jackhammer111 said:"In October 2005, in response to calls from the International Olympic Committee and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for an independent investigation, the UCI appointed Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman to investigate the handling of urine tests by the French national anti-doping laboratory, LNDD. Vrijman was head of the Dutch anti-doping agency for ten years; since then he has worked as a defense attorney defending high-profile athletes against doping charges.[45] Vrijman's report cleared Armstrong because of improper handling and testing.[46][47] The report said tests on urine samples were conducted improperly and fell so short of scientific standards that it was "completely irresponsible" to suggest they "constitute evidence of anything."[48] The recommendation of the commission's report was no disciplinary action against any rider on the basis of LNDD research. It also called upon the WADA and LNDD to submit themselves to an investigation by an outside independent authority.[49] The WADA rejected these conclusions.[50] The IOC Ethics Commission subsequently censured **** Pound, the President of WADA and a member of the IOC, for his statements in the media that suggested wrongdoing by Armstrong".
The so called Vrijman report has been discredited. It relies upon technicalities to explain why the EPO in Armstrong's urine cannot be used to apply a doping sanction. It does not deal with the reality that artificial EPO was in Armstrong's urine because he injected artificial EPO once before the 1999 TdF and twice during it. The two scientists who developed the EPO test have both weighed in on the scientific validity of Armstrong's positives.
No one here is making the argument that the 1999 positives should be used to apply sanctions to Armstrong. The question is whether Armstrong took banned substances. That debate has been conclusively resolved. He used EPO.