Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[oldschoolnik]

Maybe this deserves its own thread but dont want yet another Lance related thread.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8560/Armstrong-biographer-Sally-Jenkins-hopes-hes-clean.aspx

Lance's biographers Sally Jenkins hopes he is clean becasue of what he said to her face to face when writing the biographies and becasue she considers him a friend.

However, taking into account of what has happened in pro cycling she is clearly not stupid enough to believe it is impossible he didnt dope, more fanboys need to heed this.

She states she will always admire him because he is a good person, what? even if he was BSing right to your face and made your books look redundant. I dont think I could just let something like lying directly to my face pass, I would lose all respect for that person straightaway and I certainly wouldnt want them as a friend.

At this point, that viewpoint from someone who has had an inside track to Lance for all these years - is just not credible - I would be embarrassed to show my face if I were her. To say " I hope it's not true" at this point is utter nonsense. Hasn't she heard that others in her position have come clean like Bill Strickland?

 

[theswordsman]

Apologies if this is part of an old discussion, but back in 2000, the UCI tried to get Armstrong's 1999 Tour de France samples destroyed.

By Selena Roberts
Published: December 03, 2000

Lance Armstrong may have a chance to clear his name now that France's sports minister has decided that she will not comply with a request from cycling's governing body to destroy Tour de France riders' frozen urine samples.

A magistrate had ordered two searches for the investigation of the Armstrong-led United States Postal Service team ''in which the urine samples were seized and placed under seal,'' Minister Marie-George Buffet told reporters yesterday.

''This is great news because it gives Lance and the team a chance to be exonerated,'' said Bill Stapleton, Armstrong's longtime agent, who was attending the United States Olympic Committee meetings in Washington.''Lance's name has been dragged through the mud. It will only get worse if there's not an objective way to clear his name.''

Stapleton said there was some apprehension about a potential false-positive because a reliable test for the banned performance-enhancing hormone EPO has yet to be approved. But he added that it was better to get a result in order to put an end to the whispers circling Armstrong and the Postal Service team.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/03/sports/plus-cycling-armstrong-s-chance-to-clear-name.html

 

[theswordsman]

Undated on website, but from late 2000

PARIS (AP) In a surprise reversal, the head of world cycling's governing body has called for the destruction of frozen urine samples from riders at the last summer's Tour de France.
"The samples have no further value and, as far as we are concerned, they should be destroyed," Hein Verbruggen, president of the International Cycling Union, was quoted as saying Friday in the French sports daily L'Equipe.

Verbruggen issued the call in a letter to French Sports Minister Marie-George Buffet late last week.

http://www.active.com/cycling/Artic...s__Casartelli_memorial_set_for_dedication.htm

 

[tubularglue]

started a thread on this info.

thanks,

 

[leftover pie]

You mean Li(v)estrong's cheque book?

it would be very interesting to see if livestrong is infact does pay his bills, i wonder if any other livestrong employee were to get in trouble with the law, would livestrong pay their bills?

it's not like what he is being investigated for was a result of work he did for livestrong.

i'm sure livestrong would provide clear answers on this if contacted about it.

 

[tubularglue]

as stated above,

the reasoning behind the frozen samples and the stall

http://www.active.com/cycling/Artic...s__Casartelli_memorial_set_for_dedication.htm

The urine samples were taken from Tour de France riders in July and frozen in anticipation of IOC approval for an EPO urine test developed by the Chatenay-Malabry laboratory in France.

In his letter, Verbruggen wrote that the samples could not be used to penalize riders who may have cheated.

"The test has not been approved," he said. "And we do not know the effects of six months of freezing on the reliability of test results.''

Responding to the letter, the French sports ministry said it had no intention of destroying the samples.

"We will defrost the samples as we have always said we would, for scientific purposes,'' L'Equipe quoted the ministry as saying.

But Verbruggen warned against testing the frozen urine samples at all, even if only to determine whether or not EPO had been used during the Tour.

"Any result will leave an uncertainty," Verbruggen said. But, because culprits could not be named, "it would mean accusing someone without any proof."

Verbruggen's letter also claimed that under UCI rules, the cycling body was the legal owner of the frozen samples.

But the French sports ministry dismissed the claims.

"Do the rules of the UCI prevail over French law?'' L'Equipe quoted officials as saying.

The French sports ministry said the decision to defrost the samples would most likely be made next week, after a meeting in Paris scheduled for Monday between ministry officials and a UCI delegation.

Although the IOC approved a combined blood and urine test for the recent Sydney Olympics, it has not approved a urine-only test.

 

[VeloGirl]

Washington Postcompletely missing the entire point of the GJ investigation..

Not one mention of fraud.

The most frustrating comment?
"If so, then the unofficial title of greatest-in-history would revert to Belgian cyclist Eddy Merckx, who won the Tour five times — oh, and who tested positive for banned stimulants on at least three occasions."

At no time did the "unofficial title of greatest-in-history" ever go to Armstrong. And even if it did - as if the #of times one won the Tour decided who got that title. No mention of the 5 Giro wins. No mention of the Vuelta win (okay, I'll let that slide). No mention of Roubaix, LBL, Flanders, Milan-San Remo - no nothing.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Washington Postcompletely missing the entire point of the GJ investigation..

Not one mention of fraud.

The most frustrating comment?
"If so, then the unofficial title of greatest-in-history would revert to Belgian cyclist Eddy Merckx, who won the Tour five times — oh, and who tested positive for banned stimulants on at least three occasions."

At no time did the "unofficial title of greatest-in-history" ever go to Armstrong. And even if it did - as if the #of times one won the Tour decided who got that title. No mention of the 5 Giro wins. No mention of the Vuelta win (okay, I'll let that slide). No mention of Roubaix, LBL, Flanders, Milan-San Remo - no nothing.

I doubt Eugene Robinson has ever threw a leg over a bicycle. He's the typical American sports writer. Just because he's on the sports beat, apparently he feels qualified to opine on sports about which he knows nothing.

 

[Polish]

Undated on website, but from late 2000



http://www.active.com/cycling/Artic...s__Casartelli_memorial_set_for_dedication.htm

Seems odd that the French Sports Ministry wanted to hold on to Lance's pee.
Suspicious?
Did they keep Marco's Pee from the Scandalous 1998 Tour too?
Did they keep Jan's pee from the 1997 EPO Extravaganza?
Doubt it.

What did they have against Lance.
Motive and a Means for SPIKING.

 

[tubularglue]

my apologies if this has been posted ad naseum'

very interesting read:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...W7jUrc&sig=AHIEtbQOdBFLJU6jqfzPpy4z0WU5sDjP4Q

Wada Official Statement on Vrijman Report 99 samples - above link

Vrijman's conclusions

excerpt:

Vrijman said his report "exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France." The report also said that both the LNDD and the World Anti-Doping Agency "violated applicable rules on athlete confidentiality by commenting publicly on the alleged positive findings."

The report recommended convening a tribunal to discuss possible legal and ethical violations by WADA, which is headed by **** Pound, and to consider "appropriate sanctions to remedy the violations."

"The report confirms my innocence, but also finds that Mr. Pound along with the French lab and the French ministry have ignored the rules and broken the law," Armstrong said. "They have also refused to cooperate with the investigation in an effort to conceal the full scope of their wrongdoing."

 

[MarkvW]

Washington Postcompletely missing the entire point of the GJ investigation..

Not one mention of fraud.

The most frustrating comment?
"If so, then the unofficial title of greatest-in-history would revert to Belgian cyclist Eddy Merckx, who won the Tour five times — oh, and who tested positive for banned stimulants on at least three occasions."

At no time did the "unofficial title of greatest-in-history" ever go to Armstrong. And even if it did - as if the #of times one won the Tour decided who got that title. No mention of the 5 Giro wins. No mention of the Vuelta win (okay, I'll let that slide). No mention of Roubaix, LBL, Flanders, Milan-San Remo - no nothing.

What facts do you rely upon to conclude that fraud is the "entire point" of the grand jury investigation? Do you have insight into the motivation of the investigators?

 

[D-Queued]

This just in (again thanks to a tip from an RR tweet):

Investigators in Lance Armstrong case have met with Swiss lab director over ‘suspicious’ test result in 2001

...After Landis made his allegation last summer, Saugy approached Howman during meetings in Lausanne, expressing concern about a “suspicious result” he had discovered during a doping analysis years previously, Howman said.

“What he did was quite professional and quite proper,” Howman said. “I stopped the conversation. I put him in touch with the right people.” ...

Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

Investigators in Lance Armstrong case have met with Swiss lab director over ‘suspicious’ test result in 2001

Saugy met with Jeff Novitzky, a special agent

Last July, Saugy met in Moscow with USADA chief executive Travis Tygart

Saugy agreed to provide by May 2 information about all “suspicious” results from EPO analysis during the 2001 Tour de Suisse, as well as the particulars of discussions related to EPO testing that occurred during a meeting with Armstrong or his team manager Johan Bruyneel, according to the April letter

.

after Landis made his allegation last summer, Saugy approached Howman during meetings in Lausanne, expressing concern about a “suspicious result” he had discovered during a doping analysis years previously

Lance has a huge, expensive legal team. If he was smart one of them is an expert in the The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

 

[D-Queued]

Investigators in Lance Armstrong case have met with Swiss lab director over ‘suspicious’ test result in 2001


Lance has a huge, expensive legal team. If he was smart one of them is an expert in the The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Not only that, but the announcement of the expanded team almost certainly must mean that he has been served some type of notice.

You don't lawyer up like that just for your health.

Dave.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Not only that, but the announcement of the expanded team almost certainly must mean that he has been served some type of notice.

You don't lawyer up like that just for your health.

Dave.

Very good point Dave! ..as in subpoena?

I was just scanning twitter and saw that, after reading I thought it was fairly clear that definitely 'suspicious; was on the books but thought it a good point also that a result could not be called 'positive' unless it had been recorded.

 

[VeloGirl]

What facts do you rely upon to conclude that fraud is the "entire point" of the grand jury investigation? Do you have insight into the motivation of the investigators?

Why go to the trouble of GJ investigation for a cyclist wining a few bike races while doping?

 

[python]

This just in ...snip

and as always, the texas spin machine has gone into action right away

from the article:

Tim Herman added in a statement that “neither Armstrong or Bruyneel have any recollection of meeting [Saugy]

this is funny if not a crude misdirection. the 60 minutes reported a meeting with with the swis lab director in 2001. where as saugy did not become a director until 2003.

 

[tubularglue]

what was his title in 2001 ?


curious

 

[python]

assistant lab director or a deputy as in his cv

source: lab's web site
http://www.doping.chuv.ch/files/ms.pdf

 

[tubularglue]

assistant lab director or a deputy as in his cv

source: lab's web site.

those damn Assistant's, they know nothing

 

[python]

those damn Assistant's, they know nothing

whatever they know, the misdirection or misinformation is obvious. saugy was not a director in 2003 and the 60 minutes did not name him nor did the article report saugy being in the meeting with armstrong or his representatives.

 

[Merckx index]

“It’s not ‘positive’ unless it’s recorded,” Howman said. ”There was no positive test, because nothing was reported as positive. It was a suspicious result.”..

Howman said the appropriate course of action in the case of a suspicious result would be for the lab director to alert the authority conducting the tests — in this case UCI — about the suspicious sample so that follow-up testing could be conducted on the athlete in question.
Because anti-doping lab directors know samples only by numbers, the agency conducting the testing would have to determine the name of the athlete and assign additional testing to the athlete.

It may be that in June 2001 the urine EPO test was not yet used. In that case, suspicious results may have been routinely communicated to the rider, just as suspicious passports are now. Howman’s remarks suggest just that. But if that’s the case, why don’t riders as well as anti-doping officials know that? If, ten years from now, a report surfaced that someone’s blood values in 2011 were suspicious, and he was notified, no rider would regard that as unusual. Indeed, it happened to Tyler in 2004, and no one is saying that Tyler had some special favor done for him. It’s understood that this was done then. Was it done for the pre-gel EPO test in 2001? Howman implies that it was, yet it’s very strange none of the riders who ought to know this do know it.

I tend to think now that this suspicious test is going nowhere as evidence against LA. It looks more and more like a passport or off-score type of notification, which is not against the rules. But Tyler and Landis should have known that. Nit to mention LA, Why didn't he just point out what Howman is now saying, that he would be called in for more tests?

And Howman is adding to the confusion. First he told 60m that it would be unique and highly irregular for a rider to be notified of a suspicious result. Now in effect he says that is standard procedure, as the rider would have to be tested more. He doesn't seem to understand that he is contradicting himself, backtracking on his original claim or implied claim.

They further point out that samples from Armstrong and his U.S. Postal Service team from the 2000 Tour de France that had been frozen after the race had been tested for EPO when the test came online in 2001. All were declared negative.

And we know from Tyler’s testimony that they were using blood transfusions as early as 2000, precisely to avoid EPO positives. Maybe microdosing, too.

 

[D-Queued]

... Indeed, it happened to Tyler in 2004, and no one is saying that Tyler had some special favor done for him. ...

Particularly given what happened later in 2004, and now with Tyler's admission, that 'notice' has ALWAYS been suspicious.

Yet another unanswered question... by the UCI.

Dave.

 

[tubularglue]

whatever they know, the misdirection or misinformation is obvious. saugy was not a director in 2003 and the 60 minutes did not name him nor did the article report saugy being in the meeting with armstrong or his representatives.

quite strange ?

 

[D-Queued]

quite strange ?

No. SOP. If lying fails, obfuscate.

Dave.