**** Pound's statement On Mr. Livestrong.

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 20, 2009
121
0
0
BigBoat said:
Uh, I dont think so.

"At the agency, the version of events is that only when the tester threatened to call in gendarmes did Bruyneel agree to let testing proceed, and the French official pooh-poohed Armstrong's claim that the tester let him shower. The agency says the tester reported that he repeatedly warned Armstrong that he had to keep him within his sight at all times."

-The Associated Press
If the tester did not let him leave with permission why did he not put it down on the report. Why did he he mark there were no irregularities nor did anything unusual happen.

It seems much more likely that their story is being made up as they go along. We already know they illegally leaked the story why would one trust their new version of the events.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
drfunk000 said:
I think you're missing the big picture. The AFLD sent someone, ALONE, to collect samples. Then, they leaked the information to the press. One cannot conduct oneself in this manner if they are to be trusted. Additionally, Bruyneel/Armstrong's story has been verified by the the President of the UCI and the head of WADA - they DID call to verify the identity of the tester.

Regardless of whether or not you think Armstrong is/was doping, the French government needs to clean up their lab.
I dont agree they need to clean up their lab>>> who says the lab is at fault? Look, even if its a hobo/ Vagabond that shows up Lance is required to stay in sight until their ID is verified. Why does Lance need to run off and "clean up?" How many times has he been tested over the years? 250?

Also, the whole shower story is what Johan Bruneel and Lance Armstrong claim happend, not officially what happend.. The UCI president was not there and only served to ID the French sample collector as a legitimate AFLD.
 

whiteboytrash

BANNED
Mar 17, 2009
525
0
0
Therefore what makes you more qualifed than Pound ? As BG stated the AFLD is not a lab. Therefore your statments in regards to testing hold no value. In fact you don't even know what you're talking about and it's YOUR facts which are sloppy and inconsistent. Finally I think the AFLD do an excellent job. there work in targetting Beltran, Kohl et al. was excellent. More than the UCI testers could ever manage in 40 years of drug testing.

Chomsky said:
Armstrong and Brunyeel both said Lance asked for permission to take a shower and the tester allowed it. They also said the tester's report said there was nothing irregular with the test or nothing unusual which would back up their statements. The AFLD has not denied Lance was given permission to take a shower.

The tester simply could have said no. If its lance is screw up it is the tester's sc rew up just as bad. The only reason we have heard of this or its a big deal is because of thier hate of Lance.

In regards to **** Pound he is completely unprofessional and unqualified. As the head of World doping he had and still has a duty to be neutral and professional something he has never done. Rather **** Pound's behavior along with the AFLD's said they have no concern with the truth of doping thier on;y concern is catching people and making headlines. Truth be damned.

That is the problem with doping right now no one cares if they Cyclist's are doping they just want to catch them and convict them. No standard's, no fairness, no real due process. The testing of Cyclist's is a complete joke. Labs are not required to use uptodate equipment, keep records, preovide any meaninigful discovery. They system is just there to convict right or wrong. because its all run by people like **** Pound who are more concerned with politics and acting like they are doing something than truth.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Chomsky said:
If the tester did not let him leave with permission why did he not put it down on the report. Why did he he mark there were no irregularities nor did anything unusual happen.

It seems much more likely that their story is being made up as they go along. We already know they illegally leaked the story why would one trust their new version of the events.
Lance Armstrong claims the tester marked "no" irregularities, but I have not seen the official AFLD document from that test.

Also, we dont know the root of the "leaked" story, and what does it matter if its public or private?

Are adult criminal cases private?
 
Apr 20, 2009
121
0
0
whiteboytrash said:
Therefore what makes you more qualifed than Pound ? As BG stated the AFLD is not a lab. Therefore your statments in regards to testing hold no value. In fact you don't even know what you're talking about and The AFLD and facts are sloppy and inconsistent. Finally I think the AFLD do an excellent job. there work in targetting Beltran, Kohl et al. was excellent. More than the UCI testers could ever manage in 40 years of drug testing.
I changed the typos you made. I agree with you the AFLD is sloppy and inconsistent in its investigations and almost nothing they do is believable or credible. The problem we have here is they try and mix science and politics. All they care about is being right and making headlines not the truth of anything they investigate. That is the problem with **** Pound he is a political animal and biased.
 
Apr 20, 2009
121
0
0
BigBoat said:
Lance Armstrong claims the tester marked "no" irregularities, but I have not seen the official AFLD document from that test.

Also, we dont know the root of the "leaked" story, and what does it matter if its public or private?

Are adult criminal cases private?
What it matters is that the AFLD as it has done in the past leaked the story and violated its own rules for the purposes of making Armstrong look bad. Which calls into question their integrity and their honesty.

In regards to criminal cases they are generally public. Unless the judge issues a gag order it will be public. Often times sensitive information or testimony will be kept private such as a child testifying. Police reports are open to the press but often with reactions. But this is not a criminal case. But like a criminal case there are rules which unfortunately are very one sided towards the testing agency. Sadly there is very little due process once charges have been filed. But their are rules one of which is that the proceedings will be kept private until formal charges have been filed and that this information will not be leaked. It would be nice of the testing agencies suffered penalties for this missteps as do the athletes.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Chomsky said:
The problem we have here is they try and mix science and politics. .

Well the problem for Lance here, whomever's fault it is (Lance's or Johan Bruneel's) ; Lance had plenty of time to hemodilute his blood/ "draw off" some and save it in the fridge... he he he

(its more than physically possible but I do not officially accuse or endorse the above.)
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
I will admit that they should bring escorts and French Gendarmes in for these major tests.
 

whiteboytrash

BANNED
Mar 17, 2009
525
0
0
Chomsky said:
I changed the typos you made. I agree with you the AFLD is sloppy and inconsistent in its investigations and almost nothing they do is believable or credible. The problem we have here is they try and mix science and politics. All they care about is being right and making headlines not the truth of anything they investigate. That is the problem with **** Pound he is a political animal and biased.
Yes the AFLD have a hard time being right with the testing of Kolh & Ricco. Who both admitted use once busted by the AFLD.

The knife cuts deep. Game, set, match WBT ! :p
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
3
0
basque1 said:
The bottom line is, you can't beat a hair test without being clean. Ergo, he hasn't taken any drugs... at least this time around.
Sure you can. You use dope or doping techniques that do not show up in hair. We know from Vaughters and Andreu that Amstrong's team was using blood doping. That does not show up in any test, hair or otherwise.

We know for an undeniable and scientific fact that Armstrong doped in 1999. Looking at the giant leap up in performance he got in 1999 by using dope and the fact that his performance level never declined after that, it is reasonable to conclude that he was doping for all his TdF wins. It is likely he owes his entire wealth, celebrity, and fame to doping. Does anyone really think he got religion changed the behavior that has worked so well for him in the past?
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
whiteboytrash said:
Poor return of serve. The UCI controlled the testing - not ASO, not l'Equipe not anyone associated with the Tour or the newspaper. Some people are so ill informed.
The AFLD controlled the testing, not the UCI.

Indeed, some people are so ill informed.
 
Apr 1, 2009
233
0
0
BigBoat said:
Well the problem for Lance here, whomever's fault it is (Lance's or Johan Bruneel's) ; Lance had plenty of time to hemodilute his blood/ "draw off" some and save it in the fridge... he he he
Or perhaps use some special shampoo that interferes with testing of hair for PEDs???
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
i wouldn't be so sure...

BroDeal said:
We know for an undeniable and scientific fact that Armstrong doped in 1999.
i am not sure that this is accurate. the leaked results from 1999 showed trace amounts of EPO. as i understand it, due to the age of the samples and the small amount that was found, the results were within the margin for error for a negative conclusion. therefore it can not be definitively stated that armstrong doped. however, if you are privy to more information on this, please share it. also, it seems to me that if there were some positive test from the past, while the UCI cannot do anything about it, the organizers of the tour have showed numerous times they will exclude any rider or team that they feel are unclean.

in my opinion, i find it unlikely that armstrong never doped. but without having witnessed him use substances or seeing a contemporary positive control, then i have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
eleven said:
The AFLD controlled the testing, not the UCI.

Indeed, some people are so ill informed.
I don't know why you sound so sure, because you sure are wrong.

The only time the AFLD were in charge of testing, was in this incident and during last year's ASO own races.
The AFLD can test any athlete while on french soil.
They tested last year's Tour etc, because the ASO own races ran independently of the UCI.

On all other occasions, including the period 1999-2005, the UCI have set the protocol for race testing.
The 1999 tests that showed Lance had used EPO were the UCI's tests and the results were confirmed by a French journalist, from them, not the LNDD or AFLD.

Then, after the 2006 Tour, (tests controlled by the UCI) Landis went on the "French Lab Conspiracy" campaign.

It has, for some, become a fact, when it is, in fact, fiction.
 
in my opinion, i find it unlikely that armstrong never doped. but without having witnessed him use substances or seeing a contemporary positive control, then i have to give him the benefit of the doubt.[/QUOTE]

So, you believe he did dope? But you're not willing to stand by it because of the off chance that the French Lab got it wrong or contaminated the results? Is it so hard to have convictions in one's personal outlook these days? To live within a reasonable doubt in one's own livingroom? Where everyman is his own master and is protected form the rigors of a court verdict. It seems to me that many readers of this site are willing to put far too much credit in riders' ethical behavior: whereas, by contrast, too little in the professionalism and integrity of the labs. I realize that in certain highly publicized cases like this one, slight proceedural protocals, which don't change the scientific acuracy, but only the judicial validity of an eventual positive outcome, have been commited. And this is unfortunate, because it allows for the apologists to rest on their beliefs. While the doping continues and, along with it, the negative publicity toward the labs. Lastly there seems to have been put into effect by a certain high profile protaginist of the sport, as well as some powerful officials in the UCI with their own private interests which conflict with those of the labs, a negative propaganda campaign to discredit the anti-doping scientific community; as if it were run by a hord of inquisitors on a witch hunt. A well known tactic used by the powerful throughout history having the means at their disposal to distort reality and to, in fact, reverse it: where the lions become lambs and vice versa. In other words the same UCI which wishes to demonstrate to everybody how serious the controls are in cycling, often is at odds with the one of the major labs in charge with effecting the controls. It is obvious that the situation is not conducive to imposing a system which works properly and, more importantly, credibly. To make matters worse, not all the European nations seem to be on the same page as the others in taking the doping problem with their athletes seriously. Here I'm refering to the arbitrary court of a certian European nation in direct conflict with, nay in opposition to, getting to the bottom of a huge doping scandal. Perhaps it's true what the religious officials say: "Justice my son, is not of the this world. But the next..." In the meantime we, the non-apologists, sit back and observe this praise of folly. ;)
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
3
0
rhubroma said:
So, you believe he did dope? But you're not willing to stand by it because of the off chance that the French Lab got it wrong or contaminated the results?
This is what I call the belief in immaculate doping. There seems to be a segment of the fans that realize that saying that Armstrong did not dope makes them look ridiculous since all the other contenders he raced against have been shown to have doped. So they will try to make themselves appear more reasonable by admitting that he probably doped, but then they fight tooth and nail against any specific evidence that he doped. Orwell would be proud. It is a perfect example of double think--or maybe it is just them lying so they don't appear so gullible.
 
BroDeal said:
This is what I call the belief in immaculate doping. There seems to be a segment of the fans that realize that saying that Armstrong did not dope makes them look ridiculous since all teh otehr contenders he raced against has shown to have doped. So they will try to make themselves appear more reasonable by admitting that he probably doped, but then they fight tooth and nail against any specific evidence that he doped. Orwell would be proud. It is a perfect example of double think--or maybe it is just them lying so they don't appear so gullible.
"Immaculate doping"....that's a superb way to put it Bro! It's got that veil of sanctity about it, which allows people to "purify" their conclusions that they are terrified by and so have an anectode (or alibi) against accepting them frankly. In this way their reasoning, which goes against their ideals, won't become tainted with the foul thing they simply can't look at straight in the eye. As if contemplating reality, which is far less holy than the ideal, would force them to reevaluate everything, litterally everything in their critical thinking. Yet I empathize for them and their tremendous burden. ;)
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,003
0
0
Here's a little something for you concerning the AFLD test.

This is what some people think they know: that all 3 tests came back negative.

This is the truth: 2 tests came back negative (blood and urine) and the results of the third are not yet known

Seems that, as well as not knowing his VO2 Max and never having heard the peloton talk about doping at the height of the Festina Affair, Armstrong can't do simple arithmetic either.

So, one might speculate that the one test result that isn't yet known is the one sample that can't be tampered with
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
3
0
gregod said:
i am not sure that this is accurate. the leaked results from 1999 showed trace amounts of EPO. as i understand it, due to the age of the samples and the small amount that was found, the results were within the margin for error for a negative conclusion.
The stuff I have read says that the results were clearly positive for six samples and two others just barely missed the criteria for being positive. It is not trace amounts of EPO. If the urine samples were tested with todays test, they would be positive. Both Parisotto and Ashenden have stated that the testing shows conclusively that Armstrong was doping.

Read the interview with Ashenden that was posted a few weeks ago.
 
I have always been intrigued by the results of the 99 retests so I foolishly decided to try & read through the Vrijmen UCI Report. The bloody thing is 132pages long and full of padded out crap.

From what I read, it seems the LNDD, the French lab are actually quite innocent, they seemingly retested the 98/99 Tour samples anonymously as part of experiments to confirm a new testing method, not to get Lance as so many people believe, they felt there would be EPO in these samples so that is why they used them. Their tests did show that indeed, there was EPO in the results.

It seems that WADA were exerting pressure on them to include extra info, identification codes, when passing the results onto WADA & the French Ministry. Form what I have read, it seems like WADA were the bad guys, not the LNDD. It was then the results were leaked to the journalist who done the background work 'a la watergate' to identify to whom the tests belong.

The UCI paper discredits the whole thing because the tests didnt follow standard beuracry, paperwork and because the LNDD were using a new testing method as an experiment. They also highlighted the possibilities of mix up etc. Not that they definitely happened, just that they might have.

However, nowhere in the report does it say that there is 100% proof there wasnt EPO in the results. The LNDD were carrying out research on different testing methods & they found EPO in the 98/99 samples, the lab itself has admitted its methods didnt follow certain codes but are adamant the results are accurate.

In summary, there was EPO in the 99 samples, and the journalist done the legwork to identify them. Of course, legally & by the standards required, the tests are not positive and I agree it would have been wrong to sanction Lance based on these results. However as I mentioned the EPO was there & its up to your own interpetation on what you want to believe.
 
Apr 19, 2009
25
0
0
BroDeal said:
The rules are in place because before there were chaperones, the riders were using the time between being informed of a test and the actual test to mask dope use. You can bet that Dr. Ferrari has instrtucted Armstrong well in that area. You don't pay Dr. Ferrari hundreds of thousands of dollars a year just for training advice.

If you give athletes times to mask their dope use then the tests are even more worthless than they already are.
Hey Bro! I don't know which techniques are used to mask doping, but I can't imagine what could be done in 20 or 30 min. to impact a test. If the issue is that Lance wanted to verify that the testing guy was legit first, I think that is valid. Lance is a celebrity and may have to deal with stalkers. I just don't like the idea of trying to crucify someone over a technicality.
 

whiteboytrash

BANNED
Mar 17, 2009
525
0
0
pmcg76 said:
IIt seems that WADA were exerting pressure on them to include extra info, identification codes, when passing the results onto WADA & the French Ministry. Form what I have read, it seems like WADA were the bad guys, not the LNDD. It was then the results were leaked to the journalist who done the background work 'a la watergate' to identify to whom the tests belong.
I’ve forgotten the journalist name I think it was Rousett or something like that. The guy is a legend. The way he obtained the ID numbers was from Armstrong himself! He phones up his manager before the 2005 Tour and tells him that he is doing a piece on Armstrong and his Tour victories. Now you'd think if Armstrong thought that l'Equipe was just tabloid gutter press his manager would have slammed the phone down. None the less we know that Armstrong loves his name in print so his manager was happy to listen to Rousett. Rousett asked if he could have copies of the "original" drug testing forms from each his Tours as one is kept by the athlete after they are tested. He told Armstrong that he wanted this to show that he was being drug tested during the Tour on a regular basis. Armstrong hands over the forms including 1999 and then Rousett makes the connection to the tested samples at the lab. Genius ! If it wasn’t for Armstrong wanting to have his name in l’equipe the supposed tabloid gutter press paper no one would ever know that he took EPO in 1999. Legend.
 
Apr 1, 2009
233
0
0
oxlabs said:
Hey Bro! I don't know which techniques are used to mask doping, but I can't imagine what could be done in 20 or 30 min. to impact a test. If the issue is that Lance wanted to verify that the testing guy was legit first, I think that is valid. Lance is a celebrity and may have to deal with stalkers. I just don't like the idea of trying to crucify someone over a technicality.
There are all sorts of stories from various sports about athletes putting in urinary catheters and putting someone else's urine into their bladders. Or using a hidden fake 'bladder' with someone else's urine in it that can be made to look like you are taking a pee. Or getting a supply of an enzyme to put in the urine sample that will break up synthetic Epo. Or just plain old passing the first more concentrated urine sample and then drinking a bucket load to have a very dilute sample that is less likely to throw up a positive result. And many more... Presumably something can be applied to hair that will interfere with a hair sample test.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
I don't know why you sound so sure, because you sure are wrong.

The only time the AFLD were in charge of testing, was in this incident and during last year's ASO own races.
The AFLD can test any athlete while on french soil.
They tested last year's Tour etc, because the ASO own races ran independently of the UCI.

On all other occasions, including the period 1999-2005, the UCI have set the protocol for race testing.
The 1999 tests that showed Lance had used EPO were the UCI's tests and the results were confirmed by a French journalist, from them, not the LNDD or AFLD.

Then, after the 2006 Tour, (tests controlled by the UCI) Landis went on the "French Lab Conspiracy" campaign.

It has, for some, become a fact, when it is, in fact, fiction.
I "sound so sure" because in a discussion of the latest test in question, the relevant test to discuss is the latest test - and that test was carried out by the AFLD. That test was not a UCI test. The 1999 test did not show that Lance had used EPO - they didn't even test for that strain in 1999. A coded and retested sample that had changed hands and been in a lab several years showed traces of EPO.

The French journalist also happens to be paid by the same company that controls the TdF .
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY