Professional Cycling · Public discussion

Armstrong speaks....

whiteboytrash · 2005-08-25T08:13:50+00:00

[font=Verdana]LA statements in a press meeting, as reported by paceline: "We have not just one year of only 'B' samples to say I've fooled the fans, we have seven years of 'A' and 'B' samples and they're all negative. There's never been EPO in there. There's never been steroids in there. So to say after there are a few 'B' samples left around, and by the way, we can't prove if your right or wrong, you cannot defend yourself, to then to say you've wronged the fans and fooled the fans is absolutely unfair." "I will tell you two things, and I don't know how involved WADA was in this affair, but I know two pieces of the WADA code that are very important. Number one, if an athlete only has one sample left, it is strictly mandated that that sample must always remain anonymous. If any WADA accredited laboratory wants to use that sample, for experimentation, or scientific research, they must have the approval of the athlete. So right there, you have two serious violations of the new WADA code. Now, I don't need to tell you guys that Chatenay-Malabry is one of the main WADA labs in the world."[/font] [font=Verdana]_______ Armstrong commented on thepaceline website for the European start of day. I have read through the comments and he still has not outlined why there is EPO in his urine. We know as fact that the Chatenay-Malabry lab sent the anonymous samples to WADA requesting ‘that there be no sanctions’ against the rider as they were only testing B samples and the rider was unaware of the testing. However they have stated that the B samples they tested (all 15, 6 of which were Armstrong) were ‘unequivocally’ positive for EPO. It was not the lab that linked Armstrong to the tests but the newspaper. WADA code has not been violated. We know that there cannot be sporting sanctions for the tests as this was a study and not an actual doping test. This has been accepted by both WADA and the lab. So why is Armstrong raising these issues when it has already been established ? I note in his response, not unlike Bill Clinton they he has not directly stated ‘I did not take EPO in the 1999 Tour de France” ____________[/font] [font=Verdana][/font] [font=Verdana]The director of the LNDD, Jacques De Ceaurriz, maintains that the results of the latest study are unequivocal: there is no doubt in his mind that the EPO test will work on samples that have been frozen for six years at -20 degrees celsius. Thus, according to his results, Armstrong and up to six others were positive for EPO in 1999. De Ceaurriz also admits that it was a purely experimental study, and as there is no possibility for Armstrong to ask for a B test, then neither he, or any of the other six "positives", should be sanctioned under normal sporting rules. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug24news2[/font]

Started by whiteboytrash · 25 August 2005 · Last activity 26 August 2005 · 28 posts · 4,044 views

← Back to Professional Cycling

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postArmstrong speaks....whiteboytrash · 25 Aug 2005 02 / This pagePosts 1–20Page 1 of 2 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #28Powerful Pete · 26 Aug 2005

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: Professional Cycling
Published: 25 August 2005
Last activity: 26 August 2005
Original author: whiteboytrash
Posts: 28
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 4,044
Views / 30 days: 0
Topics: Tour de France Frame sizing Spoke count Lance Armstrong

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
whiteboytrash
Archived post

25 August 2005, 08:13 UTC #1

[font=Verdana]LA statements in a press meeting, as reported by paceline:
"We have not just one year of only 'B' samples to say I've fooled the fans, we have seven years of 'A' and 'B' samples and they're all negative. There's never been EPO in there. There's never been steroids in there. So to say after there are a few 'B' samples left around, and by the way, we can't prove if your right or wrong, you cannot defend yourself, to then to say you've wronged the fans and fooled the fans is absolutely unfair."
"I will tell you two things, and I don't know how involved WADA was in this affair, but I know two pieces of the WADA code that are very important. Number one, if an athlete only has one sample left, it is strictly mandated that that sample must always remain anonymous. If any WADA accredited laboratory wants to use that sample, for experimentation, or scientific research, they must have the approval of the athlete. So right there, you have two serious violations of the new WADA code. Now, I don't need to tell you guys that Chatenay-Malabry is one of the main WADA labs in the world."[/font]
[font=Verdana]_______

Armstrong commented on thepaceline website for the European start of day. I have read through the comments and he still has not outlined why there is EPO in his urine.
We know as fact that the Chatenay-Malabry lab sent the anonymous samples to WADA requesting ‘that there be no sanctions’ against the rider as they were only testing B samples and the rider was unaware of the testing. However they have stated that the B samples they tested (all 15, 6 of which were Armstrong) were ‘unequivocally’ positive for EPO.
It was not the lab that linked Armstrong to the tests but the newspaper. WADA code has not been violated.
We know that there cannot be sporting sanctions for the tests as this was a study and not an actual doping test. This has been accepted by both WADA and the lab. So why is Armstrong raising these issues when it has already been established ?
I note in his response, not unlike Bill Clinton they he has not directly stated ‘I did not take EPO in the 1999 Tour de France”
____________[/font]
[font=Verdana][/font]
[font=Verdana]The director of the LNDD, Jacques De Ceaurriz, maintains that the results of the latest study are unequivocal: there is no doubt in his mind that the EPO test will work on samples that have been frozen for six years at -20 degrees celsius. Thus, according to his results, Armstrong and up to six others were positive for EPO in 1999. De Ceaurriz also admits that it was a purely experimental study, and as there is no possibility for Armstrong to ask for a B test, then neither he, or any of the other six "positives", should be sanctioned under normal sporting rules.

cyclingnews.comnews.php[/font]

Report
Ullefan
Archived post

25 August 2005, 09:55 UTC #2

He totally avoids the question. Did you or did you not take EPO? The sign of a dishonest person is to avoid the question entirely. Looks like he's taking the Tyler approach. I'll be watching his performance on Larry King tonight.
The fact remains Lance, SIX of your urine samples contained EPO in 1999. Most people will believe him more than they believed Tyler.

Report
sopas
Archived post

25 August 2005, 09:57 UTC #3

"We have not just one year of only 'B' samples to say I've fooled the fans, we have seven years of 'A' and 'B' samples and they're all negative."
That's interesting because with his comments Armstrong is indirectly implying that he is accepting his EPO positive in 1999, when he could just say: "I did not take EPO in 1999 (or any other year)".

Report
sopas
Archived post

25 August 2005, 09:59 UTC #4

Ullefan said:
I'll be watching his performance on Larry King tonight.

Will Armstrong be on CNN tonight 25 August???
I would like to see the interview too!!!!

Report
whiteboytrash
Archived post

25 August 2005, 10:15 UTC #5

[font=Verdana]Read below again there is no statement that he did not take EPO at the 1999 Tour de France.
[/font][font=Verdana]cyclingnews.comnews.php
[/font][font=Verdana]
Armstrong calls Leblanc remarks "preposterous"
While in Washington, D.C. on a previously planned visit to his sponsor Discovery Channel's headquarters, Lance Armstrong responded Wednesday to comments from Tour De France boss Jean-Marie Leblanc that suggest the seven-time champion "fooled" race officials and the sporting world by doping. "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." [/font]
Armstrong revealed he spoke to Leblanc earlier on Wednesday, saying, "I actually spoke to him for about 30 minutes and he didn't say any of that stuff to me personally." Reviewing the situation, Armstrong also brought into question the validity of testing urine samples frozen in 1999 and how samples were handled since, saying that officials at the French lab may have violated World Anti-Doping Agency rules by failing to safeguard the anonymity of "B" samples.
"It doesn't surprise me at all that they have samples", said Armstrong. "Clearly they've tested all of my samples since then to the highest degree. But when I gave those samples," (in 1999), "there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee that."
Armstrong blasted french sports daily L'Equipe, saying that "Obviously, this is great business for (L'Equipe). Unfortunately, I'm caught in the cross-hairs. I think they've been planning (this story) for a while. I think they much would have preferred to have done this at start of the Tour, or the middle, but for some reason, it was delayed. At the end of day, I think that's what it's all about...selling newspapers. And, it sells."
Reviewing his options, Armstrong explained he was considering legal action to find out who leaked the confidential paperwork that linked his 1999 "B" sample to his name. "(Legal action) 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."
sopas said:
Will Armstrong be on CNN tonight 25 August???
</H3>I would like to see the interview too!!!!

Report
whiteboytrash
Archived post

25 August 2005, 11:26 UTC #6

"It would cost a million and a half dollars and a year of my life," he said. "I have a lot better things to do with the million and a half, and a lot better things I can do with my time."
(cyclingnews.comnews.php)
- Funny here is what he told Filippo Simeoni during the 2004 Tour de France:
"You were wrong to testify against Michele Ferrari; you were wrong to sue me [for defamation of character]. I have lots of money and lots of time and I will destroy you. I’ll make you give up racing"
procycling.comnews archive.aspx
whiteboytrash said:
[font=Verdana]Read below again there is no statement that he did not take EPO at the 1999 Tour de France.
[/font][font=Verdana]cyclingnews.comnews.php
[/font][font=Verdana]
Armstrong calls Leblanc remarks "preposterous"
While in Washington, D.C. on a previously planned visit to his sponsor Discovery Channel's headquarters, Lance Armstrong responded Wednesday to comments from Tour De France boss Jean-Marie Leblanc that suggest the seven-time champion "fooled" race officials and the sporting world by doping. "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." [/font]
Armstrong revealed he spoke to Leblanc earlier on Wednesday, saying, "I actually spoke to him for about 30 minutes and he didn't say any of that stuff to me personally." Reviewing the situation, Armstrong also brought into question the validity of testing urine samples frozen in 1999 and how samples were handled since, saying that officials at the French lab may have violated World Anti-Doping Agency rules by failing to safeguard the anonymity of "B" samples.
"It doesn't surprise me at all that they have samples", said Armstrong. "Clearly they've tested all of my samples since then to the highest degree. But when I gave those samples," (in 1999), "there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee that."
Armstrong blasted french sports daily L'Equipe, saying that "Obviously, this is great business for (L'Equipe). Unfortunately, I'm caught in the cross-hairs. I think they've been planning (this story) for a while. I think they much would have preferred to have done this at start of the Tour, or the middle, but for some reason, it was delayed. At the end of day, I think that's what it's all about...selling newspapers. And, it sells."
Reviewing his options, Armstrong explained he was considering legal action to find out who leaked the confidential paperwork that linked his 1999 "B" sample to his name. "(Legal action) 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."

Report
peterlip
Archived post

25 August 2005, 13:07 UTC #7

sopas said:
"We have not just one year of only 'B' samples to say I've fooled the fans, we have seven years of 'A' and 'B' samples and they're all negative."
That's interesting because with his comments Armstrong is indirectly implying that he is accepting his EPO positive in 1999, when he could just say: "I did not take EPO in 1999 (or any other year)".
Given that today is 2005, and we have seven years of 'A' and 'B' samples that are all negative, is that not saying "I did not take EPO in 1999 (or any other year)"? Or his other quote: "Clearly they've tested all of my samples since then to the highest degree. But when I gave those samples," (in 1999), "there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee that." also saying that.

Report
whiteboytrash
Archived post

25 August 2005, 13:19 UTC #8

peterlip said:
Given that today is 2005, and we have seven years of 'A' and 'B' samples that are all negative, is that not saying "I did not take EPO in 1999 (or any other year)"? Or his other quote: "Clearly they've tested all of my samples since then to the highest degree. But when I gave those samples," (in 1999), "there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee that." also saying that.
"Clearly they've tested all of my samples since then to the highest degree. But when I gave those samples," (in 1999), "there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee that." also saying that
[font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana]"...But when I gave those samples," (in 1999), "there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee that." - That’s because they didn't test for EPO in 1999 so yes at the time they would of not been positive for EPO.

I can guarantee that as well !

They have chosen their words very carefully and hence why it took two days to come out.[/font] [/font]

Report
Scotty_Dog
Archived post

25 August 2005, 13:28 UTC #9

whiteboytrash said:
"Clearly they've tested all of my samples since then to the highest degree. But when I gave those samples," (in 1999), "there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee that." also saying that
[font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana]"...But when I gave those samples," (in 1999), "there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee that." - That’s because they didn't test for EPO in 1999 so yes at the time they would of not been positive for EPO.

I can guarantee that as well !

They have chosen their words very carefully and hence why it took two days to come out.[/font] [/font]
Your attempts at twisting everything to favor your argument are so transparent.
He did not say "they would of not been positive for EPO".
Armstrong said, "But when I gave those samples," (in 1999), "there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee that."

Report
peterlip
Archived post

25 August 2005, 13:52 UTC #10

whiteboytrash said:
"Clearly they've tested all of my samples since then to the highest degree. But when I gave those samples," (in 1999), "there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee that." also saying that
[font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana]"...But when I gave those samples," (in 1999), "there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee that." - That’s because they didn't test for EPO in 1999 so yes at the time they would of not been positive for EPO.

I can guarantee that as well !

They have chosen their words very carefully and hence why it took two days to come out.[/font] [/font]
I don't know whether he is guilty or not. All I was trying to point out, is that LA HAS claimed he did not use EPO in 1999. That quote can not be taken any other way. To say that he hasn't denied it is simply not true.

Report
whiteboytrash
Archived post

25 August 2005, 14:11 UTC #11

Scotty_Dog said:
Your attempts at twisting everything to favor your argument are so transparent.
He did not say "they would of not been positive for EPO".
Armstrong said, "But when I gave those samples," (in 1999), "there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee that."
Thats what I said ! I agree ! There wouldn't be any EPO in the sample because in 1999 they weren't testing for EPO ! so no EPO.

[font=Verdana]Note he says: "when I gave those samples" - this is to cover to 'possibility' that they have been tampered with since 1999. This is the argument they will use next when the UCI push forward with an investigation.
[/font]
Why doesn't he just say 'I didn't use EPO in the 1999 Tour de France' ?

- I'm a lawyer, I know this stuff.

Report
whiteboytrash
Archived post

25 August 2005, 14:13 UTC #12

peterlip said:
I don't know whether he is guilty or not. All I was trying to point out, is that LA HAS claimed he did not use EPO in 1999. That quote can not be taken any other way. To say that he hasn't denied it is simply not true.
He hasn't said it. Now that the 1999 Tour de France is in question he has to say it. Prior to this he was 'clean' at the 1999 Tour de France from a legal standpoint. He could say that he hasn't used PED's. Now that there is circumstantial evidence to the contrary he has to say it.
The reason he is not saying it because he knows it could cost him financially big time if proven guilty by the UCI. He may also know personally he is guilty.

Report
azdroptop
Archived post

25 August 2005, 17:01 UTC #13

Does he need to say specifically that he didn't use EPO in 99 when he has said on countless occasions that he has never used performance enhancing drugs? Seems his comments are what they are and as he has in the past the denial is there.
Has any other source besides the paper seen the numbers next to his name that match the numbers next to the samples?
As for him not wanting to sue over this issue vs. the prevous one I'm guessing age and maturity play a role, not to mention there is no way to clear his name.

Report
meehs
Archived post

25 August 2005, 19:04 UTC #14

What time is the Larry King show on? I never watch it so I don't know. I want to be sure to tune in tonight if I can. It's on CNN correct?

Report
thebluetrain
Archived post

25 August 2005, 19:45 UTC #15

meehs said:
What time is the Larry King show on? I never watch it so I don't know. I want to be sure to tune in tonight if I can. It's on CNN correct?
I think he comes on at 7pm central time. He comes on the same time as Bill O'reilly( the best newsman in the world) on Fox News.

Report
whiteboytrash
Archived post

26 August 2005, 01:21 UTC #16

I'm watching it now and his not doing a very good job ! He still has not stated that he didn't take EPO at the 1999 Tour de France. He keeps saying 'we' rather than I, is he referring to USPS/DC ?
thebluetrain said:
I think he comes on at 7pm central time. He comes on the same time as Bill O'reilly( the best newsman in the world) on Fox News.

Report
whiteboytrash
Archived post

26 August 2005, 01:23 UTC #17

[font=Verdana]Interesting he said he 'wouldn't speak about LeMond' when asked about LeMond's accusations about Armstrong's drug use. Why ?
[/font]
whiteboytrash said:
I'm watching it now and his not doing a very good job ! He still has not stated that he didn't take EPO at the 1999 Tour de France. He keeps saying 'we' rather than I, is he referring to USPS/DC ?

Report
bobke
Archived post

26 August 2005, 02:05 UTC #18

whiteboytrash said:
[font=Verdana]Interesting he said he 'wouldn't speak about LeMond' when asked about LeMond's accusations about Armstrong's drug use. Why ?
[/font]

Lance was being a gentelman regarding Mr Lemond who has had severe illnesses, numerous outlandish traffic violations, probable drunk driving, and emotional instability. Lance was taking the high road. Nuff said.

Report
Ullefan
Archived post

26 August 2005, 02:05 UTC #19

whiteboytrash said:
[font=Verdana]Interesting he said he 'wouldn't speak about LeMond' when asked about LeMond's accusations about Armstrong's drug use. Why ?
[/font]

All I've got to say is great performance 😎
Sorry but that made me cringe.....I don't think I can bring myself to comment....

Report
Ullefan
Archived post

26 August 2005, 02:10 UTC #20

''When I peed in the bottle, there wasn't EPO in it''
As opposed to ''I did not take EPO in 99''
At the very beginning he was very anxious did you notice? If he's so clean, why should he be anxious?
He had an earpiece!!!
The sad part is that they didn't ask the right questions and most people accept what he says on larry king. They had woman callers who didn't ask questions regarding the doping allegations, rather it was all about cancer, yellow bands bs. 😠

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread