The 500 Tests/Never tested positive lie

[Race Radio]

Lance's paid liars have invent the myth that lance has passed 500 tests. That he never tested positive. That he was the most tested athlete in history. They offer no evidence to support it, because it is a lie. One that is rather easy to prove wrong

You can look up the WADA testing history of any American rider on the USADA website.

http://www.usada.org/athlete-test-history

Since 2001 Lance has been tested 29 times. By comparison

George Hincapie 38
levi Leipheimer 40
Kirsten Armstrong 66

In 2004 le Equipe published Armstrong's UCI testing figures

* 1999 : 15 contrôles urinaires conventionnels (1 positif à la triamcinolone acétonide - corticoïdes)
* 2000 : 12 contrôles urinaires conventionnels
* 2001 : 10 contrôles urinaires conventionnels, dont 5 avec détection de l'EPO
* 2002 : 9 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 8 avec détection de l'EPO
* 2003 : 9 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 6 avec détection de l'EPO
* 2004 : 8 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 7 avec détection de l'EPO . 1 contrôle sanguin de détection des hémoglobines de synthèse .

Total UCI tests: 63

Total tests: 92 ........Nowhere close to 500 tests.

The number of tests is not the only lie. He also likes to pretend he has never tested positive

It started early with Chris Carmicheal and Cortisone. It is no surprise that Armstrong, Ernie Lachuga, Greg Strock, and Erich Kaiter all came down with illness strongly linked to Cortisone use. Strock and Kaiter eventually reached a financial settlement with Carmicheal and won their lawsuit with USAC

Strock Speaks

Six years later, Strock case comes to court

During the 90's Armstrong had multiple adverse testosterone ratios,
which were ignored by USA cycling

"a 9.0-to-1 ratio from a sample collected on June 23, 1993; a 7.6-to-1
from July 7, 1994; and a 6.5-to-1 from June 4, 1996. Most people have
a ratio of 1-to-1. Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was
considered abnormally high and evidence of doping; in 2005 that ratio
was lowered to 4.0-to-1."

Sports Illustrated reports new information on Lance Armstrong - More Sports - SI.com

Anyone who knows about cancer knows that Lance's Hcg levels would have been elevated, but never showed up in any UCI tests. Wonder why?

In 1999 the UCI developed a new test for glucocorticosteroids and Lance was one of the first to test positive at the Tour. The UCI let him invent a fake, backdated, TUE and said the amount was below the limit. If you refer to the UCI banned list from 1999 to present glucocorticosteroids, the class of drug to which covers triamcinolone acétonide, do not have a threshold level. They are banned outright. Thanks UCI

Just like the extremely minute presence of clenbuterol that sanctioned Contador.

Triamcinolone acétonide is not a synthetic steroid that required the t/e ratio initial test to further test if the sample contained a synthetic steroid, a la Floyd Landis. Floyd was 11:1 and well in excess of the 4:1 threshold level

Of course there are also the 1999 samples that tested positive for EPO

Michael Ashenden | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events

Then there was the positive for EPO a the 2001 Tour de Swiss that was ignored up by the UCI in exchange for a nice "Donation"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hamilton-alleges-armstrong-epo-positive-cover-up-on-60-minutes

USADA said that Armstrong blood tests from 2009 and 2010 showed clear signs of manipulation and EPO use. This during the same period the UCI ignored 5 Biopassport positives and refused to share Armstrong's Biopassport testing results with WADA

Anti-Doping Officials Step Up Cycling Oversight - WSJ.com

Thanks to Dim for this handy graphic

 

[ChrisE]

Does that total include the tests in the TdF for yellow and stage wins?

I agree he should stop with the 500 test bit. Just saying 100 or whatever shows how inept the testing is. Ooops, maybe he is not meaning it that way.

 

[Muriel]

Thank you RR, for bringing the info together and posting it.

I know this information is dotted around in places and on threads but it's the first time I've seen it pulled together and summarised in one place.

It should be a press release.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Lance's paid liars have invent the myth that lance has passed 500 tests. That he never tested positive. That he was the most tested athlete in history. They offer no evidence to support it, because it is a lie. One that is rather easy to prove wrong

<snipped>

I thought the latest PR was that he passed 600 tests? Maybe the tri people did 100 tests in the last year.

But to add to his numbers - there were the 33 tests he had up on his website which almost covered a calendar year (Aug 08- July 09) - although some of them were USADA tests, but he needs every test going to reach even 200.


Also - when we are discussing positives, we should not forget the 2001 Tour de Suisse which even Saugay had to admit (to the media) was suspicious and has said by others to have been hidden.

 

[Merckx index]

Great post bringing all these long-known but, by many, ignored facts together. It should be a sticky.

Edit: Muriel's idea is even better. It really should be a press release.

One slight correction. I believe those five passports that UCI had not acted on eventually were. I discuss this a little in a thread on LA's blood values I started a few weeks ago. Also, a link to an Ashenden interview posted just today in the main USADA thread has him explaining why passport data that strongly suggest blood doping may not be acted on. MA says it can be very hard to convince arbs why the data indicate blood doping, and hence sometimes there is a reluctance to charge a rider. But this is a just another reason why "I never tested positive" doesn't mean much.

Oh, and I haven't seen much on the period from 1993-1996, and 1998 (tested at all that year?). It does seem that we could estimate a maximum of 150-200, though.

Does that total include the tests in the TdF for yellow and stage wins?

Yes, and one of the lessons from this is that outside of those yellow/stage win tests, he really wasn't tested much during this period. Not very many OOC tests.

 

[Race Radio]

I thought the latest PR was that he passed 600 tests? Maybe the tri people did 100 tests in the last year.

But to add to his numbers - there were the 33 tests he had up on his website which almost covered a calendar year (Aug 08- July 09) - although some of them were USADA tests, but he needs every test going to reach even 200.


Also - when we are discussing positives, we should not forget the 2001 Tour de Suisse which even Saugay had to admit (to the media) was suspicious and has said by others to have been hidden.

Yes, many of those 33 tests are covered by USADA. I would throw in 25 or so Biopassport tests for the comeback. Still, barely over 100

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Lance's paid liars have invent the myth that lance has passed 500 tests.

I think LA's a liar too but it is possible when he said he passed 500 tests that maybe it was meant to mean "many" tests, instead of a specific number like 500. If I'm right about that, then that was a dumb thing to say, knowing that tossing out a specific number without really knowing could cause eyebrows to be raised and questions asked.

 

[Caruut]

I think LA's a liar too but it is possible when he said he passed 500 tests that maybe it was meant to mean "many" tests, instead of a specific number like 500. If I'm right about that, then that was a dumb thing to say, knowing that tossing out a specific number without really knowing could cause eyebrows to be raised and questions asked.

Saying 100 when it's actually 92 is dumb. Saying 500 is flat out dishonest.

 

[ChrisE]

Yes, and one of the lessons from this is that outside of those yellow/stage win tests, he really wasn't tested much during this period. Not very many OOC tests.

As an example of my questioning, he was in yellow for 13 days with one stage win in 2003, but the UCI only tested 9 times that year. I'm not gonna look up the other years but this one sticks out.

 

[Race Radio]

One slight correction. I believe those five passports that UCI had not acted on eventually were.

I do not think they were. The original number of Biopassport positives not acted on was 8. Three were eventually sanction but 5 were not.

It is also curious as to why the UCI would refuse for years to share the biopassport testing results with WADA? 2010 especially.....what were they trying to hide in 2010?

 

[caryopsis]

I think LA's a liar too but it is possible when he said he passed 500 tests that maybe it was meant to mean "many" tests, instead of a specific number like 500. If I'm right about that, then that was a dumb thing to say, knowing that tossing out a specific number without really knowing could cause eyebrows to be raised and questions asked.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think he should get the benefit of the doubt on this one. He's repeated it too many times and it's too low a number to be the kind of grandiose exaggerration that's expected to be understood as such.

When someone says, "man, I've heard that one a million times," clearly that number is not meant to be taken literally...but "I've passed over 500 tests" takes the understood-exaggerration factor out of it and stands as a very specific claim - not "a lot," or "close to," or "somewhere around," but MORE THAN 500 tests.

 

[D-Queued]

I do not think they were. The original number of Biopassport positives not acted on was 8. Three were eventually sanction but 5 were not.

It is also curious as to why the UCI would refuse for years to share the biopassport testing results with WADA? 2010 especially.....what were they trying to hide in 2010?

WADA rejected the UCI's biopassport program. Thus, these are not official anti-doping tests.

Perhaps the UCI was upset with WADA over their decision, and that is why they did not share the tests. Or, perhaps WADA did not have the resources or otherwise did not have the interest in reviewing something that was not considered to be a test.

Any biopassport sampling would not be considered to be a doping 'test'.

But, as noted in similar assessments, we could spot Lance up to a dozen biopassport tests in order to help him pad his figures towards his 500 test goal.

Like everything else about Lance, he still falls well short of truth.

Dave.

Dave.

 

[Merckx index]

I do not think they were. The original number of Biopassport positives not acted on was 8. Three were eventually sanction but 5 were not.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17529

See this post of mine. The eight was changed to six, with UCI claiming it had been misquoted (suspicious, yes). That left three not acted upon, but UCI said one of the three had been suspended because of a positive EPO test. Later, three riders other than the three mentioned in the original story (two of which were sanctioned, one not), were also sanctioned for passport violations, so they might have included the two originally not acted on. In addition, another five have been sanctioned on the basis of a positive test after passport suspicions resulted in more targeting.

It is also curious as to why the UCI would refuse for years to share the biopassport testing results with WADA? 2010 especially.....what were they trying to hide in 2010?

UCI did not share with WADA because they did not run the program jointly. That goes way back to Pound, whose suggestion that UCI was not serious about catching dopers p-d off UCI, and they refused to make the passport program a joint venture. WADA was finally brought on board this past January.

As an example of my questioning, he was in yellow for 13 days with one stage win in 2003, but the UCI only tested 9 times that year. I'm not gonna look up the other years but this one sticks out.

You’re right. There is a discrepancy. I did a quick check of the other Tours, yellow + stage wins while not in yellow:

99- 15
00 – 12
01 - 10
02 – 11
04 – 7
05 – 17

So 2002 is also low by two, and in the 99-01 all the tests were in the TDF, no others, which seems unlikely??

So corrections are in order, though you appreciate they will not get the number to anywhere near 500. There are a total of 6 tests unaccounted for in 02-03, plus the 17 in 05. I don't know how many times he was tested outside of the TDF in all those years, but there have to be some tests.

 

[D-Queued]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17529

...
UCI did not share with WADA because they did not run the program jointly. That goes way back to Pound, whose suggestion that UCI was not serious about catching dopers p-d off UCI, and they refused to make the passport program a joint venture. WADA was finally brought on board this past January.
...

Umm, not a long thread... did you read the post right above yours?

Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

UCI did not share with WADA because they did not run the program jointly. That goes way back to Pound, whose suggestion that UCI was not serious about catching dopers p-d off UCI, and they refused to make the passport program a joint venture. WADA was finally brought on board this past January.

Not that it matters much to the discussion but Mcquaid did say 5 positives had not been sanctioned even though they had been flagged 8 months prior

UCI President Pat McQuaid accepted that the five riders in question had neither been identified or sanctioned as yet but said, eight months after the UCI was asked to take action, that the processes were still open and could yet result in violations.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5...uspect-riders-unsanctioned.aspx#ixzz1zrComtgM

Yes, there was a lot of finger pointing when the Biopassport was launched. Regardless it is absurd that the UCI should withhold testing data from WADA.

 

[TheEnoculator]

It doesn't matter if you passed 1000 tests, if you have the UCI and labs covering up for you, you'll ALWAYS pass.

 

[131313]

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/vid...mstrong-floyd-landis-steroids-health-11240605

Tim Herman: "we don't know the number, but it's nearly 300 tests"

OK, that's from 2010. 200 tests since then, after his "retirement"?

Saying "200" when the actual number is 160 is inflating things a bit. ADDING 200 to an already made-up number is lying.

This thread is great and all, but I'd still like to know why the actual media won't question this nonsense, along with the oft-repeated "never tested positive" lie?

 

[Race Radio]

This thread is great and all, but I'd still like to know why the actual media won't question this nonsense, along with the oft-repeated "never tested positive" lie?

Exactly. For years Armstrong has spewed nonsense that goes unquestioned. The last month he has ratcheted up the smoke and mirrors. The garbage he is spewing on USADA is easy to correct but few do it.

Lazy

 

[ChrisE]

You’re right. There is a discrepancy. I did a quick check of the other Tours, yellow + stage wins while not in yellow:

99- 15
00 – 12
01 - 10
02 – 11
04 – 7
05 – 17

So 2002 is also low by two, and in the 99-01 all the tests were in the TDF, no others, which seems unlikely??

So corrections are in order, though you appreciate they will not get the number to anywhere near 500. There are a total of 6 tests unaccounted for in 02-03, plus the 17 in 05. I don't know how many times he was tested outside of the TDF in all those years, but there have to be some tests.

Yes, I believe it is nowhere near 500 unless there is something being missed here, and that would be a big miss.

I would at least assume he got tested during those wins in the DL, TdS, etc. Plus RR's list doesn't include anything pre 99. It would be nice if we knew the real number, and regardless of RR's cheering section in here it is not a complete accounting.

Regardless, all of this points to the ineptness of the testing. For the blatant examples per the current players, if the others that supposedly gave evidence against LA did it in return of lessened sanctions, then there are others right there using 2+2 logic that passed tests and did not return positive. FL was whinging it in 2005 and not on a high powered doc regime in 2006, and it wasn't until S17 when he got caught after dominating that spring. Anybody think TH was clean in 2003, and he was warned in 2004 with no sanction.

This is all known to us, but to the avg person I am sure it is not; for example LA would not be getting traction in comments sections with this line if it was common knowledge. Go read some and see what I mean.

It would be nice if a major publication or reporter delved into this and jammed it in the face of the public so a serious discussion could take place amongst those that wish to have it. In terms of seemingly inept testing and aversion of sporting authorities to follow thru (TH, and AC for example and who knows who else).This applies to all sports. To me, this is the elephant in the room and a place "fans" don't want to go.

 

[Microchip]

Great thread.

Should be both a Sticky and a Press Release.

 

[D-Queued]

...

Regardless, all of this points to the ineptness of the testing. ...

Perhaps I am taking this out of context, but doesn't this really point to the sophistication of the dopers and practitioners?

When you are paying $800k* to a Doc to optimize your doping program, part of the success fee would be based upon avoiding getting caught. I am sure you are familiar with Willy Voet's book, and how Festina had better (the only) equipment than the testers.

Consistent with Voet's insights, and like Balco, there are obviously a lot more test results available to the dopers than to the doping agencies. And, the practitioners have a lot more insight into not just the benefits of doping but how athletes respond to different doping agents and cocktails.

And, think of the major difference in compensation that underscores how much expertise can be purchased.

With respect to sophisticated doping practitioners, part of their goal is to keep their customers optimized (aka under 'control' as in a manufacturing process). Thus, in a way, avoiding a testing positive is consistent with a well-managed doping program.

Only sloppy doping docs would have their athletes test values jump wildly.

Dave.

*Can I round this up to $5million to be consistent with how Lance counts the number of tests?

 

[Muriel]

Only sloppy doping docs would have their athletes test values jump wildly.

You've given me a thought - perhaps the 500 includes self tests!

 

[Anonymous]

Perhaps I am taking this out of context, but doesn't this really point to the sophistication of the dopers and practitioners?

When you are paying $800k* to a Doc to optimize your doping program, part of the success fee would be based upon avoiding getting caught. I am sure you are familiar with Willy Voet's book, and how Festina had better (the only) equipment than the testers.

Consistent with Voet's insights, and like Balco, there are obviously a lot more test results available to the dopers than to the doping agencies. And, the practitioners have a lot more insight into not just the benefits of doping but how athletes respond to different doping agents and cocktails.

And, think of the major difference in compensation that underscores how much expertise can be purchased.

With respect to sophisticated doping practitioners, part of their goal is to keep their customers optimized (aka under 'control' as in a manufacturing process). Thus, in a way, avoiding a testing positive is consistent with a well-managed doping program.

Only sloppy doping docs would have their athletes test values jump wildly.

Dave.

*Can I round this up to $5million to be consistent with how Lance counts the number of tests?

Yes you may.

 

[Dr.Sahl]

Its indeed silly that he keeps claiming the 500 test thing.... Its nice to see some people bring facts into the Clinic..

Thanks for the post.

 

[thehog]

Perhaps I am taking this out of context, but doesn't this really point to the sophistication of the dopers and practitioners?

When you are paying $800k* to a Doc to optimize your doping program, part of the success fee would be based upon avoiding getting caught. I am sure you are familiar with Willy Voet's book, and how Festina had better (the only) equipment than the testers.

Consistent with Voet's insights, and like Balco, there are obviously a lot more test results available to the dopers than to the doping agencies. And, the practitioners have a lot more insight into not just the benefits of doping but how athletes respond to different doping agents and cocktails.

And, think of the major difference in compensation that underscores how much expertise can be purchased.

With respect to sophisticated doping practitioners, part of their goal is to keep their customers optimized (aka under 'control' as in a manufacturing process). Thus, in a way, avoiding a testing positive is consistent with a well-managed doping program.

Only sloppy doping docs would have their athletes test values jump wildly.

Dave.

*Can I round this up to $5million to be consistent with how Lance counts the number of tests?

Correct.

"The Clear" was called the clear for a reason. Its because they had tested it not to produce a positive.