Most of the Lance haters here love to dance and yell around the story that some bias French journalist using sleight of hand, obtained some six year old samples (which may or may not have been Armstrongs), declared them to be Armstrongs, and through no clearly established chain of custody had them examined by a bias hired legal gun, according to no accepted standards for testing, which reached the unsupported conclusion that A) these samples have EPO, B) they are Armstrongs from 6 years ago, and C) they show that Armstrong doped in 1999 (See Ashenden). This is nothing more than a flimsy unsupported string of suspect facts cobbled together in a desperate attempt to malign Armstrong. Its laughable that they cling so desperately to this bogus and contrived chain of events to arrive at the convenient conclusion . . . ahhhh! . . . . Armstrong doped in 1999! Sure a few of the naive who are not paying attention may be decieved by such BS but anyone with a brain and an ability to think and understand how such delicate biological testing should be done to be creidible sees it for what it is . . . a bogus witch hunt.
See link below for an example of how it should be done . . . i.e. testing years old samples of a rider, resulting in a finding of a violation, and further resulting in expulsion from the Tour. http://www.velonews.com/article/94103/dekker-positive-for-epo
Some relevant exceprts
"Under the World Anti-Doping Code, drug testers have the option of storing and re-examining old samples, as long as there is a sufficient quantity to allow a follow-up - or B sample - test."
"The WADA code provides for an eight-year statute of limitations on earlier doping violations."
"Cycling's international governing body, the UCI, said in a statement issued Wednesday that it had "instructed (Monaco's) Cycling Federation, to which Mr Dekker is affiliated, to open disciplinary proceedings on this matter."
"According to a panel of scientific experts . . ."
Notice the stark difference from this legitimate finding from the farce they attempt to pull on Armstrong . . . .
1) The test was performed "Under the World Anti-Doping Code" . . . the bogus Ashenden test was performed according to no code whatsoever.
2) They assured that there was a "B sample" to confirm the "adverse finding" and thus making it a "violation" if the "B sample" also tested positive . . . no such "B sample" validation was done by Ashenden. Moreover, the chain of custody of the supposed single sample is fatally flawed.
3) There is an eight year statue of limintations for testing. The 1999 supposed samples of Armstrong were tested in 2005, within the 8 year limitation period. YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF . . . WHY DID THEY NOT PROCEED IN THE SAME FASHION AS THIS RECENT CASE???? The answer: because the contrived sleight of hand by French journalists conspiring with a bias hired legal gun to produce a finding based on no standard . . . charade . . . wouldn't have worked if it were actually performed according to an accepted "code" or "standard." The farce that it was would have been exposed.
4) There was no "scientific panel of experts" to test the Armstrong samples . . . there was a gaggle of French journalists and a bias hired legal gun using sleight of hand and deception. Big difference . . . .
This story is an example of professional work conducted according to scientific standards resulting in a positive finding ending in sanction based on years old samples. The whole French journalist conspiring with a bias Ashenden charade was a bogus and ultimately failed attempt to wrongly malign Armstrong because they are bitter that he is just . . . so damn good.
See link below for an example of how it should be done . . . i.e. testing years old samples of a rider, resulting in a finding of a violation, and further resulting in expulsion from the Tour. http://www.velonews.com/article/94103/dekker-positive-for-epo
Some relevant exceprts
"Under the World Anti-Doping Code, drug testers have the option of storing and re-examining old samples, as long as there is a sufficient quantity to allow a follow-up - or B sample - test."
"The WADA code provides for an eight-year statute of limitations on earlier doping violations."
"Cycling's international governing body, the UCI, said in a statement issued Wednesday that it had "instructed (Monaco's) Cycling Federation, to which Mr Dekker is affiliated, to open disciplinary proceedings on this matter."
"According to a panel of scientific experts . . ."
Notice the stark difference from this legitimate finding from the farce they attempt to pull on Armstrong . . . .
1) The test was performed "Under the World Anti-Doping Code" . . . the bogus Ashenden test was performed according to no code whatsoever.
2) They assured that there was a "B sample" to confirm the "adverse finding" and thus making it a "violation" if the "B sample" also tested positive . . . no such "B sample" validation was done by Ashenden. Moreover, the chain of custody of the supposed single sample is fatally flawed.
3) There is an eight year statue of limintations for testing. The 1999 supposed samples of Armstrong were tested in 2005, within the 8 year limitation period. YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF . . . WHY DID THEY NOT PROCEED IN THE SAME FASHION AS THIS RECENT CASE???? The answer: because the contrived sleight of hand by French journalists conspiring with a bias hired legal gun to produce a finding based on no standard . . . charade . . . wouldn't have worked if it were actually performed according to an accepted "code" or "standard." The farce that it was would have been exposed.
4) There was no "scientific panel of experts" to test the Armstrong samples . . . there was a gaggle of French journalists and a bias hired legal gun using sleight of hand and deception. Big difference . . . .
This story is an example of professional work conducted according to scientific standards resulting in a positive finding ending in sanction based on years old samples. The whole French journalist conspiring with a bias Ashenden charade was a bogus and ultimately failed attempt to wrongly malign Armstrong because they are bitter that he is just . . . so damn good.