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

Armstrong positive in 1999?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
editedbymod said:
In addition the testers who were conducting the research on the unknown Armstrong sampless had no idea some bright spark at l'Equipe was linking sample number to athlete. How would they know which 6 to spike of the 100's of samples?

Good try.
Yes, only reporters can obtain information like this. :rolleyes:
 
Jul 11, 2010
112
0
0
ChrisE said:
Yes, only reporters can obtain information like this. :rolleyes:

Correct because Armstrong was good enough to give him his drug test IID numbers. Without those we'd never of known. Thanks Lance.

Good try.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
hrotha said:
However, spiking Armstrong's samples in particular, without knowing which ones they were, wouldn't. Read the interview, it's all there.
Are you stupid??

These are highly trained and highly secret Nazi Frogmen we are talking about and they know what they are looking for.

The hard part was dropping down from silent helicopters in to the Laboratory, but once they got in through the aircon it was easy.

To find Lances urine samples all they had to was open the fridge and check for Michelob - RTMcF will explain how easy it is to spike the sample, 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 drops....its not science.

Then the Nazi Frogmen had to find Lance's blood samples - again very easy as Floyd was sitting there in case the lights went out - a Jaws HD DVD and he was pointing out which one was Lances and Georges.

Of course - being a man of integrity, Pat McQuaid wanted to nail Lance - which is why they deported him back to South Africa in the 70's and recorded him racing there which meant he could never ride for the Olympics - let alone have lofty ideas of being a member of the IOC.

Verbruggen said he would be happy with a 'seismic' donation befitting a top ranking member of the IOC - perhaps it got lost in translation but he appeared to be disappointed with the Sysmec machine given.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Are you stupid??

These are highly trained and highly secret Nazi Frogmen we are talking about and they know what they are looking for.

The hard part was dropping down from silent helicopters in to the Laboratory, but once they got in through the aircon it was easy.

To find Lances urine samples all they had to was open the fridge and check for Michelob - RTMcF will explain how easy it is to spike the sample, 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 drops....its not science.

Then the Nazi Frogmen had to find Lance's blood samples - again very easy as Floyd was sitting there in case the lights went out - a Jaws HD DVD and he was pointing out which one was Lances and Georges.

Of course - being a man of integrity, Pat McQuaid wanted to nail Lance - which is why they deported him back to South Africa in the 70's and recorded him racing there which meant he could never ride for the Olympics - let alone have lofty ideas of being a member of the IOC.

Verbruggen said he would be happy with a 'seismic' donation befitting a top ranking member of the IOC - perhaps it got lost in translation but he appeared to be disappointed with the Sysmec machine given.
I thought Floyd hacked their database to find out which numbers were Armstrong's.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,030
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Are you stupid?? These are highly trained and highly secret Nazi Frogmen we are talking about and they know what they are looking for....
What proof do you have the these frogmen were Nazi? Please provide links.

Also, can you explain how these (allegedly Nazi) frogmen knew Lance was going to provide the necessary information to allow the lab's findings to be made public?

And while you are at it, why did said frogmen give public strategies ammunition by using a reference preparation that is not covered by the WADA standards? Verisimilitude?
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Ferminal said:
I thought Floyd hacked their database to find out which numbers were Armstrong's.
Please keep up....NO it was Greg LeMond who hacked in to the computers

Floyd realised he had no way of playing the Jaws HD DVD in the cabin- so LeMond said he would allow him one TdF as long as it was't 2006 as he had all his LeMond bikes betting on Piero winning that Tour.

Floyd thought he was in with the 'mafia' and got excited and won, clean - so as a lesson to Levi, LeMond got the Nazi Frogmen to not only spike Floyds sample but show that Floyd hacked in to the computer to play his DVD.

This is also why the Trek/LeMond dispute arose as Trek were pissed that all the extra bikes hitting the market would effect Johans ability to manage the team through eBay.
 
Aug 4, 2010
185
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Are you stupid??

These are highly trained and highly secret Nazi Frogmen we are talking about and they know what they are looking for.

The hard part was dropping down from silent helicopters in to the Laboratory, but once they got in through the aircon it was easy.

To find Lances urine samples all they had to was open the fridge and check for Michelob - RTMcF will explain how easy it is to spike the sample, 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 drops....its not science.

Then the Nazi Frogmen had to find Lance's blood samples - again very easy as Floyd was sitting there in case the lights went out - a Jaws HD DVD and he was pointing out which one was Lances and Georges.

Of course - being a man of integrity, Pat McQuaid wanted to nail Lance - which is why they deported him back to South Africa in the 70's and recorded him racing there which meant he could never ride for the Olympics - let alone have lofty ideas of being a member of the IOC.

Verbruggen said he would be happy with a 'seismic' donation befitting a top ranking member of the IOC - perhaps it got lost in translation but he appeared to be disappointed with the Sysmec machine given.
I had it figured as the Iraqi special forces paying the French back for all the nuclear enery help the got from France. then Goerge W had to send in the US Army for Iraqi attempting to discredit LA and in a way discredit the US. So all of the people who thought we invaded Iraq for the oil fields are wrong !!! Almost WW3 over a French doping attempt. I guess we can all ramble a good story.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Are you stupid??

These are highly trained and highly secret Nazi Frogmen we are talking about and they know what they are looking for.

The hard part was dropping down from silent helicopters in to the Laboratory, but once they got in through the aircon it was easy.

To find Lances urine samples all they had to was open the fridge and check for Michelob - RTMcF will explain how easy it is to spike the sample, 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 drops....its not science.

Then the Nazi Frogmen had to find Lance's blood samples - again very easy as Floyd was sitting there in case the lights went out - a Jaws HD DVD and he was pointing out which one was Lances and Georges.

Of course - being a man of integrity, Pat McQuaid wanted to nail Lance - which is why they deported him back to South Africa in the 70's and recorded him racing there which meant he could never ride for the Olympics - let alone have lofty ideas of being a member of the IOC.

Verbruggen said he would be happy with a 'seismic' donation befitting a top ranking member of the IOC - perhaps it got lost in translation but he appeared to be disappointed with the Sysmec machine given.
Just one correction, it wasn't Nazi Frogmen.

 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
ChrisE said:
Yes, only reporters can obtain information like this. :rolleyes:
Thanks for reminding me, btw: in addition to LeMond, the Andreu's, Walsh, etc, the fanboys also owe Ressiot a very big apology.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
VeloCity said:
Thanks for reminding me, btw: in addition to LeMond, the Andreu's, Walsh, etc, the fanboys also owe Ressiot a very big apology.
Do you guys really think nobody knows shyt unless LA tells a reporter he can know shyt? :rolleyes:

Is it just impossible nobody knows whose sample is whose unless LA tells a reporter he can know it?

Velocity bud, I've known you a long time and I know you are smarter than this. This editedbymod guy seems like a smart guy because he can log in and type English but I dunno about this airtight lockbox about codes and pis.:confused:

I know what the "rules" say.......but...I was born at night, just not last night.

Just say you don't think they were tampered with. Don't say it was impossible for anybody to know whose pis it was until LA gave the ok. Sheesh.
 
Jul 11, 2010
112
0
0
So based on this theory why not spike A samples from a race? Why waist time with the research samples? Would be much easier to join the dots on rider identity from the A sample from say a stage win. Bigger fall-out. Bigger story. Being the most tested athlete in the world there would have been more samples to spike. Why not before? and why again after the story? Why waste time on this retro testing which has no sanction.

I'm with you they only decided to spike 6 samples from the 1999 Tour and never again. It was a one off 6 sample spike. It never happened again. The tester got bored and thought let's spike these random 6 and they all turned out to belong to one athlete.

ChrisE said:
Do you guys really think nobody knows shyt unless LA tells a eporter he can know shyt? :rolleyes:

Is it just impossible nobody knows whose sample is whose unless LA tells a reporter he can know it?

Velocity bud, I've known you a long time and I know you are smarter than this. This editedbymod guy seems like a smart guy because he can log in and type English but I dunno about this airtight lockbox about codes and pis.:confused:

I know what the "rules" say.......but...I was born at night, just not last night.

Just say you don't think they were tampered with. Don't say it was impossible for anybody to know whose pis it was until LA gave the ok. Sheesh.
 
ChrisE said:
Do you guys really think nobody knows shyt unless LA tells a reporter he can know shyt? :rolleyes:

Is it just impossible nobody knows whose sample is whose unless LA tells a reporter he can know it?

Velocity bud, I've known you a long time and I know you are smarter than this. This editedbymod guy seems like a smart guy because he can log in and type English but I dunno about this airtight lockbox about codes and pis.:confused:

I know what the "rules" say.......but...I was born at night, just not last night.

Just say you don't think they were tampered with. Don't say it was impossible for anybody to know whose pis it was until LA gave the ok. Sheesh.
It was Bassons who hacked the lab, he's french and had an ax to grind. Get it right. He's the only self serving mediocre guy who was clean, duh.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,045
0
0
Squares said:
So, could it be spiked by giving yourself a big dose by injection, waiting 8 hours until your body had absorbed it, passed it into your urine, you pee in a cup and spike the sample with urine that has a high level of EPO.

That would allow it to be processed into the form detectable in the doping test, right?
Right.

One problem though, you'd actually have to pee in the cup six times, with just the right increase then decrease in isoforms to match the profile of EPO use across a three-week tour.

This guy was brilliant. A master of spy-craft AND an expert physiologist.

Was Jason Bourne working at Chatenay-Malabry?
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,348
0
0
I think we all would have been better off reading the other 18 threads on this subject........the one good thing about it though is it gives me a chance to post one of these...................



Sorry for posting it but i have wanted to for so long now:p.........as for adding to the discussion i think everything i could say has already been said in the other 18 threads on this exact subject
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
Allright everyone get back on-topic, or I'll close this thread.

On-topic Uspostal, how come you haven't answered any question put forth to you, nor have reacted in any way to posts that point out flaws in your argument, you only reacted to posts that were beneficial to your line of reasoning
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,030
0
0
ChrisE said:
Do you guys really think nobody knows shyt unless LA tells a reporter he can know shyt? :rolleyes:
No, I don't think that.

But if someone in the lab did get the info linking riders names to the samples, then tampered with the samples.....how do they make the positives known, in a way that means people actually believe the samples were Lances?

Do they hold a press conference and say:
"I bribed Monsieur X at the UCi to tell me the names, so I know these are Lance's samples"
or
"I know these are Lances samples but I can't tell you how I know, and I can't prove it in any way"

Maybe they payed a blond starlet to collect a DNA sample or something. But if so why wait for Lance to release the required info himself?
 
I was going to tell you all the humor is funny, but stay on topic. However, El Imbatido's post really got me to laugh. Yes, everything probably already said in the other 18 threads on this topic, but they didn't include that photo. :cool:

Now, yes, as Barrus says, let's stay on topic, that includes me.
 
Jul 24, 2009
14
0
0
MacRoadie said:
Sure, because you definitely want to give equal weight to a bunch of anonymous guys who cherry-pick the article and add weight to their comments with "it's so easy I learned that in 5th grade" type quips.
Do you want me to ask my girlfriend? She's almost done with her PhD in Biology. She told me it's a simple process. You can see it described here.

It's alarming that Ashenden thought you would have to pipette the actual amount of EPO, and not just dilute it. It seems like he's not that experienced a bench scientist to have missed the mark to that degree. In my opinion it calls into question a lot of his declarative statements.

That said, I still don't think the samples were spiked. As others have said, the codes weren't matched up yet, so it doesn't make much sense.
 
Aug 4, 2010
185
0
0
01:44
Barrus Allright everyone get back on-topic, or I'll close this thread.

On-topic Uspostal, how come you haven't answered any question put forth to you, nor have reacted in any way to posts that point out flaws in your argument, you only reacted to posts that were beneficial to your line of reasoning


LA gave them permission to look at the drug paperwork from 1999 because it was under the pretenst of looking to see if he had any drug stated on it for exemption, which we know now is false. LA didn't know the French lab was testing his sample, as they never got his permission to do so. It was susposed to be to fill a data base. Had he know the French lab was doing the test without his permission, and using his sample he would have sued at that point and stopped it. He would have never given his permission to look at the drug paperwork from 1999. It was shown the lab has used some of the TDF samples for other tests and refroze them, no paperwork was ever produced as to what they were used for, How much was used, how many. So how can anything be trusted by that lab, if they broke the law by using samples without any permission, is it or would it be outside the scope of reason for them to get the same paperwork and have the sample numbers on them. It was the statement of Prof. DeCeaurriz and Dr. Lasne that WADA had requested the additional information to be included in the research reports.‘additional information’ is understood as the following information that is normally not included in a routine research report: i.e. the code numbers present on the original glass bottles used for doping controls during the 1998 and the 1999 Tour de France, but also the name of the sport, the name of the race, codes indicating the successive deliveries of samples to the LNDD. And didn't the WADA have the numbers from the samples of who the samples belonged to. Maybe its just splitting hairs with people on here, but absent court allowable evidence I cannot accept the labs findings. I guess in a field where how you do something, the methods used, will be scrutinized more than the result its hard to accept how things were done. Shoddy paperwork, chain of custody, used and re-froze samples. LA maybe as guilty as sin but this labs work leaves me believing it messed up the tests.
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
Still you did not answer questions posted by other posters, nor really reacted to many of them, nor did you answer my question
 
Oct 25, 2009
556
0
0
RTMcFadden said:
Actually, spiking a sample would be a fairly simple task.
You haven't read the interview. Read the whole thing, it's quite clear that the notion of spiked samples is preposterous.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The most boring part of all of this is that some dude once again brought up a topic that has been well hashed here in the past.

I have to say, I am getting pretty bored with all of this. Everyone is in a holding pattern waiting for a federal investigation to produce something new, so in the meantime, why not rehash every single Armstrong related garbage topic we can find just to fill space? I even fell for it...then I lost the will to live and only convinced myself to put down the sleeping pills by assuring myself that indeed there would be a new Toto in the morning. Crisis averted.

Anyway, T minus 5 days and counting until school starts. A couple of months ago, I thought I would miss all this...now, not so much.
 
Jul 8, 2010
133
0
0
uspostal said:
01:44
LA maybe as guilty as sin but this labs work leaves me believing it messed up the tests.
So you admit he might be guilty. You're stating that legally he can't be charged. Well, good news for you, he never was charged and never will be charged because of these samples, according to UCI regulation (I repeat, according to UCI regulation).

If, according to law, you can only be convicted for murder, when a body is discovered, then you'll be innocent, as long nobody finds a cadaver, even if 20 witnesses saw you shoot the guy. Here, it's exactly the same thing. It took the Vrijman report 140 pages to explain what I put in this paragraph.

The labs might be messy with their sample handling, but they never were after LA in this case. It's simply a smart (some will say ruthless) reporter, who made a fantastic investigative work to match the samples with names, that brought up the whole story. Without this type of investigators, a watergate would never been uncovered.

Ressiot was clearly after LA, and he nailed him. But read the famous L'Equipe article "Armstrong: le mensonge" (Armstrong: the lie), and he clearly states this:
"Were LA's samples tainted with EPO? Answer, yes. Will he be charged for this? NO!"

I let you big boys continue your discussions. For me this particular thread is useless and dead, as it does not bring any news in what happened.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS