Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: parker00 on August 24, 2005, 10:04:35 AM
-
What because an American has won it so many times they will do anything to bring him down. Why don't they just face it that he was the best and the best won, simple as that. The lab says it can't match names to the test yet
The director of the Tour de France said it was a "proven scientific fact" that Lance Armstrong had a performance-boosting drug in his body during his 1999 Tour win
Give up and face it that you lost. Don't worry he won't be there next year so you all may have a chance again. :D
story (http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-armstrong-doping&prov=ap&type=lgns)
-
... can you say... "gottawin"? :D
-
Originally posted by parker00 What because an American has won it so many times they will do anything to bring him down. Why don't they just face it that he was the best and the best won, simple as that. The lab says it can't match names to the test yet
Look like the information is distorted when crossing the atlantic.
-
Originally posted by parker00
What because an American has won it so many times they will do anything to bring him down. Why don't they just face it that he was the best and the best won, simple as that. The lab says it can't match names to the test yet
Give up and face it that you lost. Don't worry he won't be there next year so you all may have a chance again. :D
story (http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-armstrong-doping&prov=ap&type=lgns)
Seems to be that he has some explaining to do. Not that I care about cycling anyway though. lol
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9050722/
Tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc’s comments appeared in the French sports daily L’Equipe on Wednesday, a day after the newspaper reported that six urine samples provided by Armstrong during the ’99 Tour tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO.
“For the first time — and these are no longer rumors, or insinuations, these are proven scientific facts — someone has shown me that in 1999, Armstrong had a banned substance called EPO in his body,” Leblanc told L’Equipe.
EPO, formally known as erythropoietin, was on the list of banned substances at the time Armstrong won the first of his seven Tours, but there was no effective test then to detect it.
The allegations surfaced six 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 it was never used to penalize riders.
-
the guy also has cancer , might this EPO be something one would give to a cancer patiant?:rolleyes:
-
Boxboy,
My thought as well. Perhaps a blood booster to counteract the effects of chemo that may be similar to the nasty enhancer.
-
Originally posted by parker00
What because an American has won it so many times they will do anything to bring him down. Why don't they just face it that he was the best and the best won, simple as that. The lab says it can't match names to the test yet
Well, in 2002 Winter Olympics they disqualified Russian women skiing team for... too much haemoglobin in their blood!!!
Damn, why not because their muscles are too strong and they are healthier then others?...
Go tell Reingold Messner that his climbing Everest without oxygen equipment and other mountains over 8000m don't count just because his blood contains too much haemoglobin!...
-
Anyone know where I can get samples from Merckx's first win?
I'll bet Phillipedies was on something when he ran to tell Athens of the win at Marathon. Is there maybe a sample I can get to test?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Boxboy,
My thought as well. Perhaps a blood booster to counteract the effects of chemo that may be similar to the nasty enhancer.
Exact , but not supposed to be used when the patient is cured.
-
Who said he is cured? Effects of chemo do not just go away right after you stop getting the treatment. There is also the probability that the cancer will resurface and medication can and frequently is a permanent situation. The wife is still on several cancer meds and the last surgery / chemo / radiation was about 5 years ago.
BTW why is this guy bringing up something from 6 years ago.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
BTW why is this guy bringing up something from 6 years ago.
They had no test for the Substance EPO in 1999. They do now and they tested his "sample" last year.
-
Originally posted by boxboy28
the guy also has cancer , might this EPO be something one would give to a cancer patiant?:rolleyes:
I don't see how that would be relevant, it's a banned substance.
-
I fail the piss test every time I take it at work but it's because of the MEDs I take. It was funny how they all got worked up about it until I showed them my prescriptions...lol. Now they don't even bother testing me.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
I fail the piss test every time I take it at work but it's because of the MEDs I take. It was funny how they all got worked up about it until I showed them my prescriptions...lol. Now they don't even bother testing me.
Do what Nexx does - take a can of Bud with you when it's time for your piss test.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I don't see how that would be relevant, it's a banned substance.
Maybe, but there are probably several medications you would give to someone with cancer, depending on what type they had, to help deal with the side effects of the chemo, that have a similar chemical signature. More than likely they only test for one or two chemicals found in EPO that are fairly unique, and not likely to be found in a healthy individual.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
They had no test for the Substance EPO in 1999. They do now and they tested his "sample" last year.
How can you ban a substance you have no test for? Also,
how long do these whiners hold blood samples, under who's
control? I don't suppose it's at all possible that the samples
could have been contaminated during the lag?
-
Thrawn, banned for sports perhaps but are you certain it's banned for theraputic reasons?
Rino, you aren't possibly suggesting that a countryman of one of the losers would possibly have sloppy sampling techniques and contaminate the sample are you????? :p
-
Originally posted by Rino
How can you ban a substance you have no test for? Also,
how long do these whiners hold blood samples, under who's
control? I don't suppose it's at all possible that the samples
could have been contaminated during the lag?
What does it matter, they banned it as a performance enhancer and later were able to develop a test. Just because you get away with cheating (if he did it) doesnt mean they cant find out later and feel cheated.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Damn, why not because their muscles are too strong and they are healthier then others?...
While the russians were famous of the doping research institutions, run for decades and even after the collapse of the CCCP.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Thrawn, banned for sports perhaps but are you certain it's banned for theraputic reasons?
Not at all, but if you are in a sport and have to take a banned substance for medical reasons, then you should recuse yourself from participating. Anything else is dishonourable and unsportsmanlike.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
What does it matter, they banned it as a performance enhancer and later were able to develop a test. Just because you get away with cheating (if he did it) doesnt mean they cant find out later and feel cheated.
So if you did illegal nacrotics as a child and someone drags out
your blood sample 30 years later, should you still be prosecuted?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Who said he is cured? Effects of chemo do not just go away right after you stop getting the treatment. There is also the probability that the cancer will resurface and medication can and frequently is a permanent situation. The wife is still on several cancer meds and the last surgery / chemo / radiation was about 5 years ago.
BTW why is this guy bringing up something from 6 years ago.
But in this case how do you explain Lance pretend to be clean and having never used EPO ?
may I rememeber he should like the others not use any performance enhancer ?
-
Originally posted by Rino
So if you did illegal nacrotics as a child and someone drags out
your blood sample 30 years later, should you still be prosecuted?
Depend of your legal system.
-
He's an American. And he won their precious silly little bicycle race.
Therein lies the real problem.
Oh that and hes an American.
did I mention he was American?
-
This has come up every other year..
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." --Lance
If they had any real proof, something would have been done about it long ago.....
-
Originally posted by soda72
This has come up every other year..
If they had any real proof, something would have been done about it long ago.....
not as the method is quite new.
DREDIOCK I'm not the one showing a stupid nationalims here.
-
Straffo you should tell them to rename it the Tour de Freedom
-
Originally posted by parker00
What because an American has won it so many times they will do anything to bring him down. Why don't they just face it that he was the best and the best won, simple as that. The lab says it can't match names to the test yet
Give up and face it that you lost. Don't worry he won't be there next year so you all may have a chance again. :D
story (http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-armstrong-doping&prov=ap&type=lgns)
Sounds like they have matched names to the tests.
What if Armstrong did cheat?
Would that be okay?
Do we Americans have to be held to the same standards as anyone else?
Now having said that, this is far from proof that he did cheat.
I'm damn proud of his accomplishments.
The fact he overcame cancer and achieved the success he has is just astounding.
I'd be saying the same if Armstrong was a Frenchman , German, Spaniard, etc.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
They had no test for the Substance EPO in 1999. They do now and they tested his "sample" last year.
It was a "B" sample wasn't it?
-
Tempest in a teacup. There's nothing procedurally they can do. Anyway, bicycling is one of those nasty sports where doping is rampant and testing is extreme. And, sure Boroda, they do bust people for excess hemoglobin. Why else do you think bicycle stars and others give blood when not racing, freeze it, and then load up to the legal limit before a race.
Yeah, it's illegal, and I"m not saying anyone does it; but everyone does.
-
Originally posted by straffo
not as the method is quite new.
DREDIOCK I'm not the one showing a stupid nationalims here.
Not saying "you" specifically are.
But lets face it. Thats what the real problem is.
The claims are just a way to try to justify it
-
Originally posted by straffo
not as the method is quite new.
DREDIOCK I'm not the one showing a stupid nationalims here.
Then what about the other samples over the years? Why just mention a sample back in 1999? I bet they tested all his samples with this new method, and they didn't come up with squat, otherwise they would be trumpting that as well....
plus don't forget...
Officials at the suburban Paris laboratory that processed his samples violated the World Anti-Doping Agency code by releasing the results to the newspaper.
-
When Indurain won (was it 4) tours in a row, they were on to him to see if he had used illegal substances.
I think it has to do with the prestige of the Tour de France. If the best of the best is consuming EPO, it devaluates the race.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by soda72
This has come up every other year..
If they had any real proof, something would have been done about it long ago.....
Exactly. They wait until he leaves, then talk behind his back.
-
Originally posted by soda72
Then what about the other samples over the years? Why just mention a sample back in 1999? I bet they tested all his samples with this new method, and they didn't come up with squat, otherwise they would be trumpting that as well....
Because before 99 EPO was NOT searched nor detected.
Any post 99 sample would have already been tested by a efficient method.
Officials at the suburban Paris laboratory that processed his samples violated the World Anti-Doping Agency code by releasing the results to the newspaper. [/B]
Since when the " World Anti-Doping Agency" make the law in my country ?
And don't say they have broke a US law ,they like me sit on American law like you sit on French laws.
@FUNKED : it's not a case of talking in the back of LA but more a "don't talk before the end of TdF to not piss Jean-Marie Leblanc" :)
I'm too lazy to translate now (I'll do later) the LNDD said :
"bien mené des travaux de recherche impliquant l'analyse EPO rétrospective des échantillons du Tour de France 1998 et 1999 en collaboration avec l'Agence mondiale antidopage (AMA), qu'il a accepté de transmettre toutes les informations anonymées (sic) dont il disposait à cette autorité sous réserve d'exclure leur utilisation dans une procédure disciplinaire".
-
Originally posted by Rino
So if you did illegal nacrotics as a child and someone drags out
your blood sample 30 years later, should you still be prosecuted?
That is not the same thing. I am not competing in World-Class Sporting Events.
Now if you want to say I used steroids when I was a child and won the little league world series. And 5 years later they tested me, we might have a good analogy. And yes, They would have a legitamite gripe against my steroid use.
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
Straffo you should tell them to rename it the Tour de Freedom
LOL that is hilarious. :lol :lol :lol
-
Originally posted by SkyWolf
It was a "B" sample wasn't it?
I have no idea. Just what I read in that article that says they could now test for EPO and went back and retested his samples. The tests alledgely came up positive. Not really much else to say until there is confirmation, so far just a reporter making the announcement, no medical doctors have confirmed. AFAIK
-
Unknown if anyone else saw it but CNN just had a blurb on it. They stated that the samples were all anonomous and not capable of being traced, why I don't know. Now in spite of lack of identification with the samples one has somehow been traced to Lance. HHHmmmm convenient.
-
If there was no doubt he cheated, and the drugs werent related to his medical condition, then Id say no he shouldnt be heralded. However, if they are just guessing, and tarnishing him out of pure hatred, then they should be ashamed of themselves.
-
First off what’s with Frances fascination with keep lances pee for 6 years?
L'Equipe, which is owned by the same parent company that also organises the Tour de France.
Seconded the group that runs the race owns the newspaper, and has had a hard on about “getting” Lance.
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."
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Unknown if anyone else saw it but CNN just had a blurb on it. They stated that the samples were all anonomous and not capable of being traced, why I don't know. Now in spite of lack of identification with the samples one has somehow been traced to Lance. HHHmmmm convenient.
Had you used a online translator you will already know :
"bien mené des travaux de recherche impliquant l'analyse EPO rétrospective des échantillons du Tour de France 1998 et 1999 en collaboration avec l'Agence mondiale antidopage (AMA), qu'il a accepté de transmettre toutes les informations anonymées (sic) dont il disposait à cette autorité sous réserve d'exclure leur utilisation dans une procédure disciplinaire".
-
EPO= epogen ,a "blood building" agent given to people with a abnormaly low Hemoglobin and/or Hematocrit levels as a result of chemo,anemia,ect.However EPO is produced naturally in the body but not in sufficient quantities for peolpe who have taken or are currently taking chemo,due in part to the general distruction of all blodd cells not just "cancer cells"And of course there are other resons someone would take EPO besides cancer ,kidney disease,AIDES,surgery,ect.
JB12
-
Actually EPO stands for erythropoietin. Epogen is the brand name of epoetin alfa, which is an artifical form of erythpoietin. There are other brands, such as Procrit.
The test is very specific for the artifical products -- AFAIK, there has never been a documented false positive when the test was conducted appropriately.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Since when the " World Anti-Doping Agency" make the law in my country ?
As soon as France put its "John Hancock" on the agreement.
Governments who have signed the Declaration (http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2?pageCategory_id=184)
Article 14 is clear that there must be an administrative review before making public anoucements about an accused athelete...
If this administrative review did not happen it's a violation...
-
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.
-
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."
-
What are A and B samples?
-
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.
-
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.
-
lance has one nut and a huge heart that's how he won, anyhow they should rename it to the 'tour de lance'
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
When do we test Barry Bonds' urine samples from 1999- 2003?
-
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.