Armstrong surrounded by drug rumors yet again

[Russ Smith]

A French paper has released a story claiming that samples Lance gave in 1999 during his first Tour De France win have all tested positive for EPO. As is standard they take 2 samples, an A and a B, if the A tests positive, they test the B. In this case Lance's B samples tested positive.

The key is in 1999 they could NOT test for EPO no such test existed so Lance's A samples were tested for known substances, passed, and were discarded, but the B samples were retained. Apparently they're now doing some testing to try and find a more accurate method of catching drug use and used some of the old samples and surprise surprise, Lance tested positive for EPO.

Lance of course denies it and says they admit the science is bad. It's a bit deceptive what they actually said was that they had no intention of acting on the test results because they only had B samples and it would not be fair to Lance to take any action since the A samples no longer exist. It's accepted practice to have to test 2 samples to make sure no error or bias was involved, since they only have the B samples, it would be unfair to take action against Lance. In other words, they didn't say the science was bad, they said to suspend him over these tests would break their own rules.

French cycling official in charge said he's never been part of the get Lance brigade but after seeing this study he believes the results are very compelling and Lance owes us the truth.

 

[Russ Smith]

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=2140893

 

[Renz]

The French press has been out to get Armstrong for years and have never come up with anything other than rumor and innuendo. Excuse me if I'm a bit skeptical about their latest effort.

 

[Stout]

The French press has been out to get Armstrong for years and have never come up with anything other than rumor and innuendo. Excuse me if I'm a bit skeptical about their latest effort.

No kidding. They can't possibly have an agenda going after the American that's utterly dominated their little bike race, can they?

 

[BigDavis75]

I just watched OTL and they had former teammates saying Lance was doping and reccomending that they do it too.

 

[Russ Smith]

The French press has been out to get Armstrong for years and have never come up with anything other than rumor and innuendo. Excuse me if I'm a bit skeptical about their latest effort.

And the American press has an agenda too because Lance is a folk hero here due to his overcoming cancer. Both sides have a bias.

That said, the tests were NOT done by French press, they were done by scientists. They declined to reveal the identity of the rider who tested positive on 6 different urine tests, those samples are recorded under a number, not a name, for confidentiality. What the French paper did, was publish copies of documents signed by TDF officials, AND Lance Armstrong himself that they say show what his number was, and his number corresponds to the number on the 6 positive tests. What Lance is really disputing here is that the number is him, and he does this for a reason, he knows confidentiality rules prevent anybody at the TDF from confirming who that number belongs to. So he is going to just claim the documents are fake or incorrect.

If people remember years ago when rumors broke of numerous US athletes testing positive at the LA Olympics and it was covered up, the US press was quick to call it nonsense. It was the exact same situation, documents were found showing numbers but not athlete names and the numbers were positive drug tests. Only under pressure did the US allow them access to the database that showed who those numbers belonged to and lo and behold many of them were US athletes. That was because international olympic and drug organizations pressed for full disclosure to them (not public to my knowledge they have not named the US athletes).

I admit to a bias here I've believed Lance was doping all along and have stated that repeatedly. But when the head of the Tour De France himself studies the information and declares it to be "credible" and demands Armstrong respond with an explanation, I think it goes past the point where we can just say media conspiracy?

Lance has no danger here, he can't be suspended there is no A sample, so it's his word against the science so he'll just continue to deny it.The only way he can get in trouble over this is if he admits it, or if some other agency investigates and decides to go and test other years like 2000 and finds more evidence of EPO in his urine. note, the same year these tests were taken Lance was found positive for a cortical steroid but was not suspended due to the small amounts present and his claim that he didn't know a cream he was using for saddle sores was present in the cream. that steroid was banned months later and has been ever since. So when they tested his sample originally, that's what they found but at amounts that at the time were legal, now no amount is legal.

FWIW the whole point of the studies they're doing is they have years of old blood samples that couldn't be tested for EPO before but can now and they want a reliable way of testing it. They intend to be able to go back 8 years, the whole problem is unless they have both A and B samples, they can't take action on their own because it's impossible for the athlete to go back and give another sample.

 

[Renz]

There are so many problems and questions with this report. First of all, how did the French press get ahold of the control numbers saying they were Armstrong's? Did they bribe someone and, if so, is that person credible?

Couldn't someone have changed the control numbers with another sample or tampered with the samples? Considering how hard these guys have been trying to prove Lance was doping, I wouldn't put it past them. The reporters have admitted that they can't definitively say that the samples are even Armstrong's.

Without the A samples there is no way to confirm if the tests received a false positive or were tampered with etc., so it will just come down to Lance's word against the French press. The people who want to believe that Lance used performance enhancing drugs will continue to do so and the ones who don't won't.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Tour director: Armstrong fooled everyone


Associated Press
8/24/2005 9:20:04 AM
PARIS (AP) - The director of the Tour de France says it is 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 owes 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 accused Armstrong on Tuesday of using EPO during his first Tour win in 1999.

"For the first time - and these are no longer rumours 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 ball is now in his camp. Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the tour," Leblanc said. "What L'Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled."

Armstrong, a frequent target of L'Equipe, vehemently denied the allegations on 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 website.

L'Equipe reported that six urine samples provided by the cancer-surviving American during the 1999 Tour tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO. The drug, formally known as erythropoietin, was on the list of banned substances at the time, but there was no effective test 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 was forced to have 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.

 

[Russ Smith]

I just watched OTL and they had former teammates saying Lance was doping and reccomending that they do it too.

Those charges have been around for years Dateline NBC(one of those shows I get them all confused) had a story years ago where several members of the US Postal team admitted to doping and said that ALL the members of the team were given shots and not told what was in the shots and Lance got them too. Several members of that team later had serious "mystery" illnesses and came out because they suspected that whatever was in the shots may have contributed to them being sick. Lance as it turns out was I believe the 3rd member of that group to come down with cancer in his late 20's or early 30's. I realize cancer is pretty common but we're talking about a group of elite athletes, in the prime of their athletic careers, and something like 3 out of 12 came down with cancer?

Lance has also associated with noted cycling coach Michele Ferrari for over 9 years, Ferrari was recently suspended for 1 year after being caught distributing EPO to athletes, and only then did Lance disassociate himself from Ferrari. Note, Ferrari had been under investigation and a shroud of controversy for even longer than Lance has. People that say oh they've been out to get him for years, well they were out to get Ferrari for years too and they DID get him because he was in fact cheating.

People also forget that Lance was one of the first prominent athletes to contact Balco labs and demand they remove his name from their website or he'd sue them. This was right after the initial reports of Balco broke, Lance was one of many athletes that had an affiliation with Balco, how big of one is not known since he wasn't one of the "target" athletes like Bonds or famous sprinters who had so much evidence against them that the media focussed on them.

I'll just say this, the defense that there's too much margin for error on tests is valid, just as is the defense that there's simply too much smoke for there not to be fire with Lance Armstrong. Even Greg LeMond came out the last time and said it was hard to believe that there was a personal vendetta to get Lance and that he too was beginning to have doubts about whether or not he'd really been clean. People immediately said LeMond was jealous because Lance replaced him as the greatest US cycler in TDF history.

As Renz said people are going to believe what they want, but to me this is just one more piece of evidence that becomes harder and harder to believe is all part of some conspiracy. He hasn't helped himself at all by repeatedly pulling out of events that announce they're going to use the new and improved drug tests that nailed everyone at the Olympics, this years TDF was the first event that used those tests that he competed in and of course he had ample time to stop using something to make sure he passed the tests.

He's an amazing athlete, an inspiration for his fight against cancer, but none of that makes him immune to scrutiny in a sport so fraught with cheating.

 

[cards 24-7-365]

I tend to agree Russ, But I must admit I am a skeptic of most high level athletes being clean. I remeber reading a quote by Charlie Francis who was Ben Johnson's coach "There are two types of athletes in the olympics; there are the athletes that cheat (use performance enhancing drugs) and there are the losers." - Yeah, you have to consider the source but I tend to believe that more are cheating than not cheating.

I also remember a few years ago when a massage therapist from one of the TDF teams that got busted transporting a bunch of drugs across a border - did an expose for Sports Illustrated. In the article, he claimed to have injected athletes with drugs while hanging out the window of a car driving next to the cyclist during the race. He also claimed that all the guys on his team were trained to give themselves an IV in their hotel rooms in case they got word of an upcoming random drug test. Diluting the blood with an IV used to be the way to beat the test for EPO. Again, we have to consider the credability of the source but we also had to with Jose Canseco who so far has been correct on at least one of his claims.

Note: the used to test for EPO by testing hematocrit levels in the blood (hematocrit level measures the level of red blood cells or hemoglobin in the blood. Hemoglobin carries oxygen in the blood - obviously something that would benefit a cyclist or endurance athlete. The problem is that everyone has a different hematocrit level - therefore testing is difficult. I believe a level of 60% was considered unnatural and therfore cheating)

I agree with Russ in that Lance is getting close to being guilty by association when you consider his coach, BALCO, the sport itself being one of the most tainted, and is unnatural feat. Either way, clean or not Lance Armstrong is an incredible athlete. The drugs do not "make" you great they just make you the "greatest", but they do not teach perseverance and work ethic. I believe that he probably wasn't doing/using the same things that everyone else was already doing/using and to win 7 in a row is remarkable.

 

[Russ Smith]

The latest is a rumor that one of Lance's doctors is now saying he "may have taken EPO as part of his cancer therapy." This is of course common, chemo causes anemia in many patients and the way they treat that is with synthetic EPO. The problem is of course, Lance has steadfastly denied EVER taking EPO, so it's a bit "convenient" for this doctor to now come out. The claim is he was on Lance's "team" for a short while so he's saying he's not positive if Lance used EPO or not and if he did, he's not sure of the time frame, he doesn't remember specifics. I have to wonder if a doctor in that field could treat a patient in a sport like cycling fraught with drug rumors and not remember whether the patient was on EPO, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

But it is a "perfect" way to plant the seed of doubt, hey maybe the EPO was for cancer, without providing enough evidence to actually check. Synthetic EPO doesn't stay in the body that long so if they told us when he used EPO it would be possible to backtrack and see is it plausible for EPO used for his treatment of cancer to still be in his blood during July of 1999? So by making the statement vague, the doctor removes the possibility of his statement being verified.


If Lance got EPO for cancer he should come out and say it, he should have said that before when it was revealed he'd taken steroids for cancer and he denied it and then one of his doctors admitted it. Again nobody faults a person recovering from cancer from taking steroids, it's quite common and to be expected, but when that person denies it when he did take them, you start to wonder why? And you start to think the reason why is he doesn't want to give any information out that can be used against him later.

 

[Djaughe]

The french have been holding onto lance's urine since 1999?

 

[Russ Smith]

The french have been holding onto lance's urine since 1999?

They've got urine from lots of guys for lots of years. Apparently that was intentional because they knew people were using EPO, couldn't prove it, so they saved samples so they could go back later when they had better testing.

Apparently it's not just France that does this btw.

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

If Lance got EPO for cancer he should come out and say it, he should have said that before when it was revealed he'd taken steroids for cancer and he denied it and then one of his doctors admitted it. Again nobody faults a person recovering from cancer from taking steroids, it's quite common and to be expected, but when that person denies it when he did take them, you start to wonder why? And you start to think the reason why is he doesn't want to give any information out that can be used against him later.

"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."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825/ap_on_sp_ot/cyc_armstrong_doping

 

[Card Trader]

I love how the same people that give Armstrong a free-ride are the first to point the finger at Barry Bonds....

 

[Russ Smith]

"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."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825/ap_on_sp_ot/cyc_armstrong_doping

Yes I actually own the book and have read it.What I meant was that Armstrong and ALL other TDF riders are required to fill out medical papers prior to the race where they disclose ALL medications they have taken in a set period. This is to prevent the cases where a guy is taking a cold medicine, tests positive, and gets banned. In fact in 1999 Lance DID test positive for a steroid in a creme for saddle sores, and shockingly Lance had "forgotten" to disclose on his paperwork he was taking it but the amount in the tests was below the banned threshold.

IF Lance was on EPO because of cancer then he should have disclosed it, but he didnt. Lance was diagnosed with cancer in October 96 and was declared cancer free in mid 97, so we're being asked to believe that synthetic EPO in his uring in July of 99 had been there for 2 years.
Again, if the explanation is the EPO he took to treat anemia that resulted from his chemotherapy, he was supposed to disclose that when he filled out the paperwork, he didn't. And he didn't because he wasnt' on EPO for his recovery at that point he was on EPO for performance gain.

If you read his website yesterday he said categorically he'd never taken EPO, he's very inconsistent with this stuff to be completely honest he should say "accepting of course the EPO and steroids I took during my recovery from cancer." It's in his book(which of course was edited for him by people who understand the problem with not being 100% honest) but in public and on his website he's repeatedly stated he's never used EPO.

They had a guy on CNN last night who used to work for Wade Exum who's the former director of the USOC on doping and he said that it's believed that synthetic EPO only stays present in the body(testable in urine) for 120 days so Lance would have had to be taking it for his cancer recovery 20 months after he was declared cancer free.

 

[Russ Smith]

I love how the same people that give Armstrong a free-ride are the first to point the finger at Barry Bonds....

The only difference is that Lance never said I did use it, I just didn't know it was a steroid.

Same with Carl Lewis, Wade Exum outed Lewis for drug use years ago and most people don't even know. The US media is remarkably good at concealing stuff on people that they don't want to get out. Check some Canadian papers if you want the truth on Lewis according to Wade Exum.

 

[Renz]

I love how the same people that give Armstrong a free-ride are the first to point the finger at Barry Bonds....

Lance hasn't ballooned up like the Pillsbury Doughboy. He also won 5 Tours after they started testing for EPO.

 

[Renz]

Armstrong Fires Back at Accusers
Thursday, August 25, 2005

Lance Armstrong climbed down off his bike a month ago. His counterattacking skills, though, remain as sharp as ever.

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, D.C. "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 that 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 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."

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."

 

[Russ Smith]

Again that stuff from Lance is almost right out of the Bill Clinton book of deny deny deny. He blasts them for not securing the samples, in other words he's mad that someone was able to find out which sample was his unless Lance is now seriously suggesting that scientists doing a study with a new EPO test, who had NO knowledge of who the urine they were testing belonged to, somehow guessed which samples of urine to spike with EPO?

What's preposterous is him suggesting that they would jeopardize their careers and reputations to plant EPO in his urine, again it wasn't the media or other riders or anybody like that conducting these tests it was professionals whose entire career rides on their reputation. But because they're French, we're supposed to believe they chucked that all out the window and tampered with samples and just got lucky and got 6 samples that belonged to Lance?

And the classic well I'd sue them over this but I don't want to waste the time and money? This is a guy who's filed multiple suits over the years for stuff like this. This is a guy who threatened to sue an Italian rider for defamation when he implicated Michele Ferrari, one of Lance's advisors at the time, of being a doping specialist. Less than 2 years later Lance disassociated himself from Ferrari when Italian courts convicted him of sports fraud and illegally acting as a pharmacist dispensing prescription medicines to athletes. Ferrari got lucky they were unable to establish enough volume to convice him of trafficking in performance enhancing drugs although they did acknowledge he'd given EPO and steroids to athletes.

The guy ought to do a movie of his life and get Oliver Stone to direct it.

It really is a shame because his work for cancer research is commendable and he's not the only guy on the TDF cheating so winning 7 in a row is STILL a remarkable achivement, but when you run around accusing everyone else of cheating you sure as hell better be clean yourself or you're going to come off looking like the world's biggest hypocrite.

But I'm sure his appearance on Larry King today will clear this all up, I'm sure it's a French conspiracy, no chance Greg LeMond, multiple former teammates on the US Postal team, and former teammates on the Motorola team, plus multiple other cyclists, were all right when they said Lance was doping. No chance his former assistant was telling the truth when he said Lance fired him after he discovered Lance doping and refused to help Lance dispose of syringes and cover needle marks. They're all part of the French conspiracy, hell LeMond even has a French name he's GOT to be lying.

 

[Russ Smith]

Lance hasn't ballooned up like the Pillsbury Doughboy. He also won 5 Tours after they started testing for EPO.

Testing the old way which consisted of analyzing the number of red blood cells in a sample of blood because EPO increases the numer of cells(which is why it's so dangerous).

The new tests are done on urine and they weren't being done during most of Lance's 7 TDF wins, they're much more reliable, that's why they were developed, because it was well known people were cheating, but were passing the blood tests.

1998 I think French or Spanish riders were busted with tons of EPO, syringes etc, caught redhanded, kicked out of the TDF, banned for life. Guess what, several of them had been tested and passed already year using the old blood tests. They couldn't test urine for EPO back then only for known steroids, that's all they tested it for.

 

[Russ Smith]

Just to back up my claim that Lance is inconsistent here's his statements in July of 2001 weeks before winning the TDF.

"I want to make it clear that I do not associate myself with those remarks or, for that matter, with anyone who utilizes unethical sporting procedures. However, in my personal experience I have never had occasion to question the ethics or standard of care of Michele. Specifically, he has never discussed EPO with me and I have never used it.
I have always been very clear on the necessity of cycling to be a clean sport and I have firmly stated that anyone, including me, who tests positive for banned substances should be severely punished. "

The remarks he's talking about are remarks made by Michele Ferrari in 1994 basically saying that EPO was a powerful and valuable training tool for cyclists and should not be banned(it was in 1990 because it makes blood thicker leading to clotting which causes strokes and heart attacks).

Again, Lance said plain as day right there I've NEVER taken EPO, when in fact he took synthetic EPO called Epogen as part of his recovery from cancer starting in 96 and again for a time in 97. He even concedes in his book that he was concerned in his initial comeback in 97 that he was going to fail a test for EPO and tarnish his image, he asked his doctors repeatedly if he'd been off the EPO long enough for it to be safe to return to competition where he'd be tested. He also declined to take medical tests requested by a European company he had an endorsement and riding contract with because he was concerned he'd test positive for EPO and violate his contract. He was so aware of the bad image EPO had in cycling, he was afraid to tell people he'd been taking it as part of his recovery. He ultimately lost that contract because he didn't compete enough in 97 and they decided he wasn't healthy enough to ride.

So it's pretty clear if there was EPO in his urine in 1999, it wasn't there as a result of his cancer treatments, it was there either because someone planted it or because he took it as part of a doping program.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Just to back up my claim that Lance is inconsistent here's his statements in July of 2001 weeks before winning the TDF.

"I want to make it clear that I do not associate myself with those remarks or, for that matter, with anyone who utilizes unethical sporting procedures. However, in my personal experience I have never had occasion to question the ethics or standard of care of Michele. Specifically, he has never discussed EPO with me and I have never used it. I have always been very clear on the necessity of cycling to be a clean sport and I have firmly stated that anyone, including me, who tests positive for banned substances should be severely punished. "

The remarks he's talking about are remarks made by Michele Ferrari in 1994 .

Russ, I take it that he's referring to EPO in the context of racing, and not the use of SYNTHETIC EPO in his recovery. As such, I see no inconsistency in the response given the question and the context.

 

[Russ Smith]

Russ, I take it that he's referring to EPO in the context of racing, and not the use of SYNTHETIC EPO in his recovery. As such, I see no inconsistency in the response given the question and the context.

I know that the point is he doesn't SAY that he says "I have never used it" which is contradictory. Again, EPO is common for people on chemo, I don't question at all that he used it for that nor am I saying that helped him win 7 TDF titles. The problem is it's an example of Lance being disingenous or choosing which version of the truth to give.

THe honest thing to say would be I have never used EPO as a performance enhancer in my cycling career, but I did take it as part of my chemotherapy while recovering from cancer. Lance was afraid that tests back then were so unreliable(tested blood not urine) that he'd turn up positive and get labelled a cheater, that's understandable, but all he had to do was disclose he'd taken it for medical reasons.

He admits in his book, but in that statement, which came from his own personal website, he contradicts the book. Now he's not even saying it himself there's this unconfirmed report that a former doctor on his oncology team says that the EPO may have been present in 99 because of his cancer treatment. The guy who designed the test that found the EPO says EPO can only be detected in urine tests for 3-5 days after being taken, and that test was done about 20 months after Lance's doctors say he last used EPO. but if you leak this out as a maybe from a possible source, you put enough seed of doubt in people's minds that they think oh that's just because of his cancer recovery, they arent' given enough information to understand that isn't plausible.

He's just too political and careful with his comments, you can tell much of what he says has been run by lawyers to make sure he can't get in trouble later.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

I know that the point is he doesn't SAY that he says "I have never used it" which is contradictory. Again, EPO is common for people on chemo, I don't question at all that he used it for that nor am I saying that helped him win 7 TDF titles. The problem is it's an example of Lance being disingenous or choosing which version of the truth to give.

THe honest thing to say would be I have never used EPO as a performance enhancer in my cycling career, but I did take it as part of my chemotherapy while recovering from cancer. Lance was afraid that tests back then were so unreliable(tested blood not urine) that he'd turn up positive and get labelled a cheater, that's understandable, but all he had to do was disclose he'd taken it for medical reasons.

He admits in his book, but in that statement, which came from his own personal website, he contradicts the book. Now he's not even saying it himself there's this unconfirmed report that a former doctor on his oncology team says that the EPO may have been present in 99 because of his cancer treatment. The guy who designed the test that found the EPO says EPO can only be detected in urine tests for 3-5 days after being taken, and that test was done about 20 months after Lance's doctors say he last used EPO. but if you leak this out as a maybe from a possible source, you put enough seed of doubt in people's minds that they think oh that's just because of his cancer recovery, they arent' given enough information to understand that isn't plausible.

He's just too political and careful with his comments, you can tell much of what he says has been run by lawyers to make sure he can't get in trouble later.[/QUOTE]

As both a lawyer and communications advisor, I think he did the right thing in the response we're discussing. Anything parenthetical would only raise a host of additional questions. And... as mentioned... you deal with issues in the context of the moment... the circumstances.. and the precise questions being asked. Believe me... you can't be too careful.