your part..

I wonder where that phrase, "ugly American," came from. 

Next you're going to ask me why do I hate America?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

bigmig19 said:


> I wonder if you were a big celebrity in a country that hates you if you would get a little sick of starngers with needles and a clip board showing up in your driveway. I would NOT let anyone stick me that I dont immediately recognize. Thats really common sense when you think about it. It ALWAYS seems to be a french problem. More and more Floyd doesnt seem that crazy.


There is a simple solution to this. If Lance does not not like OOC testing he should not have renewed his Pro License. It is part of the rules of the game that every rider has to go thru, some more often then Armstrong.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

*maybe he has a point..*

I don't usually follow the Doping forum so if this has been said, sorry 

Some guy shows up at your door, in France, and tells you he's from the testing authorities. But, you (Lance Armstrong) have been feuding with the French cycling authorities and the French press for years. You know, from past experience, that there are those, people you never even knew existed, who'd go to unimagined lengths to cause you 'harm'. You can't take a pass-up bottle from the crowd during a race, you can't 'un-publish' a lie or half truth, you can't even be sure who this guy is at your door.. 

So you tell your "lackeys" to" make sure this guy is legit " and you go on about your business until they find out. It turns out he is who he says he is, but being "official" he gets pissed because he has the "Power" to screw you up, big time, and you ignored him, you "dissed" him, an OFFICIAL! Shame on you, Lance! 

Dunno, I kinda see where this whole soap opera mighta come from..knowing the reputed attitudes of both the French and Lance...

Test the crap outta him and then let him race if you can't find any dope in his system..But don't expect the guy to be naive and just always welcome anyone into his place to take his blood and pee, at the flash of a questionable ID..

Don Hanson


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Gnarly 928 said:


> I don't usually follow the Doping forum so if this has been said, sorry
> 
> Some guy shows up at your door, in France, and tells you he's from the testing authorities. But, you (Lance Armstrong) have been feuding with the French cycling authorities and the French press for years. You know, from past experience, that there are those, people you never even knew existed, who'd go to unimagined lengths to cause you 'harm'. You can't take a pass-up bottle from the crowd during a race, you can't 'un-publish' a lie or half truth, you can't even be sure who this guy is at your door..
> 
> ...


Please provide any evidence of an AFLD/Lance Armstrong "Feud". The AFLD was formed in 2006, the year after Armstrong retired. 

If Armstrong does not want to follow the rules he should have stayed retired.


----------



## smbrum (Jul 9, 2008)

cant disagree with that. I would say I would have been cautious as well and that LA should have and did have the right to question the authority of someone he was unfamiliar with. However, I dont think he had the right to brush the guy off and shut him out for 20 min or 30 min, much less leave the guys sight. What would have been wrong with all 3 sitting in the livingroom talking about the weather until Johan could verify some things. Not sure why, drugs, arrogance, other, but LA should have been stuck to the tester...if there wasnt anything to hide. Why give someone ammunition that you think is out to get you.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

It might be worth noting that this man was one of the AFLD's top testers and has 15 years experience of working on all the big sporting events in France like the World cup, the 6 Nations Rugby and...the Tour de France.

Funny that the self styled 'most tested athlete ever in the whole history of the world' would never have crossed paths with a senior official who had worked on a race he won 7 times.


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

Bianchigirl said:


> It might be worth noting that this man was one of the AFLD's top testers and has 15 years experience of working on all the big sporting events in France like the World cup, the 6 Nations Rugby and...the Tour de France.
> 
> Funny that the self styled 'most tested athlete ever in the whole history of the world' would never have crossed paths with a senior official who had worked on a race he won 7 times.


What is more incredible is that this top-tier tester (who trains others in his profession) would tell LA that is is okay to go take a shower.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

bigmig19 said:


> I wonder if you were a big celebrity in a country that hates you if you would get a little sick of starngers with needles and a clip board showing up in your driveway. I would NOT let anyone stick me that I dont immediately recognize. Thats really common sense when you think about it. It ALWAYS seems to be a french problem. More and more Floyd doesnt seem that crazy.




Armstrong doesn't need to race if he doesn't want to be tested by people of French nationality. Maybe, the dictionary should have a picture of Armstrong next to it's description of xenophobia.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

If someone called you on the phone and said they represented "your personal bank" and just started asking questions about your accounts, how many of us would just start giving out information? Well this is a double edge sword. Many people do give out information without checking the credentials of the person on the other line. Many people like this, find themselves penny less. But on the other end of the spectrum, if you refused to talk to anyone on the phone about your banking, you would probably make your bank a little unhappy. I Do think both the French and Lance are having a bit of a war of egos, but, I also think Lance had every right to demand to know who this guy was at his door. Like was previously mentioned, when you're on top, you're on top of a mountain of people waiting to drag you down. And people are willing to do anything for money. Look at Lances TT bike being stolen as an example. Now to play out a hypothetical situation. What if this tester wasn't a real tester, received some of lances blood and urine and then added trace amounts of whatever: epo, someone elses blood, agent orange, etc etc. How much do you think the media would pay him to get a hold of Lance Blood and do their own "indepentant" testing. Yeah it would never stick in a court of law and later be proved it was a scam BUT it wouldn't matter, papers and magazines would sell, TV specials would be made, and everyone's pockets would be a little heavier. The problem with the world today is everyone feels like they are way under paid. And everyone from the dopers in the peleton to large investment brokers are trying to make a quick buck. And as long as that is the case, people have to be on guard because the fastest way to make a buck....is take someone elses.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

But the issue was not who the tester was - it was whether he had the authority to test Armstrong or not. Atleast, that's Bruyneel's story. Are you suggesting that Boss Hog aren't singing from the same hymn sheet?

Here's another conspiracy theory for you Cab - what if an athlete paid the governing body of his sport a large sum of money for 'anti doping' which guaranteed that his team always knew when the testers were coming and, in addition, fingered soem other top class rider so the governing body went after that rider instead. Oh, sorry, that's not a conspiracy theory, that all actually happened. Can you say 'major conflict of interest'?


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

Bianchigirl said:


> But the issue was not who the tester was - it was whether he had the authority to test Armstrong or not.


That pretty much is one in the same. The issue was "who the tester was" because in this affair this individual has either one of two identities. He's either someone with credentials to test Armstrong or he is not. My argument was to show the possible ramifications if the person didn't have the credentials to test armstrong and was permitted to do so. True it was painted in the worst possible color, but it serves to illustrate the seriousness of any athlete not taking seriously the issues of being tested and by whom. My argument wasn't so much to support lance but rather to point out the French need to stop getting all butt hurt about stuff. My argument applies to any athlete tested by any authority. Look at formula one. If someone just walks up on to the paddock and tells a team lets pop the bonnet and take a look under the hood because I'm a race official, you better believe they are not going to do a darn thing until they know who the heck that guy is. It would be foolish to act otherwise. As far as the sum of money thing....DUH! haha no seriously.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

CabDoctor said:


> That pretty much is one in the same. The issue was "who the tester was" because in this affair this individual has either one of two identities. He's either someone with credentials to test Armstrong or he is not. My argument was to show the possible ramifications if the person didn't have the credentials to test armstrong and was permitted to do so. True it was painted in the worst possible color, but it serves to illustrate the seriousness of any athlete not taking seriously the issues of being tested and by whom. My argument wasn't so much to support lance but rather to point out the French need to stop getting all butt hurt about stuff. My argument applies to any athlete tested by any authority. Look at formula one. If someone just walks up on to the paddock and tells a team lets pop the bonnet and take a look under the hood because I'm a race official, you better believe they are not going to do a darn thing until they know who the heck that guy is. It would be foolish to act otherwise. As far as the sum of money thing....DUH! haha no seriously.


Your F1 analogy does not work. If the person in the padock present the proper credentials, which the AFLD trester did, then that bonnet is opened. 

The French have done nothing wrong. They went to test a athlete they had the authority to test, they presented the correct credentials, and what happened? Armstrong locked them out and went into hiding for 30 minutes. How hard is that to understand? 

This has nothing to do with "Butt hurt" this is about following the rules, they are there for a reason. The French followed the rules, Armstrong did not.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

See I don't think that's the case at all. Obviously there was something that caused the creditableness of the tester to come into question, and the tester proved this by HIS own actions. If the tester knew all his stuff was in order then he would have just said "look, I presented you with the proper papers and ID. You either accept this test or I'm packing my bags and leaving, which means a failed drug test for you Armstrong." The big question in my mind is why did the tester sit there and wait for 20mins while they called the UCI and the like. Seriously! If a cop pulls me over and is in a cop car, is in uniform, and has a badge, do you think he'll sit there and wait while I call his precinct to check to see if he's really a cop? Exactly! So why would the tester stand around and wait. There's some key information missing on both sides. Do I think armstrong should have taken a shower no! But I think the tester really botched it up by allowing that and not just declaring it a fail at the first sign of it turning into a cirrus.


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

CabDoctor said:


> That pretty much is one in the same. The issue was "who the tester was" because in this affair this individual has either one of two identities. He's either someone with credentials to test Armstrong or he is not. My argument was to show the possible ramifications if the person didn't have the credentials to test armstrong and was permitted to do so. True it was painted in the worst possible color, but it serves to illustrate the seriousness of any athlete not taking seriously the issues of being tested and by whom. My argument wasn't so much to support lance but rather to point out the French need to stop getting all butt hurt about stuff. My argument applies to any athlete tested by any authority. Look at formula one. If someone just walks up on to the paddock and tells a team lets pop the bonnet and take a look under the hood because I'm a race official, you better believe they are not going to do a darn thing until they know who the heck that guy is. It would be foolish to act otherwise. As far as the sum of money thing....DUH! haha no seriously.


I believe that some people are missing the point. The point is that Armstrong disappeared for 20 minutes once he knew that he might have to submit to a random drug test. 

The key to catching dopers is by random unannounced tests, especially out of competition (OOC) when the doping is in full force. Giving the athlete 20+ minutes warning diminishes the effectiveness of random tests. Granted it is better than scheduled OOC tests or in-competition tests.

Since you like scenarios.... what if Armstrong and JB knew that LA was at risk of setting off red flags if he participated in the tests immediately? What if he and JB knew that the tester was legit from the get-go but wanted to delay? LA and JB could've just used the "we didn't know if he was some guy with a backpack" story as a diversion while LA went inside to do whatever dopers do to beat the tests. This scenario could easily be Plan A if a tester shows up at an inopportune time.

There are all types of maneuvers that an athlete can do in 20 minutes to improve his odds: saline bag, digest masking agents, place soap under his finger nails to contaminate the samples, hide medical equipment. 

Just think if every tested athlete used the "I don't know if your legit" excuse and closed the door on the guy for 20+ minutes.

I feel that this could've easily been LA's contingency plan for such situations. Plus it adds to his French conspiracy defense.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

That's true. I just presented that as an defensive argument because I think it's a valid point to consider. I don't think anyone really cares, but my own personal view is that yeah he was doing something in the shower. But I also think the French totally botched this one. They basically had his head on a platter and they dropped the plate. If the tester we have just said you know what guys I have the proper papers(if he actually did) this is bull,and grabbed his backpack and left then this would be a whole different ball game. But because he sat and waited 20mins, it put a whole knew spin on things and leveled the legal playing field. Good job mister backpack. 

Let me ask you guys what do you think would have happened if the tester cried foul ball and left


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

CabDoctor said:


> See I don't think that's the case at all. Obviously there was something that caused the creditableness of the tester to come into question, and the tester proved this by HIS own actions. If the tester knew all his stuff was in order then he would have just said "look, I presented you with the proper papers and ID. You either accept this test or I'm packing my bags and leaving, which means a failed drug test for you Armstrong." The big question in my mind is why did the tester sit there and wait for 20mins while they called the UCI and the like. Seriously! If a cop pulls me over and is in a cop car, is in uniform, and has a badge, do you think he'll sit there and wait while I call his precinct to check to see if he's really a cop? Exactly! So why would the tester stand around and wait. There's some key information missing on both sides. Do I think armstrong should have taken a shower no! But I think the tester really botched it up by allowing that and not just declaring it a fail at the first sign of it turning into a cirrus.


That Yellow Cool Aid must taste yummy:idea: 

Read the rules. The tester has to wait, and document, for 30 minutes.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

Which he was not permitted to do until after a 20min delay right?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

CabDoctor said:


> Which he was not permitted to do until after a 20min delay right?


Document means write down notes about the athlete and his actions. In this case he likely documented the time that he came in contact with Lance, how the door was shut in his face, how he waited for 30 minutes, how he called his superiors, and how Johann finally opened the door when he threaten to call the cops. 

In addition the penalties in France are more then just a sanction. As of last year anti doping, and the AFLD, have the full force of the French criminal code behind them.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

*'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;"

"5.4.6 A DCO/Chaperone shall reject a request for delay from an Athlete if it will
not be possible for the Athlete to be continuously chaperoned."*

The idea that a tester, a doctor with 15 years experience in testing, allowed Armstrong to disappear for 30 minutes to take a shower is absurd. 

Armstrong breaks the rules and the Cool Aid drinkers try to blame the French.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> *'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;"
> ...


Thanks for posting the excerpt. I'm not blaming the french, I would just like an explanation on why the tester didn't just walk away when he wasn't allowed in. I guess the way I look at it is if armstrong won a stage and didn't show up for the post stage test, or showed up late, it would be considered a fail. Now just because the test comes to his house the rules shouldn't change right? If he delays or dodges it should be fail right. I honestly don't understand why he even waited and collected blood and urine at that point since lance had already violated part 5.4.6.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

CabDoctor said:


> , I would just like an explanation on why the tester didn't just walk away when he wasn't allowed in. I guess the way I look at it is if armstrong won a stage and didn't show up for the post stage test, or showed up late, it would be considered a fail. Now just because the test comes to his house the rules shouldn't change right? If he delays or dodges it should be fail right. I honestly don't understand why he even waited and collected blood and urine at that point since lance had already violated part 5.4.6.


The rules on OOC testing are clear on this

*2.4 The DCO shall stay at the first location for a reasonable amount of time but no less than 30 minutes.*

This is not a post stage test, it is an unannounced Out Of Competition control. Armstrong did not "Show up late" . He met the tester and avoided his test for 30 minutes. I would also assume that the tester knew that anything the AFLD did would be twisted into a French conspiracy by Lance's legions of clueless followers, becuase of this he was likely to follow the rules closely and document everything.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

bigpinkt said:


> The rules on OOC testing are clear on this
> 
> *2.4 The DCO shall stay at the first location for a reasonable amount of time but no less than 30 minutes.*
> 
> This is not a post stage test, it is an unannounced Out Of Competition control. Armstrong did not "Show up late" . He met the tester and avoided his test for 30 minutes. I would also assume that the tester knew that anything the AFLD did would be twisted into a French conspiracy by Lance's legions of clueless followers, becuase of this he was likely to follow the rules closely and document everything.



Nice find. Seems like the diehard Armstrong supporters don't really know the rules, or at least, want to play by the rules as Armstrong dictates.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> The rules on OOC testing are clear on this
> 
> *2.4 The DCO shall stay at the first location for a reasonable amount of time but no less than 30 minutes.*



Ok, that's what I was looking for. Now that makes sense.


----------

