We keep saying it but it's hard to get through to people arguing the minutae.python said:if you are really interested in the knowledge vs. the internet posing prowess (and I don’t mean it a derogatory way) google ‘zorzolli report’. it’s been discussed and answered over and over and the same questions keep popping up. So, nothing will help your curiosity to take a finite turn more than some self -education. a hint: the epo test introduction in 2001 forced the old and forgotten blood transfusion procedure back into front lines b/c there was no test for it.
i agree and as i pointed out at least 3 times in this thread alone the significance of the 1999 samples retesting would be in the potential for drawing the big picture of consistent fraud by armstrong on the usps team and the other la teams. nothing to do with the sport’s sanctioning but everything to do with a junkie doper's big picture going back to his pre-cancer days.
Big picture in this scenario: Lance's samples may not matter. The access to stored samples that either weren't tested or previously tested A samples that were negative could lead to new evidence. Like I said; once one of those samples comes up hot on the USPS payroll or a team that seemed to enjoy preferential UCI treatment their will be people willing to talk.