give up, you lost

[straffo]

It's a declaration not a treaty.

Value : 0 (read Zero)

Plus there was No  public declaration from the LNDD except to say the sample were anonym and the LNDD  cannot certify if  there was a LA sample or not in the sample they used.

Use babelfish I posted it just above.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Lance's reply in full (posted about 5 hours ago)

A day after the director of the Tour de France said the seven-time champion "fooled" race officials and the sporting world by doping, Armstrong responded to the growing controversy with harsh words for everyone connected to a report in L'Equipe, the French sports daily that made the original accusation.

"Where to start?" Armstrong mused during a conference call Wednesday from Washington. "This has been a long, love-hate relationship between myself and the French."

He went on to lambaste L'Equipe and question the science and ethics of the suburban Paris laboratory that stored frozen samples from the 1999 tour, tested them only last year and leaked the results used in the newspaper's report. He even suggested officials of the Tour and sports ministries who were involved in putting the story together could wind up facing him in court.

"Right now," Armstrong said, "we're considering all our options."

But a moment later, he added, "In the meantime, it would cost a million and a half dollars and a year of my life. I have a lot better things to do with the million and a half ... a lot better things I can do with my time. Ultimately, I have to ask myself that question."

What convinced Armstrong to go on the offensive were remarks earlier Wednesday by tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc. He said L'Equipe's report that six urine samples Armstrong provided during his first tour win in 1999 tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO had convinced him the cyclist had cheated.

"The ball is now in his court," Leblanc told the newspaper. "Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the Tour. Today, what L'Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled."

But in one sense, Armstrong felt the same way, saying he talked to Leblanc on the telephone after the tour director spoke to L'Equipe, but before those remarks were published.

"I actually spoke to him for about 30 minutes and he didn't say any of that stuff to me personally," Armstrong said. "But to say that I've 'fooled' the fans is preposterous. I've been doing this a long time. We have not just one year of only 'B' samples; we have seven years of 'A' and 'B' samples. They've all been negative."

Armstrong has insisted throughout his career that he has never taken drugs to enhance his performance. In his autobiography, "It's Not About the Bike," he said he was administered EPO during his chemotherapy treatment to battle cancer.

"It was the only thing that kept me alive," he wrote.

Armstrong questioned the validity of testing samples frozen six years ago, how those samples were handled since, and how he could be expected to defend himself when the only confirming evidence - the 'A' sample used for the 1999 tests - no longer existed. He also charged officials at the suburban Paris lab with violating World Anti-Doping Agency code for failing to safeguard the anonymity of any remaining 'B' samples it had.

"It doesn't surprise me at all that they have samples. Clearly they've tested all of my samples since then to the highest degree. But when I gave those samples," he said, referring to 1999, "there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee that."

Two anti-doping authorities said urine samples from 1999, if stored properly, still could produce legitimate EPO test results.

"I believe they may well, if they have been properly stored - without access to outside people so they cannot be tampered with. Also in a refrigerator or deep frozen," Arne Ljungqvist, chairman of the International Olympic Committee's medical commission, said Wednesday in a phone interview with The Associated Press.

Christiane Ayotte, director of Montreal's anti-doping laboratory, said EPO can disappear from samples within a few months. But it cannot be formed in the sample over time if it was not originally there.

"I have no doubt that if the lab in Paris found EPO, it was there," she said in an e-mail interview with The Associated Press. "Let's put it differently, when recombinant (synthetic) EPO is detected, it is because it's in the sample. Time will decrease the amount of EPO, not increase or form it."

EPO, formally known as erythropoietin, was on the list of banned substances when Armstrong won his first Tour, but there was no effective test to detect the drug. But Armstrong's assurances he never took performance-enhancing drugs has been good enough for his sponsors. A previously scheduled meeting with several brought him to Washington, and he said afterward, "We haven't seen any damage."

But Armstrong acknowledged the same was likely true at L'Equipe.

"Obviously, this is great business for them," he said. "Unfortunately, I'm caught in the cross-hairs.

"And at the end of day," he added, "I think that's what it's all about ... selling newspapers. And it sells."

[Tarmac]

What are A and B samples?

[StarOfAfrica2]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "B" samples are ones given a certain amount of time in advance, and "A" samples are taken directly before an event.  It's supposed to be a "control" sort of thing, for scientific testing purposes.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by JBA
Who’s to say the sample was not tampered with.

If I were lance I’d I turn it around on them and say

" You messed with the sample now prove you didn’t."

That's because you don't understand the burden of proof fallacy.

[Torque]

lance has one nut and a huge heart that's how he won, anyhow they should rename it to the 'tour de lance'

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by Thrawn
That's because you don't understand the burden of proof fallacy.

Any "burden of proof" is on the Tour.  Not Lance.  He has been, as has been said many times "the most tested athlete in the history of sports" and the controversy still refuses to die.  He has NEVER failed to pass a test, and there is no way they can verify these current claims.  None.  Scientifically impossible to prove it.  You will see Muslims, Jews and Christians hugging each other and singing Kumbaya in Jerusalem before the French can ever back up their claims or prove scientifically that those test results are valid.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by straffo
Had you used a online translator you will already know  :

Straffo, do not quote anything in French or in a language other then English and figure it means anything to me. I do not trust babelfish or other online translators. If you have something to say, say it openly please.

[Fishu]

Geez.. whats so bad about investigating a possible use of dope?
If hes innocent, then he is..  end of case
If hes guilty, then he is..  theres no reason to defend him.
Doping is very serious matter for the future of sports and should not be taken lightly.

At the moment, we don't have much idea of whats happening, so it's too early to say much.
Besides didn't I read there was a clause by the research team, that the persons caught in their research tests should not be punished?

[Dinger]

Well, let's see, what's so bad about investigating the use of dope?

Uh, in this case, they're not investigating the use of dope. They go into alaboratory,where samples are being used to help refine testing techniques -- the lab is using these samples under the explicit condition that they not be used to inculpate athletes. That also means that the burden of maintaining strict control over the samples' identity is not there: there's no independent oversight, and there's no making doubly sure all the tracking information is maintained.

A magazine that happens to belong to the company that runs the TdF, and happens to have a history of launching drug accusations against LA runs an "investigative piece" where they acquire personal data from LA and match it against some of these samples that are positive. They get the guy in charge of the TdF to lament publically how LA looked him in the face and lied to him.

They don't have the evidence to nail him, and they haven't proven anything.

I'm not a cycling fan, and I've never found LA much of a personally appealing guy myself, but I recognize a cheap smear campaign.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Any "burden of proof" is on the Tour...

Instead of ascribing to me an arguement that I haven't made and then rebutting it.  Why don't you read what I quoted to get the context of what I am talking about.

[myelo]

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "B" samples are ones given a certain amount of time in advance, and "A" samples are taken directly before an event.  It's supposed to be a "control" sort of thing, for scientific testing purposes.

OK, I'll correct you.

When they obtain the urine at the time of the event, they divide it into two portions, each in a separate container. One container, the "A sample" is used to test for drugs. The other sample (B) is saved. If the A sample is positive, then they repeat the test on the B sample to confirm the results.

That's why the A sample is gone. It was used back in 1999 to test for drugs. Since it was negative, they still had the B sample.

That's one of Lance's points -- there is no backup sample to use to confirm the results. And I don't know what the rules are but I bet they don't include testing the B samples years later.

[rpm]

When do we test Barry Bonds' urine samples from 1999- 2003?

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Instead of ascribing to me an arguement that I haven't made and then rebutting it.  Why don't you read what I quoted to get the context of what I am talking about.

Thrawn,

I'm sure the little blurb you posted the first time regarding burden of proof meant something to you and you had an understanding of the thought you tried to convey. The simple truth is it was an incomplete statement you made and you gave neither an argument or even a statement to go along with it. Hence it was an incomplete thought. If you have something to say, spell it out and complete the statement rather than just post a cryptic sentence and expect it is conveying something you really meant to say. Not a slam, just trying to get info across to you.