Lance busted, finally

In today's Globe and Mail, via AP.

L'Equipe, the French sports paper owns the Tour de France and would not be making this claim unless they had concrete proof. I'll watch with great interest to see how the LA camp defends this one. Seems L'Equipe have all their ducks lined up.

I've been saying he's dirty for over 10 years (along with 90% of the professional peloton, btw) and finally we have a negative test for Lance.



Tour director wants answers from ArmstrongWednesday, August 24, 2005 Updated at 10:14 AM EDT

Associated Press

Paris — The director of the Tour de France claims Lance Armstrong has "fooled" the sports world and that the seven-time champion owes fans an explanation over new allegations he used a performance-boosting drug.

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.

"The ball is now in his court. 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."

Advertisements



On Tuesday, Leblanc called the latest accusations against Armstrong shocking and troubling.

Armstrong, a frequent target of L'Equipe, vehemently denied the allegations Tuesday, calling the article "tabloid journalism."

"I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs," he said on his Web site.

Armstrong, who retired from professional cycling after winning the Tour a month ago, was not immediately available for comment regarding Leblanc's latest remarks.

EPO, formally known as erythropoietin, was on the list of banned substances at the time Armstrong won the first of his seven Tour's, 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.

Five-time cycling champion Miguel Indurain said he couldn't understand why scientists would use samples from the 1999 Tour for their tests.

"That seems bizarre, and I don't know who would have the authorization to do it," he told L'Equipe. "I don't even know if it's legal to keep these samples."

L'Equipe's investigation was based on the second set of two samples used in doping tests. The first set were used in 1999 for analysis at the time. Without those samples, any disciplinary action against Armstrong would be impossible, French Sports Minister Jean-Francois Lamour said.

Lamour said he had doubts about L'Equipe's report because he had not seen the originals of some of the documents that appeared in the paper.

"I do not confirm it," he told RTL radio. But he added: "If what L'Equipe says is true, I can tell you that it's a serious blow for cycling."

The International Cycling Union did not begin using a urine test for EPO until 2001, though it was banned in 1990. For years, it had been impossible to detect the drug, which builds endurance by boosting the production of oxygen-rich red blood cells.

Jacques de Ceaurriz, the head of France's anti-doping laboratory, which developed the EPO urine test, told Europe-1 radio that at least 15 urine samples from the 1999 Tour had tested positive for EPO.

Separately, the lab said it could not confirm that the positive results were Armstrong's. It noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only a six-digit number to identify the rider, and could not be matched with the name of any one cyclist.

However, L'Equipe said it was able to make the match.

On one side of a page Tuesday, it showed what it claimed were the results of EPO tests from anonymous riders used for lab research. On the other, it showed Armstrong's medical certificates, signed by doctors and riders after doping tests — and bearing the same identifying number printed on the results.

L'Equipe is owned by the Amaury Group whose subsidiary, Amaury Sport Organization, organizes the Tour de France and other sporting events. The paper often questioned Armstrong's clean record and frequently took jabs at him — portraying him as too arrogant, too corporate and too good to be 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 won his seventh straight Tour win and retired from cycling.

Leblanc suggested that in the future, urine samples could be stashed away for future testing as detection methods improve — another possible weapon in the fight against doping.

"We're so tired of doping that all means are good as long as they are morally acceptable," he told L'Equipe.

You already know my feelings John. If they have finally caught him, in the end it will be good for the sport (as it needs to be cleaned up).

Originally Posted by Avalon

You already know my feelings John. If they have finally caught him, in the end it will be good for the sport (as it needs to be cleaned up).

It will be devestating for the sport in the short-term, but definitly good for all of sport in the long run. It will also vindicate many riders, team doctors and pundits who have pointed the accusatory finger at him for so many years.

The fact that his personal doctor, Dr. Ferrari of Italy, has been convicted of doping cyclist clients, should have been a pretty good sign that he's dirty. Look what happened to Ben Johnson's doctor after the Dubin Inquiry. This didn't happen to Ferrari and LA continues to support him. I have no proof that Ferrari is his source for EPO or whatever else he uses, but where there's smoke, there's always fire.

My guess is that the LA marketing machine (i.e., his sponsors with deep pockets) will obfuscate, weave and bob to protect his iconic stature among cancer patients/families, and his run into US politics, which almost seems inevidable.

Originally Posted by Atomic

My guess is that the LA marketing machine (i.e., his sponsors with deep pockets) will obfuscate, weave and bob to protect his iconic stature among cancer patients/families, and his run into US politics, which almost seems inevidable.

Well, if confessed steroid-taking-butt-pinching Arnold can be the Governator, anything is possible!

Originally Posted by Avalon

Well, if confessed steroid-taking-butt-pinching Arnold can be the Governator, anything is possible!

Excellent point!

[Mink]

If the worst they can say about Lance is that a 1999 specimen tested positive for EPO - I'm less than impressed!

Using erythropoetin is roughly the equivelent of training in Colorado or Kenia or perhaps smoking and training. Not exactly the smoking (anabolic) gun found in professional baseball recently - and I'll bet the a large percentage of the "peloton" is using EPO as well - so basically using EPO boils down to taking away (nullifying) the "EPO advantage" from rest of the competitors - not exactly a crime against humanity but I agree that it makes the cycling world look bad.

As an aside - erythropoetin is a naturally occurring substance in the human body - I wonder how they differentiate between endogenous and exogenous erythropoetin???

[Rockrolex]

[QUOTE=Mink: As an aside - erythropoetin is a naturally occurring substance in the human body - I wonder how they differentiate between endogenous and exogenous erythropoetin???[/QUOTE]
They're a taboid. They don't have to make such distinctions. If they did, it wouldn't sell newspapers.

Mink, this was obviously a 'chance' finding. You simplify the EPO advantage in a big way when you compare it to training at altitude. And it doesn't matter is EPO is a 'low-tech' drug or not, it's a banned substance and it's pretty black and white. And if they can figure out a methodology for detecting it (and other substances) in your blood, they can also determine if it is natural or synthetic.

I can give you an example. Former Dutch pro Gert Theunisse routinely tested positive for testorterone and suffered the consequences by serving various banning periods. However, doctors did in-depth tests and discovered his body produced an overabundance of testosterone, very rare, but he did. If LA's body overproduced erythropoetin, we'd all know about it.

I am a former elite level cyclist and have raced against euro-pros. I've also known a few top amateurs who admitted to me they raced dirty. It's prevalent among pro and top amateur cyclists. I'm sure even my hero (besides Avalon), Eddy Merckx (pictured left) was dirty. What I'm getting at is that it's easy to do, and if someone was using a low-tech drug like EPO six years ago when testing was almost non-existant, you can be sure LA was using far more sophisticated drugs.

The thing is, most athletes who do test positive rarely test positive for the actual performance enhancing drug. They usually test positive for masking agents that hide said drugs.

Bottom line, here is quantifyable proof LA has used a banned substance. If this study holds water, the UCI has grounds to strip LA of his '99 tour title at the very least. This precident has been set at the Olympics where gold medals have been stripped more than four years after the offence.

It'll be interesting to see how it develops.

[Rodentman]

He has only one testicle and thus has less wind resistance.

Originally Posted by Rodentman

He has only one testicle and thus has less wind resistance.

So he's only half the man he used to be. Makes aerodynamic sense to me.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Rodentman

He has only one testicle and thus has less wind resistance.

[Manatee]

Anything bad they say about Lance can't possibly be true. He's an American.

Originally Posted by Manatee

Anything bad they say about Lance can't possibly be true. He's an American.

[Manatee]

Originally Posted by Atomic

[Uncle-AJ]

John, I think you are a little biased against Mr Armstrong. There's a very interesting report in the Daily Telegraph regarding the supposed tests.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai...4/socycl24.xml

In seems to be inconclusive that the samples were Armstrong's and after all these years they could have been tampered with. IMHO I don't think the evidence is strong enough but I'm not a lawyer.

Originally Posted by Uncle-AJ

John, I think you are a little biased against Mr Armstrong. There's a very interesting report in the Daily Telegraph regarding the supposed tests.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai...4/socycl24.xml

In seems to be inconclusive that the samples were Armstrong's and after all these years they could have been tampered with. IMHO I don't think the evidence is strong enough but I'm not a lawyer.

Adrian, I'm not a fan of LA and never have been. Not since I raced against him a looong time ago. He was an arrogant prick when he was 19 and I can't see success and money changing that attitude for the better.

But it's not just LA here. It's doping in general. My sport is the dirtiest on the globe and has been the drug trendsetter for decades. I just want them to clean it up. So yes, I firmly believe Lance is dirty. But I firmly believe 99% of the pro peloton is too. Even my avatar icon rode dirty (but he never made repeated claims of being clean).

I heard through the grapevine that a couple of years back Greg Lemond accused LA of doping and that he had proof. However, he shut up when LA's people told him to shut up because they have equally damning proof of Lemond's abuse.

[Mink]

The fact that most "Pro" athletes are dirty is the very reason why professional (muscle) athletics are relatively uninteresting to me other that watching the sheer beauty of the performance - who actually "wins" has little meaning. When I say "muscle" athletics, I mean to imply the sort of athletics where "muscles" make the athlete. "Skill" athletics on the other hand are far more interesting because, to the best of my knowledge, there are no "skill" enhancing substances. Skill athletics rely on hand-eye coordination and/or mental ability - not strength/stamina. Some "skill" sports might include single hand sailing, (pure) shooting sports (including archery), golf, horse shoes, chess, brain surgery, etc. I have never heard of anyone testing "dirty" in these sports.

In addition, some of the substances on the "banned substance" list are laughable. Case in point - an Olympic snowboard gold medalist had his medal stripped because he tested positive for the banned substance canabis!!! IMO, when the officials found the canabis, they should have given him a second gold medal for winning in the face of a performance degrading substance.

I agree Mink, but in the case of Ross Rebagliati (the doped up snowboarder) they gave his gold medal back because cannibus wasn't on the IOC list. His medal stands.

As for archery being a skill sport immune to performance enhancing drugs... c'mon, they're all a bunch of drunks playing 'cowboys and indians'.
(runs and hides in anticipation of Avalon's 'slings and arrows'...)

Originally Posted by Mink

The fact that most "Pro" athletes are dirty is the very reason why professional (muscle) athletics are relatively uninteresting to me other that watching the sheer beauty of the performance - who actually "wins" has little meaning. When I say "muscle" athletics, I mean to imply the sort of athletics where "muscles" make the athlete. "Skill" athletics on the other hand are far more interesting because, to the best of my knowledge, there are no "skill" enhancing substances. Skill athletics rely on hand-eye coordination and/or mental ability - not strength/stamina. Some "skill" sports might include single hand sailing, (pure) shooting sports (including archery), golf, horse shoes, chess, brain surgery, etc. I have never heard of anyone testing "dirty" in these sports.

In addition, some of the substances on the "banned substance" list are laughable. Case in point - an Olympic snowboard gold medalist had his medal stripped because he tested positive for the banned substance canabis!!! IMO, when the officials found the canabis, they should have given him a second gold medal for winning in the face of a performance degrading substance.

Well Mink, sorry to say that even though you have not heard of people testing dirty in "skill" sports, doesn't mean it has not happened. Even in my sport (archery, of course) there are drugs that are performance enhancing, and people have been caught. An American archer was actually stripped of a world championship silver medal at one point because he was using a banned substance. I have in front of me the review done by the IOC on my sport when they recently decided to keep it in the Olympics. The data there suggests that 685 tests were performed on archers around the globe in 2003, 6 anti-doping rule violations resulted from those tests. No doubt far less frequent than other sports, but still there.

By the way, in any shooting sport the drug of choice is beta-blockers - slows the heart rate down and is without a doubt "performance enhancing." Using the term "skill enhancing" is really not the correct term. You talk about major professional sports - let's use baseball as the example. Do you think the steroids increase the "skill" at connecting with the baseball, or just how far you can hit it? I think it is the latter, therefore enhancing the performance (or outcome).

As someone who considers himself to be a high performace athlete (or was at one time) I can assure you that the effects of cannabis would not generally be performance degrading in all sports (snow boarding included). Anyone who has performed at a high level knows that being relaxed is the key to virtually any good performance (relaxed to a point, of course).

What is most disturbing to me is that people are more and more accepting of athletes using banned substances. It sends the wrong message to youth, in my opinion (win at all costs, even your own health). I am the official drug rules guru for our national archery federation, and I see stuff all the time that would amaze people (reports of doping violations). I can tell you that only a very small fraction make the headlines.

Oh, and Manatee......no doubt the US was second only to China in doping violations and cover-ups (at least in Olympic sport) in the recent past. However, when the USADA (US Anti-Doping Agency) was finally formed as it's own entity and drug testing/reporting was no longer controlled by the USOC (in 2003 I think), things began to change for the better. Now the US appears to be making a real effort to clean up it's act. It's okay, we started our process in 1988 (after our national shame), so you have a ways to go to get to our level, but I am very hopeful you will get there eventually.

[Mink]

Originally Posted by Avalon

By the way, in any shooting sport the drug of choice is beta-blockers - slows the heart rate down and is without a doubt "performance enhancing." Using the term "skill enhancing" is really not the correct term. You talk about major professional sports - let's use baseball as the example. Do you think the steroids increase the "skill" at connecting with the baseball, or just how far you can hit it? I think it is the latter, therefore enhancing the performance (or outcome).

LOL! Leave it to the guys in the "skill" sports to come up with a drug to abuse that's EASY to find. The problem with the drugs that improve performance in skill events is that they have to "be around" during the competition. At least the "muscle" sport guys can stop their performance enhancing substance use weeks before the competition making it much harder to find.

And to clarify a point - I think of baseball as mostly a "muscle" sport (not a "skill" sport) because a player can not be noteworthy without substantial physical prowess.