# Genevieve Jeanson's career is over



## wayneanneli (Jul 8, 2004)

Sad news today for Canadian cycling and cycling as a whole that GeneviÃ¨ve Jeanson, 24, has been handed a life suspension following her positive EPO test at the Tour of Toone in Pennsylvania last July, essentially ending her promising career. This was published the French Canadian newspaper La Presse today. Interestingly enough, she had always been the object of speculation, but was never actually caught. A sad day indeed for a cyclist who would have probably remained on top even if she was drug-free.

Le quotidien La Presse a rÃ©vÃ©lÃ© ce matin que la cycliste quÃ©bÃ©coise GeneviÃ¨ve Jeanson Ã©tait suspendue Ã* vie par l'Association cycliste amÃ©ricaine pour avoir Ã©chouÃ© Ã* un test antidopage Ã* l'Ã©rythropoÃ¯Ã©tine (EPO).

Le test d'urine inopinÃ© a rÃ©vÃ©lÃ© une prÃ©sence importante d'EPO lors du prologue, un contre-la-montre, du Tour de Toona en Pennsylvanie le 25 juillet dernier.

Si la suspension est aussi sÃ©vÃ¨re, c'est parce que l'infraction de l'athlÃ¨te de 24 ans est considÃ©rÃ©e comme une rÃ©cidive en raison des antÃ©cÃ©dents Ã* son dossier. Mme Jeanson avait omis de se prÃ©senter Ã* un contrÃ´le antidopage Ã* la fin d'une Ã©tape de la FlÃ¨che Wallonne en 2004. Une telle omission est considÃ©rÃ©e comme un Ã©chec Ã* un test antidopage et est assortie d'une suspension de deux ans dans le cas d'une premiÃ¨re offense.

Elle avait rÃ©ussi Ã* Ã©viter la suspension de deux ans rattachÃ©e Ã* cette premiÃ¨re infraction, mais l'omission est demeurÃ©e Ã* son dossier. Sa derniÃ¨re faute est donc considÃ©rÃ©e comme une rÃ©cidive. La sanction est une suspension Ã* vie.

Retraite et procÃ©dures
Reconnue coupable par l'Agence amÃ©ricaine antidopage (USADA) et suspendue Ã* vie, elle dÃ©cide maintenant de mettre un terme Ã* sa carriÃ¨re. GeneviÃ¨ve Jeanson clame son innocence et tentera de blanchir sa rÃ©putation.

Elle entreprend une bataille juridique avec son avocat Jean-Pierre Bertrand, pour prouver qu'elle n'a jamais pris de produits dopants. Mme Jeanson et son avocat plaideront notamment que l'athlÃ¨te a un corps d'exception dont les paramÃ¨tres physiologiques sont diffÃ©rents de la majoritÃ© de la population.

Le triathlonien belge Rutger Beke a rÃ©cemment obtenu gain de cause de cette faÃ§on.

Une carriÃ¨re chargÃ©e
Le parcours de Mme Jeanson est jalonnÃ© de dÃ©mÃªlÃ©s avec les instances antidopage. En 2001, l'orthopÃ©diste Maurice Duquette a avouÃ© lui avoir prescrit et administrÃ© de l'EPO. Ce dernier a tentÃ© de se rÃ©tracter par la suite, mais on lui a refusÃ© le droit de changer son tÃ©moignage.

Mme Jeanson a ensuite Ã©tÃ© interdite de course aux Championnats du monde de Hamilton en octobre 2003 pour avoir prÃ©sentÃ© un taux d'hÃ©matocrite trop Ã©levÃ© avant le dÃ©part de la course. Le taux maximal acceptÃ© par l'Union cycliste internationale (UCI) pour une femme est de 47. Pierre Foglia rÃ©vÃ¨le ce matin dans La Presse que l'hÃ©matocrite de Mme Jeanson Ã©tait de 56 Ã* ce moment.

Un taux Ã©levÃ© de globules rouges facilite l'oxygÃ©nation des muscles, mais indique Ã©galement que le sang est plus Ã©pais, plus visqueux. L'Union cycliste internationale (UCI) ne considÃ¨re pas un hÃ©matocrite trop Ã©levÃ© comme un Ã©chec Ã* un test antidopage, mais interdit le dÃ©part Ã* ces coureurs pour des raisons de sÃ©curitÃ©.

L'histoire de l'hÃ©matocrite se rÃ©pÃ¨te Ã* la FlÃ¨che Wallone, une Ã©tape de la Coupe du monde, en avril 2004. L'Ã©chantillon B infirme toutefois le rÃ©sultat de l'Ã©chantillon A et Mme Jeanson peut prendre le dÃ©part. SommÃ©e de se rendre au contrÃ´le antidopage, un test d'urine, Ã* la fin de la course, elle omet de s'y prÃ©senter.

La derniÃ¨re frasque de Mme Jeanson, en Pennsylvanie en juillet dernier, constitue le point final d'une carriÃ¨re marquÃ©e par la controverse.


----------



## Woofer (Nov 18, 2004)

wayneanneli said:


> Sad news today for Canadian cycling and cycling as a whole that Geneviève Jeanson, 24, has been handed a life suspension following her positive EPO test at the Tour of Toone in Pennsylvania last July, essentially ending her promising career. This was published the French Canadian newspaper La Presse today. Interestingly enough, she had always been the object of speculation, but was never actually caught. A sad day indeed for a cyclist who would have probably remained on top even if she was drug-free.


If she had never been caught before, she would not have gotten the lifetime ban. Skipping a drug test is the same as being caught. Two strikes and you're out. She was never caught *until* she actually tested positive for EPO last year.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Woofer said:


> If she had never been caught before, she would not have gotten the lifetime ban. Skipping a drug test is the same as being caught. Two strikes and you're out. She was never caught *until* she actually tested positive for EPO last year.


I must have been asleep at the wheel. When was it announced she failed an EPO test at 'toona last year?
Wasn't there also the issue of the MD she worked with getting caught with her names in the books or he ratted her out or something?

This is one of those times when there was hopefully some targetted testing. I mean before the scandal with her Doc she was unbelievably superior to the other women racing. It was like she was in a league of her own by a long, long way.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*she's been dodgy numerous times*

once with a super high H -Crit (she said altitude tent), dodging tests, not racing certain races for fear of doping control.
I think she's just been dirty her whole career.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> once with a super high H -Crit (she said altitude tent), dodging tests, not racing certain races for fear of doping control.
> I think she's just been dirty her whole career.


agree...this has been coming for some time now. not a shocker.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

She reminds me a lot of all the burnout ice skaters and tennis players who are pushed too much at an early age. She could have won without drugs, maybe not by 15 minutes, but she clearly had the genetics to win without. Considering her age at the start of her career and her talent, maybe she just didn't have the mental drive to do it the hard way but there are just as likely to be at least 1 doctor and 1 parent who should be horsewhipped.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*she's a big girl now*

so I can't blame anyone but her. after the first few 'close calls' she should have gone clean.
my guess was she was in epo dependency. my guess is if she went off it her H-Crit would crash to the teens like Pantani's.


----------



## 2Fast2Furryious (Jun 11, 2004)

You gotta wonder - 

An athlete like Jeanson showed very much promise, then a bit more than 2 years ago (Oct. 2003, Hamilton, Ontario World Champs - I was there for my 21st birthday) - she had her first big bust.

Then the no-show at the Fleche...

Followed by so-so racing which never lived up to her previous level...

Then the Altoona incident...

- Is this just coincidence or almost the general pattern of any convicted doper? (Minus the no-show of course.)


----------



## wayneanneli (Jul 8, 2004)

Yes, all the signs of a doper were there, no doubt about that. I guess that considering she was one of Canada's best cyclists, I'll always wonder a little how successful she would have been if she was clean. We'll never know now.


----------



## 2Fast2Furryious (Jun 11, 2004)

I do love how everyone is jumping on that German triathelte's bandwagon by saying, "Ooh, he got off because the test was flawed, now what about meeeee???"

Shaddup, doper-scumbags. You rolled the dice and either:

a) you lost

or

b) god hates you and will send a hurricane, plague of avian flu, and a braindead woman with feeding tube legal issues to ruin your career.

I'd like to see the latter.


----------



## olds_cool (Feb 14, 2005)

*i remember her first bust....*



wayneanneli said:


> I'll always wonder a little how successful she would have been if she was clean. We'll never know now.



if i'm not mistaken, and i may be, she went from winning every race she showed up for, to not being able to hang. i remember reading in velo news things to the effect of "what on earth is happening to her"? hum.....i guess you have to train harder without the use of banned substances.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

*But see*



2Fast2Furryious said:


> I do love how everyone is jumping on that German triathelte's bandwagon by saying, "Ooh, he got off because the test was flawed, now what about meeeee???"
> 
> Shaddup, doper-scumbags. You rolled the dice and either:
> 
> ...


Thats the problem with WADA having flawed (and it is flawed) test it opens the door to this crap and you can never really rule out that maybe just maybe someone innocent got screwed. Not big deal you might say its worth a few innocents to catch the guilty ... unless your the one getting screwed. 

That they have a flawed test that has been proven to flawed and they contiue with it is totally stupid and is doing little to really clean up the sport.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

atpjunkie said:


> so I can't blame anyone but her. after the first few 'close calls' she should have gone clean.
> my guess was she was in epo dependency. my guess is if she went off it her H-Crit would crash to the teens like Pantani's.


 Damn I am tired of the Pantani story. The body does reduce endogenous production when you inject EPO over a period of time but not by anything approaching that degree. The idea that he went from 60 to 18 HCT because he was off the juice for a couple days is ridiculous because all the extra blood cells would have had to die and be eliminated from the bloodstream which is physically impossible in that time frame. Unless he got a transfusion there is also no way it could have gone back up as rapidly as the stories claimed.

Even if his own EPO production went to zero it would take at least a couple weeks for RBC to fully reflect that, and if he had pure red cell aplasia from the development of antibodies to rEPO resuming it would have only made it worse and his counts would never have come back up.

Physical dependency is just not a big deal. Mental dependency is a whole other can of worms.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

olds_cool said:


> if i'm not mistaken, and i may be, she went from winning every race she showed up for, to not being able to hang. i remember reading in velo news things to the effect of "what on earth is happening to her"? hum.....i guess you have to train harder without the use of banned substances.


I don't think it was her bust that was the turning point. It was when her Doc got busted and named names that I remember her not being all that much afterwards. I bet that weird coach of hers was still getting the goods from Mexico or whereever and they were doing on their own, which would explain the failed hematocrit tests, skipping the doping control, and now this. Although hard to believe they would have injected a large dose right before a big race but testing may be so spotty domestically in the US, especially with the women, that they figured they were OK.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

32and3cross said:


> Thats the problem with WADA having flawed (and it is flawed) test it opens the door to this crap..
> That they have a flawed test that has been proven to flawed and they contiue with it is totally stupid and is doing little to really clean up the sport.


Depends on what you mean by flawed. Since EPO is a naturally occurring hormone there isn't going to be any "it's there or not there" type of test. But it appears that taking rhEPO does produce a difference in the EPO isoforms from normal. So some kind of criteria has to be established for a positive or they just let them continue to dope with EPO at will like they've been able to do since the mid 90's. Seems to me from what I've read that the bar is pretty high for a positive and more than likely they're not catching a lot of dopers rather than generating a bunch of false "positives". Furthermore, if you happen to be a person with abnormal EPO isoforms you can show that like the triathletes who cleared their names. It's unfortunate that variation like that exists but the alternative is to continue to allow rampant cheating, and since EPO is the one drug that really matters for endurance that probably isn't a wise decision.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Depends on what you mean by flawed. Since EPO is a naturally occurring hormone there isn't going to be any "it's there or not there" type of test. But it appears that taking rhEPO does produce a difference in the EPO isoforms from normal. So some kind of criteria has to be established for a positive or they just let them continue to dope with EPO at will like they've been able to do since the mid 90's. Seems to me from what I've read that the bar is pretty high for a positive and more than likely they're not catching a lot of dopers rather than generating a bunch of false "positives". Furthermore, if you happen to be a person with abnormal EPO isoforms you can show that like the triathletes who cleared their names. It's unfortunate that variation like that exists but the alternative is to continue to allow rampant cheating, and since EPO is the one drug that really matters for endurance that probably isn't a wise decision.


Right you can show it provided you have the money to do all the testing on your own dime and its not something you can do witha home chemistry kit. The test is based on flawed data - not peer reviewed - and has not established false positive rate in the real world thats not even science.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

32and3cross said:


> Right you can show it provided you have the money to do all the testing on your own dime and its not something you can do witha home chemistry kit. The test is based on flawed data - not peer reviewed - and has not established false positive rate in the real world thats not even science.


What's your evidence that the data is flawed?

The only data I'm aware of is the paper that shows the shift in isoforms following injection of rhEPO but I'm not aware that there has been criticism that it is flawed in some way. That is the data the test is based on.

I think what you're saying is that the test criteria for a positive has not been validated, no? Or at least it's not been published (i.e peer reviewed) if it has been validated. In which case I don't think anyone can say one way or another that the test criteria is based on flawed data. You can just say the test hasn't been validated.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*have there been any long term studies?*

as I'm only basing this on what happens to athletes, body builders who abuse other synthetic 'boosters'. mass abuse of steroids or testoserone and the body stops producing it on its own. I'm (agreed,admitted postulating) that he may have been a heavy user for years which may account for the sudden drop (along with blood loss form the crash) and yes I'm assuming he got a transfusion from his team Docs. I'm sorry but his H-Crit didn't'recover' until after his team docs took over his treatment. that sounds fishy


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> as I'm only basing this on what happens to athletes, body builders who abuse other synthetic 'boosters'. mass abuse of steroids or testoserone and the body stops producing it on its own. I'm (agreed,admitted postulating) that he may have been a heavy user for years which may account for the sudden drop (along with blood loss form the crash) and yes I'm assuming he got a transfusion from his team Docs. I'm sorry but his H-Crit didn't'recover' until after his team docs took over his treatment. that sounds fishy


Pantani was also a cocaine addict--that very well could mess with physical processes in the body though I'm no scientist and I don't know what effect it would have on H-crit.


----------



## crazylabrador (Sep 24, 2005)

*we have to make cycling clean for our kids*

i am sorry to say... but it is good that she got caught. this is a beautiful sport that one could do for a very very very long time, but if you look at most of the people who raced, thay are finished by the time they are 22.... this is nor normal. a kid like jeanson without drugs would probaly have been a good rider... just not a great rider. a little kid getting involved in cycling... the goal should be to give him a sport that he could do for the rest of his-her life, not to make the olympics, if this happens its great, if it does not heppen it is also great. cycling is being ruined by the pressure of drugs, they are everywhere know be it at the tour de france level or at the local level, and this is a shame. the riders who get caught are not evil persons... they just got caught up in the system. this has to happen for this sickness to stop. but more riders have to get caught, lance is no better he cheated for more than seven years, he got away with it, but look at what it has done to the sport.


----------



## 2Fast2Furryious (Jun 11, 2004)

What irks me the most about the Jeanson thing is that I really liked her first name. If (god forbid) I ever have children, my first pick for a girl's name was Genevieve. I thought, a good female cyclist, slightly pretentious-sounding, and hard to rhyme with (less opportunity for schoolyard insults.)

I still like the name, but if I catch her burning incense and shooting EPO late at night in her room, I will be pissed.


----------



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

*Funny, I think of Pantani when I think of her too*



atpjunkie said:


> so I can't blame anyone but her. after the first few 'close calls' she should have gone clean.
> my guess was she was in epo dependency. my guess is if she went off it her H-Crit would crash to the teens like Pantani's.


I'd bet she was hooked on the EPO like Pantani. What pisses me off is when she set the course record on the Mt. Washington Hill Climb. There's no testing on that race. I'm betting she was doping.

BT


----------



## Soggy Feed Bag (Jan 13, 2006)

In no way has it affected me, so I don't care. If she doped and was caught, then good. She deserves it.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*well my daughter's name*

just happens to be the same as a CLEAN and NICE fast SS MTBer. though if you follow her demise and her story it gives some creedence to what LA has been saying.
every doper who is caught or under suspicion either gets caught or slows way down. he suffered neither, so either he was better at it than EVERYONE else or maybe, just maybe he did it right.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*what???*



crazylabrador said:


> i am sorry to say... but it is good that she got caught. this is a beautiful sport that one could do for a very very very long time, but if you look at most of the people who raced, thay are finished by the time they are 22.... this is nor normal. a kid like jeanson without drugs would probaly have been a good rider... just not a great rider. a little kid getting involved in cycling... the goal should be to give him a sport that he could do for the rest of his-her life, not to make the olympics, if this happens its great, if it does not heppen it is also great. cycling is being ruined by the pressure of drugs, they are everywhere know be it at the tour de france level or at the local level, and this is a shame. the riders who get caught are not evil persons... they just got caught up in the system. this has to happen for this sickness to stop. but more riders have to get caught, lance is no better he cheated for more than seven years, he got away with it, but look at what it has done to the sport.


You will never make a anything clean for anybody, especially kids. You CAN try to raise smarter kids who get the idea that doping is really a sick and dangerous thing that has been around as long as there has been sport. 

Otherwise, yes, everyone would agree with your sentiment, however, relying on another person for your welfare, unless your a child, does not slice it.


----------



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

*ATP that's a good point.*



atpjunkie said:


> just happens to be the same as a CLEAN and NICE fast SS MTBer. though if you follow her demise and her story it gives some creedence to what LA has been saying.
> every doper who is caught or under suspicion either gets caught or slows way down. he suffered neither, so either he was better at it than EVERYONE else or maybe, just maybe he did it right.


Didn't know that LA said that. It does give me a little more belief that LA was clean, given his consistent track record of achievement.

BT


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

32and3cross said:


> Right you can show it provided you have the money to do all the testing on your own dime and its not something you can do witha home chemistry kit. The test is based on flawed data - not peer reviewed - and has not established false positive rate in the real world thats not even science.


I think you're confusing the EPO test with the blood doping test that Hamilton fell foul of - certainly the criticisms you're levelling at the former are those that have been levelled at the latter.

As for Jeanson - I watched her race and win the TT and road race when she did the double at the Worlds and she was amazing - I remember thinking that is was a shame she was a girl because if she'd shown that talent and been a boy the cycling world would have been very excited...

Sad but unsurprising news


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

*No Im not*



Bianchigirl said:


> I think you're confusing the EPO test with the blood doping test that Hamilton fell foul of - certainly the criticisms you're levelling at the former are those that have been levelled at the latter.
> 
> As for Jeanson - I watched her race and win the TT and road race when she did the double at the Worlds and she was amazing - I remember thinking that is was a shame she was a girl because if she'd shown that talent and been a boy the cycling world would have been very excited...
> 
> Sad but unsurprising news


There has been serious scientific questions about the EPO test for some time. The data it was based on is flawed. The test has never been peer reviewed. It has no proven false positive rate, in fact until Beke they claimed the false positive rate was zero which is not possible. Its a poor test it produces false positives and they don't know the how or whys of that enought for it to still be in use, worse still we would not know anything about the false positives the test creates if Beke had not had enough money to do his own testing, a luxury not every athlete has. 

Does any of that make Jeanson innocent - no but it does bring into light that WADA knows the test has flaws and just does not give a damn.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

32and3cross said:


> There has been serious scientific questions about the EPO test for some time. The data it was based on is flawed. The test has never been peer reviewed. It has no proven false positive rate, in fact until Beke they claimed the false positive rate was zero which is not possible.


Again, as far as I am aware the data the test is based on has not been questioned. The methodology of the test has been peer reviewed. What's been questioned is the criteria for determining a "positive" test result. In other words, the EPO test as used by the UCI itself has not been validated. As far as we know the cases of false positives were not due to a flaw in the test (i.e. the test was detecting something that wasn't really there) but due to the fact that some people apparently naturally have EPO isoform profiles that mimic those seen after injection of rhEPO. They should get medical clearances for this, no different than the riders who have abnormally high hematocrit or testosterone levels and get a pass on those respective tests.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

eyebob said:


> Didn't know that LA said that. It does give me a little more belief that LA was clean, given his consistent track record of achievement.


Yeah, sure. Six positives for EPO. He was as clean as a toilet seat on a port-a-potty at the end of a crowded outdoor rock festival.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

32and3cross said:


> There has been serious scientific questions about the EPO test for some time. The data it was based on is flawed. The test has never been peer reviewed. It has no proven false positive rate, in fact until Beke they claimed the false positive rate was zero which is not possible. Its a poor test it produces false positives and they don't know the how or whys of that enought for it to still be in use, worse still we would not know anything about the false positives the test creates if Beke had not had enough money to do his own testing, a luxury not every athlete has.
> 
> Does any of that make Jeanson innocent - no but it does bring into light that WADA knows the test has flaws and just does not give a damn.


Sorry, but you're completely confused and you're statement about there being a zero false positive rate simply confirms the fact that you have confused the criticisms leveled against the homologous blood doping test (based on flow cytometry for which it has been claimed that there are zero false positives) and the EPO test.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*6 positives*

from the same questionable testing procedure and the same 'motivated' and unverfiable reasearch.
I'm no Lance homer but those 6 pos's are all from the 99 samples. all done in the not up to spec manner. If he had any positives done at any races (a la Heras, Tyler, etc...) I'd have a different opinion.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

atpjunkie said:


> from the same questionable testing procedure and the same 'motivated' and unverfiable reasearch. I'm no Lance homer but those 6 pos's are all from the 99 samples. all done in the not up to spec manner. If he had any positives done at any races (a la Heras, Tyler, etc...) I'd have a different opinion.


Yeah, sure you would. This coming from the guy who believes Dr. Ferrari is innocent, even in light of his conviction. 

The tests _are_ all from 1999, a time when Armstong thought he could use as much EPO as he wanted and it would undetectable. Funny how as soon as official testing is announced he no longer tests positive. Very convenient. It also blows a hole in anyone who wants to claim that Armstrong falls into the class of people who naturally fail the test.

What exactly was "questionable" about the testing? People like you keep putting out the lies--all the while claiming you are not a homer--thinking that if you repeat them enough the test results won't matter. Like the term "motivated research," implying that the testing was out to get Amstrong specifically. A complete and utter lie. The lab had no idea whose urine they were testing. They had only numbered samples with no way of knowing who the samples belonged to. It took months investigative research for L'Equipe to connect the positive samples with Armstrong. And currently the UCI is investigating who leaked the results to the press. Hardly the behavior of an origanization out to get Armstrong.

You have teammates who have told how Armstrong encouraged everyone at Motorola to get on a doping program and no one who was not on a program would be allowed on their 1995 Tour de France team.

You have Armstrong hooking up with the biggest dope doctor in the sport.

You have six positives for EPO.

What more do you want?

The fact is that people like you would refuse to believe Armstrong was doping even if you had witnessed him injecting the dope.

Six positives. He's guilty. If you or your ilk can come up with some sort of credible questions about the validity of the testing, then you might have a leg to stand on. But all you have come up with so far is rhetoric without a single fact.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> But all you have come up with so far is rhetoric without a single fact.


I agree. It's hard to see how any systematic bias in the test would have selectively led to Armstrong's samples being false positives. Furthermore, his distribution of positives is exactly what you would expect for someone injecting EPO every few days to keep his hematocrit elevated. Finally as far as anyone knows there is no way the lab could have picked out Armstrong's sample because they didn't have that information.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> The tests _are_ all from 1999, a time when Armstong thought he could use as much EPO as he wanted and it would undetectable. Funny how as soon as official testing is announced he no longer tests positive. Very convenient. It also blows a hole in anyone who wants to claim that Armstrong falls into the class of people who naturally fail the test.


Would it be fair to assume from this remark that you concede that he was clean in his other six TdF victories?


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> What exactly was "questionable" about the testing? People like you keep putting out the lies--all the while claiming you are not a homer--thinking that if you repeat them enough the test results won't matter. Like the term "motivated research," implying that the testing was out to get Amstrong specifically. A complete and utter lie. The lab had no idea whose urine they were testing. They had only numbered samples with no way of knowing who the samples belonged to. It took months investigative research for L'Equipe to connect the positive samples with Armstrong. And currently the UCI is investigating who leaked the results to the press. Hardly the behavior of an origanization out to get Armstrong.


 The questionable bit is that they didn't have a B sample to test to give a proper positive. Without that you do not have a positive, which is the same reason Hamilton still has his Olympic Gold. After that everything is irrelevant.



> You have teammates who have told how Armstrong encouraged everyone at Motorola to get on a doping program and no one who was not on a program would be allowed on their 1995 Tour de France team.


Who? 



> You have Armstrong hooking up with the biggest dope doctor in the sport.


OK, I'll give you that one.



> You have six positives for EPO.
> 
> What more do you want?
> 
> ...


I used to pray he'd either retire or be beaten. I think he did great things for awareness of cycling in the US and outside cycling for cancer. I also think that even if he'd won 20 Tours for me he would never be a campionissimo like Merckx, Hinault or Coppi.

But, he wasn't tested fairly with 2 samples A & B. To convict him of doping would be like convicting someone on an uncorroborated rumour.

Hamilton was caught fair & square, Millar, and Virenque (albeit 2 years on), admitted when presented with the facts.

The testing has to be scientificly rigorous and fair. Without it you might as well not bother.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Of course, he was offered the option to have the remaining sample retested - and didn't take it, rather like he hasn't sued when the writs have flown thick and fast previously when anybody has so much as mouthed EPO in his presence.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

*Actually I haven't*



Bianchigirl said:


> Sorry, but you're completely confused and you're statement about there being a zero false positive rate simply confirms the fact that you have confused the criticisms leveled against the homologous blood doping test (based on flow cytometry for which it has been claimed that there are zero false positives) and the EPO test.


The EPO test is not reliable go reread that existing arbitrations (or read for the first time if you havn't bothered) Bekes case and the case of the US marathon runner can't remember hear name at the moment) are the most telling the methodalogy and the bases for the test are faulty and the test was never properly peer reviewed (sorry WADA saying see it works is not peer review). Catlin cliamed again and again that the test was flawless and that it would not cause flase postives (in fact he built his career on the test wonder why hes so tied to it) and yet Beke showed it would. Catlins lab is not even GLP approved sorry the test is crap WADA just won't admit the f'd up.

But hey believe what you want we all do.


----------



## Woofer (Nov 18, 2004)

harlond said:


> Would it be fair to assume from this remark that you concede that he was clean in his other six TdF victories?


Only if you assume that one continued using large doses that are apparently necessary to create enough byproducts for a positive testing urine. In 2005 Velonews among other news organizations printed a story that a way around the EPO urine test was to use smaller doses more frequently to both avoid testing positive and to reap the benefits of EPO.


----------



## Woofer (Nov 18, 2004)

Woofer said:


> Only if you assume that one continued using large doses that are apparently necessary to create enough byproducts for a positive testing urine. In 2005 Velonews among other news organizations printed a story that a way around the EPO urine test was to use smaller doses more frequently to both avoid testing positive and to reap the benefits of EPO.


Verification that this actually works.

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/9424.0.html

In a stark confession, Millar admitted he used EPO despite never failing a test during routine anti-doping procedures.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

*reliable test ... or not*

makes some interesting reading.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=38295


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

32and3cross said:


> makes some interesting reading.
> 
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=38295


I don't understand why people can't approach this issue somewhat objectively? WADA is over the top in defense of the test and makes untruthful statements. The other side seems just as guilty of making misleading statements. Although in this case, I'm thinking that perhaps English isn't the first language of the authors (of the web-based report). There is no evidence any data was "faked" which implies dishonesty. There is an issue with false-positives which was recognized in the case of the triathletes and their positives were overturned. It's good news that scientists were able to generalize these findings from a few individuals as it will hopefully lead to a more valid test. The truth clearly lies in the middle somewhere, not all EPO positives can be dismissed as cases of false positives nor is the test immune to false positives.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

*actually*

I think the point the report was trying to make is that the test is based on un-verifided science. Im my opion the dishonest come into play when you prop a test up as perfect and let it affect the lives of people regardless of their real innocence or guilt - on that level the test is fake. While I personal don't think everyone out there ever caught by this test is innocent it does cast the shadow of doubt over every positive they have come up with - sorry the test produces false positives so in reality any positive produced by the test comes in to question. Which sucks for the possibly innocent athletes caught and also sucks for sport in general becuse in reality we are not catch the guilty and even if they are caught who can say if they really are guilty.




Dwayne Barry said:


> I don't understand why people can't approach this issue somewhat objectively? WADA is over the top in defense of the test and makes untruthful statements. The other side seems just as guilty of making misleading statements. Although in this case, I'm thinking that perhaps English isn't the first language of the authors (of the web-based report). There is no evidence any data was "faked" which implies dishonesty. There is an issue with false-positives which was recognized in the case of the triathletes and their positives were overturned. It's good news that scientists were able to generalize these findings from a few individuals as it will hopefully lead to a more valid test. The truth clearly lies in the middle somewhere, not all EPO positives can be dismissed as cases of false positives nor is the test immune to false positives.


----------

