• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!

Another story making the case = Armstrong is clean.

Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Visit site
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.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I posted this in the other place you tried to make this "case"

The Code was put in place January 1, 2004 and the urine samples were collected in 1999. See the problem? If not, let me tell you, the samples could not be used in the manner which you describe because the code was not in place in 1999. You have so much you think you know and so little in actual perspective and knowledge of the subject. I am wondering when you will just quit trying to antagonize and actually take the time to learn about that which you present yourself as an expert of?

You can close the thread now.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
byu123 said:
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.

Sorry, but that did not include the previous 8 years before the adoption of the Code. Again, you fall short. It merely established that from that point forward there would be an 8 year statute. You have so much to learn.
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Sorry, but that did not include the previous 8 years before the adoption of the Code. Again, you fall short. It merely established that from that point forward there would be an 8 year statute. You have so much to learn.

The point of the post was the utter lack of standards in the Ashenden farce verses a positive finding done according to standards. The issue of exactly when the 8 year limit was imposed is irrelevant in contast to the larger issue of conducting tests and arriving at findings according to standards as opposed to sleight of hand by bias parties.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
byu123 said:
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.

I have stated this already - this is a cycling forum (not even a doping or Lance forum) it is not a court of Law!

I know you are quite new to this sport - I am not- this does not mean you are not entitled to your opinion- in fact quite the opposite.

Yet again I object to your tone- I have followed, participated and served in this sport for over 20 years I have my views and opinions on all matters and whether you agree or disagree with my views they are certainly not naive!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Escarabajo said:
I agree. I am starting to get suspicious about this guy.
:rolleyes:

Not trying to bag on his son at all, but this is a guy who's son made a pinewood derby car that had "Livestrong" on top. He also twitters frequently at Mr Armstrong. I understand how, with that much of his life invested in Mr Armstrong being a hero, it is difficult to accept the doping of Mr Armstrong. There have been people in my past that I just had a hard time believing the truth about. It is a common problem with human beings.

There is no sarcasm or antagonism in my above post. I sincerely understand what he is going through.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Visit site
Seriously people, why bother responding when the original post is accusing everyone of saying something no one's ever said?

This guy is quite obviously a troll. For the sanity of everyone, just please ignore him. pretty please?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
byu123 said:
The point of the post was the utter lack of standards in the Ashenden farce verses a positive finding done according to standards. The issue of exactly when the 8 year limit was imposed is irrelevant in contast to the larger issue of conducting tests and arriving at findings according to standards as opposed to sleight of hand by bias parties.

Read the Code please. They used already established procedure from the labs in place to design and enact the freaking code. Prove the standards used by Ashenden were in violation of standard lab protocol. You can't. You only have the words of Mr Armstrong and his attorneys suggesting it. No proof. No evidence.

Mr Armstrong used synthetic EPO during the 1999 Tour de France.

Now I am done with this.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
issoisso said:
Seriously people, why bother responding when the original post is accusing everyone of saying something no one's ever said?

This guy is quite obviously a troll. For the sanity of everyone, just please ignore him. pretty please?

Of course you are right. Its just so hard to let it slide, but that is a personal problem on my part.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
issoisso said:
Seriously people, why bother responding when the original post is accusing everyone of saying something no one's ever said?

This guy is quite obviously a troll. For the sanity of everyone, just please ignore him. pretty please?

I agree - however there appears to be lot of people who check in on this forum who do not contribute and I believe it is threads like this that put them off.
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Not trying to bag on his son at all, but this is a guy who's son made a pinewood derby car that had "Livestrong" on top. He also twitters frequently at Mr Armstrong. I understand how, with that much of his life invested in Mr Armstrong being a hero, it is difficult to accept the doping of Mr Armstrong. There have been people in my past that I just had a hard time believing the truth about. It is a common problem with human beings.

There is no sarcasm or antagonism in my above post. I sincerely understand what he is going through.

Like I said . . . the interesting but simple, see below, Twitter trick was by someone on this thread with entirely too much time on their hands . . . but I will gladely take the cool "byu123" Twitter account if they will private message me with the password . . . .

Any relation?

twitter.com/Ninety5rpm . . . or is it twitter.com/byu123 . . . as I have always said . . . don't believe everything you see and hear on an Internet blog.


Give me five more minutes and I'll make an identical account for you as well TTF.
 
issoisso said:
Seriously people, why bother responding when the original post is accusing everyone of saying something no one's ever said?

This guy is quite obviously a troll. For the sanity of everyone, just please ignore him. pretty please?

+1

I'm not clicking on the guy's threads anymore, and won't reply to any of his troll posts anymore. If he comes around and actually says something productive or informative, someone let me know.
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Visit site
Alpe d'Huez said:
+1

I'm not clicking on the guy's threads anymore, and won't reply to any of his troll posts anymore. If he comes around and actually says something productive or informative, someone let me know.

Yea Alpe d'Huez . . . a credible voice on doping in the sport like yours is what we need to hear right???? Why don't you explain for the forum where that credibility comes from . . . .
 
May 1, 2009
149
0
0
Visit site
byu123 said:
Like I said . . . the interesting but simple, see below, Twitter trick was by someone on this thread with entirely too much time on their hands . . . but I will gladely take the cool "byu123" Twitter account if they will private message me with the password . . . .

Any relation?

twitter.com/Ninety5rpm . . . or is it twitter.com/byu123 . . . as I have always said . . . don't believe everything you see and hear on an Internet blog.


Give me five more minutes and I'll make an identical account for you as well TTF.

methinks maybe you need some outside time. too much time spent on your computer isn't healthy.

you should take up cycling. it's a great sport. there are some internet sites out there that can tell you something about it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
byu123 said:
Like I said . . . the interesting but simple, see below, Twitter trick was by someone on this thread with entirely too much time on their hands . . . but I will gladely take the cool "byu123" Twitter account if they will private message me with the password . . . .

Any relation?

twitter.com/Ninety5rpm . . . or is it twitter.com/byu123 . . . as I have always said . . . don't believe everything you see and hear on an Internet blog.


Give me five more minutes and I'll make an identical account for you as well TTF.

While you are at it, would you get someone to finally steal my identity? I am still looking for some fool to take over my credit history.....
 
Mar 10, 2009
25
0
0
Visit site
Byu123

Here's a little hint: If you want people to take you seriously, try to limit your use of subjective terms and judgements to less than 50% of your argument's word count. Things like "unsupported conclusion", "bias hired legal gun" and "cobbled together in a desperate attempt to malign" nullify any credibility you might think you have. Your methods work great when preaching to a choir, but when you are trying to convince people of a different opinion, you just sound like a lunatic. If your goal is to discredit Ashenden, cite specific things he did, and how they were wrong or invalid, don't just call him names. maybe take his arguments and refute them one by one, without any references to a grand conspiracy theory against god's gift to cycling and cancer. Do you really think it is those who don't believe in his cleanliness that are naive or not paying attention? Have you been paying attention to cycling for the past decade? Is it naive to assume that given the large number of top riders beaten by armstrong having been caught doping there is a possibility that Armstrong did too? Can you show me a single piece of evidence proving that lance never doped? And let me give you a follow up question to that last one: did Ullrich ever test positive?
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Visit site
Zoncolan said:
buy123 a troll? On Lance's payroll maybe? 25 posts a day?:eek:

Yes . . . notice how my appearance here almost perfectly coincided with the restoration of funding to Astana!!!! You don't think I would be here if I wasn't being paid good money would you??? ;)

Doh! You got me . . .

1308831460_cd698b82b4.jpg
 
Mar 10, 2009
221
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Read the Code please. They used already established procedure from the labs in place to design and enact the freaking code. Prove the standards used by Ashenden were in violation of standard lab protocol. You can't. You only have the words of Mr Armstrong and his attorneys suggesting it. No proof. No evidence.

Mr Armstrong used synthetic EPO during the 1999 Tour de France.

Now I am done with this.

Can you back that up in court?