• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Armstrong positive in 1999?

Aug 17, 2009
4,124
0
0
cyclestationgiuseppe said:
He taught me to ride with a high cadence. No joke. Spin baby spin, which in itself is a miracle.
66" gear, traing fixed gear all winter secret to a longer healthy life.
 
Aug 4, 2010
185
0
0
Barrus said:
Oh sweet Lord, not this discussion again:

USpostal, read this:

Ashenden interview

This is also one of the people now in charge of the blood passport.
I've read the report, when the sample was NOT correctly taken care of any result will be tainted. Where's the A sample to prove your point, how does the accelerated measurement procedure work that they used.What a sham the test procedure was. Thaw use refreeze, thaw use again. Please is all I can say.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
uspostal said:
I've read the report, when the sample was NOT correctly taken care of any result will be tainted. Where's the A sample to prove your point, how does the accelerated measurement procedure work that they used.What a sham the test procedure was. Thaw use refreeze, thaw use again. Please is all I can say.
Did you know that the word gullible no longer appears in any dictionary?
 
Aug 4, 2010
185
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Did you know that the word gullible no longer appears in any dictionary?
Babbla :to utter sounds or words imperfectly, indistinctly, or without meaning

incoherent :without logical or meaningful connection; disjointed; rambling: an incoherent sentence.
 
Jul 19, 2009
753
0
0
uspostal said:
I hope the if he doped isn't in commection to the 1999 TDF test that was done by" Laboratoire Nationale De Dépistage Du Dopage’. As this Independent Investigation shows it was full of holes and conducted horrably at best


. Advocaten. Archived from the original on 2007-12-01. http://web.archive.org/web/20071201220747/http://www.velonews.com/media/report1999.pdf. Retrieved 2008-01-09
What kind of holes?

Are you sure that Vrijman was independent of UCI which had received a lot of money of Armstrong?

Maybe you should read WADA report about Vrijman's report
WADA Completely Rejects Vrijman Report

June 2, 2006

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) today completely rejected the so-called “Vrijman report” submitted to the International Cycling Union (UCI) in relation to the publication appearing in L’Équipe in August 2005 that concluded Lance Armstrong had used EPO during the 1999 Tour de France.
WADA expressed its astonishment that the UCI would expect anyone to have the slightest confidence in the objectivity, methodology, analysis or conclusions of such a report, especially since UCI had had more than six weeks during which to review the draft report and to correct the many factual errors contained in it.
WADA’s preliminary conclusion is that the report is defamatory to the Agency, its officers and employees, as well as the accredited laboratory involved. WADA has taken legal advice regarding its recourses against the investigator and any organization, including UCI, that may publicly adopt its conclusions.
“WADA is an independent agency, comprised of equal representatives from the sports movement and the governments, which is concerned with the integrity of sport and the health of the athletes who practice it,” said WADA’s Chairman Richard W. Pound. “Our only interest in this matter is to determine the facts in an objective manner, whatever they may be. 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.”
Don't forget the details:
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/wada_official_statement_vrijman_report.pdf
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Aug 4, 2010
185
0
0
poupou said:
What kind of holes?

Are you sure that Vrijman was independent of UCI which had received a lot of money of Armstrong?

Maybe you should read WADA report about Vrijman's report
Don't forget the details:
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/wada_official_statement_vrijman_report.pdf
Sample handling, accelerated measurement procedure, chain of custody for samples, some of these urine samples had been opened without any record of when they had been opened and for what purpose, the stability test before an urine sample can be qualified as constituting an Adverse Analytical Finding wasn't done, No records of the storage
temperature for these samples during the past six years were available. I guess I could go on but you get the point. You cannot have a positive result from a flawed test, and a B sample.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
uspostal said:
Sample handling, accelerated measurement procedure, chain of custody for samples, some of these urine samples had been opened without any record of when they had been opened and for what purpose, the stability test before an urine sample can be qualified as constituting an Adverse Analytical Finding wasn't done, No records of the storage
temperature for these samples during the past six years were available. I guess I could go on but you get the point. You cannot have a positive result from a flawed test, and a B sample.
"Accelerated measurement procedure".... sounds cool..... is that how EPO magically appeared in Lances pee?
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
uspostal said:
I've read the report, when the sample was NOT correctly taken care of any result will be tainted. Where's the A sample to prove your point, how does the accelerated measurement procedure work that they used.What a sham the test procedure was. Thaw use refreeze, thaw use again. Please is all I can say.
Please read the Ashenden interview and what he says.
 
Jul 19, 2009
753
0
0
uspostal said:
Sample handling, accelerated measurement procedure, chain of custody for samples, some of these urine samples had been opened without any record of when they had been opened and for what purpose, the stability test before an urine sample can be qualified as constituting an Adverse Analytical Finding wasn't done, No records of the storage
temperature for these samples during the past six years were available. I guess I could go on but you get the point. You cannot have a positive result from a flawed test, and a B sample.
Any proofs for your allegations?

So according you, to produce EPO, we jjust have to store p1ss for 6 years!
 
Aug 4, 2010
185
0
0
poupou said:
Any proofs for your allegations?

So according you, to produce EPO, we jjust have to store p1ss for 6 years!

Not sure but I don't think the 1999 result is held in any hearts other than LA bashers who really had hoped the test would of held up in a court of law and not your worped sence of justice. AGAIN no A & B positive no positive test. At least thats the way I read the rules, am I wrong. A contaminated test, shoddy lab handling of the specimans, open and closed the opened again who really knows what happened in the French lab. Show me the LEGAL test result and I'll concider you position.
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
Okay than, other questions:
Do you believe Basso doped, Valverde, Pantani or Fränk Schleck, to name but a few?
None of them had any legal positive tests, if I am correct. Are you just as sceptical to them?
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
So given the choice between the word of Ashenden, one of the highest regarded anti doping experts in the world, and that of Vrijman who was being paid by the UCI, the same organization which had accepted money from the athlete in question, you choose to go with the guy doing it for the money. No offense, but that just doesn't seem very smart to me.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,108
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Maybe WADA is also part of the giant French conspiracy to take down poor innocent little Lance?

I bet you didn't know about the secret sect of French Mennonites, either?? The secret is now out.
 
May 23, 2010
414
0
0
uspostal said:
Not sure but I don't think the 1999 result is held in any hearts other than LA bashers who really had hoped the test would of held up in a court of law and not your worped sence of justice. AGAIN no A & B positive no positive test. At least thats the way I read the rules, am I wrong. A contaminated test, shoddy lab handling of the specimans, open and closed the opened again who really knows what happened in the French lab. Show me the LEGAL test result and I'll concider you position.
Your signature says it all. You're only a thief if you get caught by the police? So why are we arguing this case? Lance was never caught in an official test, therefore he's never doped. Clear as a bell.
 
Oct 25, 2009
556
0
0
The Ashenden interview is one of the most compelling pieces on doping I have ever read. It is beyond doubt that Lance used EPO during the '99 Tour. Especially read the part about how hard it would be to intentionally spike samples, actually more than hard, virtually impossible.
 
Jul 24, 2009
14
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
So given the choice between the word of Ashenden, one of the highest regarded anti doping experts in the world, and that of Vrijman who was being paid by the UCI, the same organization which had accepted money from the athlete in question, you choose to go with the guy doing it for the money. No offense, but that just doesn't seem very smart to me.
Ashenden may know a lot of stuff...but he doesn't even seem to have heard about serial dilution. See the first comments here: http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2009/spiking-armstrongs-99-samples

He's not exactly infallible.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,030
0
0
This whole "need an A and B sample to establish a positive" is such ignorant lawyeristic BS in the 1999 test situation.

6 positive tests form 6 different days is far, far more conclusive than any A and B positive. Far more conclusive (restated). This is true even if the use of a combined reference preparation reduces the "accuracy" of the test.

Think of it as having and A, C, E, G, I, and K sample positive
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS