Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Hugh Januss]

From my observations a fair number of "scientists" do not seem to have the ability to interpret scientific information correctly either - especially if they are paid enough to be confused.

I do not dismiss the opinion of experts but I want to know if they have anything to gain by what they have to say before I put much weight into their claims - just a result of my contacts with a number of individuals who call themselves scientists. The fact that someone has a degree in a scientific field does not make them immune from personal bias or a desire for monetary gain.

Yes you are absolutely right it was shameful the way Damsgard waffled on the Armstrong blood profile issue. Some people will do anything for a buck. I guess the only ones we can trust are the independant voices that are not in anyones pocket. Like maybe that Walsh guy, or Swart or Betsy Andreu or anyone of a long list that has spoken out with nothing to gain only to be slammed by the propaganda machine that is Livestrongtm

 

[progressor]

Are you two joined at the hip, or some other place down in that region?

You mean like yourself, bro deal, race radio and a few others? No thanks.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You mean like yourself, bro deal, race radio and a few others? No thanks.

Oh, the big comeback........I'm reeling. Next time why not try "is that what you said,or is that what I said" or maybe the ever popular na na na nana!

 

[El Imbatido]

Come on guys, don't stoop down to the level of insults and baiting. I don't really care who started it but both sides have seen the consequences of insults ie. through BPC and TFF being banned. Now you guys need to lighten up a bit or it will happen again!!

 

[Digger]

The article that is the basis of this thread states that instead of preferential treatment, Astana had more testing (as would be expected) at less convenient times (as indicated by "Lance's PR machine").

Clearly you will believe that Lance has been dirty since he got into the sport and deserves less respect than any other professional rider - others here seem to believe that Lance is clean and any evidence to the contrary is coincidental, false, or manufactured.

My position is that he may have or he may not have but, until he tests positive and is suspended for it, I do not believe that people who think he is clean are "stupid" any more than I believe those who believe the facts suggest he used performance enhancing products are malicious (solely for reaching that conclusion).

He did test positive. Twice. And his blood figures are all over the place.
But now we have to wait for the extra but, 'until he is suspendend'.
Donations have a habit of stopping this. See Sylvia Schrenk.

 

[progressor]

Oh, the big comeback........I'm reeling. Next time why not try "is that what you said,or is that what I said" or maybe the ever popular na na na nana!

Is this a competition? I was just feeding you back what you threw at me. Funny you should think it so lame. El Imbatido has a point tho. I'll just ignore the next insult that I can pretty much guarantee will get thrown at me. Then we can move on.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Come on, people. Cool it with the insults and stick with the cycling topic.

Susan

 

[Mellow Velo]

Well, there is/was one interesting debate, overnight, dispite all the childish baiting from the troll tag team, trying to derail the thread, once again.

Interesting, that CentralCaliBike, our legal "eagle", says that expert witnesses will testify to whatever suits their personal agenda. Be it money, media attention, job secuirty, contracts etc.
I would assume this assessment, if true for scientists, would certainly be true of a member of the business community?
Say, Oakley sports marketing manager Stephanie McIlvain? ...

 

[Anonymous]

Well, there is/was one interesting debate, overnight, dispite all the childish baiting from the troll tag team, trying to derail the thread, once again.

Interesting, that CentralCaliBike, our legal "eagle", says that expert witnesses will testify to whatever suits their personal agenda. Be it money, media attention, job secuirty, contracts etc.
I would assume this assessment, if true for scientists, would certainly be true of a member of the business community?
Say, Oakley sports marketing manager Stephanie McIlvain? ...

In my experience with attorney's the 'truth' is relative. If one can prove it, then it's true, if not then it's not true. If an attorney wins his/her case then the 'truth' was on their side.

It's all so very neat and tidy. The mere fact that no 'charges' have been brought against LA and then 'proven' in court, by definition, means he's 'innocent'.

Attorneys, by and large, are the smartest people in the room. Just ask them. Any opposing view by 'experts' in the field have been 'bought', never mind how 'factual' their testimony may be.

 

[Race Radio]

Ok Sprocket, Arbiter, British err Ban Pro, errr Un Ban Pro...

You told me in a PM the other day that the forum would never hear from you again. I guess I don't have to express my utter disappointment as it's probably written all over my face

Yet another lie by Arbiter/BPC, how surprising.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

In my experience with attorney's the 'truth' is relative. If one can prove it, then it's true, if not then it's not true. If an attorney wins his/her case then the 'truth' was on their side.

It's all so very neat and tidy. The mere fact that no 'charges' have been brought against LA and then 'proven' in court, by definition, means he's 'innocent'.

Attorneys, by and large, are the smartest people in the room. Just ask them. Any opposing view by 'experts' in the field have been 'bought', never mind how 'factual' their testimony may be.

You might not want to assume that I believe the truth is relative - what I have a problem with with a high number of members on this forum is that they tend to believe that those who do not agree with their opinion of LA (doper or genetically superior cyclist) is there complete lack of civility to opposing views. I be less irritated at this if the subject was important, such as a matter that effects the personal lives of the people supporting either side of this subject, but here it just seems like the insults are passed on at a rate higher than on a fifth grade play ground.

I mentioned (more than once) that from a personal standpoint I do not have a position on LA. From the limited information I have read there seems to be facts (and experts) supporting both sides. While I am certain there is a "truth" on this (and most other subjects), I do not personally know what that truth is. I mention that there has been no judgment because that would tend to sway me (without a significant amount of research) that LA used doping products. I certainly would not say that the judicial system gets it right all of the time (someone mentioned OJ earlier in the thread) but a legal decision gives the suggestion that a somewhat unbiased panel looked at the evidence and found it compelling (which I have not done).

At this point, all I really know is that I have questions about the 1999 samples, but recognize that the individuals involved may have an agenda. I also know that as a stage winner on multiple occasions - high placed finisher on a lot more and wearer of the yellow jersey, LA was tested a lot - the testing organization have not come out and stated they found evidence that he was doping and sent that evidence for judicial review - that tends to make me question if I would be willing, without knowing a lot more about the subject, in stating LA is a doper >>> it also is the reason I believe calling those with opposing opinions on the subject stupid is less than accurate on it face.

 

[Anonymous]

You might not want to assume that I believe the truth is relative - what I have a problem with with a high number of members on this forum is that they tend to believe that those who do not agree with their opinion of LA (doper or genetically superior cyclist) is there complete lack of civility to opposing views. I be less irritated at this if the subject was important, such as a matter that effects the personal lives of the people supporting either side of this subject, but here it just seems like the insults are passed on at a rate higher than on a fifth grade play ground.

..yet YOU continue to offer up quite a bit of commentary regarding the subject. Also, you are spending time discussing the reaction of others to the subject AND the subject itself. Irony, learn about it!

 

[Sprocket01]

Yet another lie by Arbiter/BPC, how surprising.

I told him he would not see British Pro Cycling again. It was the truth.

Come on, lighten up and quit accusing people of lies.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

..yet YOU continue to offer up quite a bit of commentary regarding the subject. Also, you are spending time discussing the reaction of others to the subject AND the subject itself. Irony, learn about it!

The reaction of others is why you, I am many others are on this website in the first place. I am entertained by the interplay but enjoy what I read from someone such as Dr. Masirati who writes well and generally does not call names. Sometimes I learn something from a post - particularly those who provide links to articles. But just because someone in an article states a fact does not mean I agree with their claim.

As for learning about LA - I would like to believe he has ridden clean (at least since 1999) but recognize he may not have. I, however, do not have the motivation to search out for information about whether he doped or not but will read about it if I see a link I find interesting. I doubt I will ever be emphatic that LA is a doper unless a dirty tests comes out of a competition and are determined to be accurate by some type of judicial body (since I doubt I will ever be allowed to review the actual reports and interview and run a back ground on the scientists running the tests).

 

[Race Radio]

I told him he would not see British Pro Cycling again. It was the truth.

Come on, lighten up and quit accusing people of lies.

As usual you are trying to highjack a thread with your pretend persecution.

You have lied continually. You will continue to. You must have some pictures of one of the mods with a goat as there is no reason you should be here.

 

[Ferminal]

You might not want to assume that I believe the truth is relative - what I have a problem with with a high number of members on this forum is that they tend to believe that those who do not agree with their opinion of LA (doper or genetically superior cyclist) is there complete lack of civility to opposing views. I be less irritated at this if the subject was important, such as a matter that effects the personal lives of the people supporting either side of this subject, but here it just seems like the insults are passed on at a rate higher than on a fifth grade play ground.

I mentioned (more than once) that from a personal standpoint I do not have a position on LA. From the limited information I have read there seems to be facts (and experts) supporting both sides. While I am certain there is a "truth" on this (and most other subjects), I do not personally know what that truth is. I mention that there has been no judgment because that would tend to sway me (without a significant amount of research) that LA used doping products. I certainly would not say that the judicial system gets it right all of the time (someone mentioned OJ earlier in the thread) but a legal decision gives the suggestion that a somewhat unbiased panel looked at the evidence and found it compelling (which I have not done).

At this point, all I really know is that I have questions about the 1999 samples, but recognize that the individuals involved may have an agenda. I also know that as a stage winner on multiple occasions - high placed finisher on a lot more and wearer of the yellow jersey, LA was tested a lot - the testing organization have not come out and stated they found evidence that he was doping and sent that evidence for judicial review - that tends to make me question if I would be willing, without knowing a lot more about the subject, in stating LA is a doper >>> it also is the reason I believe calling those with opposing opinions on the subject stupid is less than accurate on it face.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

All you need to know about the 1999 samples.

I know, Ashenden is shocking, he has a disgraceful agenda known as anti-doping.

I think the most enticing thing about the 1999 samples is how it would go down in a civil case.

 

[Sprocket01]

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

All you need to know about the 1999 samples.

I know, Ashenden is shocking, he has a disgraceful agenda known as anti-doping.

I think the most enticing thing about the 1999 samples is how it would go down in a civil case.

I've always thought it hard to believe Armstrong would not have taken EPO in 1999 given there was no test for and it was standard protocol for GC. The argument is more why would he NOT have taken EPO? But we know from the controversy surrounding the storage of samples in this years tour that once you start moving them around and not keeping them in precise conditions then the tests become unreliable. There seems to be hypocrisy on this issue. Nobody should base their opinions on these old tests that would never stand up in normal circumstances.

 

[Sprocket01]

As usual you are trying to highjack a thread with your pretend persecution.

You have lied continually. You will continue to. You must have some pictures of one of the mods with a goat as there is no reason you should be here.

I'm not going to rise to the troll.

 

[Digger]

I've always thought it hard to believe Armstrong would not have taken EPO in 1999 given there was no test for and it was standard protocol for GC. The argument is more why would he NOT have taken EPO? But we know from the controversy surrounding the storage of samples in this years tour that once you start moving them around and not keeping them in precise conditions then the tests become unreliable. There seems to be hypocrisy on this issue. Nobody should base their opinions on these old tests that would never stand up in normal circumstances.

Yes EPO has been known to appear magically, if urine is not stored properly.

 

[Race Radio]

I've always thought it hard to believe Armstrong would not have taken EPO in 1999 given there was no test for and it was standard protocol for GC. The argument is more why would he NOT have taken EPO? But we know from the controversy surrounding the storage of samples in this years tour that once you start moving them around and not keeping them in precise conditions then the tests become unreliable. There seems to be hypocrisy on this issue. Nobody should base their opinions on these old tests that would never stand up in normal circumstances.

I am not going to raise to the troll

 

[Hugh Januss]

I've always thought it hard to believe Armstrong would not have taken EPO in 1999 given there was no test for and it was standard protocol for GC. The argument is more why would he NOT have taken EPO? But we know from the controversy surrounding the storage of samples in this years tour that once you start moving them around and not keeping them in precise conditions then the tests become unreliable. There seems to be hypocrisy on this issue. Nobody should base their opinions on these old tests that would never stand up in normal circumstances.

There is no hypocrisy and if you would have read more than the first paragraph you would understand that (I hope). Improper storage can not make rEPO suddenly appear in a sample when it was not there to begin with. It can however make a positive sample appear negative by degrading the sample so that the test result falls just under the level of a positive.

Edit; Oops I guess I did that for you.

 

[Sprocket01]

Yes EPO has been known to appear magically, if urine is not stored properly.

You're saying it doesn't matter how the samples are stored or who was watching over them? I would have thought people concerned about the allegations about how the UCI handled testing procedures this year would be the first ones to highlight how insufficient this is.

 

[Sprocket01]

There is no hypocrisy and if you would have read more than the first paragraph you would understand that (I hope). Improper storage can not make rEPO suddenly appear in a sample when it was not there to begin with. It can however make a positive sample appear negative by degrading the sample so that the test result falls just under the level of a positive.

Edit; Oops I guess I did that for you.

Thanks, that's interesting. That's one person's view, but I'm sure other scientists would say the fact that the test has degraded would make the chance of confusing the synthetic cells with natural ones all the greater. That's why the test was not accepted.

Look it may well have shown EPO on the 1999 samples, but using these tests as proof doesn't sit well with the attacks on the UCI about fresh tests this year, I'm sure you'll agree.

 

[Race Radio]

You're saying it doesn't matter how the samples are stored or who was watching over them? I would have thought people concerned about the allegations about how the UCI handled testing procedures this year would be the first ones to highlight how insufficient this is.

Yet another attempt to troll.

The 99 samples were stored in a WADA approved lab the entire time. There were no issues with the storage and your attempt to compare them to the UCI tossing this years samples in the trunk of a car on a hot day is just another weak attempt to troll.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

I've always thought it hard to believe Armstrong would not have taken EPO in 1999 given there was no test for and it was standard protocol for GC. The argument is more why would he NOT have taken EPO? But we know from the controversy surrounding the storage of samples in this years tour that once you start moving them around and not keeping them in precise conditions then the tests become unreliable. There seems to be hypocrisy on this issue. Nobody should base their opinions on these old tests that would never stand up in normal circumstances.

Has anybody tested positive at this years Tour to support this arguement? No.