Lance Armstrong to meet French police [Archive]

kjn6371

31-03-2005, 20:38

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- A former personal assistant to Lance Armstrong filed court papers Thursday alleging that he discovered a banned substance in the six-time Tour de France winner's apartment early last year.

Mike Anderson, who is involved in a legal fight with Armstrong over alleged promises the cyclist made to help Anderson start a bike shop, made the claim in a brief filed in state district court. The brief does not say whether Anderson saw Armstrong take any banned substances.

Armstrong, who has won a record six consecutive Tours, has maintained that he is drug-free. The cancer survivor frequently notes he is one of the most drug-tested athletes in the world.

A representative for Armstrong referred all questions to the cyclist's attorney, Timothy Herman, who declined immediate comment because he hasn't seen the brief. Armstrong is in Europe, where he finished 24th at the Paris-Camembert race Tuesday.

Anderson, who says he had a key to Armstrong's apartment in Girona, Spain, alleges he was cleaning the bathroom in ''early 2004'' when he found a white box labeled ''like any other prescription drug'' but that did not have a doctor's prescription attached.

Written on the box was the trademark name ``Androstenine, or something very close to this,'' Anderson said.

''He went to the computer, looked it up on the WADA or USADA Web site(s), and confirmed that what he had found was an androgen, a listed banned substance,'''Anderson's court brief states, referring to the World Anti-Doping Agency and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.

Anderson said he put the box back where he found it. Fearing he would be fired, he said he did not confront Armstrong about it. He said he looked for the box again after Armstrong left Girona to train in the Canary Islands, but didn't find it.

''He was torn about what to do. He's an honest guy opposed to doping in sports,'' said Anderson's attorney, Hal Gillespie. ''(But) he was sure that if he confronted, he would be fired. He's got a wife and young child, no money and a long way from home.''

Gillespie said Anderson did not see Armstrong taking any steroids or other banned substances.

Anderson's brief also said he and Armstrong had a discussion in 2004 about cyclists who dope and claimed Armstrong told him, ``Everyone does it.''

Gillespie said that conversation took place before Anderson allegedly found the steroid. The lawyer also said he plans to depose Armstrong.

Anderson said he believes Armstrong knew about the alleged discovery because their relationship began to deteriorate almost immediately.

Anderson said he was working as a mechanic at a local bike store when he met Armstrong more than four years ago. They became friends, often riding together, and Anderson regularly worked on Armstrong's bikes before becoming his personal assistant in November 2002.

Anderson said he was paid about $3,000 a month for duties that ranged from building bike trails on Armstrong's Hill Country property to doing his grocery shopping in Spain. He says he developed a close relationship with Armstrong and his family.

Anderson said he was fired in November 2004 after asking for, and getting, a $500 a month raise. He said Armstrong's representatives offered him a severance package totaling $7,000.

Armstrong and his personal service company, Luke David LLC, sued Anderson about a month later, claiming Anderson demanded Armstrong pay him $500,000, give him a signed Tour de France jersey and future endorsements to help him set up his own bike shop.

Anderson countersued, accusing the cyclist of fraud, breach of contract and causing him severe emotional distress. Anderson says an e-mail Armstrong sent to offer him the job promised the help and should be considered a binding contract.

Anderson said Armstrong also demanded he sign a confidentiality agreement that would have held him liable for up to $1 million in damages.

Thursday's filing was because the court wanted more details in support of Anderson's claim.

Adam Thirnis

31-03-2005, 21:36

This guy doesn't have an axe to grind does he? :lol:

Mark B

29-08-2005, 00:31

Yeah - the disgraceful French actually publishing damning evidence of what most of us have been thinking for a long time about the dodgy Texan (and most of the top cyclists). ;) It's kinda sad that the likes of Armstrong are seen as pure athletes but the likes of Bassons are forgotten forever...

He's not suing l'Equipe yet but the US public seem more eager to believe him over science - over 70% are backing him. :cuckoo:

Ragnar

29-08-2005, 01:28

He's not suing l'Equipe yet but the US public seem more eager to believe him over science - over 70% are backing him. :cuckoo:

What science? He was the most drug tested athlete in the world, he's got tested before, during & after races, surprise visits to his home during the off season, & the only so called evidence they have. is a 6 year old sample, of which there is no B sample, so no way Lance can prove he is innocent, very convenient.
The Fench media & cycling have been after him for years, simply because they cannot take it, that a cancer survivor can beat their best riders at their own race.

Mark B

29-08-2005, 07:50

What science? He was the most drug tested athlete in the world, he's got tested before, during & after races, surprise visits to his home during the off season, & the only so called evidence they have. is a 6 year old sample, of which there is no B sample, so no way Lance can prove he is innocent, very convenient.

For one thing testing negative is not proof of not taking performance enhancing drugs - the cheats are always quite a few steps ahead of science on this one. Besides he also tested positive before in 1999 for which he managed to get out of claiming he used a coriticoid cream for a rash - even if it was for that unlikely reason, he was at fault but the Tour chose to be lenient on him. Science has found him guilty six times over in those tests from 1999 - not really a coincidence. The thing he didn't realise at the time was that EPO would be tested for retrospectively (as I hope, his current urine will be tested for in years to come).

The Fench media & cycling have been after him for years, simply because they cannot take it, that a cancer survivor can beat their best riders at their own race.

Ah yes - the French that so hated LeMond for beating them? You can't seriously believe that the same French press that crucified their own homegrown talent for their drug taking (see Virenque or Brochart) are just after Armstrong because he survived cancer? But this seems to be Armstrong's best comeback on this at the moment - blame it on Anti-Americanism that his pee is filled with EPO. :oh-hum:

Ragnar

29-08-2005, 10:34

For one thing testing negative is not proof of not taking performance enhancing drugs - the cheats are always quite a few steps ahead of science on this one.

So I could say any athlete is a drug tacking cheat, purely on the fact they didn't test postive, so what is the point in testing at all?

SpankySpanky

29-08-2005, 10:36

Has Armstrong ever sued any of the publishers who have accused him of drug taking?

SS

Mark B

29-08-2005, 11:03

Has Armstrong ever sued any of the publishers who have accused him of drug taking?

SS

Yep - he's suing the Authors of LA Confidential: the secrets of Lance A. in the UK and the Times for publishing a synopsis. (He was sent packing in France for not having a case to prevent publication - and France has banned books in the past with relative ease. Check out Le Grand Secret for one). He's pretending to show interest in suing L'Equipe which of course he won't do as he's got no case at all - he's obviously going to claim that he's more interested in spending time with his family than pursuing "lying tabloids" or some other smokescreen...

Doubt he's got much a chance to win with this kind of information against him now.

Mark B

29-08-2005, 11:09

So I could say any athlete is a drug tacking cheat, purely on the fact they didn't test postive, so what is the point in testing at all?

There is a point in testing since in this case, it's caught him red-handed. Just because he comes out "clean" at one point in time (with the limited tests they had then) does not make him 100% certain to be clean as you seem to believe. Your argument that Armstrong is innocent as he never tested positive at the time is nonesense (and incorrect as I pointed out) - testing with newer methods and tests is without doubt far more effective but, of course, may shatter that image he's built for himself as the survivor turning best athlete of all times.

I feel for people who actually believed the BS he put out and it's certainly a huge dissapointment but it's best being realistic than clutching at fictive straws... The harsh reality of cycling is that a large majority of the leading cyclists were taking EPO as if it were going out of fashion. Armstrong is as guilty as them all. His fellow American Greg LeMond has accused him of taking drugs for a while so that kind of puts his French cabal theory into trouble.

The No B-sample argument - true but it's hardly ever happened that there has been discrepancy between the samples. It's mostly been used as a delaying tactic by guilty users. But look at it another way, we have 6 distinct samples testing postive for EPO over the 1999 tour - so you that's pretty much an A, B, C, D, E and F sample all testing positive. But he's still innocent because he's never been caught out by the testing until now (if you forget the other 1999 sample)?

Ragnar

29-08-2005, 12:46

I'm not going to bother arguing with you, you have made up your mind he is guilty & nothing is going to change that.
You say that all the leading cyclists are cheating, then they were all on an even level & he still beat them, so it doesn't matter either way.

Radiohead

29-08-2005, 14:35

I was under the impression that the 6 samples from 1999 were different athletes, and were out of 20 samples kept back. One of them may, or may not, be Armstrong.

A slightly different picture thus emerges. I personally have serious doubts that a rider who suffered the illness he did would risk their life and career so soon afterwards by taking EPO. It doesn't add up at all. I also have to ask how he's never tested positive before or since, despite being an even better rider in the post-1999 years.

Mark B

29-08-2005, 15:03

I was under the impression that the 6 samples from 1999 were different athletes, and were out of 20 samples kept back. One of them may, or may not, be Armstrong.

Nope - six positive samples from the 1999 that were Armstrong's. A total of twelve were tested but the results of the other 6 weren't revealed (yet) - crucially every single of Armstrong's were positive for EPO use.

I personally have serious doubts that a rider who suffered the illness he did would risk their life and career so soon afterwards by taking EPO.

You could argue the very opposite - he could have seen escaping from cancer as an alarm bell to be remembered for something and went over the limit on his drug use. I don't think either argument is very convincing about his drug taking though - the six positive tests are far more salient surely? (as an aside, Dr. Michele Ferrari claimed that EPO was as dangerous as taking orange juice and Armstrong stayed close to him until the bitter end.)

It doesn't add up at all.
Cheating has sadly always added up - look at the amount of money he's made from it and the public adulation (that even with this seems to have barely changed)

I also have to ask how he's never tested positive before or since, despite being an even better rider in the post-1999 years.
Simple and already answered - the current cheating is probably not detectable with today's methods. The 1999 samples caught him out since they were not expected to be retested for EPO (EPO testing came into force around 2000 IIRC). Now I think the major issue here is not that this proves that Armstrong has been taking drugs for his 7 wins - that's not been proven though suspected by many - the issue is that he's been lying about never taking doping agents and being clean.

Radiohead

29-08-2005, 15:08

Think what you will, I'm not ready to crucify the man yet. There's a lot more to this than one story in L'Equipe. Why haven't the results of the other tests been released if the agenda here isn't to denigrate Armstrong? Why wait until he'd retired? Why wasn't this testing done, say, last year?

You've clearly already hung him. I'm no more likely to believe journalists until the full story has emerged. You also choose to ignore the testimony of riders like Vaughters entirely.

Mark B

29-08-2005, 15:13

I'm not going to bother arguing with you, you have made up your mind he is guilty & nothing is going to change that.

It's not a matter of making my mind up. It's a matter of being rational with SIX positive tests from 1999 demonstrate that he was pumping junk into his system at that point.

You say that all the leading cyclists are cheating, then they were all on an even level & he still beat them, so it doesn't matter either way.

Re-read it - I said a large majority. Was Armstrong (or the rest of the EPOheads) cheating of no importance to the minority that were not? I don't think it was. The real heroes of the tour are those who have the moral fiber to compete without drugs against the likes of Armstrong, Virenque and the late Pantani - but you've probably never heard of them... I don't understand how people who love cycling aren't sickened by this complete inequality in the spor and stick by Armstrong as if he were unable to ever do anything wrong. Wanting to see cheats get their comeuppance surely is what each fan should be wanting even if you did support him and believe him no?

Radiohead

29-08-2005, 15:18

......but you've probably never heard of them...

Actually, I think I probably have and I'll assume your mis-spelling of Brochard was a typo.

I don't understand how people who love cycling aren't sickened by this complete inequality in the spor and stick by Armstrong as if he were unable to ever do anything wrong. Wanting to see cheats get their comeuppance surely is what each fan should be wanting even if you did support him and believe him no?

If, and it's a very big if, he is proven to be a cheat then he'll get no support from me. But until some very serious questions are asked and answered of the methods and details of these tests then I'll remain undecided.

I don't understand how people who love cycling are so quick to judge, condemn and destroy when the full facts are yet to emerge.

SpankySpanky

29-08-2005, 15:24

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/avoid_positive

If this is true, looks like any athlete/sportsman/woman who wishes to cheat can, if they are careful, still get away with it. Perhaps it's time drug testing was stopped? If they want to go the way of FloJo and die before their 40th birthday, why stop the silly buggers?? :shrug:

SS

Mark B

29-08-2005, 18:29

Actually, I think I probably have and I'll assume your mis-spelling of Brochard was a typo.
I also missed a t at the end of sport in a previous post. It's an outrage and I'll flagellate myself tonight in penance. Still, do you (although the original post wasn't addressed to you) know who was the fastest non-cheating athlete at this year's Tour De France?

If, and it's a very big if, he is proven to be a cheat then he'll get no support from me. But until some very serious questions are asked and answered of the methods and details of these tests then I'll remain undecided.

I read l'equipe on the day - 70 tests of samples were made. 12 came out positive - six of them were Armstrong's. Chatenay-Malabry, regardless of what Armstrong is trying to spin now, is a highly reputable lab. L'Equipe were very cautious before publishing the evidence and are not a "Tabloid" (Armstrong on Larry King). The director of C-M has confirmed the results too - but of course, he'll just be seen as another sinister head in the Grand French Cabal, eh?

I don't understand how people who love cycling are so quick to judge, condemn and destroy when the full facts are yet to emerge.

What more facts do you want? Six samples seems a pretty unlikely freak occurence to me. His judgment has been a long time coming since he's been conning us all for years and now we finally have the proof of it. The best he can hope for is complaining there wasn't two samples, that it wasn't ethical or accuse some shady French person to have been able to identify his urine and tampered with every single one. As for the Vaughters evidence, it's pretty weak. He was on Le Tour for only the first week, admits he didn't really hang out with Lance that much and his sole evidence seems to be that he wasn't offered any EPO by the team doctor. I'm sure the L'Equipe lawyers are quaking in their boots... If you speak French, you can still buy L'Equipe on line (I think the 23/08 release dissapears tomorrow from the archive) for only €1 - it's a worthwhile read and should give you more details of the evidence against him...

Radiohead

29-08-2005, 18:46

I thought it ironic that someone suggesting that others might not know cycling happened to mis-spell a well-known rider. Anyway....

You had him guilty years ago didn't you, regardless of the absolute absence of any postive tests of the most tested athlete on the planet during competition (as opposed to the mightily handy timing of his just retiring. You actually seem to be suggesting that since 2000 he has managed to cheat every in competition and out-of-competition test since these 1999 tests. How strange is that?

Vaughters was, however, there. You weren't.

Your big problem here is that the case is moot. There is no remaining sample to confirm or deny these results. That means that Armstrong is unable to defend himself against those, such as yourself, who appear to have wished a positive test since he hit the scene. What has happened, however, is that a newspaper who have had their fair share of disagreements with LA have decided to break with procedure and retrospectively test an athlete in isolation and then not allow him the route of defence that a first-year law student would expect as part of natural justice. You can't ignore these facts in favour of the ones you claim.

In the absence of any remaining urine, just what is he supposed to do?

(sadly no French here)

Mark B

29-08-2005, 19:22

I thought it ironic that someone suggesting that others might not know cycling happened to mis-spell a well-known rider. Anyway....

By one letter - wowee. (Actually, you'll find that French speakers get very mixed up between silent t's and silent d's) Didn't you use a similar rhetorical argumentation in the Schindler's List thread a few years back or am I confusing you with someone else?
Besides, I don't think there was a suggestion that he didn't know cycling though my phrasing could have been better. It should really be, you wouldn't remember them as well as the official winners for the very good reason that they're seldom on the podium.

You had him guilty years ago didn't you, regardless of the absolute absence of any postive tests of the most tested athlete on the planet during competition (as opposed to the mightily handy timing of his just retiring. You actually seem to be suggesting that since 2000 he has managed to cheat every in competition and out-of-competition test since these 1999 tests. How strange is that?

Actually, after the 1998 Tour, I was pretty disgusted with the event as a whole. I think the breaking point came when France 2 (though sponsers and main broadcasters of the event) went looking through hotel bins and found empty boxes for illegal substances with the rider's name on them. I suppose Armstrong was just the tip of the iceberg - I always had my doubts about Virenque but really having doubts about top cyclists is a bit like having doubts about Britney Spears' musical talent.

Vaughters was, however, there. You weren't.
I could also argue that O'Reilly was there, you weren't. So that does that even it out?

Your big problem here is that the case is moot. There is no remaining sample to confirm or deny these results. That means that Armstrong is unable to defend himself against those, such as yourself, who appear to have wished a positive test since he hit the scene. What has happened, however, is that a newspaper who have had their fair share of disagreements with LA have decided to break with procedure and retrospectively test an athlete in isolation and then not allow him the route of defence that a first-year law student would expect as part of natural justice. You can't ignore these facts in favour of the ones you claim. In the absence of any remaining urine, just what is he supposed to do?

L'Equipe did not test him and he was not tested in isolation. It was part of experiemental research into the validity of the test. They were comparing different methods of testing for EPO (which is now widely believed to be an "old man's" drug on La Grande Boucle hence why no-one was detected this year). I suppose Armstrong could sue over it since there was probably a break in protocol since his urine (which all six samples incidentally were positive on all three of the tests they used) was not kept anonymous but he won't apparantly. He could also offer to have the rest of his urine securely stored and tested in years to come whenever the quality of the testing catches up with the cheating. The proof is there - it's not a matter of law but of an agreed drug testing protocol not having been followed (and IIRC it didn't have to since it wasn't meant to be one). There's probably plenty more of his urine on ice for years to come - not sure he'll agree to it being tested...

If it were one sample coming out positive, I'd give him the benefit of doubt and accept that it could have been a freak occurence. He could have as you say asked for another test but since there werel six positive tests the odds of this being accidental are verging on the miraculous. Well he did say he was sorry that we who doubt him "can't believe in miracles" but I'm not sure that was what he had in mind.

(sadly no French here)
Ah bummer :(

Radiohead

29-08-2005, 19:27

By one letter - wowee. (Actually, you'll find that French speakers get very mixed up between silent t's and silent d's) Didn't you use a similar rhetorical argumentation in the Schindler's List thread a few years back or am I confusing you with someone else?

Don't think that was me.

:shrug:

I could also argue that O'Reilly was there, you weren't. So that does that even it out?

Probably.

;)

L'Equipe did not test him and he was not tested in isolation. It was part of experiemental research into the validity of the test. They were comparing different methods of testing for EPO (which is now widely believed to be an "old man's" drug on La Grande Boucle hence why no-one was detected this year). I suppose Armstrong could sue over it since there was probably a break in protocol since his urine (which all six samples incidentally were positive on all three of the tests they used) was not kept anonymous but he won't apparantly. He could also offer to have the rest of his urine securely stored and tested in years to come whenever the quality of the testing catches up with the cheating. The proof is there - it's not a matter of law but of an agreed drug testing protocol not having been followed (and IIRC it didn't have to since it wasn't meant to be one). There's probably plenty more of his urine on ice for years to come - not sure he'll agree to it being tested...

If it were one sample coming out positive, I'd give him the benefit of doubt and accept that it could have been a freak occurence. He could have as you say asked for another test but since there werel six positive tests the odds of this being accidental are verging on the miraculous. Well he did say he was sorry that we who doubt him "can't believe in miracles" but I'm not sure that was what he had in mind.

Ah bummer :(

This is the whole problem isn't it - we can't prove or disprove that they were in fact positive as we have nothing left to re-test. If this were a competition test they'd be ruled invalid as a result, so why is this any difference. LA can't prove his innocence, yet has been hung regardless.

At to him suing, would you spend $1.5 million as the estimate is? I doubt I would.

Mark B

29-08-2005, 19:40

This is the whole problem isn't it - we can't prove or disprove that they were in fact positive as we have nothing left to re-test. If this were a competition test they'd be ruled invalid as a result, so why is this any difference. LA can't prove his innocence, yet has been hung regardless.

I don't think that's an issue since it wasn't one rogue test but six. Honestly, what do you seriously think the probability of the B-test of all of those six tests being negative is? 0.0000000000000000000001%? Lower? As I've said, he's wanting us to believe in miracles. But yes, if he were to be stripped of his 1999 win, he would be able to argue that they did not observe all the rules and protocols of standard doping testing and get off on a technicality. But that's not the law (as in criminal law) - that's just a procedure that was set up and agreed upon (as was the agreement to not test the urine for EPO on that tour as there was pressure that the test "wasn't precise enough" or as someone more cynical than me put it "we're loaded up with EPO, so give us some time to find a better alternative".)

At to him suing, would you spend $1.5 million as the estimate is? I doubt I would.

If I was innocent, of course I would. He's already suing the LA confidential people so money and effort obviously isn't the issue when it comes to clearing his name. So why not sue L'Equipe especially as they levelled the most damaging charges against you.

Oh and I assume you meant As to him suing not At? ;)

Radiohead

29-08-2005, 19:43

His career is overm whereas the legal action against the LA Confidential has been going on for a fair while.

I guess we agree to disagree for now, but if this proven without doubt then I'll happily join your side.

Radiohead

29-08-2005, 19:44

Oh and I assume me As to him suing not At? ;)

Oh arse.

:lol:

Yetiboy

29-08-2005, 20:34

Besides he also tested positive before in 1999 for which he managed to get out of claiming he used a coriticoid cream for a rash - even if it was for that unlikely reason, he was at fault but the Tour chose to be lenient on him.

Seeing as I read his second book this week I thought I'd point out that he was assured by the race organisers before using it that the cream was allowed.

Mark B

29-08-2005, 20:37

His career is overm whereas the legal action against the LA Confidential has been going on for a fair while.

True - he wasn't retired when the book came out in France IIRC. But I think his earning potential in retirement (at least in Europe) is going to be severely diminished if he doesn't sue when innocent. Beyond the money (which he has plenty of anyway), I would think that his position in cycling history is going to be at best impaired by this and if I were him, I would want to clear my name. The key issue is that I don't think a court of law will find in his favour at all. The technicalities of standard cycling drug testing won't be taken into account there so that's most of his defence out the window. Left is his doubts over the probity of "Jean-Francois so and so" but then the setup at Chatenay-Malabry is such that the lab has no way to know whose sample is whose - they are all mere numbers to them.

I guess we agree to disagree for now, but if this proven without doubt then I'll happily join your side.

Well I hope that will happen very soon :)

Mark B

29-08-2005, 20:57

Seeing as I read his second book this week I thought I'd point out that he was assured by the race organisers before using it that the cream was allowed.

Out of curiousity does he admit that on the day on which he tested positive he wrote down on his medical record: Medicine taken: none and when the story came out he claimed he hadn't taken any corticoides and didn't have a medical certificate to take any forbidden products?

Yetiboy

29-08-2005, 21:24

No.

Out of curiousity, have you read his books?

Mark B

30-08-2005, 02:00

No.

Out of curiousity, have you read his books?

Does reading a bit of his biography in a mate's house count? It seemed very much aimed at a US audience and didn't really grab me so I didn't borrow it (or prolong my stay in his toilet). I've read Virenque's which had me in stitches (in my defence, I didn't pay for it - it was a loan) - not sure it's available in English but it's probably a perfect example of why certain sports personalities shouldn't write books unless they get William Faulkner to ghostwrite it from the grave. Regardless of what I think of Armstrong, I'm not really big into biographies of sportspeople but I'm sure Armstrong will have made a better job of it than Virenque...

rbullivant

30-08-2005, 05:21

Surely he would have trouble sueing over this? I mean they tested some of his urine and it came out postive for EPO and that is what the article has said. I mean you cannot simply sue someone because you do not like what is said about you especially if it is true.

It is slightly different to saying he was on drugs with no proof at all.

To be honest I am not surprised in the slightest, he took EPO when he knew there was no test for it and didn't think he would get caught.

Rik

Radiohead

30-08-2005, 07:55

Actually it's not. Drugs tests always require the test of a controlled B sample to confirm or deny the A test. There is no urine left to test, so it can't be proven or disproven.

Ragnar

30-08-2005, 09:39

I still want to know where the proof is, that these 6 year old samples haven't been switched or tampered with.

baffled

30-08-2005, 10:47

I don't know the ins and outs of sport testing but here at work if our main sample is negative (recreational drugs etc) then the B sample is destroyed/thrown away, does this not happen in sport?

Mark B

30-08-2005, 10:53

Actually it's not. Drugs tests always require the test of a controlled B sample to confirm or deny the A test. There is no urine left to test, so it can't be proven or disproven.

I still think you're clutching at straws with that - six samples come out positive - you've had your B-sample test 5 times over. OK so a B-sample is supposed to be his urine of the same day but that, to me, seems like a mere technicality.

As for the tampering argument, you could argue the same about every single positive drug test from every athlete. I may be a dreadful sceptic but it seems strange that every single athlete that comes out positive claims they're a victim of a machination or that they have an unusual metabolism that has created the positive test.

IIRC from the L'Equipe article, there is still enough of the B-sample to test for DNA and re-test for EPO. Testing that negative would exonerate him - he could petition to have that performed coudln't he?

Snoopy

30-08-2005, 12:11

Excuse my ignorance in this matter but if he has been proven guilty of taking drugs why has he not been stipped of his 1999 title.

Radiohead

30-08-2005, 13:00

Looks like we'll have a better idea in 10 days then:

Cycling to judge Tour dope claims

Armstrong reveals reputation fear
Cycling's governing body the UCI is investigating reports of positive drug tests during the 1999 Tour de France.

The UCI, which did not name seven-time winner Lance Armstrong as among those under investigation, said it would reveal its findings within 10 days.

French newspaper L'Equipe alleged last week that signs of blood-boosting drug EPO were detected in samples of Armstrong's urine during the 1999 race.

Armstrong has consistently denied the drugs allegations levelled at him.

The UCI said it regretted the breach of confidentiality in the disclosure of samples, but was pressing ahead with its own assessment.

EPO was on the list of banned substances in 1999, but there was no effective test to detect it.

The L'Equipe investigation was based solely on B samples - the second of two samples used in doping tests. The A samples were used up in 1999.

Tour de France director Jean-Marie Leblanc said that although the report seemed credible, Armstrong had to have a chance to deny the claims.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/4195666.stm

Mark B

30-08-2005, 13:06

Excuse my ignorance in this matter but if he has been proven guilty of taking drugs why has he not been stipped of his 1999 title.

It was not taken out under the agreed upon regulations that govern the sport - he needs a b-sample for confirmation (which is the other half of the urine sample). The reason for a b-sample is that it removes the accusation of one sample beng tainted. I'm not sure of the figures regarding B-samples testing negative when the first sample was positive but they are very low. At the risk of repeating myself, I think you'll need the Heart of Gold improbability drive to allow for six samples do be discomfirmed by their counterpart. Does anyone have figures on this btw?

Snoopy

30-08-2005, 13:43

It was not taken out under the agreed upon regulations that govern the sport - he needs a b-sample for confirmation (which is the other half of the urine sample). The reason for a b-sample is that it removes the accusation of one sample beng tainted.

So he hasn't actually been found guilty of taking drugs, yet. And in reality will probably never be proved.

Mark B

30-08-2005, 13:53

So he hasn't actually been found guilty of taking drugs, yet.

Not by the UCI yet - but that isn't proof of non-guilt by common standards. I imagine that in a court of law, he can clear his name if he seriously thinks he's got a case against L'Equipe and that the tests do not prove his guilt. I'll be very surprised if he were to try that attack (breach of confidentiality is a more likely approach though implicitly that would have him admitting to be guilty).

And in reality will probably never be proved.
The B-samples can be re-tested for DNA and EPO - simple.

rbullivant

30-08-2005, 16:03

Also how come they randomly sampled 18 cyclists urine for EPO and 6 of them turned out to be Lance Armstrong? That has to be a serious fluke?

Rik

Radiohead

30-08-2005, 17:37

How come they haven't named any of the others, some of who may still be competing?

Mark B

30-08-2005, 23:54

How come they haven't named any of the others, some of who may still be competing?

Well my PDF of that edition of L'Equipe has been invaluable! Their article has said that their names will be known in time. Do they know them now? That's not clear in the article. Their source at the AMA (who I think were the only people able to identify any of the samples that Chatenay-Malabry had tested) may have felt it was risky enough copying the files of one runner without risking their neck for the other ones.

But there is also the possibility that the evidence against those runners was far less compelling since there was only one sample of theirs coming up postive. Six samples of one emblematic runner coming out postive is obviously going to be a far more compelling scientifically (as I've said it's almost like having 5 positive B-tests).

On a different note, maybe I should have started a different thread given that this one is a bit misleading or the OP could change it maybe? I must say I'm surprised that no thread had been started at all about this.

Mark B

02-09-2005, 01:06

Just read http://www.mountainbike.com/community/article/1,4823,13111_621,00.html
which throws up another interesting fact: the other six samples are allegedly from just one other runner and possibly a French one. If l'Equipe did't reveal who he was (and knew), it would kind of justify Armstrong's belief that there's a French vendetta against him although given that name is going to come out anyway, it seems a bit risky of L'Equipe to sit on that information.

L'humanité (the official communist daily) also covers some of the new questions here (in English) http://www.watchingamerica.com/lhumanite000003.html

If true, I'm wondering who that runner could be given that no French runner won any stage that year (I can remember the media harping on about that).

Radiohead

02-09-2005, 06:23

I'll have a full read of all that later Mark, but thanks for psoting it up.

You can discount any of the Festina boys but it's puzzling as to why they have't named him.

worthit

02-09-2005, 09:07

From that article:

"France-Soir [a French afternoon daily] believes that it knew the six other samples from 1999 belonged to a single racer and questioned l’Equipe’s silence on the subject, inevitably suspecting a racer who distinguished himself on the roads of the Tour, “with stage victories or a distinctive jersey,” perhaps a Frenchman."

That year Virenque won the Polka Dot jersey and Benoit Salmon (FR) won the Maillot Blanc, the young rider's jersey. Obviously, Virenque has admitted doping in the past.

Radiohead

02-09-2005, 09:14

Mark B

02-09-2005, 10:51

If it's Virenque then they would surely have named him - not only because he's admitted doping in the past, but because he's also retired. But then "perhaps a Frenchman" is a red herring. It coud be Zabel, Jalabert?

Jalabert was the first runner I had in mind - popular, French and relatively successful on the Tour as a whole - but given that he didn't have a Jersey that year and didn't win a stage, I'm not sure he would have been tested 6 times on one tour - I suppose it could have happened though...

Radiohead

07-09-2005, 11:25

Armstrong considers shock return

Armstrong to marry singer Crow
Lance Armstrong says he could come out of retirement to try for an eighth straight Tour de France victory.

Armstrong said: "While I'm absolutely enjoying my time as a retired athlete, the recent smear campaign out of France has awoken my competitive side.

"I'm thinking it's the best way to ******* [the French] off. I'm not willing to put a percentage on the chances but I will no longer rule it out."

Asked how serious he was, Armstrong replied: "I'm exercising every day."

Armstrong believes he is the target of a "witch hunt" by the French media.

French sports daily L'Equipe reported in August that urine samples taken from Armstrong during his first Tour victory in 1999 tested positive for the banned substance EPO.

There will always be a place on the team for him if he decides to come back

Johan Bruyneel
Armstrong's team manager at Discovery Channel
The 33-year-old, who recovered from cancer, has always vehemently denied taking any performance-enhancing drugs.

He retired in July after winning his seventh straight Tour de France.

Armstrong's spokesman Mark Higgins insists the cycling legend is serious about a possible comeback.

"He's still fit and very much in his prime," said Higgins. " He is not ruling out a return to racing.

"In light of the stuff that's been going on in the past few weeks, a comeback has become appealing.

"At the same time, he's a retired athlete who is very much enjoying being with his children and working with charities. And he just got engaged. We'll just have to see."

Johan Bruyneel, Armstrong's team manager at Discovery Channel, said the door was still open for the star rider to return.

"We could decide during our training camp in December, which will be decisive (for the Tour)," Bruyneel told the Belgian news agency Belga.

"But don't make me say that Lance has already decided what he will do with the rest of his career. That said, we speak for 15 minutes on the phone every day, and for 13 of those we talk about cycling."

"He got back on the bike to train three weeks after the end of the Tour de France. He follows the team's progress closely and it's sure that he's still hungry for success.

"There will always be a place on the team for him if he decides to come back. Anyway, he's still under contract with us till the end of 2006."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/4219934.stm

Radiohead

09-09-2005, 18:57

nternational Cycling Union boss Hein Verbruggen says no action will be taken against Lance Armstrong in the wake of recent doping allegations.

French newspaper L'Equipe claimed signs of EPO were detected in samples of Armstrong's urine given in 1999.

Armstrong, who retired after winning his seventh Tour de France in July, has angrily denied the allegations.

And Verbruggen told Le Figaro: "It's not wise to condemn someone who hasn't tested positive in a legal sense."

L'Equipe alleged that six of the 12 positive tests from the 1999 Tour de France belonged to Armstrong.

Verbruggen said: "The normal sanction - if you can prove that someone has tested positive - is a two-year ban, but what we have here cannot be used as proof."

A UCI spokesman singled out World Anti-Doping Agency president Dick Pound for making "public statements about the likely guilt of an athlete on the basis of a newspaper article and without all the facts being known."

When the allegations were first made, Pound had said: "It's a pretty serious story if it is true."

In 2004, Armstrong wrote an open letter to European newspapers saying Pound should not be in charge of Wada.

The UCI also criticized the article in L'Equipe as "targeting a particular athlete."

The editor of L'Equipe, Claude Droussent, denied his newspaper targeted Armstrong because of his nationality and said it would have treated a French rider in the same way.

EPO detection

The tests in question were carried out retrospectively in 2004 at the French national anti-doping laboratory at Chatenay-Malabry, just outside Paris, to help testers improve their EPO detection methods.

"We're going to be looking further into this affair," added Verbruggen.

"It's another heavy blow to cycling so we have to take it all the way. And I also want to know who exactly it was who gave out this information."

Verbruggen said the UCI had the names of the other six riders that allegedly tested positive.

"We're waiting for answers to our questions from the laboratory to see what can and should be done," he said.

The 33-year-old Armstrong, who is set to marry rock star Sheryl Crow, is considering coming out of retirement in response to the allegations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/4229804.stm

Mark B

10-09-2005, 01:47

Interesting - it''s now back to 6 distinct other riders testing positive so France Soir (which is as close to a tabloid as you get in France) may have been talking rubbish.

I am not too surprised by the ICU decision as it was obvious they couldn't bend the rules to implicate him given the the normal process for suspending someone could not be followed (plus I'm not sure if there has ever been a case of suspending a retired cylcist 7 years after the events)...

bh1

31-05-2006, 20:52

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/5033672.stm

Vrijman and Pound. :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono:

Mark B

31-05-2006, 21:35

I know Armstrong's been wanting some good news recently but, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not really a full exonoration, just a technical exonoration (i.e. there wasn't a B sample) - the proof that would have exonerated him, a DNA test on the positive sample or a retest of what's left of that given B-sample, has still not been done. So it's just stating what Armstrong has been complaining about all along (doesn't follow the offical rules to disqualify him) but doesn't realy prove he wasn't using EPO - just that they can't legally strip him of his title. I guess we'll know more when the report is finally published but I'm pretty sure it'll just be a UCI did nothing wrong conclusion ;)

Actually, from the various sources, it just seems that this adds nothing to the debate bar that Lance Armstrong's medical condifentiality has been violated - so I guess he can sue on that level but leaves him with the bizarre situation that winning the suit may mean admitting that six of his samples were riddled with EPO.

With both WADA and UCI annoyed with Vrijman, this should become entertaining - I'm sure WADA will do their own investigation now since Pound has threatened to do so in the past. And here's hoping for some legally binding retrocative testing of Armstrong's pee (as well as all the other cyclists for that matter - the latest fallout in Spain (http://www.nytimes.com/iht/2006/05/27/sports/IHT-27doping.html) is barely making me feel things have moved on)