Did anyone posting here say it was “an anti-American thing”?
There were a couple of suggestions that there is more interest in targeting Lance Armstrong than other riders, but I don’t recall anyone saying “Well, they just hate Americans.”
I understand you’re objection to L’Equipe releasing what is supposed to be confidential information. However, I think it’s important that Mr. Armstrong and his lawyers freely gave out the medical documents that had a “negative” result. He was under no obligation to do so, and could have chosen to block out the sample numbers if he had wanted to. In 20/20, he obviously should have, but they never thought in 1999 that that information would eventually link Mr. Armstrong to a positive dope test. So I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree regarding how unethical it was. It wasn’t as if they fished these docuements out of a paper shredder or a trash can, they were handed them by Mr. Armstrong’s team to prove, “hey, he isn’t doped!”
I agree that Mr. Armstrong shouldn’t be sanctioned by the UCI, WADA, or anyone else. Although the evidence from the 2004 test is clear, to do so would fly in the face of dozens of years of established rights for people accused of doping, namely an A test followed by a B with an observer of the accused’s choosing.
Also, when I refer to, “bitches,” I didn’t mean to offend anyone too greatly. I wasn’t refering to the board as a whole, or people that disagreed with me, just those that told me I didn’t know anything about pro cycling or invited me to perform fellatio on them, etc.
The invitation stands. Actually, to be honest, it stands for anyone. Don’t know many people that would give up a freebie. 
Ah, well, if I’m ever in the great state of North Dakota, I’ll be sure to give you a wring.
Why doesn’t that statement scare me? Oh, that’s right, because who the hell would ever go to North Dakota? 
I know you have a hard on for Lance, but what do make of the fact that Eddy Mercx and Miguel Indurain both think that it’s nothing but tabloid rumours? Should we accuse them of being drug cheats, too? If you want to continue to fling shit, why not take an out of context quote from this?
That’s just stupid. They’ve supported Armstrong so I should assume that they were doped. Even in Mr. Mercx’s retirement predated EPO by 15 years or so?
And what’s to quote out of context from Mr. Ullrich? He’ll play it conservatively and avoid making any accusations or claims before everything has run its full course. Why should he ruin his reputation of, if nothing else, as a nice guy by pointing out the obvious?
Simply, LA said he’d prevent Simeoni from winning, but would allow someone else to.
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
how’d I get dragged into this? I don’t even follow the sport, let alone any of the participants.
Read about the “evidence”.
Were you always this full of shit, or do you work at it?
So, so far we have:
1/ argument from inappropriate authority (is Mercx a chemist now?)
2/ thumbing the scales (LA doped or he didn’t: the question is which way the evidence points not whether the evidence is irrefutable. This ain’t a court of law.)
3/ attacking the messenger as if that destroys the message (has anyone denied that the samples tested positive or that they were LA’s or is that just something the "L’equipe are biased brigade don’t want to think about?)
4/ the “hey, look at them” tactic
Anyone got anything?
Oooh and I nearly forgot but have now been reminded (thanks Loopydude).
5/ The substance free insult gambit
Well, Lewis did test positive in 1988, but USOC swept it, and several other positive tests, under the carpet.
Life is short, and I spend enough time here as it is. Substance-free vendettas don’t warrant any better.
Six of the samples obviously were tied to additional participants, right? Ethicality of the non double blind aside, how did they react to the accusations against them?
This one has some merit. The reliability of the messenger is in some question, and there has been some question on how L’Equipe got hold of all the information they used to connect the dots, since the lab itself would not have had all of the info needed.
What disquiets me, is the reaction from the Director of the Tour de France, Jean-Marie Leblanc, who is out there stating as fact that Lance is guilty . He does this in spite of the Tour’s own regulations for drug testing, he does this in spite of the lab’s own admissions that the tests aren’t perfect, and he does it in spite of lingering questions of the newspaper’s own veracity.
What we do here, on this board, is speculation based on what facts we can find for ourselves from the internet. We’re not a board of inquiry, or judiciating body. Our decisions here will not cement anyone’s guilt or innocence. Leblanc, however, represents the Tour itself, and in his press conference he just did an end-run around his own organizations bylaws, and declared a man guilty. “The Tour thinks you’re guilty. Not enough to punish you, but we’ll still think nasty thoughts.” Very unprofessional.
InkBlot
Well, as for (1), these are fellow bikers. Assuming there’s a grapevine, they may have the inside scoop.
As for (2), most of us are saying we just don’t have enough information to know which direction the evidence points. We don’t know enough about the test, we don’t know the effects of prolonged freezing on the proteins involved and, as the cop shows would have it, the chain of custody on the evidence is completely shot.
As for (3), I personally only have L’Equipe’s word for it that the numbers matched or even that the test was unambigously positive. Do we at least have a journal article reporting the results?
As for the “substance free insult” jibe, can you describe how you tested the insult to make sure it was substance free? Was it a double blind test?
If I had Lance’s money, I’d sue the fucker for everything he’s worth. I’d be relentless. I’d go after the Tour, too. Fuck 'em, I’m retired, and if these tests are even remotely accurate, the whole fucking sport is doped anyway. Look, I’m as big a Francophile as they come, but let’s face it: The French have had their Speedos in a twist over how impossibly great LA is from the beginning, and they’re not above slinging feces when their inferior probosci get rubbed in it. So, this Franco-American is sick and fucking tired of their slander when it comes to sport. Fuck them with a rusty tire-iron, and let’s be done with it.
To follow up my own post, in the article that threemae cite that started this thread, I note the last paragraph reads:
"The test also has been recently overturned for producing false positives. Belgian triathlete Rutger Beke was cleared Aug. 9 of EPO doping charges despite two positive tests because a review showed he naturally excreted proteins that would give a positive result. "
I’d like to hear opinions from Princhester and threemae about that.
There’s also something else that doesn’t add up for me. In 1999, there was apparently no test for EPO. Threemae and others claim that doping is rampant in biking (you know, with the wife getting stopped at the border with EPO and all). Yet only six other samples tested positive along with a lot of negatives (with no word on whether those six samples belonged to an individual or multiple people?) So you’re asking me to believe that Lance was virtually the only guy using EPO in the 1999 TDF? Color me dubious.
Lance himself has said that it would cost roughly $1.5 million and a year of legal action. He daid that he’s got better things to do with his money, and much better things to do with his time.
Also, having been in a lab for the past ten years or so, I can say that there is no way in hell that I would trust any samples older than a month. I have tubes in my freezer that are so poorly labeled that I have no idea what’s in them anymore. I’m sure that I have experiments that I’ve spiked in proteins in order to make sure that I could detect it in a real sample. I’m sure that these samples are poorly labeled.
All lab freezers are like this.
Also, if the false positive rate is, say, 1%, which is a conservative estimate I would guess. This guy has probably had 100 blood tests in his life. One would be expected to come up positive just based on statistics.
I’m not saying he didn’t do it, but the evidence is far from clear.