# Follow up Kimmage interview



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

This is a link for an Irish radio show...the same show in which Paul originally mentioned the cancer being back a number of months ago. The show has also had Betsy and Pat McQuaid, but Pat being a coward refused to go on with Betsy....
The link is for an interview done with Kimmage in the aftermath of the TOC press conference.

http://newstalk.ie/newstalk/off-the-ball/downloads.html


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

Thanks. Nice find.


----------



## dave2pvd (Oct 15, 2007)

Y'know, the interviewer's suggestion that the 'cancer on cycling' comment has given LA the perfect get-out is spot on. 

I really wish that Kimmage hadn't said it. I understand what he meant, but it was over the top, IMO. And now it leaves LA not having to need to address Kimmage's questions properly and also torpedoes any (slim) chance of an interview that he ever had.

Damn, I'd love to see that interview happen.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

dave2pvd said:


> Y'know, the interviewer's suggestion that the 'cancer on cycling' comment has given LA the perfect get-out is spot on.
> 
> I really wish that Kimmage hadn't said it. I understand what he meant, but it was over the top, IMO. And now it leaves LA not having to need to address Kimmage's questions properly and also torpedoes any (slim) chance of an interview that he ever had.
> 
> Damn, I'd love to see that interview happen.


It is also my view that Kimmage is too stupid to know that he was permanently closing the door on any chance at a future interview when he shot off his mouth?

Kimmage was right though--Lances' return has really diminished the viewership and interest in pro cycling. I don't think anyone showed up at the TOC! The sport is dead!(he's a friken idiot and a cancer of rational reporting).


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

dave2pvd said:


> Y'know, the interviewer's suggestion that the 'cancer on cycling' comment has given LA the perfect get-out is spot on.
> 
> I really wish that Kimmage hadn't said it. I understand what he meant, but it was over the top, IMO. And now it leaves LA not having to need to address Kimmage's questions properly and also torpedoes any (slim) chance of an interview that he ever had.
> 
> Damn, I'd love to see that interview happen.


If Kimmage said that Lance was the second coming he still wouldn't have been granted an interview. To suggest otherwise is delusional.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> It is also my view that Kimmage is too stupid to know that he was permanently closing the door on any chance at a future interview when he shot off his mouth?
> 
> Kimmage was right though--Lances' return has really diminished the viewership and interest in pro cycling. I don't think anyone showed up at the TOC! The sport is dead!(he's a friken idiot and a cancer of rational reporting).


Kimmage is too stupid? There is a growing list of journalist that have questioned the myth and have ended up on the Armstrong blacklist. Kimmage knew that he would never get an interview so why not say what he, and many others, think? 

Were does Kimmage say that Armstrong's return would "diminished the viewership and interest in pro cycling"?


----------



## dave2pvd (Oct 15, 2007)

SilasCL said:


> If Kimmage said that Lance was the second coming he still wouldn't have been granted an interview. To suggest otherwise is delusional.


Yep, thanks for the delusional comment.

I'd love to see the interview happen. However I am under no illusions that it might. In fact, I suspect that Kimmage couldn't care less one one way or the other. He knew all along that there would be no interview (nothing to do with stupidity, SwiftSolo) and that he could hold that up as evidence that Lance refuses to answer the allegations against him. Which, for Kimmage, is a convenient way of supporting his doper claims.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

My bad, no insinuation about your character whatsoever.

Has Lance ever granted an interview with any of his detractors? None that I can recall.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Kimmage is too stupid? There is a growing list of journalist that have questioned the myth and have ended up on the Armstrong blacklist. Kimmage knew that he would never get an interview so why not say what he, and many others, think?
> 
> Were does Kimmage say that Armstrong's return would "diminished the viewership and interest in pro cycling"?


So the "cancer" he was talking about was the growth in interest and viewership of pro cycling! Now that I understand the goal, it is easier to follow the "logic" you guys all subscribe to. 

Was the fund raising for cancer research part of that cancer as well?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

SwiftSolo said:


> So the "cancer" he was talking about was the growth in interest and viewership of pro cycling! Now that I understand the goal, it is easier to follow the "logic" you guys all subscribe to.
> 
> Was the fund raising for cancer research part of that cancer as well?


I think this is the definition of cancer that Kimmage is using:

any evil condition or thing that spreads destructively; blight

Armstrong and his association with doping hurt the sport in many ways beyond viewership.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

SilasCL said:


> I think this is the definition of cancer that Kimmage is using:
> 
> any evil condition or thing that spreads destructively; blight
> 
> Armstrong and his association with doping hurt the sport in many ways beyond viewership.


"Armstrong and his alleged association with doping provided fodder for losers and haters that has kept them busy (and off the streets) for several years".

I fixed it for you.

Maybe you can tell or show me how his return is hurting the sport or cancer research? That was, after all, the gist of Kimmage's drivel.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

SwiftSolo said:


> Maybe you can tell or show me how his return is hurting the sport or cancer research? That was, after all, the gist of Kimmage's drivel.


It's hurting the credibility of the sport. I would like to be interested in cycling, but as long as it's run by doping apologists and the tactics are more about beating drug tests than making a breakaway, I'm not interested.

Where are you getting the assertion that Lance is hurting cancer research? Never heard anyone say that.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> "Armstrong and his alleged association with doping provided fodder for losers and haters that has kept them busy (and off the streets) for several years".
> 
> I fixed it for you.
> 
> Maybe you can tell or show me how his return is hurting the sport or cancer research? That was, after all, the gist of Kimmage's drivel.


Tim....Tim Herman?????? Is that you?:ciappa:


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> So the "cancer" he was talking about was the growth in interest and viewership of pro cycling! Now that I understand the goal, it is easier to follow the "logic" you guys all subscribe to.
> 
> Was the fund raising for cancer research part of that cancer as well?


I don't think it's fair for you to keep making stuff up but cancer is the uncontrolled growth of cells so if he said anything about cancer and growth he probably would have been spot on with the increase in numbers.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Not since one time fan David Walsh gave him a hard time over his links to Ferrari - that interview above all, having read the 'neophytes tale' in 'Inside the Tour de France' with its obvious admiration for Armstrong, convinced me that Armstrong was juiced.

As for attendances at the ToC - it seemed to me that most were there to play silly b*ggers and get their few seconds of camera time rather than watch the sport. The rest were there for a talismanic glimpse of Armstrong - think they'll be there when the Big C isn't? Armstrong does nothing for the sport except drag it back to the ugly days of omerta, act as a lightning rod for doping allegations and promote Brand Armstrong. Anything else - crowds of nutters waving their babies in the peloton's faces, politicians making a song and dance about pledging money they'd already budgeted months ago to 'the cause' to catch a bit of reflected celebrity - is purely incidental to the promotion of Lance Armstrong


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

dave2pvd said:


> Yep, thanks for the delusional comment.
> 
> I'd love to see the interview happen. However I am under no illusions that it might. In fact, I suspect that Kimmage couldn't care less one one way or the other. He knew all along that there would be no interview (nothing to do with stupidity, SwiftSolo) and that he could hold that up as evidence that Lance refuses to answer the allegations against him. Which, for Kimmage, is a convenient way of supporting his doper claims.



If that interview ever took place it would be the same ole LA rhetoric: "I'm the most test athlete in the world", "I've never failed a drug test", "What am I on? I'm on my bike 6 hrs a day...".

If the average LA fan knew what a joke the testing programs were (and still are), they would see how weak LA's arguments truly are. Even if LA tests positive, he has already set up the conspiracy theory defense.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> This must explain the poor attendance at the TOC?


Pro Wrestling and executions get great attendance too? 

You ever attend either?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> "Armstrong and his alleged association with doping provided fodder for losers and haters that has kept them busy (and off the streets) for several years".
> 
> I fixed it for you.
> 
> Maybe you can tell or show me how his return is hurting the sport or cancer research? That was, after all, the gist of Kimmage's drivel.


Your willingness to completely embarrass yourself in defense of your hero is adorable.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

I don't understand what he has to hide - we were promised total transparency, instead we have the same old bollox but even shiftier. 

He should take up WADAs invite and have the 99 samples retested - silence the doubters once and for all. Unfortunately, the rest of the press are such a bunch of arse licking Lanceophile sychophants he doesn't have to do anything but avoid drowning in their collective drool


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> This must explain the poor attendance at the TOC?


2008 TOC Attendance 1.6 million (8 Stages)
2009 TOC Attendance 1.7 Million (first 8 Stages)

Yup, your boy really makes them show up. 6% increase. Nothing to brag about


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Firstly, let there be no ambiguity here, Paul Kimmage has known since 2000, that Lance picks his interviewers very carefully. He never expected, even before his cancer analogy, to get an interview. He was merely going through the motions, by formally asking for an interview. He even stated last year, that Lance is one person he would find very hard to interview, simply because he knows too many bad things in relation to his character, which the normal layperson does not. He alludes many times to this in both this interview, and previously. David Walsh will tell you the most revealing thing for himself, whilst researching the books, was not the content of From Lance to Landis, but the number of people who had similar stories to tell, and were basically sh**less of Lance, his entourage and the control he still holds, yet another example is Linus. The majority of people who criticise Paul, are the same ones who have never read his work, and have only seen that infamous radio transcript. In the same way that David Walsh is accused of being 'sensationalist' and having dubious motives, by Lance fans, yet they are the ones who have made their mind up without reading ANY of his work.
Juliet Macur, and Lance's behaviour towards her is another example of a journalist being ostracised due to a less than praising article. 
But the 'journalists' at that TOC conference should be ashamed of themselves - not one follow up question.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Qeustion: What does anyone have to gain by re-writing tour history? Do you honestly believe that overturning that 7 win streak now would be better for cycling than letting it be? Do you not think that the negative publicity would damage the sport more than it would show that something was changing?

I'm really just curious here. Frankly, I believe Lance was as doped to the gills as everyone else in the peloton during his 7 wins, but I frankly just don't care. If both he and the field are doped, he still won on a level playing field. So what's the point of discussing the past?

Hell, Riis never dealt with this kind of crap. Basso didn't deal with this. Amazing what a polarizing figure Lance is.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> Qeustion: *What does anyone have to gain by re-writing tour history? *Do you honestly believe that overturning that 7 win streak now would be better for cycling than letting it be? Do you not think that the negative publicity would damage the sport more than it would show that something was changing?
> 
> I'm really just curious here. Frankly, I believe Lance was as doped to the gills as everyone else in the peloton during his 7 wins, but I frankly just don't care. If both he and the field are doped, he still won on a level playing field. So what's the point of discussing the past?
> 
> Hell, Riis never dealt with this kind of crap. Basso didn't deal with this. Amazing what a polarizing figure Lance is.


The truth certainly does.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> ?
> 
> Hell, Riis never dealt with this kind of crap. Basso didn't deal with this. Amazing what a polarizing figure Lance is.


As this is an American forum Armstrong is a frequent topic. Riis *did* deal with it. So much so he moved from Denmark. Basso is considered a joke, not just in his country but in the sport, for his "Attempted dope" excuse. 

There is a large and growing group of European riders and fans who openly question the role of doping in our sport. Armstrong is only one of the liars they go after.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

robdamanii said:


> Qeustion: What does anyone have to gain by re-writing tour history? Do you honestly believe that overturning that 7 win streak now would be better for cycling than letting it be? Do you not think that the negative publicity would damage the sport more than it would show that something was changing?
> 
> I'm really just curious here. Frankly, I believe Lance was as doped to the gills as everyone else in the peloton during his 7 wins, but I frankly just don't care. If both he and the field are doped, he still won on a level playing field. So what's the point of discussing the past?
> 
> Hell, Riis never dealt with this kind of crap. Basso didn't deal with this. Amazing what a polarizing figure Lance is.


I have no interest in rewriting history. It is what it is. I just wish the sport would decide to clean up its act, and that includes moving on from the past. Lance should be the past, but now he's the present.

To me he is like Barry Bonds, except that the media fawns over Lance and is ecstatic over his return to the sport. The whole era is tainted to some degree, and the records are too. But if you still like watching baseball, you'll still watch baseball. I love cycling but I'm waiting for the sport to address its problems before I reinvest myself in any way.


----------



## Rolando (Jan 13, 2005)

SilasCL said:


> I have no interest in rewriting history. It is what it is. I just wish the sport would decide to clean up its act, and that includes moving on from the past. Lance should be the past, but now he's the present.
> 
> To me he is like Barry Bonds, except that the media fawns over Lance and is ecstatic over his return to the sport. The whole era is tainted to some degree, and the records are too. But if you still like watching baseball, you'll still watch baseball. I love cycling but I'm waiting for the sport to address its problems before I reinvest myself in any way.


I don't think he is like Barry Bonds because not everyone in baseball is or was taking steroids. This is something else. I can imagine about 90% of the pro peloton is doping in some way or another. For me, they are all equally guilty.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

SilasCL said:


> I have no interest in rewriting history. It is what it is. I just wish the sport would decide to clean up its act, and that includes moving on from the past. Lance should be the past, but now he's the present.
> 
> To me he is like Barry Bonds, except that the media fawns over Lance and is ecstatic over his return to the sport. The whole era is tainted to some degree, and the records are too. But if you still like watching baseball, you'll still watch baseball. I love cycling but I'm waiting for the sport to address its problems before I reinvest myself in any way.


Best answer I've ever heard, and it makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the perspective on it, I appreciate the honesty and the thoughts. Now it makes some sense as to where (at least you) are coming from, and why there's such a huge uproar about it.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Rolando said:


> n imagine about 90% of the pro peloton is doping in some way or another. For me, they are all equally guilty.


90% are not doping, not even close.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

*I don't think it's reasonable to expect retesting.*



Bianchigirl said:


> I don't understand what he has to hide - we were promised total transparency, instead we have the same old bollox but even shiftier.
> 
> He should take up WADAs invite and have the 99 samples retested - silence the doubters once and for all. Unfortunately, the rest of the press are such a bunch of arse licking Lanceophile sychophants he doesn't have to do anything but avoid drowning in their collective drool


I'm not convinced either way about Lance's doping, but I don't think you can reasonably expect him to consent to retest samples that have been outside of his control for ten years.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Rolando said:


> I don't think he is like Barry Bonds because not everyone in baseball is or was taking steroids. This is something else. I can imagine about 90% of the pro peloton is doping in some way or another. For me, they are all equally guilty.


When the news about Alex Rodriguez's positive test surfaced recently there were supposedly 103 other names on that list of players who tested positive in the introductory year of testing. That's about 4 teams worth of guys who tested positive, nevermind all the ones who doped and didn't test positive. All this is supposedly after the more free wheeling '90s when steroids were more regularly abused. I would say the situation is quite similar.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Undecided said:


> I'm not convinced either way about Lance's doping, but I don't think you can reasonably expect him to consent to retest samples that have been outside of his control for ten years.


Every sample he ever has given is outside his control once he signs the testing form.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

*Not sure what your point is.*



bigpinkt said:


> Every sample he ever has given is outside his control once he signs the testing form.


There are chain-of-control procedures for a sample throughout the relatively short time between when it's taken and when it's analyzed. When a rider tests positive and suggests that something improper happened during that period, I don't give it much credence, assuming the chain-of-control procedures were followed. 

However, I would have a much tougher time discounting the possibility of some contamination ten years after initial testing. The system was not designed to guarantee the handling of samples over such a period, so I think it's reasonable to object to testing after such a delay.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Undecided said:


> There are chain-of-control procedures for a sample throughout the relatively short time between when it's taken and when it's analyzed. When a rider tests positive and suggests that something improper happened during that period, I don't give it much credence, assuming the chain-of-control procedures were followed.
> 
> However, I would have a much tougher time discounting the possibility of some contamination ten years after initial testing. The system was not designed to guarantee the handling of samples over such a period, so I think it's reasonable to object to testing after such a delay.


Yes, the system is designed to guarantee it for that long. In fact the statue of limitations is 8 years. 

As Floyd has proven, when a riders only excuse for a positive is a French conspiracy that somehow tampered with samples they do not have much of a case.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

*"This, however, is incorrect."*



bigpinkt said:


> Yes, the system is designed to guarantee it for that long. In fact the statue of limitations is 8 years.
> 
> As Floyd has proven, when a riders only excuse for a positive is a French conspiracy that somehow tampered with samples they do not have much of a case.


The suggestion that the system is designed to guarantee the samples for 8 years isn't consistent with the findings of the independent report mandated by the UCI. I've quoted from the report below (without footnotes). Pound seemed to think the control forms were supposed to be destroyed after two years. The full report is at http://www.velonews.com/media/report1999.pdf.

"Various sport officials, while commenting on the analyses of the urine samples from
the 1998 and the 1999 Tours de France, have suggested that article 17 of the 2003
WADA Code, titled ‘Statute of Limitations,’ would authorize sports governing bodies to
conduct ‘retrospective testing’, i.e. to go back in time and retest frozen urine and/or
blood samples obtained up to eight (8) years ago. . . . This however, is incorrect. All that article 17 actually says, is that it is possible to commence an action against an athlete or any other person for a violation of an anti-doping rule within a period of eight (8) years
from the date the violation did occur and then only as far as ‘non-analytical positives’
are concerned, i.e. an admission of use by the athlete or documentary evidence of
purchase and use of Prohibited Substances. Article 17, in other words, allows a sports
governing body to respond whenever it receives a ‘notitia criminis’, i.e. whenever
it has learned that a possible anti-doping rule violation might have occurred, from
whatever source, as long as this is being done within a period of eight years (8) from
the date this possible anti-doping rule violation might have occurred. It does not
say anything about retesting urine samples within a period of eight (8) years from the
date they were provided."

The report also says that the WADA code does not "provide any procedural rules and regulations on how to conduct retrospective testing. The anti-doping rules and regulations that do exist require that testing be conducted promptly after the urine samples are received. They do not require that the urine samples or the doping control forms that might be used to identify which urine samples were given by which athletes, be kept for eight (8) years."

And that's just the procedural aspect. The report also cast doubt on the presumption that tests designed to work on fresh samples would be meaningful when conducted on stored samples.

I think it's very different from Floyd's case.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

*Perhaps to add some perspective...*

...For arguments sake let’s say that Big here holds a MD in neuro surgery and has saved hundreds of patients. In order for him to get that MD, make all that money and do all that good he had to pass 99 courses in college. If he failed even one of them he would not have received his undergrad degree and would not have been able to go to medical school, etc., etc…

10 years later someone who is convinced Big had to have failed at least one test decides to go back and re-grade all the exams – and what do you know the initial grader made a mistake and indeed he only scored a 59.9% on one of the exams (maybe he even, gasp, cheated on other tests, or maybe it was just an honest mistake or maybe the tester has a vendetta, or maybe the test is flawed, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah). I take it from the standards on this board he is a CHEATER and a FAILURE – and is at least comparable to the likes of OJ. 

Now the punishment: He is stripped of his degree and banned from ever practicing medicine again. All those people he saved – well it was just a lie – who cares that they are alive – it was all done under nefarious conditions – he really isn’t an MD after all. 

Of course Big being the stand up guy he is accepts his fate and goes back to being a car washer or house painter or whatever… After all the evidence is plainly out there for all to see… 

…flame on anti-lance crowd – and wondering when this forum is just going to be renamed the anti-lance form…


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> Frankly, I believe Lance was as doped to the gills as everyone else in the peloton during his 7 wins, but I frankly just don't care. If both he and the field are doped, he still won on a level playing field.


That's assuming that everyone responds with the same % performance benefits from following a similar program. Just like standard (clean) training, that may not necessarily be true. If they were all clean the pecking order may well have been different. Or even worse what if the 10th place guy who no one paid any attention to actually was clean and would have won or podiumed if everyone else was clean too? Raw deal for that guy missing out on millions of dollars and a rightful place in history.


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

Undecided said:


> The report also cast doubt on the presumption that tests designed to work on fresh samples would be meaningful when conducted on stored samples.


But if those stored samples somewhere in those years spontaneously decided specifically to spawn EPO out of thin air, instead of any one of tens of thousands of random chemical compounds, that would be just complete coincidence? Long odds.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

*Poor Beloki*



Circlip said:


> That's assuming that everyone responds with the same % performance benefits from following a similar program. Just like standard (clean) training, that may not necessarily be true. If they were all clean the pecking order may well have been different. Or even worse what if the 10th place guy who no one paid any attention to actually was clean and would have won or podiumed if everyone else was clean too? Raw deal for that guy missing out on millions of dollars and a rightful place in history.


Or what if it had been LA leading Beloki around that corner... Or JU should have just had a little more pre-season fork control. or... or...


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

*Sure*



Circlip said:


> But if those stored samples somewhere in those years spontaneously decided specifically to spawn EPO out of thin air, instead of any one of tens of thousands of random chemical compounds, that would be just complete coincidence? Long odds.


I agree, but I think the athletes have a right to validated testing procedures. (And as a side note, although there's an intuitive appeal to your argument, as a logical matter, if they didn't test the samples for other random compounds, we can't presume they wouldn't have come up positive for them, too.)


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

safetyguy said:


> Or what if it had been LA leading Beloki around that corner...


Nothing to do with violating the rules or ethics of the sport.



safetyguy said:


> Or JU should have just had a little more pre-season fork control. or... or...


Nothing to do with violating the rules or ethics of the sport.

Any more irrelevant red herrings you'd like to throw in there while you're at it?


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

My point is to illustrate how silly the "what ifs" are in retrospect. What if the 11th place clean rider didn't train as hard and is actually the superior rider... What it the guy who was in the lead punctured in the finale... yada, yada, yada...

If LA (or any other rider) is dirty - then catch him being dirty now! Don't catch him in retrospect. We already have some awfully good (better than 99-05) retrospective evidence for the 96, 97 & 98 tours - I have asked before, who won those races and why not change those results - I would like to hear Bobby J's comments on that one.


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

Undecided said:


> I agree, but I think the athletes have a right to validated testing procedures. (And as a side note, although there's an intuitive appeal to your argument, as a logical matter, if they didn't test the samples for other random compounds, we can't presume they wouldn't have come up positive for them, too.)


Fair enough, although I will add that I don't accept any athlete's claim verbatim that a testing procedure or chain of custody was invalid just because they and their defense team said so (not saying that you do either).


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Undecided said:


> The suggestion that the system is designed to guarantee the samples for 8 years isn't consistent with the findings of the independent report mandated by the UCI. I've quoted from the report below (without footnotes). Pound seemed to think the control forms were supposed to be destroyed after two years. The full report is at http://www.velonews.com/media/report1999.pdf.
> 
> "Various sport officials, while commenting on the analyses of the urine samples from
> the 1998 and the 1999 Tours de France, have suggested that article 17 of the 2003
> ...


The Vrijman report, one of the better examples of the UCI incompetence. He never even attempted to explain how EPO got in Lance's samples, instead spent the entire report tossing rocks at various UCI enemies. As WADA said at the time

*"The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical. Were the matter not so serious and the allegations it contains so irresponsible, we would be inclined to give it the complete lack of attention it deserves.”*


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

safetyguy said:


> ...For arguments sake let’s say that Big here holds a MD in neuro surgery and has saved hundreds of patients. In order for him to get that MD, make all that money and do all that good he had to pass 99 courses in college. If he failed even one of them he would not have received his undergrad degree and would not have been able to go to medical school, etc., etc…
> 
> 10 years later someone who is convinced Big had to have failed at least one test decides to go back and re-grade all the exams – and what do you know the initial grader made a mistake and indeed he only scored a 59.9% on one of the exams (maybe he even, gasp, cheated on other tests, or maybe it was just an honest mistake or maybe the tester has a vendetta, or maybe the test is flawed, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah). I take it from the standards on this board he is a CHEATER and a FAILURE – and is at least comparable to the likes of OJ.
> 
> ...


Your 'argument' is the opposite of perspective. It is nonsense. It is one of the more original excuses I've seen by a Lance fan though. As has been pointed out elsewhere, most Lance fans are now ready to accept, it would seem, that he did in fact dope, but console themselves with the notion that (a) it's in the past, and (b) they all doped. (Not sure how his fans now seem to believe he did in fact dope, when they seem to dismiss any evidence supporting this view, out of hand)
I could give many many reasons to show how flawed this line of thinking is, but the most pressing one is simply that Lance is still cycling, so the past is again of paramount importance. Secondly, not everyone doped.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

*Chinese Hamsters*

OK, I will play for a bit more - it is easy to cut and paste: From the report

"There is some evidence that naturally-occurring (“endogenous”) EPO can undergo changes in storage that cause it to test positive for synthetic (“exogenous”) EPO, also called r-EPO (section 4.54, page 90). As a result, since 2005, labs have been required to perform an additional stability test on any EPO sample. There's no documentation suggesting that test was done on the Tour de France samples from '98 and '99.

There's no reliable data showing what effect long-term storage has on EPO tests. Dr. Christian Ayotte, who runs the WADA-certified lab in Montreal, is quoted via VeloNews in the report (section 2.2, page 24):

“EPO is a protein hormone and it is not stable in urine, even when kept frozen”, she said. “This has long had implications for any plan we’ve had to keep samples and specimens for long periods of time with the hope that we might, some day, retest those samples for a new substance.”


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

safetyguy said:


> OK, I will play for a bit more - it is easy to cut and paste: From the report
> 
> "There is some evidence that naturally-occurring (“endogenous”) EPO can undergo changes in storage that cause it to test positive for synthetic (“exogenous”) EPO, also called r-EPO (section 4.54, page 90). As a result, since 2005, labs have been required to perform an additional stability test on any EPO sample. There's no documentation suggesting that test was done on the Tour de France samples from '98 and '99.
> 
> ...


Specify the name of that report please.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

Why does it bother you all so much that so many people are fans of LA? It is not a "fact" that LA is a doper - do you not see the difference between it being a fact and a probability. I do, so I can easily say that in all probability he is but it is far from a fact. I can still be a fan and I can still hope that if he is dirty that he be caught - BTW I feel the same about the other pros that I follow too. I hope they catch any dirty doped rider in the peleton. But I for one will continue to enjoy the sport with - or with out - LA in it.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> Specify the name of that report please.


Just read the Vrijman report itself and then form your own opinion.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

safetyguy said:


> Just read the Vrijman report itself and then form your own opinion.


Oh but I did read that report. And I knew exactly where you got that quote from, the moment I saw your post. I just wanted you to say it for youself that this was where you 'cut and pasted'.

You're using the Vrijman report to substantiate your viewpoint. Enough said. The man has no morals or self respect by adding his name to this report.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> Oh but I did read that report. And I knew exactly where you got that quote from, the moment I saw your post. I just wanted you to say it for youself that this was where you 'cut and pasted'.
> 
> You're using the Vrijman report to substantiate your viewpoint. Enough said. The man has no morals or self respect by adding his name to this report.


Of course I am... but what basis are you using to say that he has no morals or self respect... Is it because you do not agree with the - FACTUAL - findings of the report? And if the report is faulty please state where it is so.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

safetyguy said:


> Of course I am... but what basis are you using to say that he has no morals or self respect... Is it because you do not agree with the - FACTUAL - findings of the report? And if the report is faulty please state where it is so.


Well just one example of his character....His report criticised in the strongest terms the leaking of confidential information to the media, but his report was in fact leaked also to the press, by none other than himself. It was reported in Dutch newspapers before the UCI, which was paying Vrijman, received its copy. "The UCI firmly deplores the behaviour of Mr. Vrijman."
Whilst WADA had other words, which Bigpinkt has stated on this thread. And just to further these points, WADA concluded its assessment of the report's author, "When the process is so flawed as it is to date, there can no longer be professional confidence in the author."

And google Emile Vrijman, Katrin Krabbe, plastic doping kits....he seems to have a soft spot for dopers.....


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

safetyguy said:


> My point is to illustrate how silly the "what ifs" are in retrospect. What if the 11th place clean rider didn't train as hard and is actually the superior rider... What it the guy who was in the lead punctured in the finale... yada, yada, yada...


Well then you haven't made a very compelling point. Training as hard, puncture, yada, yada, yada... None of which have anything to do with *cheating*.



safetyguy said:


> If LA (or any other rider) is dirty - then catch him being dirty now! Don't catch him in retrospect.


Agree to disagreee. I say go ahead and string'em now even years after the fact.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

safetyguy said:


> If LA (or any other rider) is dirty - then catch him being dirty now! Don't catch him in retrospect. We already have some awfully good (better than 99-05) retrospective evidence for the 96, 97 & 98 tours - I have asked before, who won those races and why not change those results - I would like to hear Bobby J's comments on that one.


But in a court of law we are all answerable for past wrongs....otherwise there'd be mayhem...and you saying the evidence for '97 and ''98 tour winners being better than '99-05 is extremely dubious. Jan, who obviously doped, didn't even fail a test...Marco had a hematocrit of 51, Lance had one at 49...and it was Marco's test at 51 which got him thrown off the Giro in 99.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> Well just one example of his character....His report criticised in the strongest terms the leaking of confidential information to the media, but his report was in fact leaked also to the press, by none other than himself. It was reported in Dutch newspapers before the UCI, which was paying Vrijman, received its copy. "The UCI firmly deplores the behaviour of Mr. Vrijman."
> Whilst WADA had other words, which Bigpinkt has stated on this thread. And just to further these points, WADA concluded its assessment of the report's author, "When the process is so flawed as it is to date, there can no longer be professional confidence in the author."
> 
> And google Emile Vrijman, Katrin Krabbe, plastic doping kits....he seems to have a soft spot for dopers.....


I somewhat agree with you here and therefore using your logic WADA & the UCI are just as corrupt and morally bankrupt as Vrijman... More so even as they violated their own ethical code whereas I am not sure you could make the same argument with his report.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> But in a court of law we are all answerable for past wrongs....otherwise there'd be mayhem...and you saying the evidence for '97 and ''98 tour winners being better than '99-05 is extremely dubious. Jan, who obviously doped, didn't even fail a test...Marco had a hematocrit of 51, Lance had one at 49...and it was Marco's test at 51 which got him thrown off the Giro in 99.


Yes that is exactly what I am saying - the evidence for dopers winning the tour in 96, 97 & 98 is stronger than 99 - 05. And given that evidence who is the legitimate winner of those tours. 

..and please according to the rules 49 is LEGAL (i.e. not cheating) - 51 - NOT LEGAL (i.e. cheating). It doesn't matter if he was 49.999999999% it is legal (although it does matter if he got their illegally). It is so like you LA haters to say since Pantani was at 51 (actually I think he tested at 60.1% once) and LA was at 49 that he is guilty of doping. 

BTW have you ever asked yourself why the limit was set at 50% and not at say 43%, or 45%? Think hard... I am curious as to your answer.

Finally - for those "in the know" (I love to be able to throw this in the faces of those who say they are in the know) that there is a clean and legal way to increase ones crit ~3 - 6% - completely legal with a well know OTC drug - ask RG.

Cheers... it is Friday!


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

safetyguy said:


> I somewhat agree with you here and therefore using your logic WADA & the UCI are just as corrupt and morally bankrupt as Vrijman... More so even as they violated their own ethical code whereas I am not sure you could make the same argument with his report.


UCI yes for sure....WADA no, definitely not....
WADA made a very detailed response to the content of the report. WADA referred to the process used by the French Lab in its research work, which was not the process used for analysing samples for the purpose of doping control. The failure to make this distinction, according to WADA was the central flaw of the report and led in turn to ill-informed and incorrect outcomes. In its statement, WADA asked the following; "Mr Vrijman does not inquire at all into why Mr. Armstrong gave his consent, through his advisors, to UCI to provide 15 doping control forms to the L'Equipe reporter who was the author of the article. Mr. Vrijman does not likewise ask or inquire in any depth of UCI mamagenment and executives of why they sought MR. Armstrong's consent, and why they authorised the release of the documents...that failure indicates both a lack of professionalism and a distinct lack of impartiality in conducting a full review of all facts. Indeed, despite Mr. Verbruggen's concession that all 15 forms came from UCI, Mr. Vrijman only suggeests it may have been more than one. Why ddi he fail to review all the files, and interview the responsible personnel?"

And I believe I have shown you numerous examples of Vrijman breaking this 'ethical' code....the leaking of his own report being only one example.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

*That's purely ad hominem*



bigpinkt said:


> The Vrijman report, one of the better examples of the UCI incompetence. He never even attempted to explain how EPO got in Lance's samples, instead spent the entire report tossing rocks at various UCI enemies. As WADA said at the time
> 
> *"The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical. Were the matter not so serious and the allegations it contains so irresponsible, we would be inclined to give it the complete lack of attention it deserves.”*


The Vriijman report looks at specific questions of what is prescribed and allowed under WADA's rule, and comes up with conclusions. Your response here, and WADA's response you quote, is just an ad hominem attach and unreasoned dismissal. I'm not saying Vrijman's report is infallible, but it's pretty clear that you're not treating this as an examination of rules and procedures; you know which conclusion you want and don't care whether it's supported by facts (e.g., your "eight years" claim). Did Lance dope? I've got no idea. Can he be proven to have doped under the current system and those samples? It seems not.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> Of course I am... but what basis are you using to say that he has no morals or self respect... Is it because you do not agree with the - FACTUAL - findings of the report? And if the report is faulty please state where it is so.


"Factual Findings"?? There are no factual findings in the report. He never even attempted to find out how EPO got into the samples, the reports purpose was only to attack the UCI multiple enemies and to put up a smoke screen to protect it's largest "Donor". Read WADA's response

http://www.sportslaw.nl/documents/cms_sports_id98_3_WADA Official Statement on Vrijman Report .pdf


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Undecided said:


> The Vriijman report looks at specific questions of what is prescribed and allowed under WADA's rule, and comes up with conclusions. Your response here, and WADA's response you quote, is just an ad hominem attach and unreasoned dismissal. I'm not saying Vrijman's report is infallible, but it's pretty clear that you're not treating this as an examination of rules and procedures; you know which conclusion you want and don't care whether it's supported by facts (e.g., your "eight years" claim). Did Lance dope? I've got no idea. Can he be proven to have doped under the current system and those samples? It seems not.


You seem to be confused. WADA only has jurisdiction since it started running testing in cycling, August 2004. If it could sanction Armstrong on the 99 positives it would, but it has no jurisdiction in the case.

The WADA code is pretty clear. Article 17 of the WADA Code notes that “no action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for a violation of an anti-doping rule contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight years from the date the violation occurred.” 

It is almost comical that Armstrong's fanboys have given up on the "Never Tested Positive" mantra and now try to use "Never Sanctioned". Relaying non action of the most inept and corrupt governing body in sports only reinforces the weakness of their position.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

safetyguy said:


> Yes that is exactly what I am saying - the evidence for dopers winning the tour in 96, 97 & 98 is stronger than 99 - 05. And given that evidence who is the legitimate winner of those tours.
> 
> ..and please according to the rules 49 is LEGAL (i.e. not cheating) - 51 - NOT LEGAL (i.e. cheating). It doesn't matter if he was 49.999999999% it is legal (although it does matter if he got their illegally). It is so like you LA haters to say since Pantani was at 51 (actually I think he tested at 60.1% once) and LA was at 49 that he is guilty of doping.
> 
> ...


You know as well as I do what I said about the Lance years and the winners of the Tour from '96 to '98. It is very dubious to say there is more evidence against the other three. Like I said to you, Ullrich and Riis didn't even fail a test. Lance did. Riis confessed, numerous people have testified that Lance also admitted. And as I said before, witness testimonies are deemed more than credible in a court of law. The main piece of evidence against Jan is the presence of blood in a known doping doctor's practice. Hmmm, links to a doping doctor - where have we seen that with Lance?!
You seem to have a serious inability to stay on topic...just jumping from one thought to the next...Pantani's 60% was 1995 - he was caught in 1999 with 51. And do not patronise me about why the limit was set at 50%. And you know as well as I do, that a jump from mid to late 30s as high as 49 (as Lance did), strongly indicates EPO usage - to suggest otherwise is lies. Because you seem to be hinting that Lance had a natural level in the late 40s, when he most certainly did not.

In relation to your last point - has it been tested on highly trained athletes? Is it on a list of banned substances? this 3 - 6% increase is all very well, but is that an increase on the average male or a highly trained athlete?


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> It is almost comical that Armstrong's fanboys have given up on the "Never Tested Positive" mantra and now try to use "Never Sanctioned".


Very good point...soon enough it'll be 'he never confessed".


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Did anyone see the new SI article by pantywaist Austin Murphy. $hit, they were promoting the TOC by calling Pharmstrong's comeback, "the return of hope," or some such bs...Haaaaaahhhh....


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> My point is to illustrate how silly the "what ifs" are in retrospect. What if the 11th place clean rider didn't train as hard and is actually the superior rider... What it the guy who was in the lead punctured in the finale... yada, yada, yada...
> 
> If LA (or any other rider) is dirty - then catch him being dirty now! Don't catch him in retrospect. We already have some awfully good (better than 99-05) retrospective evidence for the 96, 97 & 98 tours - I have asked before, who won those races and why not change those results - I would like to hear Bobby J's comments on that one.


Bobby J was very widely quoted on Hamilton's Olympic Gold. He was fairly disgusted...


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> Why does it bother you all so much that so many people are fans of LA? It is not a "fact" that LA is a doper - do you not see the difference between it being a fact and a probability. I do, so I can easily say that in all probability he is but it is far from a fact. I can still be a fan and I can still hope that if he is dirty that he be caught - BTW I feel the same about the other pros that I follow too. I hope they catch any dirty doped rider in the peleton. But I for one will continue to enjoy the sport with - or with out - LA in it.


It's not a "fact" that OJ is a murderer either.ut: :yikes:

I still love those sideline to sideline 80 yard touchdown runs though.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Digger28 said:


> Oh but I did read that report. And I knew exactly where you got that quote from, the moment I saw your post. I just wanted you to say it for youself that this was where you 'cut and pasted'.
> 
> You're using the Vrijman report to substantiate your viewpoint. Enough said. The man has no morals or self respect by adding his name to this report.



- Some of that cut & paste job quotes one of WADA's own certified lab techs. Are you saying they are incorrect too???


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Digger28 said:


> UCI yes for sure....WADA no, definitely not....
> WADA made a very detailed response to the content of the report. WADA referred to the process used by the French Lab in its research work, which was not the process used for analysing samples for the purpose of doping control. The failure to make this distinction, according to WADA was the central flaw of the report and led in turn to ill-informed and incorrect outcomes. In its statement, WADA asked the following; "Mr Vrijman does not inquire at all into why Mr. Armstrong gave his consent, through his advisors, to UCI to provide 15 doping control forms to the L'Equipe reporter who was the author of the article. Mr. Vrijman does not likewise ask or inquire in any depth of UCI mamagenment and executives of why they sought MR. Armstrong's consent, and why they authorised the release of the documents...that failure indicates both a lack of professionalism and a distinct lack of impartiality in conducting a full review of all facts. Indeed, despite Mr. Verbruggen's concession that all 15 forms came from UCI, Mr. Vrijman only suggeests it may have been more than one. Why ddi he fail to review all the files, and interview the responsible personnel?"
> 
> And I believe I have shown you numerous examples of Vrijman breaking this 'ethical' code....the leaking of his own report being only one example.


- So you've mentioned the same unethical behaviour of Vrijman TWICE.... Is that all the dirt on the guy??? You find him sooo unethical on just this "leak" but its cool with you for the French lab (or any lab for that matter) to leak their findings to a media outlet??? You don't blast them here (that I've read) and hold them to the same standards???


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

DMFT said:


> - Some of that cut & paste job quotes one of WADA's own certified lab techs. Are you saying they are incorrect too???


CAS did not think they were cut and paste or incorrect.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

DMFT said:


> - So you've mentioned the same unethical behaviour of Vrijman TWICE.... Is that all the dirt on the guy???


No there is more. 

Emile Vrijman was chosen by the UCI because he was anything but independent. His actions in the Katrin Krabbe/Gert Breuer caused him to become a outcast in the anti doping world, his "report" on Armstrong only solidified this position. In addition to defending dopers in his legal practice he provided Krabbe and Breuaer with inside information that allowed them to escape a doping sanction on a technicality. They both eventually tested positive and their coach was sanctioned as well for systemic doping of Athletes.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

bigpinkt said:


> You seem to be confused. WADA only has jurisdiction since it started running testing in cycling, August 2004. If it could sanction Armstrong on the 99 positives it would, but it has no jurisdiction in the case.
> 
> The WADA code is pretty clear. Article 17 of the WADA Code notes that “no action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for a violation of an anti-doping rule contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight years from the date the violation occurred.”
> 
> It is almost comical that Armstrong's fanboys have given up on the "Never Tested Positive" mantra and now try to use "Never Sanctioned". Relaying non action of the most inept and corrupt governing body in sports only reinforces the weakness of their position.


You've been wrong in several of your claims (e.g., that the WADA procedures provide for 8 years of storage and down-the-road retesting) and you've relied on ad hominem attacks as your alternative argument. You then use another (mild) ad hominem argument (i.e., that I'm "confused") as a response to my statement that whether or not Lance doped, he can't be convicted of it under WADA's procedures and those samples, although what you actually write above is completely consistent with that. 

Although I suspect that you may be right about the underlying point (i.e., Lance's doping), your argument rests entirely on incorrect claims about rules and a groundless assertion of the reliability of a test used in circumstances for which it was not developed and for which it has not been validated. You employ out-of-hand dismissals to disregard anyone who disagrees with you. Despite the fact that I keep saying that my personal feeling is that Armstrong may have doped, you ignore the flaws in your logic by directing attention to what you claim to be a shifting series of mantras that you believe to represent the view of "fanboys". Let's agree on this version, instead, "Armstrong samples that were kept outside of the protocols of any recognized anti-doping authority, when subjected to an EPO test that was not validated for such samples, return a positive result."


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Undecided said:


> Although I suspect that you may be right about the underlying point (i.e., Lance's doping), Despite the fact that I keep saying that my personal feeling is that Armstrong may have doped,


"I'm not convinced either way about Lance's doping"

Two quotes on the same thread from your good self. There must be some real nuggets of evidence on this thread to have swayed you ever so slightly.

The lab in question for the '99 retests, never once claimed they were retested for anything other than research. The technicians at no stage knew whose samples they were. By the letter of the alw, Lance could not be prosecuted...but the presence of EPO was NEVER once explained...other than the French Conspiracy theory...to have spike his samples correctly, required a 480/1 chance. Scientifically those tests are rock solid.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

The report and it's author have been discredited in various circles. As BigPinkt and myself have pointed out in other posts, the author has previous in relation to defending dopers - Katrin Krabbe, the East German sprinter being an example which exasperated many in the anti-doping field.
Even the UCI were pi**ed with him in the end.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Undecided said:


> You've been wrong in several of your claims (e.g., that the WADA procedures provide for 8 years of storage and down-the-road retesting) and you've relied on ad hominem attacks as your alternative argument. You then use another (mild) ad hominem argument (i.e., that I'm "confused") as a response to my statement that whether or not Lance doped, he can't be convicted of it under WADA's procedures and those samples, although what you actually write above is completely consistent with that.
> 
> Although I suspect that you may be right about the underlying point (i.e., Lance's doping), your argument rests entirely on incorrect claims about rules and a groundless assertion of the reliability of a test used in circumstances for which it was not developed and for which it has not been validated. You employ out-of-hand dismissals to disregard anyone who disagrees with you. Despite the fact that I keep saying that my personal feeling is that Armstrong may have doped, you ignore the flaws in your logic by directing attention to what you claim to be a shifting series of mantras that you believe to represent the view of "fanboys". Let's agree on this version, instead, "Armstrong samples that were kept outside of the protocols of any recognized anti-doping authority, when subjected to an EPO test that was not validated for such samples, return a positive result."


Ad hominem attacks?

I have never said that the 99 samples could have resulted in a sanction under the rules of the day.....if they were from 2005 then it would be a different story. Many of the loopholes that Lance got away with no longer work.

The key question is how did EPO get in the 99 samples? I say it got there because Lance, like every other top rider at the time, was using EPO. How do you think it got there? Space Aliens? Nazi Frogman?


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

*Right, those mean the same thing.*



Digger28 said:


> "I'm not convinced either way about Lance's doping"
> 
> Two quotes on the same thread from your good self. There must be some real nuggets of evidence on this thread to have swayed you ever so slightly.
> 
> The lab in question for the '99 retests, never once claimed they were retested for anything other than research. The technicians at no stage knew whose samples they were. By the letter of the alw, Lance could not be prosecuted...but the presence of EPO was NEVER once explained...other than the French Conspiracy theory...to have spike his samples correctly, required a 480/1 chance. Scientifically those tests are rock solid.


I'm not convinced either way. I suspect that he may have doped, but I grant that he may have not doped. There is no difference there; I have not been swayed in any direction. Unlike some people (it seems(, I believe there is a very important difference between having a personal suspicion and (absent the support of appropriate evidence) being "convinced". Is that clear enough for you, or would you like to redefine "may have" to mean whatever you need it to mean in order to support whatever point you think you're making?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Undecided said:


> You've been wrong in several of your claims (e.g., that the WADA procedures provide for 8 years of storage and down-the-road retesting) and you've relied on ad hominem attacks as your alternative argument. You then use another (mild) ad hominem argument (i.e., that I'm "confused") as a response to my statement that whether or not Lance doped, he can't be convicted of it under WADA's procedures and those samples, although what you actually write above is completely consistent with that.


I was not wrong about WADA's storage protocols. There is a mandatory 2 year storage of samples and recommended 4-8 years. The statute of limitations is 8 years and samples can be tested again. 
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/Report_WG_Costs_231106_en.pdf

In addition WADA recently closed a loophole for samples that may have passed the old EPO test. They can be retested as there are now many variations of EPO that could slip by the old test. 

When I wrote the you were confused this was not an "ad hominem argument" I wrote that because you were confused. 

You wrote


> The Vriijman report looks at specific questions of what is prescribed and allowed under WADA's rule


I already explained that WADA did not have authority over cycling until 2004.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

bigpinkt said:


> I was not wrong about WADA's storage protocols. There is a mandatory 2 year storage of samples and recommended 4-8 years. The statute of limitations is 8 years and samples can be tested again.
> http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/Report_WG_Costs_231106_en.pdf


You are citing a 2006 report that was a response to a 2004 policy and trying to apply it to samples taken in 1999. Further, the report you cite doesn't even conclude what you claim (although it's an interesting read); it points out that the punishment period is eight years and merely makes the point that longer storage could be considered, but that it would come at a significant expense and that steps to reduce the expense should be explored. 



bigpinkt said:


> When I wrote the you were confused this was not an "ad hominem argument" I wrote that because you were confused.


What I actually wrote was "Can [Armstrong] be proven to have doped under the current system and those samples? It seems not." You've agreed a couple of times now that WADA had no jurisdiction before 2004 (when the 1999 samples were taken). Maybe you mean something different by "proven" than I do, but is WADA now claiming authority (from the UCI or various national federations) to apply its authority to samples that predate its existence and were not handled in accordance with its requirements?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Undecided said:


> Maybe you mean something different by "proven" than I do, but is WADA now claiming authority (from the UCI or various national federations) to apply its authority to samples that predate its existence and were not handled in accordance with its requirements?


I am not sure where you get this as I never wrote that they could, in fact I wrote that they could not. 

It is good that WADA took time to point out what a farce the Vrijman report was. The question remains unanswered, how did EPO get into his samples? The most obvious way would be that Lance used EPO. There is plenty of supporting evidence that he did, there is none to support the French Conspiracy/Nazi Frogman theory.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Undecided said:


> You are citing a 2006 report that was a response to a 2004 policy and trying to apply it to samples taken in 1999. Further, the report you cite doesn't even conclude what you claim (although it's an interesting read); it points out that the punishment period is eight years and merely makes the point that longer storage could be considered, but that it would come at a significant expense and that steps to reduce the expense should be explored.
> 
> 
> 
> What I actually wrote was "Can [Armstrong] be proven to have doped under the current system and those samples? It seems not." You've agreed a couple of times now that WADA had no jurisdiction before 2004 (when the 1999 samples were taken). Maybe you mean something different by "proven" than I do, but is WADA now claiming authority (from the UCI or various national federations) to apply its authority to samples that predate its existence and were not handled in accordance with its requirements?


"He may have doped."

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

I enjoy your legalistic response. And I'm quite sure it is selectively applied to Pharmstrong and not most of the other criminals in the world who have gotten away with stuff due to technicalities and lack of enforcement..

We all know he's never been sanctioned. It means just about nothing as to whether he was jacked thru the roof.

BTW, what's his FTP these days? If you're not going to address that question, you're wearing blinders.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

*You missed your chance to be a Bush-era prosecutor.*



lookrider said:


> :
> "He may have doped."
> 
> I enjoy your legalistic response. And I'm quite sure it is selectively applied to Pharmstrong and not most of the other criminals in the world who have gotten away with stuff due to technicalities and lack of enforcement..
> ...


I believe that if a system of accountability has been developed, then determinations made outside of that system (for example, in the court of public opinion), that ignore the safeguards of the system, are often the result of bias and self-interest by the self-appointed judge. People are found guilty, under any number of criminal or quasi-criminal systems, every day, even when the rules of the relevant systems are followed. And absent a confession, anything less than that is just accusation. You seem to have decided that I'm claiming, definitively, that Armstrong didn't dope, when I've said nothing of the sort.

I don't know what his FTP is. I am curious to see how he performs, although I think that he has ready-built excuses for any deterioration over the past (e.g., his age and time off).


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

bigpinkt said:


> I am not sure where you get this as I never wrote that they could, in fact I wrote that they could not.
> 
> It is good that WADA took time to point out what a farce the Vrijman report was. The question remains unanswered, how did EPO get into his samples? The most obvious way would be that Lance used EPO. There is plenty of supporting evidence that he did, there is none to support the French Conspiracy/Nazi Frogman theory.


I didn't "get" anything; when I write, the question mark indicates that I'm asking a question. I asked that question because you seem to keep agreeing with me (that Armstrong can't be proven to have doped by WADA on the basis of the 1999 samples), yet you've claimed that I'm "confused" on the point. If you're not claiming that WADA has that retroactive authority, then I suggested that we must be talking past each other because we mean different things when we say "proof" or "prove". Maybe you are willing to take the positive result of "the test" as "proof" (under any application), but I would say that a test needs to be conducted in accordance with the rules applicable to that test in order to take a positive result as "proof."

As to the EPO question you ask, safetyguy did address it above. You confuse the issue a bit by disregarding the distinction between r-EPO and EPO (and the fact that "EPO" has long been used in the vernacular to mean r-EPO doesn't help).


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Undecided said:


> I didn't "get" anything; when I write, the question mark indicates that I'm asking a question. I asked that question because you seem to keep agreeing with me (that Armstrong can't be proven to have doped by WADA on the basis of the 1999 samples), yet you've claimed that I'm "confused" on the point. If you're not claiming that WADA has that retroactive authority, then I suggested that we must be talking past each other because we mean different things when we say "proof" or "prove". Maybe you are willing to take the positive result of "the test" as "proof" (under any application), but I would say that a test needs to be conducted in accordance with the rules applicable to that test in order to take a positive result as "proof."
> 
> As to the EPO question you ask, safetyguy did address it above. You confuse the issue a bit by disregarding the distinction between r-EPO and EPO (and the fact that "EPO" has long been used in the vernacular to mean r-EPO doesn't help).


Are you intentionally writing in circles?

WADA does have retroactive authority, however it only reaches back to August 2004 for cycling. I am well aware of what r-EPO is.

I take the positive tests as additional evidence that adds to the mountain of evidence that Armstrong doped. Nowhere on this thread, or anywhere else, is there any supportable evidence that r-EPO can spontaneously appear in samples. Add to this that levels in the samples matched the practices at the time, very high at the Prologue, diminishing as the race goes on, another spike on the rest day.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> I take the positive tests as additional evidence that adds to the mountain of evidence that Armstrong doped. Nowhere on this thread, or anywhere else, is there any supportable evidence that r-EPO can spontaneously appear in samples. Add to this that levels in the samples matched the practices at the time, very high at the Prologue, diminishing as the race goes on, another spike on the rest day.



He's never been 'officially sanctioned' BigPinkt don't you know!!!!
Even if he was sanctioned, the Lance fans would say it's part of the UCI being afraid that Lance was becoming too powerful. He will never lose the fanatical support of these people. He could shoot someone in the morning, and they'd say the other person was accusing him of being a doper. I often wonder does Lance laugh at these people, knowing what he knows, and what most cycling fans know, does he think to himself that 'god my fans are morons'.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Undecided said:


> I believe that if a system of accountability has been developed, then determinations made outside of that system (for example, in the court of public opinion), that ignore the safeguards of the system, are often the result of bias and self-interest by the self-appointed judge. People are found guilty, under any number of criminal or quasi-criminal systems, every day, even when the rules of the relevant systems are followed. And absent a confession, anything less than that is just accusation. You seem to have decided that I'm claiming, definitively, that Armstrong didn't dope, when I've said nothing of the sort.
> 
> I don't know what his FTP is. I am curious to see how he performs, although I think that he has ready-built excuses for any deterioration over the past (e.g., his age and time off).


Your, "he may have doped" is a very timid response.

I'm disgusted by the Bush methodologies, and if, that's a big if, I had those kinds of powers, I would never subvert due process the way those clowns have.

That being said, expressing the obvious here in this little corner of the internets is my prerogative, my right as an American. Now, if I was LA's boyfriend and confidant, and knew for a fact that he was clean, and lied about it, to damage his reputation, my former boyfriend, LA, could take legal action, and he would prevail in a liable suit.

I don't want the guy sanctioned on my say so, but he was the one trumpeting transparency and that he'd address all concerns. So Lance, *wtf are your power numbers and your blood parameters?*

Power numbers are no big secret, on the contrary, everyone knew Pharmstrong was up around 500 watts at threshold, and that was required at his bodyweight, to come close to the magic number of 6.7 w/kg in order to have a shot. If he was at the currently accepted max of around 5.9 during his heyday, he'd be toast.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> You know as well as I do what I said about the Lance years and the winners of the Tour from '96 to '98. It is very dubious to say there is more evidence against the other three. Like I said to you, Ullrich and Riis didn't even fail a test. Lance did. Riis confessed, numerous people have testified that Lance also admitted. And as I said before, witness testimonies are deemed more than credible in a court of law. The main piece of evidence against Jan is the presence of blood in a known doping doctor's practice. Hmmm, links to a doping doctor - where have we seen that with Lance?!
> You seem to have a serious inability to stay on topic...just jumping from one thought to the next...Pantani's 60% was 1995 - he was caught in 1999 with 51. And do not patronise me about why the limit was set at 50%. And you know as well as I do, that a jump from mid to late 30s as high as 49 (as Lance did), strongly indicates EPO usage - to suggest otherwise is lies. Because you seem to be hinting that Lance had a natural level in the late 40s, when he most certainly did not.
> 
> In relation to your last point - has it been tested on highly trained athletes? Is it on a list of banned substances? this 3 - 6% increase is all very well, but is that an increase on the average male or a highly trained athlete?


3-6% amongst trained athletes - many pro riders know and use this common OTC product... although it takes about 3-6 months to set in. I would tell you but that would be breaking the omerta... and LA would hunt me down... (sorry couldn't resist).


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Bobby J was very widely quoted on Hamilton's Olympic Gold. He was fairly disgusted...


...and what does Bobby J say about his podium at the TdF. BTW not to long ago Bobby J had this to say... 

_"The overall goal of every cyclist is to have the best power to weight ratio as possible. A good rider in the peloton has a ratio of 6 watts/kg, a great rider has 6.5 watts/kg and the best can have over 7watts/kg at threshold." _

Seems many of you think this impossible with out doping...


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> ...and what does Bobby J say about his podium at the TdF. BTW not to long ago Bobby J had this to say...
> 
> _"The overall goal of every cyclist is to have the best power to weight ratio as possible. A good rider in the peloton has a ratio of 6 watts/kg, a great rider has 6.5 watts/kg and the best can have over 7watts/kg at threshold." _
> 
> Seems many of you think this impossible with out doping...


Most informed students of the sport think that it is impossible. 

Dr. Alan Lim

*I’ll say is that 6.7 watts per kg at threshold is not physiological or humanly possible, unless you’re a hybrid human horse or a grey hound human dog or another species. I don’t even think Frankenstein could hold 6.7 watts per kg at threshold. Though, I must say that, unlike most artificially manipulated creatures of science, Frankenstein did have a uniquely low carbon footprint as he was made of recycled body parts and was activated with a clean bolt of lightning. But that’s a totally different story. *


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

safetyguy said:


> ...and what does Bobby J say about his podium at the TdF. BTW not to long ago Bobby J had this to say...
> 
> _"The overall goal of every cyclist is to have the best power to weight ratio as possible. A good rider in the peloton has a ratio of 6 watts/kg, a great rider has 6.5 watts/kg and the best can have over 7watts/kg at threshold." _
> 
> Seems many of you think this impossible with out doping...


Only if Bobby is using information from the last couple of years (and likely not even then) he is relying on doped numbers for that statement.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

Undecided said:


> I didn't "get" anything; when I write, the question mark indicates that I'm asking a question. I asked that question because you seem to keep agreeing with me (that Armstrong can't be proven to have doped by WADA on the basis of the 1999 samples), yet you've claimed that I'm "confused" on the point. If you're not claiming that WADA has that retroactive authority, then I suggested that we must be talking past each other because we mean different things when we say "proof" or "prove". Maybe you are willing to take the positive result of "the test" as "proof" (under any application), but I would say that a test needs to be conducted in accordance with the rules applicable to that test in order to take a positive result as "proof."
> 
> As to the EPO question you ask, safetyguy did address it above. You confuse the issue a bit by disregarding the distinction between r-EPO and EPO (and the fact that "EPO" has long been used in the vernacular to mean r-EPO doesn't help).


I have no porblem understanding Undecideds points... which closely resemble mine - I point this out to illustrate that there are clearly two camps on this issue. One willing to accept the probability that LA did indeed dope but willing accept the possibility that he may not have. 

Until he has been found guilty by the appropriate sanctioning body and gone through the process, I for one will treat the man with an appropriate level of respect. Many of you have already judged him to be guilty - fine thats your right - but really, there is plenty of cheating and corruptness on the part of both the riders and governing bodies, the labs, the press, lawyers, etc., etc., etc... 

A part of me kind of enjoys the drama - I can't wait to see who's next - I'd wager it will not be LA.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Only if Bobby is using information from the last couple of years (and likely not even then) he is relying on doped numbers for that statement.



Hoping this is current enough for you: http://www.cyclingnews.com/features.php?id=features/2009/bobbyjulich_jan09 

I find it interesting he did not say "... a good doped rider can maintain these numbers." In fact not a word about doping in that article at all.


----------



## dave2pvd (Oct 15, 2007)

safetyguy said:


> A part of me kind of enjoys the drama - I can't wait to see who's next - I'd wager it will not be LA.


The Paris-Nice prologue has me wondering a bit.....the winner gives away, what? 10Kg to the rest of the top 6? Maybe he is more slippery? Yes, that must be it.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> I am not sure where you get this as I never wrote that they could, in fact I wrote that they could not.
> 
> It is good that WADA took time to point out what a farce the Vrijman report was. The question remains unanswered, how did EPO get into his samples? The most obvious way would be that Lance used EPO. There is plenty of supporting evidence that he did, there is none to support the French Conspiracy/Nazi Frogman theory.


Ok here is just one:

_“EPO – in its natural state or the synthesized version – is not stable in urine, even if stored at minus 20 degrees.” _Dr. Christiane Ayotte, Doping Control director at Canada's Institut National de la Recherché Scientifique.

Big, tell me how I am reading this wrong?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

safetyguy said:


> Hoping this is current enough for you: http://www.cyclingnews.com/features.php?id=features/2009/bobbyjulich_jan09
> 
> I find it interesting he did not say "... a good doped rider can maintain these numbers." In fact not a word about doping in that article at all.


I know it was a current statement, the issue is what is he relying on for those numbers. Do you really expect a guy like Julich in his position to start openly talking about doping? The guy has been part of the omerta for over a decade and you think he's going to start talking honestly now?


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I know it was a current statement, the issue is what is he relying on for those numbers. Do you really expect a guy like Julich in his position to start openly talking about doping? The guy has been part of the omerta for over a decade and you think he's going to start talking honestly now?


If he was a clean rider (and currently supporting a clean team) yes, I would expect him to openly talk about doping (i.e. come out against it). Am I to take it that you think Bobby J was a doper too? Just curious... And keep it in the context of his 3rd place TdF podium (and who was 1st and 2nd).


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> Ok here is just one:
> 
> _“EPO – in its natural state or the synthesized version – is not stable in urine, even if stored at minus 20 degrees.” _Dr. Christiane Ayotte, Doping Control director at Canada's Institut National de la Recherché Scientifique.
> 
> Big, tell me how I am reading this wrong?


You are reading it wrong. There is *no evidence* that r-EPO could suddenly appear in a frozen sample. That is why Ayotte said

*"I don't dispute their findings," Ayotte said. "If there's residual EPO after five years, it was properly identified.*

One of the inventors of the EPO test, Jacques De Ceaurriz, said that there studies showed that in most cases EPO remained stable in frozen samples.

Wilhelm Schänzer, head of the IOC doping lab in Cologne, supports the findings of the LNDD. *"Urine samples can be kept in storage temperatures of between -20 and -40 degrees for years," he said. "The results are scientifically valid for me. If Mr. Ceaurriz says they are positive, then you can be assured that it's right.*"

Michael Ashenden, one of the scientist that is monitoring the Biopassport program, said that the 99 EPO samples presented "compelling picture" that Armstrong"used EPO in the '99 Tour."

Robin Parisotto, the researcher who developed the EPO test and now works for the UCI running the Biopassport testing. Last week he said 

*'there is scientific evidence that he was doped in 1999 that he took epo then. To deny it would be to lie." *


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> You are reading it wrong. There is *no evidence* that r-EPO could suddenly appear in a frozen sample. That is why Ayotte said
> 
> *"I don't dispute their findings," Ayotte said. "If there's residual EPO after five years, it was properly identified.*
> 
> ...


It seems to me even the WADA labs are not in agreement then. More:

_"Ayotte explained that as part of WADA’s efforts to “harmonize” testing protocols among anti-doping laboratories worldwide, the Paris lab had created the model to allow the application of “qualitative rather than quantitative” standards when interpreting test results."_

WOW - I read this to mean that they are relying on the person doing the test to add a qualitative appication of some sort. Where have we heard that before (don't ask Floyd). I really like her choice of the word "harmonize." Hmmm.. lets see here, we don't always quantitatively agree so lets all HARMONIZE the test results.

Ashenden - "one of the scientist that is monitoring the Biopassport program, said that the 99 EPO samples presented "compelling picture" that Armstrong"used EPO in the '99 Tour." 

I would tend to agree here but notice he says "compelling" not definitive. Sorry I want definitive.

Lets disect this other little gem you tossed up there:

Wilhelm Schänzer, head of the IOC doping lab in Cologne, supports the findings of the LNDD. *"Urine samples can be kept in storage temperatures of between -20 and -40 degrees for years," he said. "The results are scientifically valid for me. If Mr. Ceaurriz says they are positive, then you can be assured that it's right.*" 

Does this mean he doesn't support Ayotte? Just based on that statment alone I wouldn't trust that guy to check my pulse. Hmmm... One doc says the patient has a pulse one doc says he doesn't - maybe he ought to check it himself before he goes with the doc who says he doesn't. 

Once again - if we say it's a positive - then it's a positive - don't ask any questions. Rest assured we are right ("*The results are scientifically valid for me*"). Not only do we have a quantative standard we also add our own brand of harmonizing qualitative standards to make sure each and every positive remains a positive (for me!). 

From the report:

"There is some evidence that naturally-occurring (“endogenous”) EPO can undergo changes in storage that cause it to test positive for synthetic (“exogenous”) EPO, also called r-EPO (section 4.54, page 90). As a result, since 2005, labs have been required to perform an additional stability test on any EPO sample. "


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

safetyguy said:


> If he was a clean rider (and currently supporting a clean team) yes, I would expect him to openly talk about doping (i.e. come out against it). Am I to take it that you think Bobby J was a doper too? Just curious... And keep it in the context of his 3rd place TdF podium (and who was 1st and 2nd).


Of course he was a doper and part of the omerta. That's why he's working in cycling now, and he keeps his mouth shut, so he continues to work amongst the folks who were all dopers themselves or at least facilitators if they didn't ride professionally.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> "There is some evidence that naturally-occurring (“endogenous”) EPO can undergo changes in storage that cause it to test positive for synthetic (“exogenous”) EPO, also called r-EPO (section 4.54, page 90). As a result, since 2005, labs have been required to perform an additional stability test on any EPO sample. "


There is ZERO evidence to back this up. Nothing, no studies, nothing. If this was the case why did 6 samples of Armstrong turn to r-EPO and not every other rider?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> It seems to me even the WADA labs are not in agreement


*"I don't dispute their findings," Ayotte said. "If there's residual EPO after five years, it was properly identified.*

-Dr. Christiane Ayotte, Doping Control director at Canada's Institut National de la Recherché Scientifique.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> *"I don't dispute their findings," Ayotte said. "If there's residual EPO after five years, it was properly identified.*
> 
> -Dr. Christiane Ayotte, Doping Control director at Canada's Institut National de la Recherché Scientifique.


I believe she is contractually forbidden to disagree with other WADA labs... surprise...not... after her statements she had to say something to keep her job. Wonder if she still works there.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> There is ZERO evidence to back this up. Nothing, no studies, nothing. If this was the case why did 6 samples of Armstrong turn to r-EPO and not every other rider?


My memory is fading. Were every other rider's samples re-tested? Were the results made public?

JSR


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> I believe she is contractually forbidden to disagree with other WADA labs... surprise...not... after her statements she had to say something to keep her job. Wonder if she still works there.


You are inventing BS again. Her statements are from the SAME interview you quoted, it was not afterward.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

JSR said:


> My memory is fading. Were every other rider's samples re-tested? Were the results made public?
> 
> JSR


They tested almost all the samples. Some were tossed because of various issues. They also used a much higher standard for positive, there would have likely been more but for this. 

There were many positives and the results remained anonymous for a year until one rider, Armstrong, allowed the UCI to release his forms. From this the journalist was able to match with the results. No other rider allowed the UCI to release the forms so the only other riders that we know tested positive were Hambuger and Beltran because it was reported that they were tested after the prologue at the time and every sample from the prologue tested positive. 

Of course Hamburger and Beltran both tested positive for EPO again later in their careers


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> You are inventing BS again. Her statements are from the SAME interview you quoted, it was not afterward.


I didnt say it was afterward (as in days or months) - it was (obviously) during the same interview - she had to say something to not disagree with the LNDD (after she said all the other things)...


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> I didnt say it was afterward (as in days or months) - it was (obviously) during the same interview - she had to say something to not disagree with the LNDD (after she said all the other things)...


That makes no sense


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> Qeustion: What does anyone have to gain by re-writing tour history? Do you honestly believe that overturning that 7 win streak now would be better for cycling than letting it be? Do you not think that the negative publicity would damage the sport more than it would show that something was changing?
> 
> I'm really just curious here. Frankly, I believe Lance was as doped to the gills as everyone else in the peloton during his 7 wins, but I frankly just don't care. If both he and the field are doped, he still won on a level playing field. So what's the point of discussing the past?
> 
> Hell, Riis never dealt with this kind of crap. Basso didn't deal with this. Amazing what a polarizing figure Lance is.





Henry Porter said:


> The truth certainly does.


Fighting this battle for Lance for a long time!


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Chris-X said:


> Fighting this battle for Lance for a long time!


And yet, neither you, nor anyone else can tell me what is gained by this whole crusade...

And note post date of 2009. You must need a hobby.

Good job trolling. You get a gold star.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> And yet, neither you, nor anyone else can tell me what is gained by this whole crusade...
> 
> And note post date of 2009. You must need a hobby.
> 
> Good job trolling. You get a gold star.


I agree that he is kind of a nobody but hey!



Online Speech Bank: George W. Bush - 2004 State of the Union Address



To help children make right choices, they need good examples. Athletics play such an important role in our society, but, unfortunately, some in professional sports are not setting much of an example. The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports is dangerous, and it sends the wrong message -- that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character. So tonight I call on team owners, union representatives, coaches, and players to take the lead, to send the right signal, to get tough, and to get rid of steroids now


----------

