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

[RdBiker]

Why can't they all be telling the truth? Maybe it was a borderline positive but Armstrong told both Landis and Hamilton that it was a "positive" that they "made go away" either out of convenience or, more likely, exaggeration.

This is what I believe is the most probable option.
However what was implied earlier was that there has to have be a covered up positive by the UCI - a sample that was really positive.

 

[Mambo95]

So, Lance Armstrong may have come to Valencia "many times over the last 15 years" on weekends away with his wife.

Thanks, my curiousity has been sated.....

He may have been there several times for several different reasons - of which doping may well be one - (15 years is a long time, most people visit places in that time). It just a quick plane flight from Girona.

Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people visit Valencia every year. Most of them aren't doping.

 

[mewmewmew13]

link has already been pulled... that was quick

Darn! I just sat down this morning to read that, passed on it last night! I haven't yet caught up on this thread so maybe someone had the foresight to save and post.
I just love waking up to scintillating tidbits ...

 

[mewmewmew13]

ok, I see...
am finding some replays...

 

[Merckx index]

Why do you believe Landis or Hamilton more than the Lausanne lab director? If Saugy says that he only remembers four suspicous (=no positive) tests I find it more believable than Landis/Hamilton saying the UCI hid a positive test.

I agree. Regardless of what Tyler and Floyd said, several people here have argued that the reason LA told Tyler was probably to reassure him that they were protected, so “positive” could easily have been an exaggeration. Or maybe braggadocio, showing off his power. Supporting the "everyone is telling the truth" notion.

In any case, this is what 60 minutes reported:

"60 Minutes" has obtained a letter that was sent from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency requesting information from the Swiss lab that did the test. That letter reveals that the lab found the initial test of a urine sample "suspicious" and "consistent with EPO use." We have also learned that the lab director met with Johan Bruyneel, the U.S. Postal Service team's manager, and Armstrong.

We are told that the Swiss lab director has given a sworn statement to the FBI. An official familiar with the investigation says that the lab director told the FBI that a representative of the International Cycling Union wanted the matter of the suspicious test to go no further. The lab director also said that the meeting with Bruyneel and Armstrong was arranged by the International Cycling Union itself.

Regardless of what anyone on this forum wants to think or hope, all the players who really count here—Howman, Saugy, and the original lab director--are saying it was suspicious, not positive. Tyler’s testimony is eye witness wrt what he says about LA using EPO, etc., but it is hearsay wrt the TdS sample being positive; he’s only reporting what LA told him.

Not exactly. Today there are additional criteria. As we do not have the complete results we can only assume. One thing for sure is that the criteria was tightened in 2004 so many previous "borderline" results would now be positive.

I assume you’re referring to the criterion used to interpret three major basic bands. I don’t think you can assume the criteria are tighter now. On the contrary, many developments in drug tests go in the opposite direction, to reduce the possibility of false positives. Without seeing the original gels, which are apparently long gone, we can say nothing about how the results would have been judged today. And even if we could, it's not relevant to the propriety of what was done then.

Again, I’m not arguing that the TdS results were not indicative of a positive. They may very well have been. But based on what has come out now, it does not appear they were considered definitely positive at that time. It does appear they were suspicious, in which case there may have been nothing wrong with notifying the rider. In any case, the most credible witnesses (credible in the sense that they were actually in the lab and saw something) seem to be holding to this story. I really think this is going nowhere.

It’s not needed. It appears now that as many as a dozen riders may have testified to the GJ about doping.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

The german original is unambiguous: Saugy finds FL and TH are seeking publicity, and speaks of bitter irony. But not one bad word about the UCI or LA in the entire system.
Come on. He could at least draw some attention to the farcical anti-doping system, for starters, and he could take notice of the fact that the dirtiest of them all is wasting ****loads of money to keep his claim of innocence alive.

Correct. He just wants to safe his a$$. Just another moral coward. I realy hate those desk criminals. Those are the people who make big frauds, dictators, etc. possible. Just feel like vomiting....

Anyway, i think more important are all the eye-witnesses...

 

[krebs303]

Darn! I just sat down this morning to read that, passed on it last night! I haven't yet caught up on this thread so maybe someone had the foresight to save and post.
I just love waking up to scintillating tidbits ...

http://www.homeluxury.net/lance-arms...home-for-sale/

 

[mewmewmew13]

http://www.homeluxury.net/lance-arms...home-for-sale/

thank you Krebs.

but alas...
nothing found.

 

[Polish]

The CN article on Saugy’s interview clarifies some important points. The test was the urine/gel test. I hadn’t been sure of that. But he also says that then—as opposed to now—it was not unusual to notify riders about borderline results, because the test was new and their was some confusion about what should be called positive.

I also believe that it would not be unusual for Lance to boast to team mates that he recieved that notification.

But BFd.
Make a mountain out of a molehill.
Lance being Lance lol.

I said before I don’t think this is going anywhere as a charge against LA, and after reading Saugy’s latest, I’m more convinced of that. But he said something a lot more damning, and less supportable:

Quote from Saugy
We learned in the years 2002 and 2003 that the urine can change benefits or by improper storage so that even tests with more than 80 percent of typical bands of epo may be false positive. End Quote from Saugy


This is probably the most critical point that has come out. He is implying (is he on LA’s payroll?) that the ’99 samples could have been false positive, that storage could result in an increase in basic bands. I doubt this very much, though, and he or LA’s team would have to provide evidence of this.

C'mon, Scientist Saugy is saying Lance Pee can spontaneously turn positive?

C'mon Saugy, get real lol.
Would you say that under oath?
Did you tell Novitsky that?
Probably too embarrassed I bet.


I prefer to BELIEVE Scientist Ashenden when he said earlier this week that is was possible to spike a sample. With enough time and expertise and pee.

Hey, didn't L'Equipe and Bordry's Lab share office space?
Same building? Shared fridge in the lunchroom?

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Why do some of you to refer to Armstrong by the name of the father who allowed him to be adopted by someone else and gave up his name?

Just curious because it seems kind of childish to me.

Pejorative hyperbole. BTW, I was not the first person here to start using his birth name. There is also a rumor going around that he was really born in Kenya---I don't believe it though.

 

[NedBraden]

Pejorative hyperbole. BTW, I was not the first person here to start using his birth name. There is also a rumor going around that he was really born in Kenya---I don't believe it though.

Seems pretty childish to me.

 

[thirteen]

thank you Krebs.

but alas...
nothing found.

try this: http://realestalker.blogspot.com/2009/01/lance-armstrongs-hill-country-hideaway.html

eta: the comments aren't as pithy, though...

PM me your e and i'll send you a snapshot

 

[krebs303]

thank you Krebs.

but alas...
nothing found.

wow I checked when I posted and it was there.

 

[Race Radio]

wow I checked when I posted and it was there.

http://www.zillow.com/blog/2009-06-15/lance-armstrong-drops-price-on-texas-estate/

 

[RdBiker]

That´s great... at least a dozen former riders spoke...

In Germany* that would be wayyy enough. 3-5 judges decide on evidence either being hard, witnesses or circumstancial. He´d be 100% convicted. Can´t we shift the whole thing here?

* Actually if ever, i´d better like to be in the hands of a US-Jury. So don´t get me wrong that i like our arbitrariness "justice".

I think these are the only US riders that were on Armstrong's TdF teams:

Frankie Andrey, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Floyd Landis, Kevin Livingston, Christian Vandevelde and Jonathan Vaughters.

Seven riders who would know about doping for the Tour. We know that the first four at least have spoken against Armstrong but I don't see how they get to a dozen riders (if they don't mix this up with riders+other personnel)

 

[ChrisE]

Seems pretty childish to me.

Welcome to the clinic.

 

[python]

i don't understand people arguing 'positive' vs 'suspicious'.

a 70-80% basic isoforms is highly unusual for a non-doping human.

iirc, the normal/average/typical range for bap in humans not taking synthetic epo is around 10-20%.

so, as i mentioned earlier, as a corroborative evidence of epo doping the legal difference is not significant and still quite damming for armstrong

the more people argue it was a 'positive' the more room there will be for vrijman-type obfuscation readily consumed by those who don't have the time or proclivity to engage in technicalities.

as to whether the suspicious sample would test positive if the modern technology and positivity criteria were applied, well… that's an unknown and it depends on several factors. but it very well may have...

a reasonable speculation could be made that if a different (or improved) method of sample concentration was used - the 1st step in an epo test - we might very well have a positive from a border-liner. and it did improve.

also, unlike in 2001 (when only iso-electric focusing was validated for splitting the epo isoforms), nowadays we have a fully validated other method - SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate).

guess what, if novi did not believe that the improved modern epo method can show a positive, he’d not go through trouble of asking the french for the infamous 99 samples.

 

[patricknd]

Hey man I like the support with your new avatar. Is this a concerted effort?

I am supporting Sally Jenkins. After I read her powerful interview that was linked to earlier I think she needs some support as well. It is good reading for those that are still on the fence.

solidarity, sister!!!!

hadn't seen the interview link, i'll have to find it

 

[VeloCity]

I think these are the only US riders that were on Armstrong's TdF teams:

Frankie Andrey, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Floyd Landis, Kevin Livingston, Christian Vandevelde and Jonathan Vaughters.

Seven riders who would know about doping for the Tour. We know that the first four at least have spoken against Armstrong but I don't see how they get to a dozen riders (if they don't mix this up with riders+other personnel)

But it's not just about doping at the Tour, it's about doping at USPS, both before and during Armstrong's time there. So theoretically every American who ever rode for USPS could be included, not just those who rode the Tour during Armstrong's time at USPS - and that would be quite a bit more than a dozen. And also theoretically, doesn't have to be restricted to American riders - foreign riders can't be subpoenaed I don't think, or if they are they can't be compelled to appear, but they can testify voluntarily.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Again, I’m not arguing that the TdS results were not indicative of a positive. They may very well have been. But based on what has come out now, it does not appear they were considered definitely positive at that time. It does appear they were suspicious, in which case there may have been nothing wrong with notifying the rider. In any case, the most credible witnesses (credible in the sense that they were actually in the lab and saw something) seem to be holding to this story. I really think this is going nowhere.

It’s not needed. It appears now that as many as a dozen riders may have testified to the GJ about doping.

I've come around to agree with your basic argument. I'm going to pick nits though.

1. Is the fact that the values register as suspicious damning evidence of a doping program? If they did the same test to my dope-free fluids, what's the likelihood of suspicious values? I know they would find a little caffeine in me, but that's it.

2. In the course of notifying the rider, does the federation normally arrange a meeting? Is the test explained to them in detail? The way it was framed in the '60 minutes' story this violates any sense of trust in the testing process. No ambiguity. Just wrong.

 

[ChrisE]

solidarity, sister!!!!

hadn't seen the interview link, i'll have to find it

http://live.washingtonpost.com/lance-armstrong-accused-of-using-illegal-substances-chat.html

 

[DirtyWorks]

i don't understand people arguing 'positive' vs 'suspicious'.

a 70-80% basic isoforms is highly unusual for a non-doping human.

iirc, the normal/average/typical range for bap in humans not taking synthetic epo is around 10-20%.

so, as i mentioned earlier, as a corroborative evidence of epo doping the legal difference is not significant and still quite damming for armstrong

the more people argue it was a 'positive' the more room there will be for vrijman-type obfuscation readily consumed by those who don't have the time or proclivity to engage in technicalities.

as to whether the suspicious sample would test positive if the modern technology and positivity criteria were applied, well… that's an unknown and it depends on several factors. but it very well may have...

a reasonable speculation could be made that if a different (or improved) method of sample concentration was used - the 1st step in an epo test - we might very well have a positive from a border-liner. and it did improve.

also, unlike in 2001 (when only iso-electric focusing was validated for splitting the epo isoforms), nowadays we have a fully validated other method - SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate).

guess what, if novi did not believe that the improved modern epo method can show a positive, he’d not go through trouble of asking the french for the infamous 99 samples.

My uninformed opinion is the mere fact there are suspicious values is reason enough to consider it damning proof of a doping program.

I could see Public Strategies trying to blow the whole thing down to nothing with a vrijman-type obfuscation. To quote another famous denier, "It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is" In fact, I don't know why they aren't on the offensive with that kind of tactic.

 

[Anonymous]

http://live.washingtonpost.com/lance-armstrong-accused-of-using-illegal-substances-chat.html

Jenkins....

My respect for Lance and my relationship with him has never been based on what he did in the Tour de France. It was based on doing a book together about cancer that we both took a lot of pride in, and I want to make something clear. Lance can never disappoint me. He's a good and even fine human being in my estimation.

The definition of a fanboy (fangirl).

What about LeMond, Betsy, Floyd, Bassons, Simeoni, Tyler, Walsh, the French........ etc., etc., etc.

 

[Merckx index]

i don't understand people arguing 'positive' vs 'suspicious'.

It’s crucial to the question of whether a meeting between LA and the lab would have constituted preferential treatment. Notice that Howman said on 60 minutes that such a meeting would be unique and highly irregular, but then later, using the term suspicious, he seemed to deny that it was out of the ordinary.

Again, Tyler’s blood data in the spring of 2004 were suspicious but not positive. He was not sanctioned for them—despite numbers that have been estimated as having a probability of only one in ten thousand of being normal. And nobody claimed that his being called in to see the UCI constituted preferential treatment. And of course his little chat with them didn’t save his skin; he tested positive later in the year.

As for corroborative evidence of doping, I don’t know. You and I know that a reading in that area very likely suggests doping, but how much weight a court or GJ would give it I don’t think anyone here can predict. It seems to me that the testimony of all these riders is far more important, along with the ’99 samples (assuming that what Saugy is now implying about them is not the case).

I remain confident that the case for LA doping is very strong, and will stand easily regardless of the TdS incident. The latter could be very important, though, in showing that LA did not simply dope, but had the process rigged, so that positives were dismissed. This is obviously a much more serious charge than doping, from both a legal stand point and for LA’s image. And don’t know of a lot of other evidence for that. The 2009 shower, I guess, and maybe these testosterone samples that Catlin mentioned, but they were all before cancer and the Tours, I believe.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Jenkins....



The definition of a fanboy (fangirl).

What about LeMond, Betsy, Floyd, Bassons, Simeoni, Tyler, Walsh, the French........ etc., etc., etc.

She's motivated by the privilege of being paid to write a book for/with someone. She can't publicly condemn her past customer. If I wrote a book for Tyler Hamilton a couple of years ago, vanishing twin and all, I wouldn't then condemn the guy. That's bad business.

But, it seems that Wonderboy selects people to work with by the amount of blind faith they can maintain. The mental gymnastics are amazing. This quote is rich, "He told me point blank, "I didn't use performance enhancers," and I accept his answer because he's my friend and that's what you do with friends."

The perpetrator has no problem with lying. You befriended a lying liar who lies and cheats. Time to find a new friend.