Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

Armstrong Positive test for epo?

Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Armstrong Positive test for epo?

Old 09-05-05, 09:39 AM
  #501  
adamastor
My Name is Nobody
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 314

Bikes: Marin, Peugeot, My Grandmother's Bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Now as you guys don't trust the French press, start reading the American press. And get a clearer picture.

Let's start with this one:


https://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/12547581.htm

Have a nice day
Adamastor
adamastor is offline  
Old 09-05-05, 10:04 AM
  #502  
adamastor
My Name is Nobody
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 314

Bikes: Marin, Peugeot, My Grandmother's Bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Sueddeutsche Zeitung - 29th August 2005

"Armstrong war nur der Anfang

L‘Équipe arbeitet an der Decodierung weiterer positiver Doping-Proben / Früherer Profi bestätigt, Epo sei weit verbreitet gewesen "

in other words "Armstrong only the beginning

L'Equipe is working on identifying the other owners of the doping samples / Ex-pro confirms, EPO was widely used." If you feel like reading the article go here

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/sz/2005-0...nJAtvIM3_yenw/

A few days earlier they interviewed Jacques de Ceaurriz, the head of the French lab that did the tests. His comments:

"we analysed about 70 samples for TDF 1999, 12 were positive. We analysed about 70 samples for TDF 1998, 40 were positive ( FORTY!!!!!!!!! ) )."

If you feel like it, his interview has been released in French by Libération here. Up to you to translate:

https://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=319404

Have a nice day
Adamastor
adamastor is offline  
Old 09-06-05, 10:04 AM
  #503  
adamastor
My Name is Nobody
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 314

Bikes: Marin, Peugeot, My Grandmother's Bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by lotek
The differenc being that if it were a 2005 tour test result he would have a B sample to test to verify
the A sample test.
I am not saying he did or didn't, but there is no means of verification here, and the 6 others are not
really valid although it does look damning.
Take Tyler for example, his B sample from Olympics was destroyed, can't sanction him for that.
However for the Vuelta he was positive for both A and B samples, no question its positive
thus sanctions.
Is Lance getting by on a technicality? sure. but that's the way the
UCI, WADA USADA and all the other acronymns set it up.

Marty
Marty, I appreciate your comments. They are good. I confirm, that IMHO Armstrong is clean, totally clean. Legally ! If it is enough, then let's stop this search or "witch hunt" .

Let's forget about Stephen Swart's testimony, in Armstrong's team in 1994 and 95
Let's forget about Emma O'Reilly, his masseur for 3 years
Let's forget about Simeoni, the "liar" according to Armstrong, who just said Ferrari had helped him with illicit products
Let's forget about Christophe Bassons, only Festina rider proven to be clean, who says he gave up cycling during Tour de France 1999, after Armstrong intimidated him, and told him, he talked too much to journalists about EPO still being around one year after 1998
Let's forget about Greg Lemond, who couldn't believe it when Armstrong admitted to working with Michele Ferrari
( and I'm not talking about those other guys accusing him of something )

I want to know. I have been following Tour de France since Charly Gaul won it in 1958, and I want to know the truth. Did he or didn't he? If the lab messed up with the samples I want to know how? I want to know how that EPO got in there in the first place ( I saw some posts, how can they freeze those samples, blablabla, these guys looked for EPO, they FOUND EPO on some of those samples ).

On CNN Armstrong did not deny the samples were positive. He just said "when I gave those samples there was no EPO in them". So let's find out who is the one who did it.

Then it will be easier for everyone to admit that Armstrong can win his libel suit again
- the Sunday Times
- l'Express
- l'Equipe
- David Walsh
- Simeoni
- the insurance company that refuses to pay him millions of dollar winnings he deserves

Then it will be easier to accept him as possible future trustworthy leader, example for my children in sports.

To finish, a brief comment: to me, with or without EPO, he is a great champion, and no doubt the best who rode the Tour de France the last 20 years. but I want the truth, not the "legal" one smuggled by a lawyer, the true truth. And that's why I'll keep my eyes and ears open !
adamastor is offline  
Old 09-06-05, 12:04 PM
  #504  
fatdogvinn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 96
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by adamastor
To finish, a brief comment: to me, with or without EPO, he is a great champion, and no doubt the best who rode the Tour de France the last 20 years. but I want the truth, not the "legal" one smuggled by a lawyer, the true truth. And that's why I'll keep my eyes and ears open !
The truth!?
YOU CAN´T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

(sorry, I couldn´t help it )
fatdogvinn is offline  
Old 09-06-05, 02:05 PM
  #505  
doctorSpoc
Senior Member
 
doctorSpoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Trevor98
Urine samples are physical evidence, but lab test results are interpretations of the physical evidence and are thus less convincing that a recorded phone call or vial of EPO. The test results are meaningless without a belief that both the test and the lab procedures are valid.
Is it though??? If you are inventive you can come up with the same arguments.. was the dope planted? can you really trust the French police (Belgian, Italian...)? etc... it's not my dope it's a friends... it's my dope but I decided not to use it.. same BS excuses... to me the excuses for your "physical evidence" are more convincing than evidence from a WADA approved lab... just because I have dope in my possession OR ordered it OR got advice on how to use dope doesn't mean I used dope, but if it IS in my urine then I did use it. But possession of dope under UCI rules is the equivalent of a positive though.

Originally Posted by Trevor98
Armstrong, like every other rider with suspect samples must be given the opportunity to observe the second test. Had the lab stopped after his first two tested samples showed positive (although the lab did not know that they were his) and allowed his people to watch the following 4 sample get tested then perhaps the six tests could verify each other- obviously that did not happen and we are left without evidence...
that doesn't follow... it means we are without a proper dope control, but I don't thik it means they can't be used a physical evidence... along with other corroborating evidence, evidence of how the lab procedure WAS actually carried out etc...

Originally Posted by Trevor98
As for the Hamilton case, your argument, when applied to his Olympic case, would argue that the positive tests in Spain a month later would confirm the Olympic A sample and that he should be stripped of his gold...
No, I don't think so.. a pathetic as it is I think Hamilton dodged the bullet their and I don't think they have enough under the rules to give Ekimov the gold. But I think most reasonably minded would say that a month span between positives is WAY to long to act as corroborating evidence... but as I said earlier, SIX positive samples within days of one another especially in a pattern that could show periodized use is pretty compelling... you don't think so?? Not a dope control, but as just evidence...

And make no mistake, the IOC IS the most corrupt, unscrupulous sports organization in the world, they make the UCI look like a bunch of Sunday school teachers... I would not be surprised that someone put in the call to destroy Hamilton's the B sample so as to not to piss off American interests = American money

Originally Posted by Trevor98
These rule are there to provide individual riders protection against the more powerful federations and organizations. Armstrong may have done harm to the sport, but the potential abuse from an unrestrained WADA is far more harmful. Additionally, these rules provide a sureness in convictions. Failure to follow the rules and subsequent proof of fraud opens the sport organizations and authorities to civil lawsuits over loss of income. The benefit of doubt must go to the athlete (even in regard to evidence validity) or else we end up with athletes having to prove that they are not doping to play.
I hear you but, I think the number of positives (SIX!!!) and if within days of one another, and if patterned as they would be as part of a doping regime makes this evidence VERY compelling... even if not an official dope control.
doctorSpoc is offline  
Old 09-06-05, 03:59 PM
  #506  
shokhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,665

Bikes: 2012 Trek Madone 6.2

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Lets go back and test samples from every winner. That would be the right thing to do,right?
shokhead is offline  
Old 09-06-05, 06:19 PM
  #507  
FLsanshou
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
OMG the people that actually believe these lies need help. Lance has won the tour 7 times because he was out there training when nobody else was and his hard work payed off and the french hate the fact that an american rider has won a theyre tour more times than any of theyre own riders. They are jealous and therefore make up slanderous lies to try and tear Lance down. its pretty sad and pathetic.
FLsanshou is offline  
Old 09-06-05, 07:05 PM
  #508  
Trevor98
Senior Member
 
Trevor98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 1,038
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
These six samples are as suspect as any single sample because the test results cannot be independently verified. You look at the samples as six independent and collaborating tests but they are not, they are joined. Not one was treated as a collaborating sample in order to safeguard the athlete from a foolish or corrupt lab- which is fine as a research project but worthless for punitive actions.

The charge of police interference is common and most likely to be believed when the police or their labs screw up. Using the Paris lab as a substitute for the police in this case, the lab screwed up at least once when it leaked the results. Reasonable doubt is just that- reasonable and it is reasonable to believe that the lab screwed up more than once. Had the results been forwarded only to the UCI and WADA (as planned) and an investigation followed the lab would still have some credibility.

I agree that your arguments are compelling in the realm of public opinion. In law (the sporting rules are acting as international law at this point) and the threatened civil lawsuits, the burden of proof is a lot higher than what is needed to change our personal opinions.

WADA, UCI, and USAC would be absolutely stupid to attack LA with these test results (USAC has already stated that they are taking no action). LA would quickly win against this evidence and these bodies would open themselves to multi-million dollar lawsuits (perhaps in the US) for defamation of character and libel. Armstrong would only have to show that the lab results are not valid and that the lab has ethics problems (the leak to L'Equipe is proof enough to convince a jury) coupled with harassing charges and a loss of income and harm to the LAF (hurting cancer- how would that going to play?). The other sketchy rumors and testimonies are just as suspect like all witnesses.

A simple argument to dismiss the doping allegations would look like: An underpaid lab tech could easily surmise which number was LA (even if L'Equipe didn't give him or her the id number) due to his dominance in year. He could then tamper with 6 of those sample and sell the results to L'Equipe (either as future payment or as yet undiscovered cash). That scenario is as plausible as LA actually cheating precisely because there is no confirming samples. As a defense it only needs to be a plausible explanation of the facts to introduce a reasonable doubt.

Additionally, WADA leadership seems publicly conflicted over this case- not good for their cause. It seems that L'Equipe and the Paris lab have actually hurt their own cause here too.
Trevor98 is offline  
Old 09-06-05, 10:34 PM
  #509  
doctorSpoc
Senior Member
 
doctorSpoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by shokhead
Lets go back and test samples from every winner. That would be the right thing to do,right?
I think that would be pretty cool... I think a lot of retired and as yet unretired cyclist must have dropped a brick in their shorts when they realized that they might be next... might even open the naive eyes of individuals like FLsanshou...

I think that might be the best deterrent I've heard yet... if riders had in their minds that they might have to deal with not only the tests of today but the test of 5 yrs. from now and that all their accomplishments, money may be stripped from them if some time in the future they produce a test for what they are taking.. , maybe even jail time in counties like Italy that equate drug cheating to fraud. that might actually make a lot of cyclist think twice if it is actually worth it to cheat.. that's the best deterrent i think I've heard to date.
doctorSpoc is offline  
Old 09-07-05, 03:42 AM
  #510  
adamastor
My Name is Nobody
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 314

Bikes: Marin, Peugeot, My Grandmother's Bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FLsanshou
OMG the people that actually believe these lies need help. Lance has won the tour 7 times because he was out there training when nobody else was and his hard work payed off and the french hate the fact that an american rider has won a theyre tour more times than any of theyre own riders. They are jealous and therefore make up slanderous lies to try and tear Lance down. its pretty sad and pathetic.
Yawn ;o)
adamastor is offline  
Old 09-07-05, 09:56 AM
  #511  
Trevor98
Senior Member
 
Trevor98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 1,038
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by doctorSpoc
I think that would be pretty cool... I think a lot of retired and as yet unretired cyclist must have dropped a brick in their shorts when they realized that they might be next... might even open the naive eyes of individuals like FLsanshou...

I think that might be the best deterrent I've heard yet... if riders had in their minds that they might have to deal with not only the tests of today but the test of 5 yrs. from now and that all their accomplishments, money may be stripped from them if some time in the future they produce a test for what they are taking.. , maybe even jail time in counties like Italy that equate drug cheating to fraud. that might actually make a lot of cyclist think twice if it is actually worth it to cheat.. that's the best deterrent i think I've heard to date.

Great way to kill the sport too.
Trevor98 is offline  
Old 09-07-05, 10:08 AM
  #512  
shokhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,665

Bikes: 2012 Trek Madone 6.2

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Then they need to not go back at all.
shokhead is offline  
Old 09-07-05, 01:39 PM
  #513  
Dolomiti
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Cyclaholic
I'm amazed how much bandwidth has been consumed by nothing more than speculation here. Let's face it, the only person that knows for sure if Lance doped is Lance, and we already know what his side of the story is. Beyond that it's all speculation, we know nothing with any real certainty.
Lets face it. Everyone living in the USA doesn't really know for sure whether our military invaded Iraq. The only ones that know are the people that may have been there to witness it and involve themselves in it. Beyond them, there is nothing but speculation.
Dolomiti is offline  
Old 09-07-05, 02:57 PM
  #514  
shokhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,665

Bikes: 2012 Trek Madone 6.2

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
You are joking,right?
shokhead is offline  
Old 09-07-05, 05:27 PM
  #515  
Daily Commute
Ride the Road
 
Daily Commute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 4,059

Bikes: Surly Cross-Check; hard tail MTB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Dolomiti
Lets face it. Everyone living in the USA doesn't really know for sure whether our military invaded Iraq. The only ones that know are the people that may have been there to witness it and involve themselves in it. Beyond them, there is nothing but speculation.
Originally Posted by shokhead
You are joking,right?
Please, please, please do not turn this thread into a debate about Iraq. The mods will just shut it down. I'm sure there are plenty of Iraq threads in P&R.
Daily Commute is offline  
Old 09-09-05, 10:02 AM
  #516  
adamastor
My Name is Nobody
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 314

Bikes: Marin, Peugeot, My Grandmother's Bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
UCI Position on "L'affaire Armstrong".

On BBC Sports

https://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/othe...ng/4229804.stm

Armstrong not facing any action

Armstrong considers shock return
International Cycling Union boss Hein Verbruggen says no action will be taken against Lance Armstrong in the wake of recent doping allegations.
French newspaper L'Equipe claimed signs of EPO were detected in samples of Armstrong's urine given in 1999.

Armstrong, who retired after winning his seventh Tour de France in July, has angrily denied the allegations.

And Verbruggen told Le Figaro: "It's not wise to condemn someone who hasn't tested positive in a legal sense."

Adamastor: ...in a legal sense, tsstsstss

L'Equipe alleged that six of the 12 positive tests from the 1999 Tour de France belonged to Armstrong.

Verbruggen said: "The normal sanction - if you can prove that someone has tested positive - is a two-year ban, but what we have here cannot be used as proof."

Right so

The tests were carried out retrospectively in 2004 at the French national anti-doping laboratory at Chatenay-Malabry, just outside Paris, to help testers improve their EPO detection methods.

"We're going to be looking further into this affair," added Verbruggen.

"It's another heavy blow to cycling so we have to take it all the way. Yes

And I also want to know who exactly it was who gave out this information." Sorry? So you want to know what bastard gave the results condemning LA? Not, if the results were right or wrong????"

Verbruggen said the UCI had the names of the other six riders that allegedly tested positive. But I won't tell you, nananananana !

"We're waiting for answers to our questions from the laboratory to see what can and should be done," he said. So that future positive results are not published...

The 33-year-old Armstrong, who is set to marry rock star Sheryl Crow, is considering coming out of retirement in response to the allegations. Yawn
adamastor is offline  
Old 09-09-05, 10:09 AM
  #517  
adamastor
My Name is Nobody
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 314

Bikes: Marin, Peugeot, My Grandmother's Bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
"...UCI president Hein Verbruggen has demanded more severe sanctions for dopers and suggested Armstrong should face sanctions if doping was proved. He also told Friday's Le Figaro that Armstrong had proposed before the Tour that all of his urine samples be kept for tests over the next 10 years..."

Clever move. The urine samples are kept 10 years, but can't be used against him, as "I cannot defend myself, because there are no B samples available..." sob ! Soooooo clever !

Keep them 10 years. Whatever results come out in 10 years, you'll be clean...in a legal sense !

Say thanks to your old pal Verbruggen.
adamastor is offline  
Old 09-09-05, 02:01 PM
  #518  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,690

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9873 Post(s)
Liked 2,066 Times in 1,417 Posts
Cycling body criticizes world doping authorities, French newspaper over Armstrong allegations
By UTA HARNISCHFEGER, Associated Press Writer
September 9, 2005

Photo
AP - Aug 25, 10:47 pm EDT
More Photos
GENEVA (AP) -- Cycling's world governing body criticized world doping authorities and a French sports newspaper for alleging seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing substances six years ago.

The UCI said Friday it was still gathering information and had asked the World Anti-Doping Agency and the French laboratory which tested the samples taken from Armstrong in 1999 for more background. It also wanted to know who commissioned the research and who agreed to make it public.

``How could this be done without the riders' consent?'' the UCI said.

Last month, Armstrong was accused of doping by L'Equipe, which reported that the blood booster EPO was found in six of his 1999 urine samples.

Armstrong has angrily denied the charges, saying he was the victim of a ``witch hunt.'' He questioned the validity of testing samples frozen six years ago, and how the samples were handled.

``The UCI statement from our standpoint was encouraging to the extent they seem to be conducting a meaningful investigation and they seem to be asking the right questions,'' Armstrong's agent Bill Stapleton said Friday.

The UCI also asked WADA to say if it allowed the results to be disseminated, which the cycling federation says is a ``breach of WADA's anti-doping code.''

ADVERTISEMENT
``We have substantial concerns about the impact of this matter on the integrity of the overall drug testing regime of the Olympic movement, and in particular the questions it raises over the trustworthiness of some of the sports and political authorities active in the anti-doping fight,'' the UCI said.

The UCI also said it had received no evidence of doping despite requests.

``The UCI has not to date received any official information or document'' from anti-doping authorities or the laboratory reportedly involved in the testing of urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France, the cycling federation said.

UCI president Hein Verbruggen has asked for harsh sanctions against dopers and suggested Armstrong should face sanctions if he were shown to be guilty.

He also told Friday's Le Figaro that Armstrong had proposed before the Tour that all of his urine samples be kept for tests over the next 10 years.

UCI said it was still ``awaiting plausible answers'' to its requests to WADA and the laboratory.

``We deplore the fact that the long-established and entrenched confidentiality principle could be violated in such a flagrant way without any respect for fair play and the rider's privacy,'' it said.

UCI singled out WADA president Dick Pound for making ``public statements about the likely guilt of an athlete on the basis of a newspaper article and without all the facts being known.''

It also criticized the article in L'Equipe as ``targeting a particular athlete.''

L'Equipe said it would react of UCI's criticism in Saturday editions. Tour de France organizers had no immediate reaction, spokesman Matthieu Desplats said.

Claude Droussent, the editor of L'Equipe, denied his newspaper targeted Armstrong because he is American, and said it would have treated a French rider the same.

Armstrong retired after winning his seventh straight Tour title in July, but said this week he is considering a comeback. He plans to attend the Discovery Channel team training camp this winter.

https://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug...v=ap&type=lgns
genec is offline  
Old 09-09-05, 02:56 PM
  #519  
Keith99
Senior Member
 
Keith99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
UCI singled out WADA president Dick Pound for making ``public statements about the likely guilt of an athlete on the basis of a newspaper article and without all the facts being known.''

It also criticized the article in L'Equipe as ``targeting a particular athlete.''

Any bets that if the L'Equipe article had NOT singled out a particular athlete that UCI would complain about L'Equipe tarnishing the whole sport because the actions of a few minor cyclists?
Keith99 is offline  
Old 09-09-05, 04:11 PM
  #520  
Daily Commute
Ride the Road
 
Daily Commute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 4,059

Bikes: Surly Cross-Check; hard tail MTB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Here's the full (uncopyrighted) statement from UCI (courtesy of Velonews). It looks like the UCI is taking the right attitude: They aren't taking anyone's word for anything.

Press Release - Full text of UCI statement regarding Armstrong case

This report filed September 9, 2005

09/09/2005: UCI DECLARATION : 1999 Tour de France samples analysis

As we announced on Monday, August 29, 2005, the Union Cycliste Internationale ("UCI") is undertaking an investigation into the recent press reports from France. The article published by the French newspaper L'Equipe concerned testing apparently conducted by a French laboratory of urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France. Our initial investigation has identified a great many issues and we are in the process of gathering the information we need. The UCI is currently unable to express any judgement on these cases, as it does not have sufficient information.

The UCI has not, to date, received any official information or document.

WADA believes that they have no jurisdiction over this matter, given that it apparently relates to urine samples collected in 1999, before WADA was created. Moreover, WADA has told the UCI that on the basis of the reports of the research done and methods used in this case, no disciplinary procedure could be opened against the riders concerned and that in their view, the organization responsible for investigating is the UCI. In light of WADA's position on this matter, the UCI has assumed all responsibility for investigating the matter. WADA has stated its willingness to assist the UCI with its investigation

We have substantial concerns about the impact of this matter on the integrity of the overall drug testing regime of the Olympic movement, and in particular the questions it raises over the trustworthiness of some of the sports and political authorities active in the anti-doping fight. The UCI reiterates that at this point we have no information at all about the testing apparently done in Châtenay-Malabry, who authorized or commissioned that testing, the reason for the testing or the manner in which the testing was conducted.

We have sent letters to WADA, as well as an initial questionnaire to the French laboratory, seeking comprehensive information about the background facts and what brought about the situation that we are investigating. Amongst the significant questions we have, the most important which remain unanswered are the following:

Who commissioned and directed this research and who agreed to the public dissemination of the results?
  • How could this be done without the riders' consent?
  • Why was the UCI not informed?
  • How is it that the journalist apparently received WADA's official reaction on the possibility of continuing the research with the remaining urine samples, and on possible sanctions, on 22 August (see l'Equipe's article of 23 August), when WADA apparently received the information on these results only on 24 August?
  • The dissemination of the results being a breach of WADA's anti-doping code, did WADA itself authorise this step?
  • Has this apparent research on the 1999 Tour de France been widened to other sports events in France in the same year (Roland Garros, football World Cup) - why was the Tour de France chosen?
Awaiting plausible answers, the UCI confirms its commitment to investigate how and why confidential information was disclosed to members of the news media. In particular, we deplore the fact that the long-established and entrenched confidentiality principle could be violated in such a flagrant way, without any respect for fair play and the rider's privacy. This aspect forms part of our thorough and vigorous investigation into this matter.

We regret once more, that WADA's President Mr. Pound made public statements about the likely guilt of an athlete on the basis of a newspaper article and without all the facts being known, and we appreciate that WADA's Vice-President Mr. Mikkelsen has stepped in to state that Mr. Pound's allegations were unwise.

As for the article itself, the author claims to have been working on the story for four months, when in fact it seems that his "investigation" was limited to receiving confidential information related to testing conducted by the laboratory and confidential doping control documents, including confidential documents which he was able to consult at the UCI after receiving, under false pretext, the authorization of Lance Armstrong . His subsequent public statements tend to confirm that he was targeting a particular athlete and that the newspaper was only given doping control forms relating to this athlete.

We are awaiting information that we have requested from WADA and the laboratory, and we may be seeking information from the French Ministry of Sports and others. Once we have received all of the documents that exist about the testing and the disclosure of information, and depending on the cooperation we receive from the individuals and organizations involved, we are aiming to conclude our investigation as soon as possible.

Finally, the UCI wishes to express the wish that governments, sports authorities and anti-doping authorities, which rightly expect honest and irreproachable ethical behaviour from sports men and women, themselves respect the fundamental obligation of fair play and examine possible sanctions which could be adopted, should infractions be discovered on the part of any of those bodies.

Last edited by Daily Commute; 09-09-05 at 04:20 PM.
Daily Commute is offline  
Old 09-09-05, 04:52 PM
  #521  
shokhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,665

Bikes: 2012 Trek Madone 6.2

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The whole thing,from the get go has had the smell of dead fish. When the proff is unmistakable,i'll be the first{and not the last} to say he's a jerk.
shokhead is offline  
Old 09-10-05, 12:32 PM
  #522  
Dolomiti
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cyclingnews did an interview with Damien Ressiot of l'Equipe which may give answers to questions that some of you have.

Someone may have already posted this link, but I just noticed it today even though it's said to be from Sept 7th.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/20...ien_ressiot_05

Originally Posted by Daily Commute
Please, please, please do not turn this thread into a debate about Iraq. The mods will just shut it down. I'm sure there are plenty of Iraq threads in P&R.
Hehe, well it was just an analogy. What I was suggesting was that just because you can't see something in person, and don't want to study it, doesn't mean it cannot be learned about.
Dolomiti is offline  
Old 09-10-05, 10:48 PM
  #523  
doctorSpoc
Senior Member
 
doctorSpoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Has anyone read LA Confidential? Damien Ressiot in the cycling news article that all four atheletes tested in the prologue tested positive and that the tested atheletes were listed in LA Confidential pg 202.

do they usually test the top 3 plus a random?

1 - Lance Armstrong
2 - Alex Zulle
3 - Abraham Olano

Random ?
doctorSpoc is offline  
Old 09-11-05, 05:38 PM
  #524  
Dolomiti
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by doctorSpoc
Has anyone read LA Confidential? Damien Ressiot in the cycling news article that all four atheletes tested in the prologue tested positive and that the tested atheletes were listed in LA Confidential pg 202.

do they usually test the top 3 plus a random?

1 - Lance Armstrong
2 - Alex Zulle
3 - Abraham Olano

Random ?
The stage winner and random, I think.

It was Manuel Beltran, José Joachim Castelblanco, and Bo Hamburger.

Of course Beltran commented by saying that 'they shouldn't have allowed this to happen'.

Hamburger tested positive later in his career for EPO too, I'm pretty sure. And Castelblanco is serving a two year doping suspension at the moment.
Dolomiti is offline  
Old 09-12-05, 03:07 AM
  #525  
Daily Commute
Ride the Road
 
Daily Commute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 4,059

Bikes: Surly Cross-Check; hard tail MTB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 2 Posts
It looks like the conversation is going on in two threads. The other one is over in the TdF Forum.
Daily Commute is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.