Keith99

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure plenty would have anyway, including many who know far less than I)

The Tour does not take samples for every rider for every stage. The guys selected for testing are pretty much the top riders for the stage and overall in the GC, perhaps the same for the Green and Polka Dot jerseys and a few riders selected at random.

Anyone see something here? Once you have a way to tie samples to a single rider for an entire Tour you then have a way that anyone who knows the details of the sampling rules can figure out which set belongs to Lance or any other highly placed rider. The more a rider was in that top/non-random testing group the easier it is to figure out.

Of course this will not always work, for example if the eventual top 2 riders are both guys whose strength is in the mountians and both don't hit the top 3 until the first real mountian and then both stay in number 1 and 2 from there to the end there is no way to tell one from the other this way.

But in 99 Lance has a rather distinctive profile for being at the top. Win the prologue then out of the top after stage 2 or 3 thne back in at stage 8 til the end. Is there anyone else who matches this for the 99 Tour?

doctorSpoc

thas's BS... yes these test fall outside of the bounds of the regular testing but... regular testing is NOT the only grounds used for sanctioning someone... these irregular test if found to be valid could be used to as proof of doping to sanction Armstrong in much the same way as other who have not tested positive but guilt was ascetained by other means... especially since there are 6 of them...

- the insulin found in Pantani's hotel room by police
- empty vial of EPO found in Millar's house by police and eventual admission
- drug store found in Rumsas's wifes car by border guards
- police wire taps of Johan Museeuw's phone
- Drug store found with Festina's team doctor.. with Virenque later admitting to only when under oath... by the way Virenque was ridiculed, hounded by the french press until he actually admitted to his doping.. it's not true that the french just loved him even as a dopper... he had to 'repent' first

etc, etc...

there is really no reason that these tests as irregular as they may be, especially since there are six of them, if found to be credible, could not be used as evidence to sanction Armstrong in much the same way as the above evidence... i would say the six tests would be more compelling than just finding insulin or EPO in someone's room because someone could say and it may be true that... it's not mine... even if it's mine i didn't actually use it or i was just contemplating using it but didn't or you know.. Clinton's i didn't inhale etc...

doctorSpoc

AND there is nothing I have read that indicates that it IS the lab that leaked or even had possesion of the papers that linked Armstrong to his samples... the French Cycling Federation also retains a copy of this paper work so they may have leaked them, and the integrity of the lab would be intact.. so no one should be saying that the LAB DID NOT FOLLOW PROTOCOL because there is no proof of that until the source of the leak is ascertained. the release of the test results without the names were requested jointly by WADA and the French Federation of sport so there is nothing wrong with that...

genec

OK, so let's say he is guilty... What is the statute of limitations regarding the testing and TDF?

If he was guilty in 1999, are they gonna take away the wins of the next 6 years? Or even one year?

How long can they hold the urine samples? What if a new test is devised in 2020, will they go back and test the 2005 samples and then make press about it 15 years after the fact?

At what point is all this just senseless noise?

Helmet Head

I don't think they can take away his 1999 win for the same reason the could not take away Tyler Hamilton's gold medal: no 2nd sample (all the A's were used up in 1999, so they only have the B's; in Tyler's case the B's had been frozen and rendered useless for the particular blood test they were using).

Personally, what I think they really want is for Lance to get off the denial track, "own up" to the drug use, and maybe help rid the sport of drugs. I bet they (L'equipe et. al) would embrace him if he did that, just as they did with Richard Verinque when he finally admitted it.

So while it's probably not about taking away his title, I don't think it's just "senseless noise".

Feldman

I'm not a big LA fan; but can't help but think he's clean. Why? Too many people in a position to make it happen would enjoy seeing him show up dirty. Too many directeur sportifs, sponsors, journalists. Maybe he's clean, maybe he isn't. But it would be entirely too convenient now and would have been so at any time over the last seven years for him to be found out as a doper. Nobody's been able to make it stick given many tries. Besides, hearing "Hey Lance" from drivers beats "Hey Mother F&#$er!"

Keith99

Sponsors have no inside dope on dope, and it is far from being in their best interests for anyone to get caught. A D. S. who is the source for someone getting caught had better look for a new line of work. Journalists are a mixed bag, but those who know the most have the most to lose if the sport gets a black eye, and again if they use their sources to damage a cyclist they can count on losing those (and any replacement) sources forever.

Daily Commute

OK, then the lab should have applied 04 research standards. If the tabloid could break anonymity, so could the lab. The lab violated some rules, what other rules did they violate? The lab just needs to account for every step of the storage and testing process. Maybe they can do that. Maybe they can't.

One important point about the B samples is that they allow the cyclist to monitor the backup test. That can't happen here.

Dolomiti

That would be nice. But as we can clearly see, his perception among the American public is just as important as anything, if not more... and the vast majority of Americans will always assume he is clean, no matter how much information is out there.
I found his Larry King Live performance to disapoint me... he was clearly going for PR with his politician-esque 'answer a tough question with an unrelated answer and the public will belive you'.

Anyone read this? I know that hematocrit can be a legitimate concern among clean riders even (I obviously don't dope and I probably go over %50 at times), but why would Brunyeel react like that to Ron Jongen when talking about it? Oh wait, it must be just another disgrunted former employee, right? (Is he the fifth one now??)

shokhead

He goes on LK and BC is also asking questions. They ask,he answered. What else is he suppose to do? He took time out from his cancer stuff to do it and then left to go back to his cancer stuff and as far as i know,he hasnt done any other shows and if he did,then some would be ripping him for doing that. Lets face it,he cant win.

Dolomiti

His defenses we're pretty wild. He spent a lot of time blasting the fact that the information was leaked... that this shouldn't have happened. His only actual defense to the results was that the test is either faulty, was done in a faulty manner, or that his samples were tainted.

One of his defenses... that not all 17 samples were positive. This has been explained many times by many people that there are multiple reasons why not all of them should test positive, and surely he knew this but felt the need to grasp at straws anyway.
Another being that it's supposedly a case of 'he said she said'. Well, that is what every doping test is like.

It's not sensationalist news story lies. He would have the same defense statements if he tested positive during the said race... or say if it was the 2005 Tour test results.

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

Trevor98

First off, L'Equipe had the test results at the same time as WADA and before any other newspaper. The Paris Lab sent the results to WADA on Monday and L'Equipe published on Tuesday morning. You are suggesting that either the French Federation of sport or WADA may have leaked the results- this is possible buy highly unlikely in the one day they had the results. Regardless, any leak challenges the ethical high ground of anti doping efforts. As far as I know, the paperwork allowing linkage of the test samples to names was a court document from 2000 and were legitimately acquired by L'Equipe and they are irrelevant to discussions about the test results leaking to the press.
-
Every case you mentioned of non-test sanctions used physical evidence rather than lab tests. Lab tests are always suspect due to the human involvement and thus authorities have demanded a second test that allows the suspected rider's representative to observe and confirm the procedures.

In this regard, the six B samples are as suspect as a single A sample without a B sample precisely because Armstrong's people can't confirm the samples and process. And because there is not a confirming round of tests, the test is irrelevant as evidence. You said it yourself, "these irregular test[s] if found to be valid could be used to as proof of doping to sanction Armstrong." There is no way to confirm the test's validity so no sanctions are possible. Six tests would be very compelling if you could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were treated properly over the past 5 years as well as during the testing.

In many ways this situation is very similar to Tyler Halmiton's Olympic tests. WADA could not use the Vuelta a España results to confirm his A sample in the Olympics and strip his gold medal. The specific two samples taken at the same time must confirm each other to be used for sanctions. There are too many possibilities of tampering by underpaid lab techs if these procedures are not followed.

I am not naive enough to believe that pro athletes don't cheat but I would rather have limited doping fought ethically than an ethic-less witch-hunt.

doctorSpoc

that's a good point... the leaking of the actual test results had to be made before they were delivered to the people that commissioned it.

lab tests ARE physical evidence... in this case they can't be used as they would during a dope control, because protocol hasn't been followed... dope control evidence is given a special status, it is even presumptive, meaning that a positive needs to be proven false (i.e you are guilty until proven innocent)... these SIX positives would/should be given no such special status... but how does that disqualify their use as other physical evidence that has been used in all the other cases?

I think the REALLY big difference that make this case quite different from the Tyler case is that at the the Olympics there was a SINGLE B sample... in this case there are SIX B samples... that all corroborate each other, or at least a reasonable case can be made for this... this was not possible with a single sample.. in addition, in spite of what Armstrong said on LK the patteren of the dates of the positives AND negatives is additional evidence. the pattern itself could reveal periodized doping i.e. +++--+++-- OR ++++++----- if the pattern looked somthing like those that would actually add to the case as additional evidence as it would indicate him taking the drug (+'s) it being metabolized (-'s) and then him taking again...

The other thing is that... yes as a dope control, the proceedures weren't followed but what proceedures were followed? Are the proceedures that WERE followed good enough that a reasonable person would deem the results valid (or UCI)? This isn't some lab doing paternity test for the Mauri Povich Show, this is a world renowned lab that has been WADA acredited in which the director is a world authority on EPO. I don't know, I'm pretty sure you don't know and that is probably what the UCI are taking 10 days to investigate... although I don't have much faith in the UCI... I don't think they are interesed in a clean sport they are interested in a lucrative sport... if they feel the sport will make more money by a positive they will go with that if it won't they will go with that.. public perception... sometimes it's good to bring down a big guy to make it appear like you are doing something... like they did with Ben Johnson.

another point is that humans are always in the loop and underpaid lab person could tamper with samples, even in the case of both A & B sample positives, so we should just throw all those cases out as well? The point is that you can never be 100% sure about any of these thing all you can do is be reasonably sure to what ever degree is appropriate for the given situation. When you take out a cycling licence you are subject to the UCI and you National Federation.. your rights are what ever is written in their rule book. this is not a court of law... i don't know why people keep bringing "the Law" into this "the Law" is the UCI rule book in this case.

Daily Commute

Ten days may not be long enough to do a step-by-step analysis of the test, but it's 10 days longer than a lot of folks took to come to a judgment.

bellweatherman

No kidding. And some will never come to a judgement regardless of the time frame. 10 days + 6 years suspicious US Postal/LA activity + irrefutable tests did it for me.

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.

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.

We can never be sure of the validity of these tests and thus we cannot ruin the career and professional reputation of the athletes. Armstrong may be retired, but this is bigger than him.

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. WADA had three positives against Hamilton and a voided sample- under your argument they should have been able to proof the Athens' A sample with the A and B sample from Spain. That is, however, not the way the rule book on this works. The A and B samples must both agree hence TH still has gold.

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.

Ben Johnson at least had A and B samples to validate the allegations.

poululla

Just a thought. The US invaded Iraq on much more flimsy "evidence", than is being presented in Lance's EPO case. A few black and white images held up by the right man seemed to have convinced a lot of folkes

skookum

Well you know America is not subject to International Law so why should Lance have to answer to a bunch of foreigners at the UCI or WADA?
Screw 'em.
As suggested in another topic get some big name American sponsors together start a Tour of America and let the euros stew in their own juices.

Daily Commute

Irrefutable? Fantastic. I finally found someone who knows enough to say (among other things):A scientific test is only as good as the test itself, the procedures used to conduct the test, and the honesty of the scientist doing the test.

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.

shokhead

Tour of Calif in 06.

swifferman

Because it's a foreign race?

There's a tour of Georgia and even if there was a Tour of America I'm sure Europeans would care much less then we do about the Tour de France.

adamastor

Wrong ! If you mean the co-writer of "La Confidential", it was Ballester. NOT the guy who broke out this story.
1. Publisher La Martinière does not belong to l'Equipe.
2. Pierre Ballester worked for l'Equipe, but left in 2001 ( before he wrote the book - 2004 )
3. David Walsh co-wrote the book . He is Chief Sports Writer at "The Sunday Times", and Irish ( not French ).
4. LA has taken the British Sunday Times to court, so book was never published in English ( try to find it on amazon.com ;o) )
5. I read the French version, that sold very well in France in 2004. Obviously only people interested in cycling and doping read it, others in Europe don't give a damn about Armstrong anyway...

Have a nice day
Adamastor

sabretech2001

They went and checked 6 year-old frozen pee? Just what does freezing do chemically over that time frame? And while we're on the time subject, six years is more than enough time to either plant vials or switch labels around. There are more than enough anti-Lance crazies in Paris alone to have pulled that off.