PARIS - 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, and that the seven-time champion owed fans an explanation.
In a story Wednesday, Jean-Marie Leblanc praised L'Equipe for an investigation that reported that six urine samples provided by Armstrong during the 1999 Tour tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO. The French sports daily on Tuesday accused Armstrong of using EPO during his first Tour win in 1999.
"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 the paper.
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.
i am skeptical of armstrong but calling it a proven scientific fact isnt accurate. first, it says the testing on the samples was done for reasearch to perfect an epo test, which means they were still working out the kinks of the process or not sufficiently experienced in doing the tests. second, this is the B sample. the A sample is gone. there is a reason they require two positive samples before taking action and that is to remove all doubt. the epo test is more difficult that a steroids test and is not at all uncommon to have a false positive. a notable case is bernard lagat (olympic miler) having a positive A test and negative B test. third, if the samples were not properly stored it would compromise the validty of the test, assuming the test had been conducted correctly which we cant be sure of because as mentioned it was just for "practice". the positives are certainly compelling, but calling it scientific fact at this point seems to be a bit of an exaggeration.
It was a frozen sample from six years ago, testing for a substance that wasn't able to be tested for at the time. I bet if you tested any rider for it at that time they'd all fail. I also question the legitimacy of testing a sample that old. It's all a bunch of BS if you ask me.
when scientists at a lab outside Paris used them for research to perfect EPO testing
Does this even make sense to anyone? They were using these samples for research to perfect EPO testing. Wouldn't you just use a urine sample from someone that you know is using EPO and a sample from someone that isn't using it?
This is freaking rediculous...Now I didn't have a thing against the french for not supporting the war and I think calling french fries freedom fries is incredibly retarded.
That said I now have no respect for the french and consider them a bunch of sore loser bums.
SaintsOfTheDiamond wrote:I bet if you tested any rider for it at that time they'd all fail.
That's probably the heart of the matter right there. Apparantly (second-hand knowledge, so I might be off base here), cycling as a whole has an enormous problem with illegal performance-enhancing substances. Perhaps this whole brouhaha will help get the sport as a whole cleaned up...
SaintsOfTheDiamond wrote:I bet if you tested any rider for it at that time they'd all fail.
That's probably the heart of the matter right there. Apparantly (second-hand knowledge, so I might be off base here), cycling as a whole has an enormous problem with illegal performance-enhancing substances. Perhaps this whole brouhaha will help get the sport as a whole cleaned up...
I don't buy this new "evidence" but I will say that everyone else isn't winning 7 in a row. That's why people care. Just like with Bonds. People only care because he's breaking records. No one cares about the guy that finished 456th.
when scientists at a lab outside Paris used them for research to perfect EPO testing
Does this even make sense to anyone? They were using these samples for research to perfect EPO testing. Wouldn't you just use a urine sample from someone that you know is using EPO and a sample from someone that isn't using it?
I'm sure they just took Lance's samples and told the lab to find a way to make it test positive, and why was his '99 sample the only one to test positive?? He still won 6 more. The French have an extreme hatred for foreigners. A couple of years ago, the guy that finished 2nd to Shirak (SP??) in their presidential election was admittedly FASCIST!!! I find that so ironic because we had to save them from the fascists in WWII. So the especially hat Lance with the fire of a thousand suns since he's an American that beats them in their Superbowl of sporting events. Back in '99 they wanted to disqualify him because he was on Chemo!!! And it is ridiculous for the director to publicly demand an apology from Lance based on such unsubstantiated evidence.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Rirruto » Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:05 am 
