Landiss second test for synthetic testosterone is postive

#26
#26
(VolinArizona @ Aug 9 said:
Some cycling analyst on the radio said cycling might be a dirtier sport than international sports.
Click to expand...

Way to back up your sources...
 
#30
#30
We're now using a source called "stolenunderground.com?" Can we be far from "madeupcrap.net?"
 
#31
#31
The only question I have, is this report came out in August 2005, yet it has yet to be corroborated by any major news source.
 
#32
#32
(hatvol96 @ Aug 9 said:
We're now using a source called "stolenunderground.com?" Can we be far from "madeupcrap.net?"
Click to expand...


The article quotes the story in the usatoday and analyses it. If you had bothered to read it.



Story: Armstrong had six positives from 1999 tests
By Sal Ruibal, USA TODAY

One month after winning his seventh consecutive Tour de France and retiring from professional cycling, Lance Armstrong is on the defensive over doping allegations stemming from his first Tour win in 1999.
L'Equipe, the leading sports daily newspaper in France, published a report Tuesday that said six different urine samples Armstrong provided during the 1999 Tour tested positive for the performance-enhancing drug EPO when examined in 2004 by a French lab fine-tuning EPO testing. The lab tested all the B samples from the 1999 Tour. EPO, which builds endurance, was a banned substance in 1999 but there was no approved test for it.

Of the 12 samples that returned as positive, six came from Armstrong, the story said. The lab did not identify the samples as being from Armstrong, and the testing was done with assurances that identification of the samples would be confidential and not used for doping enforcement. But L'Equipe reporters matched the samples' identification numbers in the lab report with information Armstrong released to French judicial investigators in a 2000 doping probe.

Armstrong has been at odds with French doping officials and media since his 1999 win, but he never has been linked to a positive test, a point he emphasized in his prepared rebuttal.

"The paper even admits in its own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no way to defend myself," Armstrong said in a statement released late Monday night. "They state: 'There will therefore be no counter-exam nor regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since defendant's rights cannot be respected.' I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs."

Based on the information published byL'Equipe, it is unlikely a legal result of positive can be determined for the 1999 urine samples from Armstrong. When blood and urine samples are processed for testing, the fluids are separated into two batches: A and B. The standard method for verifying a positive doping result requires that the A sample be tested first; if that is positive, the B sample then is tested. Positives cannot be declared unless both A and B samples are positive.

All of the 1999 Tour A samples were used up in that year's testing. Some remnants of the B samples are available, according to L'Equipe, but two B's are not legally the same as the required A and separate B samples.

Armstrong currently is entangled with several doping-related lawsuits, including a libel battle with The (London) Sunday Times for reprinting doping charges made in a book, L.A. Confidential, the Secrets of Lance Armstrong, in 2004.

What separates the most-recent charges is the journalistic credibility of L'Equipe, owned by the Amaury Sports Organisation, which also owns the Tour de France. Both businesses are housed in the same Paris office complex.

Tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc calledL'Equipe's report "very complete, very professional, very meticulous," but declined to make a final judgment until he hears from Armstrong.

Raymond Poulidor, a popular French cycling hero and three-time Tour runner-up, was clear about his position: "This is ridiculous. Why not retroactively test all the way back to 1903?"
Click to expand...
 
#33
#33
From the BBC, August 25, 2005
The laboratory said in a statement it had "conducted EPO tests on samples from the 1998 and 1999 Tour de France races" but added it could not confirm that any tests it had conducted belonged to Armstrong.
Click to expand...
 
#34
#34
Don't know if the EPO was his or not but:

It is the french paper that claims to be able to connect the dots between the samples and LA - as pointed out in the quote above, the lab is not making that claim. (this same paper has consistently suggested LA was doping prior to this story coming out)

The "A" samples have been destroyed and the frozen "B" samples were used to develop testing techniques for EPO. Without both samples, full confirmation is not possible (I'll see if I can find the link about the testing technique)

It is unclear how this information was leaked (doesn't excuse LA if true). The testing was not done to check on riders but rather to perfect EPO testing. Could be some liability here.

Finally, even if it is true it still doesn't validate the point that if Landis doped in 2006 then that implicates LA (especially since this dates to 1999)
 
#35
#35
Here's an article about the issue

EPO Allegations

The allegations surfaced seven years later because EPO tests on the 1999 samples were carried out only last year _ when scientists at a lab outside Paris used them for research to perfect EPO testing. The national anti-doping laboratory in Chatenay-Malabry said it promised to hand its finding to the World Anti-Doping Agency, provided they were never used to penalize riders.
Click to expand...

About the news org. that claims to have linked the samples to LA

L'Equipe, whose parent company is closely linked to the Tour, often questioned Armstrong's clean record and frequently took jabs at him -- portraying him as too arrogant, too corporate and too good to be for real.

"Never to such an extent, probably, has the departure of a champion been welcomed with such widespread relief," the paper griped the day after Armstrong's record seventh straight win.
Click to expand...

 
#36
#36
Here's a pretty thorough review of the testing procedure and what happened in this particular case.

Still doesn't answer the question of did he or didn't he -- each side can find ammo in this article.

EPO testing and LA
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top