• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. 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!

Lance Armstrong's blood values from the Tour de France looks suspicious and indicate

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
tockit said:
Also, you guys have tossed it around a lot, but me being the skeptic that I am (assuming that Armstrong is doped) wonders how does Lance continues to beat the doping controls with their biological rider profiles, hair, urine, and blood samples, etc, etc, going into his 8th season while drug testing all the while has progressively gotten more advanced?

Let me argue this by using a counter-argument ... how many high level cyclists have been caught using a doping test? Most of them are stupid (homologous blood transfusions for Hamilton and Vino, perhaps Landis with testosterone) or didn't realize that the manufacturer had worked with doping agencies in the case of CERA (which nabbed the likes of Kohl, Schumacher, Ricco, Pipeoli and Rebellin). For the latter group, these riders did not test positive using standard tests for EPO, and nor were their blood profiles sufficiently abnormal on the biological passport. Most high level cyclists are actually caught through doping affairs, such as Operacion Puerto (including Basso, Ullrich and Valverde) or through means not directly related to doping tests like Rasmussen. Ullrich's reported drug program, which involved blood transfusions, EPO, HGH, and testosterone amongst others, was never detected. Then there is the tests themselves: EPO was first introduced in 2001, HGH is not detectable after 2-3 hours, and exogenous testosterone was only recently introduced.

Digger wrote this post in another thread about sprinter Dwain Chambers: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=48717&highlight=balco#post48717

Obviously a good doctor also helps in avoiding positives as well.
 
Jul 22, 2009
107
0
0
Visit site
elapid said:
Let me argue this by using a counter-argument ... how many high level cyclists have been caught using a doping test? Most of them are stupid (homologous blood transfusions for Hamilton and Vino, perhaps Landis with testosterone) or didn't realize that the manufacturer had worked with doping agencies in the case of CERA (which nabbed the likes of Kohl, Schumacher, Ricco, Pipeoli and Rebellin). For the latter group, these riders did not test positive using standard tests for EPO, and nor were their blood profiles sufficiently abnormal on the biological passport. Most high level cyclists are actually caught through doping affairs, such as Operacion Puerto (including Basso, Ullrich and Valverde) or through means not directly related to doping tests like Rasmussen. Ullrich's reported drug program, which involved blood transfusions, EPO, HGH, and testosterone amongst others, was never detected. Then there is the tests themselves: EPO was first introduced in 2001, HGH is not detectable after 2-3 hours, and exogenous testosterone was only recently introduced.

Digger wrote this post in another thread about sprinter Dwain Chambers: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=48717&highlight=balco#post48717

Obviously a good doctor also helps in avoiding positives as well.
Who is Lance's or Astana's doctor?

Two questions:

Wouldn't a variation in a rider's haematological profile occur if they used EPO, etc, regardless of a masking agent for urine tests?

Is EPO, HGH, testosterone, etc not detectable in hair samples?
 
Jul 16, 2009
230
0
0
Visit site
Zen Master said:
Excellent interview for The Competitors Radio show !
I found the same one with Betsy Andreu a couple months ago and you have also two-part interview with David Walsh

download links

Betsy Andreu

http://www.competitorradio.com/download.php?filename=142Competitors-BetsyAndreau.mp3

David Walsh

http://www.competitorradio.com/shows/139Competitors-DavidWalsh-Part1.mp3

http://www.competitorradio.com/download.php?filename=139Competitors-DavidWalsh-Part2.mp3



Can I add my thoughts that these links should be made sticky in the Clinic
So much redundant thread is covered by what Betsy says.
So clear in how she explains it – esp from husband Frankies perspective. Some ego driven win at all costs people, but also some really good people just trying to make a living and provide for their family.
Plus some pertinent comments on Ferrari, and LA of course.
A light of truth in a sea of lies
Betsy well done. Personally I’d have shut up, and worn the slur on my reputation, but that’s cos I’ve been there. Well done. Good interview too.
Does anyone know if these interviews are covered in a thread here?



One final thought- yeah, I can understand why Frankie didn’t tell Betsy. Anyone married with such decisions in life, and having to provide, probably understands that
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
tockit said:
Who is Lance's or Astana's doctor?

Lance's doctor was Ferrari, but if he does have one now I don't know who this is. I don't know Astana's doctor, but Damsgaard runs their internal antidoping program.

tockit said:
Wouldn't a variation in a rider's haematological profile occur if they used EPO, etc, regardless of a masking agent for urine tests?

In theory, yes. Hematocrit is a direct indication, and immature red blood cells (reticulocytes) are an indirect indication of EPO and/or blood transfusions. There are probably other indices as well. However, the cutoff for these indices are set so high for legal reasons that the UCI cannot sanction riders. Also riders are usually ahead of the drug testers, such as EPO microdosing and the use of autologous blood transfusions (which are undetectable at this stage).

tockit said:
Is EPO, HGH, testosterone, etc not detectable in hair samples?

To the best of my knowledge, hair samples are only used for social drugs like cocaine, marijuana, opiates and PCP. If I remember correctly from the showergate fiasco earlier this year, hair samples are not routine and only AFLD are running hair samples. Not sure if this is correct, but it is usually blood and urine samples.
 
Jul 22, 2009
107
0
0
Visit site
elapid said:
In theory, yes. Hematocrit is a direct indication, and immature red blood cells (reticulocytes) are an indirect indication of EPO and/or blood transfusions. There are probably other indices as well. However, the cutoff for these indices are set so high for legal reasons that the UCI cannot sanction riders. Also riders are usually ahead of the drug testers, such as EPO microdosing and the use of autologous blood transfusions (which are undetectable at this stage).
So what you're saying is if a rider is microdosing EPO or taking autologous blood transfusions, unless that rider goes above the 50% threshold, they aren't considered positive?

Is this true even if a rider's hematocrit jumps from 43 to 48 from one day to the next during a GT?

How does microdosing work, and would this, along with autologous BT's make a average rider into a GT winner?


Sorry if this stuff has been covered. I guess I'm naive to all of this?


All I have to say, if LA and a lot these guys are doing this for years at a time with no positives, and no one catching them in the act (or prior to / or post act), they must be damn good.

Especially with all the speculation surrounding LA and JB's team in recent years.
 
tockit said:
So what you're saying is if a rider is microdosing EPO or taking autologous blood transfusions, unless that rider goes above the 50% threshold, they aren't considered positive?

Is this true even if a rider's hematocrit jumps from 43 to 48 from one day to the next during a GT?

How does microdosing work, and would this, along with autologous BT's make a average rider into a GT winner?


Sorry if this stuff has been covered. I guess I'm naive to all of this?


All I have to say, if LA and a lot these guys are doing this for years at a time with no positives, and no one catching them in the act (or prior to / or post act), they must be damn good.

Especially with all the speculation surrounding LA and JB's team in recent years.

Just heading out training...but to answer your post as succinctly as possible. The biggest drug busts in the sports history did not come from positives, they came from Police seizures. Most of the riders in both of these busts never tested positive either. Almost all in fact. Essentially, if you have the money, like the top end guys do, doping is extremely hard to detect, because they are usually blood doping anyways.
Later!!!
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
tockit said:
So what you're saying is if a rider is microdosing EPO or taking autologous blood transfusions, unless that rider goes above the 50% threshold, they aren't considered positive?

Is this true even if a rider's hematocrit jumps from 43 to 48 from one day to the next during a GT?

How does microdosing work, and would this, along with autologous BT's make a average rider into a GT winner?


Sorry if this stuff has been covered. I guess I'm naive to all of this?


All I have to say, if LA and a lot these guys are doing this for years at a time with no positives, and no one catching them in the act (or prior to / or post act), they must be damn good.

Especially with all the speculation surrounding LA and JB's team in recent years.

The biological passport has changed things. The old 50% rule is still in place (I think), but a jump from 43% to 48% in a grand tour should be accompanied by other changes in the blood profile (such as reticulocyte count) which would indicate doping and support a sanction. However, this is often not the case because of the high cutoffs.

I am not sure how microdosing works, but others on this forum may be able to help with that question.

Response to EPO in particular is variable: some athletes are better responders than others. Armstrong is generally regarded as a very good responder. Riis obviously was a good responder. So, in short, yes EPO can help a well-trained and motivated athlete win a GT because it has for the likes of Riis and Armstrong (at least in 1999).

The dopers are not getting caught because of lots of reasons: good doctors, good programs, the proof required to catch dopers is set at a very high level which is often too high, and perhaps political reasons as well.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
Visit site
elapid said:
To the best of my knowledge, hair samples are only used for social drugs like cocaine, marijuana, opiates and PCP. If I remember correctly from the showergate fiasco earlier this year, hair samples are not routine and only AFLD are running hair samples. Not sure if this is correct, but it is usually blood and urine samples.

AFLD uses hair samples for their research.
 
Jun 16, 2009
17
1
0
Visit site
Why has Armstrong never tested positive? Here's my answer:

EPO was used in the pro peleton since the late 1980s, but the first people to test positive (to my knowledge) were Bo Hamburger and Niklas Axelsson in 2001. That means that the test was not available till then. So in 1999 and 2000 Armstrong was taking EPO without any worry about getting caught. Was he the only rider to be doing so? Obviously no. Ullrich took EPO, so did Pantani, Riis, anyone who was anywhere near the top, so did pretty much anyone on Telekom (they admitted as much). But yet, none of these guys tested positive. How could that be? The question to ask yourself is how often were these guys tested? In spite of what Armstrong claims the system of reporting your location is very recent as are out of competition tests.

Here are the results of a study looking at the EPO test from last year showing it has a huge rate of false negatives:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080626100921.htm

Finally, I think that Armstrong limited his EPO doping near the end of his career (at least doping at the Tour) when it became clear that he could get caught. That's when he switched to blood doping. His coach as a youngster was Borysewicz who used blood transfusion of the entire US team for the 1984 Olympics.

And we know (UCI admitted as much during the Tour) that autologous blood doping is hard to detect (read: you can do it because we won't be able to penalize you for it).
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Visit site
Ozzie2 said:
Can I add my thoughts that these links should be made sticky in the Clinic
So much redundant thread is covered by what Betsy says.
So clear in how she explains it – esp from husband Frankies perspective. Some ego driven win at all costs people, but also some really good people just trying to make a living and provide for their family.
Plus some pertinent comments on Ferrari, and LA of course.
A light of truth in a sea of lies
Betsy well done. Personally I’d have shut up, and worn the slur on my reputation, but that’s cos I’ve been there. Well done. Good interview too.
Does anyone know if these interviews are covered in a thread here?



One final thought- yeah, I can understand why Frankie didn’t tell Betsy. Anyone married with such decisions in life, and having to provide, probably understands that

Why do people think that interview's are proof? Why do they not seek out actual evidence and ask probing questions?

1. There were 8 other people in the room with Mrs. Andreau and her husband, and all of them contradict her statement. The fact that she continues to emphatically make her statement has not changed the fact that the other eight people in the room disagree with her assessment.

Additionally, one of these people is Armstrong's attending doctor -- during cancer treatment, whose opinion is supported by 280 pages of medical records. In order for the doctor and the records to directly, and wrongly, contradict Mrs. Andreau, the doctor would have had to criminally alter the records of treatment for a patient undergoing cancer treatment under the supervision of several doctors with access to records -- and not been caught doing while not altering the successful treatment.

So which is the more likely explanation?

a. Mrs. Andreau is either mistaken (but convinced she isn't and too stubborn to admit it) or just plain lying.

b. Darth Armstrong using a combination of bribery, intimidation, sexual favors, and jedi mind tricks was able to coherce 8 other people into lying under oath, including forcing a treating physician to criminally alter medical records for patient undergoing potentially life threatening treatment -- and the entire medical staff of the institution was then also coerced into ignoring the criminal activity of one of its doctors and ... the use of the darl side by one of its patients engaging in mafia style attempts at witness tampering.

Seems pretty obvious.

2. Mr. Walsh is pretty easy. AT any time he wants to he can take his accussations before a body that can verify the veracity of his claims. All he has to do is publish his first book in English. Lance has said he will then sue him for libel, and we'll get to see which of the two men is correct before a body that can determine whether there is enough evodence to ndicate that an anti-doping violation took place.

To date, Mr. Walsh, despite his apparent supremely confident opinion, refuses to do this.

Go figure.

NEXT!
 

Eva Maria

BANNED
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
Visit site
gree0232 said:
Why do people think that interview's are proof? Why do they not seek out actual evidence and ask probing questions?

1. There were 8 other people in the room with Mrs. Andreau and her husband, and all of them contradict her statement. The fact that she continues to emphatically make her statement has not changed the fact that the other eight people in the room disagree with her assessment.

Additionally, one of these people is Armstrong's attending doctor -- during cancer treatment, whose opinion is supported by 280 pages of medical records. In order for the doctor and the records to directly, and wrongly, contradict Mrs. Andreau, the doctor would have had to criminally alter the records of treatment for a patient undergoing cancer treatment under the supervision of several doctors with access to records -- and not been caught doing while not altering the successful treatment.

So which is the more likely explanation?

a. Mrs. Andreau is either mistaken (but convinced she isn't and too stubborn to admit it) or just plain lying.

b. Darth Armstrong using a combination of bribery, intimidation, sexual favors, and jedi mind tricks was able to coherce 8 other people into lying under oath, including forcing a treating physician to criminally alter medical records for patient undergoing potentially life threatening treatment -- and the entire medical staff of the institution was then also coerced into ignoring the criminal activity of one of its doctors and ... the use of the darl side by one of its patients engaging in mafia style attempts at witness tampering.

Seems pretty obvious.

2. Mr. Walsh is pretty easy. AT any time he wants to he can take his accussations before a body that can verify the veracity of his claims. All he has to do is publish his first book in English. Lance has said he will then sue him for libel, and we'll get to see which of the two men is correct before a body that can determine whether there is enough evodence to ndicate that an anti-doping violation took place.

To date, Mr. Walsh, despite his apparent supremely confident opinion, refuses to do this.

Go figure.

NEXT!

Wrong, Again.

There were not 8 other people and they did not contradict it.

-Page and Chris Charmichael never testified
-Stephanie is on tape saying "I was there, I heard it"
-Stapelton is on tape confirming it happened
-Armstrong's complete medical records were never provided
-Nichols was not Armstrong's doctor at the time
-Walsh has published his book in English, Lance has done nothing because he knows what Walsh writes is true and he has no case.

NEXT!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Eva Maria said:
Wrong, Again.

There were not 8 other people and they did not contradict it.

-Page and Chris Charmichael never testified
-Stephanie is on tape saying "I was there, I heard it"
-Stapelton is on tape confirming it happened
-Armstrong's complete medical records were never provided
-Nichols was not Armstrong's doctor at the time
-Walsh has published his book in English, Lance has done nothing because he knows what Walsh writes is true and he has no case.

NEXT!

And her husband also said it happened.

Every time a fanboy with chamois cream on his nose brings out this bullshit I just want to throttle them. None of them actually know anything but that which their hero says to the media, or twitters.

Mrs Andreau told the truth because she is not the type of person to lie under oath. As for some other people involved, well, Stephanie sure had no reason to lie to Mr Lemond, but she obviously did so in other cases where her testimony could have mattered. I guess she liked her job, and wanted to keep it.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Visit site
lechia said:
Why has Armstrong never tested positive? Here's my answer:

EPO was used in the pro peleton since the late 1980s, but the first people to test positive (to my knowledge) were Bo Hamburger and Niklas Axelsson in 2001. That means that the test was not available till then. So in 1999 and 2000 Armstrong was taking EPO without any worry about getting caught. Was he the only rider to be doing so? Obviously no. Ullrich took EPO, so did Pantani, Riis, anyone who was anywhere near the top, so did pretty much anyone on Telekom (they admitted as much). But yet, none of these guys tested positive. How could that be? The question to ask yourself is how often were these guys tested? In spite of what Armstrong claims the system of reporting your location is very recent as are out of competition tests.

Here are the results of a study looking at the EPO test from last year showing it has a huge rate of false negatives:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080626100921.htm

Finally, I think that Armstrong limited his EPO doping near the end of his career (at least doping at the Tour) when it became clear that he could get caught. That's when he switched to blood doping. His coach as a youngster was Borysewicz who used blood transfusion of the entire US team for the 1984 Olympics.

And we know (UCI admitted as much during the Tour) that autologous blood doping is hard to detect (read: you can do it because we won't be able to penalize you for it).

These are what we call suspicions.

I will conceed happily that there are plenty of suspicions surrounding Lance Armstrong, but then, there are plenty of suspicions surrounding any rider from that era.

For example, is Levi Leipheimer a doper? Bradley Wiggins? Robbie McCwen? Oscar Freire? Carlos Sastre? Cadel Evans? Stuart O'Grady? Denis Menchov? George Hincapie? Michael Rogers? Thomas Voeckler? And of course, Lance Armstrong?

With the suspicions you have raised as proof, literally all these guys must have doped based on what was possible back then. And that is the problem. General conditions apply to general, not specific, situations.

These general conditions can lead to specific tests, and there have been many, many people who have tested positive of late based on targetting driven by suspicion.

For example, if blood doping is the method of choice these days, there are bi-products of blood doping that are easier to find than a edical test. Specifically, as Operation Puerto shows us, there are blood bags. There are also all sorts of medical equipment required to infuse the blood. To date, none has been found anywhere near Armstrong, and it was his Team van that was searched during this year's tour.

Of note, despite the fact that Armstrong lived in and trained in Spain during a large chuck of his career, his name is notably absent from the Operation Puerto suspicion list.

What can happen and did happen are two different things. If you issue the accussation of criminal activity, "Lance Armstrong is a doper," then you must be able to back up that statement with evidence of what did happen and not about what could have happened.

Our systems cannot punish athletes for what they might have done, only what they have actually done. That is exactly how it should be.
 

Eva Maria

BANNED
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
Visit site
gree0232 said:
These are what we call suspicions.

I will conceed happily that there are plenty of suspicions surrounding Lance Armstrong, but then, there are plenty of suspicions surrounding any rider from that era.

For example, is Levi Leipheimer a doper? Bradley Wiggins? Robbie McCwen? Oscar Freire? Carlos Sastre? Cadel Evans? Stuart O'Grady? Denis Menchov? George Hincapie? Michael Rogers? Thomas Voeckler? And of course, Lance Armstrong?
Do any of these riders have 7 positives? Did they admit it to a room full of people? Do they use the services of the most notorious doping doctor in the sport? (Hincapie and Rodgers did)

gree0232 said:
For example, if blood doping is the method of choice these days, there are bi-products of blood doping that are easier to find than a edical test. Specifically, as Operation Puerto shows us, there are blood bags. There are also all sorts of medical equipment required to infuse the blood. To date, none has been found anywhere near Armstrong, and it was his Team van that was searched during this year's tour.

Wrong, Again
Armstrong's staff was filmed dumping 160 syringes and used bags of Actovigen

Of note, despite the fact that Armstrong lived in and trained in Spain during a large chuck of his career, his name is notably absent from the Operation Puerto suspicion list.
Funny how Armstrong moved from France as soon as they Criminalize doping, something Spain did not do until last year. Do you really think that Armstrong is going to slum it with the other riders and use Fuentes?
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
And her husband also said it happened.

Every time a fanboy with chamois cream on his nose brings out this bullshit I just want to throttle them. None of them actually know anything but that which their hero says to the media, or twitters.

Mrs Andreau told the truth because she is not the type of person to lie under oath. As for some other people involved, well, Stephanie sure had no reason to lie to Mr Lemond, but she obviously did so in other cases where her testimony could have mattered. I guess she liked her job, and wanted to keep it.

OK, Betsy would never lie under oath. Great.

Armstrong would, his attending physician would, and he would criminally alter medical records -- just to embarass Betsy? Seriously?

There were ten people in the room, eight disagree with Betsy. Only her husband supports her claims and has curiously distanced himself from the issue since this took place and refuses to talk about it.

So we are also clear, the 'recorded voice' is actually one Greg LeMond who said one of teh witnessed made the statement to him (curious how many people confide in the good LeMond who has a tendancy to take revelations before courts sort of undercutting any reason for anyone to confide in him). The witness publically called LeMond a liar for making the statement.

And so we are clear, the statement, "I was there, I heard it," is genaric enough that it supports Lance's version every bit as much as it does Betsy's. I would be the next statement that would be important, "Lance Armstrong said .... blah." Curious that this key statement is missing.

Now, for those who are utterly convinced there is huge cnspiracy of which Betsy is a victim, I say it is time to pony up or shut up. Would you like to accuse Armstrong's physican of a criminal act that would get him thrown out of his profession? If so, by all means do so. Put your money where your mouth is. Issue a formal complaint and demand an investigation. If Armstrong's doctor and his records are lying, there will be evidence in the records and he will be punished as a result of the complaint.

Step up. BY all means, step up and put your money where your mouth is.

In short, I got it, Betsy Andreau is the Pope herself. The 280 pages of medical documentation find absolutely nothing to support her claim. And so we are aware long term drug use and its interaction with cancer treatment would reveal something in a course of treatment that was abnormal. No such evidence exists. That is why SCA promotions lost the case.
 

Eva Maria

BANNED
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
Visit site
gree0232 said:
OK, Betsy would never lie under oath. Great.

Armstrong would, his attending physician would, and he would criminally alter medical records -- just to embarass Betsy? Seriously?

There were ten people in the room, eight disagree with Betsy. Only her husband supports her claims and has curiously distanced himself from the issue since this took place and refuses to talk about it.

So we are also clear, the 'recorded voice' is actually one Greg LeMond who said one of teh witnessed made the statement to him (curious how many people confide in the good LeMond who has a tendancy to take revelations before courts sort of undercutting any reason for anyone to confide in him). The witness publically called LeMond a liar for making the statement.

And so we are clear, the statement, "I was there, I heard it," is genaric enough that it supports Lance's version every bit as much as it does Betsy's. I would be the next statement that would be important, "Lance Armstrong said .... blah." Curious that this key statement is missing.

Now, for those who are utterly convinced there is huge cnspiracy of which Betsy is a victim, I say it is time to pony up or shut up. Would you like to accuse Armstrong's physican of a criminal act that would get him thrown out of his profession? If so, by all means do so. Put your money where your mouth is. Issue a formal complaint and demand an investigation. If Armstrong's doctor and his records are lying, there will be evidence in the records and he will be punished as a result of the complaint.

Step up. BY all means, step up and put your money where your mouth is.

In short, I got it, Betsy Andreau is the Pope herself. The 280 pages of medical documentation find absolutely nothing to support her claim. And so we are aware long term drug use and its interaction with cancer treatment would reveal something in a course of treatment that was abnormal. No such evidence exists. That is why SCA promotions lost the case.

Armstrong attending physician never testified. Nichols was not his doctor at the time of the admission. Although for his testimony Nichols department did get a nice $800,000 "Donation" from the LAF. Funny how his hospital fired....errr did not renew his contract... 18 months later. Looks like they did not like the conflict of interest.

Armstrong's complete medical records were never made available. No matter how many times you try to repeat this myth it will never be fact.

You are just embarrassing yourself.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
It appears you have access to the 280 pages of LA's medical file??

I didnt realise they were in the public domain - can you please share this information as obviously this would prove your point.

Then you would have no need to have gone to all the work of having the vast majority of your posts ready to cut and paste to the arguements you start.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Visit site
Eva Maria said:
Do any of these riders have 7 positives? Did they admit it to a room full of people? Do they use the services of the most notorious doping doctor in the sport? (Hincapie and Rodgers did)



Wrong, Again
Armstrong staff was filmed dumping 160 syringes and used bags of Actovigen


Funny how Armstrong moved from France as soon as they Criminalize doping, something Spain did not do until last year. Do you really thing that Armstrong is going to slum it with the other riders and use Fuentes?

Great, now Hincapie is involved in Operation Puerto.

So, Lance had seven positives inside the anti-doping window and never recieved a sanction. Curious. Please explain to me how Lance can test positive and, quite unlike any other athlete who has tested positive in cycling, completely escape any sort of sanction. Curious.

Really, so there is a film. Once again, apparently rock solid evidence of doping that has curiously not resulted in anyone being sanctioned. Curious how this could happen.

All the blood bags from Puerto have apprently been matched, and Lance's name is not on the list. Curious.

Curious that Lance, who trained at the Astana camps this year in Spain with AC and crew, also maintains a residence in France where he was preparing for ... the TdF. Curiously enough, he did the same thing for each of his seven tour wins, often checking out the entire route in preparation. For the record, commuting by car or bike from Spain, every day, to train in the French Alps is really not feasible.

Is that really an action that you consider likely? It was you are insiniuating when you say Lance was taking great action to avoid criminized drug penalties.

OH, so we are aware, France has someof the stiffest penalties in the world regarding doping. Why on Earth would Lance move THERE if he were worried about THAT?

Curious.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
It appears you have access to the 280 pages of LA's medical file??

I didnt realise they were in the public domain - can you please share this information as obviously this would prove your point.

Then you would have no need to have gone to all the work of having the vast majority of your posts ready to cut and paste to the arguements you start.

No, but they were examined by the judges in the SCA case. I will take their word for it, unless we should also accuse the judges of falling under the nefarious influence of Darth Armstrong?

Again, when so many people have to be lying, shirking their duty, and engaging in criminal activity and coverups, for Betsy to be telling the truth, it seems fairly obvious.

If she is telling the truth, there are paths that can be explored and sanctions put in place for these obviously criminal activities. Step up.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Oh ok - you haven't seen the files. So you don't know what is in them.

The Judges didn't need to go through his medical files as they were irrelevant to the case as it was a contractual dispute.

So - what about Dr. Ferrari?
 

Eva Maria

BANNED
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
Visit site
gree0232 said:
Great, now Hincapie is involved in Operation Puerto.

So, Lance had seven positives inside the anti-doping window and never recieved a sanction. Curious. Please explain to me how Lance can test positive and, quite unlike any other athlete who has tested positive in cycling, completely escape any sort of sanction. Curious.

Really, so there is a film. Once again, apparently rock solid evidence of doping that has curiously not resulted in anyone being sanctioned. Curious how this could happen.

All the blood bags from Puerto have apprently been matched, and Lance's name is not on the list. Curious.

Curious that Lance, who trained at the Astana camps this year in Spain with AC and crew, also maintains a residence in France where he was preparing for ... the TdF. Curiously enough, he did the same thing for each of his seven tour wins, often checking out the entire route in preparation. For the record, commuting by car or bike from Spain, every day, to train in the French Alps is really not feasible.

Is that really an action that you consider likely? It was you are insiniuating when you say Lance was taking great action to avoid criminized drug penalties.

OH, so we are aware, France has someof the stiffest penalties in the world regarding doping. Why on Earth would Lance move THERE if he were worried about THAT?

Curious.
Your babble is making less sense then normal.

I never said Hincapie or Armstrong was involved in OP
Your faith in the UCI is misguided.
Armstrong sold his house in France years ago, he does not live there. Stalker's like yourself should know this.

Let us know when Armstrong sues Walsh for his books in English