French doping agency forwards report on Armstrong...what's this about?

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
3
0
slowoldman said:
Why all the bother? Why not mark it as a missed test. He would be allowed three of those, as Rasmussen was. The results came back negative, he acted strangely. Nothing is proven either way. Mark it as a missed test, give a warning and move on. Each person comes to this argument with their own prejudices. It is very obvious by the words and tones of each post where those prejudices lie and to whom they belong. Personally I don't believe Armstrong is a threat to win the Tour. I believe Contador will ride away with it. I believe Armstrong wants the Ventoux stage, that's it. Love him or hate him, it will be more interesting with him there. I am more excited for the Giro to tell the truth.
Actaully there is a difference. Missing tests or not be able to be found by the testors is one thing. Running away from the testers is another thing; that is a positive. This Armstrong affair is somewhere in between. He was informed of the test, hid for awhile, and then came back.
 
Apr 1, 2009
120
0
0
BroDeal,
I dont think that you and Oldslow are too far a part. It is not the chicken, and is not the egg, it is in between. But still the punishment needs to fit the crime. If the Chicken who was actually trying to hide the truth and lied got a warning 2 times, Does LA need to be given a doping suspension. Now, wasnt the Chicken situation a UCI and this lA is a AFDL (I cannot remember). If that is the case that is a different ball game as the French do do whatever they want.
 
Mar 12, 2009
434
0
0
BroDeal said:
Why would you ever think that? How many riders have doped for years and only been unlucky enough to be ensared in a police investigation? How many have been caught once but have been doping for years? Look at Hamilton's Fuentes doping schedule sometime. That dude was using some type of substance or another every other day, and he only got caught because he was stupid enough to ignore the warning about his blood values.



There is absolute proof. He tested positive for EPO six times. What more do you want? Video of him actually injecting the drugs?
I said ABSOLUTE. I'm sorry but these six positives are all NOT ABSOLUTE.

Now I'm neutral on LA and far from an expert on these frozen 1999 samples and all the sample A and B stuff but it's all still ALLEGED isn't it. Seems to be people's opinions more than facts.
 
Apr 1, 2009
120
0
0
Lookkg,
well, the 6 + are +. The issue is that I don't think they can use them to punish the guy. Didn't he get some sort of get out of jail free card when he signed a release for those to be used for research?
 
Apr 1, 2009
120
0
0
I am sincerely asking about the signature of the releases as I remember reading something about it in "LA War" and I am going off from memory here
 
Mar 10, 2009
504
0
0
To those who liken Armstrong's word as truth, ask yourselves this: When you exceed the speed limit on the highway, but don't get caught by the police, does that mean you've never exceeded the speed limit? No, you've simply never been caught speeding. Big difference. Are you above the law when you don't get caught - or are you simply lucky? And when you are pulled over by the police, do you attempt to evade, or do you cooperate , listen to the police, and pay a fine or contest the ticket with a day in court?

Again, according to Armstrong, he's never tested positive. Okay, fine. But does that mean he's never doped? Chances are no one but perhaps Armstrong and a few very close associates know the truth. I choose not to believe his version of the truth.

All I know is he was out of the direct and permanent observation of the tester, and I'm interpreting that to mean Armstrong had something to hide.
 
Apr 1, 2009
120
0
0
Totally agree with you Tifossa. I am not a big LA fan either and I have my opinion about the guy. Here is my problem. You are talking about a speeding ticket which is different from a DUI or killing someone with your car and the driver being responsible. Did he have something to hide, possibly. Did he test positive, No. So the punishment is not for doping but for a violation of the code of conduct. Should he be given 2 years? With the French handling this, it could happen.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Yes, they were used for research purposes (to assess an EPO test) and, as such, were not (and were never intended to be) handled appropriately for authorised drug testing. These samples will never be able to be used in the future to ban Armstrong because the chain of custody has been broken.

While lookkg386 may want absolute proof (which I presume would be a UCI ban based on a positive drug test), there is certainly a burden of proof that some, if not most, would find convincing enough. The EPO positives: regardless if they were used for research or not, they were still positives. Frankie Andreau's statement of Armstrong's bedside confession: he had nothing to gain by making this statement, in fact just the opposite. The taped phone call between Vaughters and Andreau regarding Armstrong punishing Floyd for leaving Postal for Phonak by dumping his blood transfusion down the toilet prior to a TdF mountain stage. Postal being caught with insulin and other prohibited substances. Then there are positives that are missed, such as Armstrong's 20-fold increase in hCG. This was not drug-induced, but caused by his testicular cancer. Regardless, the UCI never reported this positive despite numerous tests at this time. However, as many have said, that is the past and many other riders were also not caught despite endemic doping in the peloton during this period. While I have trouble with his motives for returning to racing (publicity is about him and not his Foundation, and appearance fees are pocketed by him rather than his Foundation), I wish him the best of luck and, despite his foolhardiness in this particular matter, hope the AFLD situation does not bring him down or prevent him from riding the TdF.
 
Mar 12, 2009
434
0
0
Agree with both last two posts Tifossa and Dr.W.
If Lance has doped then burn him at the stake for what he has done to cycling - I'll be front row!, but as Dr. Wattini has said he tested negative once again, it's his conduct that's in question - and that's always been his issue (attitude).
 
Apr 1, 2009
120
0
0
I hope also he is allowed to race the Tour. Then there will be absolute proof that the new "patron" is "el pistolero" Contadoper
 
Apr 9, 2009
13
0
0
tifosa said:
To those who liken Armstrong's word as truth, ask yourselves this: When you exceed the speed limit on the highway, but don't get caught by the police, does that mean you've never exceeded the speed limit? No, you've simply never been caught speeding. Big difference. Are you above the law when you don't get caught - or are you simply lucky? And when you are pulled over by the police, do you attempt to evade, or do you cooperate , listen to the police, and pay a fine or contest the ticket with a day in court?

Again, according to Armstrong, he's never tested positive. Okay, fine. But does that mean he's never doped? Chances are no one but perhaps Armstrong and a few very close associates know the truth. I choose not to believe his version of the truth.

All I know is he was out of the direct and permanent observation of the tester, and I'm interpreting that to mean Armstrong had something to hide.
this is ridiculous.....by your logic every rider who has ever ridden in the Tour, are dopers because they could have been dopers because they can't prove they didn't dope.....or are only the ones that *you* don't believe are dopers?

why not Indurain, why not Hinault, why not Anquetil? why not Fignon? why not LeMond, why not Merckx? why not Coppi? some of those never got tested for anything nor they have stored blood samples subject to new testing regimes.

"All I know..." is your problem...you don't know anything because you weren't there. All you have is what you *want* to believe and internet and news reporting on the versions from Lance and three witnesses vs the lone drug tester.

At least Lance has given a direct video "statement" for you to evaluate.....there are statements that the tester signed the test document and answered "no" to the question of irregularities. If that is not the case, ....lets see the a copy of the document. Where is it? Why wouldn't the tester note the absence if it was material or if he "protested"?

It would be like the cop stopping you for speeding, have a friendly chat and not even giving you a warning, and letting your drive off. And then coming back 6 weeks later and saying you were speeding and then arresting you for obstruction of justice and fleeing an officer as well.

oh, and btw, none of it means you are guilty
 
Mar 20, 2009
156
0
0
caddisfly said:
It would be like the cop stopping you for speeding, have a friendly chat and not even giving you a warning, and letting your drive off. And then coming back 6 weeks later and saying you were speeding and then arresting you for obstruction of justice and fleeing an officer as well.
No it wouldn't, it would be like the cop pulling up to you with his lights on and you jam your foot to the floor and ditch him. When the cop finally catches you and pulls you over, you call the captain of the national police force to ask if this guy is really a cop. You then infer your innocence against ditching the cop in the first place and insist you weren't speeding during the time cop didn't have you in his sight.

You then launch an international xenophobic pr assault against the cop, his station and his nationality.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
grimpeur said:
No it wouldn't, it would be like the cop pulling up to you with his lights on and you jam your foot to the floor and ditch him. When the cop finally catches you and pulls you over, you call the captain of the national police force to ask if this guy is really a cop. You then infer your innocence against ditching the cop in the first place and insist you weren't speeding during the time cop didn't have you in his sight.

You then launch an international xenophobic pr assault against the cop, his station and his nationality.
no it wouldnt...

are you saying that lance spotted a person who was obviously a drug tester, ran in the shower as soon as he even saw the bloke, and before anyone had spoken to him, and it was only after he'd come out of the shower that he then asked to see his identification.. ?

its not always best to respond to an analogy with a poorly thought out at and highly innacurate analogy of your own.. ;)
 
Apr 1, 2009
228
0
0
xenophobia goes both ways it seems. The french are famous for not liking those that come and win "their" race,,,, Merckx anyone?

I agree that LA's statement smelt a bit of anti freedom fry's but who leaked the information about this dispute in the first place? And the french have done this before and is really unprofessional and bad for cycling.


I'm not a LA fan, but in the end he still didn't test positive and it has filled 20 pages of BS, unbelievable!

Thanks god for the classics other wise what else would we talk about, I am not looking forward to July:(
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
caddisfly said:
this is ridiculous.....by your logic every rider who has ever ridden in the Tour, are dopers because they could have been dopers because they can't prove they didn't dope.....or are only the ones that *you* don't believe are dopers?

why not Indurain, why not Hinault, why not Anquetil? why not Fignon? why not LeMond, why not Merckx? why not Coppi? some of those never got tested for anything nor they have stored blood samples subject to new testing regimes.
Indurain - testimony at Festina trial showed whole Banesto team was doping.
Hinault - Avoided a doping control in 1982.
Fignon - tested postive for amphetamines.
Anquetil - Admitted in 1966 that he and most riders took amphetamines.
Merckx - tested positive 3 times.
Coppi - admitted in the 1950s to using stimulants. Asked when he took them he replied...when necessary. Asked when it was necessary he replied...always!
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
3
0
St. Elia said:
I'm not a LA fan, but in the end he still didn't test positive and it has filled 20 pages of BS, unbelievable!
Maybe he did not test positive because he took a leak in the shower and put clean urine in in his bladder. Maybe he took a masking agent.. Maybe he used an IV to get his Hct down. The whole point of being chaperoned is so the athlete cannot do these sorts of things. Rasmussen got thrown out of the TdF for less.
 
Mar 20, 2009
156
0
0
dimspace said:
no it wouldnt...

are you saying that lance spotted a person who was obviously a drug tester, ran in the shower as soon as he even saw the bloke, and before anyone had spoken to him, and it was only after he'd come out of the shower that he then asked to see his identification.. ?

its not always best to respond to an analogy with a poorly thought out at and highly innacurate analogy of your own.. ;)
Let's call it semantics... close enough. I think he and Bruyneel went to plan "B" when the tester showed up.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
St. Elia said:
The french are famous for not liking those that come and win "their" race(
Not actually true. They seem to like no one winning their race really. Fignon was never more popular than after he lost to Lemond and he has commented that he was not popular with the French fans when he was reigning TdF champion.
 
Mar 20, 2009
156
0
0
St. Elia said:
The french are famous for not liking those that come and win "their" race,,,, Merckx anyone?(
Regarding the French, Here's Armstrong's comment in L'equipe from (about a month ago) interview. Armstrong is training in Nice... How are things in France? (Smile) I've never been a single problem, either in a restaurant, on the bike or in the street. Nobody never came up to me and yelled "F*** you" (he makes the finger). On the contrary, people on motorcycles and scooters recognize me. They slow down, roll with me, engage me in conversation: "So you'll win the Tour?" "Hey, wait, no, I don't know!" The reception is excellent in France.

This is an interview with L'equipe, the sporting paper that is also allegedly after LA... And it is "their" race, it takes place in "their" country... France. Without "their" race, as you put it, Armstrong would never have the fame and fortune he has.
 
OK: Let us assume for a moment that the xenophobia is justified and the French are out to get Armstrong.
This would automatically confirm the Landis conspiracy theory of Lab interference. i.e. The French stitched him up, simply because he was another American winner,

So, ask yourself this: Better to go after Armstrong, with an offence of protocol, which is unlikely to end in a worldwide ban, but will heap criticism upon your doping agency.
A major investment for very little return.

Or: Wait for him to turn up at the Tour. See how he goes. If he charges off up a mountain, into the distance and lead of the Tour, do what the conspiracy theorists alleged was done to Landis.
Make up a positive, LA's carrer is effectively finished and his past wins get discredited in the process.

A moderate investment with a huge payback.

That is where the xenophobic argument of the Lance supporter ends, when taken to it's logical conclusion.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
3
0
St. Elia said:
xenophobia goes both ways it seems. The french are famous for not liking those that come and win "their" race,,,,
I think this is a bunch of crap. It would make sense if the French had a legitimate contender who could have won the TdF. The last real one was Fignon. Virenque got close but 1998 marked the end of him as a possible winner.

People of all ethnicities do not like Armstrong because he is an abrasive jerk. That was true long before he won the Tour. It has nothing to do with his nationality. When he won the U.S. nationals in the early 90s he said [I paraphrase], "I'm looking forward to going over to europe and sticking it (the jersey) in their faces."
 
Mar 20, 2009
156
0
0
The difference between doping in the old era and the current era is that with the pharma available today, you can literally turn a donkey into a racehorse. Amphetamines? That's kid stuff by comparison. Potentially dangerous, but not like the frankendope being used these days.
 
Mar 20, 2009
156
0
0
I raised the xenophobic issue because that is exactly what Armstrong's and Brunyeel's twitter feeds are creating. Go to any message thread on any US newspaper that is publishing articles related to this story. It's brutal.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,003
0
0
It's interesting that 'Americans' (to generalise, but that seems to be the name of the game) impute other nationalities with their own attitudes - the 'French' must hate a foreigner winning their race. I'm sure 'Americans' would hate that kind of failure but most 'grown up' countries are mature enough to praise the achievement rather than the nationality of the winner. Anyone who makes this kind of comment has clearly never seen an edition of Velo Club or read a copy of Equipe and appreciated their love of a Grand Champion wherever they come from.

Someone once made the analogy that 'America' as a nation is like a teenager - full of energy and ideas and innovation but stroppy and bad tempered when they don't get their own way. It seems to be holding up well in this case ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY