# French take LA hair



## WAZCO (Sep 16, 2004)

Read all about it. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=3992009


----------



## papisimo9807 (May 7, 2007)

Why would the most tested athlete in history be surprised by this?:aureola:


----------



## WAZCO (Sep 16, 2004)

papisimo9807 said:


> Why would the most tested athlete in history be surprised by this?:aureola:


Because I'm clueless about hairsamples in doping matters, or doping for all matters, I'm dying to know the result. I know the french are just trying to prove LA history w/ doping but how will this prove, if it shows positive, how recent the dope has been in his system? Can 1999 drugs still be in the hair?


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

Transparency. Lolz.


----------



## moonstation2000 (Sep 5, 2008)

I'm sure it is for the shrine they are planning to build in his honor...


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Tested for the 24th time but the 1st by a French agency.....

Should be interesting. Kind of funny (not really) the Mr. Bordry said the French athletes that they know are cheating should NOT be sanctioned but should just stop using.


----------



## UK rider (Aug 19, 2004)

voodoo doll?


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Note the way he chopped all his hair off, effectively destroying the B sample


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

Bianchigirl said:


> Note the way he chopped all his hair off, effectively destroying the B sample



Lucky for him it will grown back. Pretty sure since they took several samples, the B sample is accounted for.


----------



## parity (Feb 28, 2006)

Its so they grow a French Lance Armstrong clone from the DNA they obtain from the hair follicle. This is how the French plan to win the Tour de France in 2040 or prove that Lance doped because his clone couldn't win.


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

"With this week's test, France's anti-doping agency was not only looking for drug use but also to send a message: Armstrong should not expect any favorable treatment.

The agency's chief, Pierre Bordry, made that quite clear, saying Armstrong "*needs to know that he is like everyone else*."

So it gave him the full treatment. Two samples — A and B — were taken not only of urine, which is standard, but also of blood and hair."

So lets see if "everyone else" is subjected to the same # af tests and the same "haircut".

I'll put odds on NO.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

MerlinAma said:


> "With this week's test, France's anti-doping agency was not only looking for drug use but also to send a message: Armstrong should not expect any favorable treatment.
> 
> The agency's chief, Pierre Bordry, made that quite clear, saying Armstrong "*needs to know that he is like everyone else*."
> 
> ...


"The AFLD tested hair samples of 138 French soccer players, rugby players, track and field athletes and cyclists." 
How many times have the french anti doping staff tested Armstrong?


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

den bakker said:


> "The AFLD tested hair samples of 138 French soccer players, rugby players, track and field athletes and cyclists."
> How many times have the french anti doping staff tested Armstrong?


I don't care about "soccer players, rugby players, track and field athletes".

What I want to keep score on is Armstrong's # of tests as opposed to other pro team cyclists. 

Is he the first and only so far? How obvious would that be.


----------



## Rolando (Jan 13, 2005)

They want to accuse him of dyeing!


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

This kind of target testing is usually based on abnormal values and is a way of saying 'we know what you're up to'.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

I'm sure he's happy about getting so much tests, he can keep his good old _most tested athlete in history_™ thing going.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Bianchigirl said:


> This kind of target testing is usually based on abnormal values and is a way of saying 'we know what you're up to'.


- The guy has always been a target.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

He's obviously subjected to more testing as his 24th test was done with this hair thing etc while some others only had 5 tests all year.

What happens if Armstrong has too short hair to be plucked now? Fingernails?

It must be somewhat frustrating for Lance I'm sure, although he knows he'd be subjected to this.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

uzziefly said:


> He's obviously subjected to more testing as his 24th test was done with this hair thing etc while some others only had 5 tests all year.
> 
> What happens if Armstrong has too short hair to be plucked now? Fingernails?
> 
> It must be somewhat frustrating for Lance I'm sure, although he knows he'd be subjected to this.


armpit? or does he shave that, too?


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

iliveonnitro said:


> armpit? or does he shave that, too?


Man, plucking that out would suck a lot.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

iliveonnitro said:


> Man, plucking that out would suck a lot.


Careful there, the French doping agency might read these boards and get an idea. If they do, Lance Armstrong will curse you to hell!!


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

I don't think the French government has as money to pursue a legal issue if Armstrong takes them to court over a positive test result.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

PARIS (AFP) — A report has been compiled on the behaviour of American cycling legend Lance Armstrong during a recent out of competition drug test, the French Anti-doping Agency (AFLD) announced on Monday.

AFLD president Pierre Bordry revealed that he had sent the report to the International Cycling Union (UCI) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) on March 30. He did not reveal the report's contents.

The AFLD sent a sample-taker to test Armstrong after a training session at Saint-Jean-Cap-Ferrat on the Cote d'Azur on March 17. The official took a sample of urine, blood and other bodily matter.

According to the AFLD, the sample-taker warned Armstrong that he would compile a report about his attitude.

"The UCI does not have jurisdiction to judge this case," said UCI press officer Enrico Carpani, referring to articles nine and 13 of the organisation's anti-doping legislation.

"As it concerns a test carried out by a national agency that happened outside of competition, it's the agency which has the authority."

The AFLD will await a response from the UCI before deciding whether or not Armstrong's behaviour constitutes an infringement of the world anti-doping code.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

bigpinkt said:


> PARIS (AFP) — A report has been compiled on the behaviour of American cycling legend Lance Armstrong during a recent out of competition drug test, the French Anti-doping Agency (AFLD) announced on Monday.
> 
> AFLD president Pierre Bordry revealed that he had sent the report to the International Cycling Union (UCI) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) on March 30. He did not reveal the report's contents.
> 
> ...




That's insane! It must have been a pretty serious violation if Armstrong did not comply with the doping tests. I mean, it's pretty well known that Armstrong doesn't like the testing agencies and he's always claiming that they are biased and out to get him.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

rook said:


> That's insane! It must have been a pretty serious violation if Armstrong did not comply with the doping tests. I mean, it's pretty well known that Armstrong doesn't like the testing agencies and he's always claiming that they are biased and out to get him.


He complied, but he shaved after they took it. Apparently, he was acting weird.

This has come up a few times in the last day. Very strange... Will Rome fall?


----------



## The Moontrane (Nov 28, 2005)

iliveonnitro said:


> He complied, but he shaved after they took it. Apparently, he was acting weird.
> 
> This has come up a few times in the last day. Very strange... Will Rome fall?


Until they get a positive, all they can do is write him a letter telling him how angry they are.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

They are reporting Armstrong slammed the door in the tester face and made him wait 1/2 hour
http://www.20minutes.fr/article/318...g-lors-d-un-controle-declenche-un-rapport.php


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

bigpinkt said:


> They are reporting Armstrong slammed the door in the tester face and made him wait 1/2 hour
> http://www.20minutes.fr/article/318...g-lors-d-un-controle-declenche-un-rapport.php



That's pretty rude. I'm sure Armstrong has advisers that he can call to find out about the latest drug tests and all that, but he really ought to try to comply with the rules. I mean, I'm sure Armstrong is aware of the standard blood and urine tests. He has said, after all, that he has the best anti-doping program advisors in the world. So he knows these tests inside and out. If he was asked to provide a hair sample, and then he locks the tester out of the house so that he can shave off all his hair, then that right there is evading a test.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

rook said:


> That's pretty rude. I'm sure Armstrong has advisers that he can call to find out about the latest drug tests and all that, but he really ought to try to comply with the rules. I mean, I'm sure Armstrong is aware of the standard blood and urine tests. He has said, after all, that he has the best anti-doping program advisors in the world. So he knows these tests inside and out. If he was asked to provide a hair sample, and then he locks the tester out of the house so that he can shave off all his hair, then that right there is evading a test.


When the tester comes to the door they shut the door and Johann calls Pat McQuaid (nice to know he has him on speed dial) supposedly to ask if the AFLD is allowed to test but most likely to ask "What happend to our advanced notice???? We gave you $500,000 we expect some service!!!". 

Lance went to take a shower while the tester stood outside and called his superiors to tell them something was up. The rules are clear that the athlete has to been within sight of the tester from the moment they present themself. They are not allowed to disappear for a 1/2 hour, plenty of time to get your values back to normal or take an Epi shot.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> The rules are clear that the athlete has to been within sight of the tester from the moment they present themself. They are not allowed to disappear for a 1/2 hour, plenty of time to get your values back to normal or take an Epi shot.


Yeah, I don't understand it. Seems like it's a clear violation unless the tester gave him the go ahead to disappear for awhile.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> When the tester comes to the door they shut the door and Johann calls Pat McQuaid (nice to know he has him on speed dial) supposedly to ask if the AFLD is allowed to test but most likely to ask "What happend to our advanced notice???? We gave you $500,000 we expect some service!!!".
> 
> Lance went to take a shower while the tester stood outside and called his superiors to tell them something was up. The rules are clear that the athlete has to been within sight of the tester from the moment they present themself. They are not allowed to disappear for a 1/2 hour, plenty of time to get your values back to normal or take an Epi shot.


Even if Lance did nothing but watch TV for the half hour, it is a serious breach of the rules to go missing like this before the test. Nothing will become of this - however with the MA interview, it all helps in swaying public opinion. If people are willing to read that is.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Digger28 said:


> Even if Lance did nothing but watch TV for the half hour, it is a serious breach of the rules to go missing like this before the test. Nothing will become of this - however with the MA interview, it all helps in swaying public opinion. If people are willing to read that is.


I suspect his majesty is getting annoyed, he's probably had more OOC tests in the past few months since his return than he had in his entire previous professional career.

(And I'm only exaggerating slightly.)


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Lance's response:
'This is just another example of the improper behaviour by the French laboratory and the French anti-doping organisations,' added Armstrong.

And the fans actually believe this bullsh**.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

According to the articles on FOX, Velosnooze, and Cyclingsnooze - Armstrong was given the Ok by the individual to take a shower and that same person checked the box on his forms stating LA DID NOT seem squirely about being tested....

- I don't neccessarily believe anyone either way, so believe what/who you want...


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

DMFT said:


> According to the articles on FOX, Velosnooze, and Cyclingsnooze - Armstrong was given the Ok by the individual to take a shower and that same person checked the box on his forms stating LA DID NOT seem squirely about being tested....
> 
> - I don't neccessarily believe anyone either way, so believe what/who you want...


To clarify, all the articles are giving Armstrong's account of the incident, nothing more.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

SilasCL said:


> To clarify, all the articles are giving Armstrong's account of the incident, nothing more.



I read the article on ESPN last night thinking that the French showed up and Lance was "victimized", but you are right. Everything in the articles depict this strange situation from Armstrong's point of view. I wonder why they don't, at least, interview the other side (ie, testing agent or agency) to get a more fair balanced viewpoint.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Lance is claiming the testers gave him permission to take a shower. Well if they did, which I don't believe for a second they did, they should lose their jobs, because it contravenes a major law of drug testing. Think about it, if that was the case, they may as well have given him forewarning. Hold on, that actually sounds familiar in the case of Lance.


----------



## Balderick (Jul 11, 2006)

uzziefly said:


> He's obviously subjected to more testing as his 24th test was done with this hair thing etc while some others only had 5 tests all year.
> 
> What happens if Armstrong has too short hair to be plucked now? Fingernails?
> 
> It must be somewhat frustrating for Lance I'm sure, although he knows he'd be subjected to this.


Does he shave downstairs too? The short and curlies might be a good source of DNA...


----------



## Balderick (Jul 11, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> Lance is claiming the testers gave him permission to take a shower. _Well if they did, which I don't believe for a second they did_


On what basis do you express that belief? Your reading of press reports - which may not be unbiased - or personal observation.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Balderick said:


> On what basis do you express that belief? Your reading of press reports - which may not be unbiased - or personal observation.


Because by allowing him take a shower, thus allowing him out of their sight, it defeats the purpose of a surprise check in the first place.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Digger28 said:


> Because by allowing him take a shower, it defeats the purpose of a surprise check in the first place.



Yeah, you are right. Hypothetically though, is it even possible for someone to change a test result if they were taking drugs? Seems not as likely though. For example, let's say an athlete were on performance-enhancing drugs (steroids, EPO, whatever). Let's say then that he has a half an hour to fake his blood test results so that they don't show up positive for any drugs in his system. If he's truly in the shower, how can he fake his results? And is it even possible to do this given 30 minutes advance warning???


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

rook said:


> Yeah, you are right. Hypothetically though, is it even possible for someone to change a test result if they were taking drugs? Seems not as likely though. For example, let's say an athlete were on performance-enhancing drugs (steroids, EPO, whatever). Let's say then that he has a half an hour to fake his blood test results so that they don't show up positive for any drugs in his system. If he's truly in the shower, how can he fake his results? And is it even possible to do this given 30 minutes advance warning???



"To avoid detection of EPO in the event of a surprise test during a race, Voet would prepare IV bags of saline solution, wrap them in towels and hide them under the cyclists' beds. If hit with an unexpected test, a cyclist had just enough time to suspend the IV bag from a bicycle spoke bent into the shape of an S and hooked over a door, attach a tube to the bag and put the IV needle into a vein in his arm. In 20 minutes the saline solution would bring his hematocrit value (the ratio of red blood cell volume to total blood volume) below the legal limit of 50%."

And this is only for EPO. Testosterone values/ratios can also be evened out in such a short period of time.
From the time the testers showed up, Lance should not have been out of their sight. Full stop.


----------



## BuenosAires (Apr 3, 2004)

Digger28 said:


> "To avoid detection of EPO in the event of a surprise test during a race, Voet would prepare IV bags of saline solution, wrap them in towels and hide them under the cyclists' beds. If hit with an unexpected test, a cyclist had just enough time to suspend the IV bag from a bicycle spoke bent into the shape of an S and hooked over a door, attach a tube to the bag and put the IV needle into a vein in his arm. In 20 minutes the saline solution would bring his hematocrit value (the ratio of red blood cell volume to total blood volume) below the legal limit of 50%."
> 
> And this is only for EPO. Testosterone values/ratios can also be evened out in such a short period of time.
> From the time the testers showed up, Lance should not have been out of their sight. Full stop.


Nice try, but i'm sure you know that there is a test for EPO now. Hematocrit levels don't matter. And what about the hair test? No way around that one.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

BuenosAires said:


> Nice try, but i'm sure you know that there is a test for EPO now. Hematocrit levels don't matter. And what about the hair test? No way around that one.


EPO is out of your system in 3-5 days. If you sprinkle some detergent into your sample it will be negative even if you took EPO that day. Hct does matter, there is still the 50% limit. You also have the Off Score and T ratio that can be normalized in that 1/2 hour.

The hair test is not usable for a sanction by WADA/UCI but it could result in criminal charges in France.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

BuenosAires said:


> Nice try, but i'm sure you know that there is a test for EPO now. Hematocrit levels don't matter. And what about the hair test? No way around that one.


I was asked a generic question as to why people would wait half an hour in the 'shower' before taking a test. Off the top off my head I gave this example. Michael Ashenden gives other examples of what athletes can do in the post that Bigpinkt has just posted on another thread on MA.
Another example from years ago was people not being supervised while urinating, then putting their fingers up their anus, and putting the tip of their fingers in the tube, in the hope that the bacteria contaminated the sample.

From Dwain Chambers' book:
By the time I returned to England in April, however, the stomach cramps had caused me to miss three meetings. I was worried, but I continued with the programme.
I was sat at home massaging The Cream, which is the drugs masking agent, into my arms when the knock on the door came. 

The Cream leaves a white residue, taking about an hour to disappear and smells a little bit like burnt almonds. I don’t remember a feeling of panic as I calmly walked to the door, but the residue on my arms was clearly visible as I was wearing a sleeveless vest top.
I opened the door and an official-looking man spoke His words chilled me to the bone. We walked into the lounge; the tube of THG lay on top of the television and the faint smell of almonds permeated the air.
He was a dour man, not too talkative and he did not leave my side until I had peed into his canister. (Wasn't let take a shower funnily enough)

Dwain was on EPO, HGH and other substances. He passed the test. So does this not show you how much can be achieved in such a short period.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Digger28 said:


> "To avoid detection of EPO in the event of a surprise test during a race, Voet would prepare IV bags of saline solution, wrap them in towels and hide them under the cyclists' beds. If hit with an unexpected test, a cyclist had just enough time to suspend the IV bag from a bicycle spoke bent into the shape of an S and hooked over a door, attach a tube to the bag and put the IV needle into a vein in his arm. In 20 minutes the saline solution would bring his hematocrit value (the ratio of red blood cell volume to total blood volume) below the legal limit of 50%."
> 
> And this is only for EPO. Testosterone values/ratios can also be evened out in such a short period of time.
> From the time the testers showed up, Lance should not have been out of their sight. Full stop.




Oh wow. I had no idea you could alter a test and cheat like that. I guess then that if Armstrong, or any athlete, got advanced notice of a test they could always prepare their blood levels for it and test clean even when they are fully doped up with EPO. Now, it makes Armstrong's $500,000 donation to the UCI president very suspicious. That's quite unethical.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> EPO is out of your system in 3-5 days. If you sprinkle some detergent into your sample it will be negative even if you took EPO that day. Hct does matter, there is still the 50% limit. You also have the Off Score and T ratio that can be normalized in that 1/2 hour.
> 
> The hair test is not usable for a sanction by WADA/UCI but it could result in criminal charges in France.



- Nice try again, they can detect soaps/detergent in urine samples too. Can they sanction them for that, I don't know. 

But the hair test DOESN'T lie regardless of saline or whatever and again, LA came up clean. 24 times.
Man that has to chap the haters arse's. Oh the humanity.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

DMFT said:


> - Nice try again, they can detect soaps/detergent in urine samples too.


Then how did Leogrande use it to avoid a positive test last year? The only thing that got him was he did not keep his mouth shut and camera off.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

DMFT said:


> - Nice try again, they can detect soaps/detergent in urine samples too. Can they sanction them for that, I don't know.


Can you back this up with a link? Never heard that they can test for it, in fact the opposite.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/?id=2006/epo_protease


> Both the UCLA and Swiss laboratories say that the search for the protease is not simple because the enzyme breaks down very quickly, making detection difficult. Until the scientists can come up with a way to definitively identify the masking agent, if it exists, it is unlikely that riders can be sanctioned as a result of a blank EPO test. There are some medical conditions that can result in the lack of EPO production naturally, so it is possible that the blank results are not the result of an attempt to cheat the test. A blank test can also be the result of a lab error, so prosecution of an athlete over a blank test would be difficult.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/s...ta1&adxnnlx=1219071851-hft9dnOhy06EKgqPyYJyTQ


> Delanghe said one of the latest ploys was to slip a grain of a powdered laundry detergent that contains brightening agents — enzymes that break down proteins — into a urine sample. The detergent will destroy EPO and human growth hormone in the urine. Yesalis said that the drug testing story, was “like the story of the Dutch boy who puts his finger in a hole in the dike, but then another hole pops up.”


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/ticker/tickerhub.html?item=1902495

*Armstrong violated doping rules*
Eurosport | Thu, Apr 9, 12:25 
Lance Armstrong violated anti-doping rules during a random test in Southern France, according to the French Anti-Doping Agency


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Digger28 said:


> http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/ticker/tickerhub.html?item=1902495
> 
> *Armstrong violated doping rules*
> Eurosport | Thu, Apr 9, 12:25
> Lance Armstrong violated anti-doping rules during a random test in Southern France, according to the French Anti-Doping Agency



WOW! If I'm not mistaken, that is an automatic suspension. He is out for the rest of the year.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

rook said:


> WOW! If I'm not mistaken, that is an automatic suspension. He is out for the rest of the year.


So it's going to come down to whether the tester gave Armstrong permission to leave his presence or not. I'm going to bet Bruyneel heard the guy tell Armstrong it was alright to go take a shower 

But if what Armstrong has said is true, and the tester has written on a form somewhere that there were no irregularities or problems than this is an open and shut case in Armstrong's favor.

Could the tester have screwed up and is now trying to cover his *ss? I mean it seems like rule #1 of surprise testing, don't let the athlete out of your sight.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

But even if this violation is accepted as that, wouldn't it be more like the violations that Michael Rasmussen commited a couple of years ago?
Thus leading us to the three strikes and you're out principle, with this being strike 1?


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

SilasCL said:


> Can you back this up with a link? Never heard that they can test for it, in fact the opposite.
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/?id=2006/epo_protease
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/s...ta1&adxnnlx=1219071851-hft9dnOhy06EKgqPyYJyTQ



- Never said they can "test" for it.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

rook said:


> WOW! If I'm not mistaken, that is an automatic suspension. He is out for the rest of the year.


I *think* he could only be prevented from racing in France. I could be mistaken though.
I guess everyone will just have to wait and see......


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

DMFT said:


> - Never said they can "test" for it.


Sorry, wrong wording, you said they can 'detect' it. My first source contradicts that, as there is the slim possibility of a sample with no EPO, even if it hasn't been tampered with.

Regardless, even if they could 'detect' it, they can't sanction on that basis.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

No worries Silas, prob. bad wording on my part too.... I have read that article before and others along the same lines. It is pretty obvious what the Athlete is doing by cleaning their samples. It's just a question of how the testers can prove it.

To me, I *think* if a sample comes back with weird enzymes and NO Proteins in it at all it should be pretty obvious what's taken place. It's up to the UCI's & WADA's of the world to say ENOUGH! - I wish it were the case and really that simple.

One of those articles even mentions "lab error" specifically, that always makes me wonder too. I don't think the tests and or samples (when it comes to handling) are 100% infallable by a long shot. Just my opinion, nothing else.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

*What AFLD say.....*

"Mr Armstrong, despite being repeatedly warned by the examiner, did not meet the obligation to remain under direct and permanent observation." 

It makes no sense whatsoever to go to the trouble of a surprise test, and then let the athlete out of sight for 30 mins. So on this, as per usual, Lance's version of the story is a crock of bs.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

DMFT said:


> To me, I *think* if a sample comes back with weird enzymes and NO Proteins in it at all it should be pretty obvious what's taken place.


Are you referring to the USPS samples from the 2001 Tour? ..... Because this is exactly what was "found"....or not found, in them. The testers said they were so clean they were like that of a baby.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Are you referring to the USPS samples from the 2001 Tour? ..... Because this is exactly what was "found"....or not found, in them. The testers said they were so clean they were like that of a baby.


- Even babies have Protein in them. Bad analogy.
Those could be some/one of what sounds like many examples of lab findings. Those findings along with any other findings according to that cut/pasted article Silas posted also states "lab error" as a possibility.

It is a "possibility" just like it is possible USPS right along with everyother Atlete in any sport cheated the test & their respective sport.

NOTHING supprises or shocks me in any "sport" anymore. That's entertainment for ya I guess.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Digger28 said:


> "Mr Armstrong, despite being repeatedly warned by the examiner, did not meet the obligation to remain under direct and permanent observation."
> 
> It makes no sense whatsoever to go to the trouble of a surprise test, and then let the athlete out of sight for 30 mins. So on this, as per usual, Lance's version of the story is a crock of bs.




In the report the tester also told Armstrong that he would document his irregular behavior, which I assume is Armstrong's unwillingness to remain within sight of the tester, to the doping agency. Armstrong didn't deny these claims. And the more one hears about it, the more this "I was given permission to take a shower" sounds less and less credible. Why would a tester show up for a surprise test and let the athlete go about other activities that the tester cannot see?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

rook said:


> In the report the tester also told Armstrong that he would document his irregular behavior, which I assume is Armstrong's unwillingness to remain within sight of the tester, to the doping agency. Armstrong didn't deny these claims. And the more one hears about it, the more this "I was given permission to take a shower" sounds less and less credible. Why would a tester show up for a surprise test and let the athlete go about other activities that the tester cannot see?


Didn't Armstrong say in his press release that the tester said on the forms there were no irregularities?

On the face of it it simply doesn't make sense for a surprise tester to let the athlete disappear for 20 or 30 minutes but you never know?


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Didn't Armstrong say in his press release that the tester said on the forms there were no irregularities?
> 
> On the face of it it simply doesn't make sense for a surprise tester to let the athlete disappear for 20 or 30 minutes but you never know?


"Operator error" is what it's called DB, we are only human ya know and we all make mistakes.  

- I'm just grabbin' the popcorn and gonna sit back and watch this one unfold.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Didn't Armstrong say in his press release that the tester said on the forms there were no irregularities?
> 
> On the face of it it simply doesn't make sense for a surprise tester to let the athlete disappear for 20 or 30 minutes but you never know?




If you were to only take the athletes word for it, then you would have to believe that Rasmussen was in Mexico (or whatever country he said), when his passports show that he was in Italy when he was a no-show for his drug test.

If you were to completely accept Armstrong's "shower" excuse and that he was pardoned by the all-of-the sudden nice French guy, then we should just go ahead and ignore what any other party other than Armstrong says. Yeah, true American justice. Damn Frenchies.


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

If anything you have to admit Lance has a great sense of humor

From his twitter on Thursday.
"Just took a shower. Got it down under 10 mins. Whew."


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Jason1500 said:


> If anything you have to admit Lance has a great sense of humor
> 
> From his twitter on Thursday.
> "Just took a shower. Got it down under 10 mins. Whew."


Not humour, arrogance.


----------



## ProRoad (Oct 13, 2008)

get a life you haters. OMG what am I doing visiting this forum.....


----------



## lancezneighbor (May 4, 2002)

How do I change my username?


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> Not humour, arrogance.



I think Lance needs to understand that their is a growing number of cycling fans that are tiring of his brash attitude. He should also not expect to get special treatment just because he is Lance Armstrong. All riders have to go throw the rigors of testing, both in and out-of-competition. He is no different.


----------

