• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

1999 TdF Samples: moving to the Feds?

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
offbyone said:
Oh come on. Part of the biggest problem with the doping agencies is that no one trusts them. The reason is because they don't act like professional agencies. They often play politics with their regulations. There is just a general climate of unprofessionalism. If you read this board you will notice that a good portion of the anti-doping crusaders have these agencies at the top of their problem list.

The agencies that haven't been trustworthy have been seen to have manipulated who gets busted and seemingly done it selectively ala' the UCI. They've done it to maintain control over the sport and probably receive $ for their ability to suppress positive findings.

This differs in that AFLD is cooperating with an investigation into criminal activity, not bicycle racing results. Like many have said: USADA doesn't care if Lance keeps his Tour titles; they're trying to get to the bottom of multiple avenues of criminal behavior. That would be different don't you think?
 
Oldman said:
offbyone said:
Oh come on. Part of the biggest problem with the doping agencies is that no one trusts them. The reason is because they don't act like professional agencies. They often play politics with their regulations. There is just a general climate of unprofessionalism. If you read this board you will notice that a good portion of the anti-doping crusaders have these agencies at the top of their problem list.

The agencies that haven't been trustworthy have been seen to have manipulated who gets busted and seemingly done it selectively ala' the UCI. They've done it to maintain control over the sport and probably receive $ for their ability to suppress positive findings.

This differs in that AFLD is cooperating with an investigation into criminal activity, not bicycle racing results. Like many have said: USADA doesn't care if Lance keeps his Tour titles; they're trying to get to the bottom of multiple avenues of criminal behavior. That would be different don't you think?

The AFLD has not been free of controversy even outside of armstrong.

You are characterizing it like everyone is doing the right thing. If that was the impression I got then, I would agree with you, but I don't. Frankly, I don't know how anyone can't see the armstrong case as being anything other than a circus at this point with lots of politics and lots of attention whoring by a wide range of parties.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
offbyone said:
Oh come on. Part of the biggest problem with the doping agencies is that no one trusts them. The reason is because they don't act like professional agencies. They often play politics with their regulations. There is just a general climate of unprofessionalism. If you read this board you will notice that a good portion of the anti-doping crusaders have these agencies at the top of their problem list.

And this is the perfect example. These athletes are trusting these guys with all their biological data and expecting it to be treated exactly per the rules. This is very important. A mistake or mishandling of this could make or break the life of one of these athletes. This data is suppose to be strictly confidential and handled with the utmost care. Rules must be followed here. You can't make exceptions if these agencies are ever going to be trusted. Yet AFLD is using the media to offer to hand over lance's data. That is just not how things should ever be done. So they break their own rules, how can the sports body much less the public every trust them with the most serious issue when they act like this.

Just like Landis shouldn't be speaking at anti-doping conferences until this case is closed. There are too many publicity games being played at the expense of a very serious court case. This is suppose to be decided in a court of law, but it feels like a circus. I expect some of this to cause major problems in the case like important evidence becoming inadmissible because it wasn't handled properly or something along that lines.

You appear to be confused.

The AFLD is a French Law Enforcement agency. It is not just a WADA affiliate. They have been cooperating with the US government on the investigation. It should be no surprise that they would hand over the samples. They are not breaking any rules.

You claim that "a good portion of the anti-doping crusaders have these agencies at the top of their problem list". You are confused. While the stupidity of the UCI is often questioned WADA, and it's affiliates like the AFLD, are seldom a target.

If it feels like a circus do not blame Landis. He has spoken publicly twice in the last 6 months. It is perfectly possible for him to speak at the conference about his own usage and not jeopardize the Armstrong case.

The circus atmosphere is brought on by the lies and distortions of Armstrong media machine.
 
Race Radio said:
You appear to be confused.

The AFLD is a French Law Enforcement agency. It is not just a WADA affiliate. They have been cooperating with the US government on the investigation. It should be no surprise that they would hand over the samples. They are not breaking any rules.

You claim that "a good portion of the anti-doping crusaders have these agencies at the top of their problem list". You are confused. While the stupidity of the UCI is often questioned WADA, and it's affiliates like the AFLD, are seldom a target.
No doubt that UCI, WADA, etc are a lot more controversial then AFLD but they still have played their part. Didn't they recently conveniently not show up during the french national time trial.

So why if they can't retest the samples is it ok for someone else too?

Race Radio said:
If it feels like a circus do not blame Landis. He has spoken publicly twice in the last 6 months. It is perfectly possible for him to speak at the conference about his own usage and not jeopardize the Armstrong case.

The circus atmosphere is brought on by the lies and distortions of Armstrong media machine.

Sorry we are definitely not on the same page here. The circus atmosphere is brought on by a lot more than armstrong in this case. Floyd showing up at the Tour of California? Constant leaks to the press., etc.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
offbyone said:
No doubt that UCI, WADA, etc are a lot more controversial then AFLD but they still have played their part. Didn't they recently conveniently not show up during the french national time trial.

So why if they can't retest the samples is it ok for someone else too?



Sorry we are definitely not on the same page here. The circus atmosphere is brought on by a lot more than armstrong in this case. Floyd showing up at the Tour of California? Constant leaks to the press., etc.

You still appear to be confused. The AFLD is the French arm of WADA. You are confusing criminal law with UCI rules. There is nothing to stop the samples to be retested as part of a criminal investigation. The UCI can also retest them. Armstrong himself has said that he always checks the box on the form that allows for retesting.

You have claimed there are lots of examples. If you really think the AFLD is so bad you need to come up with something better then rumor that they may have missed French TT championships. You must be livid at USDA for doing no EPO testing for the first 3 years of the ToC.

Floyd gave no interviews at the ToC and has remained quite since. Despite the claims of Armstrong's spin machine there have been no leaks from Novitzky's investigation. None. Any information that is public comes from witnesses. If you check the rules of the grand jury you will see that witnesses are indeed allowed to talk publicly about their testimony, in fact they are the only people who are.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
You still appear to be confused. The AFLD is the French arm of WADA. You are confusing criminal law with UCI rules. There is nothing to stop the samples to be retested as part of a criminal investigation. The UCI can also retest them. Armstrong himself has said that he always checks the box on the form that allows for retesting.

You have claimed there are lots of examples. If you really think the AFLD is so bad you need to come up with something better then rumor that they may have missed French TT championships. You must be livid at USDA for doing no EPO testing for the first 3 years of the ToC.

Floyd gave no interviews at the ToC and has remained quite since. Despite the claims of Armstrong's spin machine there have been no leaks from Novitzky's investigation. None. Any information that is public comes from witnesses. If you check the rules of the grand jury you will see that witnesses are indeed allowed to talk publicly about their testimony, in fact they are the only people who are.

Well then it's the YMCA or some agency with initials...it's getting so complicated my head is spinning. It would be so simple if LANCE WERE WOULD TELL US WHAT IS HAPPENING!
 
offbyone said:
When athletes submit to AFLD testing do they really do so with the precept that the AFLD could send their samples to another agency years later? I highly doubt it. If the AFLD isn't allowed to retest them then why would someone else be allowed to?

Just seems more of the AFLD acting like a cowboy politicized agency instead of a professional organization. IMO it just marginalizes their credibility and professionalism and this wouldn't be the first time it has come into question. This is the kind of crap that makes these agencies like the UCI a joke.

In the end, all that matters is the legality of this exchange. If it isn't legal armstrong's lawyers will make the evidence un-permissible and the samples will be lost forever.

In the first Landis arbitration, the Panel ruled that the owners of samples can do anything they like with them, athlete's objections notwithstanding. The only thing they can't be used for is to produce an "Adverse Analytical Finding" if there is no B sample available for confirmation. They are absolutely allowed to be tested for supporting evidence of violations alleged in some other way through the WADA process.

It seems unlikely to me that team Armstrong could do anything about such a transfer beyond PR complaint, and then attempt to discredit any adverse results because of storage and chain-of-custody issues.

Good luck with that.

-dB
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
offbyone said:
When athletes submit to AFLD testing do they really do so with the precept that the AFLD could send their samples to another agency years later? I highly doubt it. If the AFLD isn't allowed to retest them then why would someone else be allowed to?

Just seems more of the AFLD acting like a cowboy politicized agency instead of a professional organization. IMO it just marginalizes their credibility and professionalism and this wouldn't be the first time it has come into question. This is the kind of crap that makes these agencies like the UCI a joke.

In the end, all that matters is the legality of this exchange. If it isn't legal armstrong's lawyers will make the evidence un-permissible and the samples will be lost forever.

Yes - yes they do. Really simple.

As acknowledged - by Lance himself:
Are you OK with blood being stored for future testing?
Absolutely

Are you in favour of retroactive testing?
Yes. They give you the option when you are tested – can we use your specimen in the future for experiments? I always check ‘yes'.
 

SpartacusRox

BANNED
May 6, 2010
711
0
0
Visit site
python said:
will novitzky take up the afld’s offer, who can it help ?

how significant and relevant can it become if novi follows up on the offer and the test comes up positive ?

personally, I feel a singular retest of the 1999 sample (in 2010 or 2011) even if confirming the 2005 six positives would be of limited value.

but…

if we are to follow the investigative logic emerging from the leaks so far it appears that novi is interested in exploring a much bigger question - was doping part of Armstrong’s professional career since the very beginning ?

when the 1999 positives are plotted along the ‘hospital room admission in 1996, the 2001-02 uci-suppressed positives, the anderson gerona steroid findings…and the other numerable doping facts dated to 1999-2005 (from the sca and lemond/track arbitration) a very damming picture of a committed, long-term user can be built.

another important point can be gleaned from the retest - was there a conspiracy ?

as i understand it, there is enough urine left to run both the latest super duper epo test (with all the bells and whistles required by the very latest wada epo techdocument) and the dna test.

hence the picture of a long-running fraud and lies can be uncovered conclusively.

The Supertramp song: Dreamer comes to mind.

The 1999 tests hasve been thoroughly discredited in an independent investigation. They will/would be laughed out of court. If I was Lance I would be saying: "bring it on"
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
SpartacusRox said:
The Supertramp song: Dreamer comes to mind.

The 1999 tests hasve been thoroughly discredited in an independent investigation. They will/would be laughed out of court. If I was Lance I would be saying: "bring it on"

You need to be careful with the trolling, it is becoming more obvious.

The Vrijman report is considered a farce by most independent observers of the sport. It is seen as yet more evidence of the corruption of the UCI. As WADA said at the time

“The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical,” “Were the matter not so serious and the allegations it contains so irresponsible, we would be inclined to give it the complete lack of attention it deserves.”

The statement said WADA was astonished the UCI “would expect anyone to have the slightest confidence in the objectivity, methodology, analysis or conclusions of such a report.”