Did he cheat?

[Anebriated]

Tour Chief Says Armstrong Owes Explanation
By ANGELA DOLAND, Associated Press Writer

5 hours ago

PARIS - The director of the Tour de France claims Lance Armstrong has "fooled" the sports world and that the seven-time champion owes fans an explanation over new allegations he used a performance-boosting drug.

Tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc's comments appeared in the French sports daily L'Equipe on Wednesday, a day after the newspaper reported that six urine samples provided by Armstrong during the '99 Tour tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO.

"For the first time _ and these are no longer rumors, or insinuations, these are proven scientific facts _ someone has shown me that in 1999, Armstrong had a banned substance called EPO in his body," Leblanc told L'Equipe.

"The ball is now in his court. Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the tour. Today, what L'Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled."

On Tuesday, Leblanc called the latest accusations against Armstrong shocking and troubling.

Armstrong, a frequent target of L'Equipe, vehemently denied the allegations Tuesday, calling the article "tabloid journalism."

"I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs," he said on his Web site.

Armstrong, who retired from professional cycling after winning the Tour a month ago, was not immediately available for comment regarding Leblanc's latest remarks.

EPO, formally known as erythropoietin, was on the list of banned substances at the time Armstrong won the first of his seven Tour's, but there was no effective test then to detect it.

The allegations surfaced six years later because EPO tests on the 1999 samples were carried out only last year _ when scientists at a lab outside Paris used them for research to perfect EPO testing. The national anti-doping laboratory in Chatenay-Malabry said it promised to hand its finding to the World Anti-Doping Agency, provided it was never used to penalize riders.

Five-time cycling champion Miguel Indurain said he couldn't understand why scientists would use samples from the 1999 Tour for their tests.

"That seems bizarre, and I don't know who would have the authorization to do it," he told L'Equipe. "I don't even know if it's legal to keep these samples."

L'Equipe's investigation was based on the second set of two samples used in doping tests. The first set were used in 1999 for analysis at the time. Without those samples, any disciplinary action against Armstrong would be impossible, French Sports Minister Jean-Francois Lamour said.

Lamour said he had doubts about L'Equipe's report because he had not seen the originals of some of the documents that appeared in the paper.

"I do not confirm it," he told RTL radio. But he added: "If what L'Equipe says is true, I can tell you that it's a serious blow for cycling."

The International Cycling Union did not begin using a urine test for EPO until 2001, though it was banned in 1990. For years, it had been impossible to detect the drug, which builds endurance by boosting the production of oxygen-rich red blood cells.

Jacques de Ceaurriz, the head of France's anti-doping laboratory, which developed the EPO urine test, told Europe-1 radio that at least 15 urine samples from the 1999 Tour had tested positive for EPO.

Separately, the lab said it could not confirm that the positive results were Armstrong's. It noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only a six-digit number to identify the rider, and could not be matched with the name of any one cyclist.

However, L'Equipe said it was able to make the match.

On one side of a page Tuesday, it showed what it claimed were the results of EPO tests from anonymous riders used for lab research. On the other, it showed Armstrong's medical certificates, signed by doctors and riders after doping tests _ and bearing the same identifying number printed on the results.

L'Equipe is owned by the Amaury Group whose subsidiary, Amaury Sport Organization, organizes the Tour de France and other sporting events. The paper often questioned Armstrong's clean record and frequently took jabs at him _ portraying him as too arrogant, too corporate and too good to be real.

"Never to such an extent, probably, has the departure of a champion been welcomed with such widespread relief," the paper griped the day after Armstrong won his seventh straight Tour win and retired from cycling.

Leblanc suggested that in the future, urine samples could be stashed away for future testing as detection methods improve _ another possible weapon in the fight against doping.

"We're so tired of doping that all means are good as long as they are morally acceptable," he told L'Equipe.


http://www.comcast.net/sports/index.jsp?cat=SPORTS&fn=/2005/08/24/206967.html

[Bobmuhthol]

I say yes.

[Anebriated]

I think this guy needs to get off of Armstrong's nuts. There is no connection directly to Lance as the samples were not marked. The French just cant stand to see Americans beat them consitantly at their own event.

[Sean of the Thread]

He is mad because Lance pwns the Tour de Lance. I saw a discovery channel show about Lance recently and he was test over 300 TIMES a year... stupid.

He did make a statement regarding this accusation which I heard on the radio yesterday and it was "I'll simply restate that I have never taken a performance enhancing drug"

[Celephais]

I didn't even read the post before I voted... Penguins are awesome, March of the Penguins was fantastic, I can't wait till it comes out on DVD.

Not sure what that has to do with cheating but I'm all for penguin threads.

[Warriorbird]

They used samples that were like... six years old... surely they couldn't have been doctored with by bitter people....surely.

[Anebriated]

6 year old UNMARKED samples.

[DeV]

The man came back from a bout with cancer and still kicked major ass.

Unmarked samples do not leave me convinced.

[AnticorRifling]

Did he agree to have the samples kept that long?

Did he agree to let his medical information be made public from something that was supposed to be random and secret?

I'm going to say not guilty on this one and the newspaper needs the shit sued out of it for violating his privacy and trashing his name.

[hectomaner]

<3 Penguins!!!!

[Viridian]

Obviously it's false, who the hell tests Unmarked samples five years old? There's always someone wanting to discredit another when they excel in a field.

[ElanthianSiren]

Penguins rule all.

[Hulkein]

Wouldn't surprise me if he did.

Cycling sucks so I don't care either way.

[Chadj]

Needless to say, Chilly the Penguin is my hero. And so penguins win the vote.

Clearly.

[Bobmuhthol]

A lot of the people in this thread remind me of New Yorkers talking about Jason Giambi.

[Gan]

I dont think he cheated. Some points of interest I found in the article.

1. L'Equipe's investigation was based on the second set of two samples used in doping tests. The first set were used in 1999 for analysis at the time. Without those samples, any disciplinary action against Armstrong would be impossible, French Sports Minister Jean-Francois Lamour said.

2. Lamour said he had doubts about L'Equipe's report because he had not seen the originals of some of the documents that appeared in the paper.

3. Jacques de Ceaurriz, the head of France's anti-doping laboratory, which developed the EPO urine test, told Europe-1 radio that at least 15 urine samples from the 1999 Tour had tested positive for EPO.

4. Separately, the lab said it could not confirm that the positive results were Armstrong's. It noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only a six-digit number to identify the rider, and could not be matched with the name of any one cyclist.

5. However, L'Equipe said it was able to make the match.

6. On one side of a page Tuesday, it showed what it claimed were the results of EPO tests from anonymous riders used for lab research. On the other, it showed Armstrong's medical certificates, signed by doctors and riders after doping tests _ and bearing the same identifying number printed on the results.

And the funniest:

7. L'Equipe is owned by the Amaury Group whose subsidiary, Amaury Sport Organization, organizes the Tour de France and other sporting events. The paper often questioned Armstrong's clean record and frequently took jabs at him _ portraying him as too arrogant, too corporate and too good to be real.

The French calling American's arrogant. Pot meet kettle. :lol:

[xtc]

Surprise, surprise Lance used steroids, what a shocker. Of course he use steroids, the tour de France is filled with steroids. This isn't surprising. I think you would have to be naive to think Armstrong doesn't use steroids.

[peam]

Originally posted by Elrodin
I think this guy needs to get off of Armstrong's nut.

Fixed that for you.

[Anebriated]

I was waiting to see how long it took someone to make a comment about that peam.

[Alfster]

Yes, Lance has used steroids for years. Back in 2000, they caught his trainers leaving his house to throw away garbage 100 miles away. The garbage happened to contain old needles and known steroids.

Then again, the entire sport is using them, so it's almost more of a level playing ground.

[Warriorbird]

"A lot of the people in this thread remind me of New Yorkers talking about Jason Giambi. "

Pff. New Yorkers are better than French people.

[AnticorRifling]

I'm not going to lie if I could get a hold of some clean primo I'd do it. Hell yes I would.

[longshot]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
A lot of the people in this thread remind me of New Yorkers talking about Jason Giambi.

So true.

I think he cheated.

[Doyle Hargraves]

If he didn't cheat, then France looks stupid.

If he did cheat, France still looks stupid.

Either way France looks stupid.

[Sean of the Thread]

:whistle:

[Edited on 8-25-2005 by Xyelin]

Originally posted by peam

Originally posted by Elrodin
I think this guy needs to get off of Armstrong's nut.

Fixed that for you.
I laughed so hard at that one I cried a bit peam...
You're a mean bastard.

[Killer Kitten]

Lance Armstrong...

Oh yeah. He's that guy who got famous and dumped the mother of his children for some trophy girlfriend.

[Snapp]

Originally posted by Killer Kitten
Lance Armstrong...

Oh yeah. He's that guy who got famous and dumped the mother of his children for some trophy girlfriend.
Hey! Don't talk about my Sheryl like that!

:heart: Sheryl Crow :heart:

[Drew]

Originally posted by peam

Originally posted by Elrodin
I think this guy needs to get off of Armstrong's nut.

Fixed that for you.


Well done Peam :lol:



And no I don't think he cheated, the French have sour grapes and I'm not talking about wine.

[Janarth]

Giambi is definitely juicing again. I see him occasionally at Dorians :) he's twice as large as during preseason.

[xtc]

The President of The Montreal Anti-Doping agency said it isn't possible to add EPO to a blood sample once taken from a person.

Lance is guilty, nationalism aside, face it.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
The President of The Montreal Anti-Doping agency said it isn't possible to add EPO to a blood sample once taken from a person.Yes, a demoralizing blow...

...or it would be, if we weren't talking about URINE SAMPLES.

[Anebriated]

Again, unmarked urine samples. I dont see how you can blame something for a sample that cannot be traced back to the source.

[Viridian]

Originally posted by Doyle Hargraves
If he didn't cheat, then France looks stupid.

If he did cheat, France still looks stupid.

Either way France looks stupid.

And in the end....isn't that what we all want anyway?

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by xtc
The President of The Montreal Anti-Doping agency said it isn't possible to add EPO to a blood sample once taken from a person.Yes, a demoralizing blow...

...or it would be, if we weren't talking about URINE SAMPLES.

Sorry I meant urine samples

[xtc]

Originally posted by Elrodin
Again, unmarked urine samples. I dont see how you can blame something for a sample that cannot be traced back to the source.

They aren't unmarked, each is marked with a number that relates to a specific cyclist.

The magazines stands by their story and claim they can show that the urine is Armstrong's. A simple DNA test would clear up any doubt. I wonder if Armstrong will volunteer a sample to clear his "good" name....cough cough



[Edited on 8-25-2005 by xtc]

[Latrinsorm]

Correction accepted.

There's human DNA in urine??

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Correction accepted.

There's human DNA in urine??

yep, question number 3

http://www.dnacenter.com/forensics-faq.html#3

[DeV]

Originally posted by xtc
The magazines stands by their story and claim they can show that the urine is Armstrong's. It'd be nice if they validated the claim first and then made the accusation.

[Anebriated]

They aren't unmarked, each is marked with a number that relates to a specific cyclist.

From the article:


Separately, the lab said it could not confirm that the positive results were Armstrong's. It noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only a six-digit number to identify the rider, and could not be matched with the name of any one cyclist.

[Drew]

xtc, did you believe all the papers earlier spurious claims too? I mean, this paper has made this claim 10 different times, ten different ways and each time it's turned out to be untrue (Lance sued them and also a similar book in France and won a judgement against them).

[xtc]

Originally posted by Elrodin

They aren't unmarked, each is marked with a number that relates to a specific cyclist.

From the article:


Separately, the lab said it could not confirm that the positive results were Armstrong's. It noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only a six-digit number to identify the rider, and could not be matched with the name of any one cyclist.

You forget this line from the article:

However, L'Equipe said it was able to make the match.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Drew
xtc, did you believe all the papers earlier spurious claims too? I mean, this paper has made this claim 10 different times, ten different ways and each time it's turned out to be untrue (Lance sued them and also a similar book in France and won a judgement against them).

Armstrong is back peddling first he said he was going to sue, now he says he decided not to invest that much money and time into it. Why not?

Lance can clear this up very quickly by providing a DNA sample but he won't do it because he is guilty.

You people are naive to believe the man has won the Tour de France, what? 7 times? since he beat Cancer but didn't win a single one before. Sports is filled with Steroids and blood doping. Every Olympic winner of the 100 metres in the past 25 years has been using steroids.

[xtc]

Lets not forget Lance's association with well known doping doctor Michele Ferrari.

[Anebriated]

I see your:


However, L'Equipe said it was able to make the match.

and raise you a:


Lamour said he had doubts about L'Equipe's report because he had not seen the originals of some of the documents that appeared in the paper.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Elrodin
I see your:


However, L'Equipe said it was able to make the match.

and raise you a:


Lamour said he had doubts about L'Equipe's report because he had not seen the originals of some of the documents that appeared in the paper.

Let Lance take a DNA test and end the rumours then?

It will never happen, why? The Man is guilty.



[Edited on 8-25-2005 by xtc]

[fiendwish]

Did he cheat? Probably. Now who're we talking about?

The French used to be so dreamy and romantic. What happened to them?

[Killer Kitten]

Originally posted by Snapp

Originally posted by Killer Kitten
Lance Armstrong...

Oh yeah. He's that guy who got famous and dumped the mother of his children for some trophy girlfriend.
Hey! Don't talk about my Sheryl like that!

:heart: Sheryl Crow :heart:

She slept with a married man, who subsequently dumped his wife and small children for her. Sheryl and Lance deserve each other, and his ex wife deserves better.

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Killer Kitten

Originally posted by Snapp

Originally posted by Killer Kitten
Lance Armstrong...

Oh yeah. He's that guy who got famous and dumped the mother of his children for some trophy girlfriend.
Hey! Don't talk about my Sheryl like that!

:heart: Sheryl Crow :heart:

She slept with a married man, who subsequently dumped his wife and small children for her. Sheryl and Lance deserve each other, and his ex wife deserves better.

There must have been a good reason for him to cheat on his wife.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
You people are naive to believe the man has won the Tour de France, what? 7 times? since he beat Cancer but didn't win a single one before.Yeah, everyone knows having cancer is no big deal. Nobody changes AT ALL after having it. Do you actually read what you post?
Armstrong is back peddling first he said he was going to sue, now he says he decided not to invest that much money and time into it. Why not? My bet: Lance flies off the handle and after getting his head clear decides it's not worth the trouble to dignify wild allegations that nobody believes with a response of any kind.

Kinda like if I were to say "xtc you're using heroin, let me take blood from you to prove you aren't", or the claims KK is making.

[Heshinar]

Might want to note that the samples are A and B. The A no longer exists and was originally found to be negative for EPO.

Also note that back shortly after his cancer the French tried to get his Chemotherapy classified as Performance Enhancing as well.

Did he cheat? No. Urine samples that are 6 years old? Do we have long term studies showing that urine may or may not break down or hold up over time under any conditions? Are the french eating yellow snow?

[Killer Kitten]

Originally posted by Yswithe

There must have been a good reason for him to cheat on his wife.

What would be a good reason to cheat on one's spouse?

To stay on topic... the guy cheated on his wife, odds are he probably cheated in the race. A cheater is a cheater. But it was years ago, who besides a bunch of idiots looking to sell papers gives a shit?

[xtc]

Originally posted by Heshinar
Might want to note that the samples are A and B. The A no longer exists and was originally found to be negative for EPO.

Also note that back shortly after his cancer the French tried to get his Chemotherapy classified as Performance Enhancing as well.

Did he cheat? No. Urine samples that are 6 years old? Do we have long term studies showing that urine may or may not break down or hold up over time under any conditions? Are the french eating yellow snow?

In 1999 the ability to test for EPO was limited, they now have greater ability which is why they recently did testing on over 40 urine samples from 1999.

A Sample or B sample it makes no difference.

EPO can breakdown over years and no longer be evident in the blood, however EPO can not be added to a sample after.

The Tour de France sent over 40 samples to a world reknown lab for testing. The lab only had a number assigned to each sample to identify it. Only the Tour de France has a list of which number was assigned to which cyclist. The testing was done in accordance with IOC standards and the whole process was approved by the IOC.

The bottom line is Lance's urine sample tested positive for EPO. The test was done by a world reknown lab following IOC standards. The sample can't be laced with EPO after it has been given.


Lance is guilty, I spent an hour last night watching him field softball questions on CNN.

[Warriorbird]

And in a world as fraught as high stakes cycling... with the French being as bitter as they are about being beaten for seven years...

would you put it past them to mess with the samples?

[Edited on 8-26-2005 by Warriorbird]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
And in a world as fraught as high stakes cycling... with the French being as bitter as they are about being beaten for seven years...

would you put it past them to mess with the samples?

[Edited on 8-26-2005 by Warriorbird]

Reread my post. The inpendent lab didn't know whose sample was Armtsrong's.

It isn't possible to add EPO to a urine sample.

"Christiane Ayotte, director of Montreal's anti-doping laboratory, said EPO can disappear from samples within a few months. But it cannot be formed in the sample over time if it was not originally there".

http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/story/4806686

So no it isn't possible.

[Warriorbird]

It can't be formed. Doesn't mean it can't be added.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
It can't be formed. Doesn't mean it can't be added.

That is exactly what it means, you can't add EPO to a sample. An athlete's urine is tested using sophisticated molecular fingerprinting techniques. This is very specific test you just can't add EPO to a sample to fool the lab testing.

The lab in question is the most advanced lab in the world when it comes to EPO testing. The lab didn't know which sample correponded to which athelete, only the tour de france knew that information.

[Edited on 8-26-2005 by xtc]

[Warriorbird]

The most advanced lab in the world...mysteriously was holding samples for six years... is located in suburban France... and has faced ethics/leaking questions before....

and no... that isn't what it means... digging a bit further and you can find that they meant concentrations of it wouldn't naturally rise over six years.

"only the tour de france knew that information. "

Would you be too happy about Armstrong winning if you were the Tour De France?

[Edited on 8-26-2005 by Warriorbird]

[fiendwish]

Friday, August 19th, 2005; 11:00 PM PARIS, France --

Lance Armstrong's record setting seventh Tour de France victory, along with his entire Tour de France legacy, may be tarnished by what could turn out to be one of the greatest sports scandals of all time. Armstrong is being quizzed by French police after three banned substances were found in his South France hotel room while on vacation after winning the 2005 Tour de France.

The three substances found were toothpaste, deodorant, and soap which have been banned by French authorities for over 75 years. Armstrong's girlfriend and American rocker Sheryl Crowe is quoted as saying "we use them every day in America, so we naturally thought they'd be ok throughout Europe."

Along with these three banned substances, French authorities also physically searched Armstrong himself and found several other interesting items that they have never seen before, including a backbone and testicles.

[Gan]

:lol:
good one fiendwish


Now the US cycling organization is refuting the French claims and backing Lance.

I say fuck France, fuck the tour, we'll start our own Tour de Lance here in the US. They're just trying to tarnish Lance as a parting shot since he's dominated the Tour for 7 years. Booo fucking hoooo. Cry me a river France.

[Killer Kitten]

Originally posted by fiendwish
Friday, August 19th, 2005; 11:00 PM PARIS, France --

Lance Armstrong's record setting seventh Tour de France victory, along with his entire Tour de France legacy, may be tarnished by what could turn out to be one of the greatest sports scandals of all time. Armstrong is being quizzed by French police after three banned substances were found in his South France hotel room while on vacation after winning the 2005 Tour de France.

The three substances found were toothpaste, deodorant, and soap which have been banned by French authorities for over 75 years. Armstrong's girlfriend and American rocker Sheryl Crowe is quoted as saying "we use them every day in America, so we naturally thought they'd be ok throughout Europe."

Along with these three banned substances, French authorities also physically searched Armstrong himself and found several other interesting items that they have never seen before, including a backbone and testicle.

Good post, but your lil typo there was driving me crazy. Call me Monk.