The 500 Tests/Never tested positive lie

[TexPat]

Even more telling if it is not the occasion in Austin.

Dave.

Perhaps we'll know one day soon.

 

[python]

the usada’s motion in Appendix 1 can be called ‘debunking 30 myths and lies‘.

One of them, the allegation 4 correction, stand out in particular.

From the USADA submittal, Appendix 1:

The vast majority of the tests conducted on Mr. Armstrong are unlikely to have been tested for EPO or anabolic steroids. Most of the tests on Mr. Armstrong are blood tests which are not typically direct tests for the presence of prohibited substances. Moreover, EPO testing of urine samples requires more expensive special testing that is not performed on a majority of urine samples collected.

while the first sentence here is somewhat an inaccuracy (the vast majority of armstrong’s urine sample, if in when tested, WERE indeed analyzed for anabolic steroids by applying a mandatory T/E test since the 80s) the overall significance here is in the 2nd sentence (bolded- python).

in plain speak, it states that usada has a fairly good idea of the total number of tests armstrong has undergone and that the number of tests only started to grow substantially AFTER the introduction of bio passport in 2008. That is, a standard urine test was a rarity during his winning years between 1999 and 2005. If true, this is a devastating statement.

i doubt usada would dare to go this far had it not been in possession of the hard facts.

 

[thehog]

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

This graphic probably needs to get thrust back into the limelight...

 

[poupou]

This graphic probably needs to get thrust back into the limelight...

Dims space graphic about testing is available, a very large format, there :
http://dimspace.co.uk/lancetesthistory.png

 

[the big ring]

PWNT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...840e-f928-11e1-a93b-7185e3f88849_story_1.html

Armstrong, who walked away from the sport in 2011, has always denied doping and notes that he has passed hundreds of tests. McQuaid said 215 tests throughout Armstrong’s career were overseen by the UCI, and insisted there was no cover-up of a failed test by the Texan in 2001 as has been alleged

Haven't checked how this aligns with Dim's poster, but should be interesting?

Bit different to 500-600 regardless?

ETA: Dim had it at 204 in the poster - friggin close. (If my math is correct. I need a coffee)

 

[BroDeal]

PWNT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...840e-f928-11e1-a93b-7185e3f88849_story_1.html


Haven't checked how this aligns with Dim's poster, but should be interesting?

Bit different to 500-600 regardless?

Add the 29 times he was tested by the USADA and the total is 244.

We now have a max number.

McQuaid is probably including bio passport tests for which there may have been no drug testing, only blood values, so the actual number is smaller.

 

[the big ring]

Although McQuaid could come back and claim it was a mistake, I don't think he can jump from 215 to 500.

News media should be jumping all over this. It's the pin in the balloon of the 500 test bullsht Lance and his lawyers tout all the time.

Crickets instead...

*chirp* *chirp*



*chirp* *chirp*

 

[poupou]

Add the 29 times he was tested by the USADA and the total is 244.

We now have a max number.

McQuaid is probably including bio passport tests for which there may have been no drug testing, only blood values, so the actual number is smaller.

Ttsss

You are forgeting some others, like those done by AFLD....
maybe 1O to be generous.

We stay still far away of 500 !


Lance, we like your credibility !!!!

 

[the big ring]

Ttsss

You are forgeting some others, like those done by AFLD....
maybe 1O to be generous.

We stay still far away of 500 !

Even Tim Herman admitted in an interview in 2010 it was around 300.

 

[sittingbison]

Although McQuaid could come back and claim it was a mistake, I don't think he can jump from 215 to 500...

"et warz a toypo. Shudda zed 512"

 

[MacRoadie]

Although McQuaid could come back and claim it was a mistake, I don't think he can jump from 215 to 500.

Wait for the Jameson to kick in...

 

[peacefultribe]

The USADA's index of how many times an athlete has been tested is not correct. At least it isn't when I plugged in my name. The number of tests that the USADA has listed for me on their page is well under the actual amount.

Having said that, I am NOT a fan of Armstrong! He is the biggest fraud in the history of all sports.

 

[the big ring]

"et warz a toypo. Shudda zed 512"

Ah yes. Numerical dyslexia.

Le sigh.

 

[BroDeal]

The USADA's index of how many times an athlete has been tested is not correct. At least it isn't when I plugged in my name. The number of tests that the USADA has listed for me on their page is well under the actual amount.

Having said that, I am NOT a fan of Armstrong! He is the biggest fraud in the history of all sports.

Can you give us information about how it is off and by how much, like percentage wise? Is every year a bit off or is there a single year that skews the results?

Does the USADA take samples that are not tested? It seems to me that a cheap way to make doping harder would be to take more samples but only test a fraction of them. The athlete will not know which samples will be tested, so he would have to make sure that none of them are hot. In competition sample collection could easily be doubled or tripled for very little additional cost.

 

[the big ring]

Can you give us information about how it is off and by how much, like percentage wise? Is every year a bit off or is there a single year that skews the results?

Does the USADA take samples that are not tested? It seems to be that a cheap way to make doping harder would be to take a more samples but only test a fraction of them. The athlete would not know which samples will be tested, so he would have to make sure that none of them are hot. In competition sample collection could easily be doubled or tripled for very little additional cost.

Good point. The containers are cheap. The chaperones are employed already. The testing is the killer - setting up the blot or whatever they're using, tech time, machine usage, results analysis. That's where the money is being spent.

 

[python]

people, as i posted in a parallel thread about the uci chances of an appeal, think about WHY the uci would post the tests number vastly contradictory to the claims of team armstrong

would they dare to contradict lance in his face (publicly) if the uci was preparing an appeal to cas ?

 

[the big ring]

people, as i posted in a parallel thread about the uci chances of an appeal, think about WHY the uci would post the tests number vastly contradictory to the claims of team armstrong

would they dare to contradict lance in his face (publicly) if the uci was preparing an appeal to cas ?

They talk about appealing on jurisdiction, not merit. Merit would be the tests, evidence, etc. SOL and jurisdiction is another matter.

To wit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...30840e-f928-11e1-a93b-7185e3f88849_story.html

"We don't want to go to CAS necessarily on the merits of the case, but if we have to on jurisdiction we will do so," McQuaid said.

 

[the big ring]

Predicting Pat's future behaviour is about as likely as herding cats.

I am longing to see a headline:

Passing 500 tests myth debunked by UCI president.

 

[peacefultribe]

Can you give us information about how it is off and by how much, like percentage wise? Is every year a bit off or is there a single year that skews the results?

Does the USADA take samples that are not tested? It seems to be that a cheap way to make doping harder would be to take a more samples but only test a fraction of them. The athlete would not know which samples will be tested, so he would have to make sure that none of them are hot. In competition sample collection could easily be doubled or tripled for very little additional cost.

It only lists about a third of my actual tests. I can't be sure, as it was a long time ago, and I never kept track of how many times I was tested. I just know that it is significantly more than what is on the website.

I would guess that they took the sample, but may not have had all of them tested. It's expensive, from what I understand. They also made a practice of getting as many athletes as possible in one trip to a region. I think that it was cheaper that way. Not testing all of the samples is a likely scenario.

 

[the big ring]

It only lists about a third of my actual tests. I can't be sure, as it was a long time ago, and I never kept track of how many times I was tested. I just know that it is significantly more than what is on the website.

Did you ever / always receive results from tests? Or do they only get back to you if something is wrong?

There's a difference between:

500 samples, never tested positive ... and
500 tests, never tested positive

 

[peacefultribe]

Did you ever / always receive results from tests? Or do they only get back to you if something is wrong?

There's a difference between:

500 samples, never tested positive ... and
500 tests, never tested positive

We never received results, but I think that we were entitled to them if we wanted them. Not sure on that one. I always thought that the results were for the USADA only, unless there was a positive, but I found out later that some of the officials from the sport's governing body had access to them. Not a lot of privacy. I knew all of my important numbers anyway, and I never took drugs, so the test results were never a concern.

 

[the big ring]

Thanks for the info - it helps complete the picture.

 

[D-Queued]

Predicting Pat's future behaviour is about as likely as herding cats.

I am longing to see a headline:

Passing 500 tests myth debunked by UCI president.

This is great.

Finally, after all the drama, expected behavior sets in.

The message from Fat Pat: I may kiss yours, but saving my a$$ is more important to me.

And, like the I am tranquil statement when all high profile dopers are caught red-handed, Pat assures us that his conscience is clear.

If he could only remember where he put it, because a clear conscience is so hard to find.

Dave.

 

[MrRoboto]

I wonder if these 215 includes the passport tests....Probably it does.

 

[poupou]

I wonder if these 215 includes the passport tests....Probably it does.

Of course.
Just have a look http://dimspace.co.uk/lancetesthistory.png