Doping and Lance

(Larry Weisenthal) said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also i believe he is

also presenting excuses not to sue the newspaper, saying it will waste
his time and money. If he is truly innocent he would sue the paper.<<

He doesn't have a case against the paper. The paper is reporting that
specimens from 1999 tested positive for rEPO 5 years after the fact, in
a research mode, with an unknown degree of security of the specimens
during archival storage against tampering, and with undocumented
stability of rEPO under the conditions of storage. The paper is not
publishing anything (presumably) which is not factually correct. It is
simply not responsibly presenting the entire story in context
(particularly ignoring the opions of other world doping experts, not
acknowledging the possibility of tampering, not addressing the issue of
EPO stability, etc.).

As I understand it, if EPO is unstable in a frozen sample, then the
sample would be *less* likely to test positive for EPO. Then the
instability of EPO is not a factor, because it refers to EPO breaking
down, not to EPO building up, which would violate the second law of
thermodynamics.

Quoted message said:

That's the problem. All of Lance's accusers are putting HIM in the
position of having to prove his innocence. They do not take the
position of having to prove his guilt, which means investigating the
degree of security the specimens received over the years and the
stability of rEPO under the storage conditions employed. They also do
not address the lack of a proven and accepted, standard protocol for
after the fact testing of archival specimens. There is a lot of
unfairness, but there is not clearly libel, which requires a
mistatement of facts, not an incomplete presentation of facts, which is
what is now going on.

The newspaper didn't do anything wrong. that's the way these stories
are reported in Europe. But he can sue the IOC guy and TdF guy. Their
remarks were slander.

Quoted message said:

And Lance DID say that he didn't take EPO. I gave an exact quote in
one of my earlier posts.

[email hidden] (Larry Weisenthal) wrote:
SNIP

Quoted message said:

And Lance DID say that he didn't take EPO. I gave an exact quote in
one of my earlier posts.

I heard on the news this am that he now claims he did take EPO as a
cancer patient. That could easily be something he was not even aware of
at the time. And antibodies could hang out in his blood stream for ?
months? years?
Madelaine

Quoted message said:

From the UK's Sport-Telegraph:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

L'Equipe, who launched France's latest tirade over four pages, have their offices in the same building as the Tour de France organisation and have been part of the race's sponsorship since inception in 1903.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Armstrong points out that the French have not won the race for 10 years while the Americans have won it 10 times since 1986. Armstrong also recalled the last line of the newspaper's editorial the day after this summer's Tour de France which said: "Never has an athlete's retirement been so welcome."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The ethics of the case are highly suspect as the only person to be able to link the samples taken in 1999 to the provider of the urine should have been the collecting inspector. The lab technicians who test for EPO would work only from a code and with no knowledge as to the sample owner. Yet a leak claims that the six samples, tested at France's top laboratory at Chatenay-Malabry over a year ago, are all from Armstrong and contain traces of synthetic EPO.

This is a major point that I've been trying to make. Olivier claims
that the lab couldn't have tampered, because they didn't know the code.
Yet the code was broken...by a reporter! So the code wasn't secure
over the 5-6 years in question. And if it wasn't secure, then
tampering could have occurred. There was the means, opportunity, and
motive to tamper.

The lab in question was, I'm certain, very careful with specimens
collected and tested in a timely fashion for forensic purposes. But
the "B" specimens were SACRIFICED for use in a RESEARCH study. This
PROVES thay they were not being stored with the idea of using them for
future FORENSIC testing and that, therefore, they may well have not
enjoyed the same degree of security as the "A" specimens, which were
tested in a timely fashion.

[email hidden] (Larry Weisenthal) a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From the UK's Sport-Telegraph:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

L'Equipe, who launched France's latest tirade over four pages, have their offices in the same building as the Tour de France organisation and havebeen part of the race's sponsorship since inception in 1903.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Armstrong points out that the French have not won the race for 10 yearswhile the Americans have won it 10 times since 1986. Armstrong also recalled the last line of the newspaper's editorial the day after this summer's Tour de France which said: "Never has an athlete's retirement been so welcome."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The ethics of the case are highly suspect as the only person to be ableto link the samples taken in 1999 to the provider of the urine should havebeen the collecting inspector. The lab technicians who test for EPO would work only from a code and with no knowledge as to the sample owner. Yet a leak claims that the six samples, tested at France's top laboratory at Chatenay-Malabry over a year ago, are all from Armstrong and contain traces of synthetic EPO.

This is a major point that I've been trying to make. Olivier claims
that the lab couldn't have tampered, because they didn't know the code.
Yet the code was broken...by a reporter! So the code wasn't secure
over the 5-6 years in question. And if it wasn't secure, then
tampering could have occurred. There was the means, opportunity, and
motive to tamper.

The lab in question was, I'm certain, very careful with specimens
collected and tested in a timely fashion for forensic purposes. But
the "B" specimens were SACRIFICED for use in a RESEARCH study. This
PROVES thay they were not being stored with the idea of using them for
future FORENSIC testing and that, therefore, they may well have not
enjoyed the same degree of security as the "A" specimens, which were
tested in a timely fashion.

Hello from france,

sorry for my english.

I would precise that all you say is allright.

For the most people in french, we haven't no doubt that Amstrong has
take EPO, but in 1999, almost all the competitors take EPO.
So the only problem is : Amstrong has always say that he never taked
EPO !!!

We know most competitor who has admit they has take EPO (Virenque,
Brochard, Herve, Zulle, etc...), it's not disgraceful, perhaps it's
even very dignified.

So i hope, that Amstrong, this great champion, could look at his
children in their eyes at this difficult period.

"Martin Smith" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
news: [email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Larry's objection is that someone could get the control report,
determine which samples to dope, break into the lab and dope those
samples. How was that prevented, and how is it known to have been
prevented?

Remember: anti-doping controls are made in a very secure way, to make sure
no tampering can occur and that nobody contests the results.

The urine samples are collected in 2 bottles (one bottle for sample A and
one bottle for sample B), with a laser engraved number on each bottle.

The competitor has to chose 2 bottles, [censored] in them, and then close the
bottle with a cap, which has the same number engraved as the bottle it
closes. The competitor has to check that there is the same number on the cap
and on the bottle. Then, he signs the control sheet, which bears his name,
the date, and the 2 bottle numbers.

When the bottle is tightly closed (by the competitor), it makes a typical
noise.

The bottle then cannot be opened without destroying the cap (thanks to a
patented mecanism). So if tampering occurs, this can easily be demonstrated
because the cap is broken.

Now, one can imagine some wild scenario. This is the reason why I mentionned
a 99% probability and not 100%.

But this would cost a lot of money (1 million $?). So this can be only done
by somebody who can make a lot of money with this. This could be the case
with SCA, because they won't have to pay 10 million $ to LA if they can
prove that he is doped. I don't think that L'Equipe has sold enough
additional papers to recover this kind of cost.

With this money, you then have to:
- know that the people at the lab will do research on old samples
- bribe some people at the UCI to get the control sheet, and know which
numbers are on LA's samples
- be able to have the same (very special) bottle laser engraved with the
same serial number
- be able to get some urine sample from LA, add rEPO, and put it in the
bottle (if DNA testing is decided by the judge, you can only use his urine),
- be able to access the original urine sample, and substitute the tampered
sample - I don't know what is the level of security in the lab, because it's
kept secret (and this part of the security itself, that nobody knows how the
samples are kept: safe with secret code, video-monitoring... Accessing the
urine sample would probably require bribing some people at the lab and
"Ocean's Twelve"- style skills)
- manipulate the journalist to have things revealed
....

Well, that could make a nice TV scenario, but frankly speaking, I cannot
imagin more than a 1% probability for this kind of stuff to happen.

-- Olivier

Silver0l said:

"Martin Smith" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
news: [email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Larry's objection is that someone could get the control report,
determine which samples to dope, break into the lab and dope those
samples. How was that prevented, and how is it known to have been
prevented?

Remember: anti-doping controls are made in a very secure way, to make sure
no tampering can occur and that nobody contests the results.

The urine samples are collected in 2 bottles (one bottle for sample A and
one bottle for sample B), with a laser engraved number on each bottle.

The competitor has to chose 2 bottles, [censored] in them, and then close the
bottle with a cap, which has the same number engraved as the bottle it
closes. The competitor has to check that there is the same number on the cap
and on the bottle. Then, he signs the control sheet, which bears his name,
the date, and the 2 bottle numbers.

When the bottle is tightly closed (by the competitor), it makes a typical
noise.

The bottle then cannot be opened without destroying the cap (thanks to a
patented mecanism). So if tampering occurs, this can easily be demonstrated
because the cap is broken.

Now, one can imagine some wild scenario. This is the reason why I mentionned
a 99% probability and not 100%.

But this would cost a lot of money (1 million $?). So this can be only done
by somebody who can make a lot of money with this. This could be the case
with SCA, because they won't have to pay 10 million $ to LA if they can
prove that he is doped. I don't think that L'Equipe has sold enough
additional papers to recover this kind of cost.

With this money, you then have to:
- know that the people at the lab will do research on old samples

But the practice of using old samples to test new methods and to
calibrate existing ones is well known, so this is not a problem.

Quoted message said:

- bribe some people at the UCI to get the control sheet, and know which
numbers are on LA's samples

But they did get the control sheet, so that was no problem either.

Quoted message said:

- be able to have the same (very special) bottle laser engraved with the
same serial number

But what are the bottles and seals made of? Maybe they used a syringe
to inject EPO into several bottles and then sealed the hole.

Quoted message said:

- be able to get some urine sample from LA, add rEPO, and put it in the
bottle (if DNA testing is decided by the judge, you can only use his urine),
- be able to access the original urine sample, and substitute the tampered
sample - I don't know what is the level of security in the lab, because it's
kept secret (and this part of the security itself, that nobody knows how the
samples are kept: safe with secret code, video-monitoring... Accessing the
urine sample would probably require bribing some people at the lab and
"Ocean's Twelve"- style skills)
- manipulate the journalist to have things revealed

You are assuming that all these useless urine samples were kept under
the same security as current samples. That would be very costly. I
would be surprised if these samples were kept under anything but a
sealed lock, if that.

Quoted message said:

Well, that could make a nice TV scenario, but frankly speaking, I cannot
imagin more than a 1% probability for this kind of stuff to happen.

But I have shown your scenario is way over the top. The bottles must
be glass with a glass seal that is larger than the inner opening, so
that a syringe cannot be used to inject EPO. Maybe such bottles
weren't used at the TdF in those days.

Or, more likely, you bribe one of the test technicians to add EPO to
samples being tested.

Seems very UNLIKELY he doped.

If he did dope in 1999, he would certainly feel complelled to dope
later to keep winning. Yet as tests for EPO were developed, and became
more sophisticated, no positive ever came back. So what you're saying
is that his dominance in the sport continued, or even grew, while at
the same time he was forced to stop taking performance enhancing drugs
because of more stringent testing. Please take us through the logical
thought process there.

Larry's point, and it's a valid one, is that the protocols for
rendering a positive test are very stringent. The damage to the
reputation and economic earning power of an athelete who gets a
positive result is huge. That's why the controls are so well defined.
Virtually none of the prescribed procedure was followed and yet the
results have been released. The director of the well respected
Canadian lab that busted Ben Johnson voiced his opinion that he doesn't
even think EPO would last 6 years in a jar - much more likely to
degrade in months and not years. It's simply sensational journalism.

Eric

Quoted message said:

If he did dope in 1999, he would
certainly feel compelled to dope
later to keep winning.

Or suffer a performance reduction,
which apparently did not occur.

Follow the money.

Quoted message said:

Seems very UNLIKELY he doped.

If he did dope in 1999, he would certainly feel complelled to dope
later to keep winning. Yet as tests for EPO were developed, and became
more sophisticated, no positive ever came back. So what you're saying
is that his dominance in the sport continued, or even grew, while at
the same time he was forced to stop taking performance enhancing drugs
because of more stringent testing. Please take us through the logical
thought process there.

Larry's point, and it's a valid one, is that the protocols for
rendering a positive test are very stringent. The damage to the
reputation and economic earning power of an athelete who gets a
positive result is huge. That's why the controls are so well defined.
Virtually none of the prescribed procedure was followed and yet the
results have been released. The director of the well respected
Canadian lab that busted Ben Johnson voiced his opinion that he doesn't
even think EPO would last 6 years in a jar - much more likely to
degrade in months and not years. It's simply sensational journalism.

Eric

Good point Eric.

Man o' Tea said:

Quoted message said:

If he did dope in 1999, he would
certainly feel compelled to dope
later to keep winning.

Or suffer a performance reduction,
which apparently did not occur.

Follow the money.

Agreed.

<[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Seems very UNLIKELY he doped.

If he did dope in 1999, he would certainly feel complelled to dope
later to keep winning. Yet as tests for EPO were developed, and became
more sophisticated, no positive ever came back. So what you're saying
is that his dominance in the sport continued, or even grew, while at
the same time he was forced to stop taking performance enhancing drugs
because of more stringent testing. Please take us through the logical
thought process there.

It's quite simple.

If you take it purely rationnaly, your only goal is to maximise performance
without ever being caught. To "keep winning" as you say, you need to avoid
being caught.

In this case, it is enough to have the smart advices of a good drug
specialist (Dr Ferrari comes to mind...) to take exactly what is the most
efficient and undetectable drug of the moment (undectable under the
stringent official doping control rules, that is).

For example, you can take as much EPO as you want before 99, and then take
EPO at least 3 days before a control can occur, and now take any new
molecule that cannot be detected today (you can do some google search to
find a list of that).

You just have to be a bit smarter than the anti-doping protocols, which is
not that difficult, because anti-doping tests and controls are well known
and officially published, whereas doping technology remains largely secret.

-- Olivier

It is also possible that he switched to something
that is currently not detectable. We might
never know for sure one way or the other.
Mind you, the same can be said about Armstrong's competitors.

What I am personally curious about is why the names of
the other positive EPO tests from 1999 are not publicized.
That would be definitely quite useful, and it would be
interesting to hear these people responses.

Lev

Man o' Tea said:

Quoted message said:

If he did dope in 1999, he would
certainly feel compelled to dope
later to keep winning.

Or suffer a performance reduction,
which apparently did not occur.

Follow the money.

Olivier, with all due respect:

The reporter was able to get the codes from the UCI. If the reporter
could access the codes, then other people could, as well.

There were clearly people in France who were very biased against
Armstrong. The newspaper (L'Equipe) stated following Lance's 7th
victory that never was the retirement of a champion a cause for such
celebration (or similar words). The newspaper had a long history of
accusing Armstrong of doping. They were clearly biased, and I'm sure
that a lot of other people in France were biased also. There is
currently a lot of mutual antagonism between France and the USA, for a
lot of reasons. For that matter, there is a whole lot of anti-US
sentiment in Europe generally. And people who were convinced of the
"evidence" cited by Olivier which led to Olivier's prior conclusion
that there was a 20% chance that Armstrong doped. Maybe they were
convinced by the circumstantial evidence and frustrated that this
wasn't enough to "convict" Armstrong. So they spiked the urine
(possibly the same way that the Ramparts Division of the Los Angeles
Police Department was proven to plant bogus evidence to allow for the
conviction of suspects that they were certain were guilty, but in which
sufficient evidence was lacking to prove guilt). So there are clearly
people potentially involved who have the motivation to discredit
Armstrong.

You say that someone would have to "bribe" someone at the UCI to get
the control sheet. Is that what the reporter did? "Bribe" someone?
If the UCI person would accept the bribe from the reporter, why
couldn't someone else have "bribed" him? Or maybe it didn't require a
"bribe." Maybe there was just someone at the UCI with access to the
(old/outdated/no longer needed) control sheets who willingly gave
("leaked"...now there's an appropriate verb for describing the
confidential disclosure of urine-related information) them to the
reporter. And if the information could be leaked to a reporter, it
could be leaked to someone working in the lab. I'm quite sure that
there are people at the UCI who know, personally, people who are
affiliated with the number one sports lab for detecting rEPO, the most
important drug for the doping of cyclists). And vice-versa. I'm sure
that there have been many contacts and conversations between UCI
employees and Famous Doping Lab employees over the years. Olivier's
complete denial about the possibility of collusion and tampering in the
setting of his present insistence of Armstrong's guilt is very
troubling to me.

As I said, I have some familiarity with clinical laboratories. This
particular laboratory probably processed thousands of specimens. They
have doubtless had literally dozens (if not scores) of individuals with
access to the specimens over the past 6 years. Of course, I am sure
that they have rigorous security protocols which are observed during
the relevant time periods (within the first week or so post
competition). But, again, these were very old samples. They were NOT
being stored under secure conditions with the idea that they were to be
later used to prove guilt at some future date when technology was
improved. The proof of this, again, was that they were SACRIFICED for
the purpose of a RESEARCH STUDY.

Now, were you, Olivier, present at the time the bottles were opened?
Were they opened with the "seal" unbroken, with the presence of
outside, international monitors, as they would be were the "B" samples
to be tested to prove doping, according to established protocols. Or
did someone just open up 50 or so old bottles of urine, with any number
of people milling about over a period of minutes, hours, or even days
as the testing was ongoing? One can imagine the bottles all lined up,
seals broken, ready to be run through the machines. Perhaps the people
involved took a break to eat lunch (or have a cigarette or go have a
pee themselves). Were you, Olivier, there when all this was going on?
Did you read an account of someone from the lab who attested to the
conditions under which these specimens were being tested as a RESEARCH
(and not FORENSIC) study? And what about the testimony of the Director
of the Montreal (WADA accredited) doping lab, who stated that rEPO is
stable only for a matter of months? If she is correct, then this would
be prima facie evidence that the rEPO was added to the urine specimen
years AFTER it was voided into the container. Are you aware that her
opinion on this has been scientifically discredited? I was unable to
find a published paper on the stability of rEPO in urine specimens
under any conditions (room temperature, - 20, - 70, -270). We don't
know the conditions under which the specimens in question were stored.

I simply can't understand how you can claim that there is 99% certainty
that Armstrong was doped. If we accept the opinion of the Montreal lab
director, then I would be equally justified in claiming that is is 99%
certain that the rEPO was added to the bottles at or around the time of
re-testing.

Armstrong is completely different than anyone else who has ever been
"convicted" of doping. Someone else mentioned Virenque and stated that
Virenque was more honorable, as Virenque admitted his guilt. But
Virenque was never again a champion after it was revealed that he was a
doper. Same for Michelle Smith. Same for Ben Johnson. etc. These were
all people who achieved what they did by doping. With Armstrong it is
completely different.

I keep coming back to 2005. He is physically past his prime; older
than anyone ever to win the Tour. Yet he was clearly the dominant,
most superior rider in the Tour. Armstrong had virtually nothing to
gain by racing for a 7th win, after already having achieved what he had
by winning 6 times, after going through what he went through (which
included, remember, his French sponsored Team DUMPING him at his time
of greatest need and vulnerability (after he was diagnosed as having
cancer, even though he stated his firm intention to return to
professional cycling)). He overcame all of that; won the Tour 6 times,
and had a net worth in the high 8 figures (U.S.), and was beloved by
probably hundreds of millions of cancer victims and survivors. He KNEW
that he would be under an anti-doping microscope. He KNEW of past
accusations against him. He KNEW of the continuing advances in
anti-doping technology. He KNEW how even Tyler Hamilton was caught
blood doping within the past year. He KNEW all of that and still raced
and still DOMINATED. UNLIKE Virenque (post doping exposure). Unlike
Smith. Unlike Johnson. Unlike any previously exposed doper.

The other accuse dopers NEEDED to dope in order to win. Armstrong
didn't.

Perhaps he did take rEPO in 1999. It's possible that any individual
rider in that year's Tour took EPO. We'll never know with the
specimens which were part of the disputed RESEARCH study, because these
specimens were not secured and examined under FORENSIC conditions.

To take the information which has been revealed to date and to claim
that this indicates guilt with "99%" certainty is not warranted.

Olivier says that this is strong evidence which proves guilt with 99%
certainty.

I still say that it's 99% slime.

I just heard on the BBC that the UCI is going to have its own
investigation.

Good.

I'm going to wait to see what they conclude and the stated reasons for
their conclusions.

- Larry W

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In this case, it is enough to have the smart advices of a good drug

specialist (Dr Ferrari comes to mind...) to take exactly what is the
most
efficient and undetectable drug of the moment (undectable under the
stringent official doping control rules, that is).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For example, you can take as much EPO as you want before 99, and then take

EPO at least 3 days before a control can occur, and now take any new
molecule that cannot be detected today (you can do some google search
to
find a list of that).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You just have to be a bit smarter than the anti-doping protocols, which is

not that difficult, because anti-doping tests and controls are well
known
and officially published, whereas doping technology remains largely
secret. <<

Now Olivier is claiming that Armstrong doped with rEPO in 1999 and has
continued to dope ever since, always staying just ahead of the
detection methods. This is beginning to remind me of George W Bush's
assertions regarding Saddam Hussein.

I keep saying it: the best evidence is 2005. He's already won the
Tour 6 times. He's worth close to 100 million dollars (US). He's one
of the most beloved people (outside of France) who has ever walked the
face of the earth; certainly the patron saint of cancer patients the
world over. He could be elected as a US Senator, Texas Governor, maybe
one day President of the United States.

He is going to risk all that for ... what? A 7th win, instead of just
a 6th win?

He races at an age where no one has ever won and he not only wins...he
dominates. Clearly the best rider in the Tour. The best rider in the
world.

And Olivier thinks that he did it by doping? That Armstrong would risk
absolutely everything? For what?

I think that Olivier is one of the fairest, most positive contributors
this newsgroup has ever had. Yet he is now showing that he is not just
biased, but outrageously biased.

Olivier is 99% sure that Armstrong doped in 1999. I have no way of
knowing, one way of the other, but my position is that it's pure slime
to try to bring him down, destroy everything he has achieved, on the
basis of what has been revealed to date.

Armstrong is in no position to prove his innocence in 1999. Those who
assert his guilt should be required to PROVE his guilt. This they
have, to date, not done.

- Larry W

And to maintain (as Olivier does) that Armstrong should be required to
PROVE his innocence by SUING the French paper is absolutely outrageous.

The paper hasn't libeled Armstrong. They probably reported true facts.
And then they stated their opinion that these facts prove his guilt
(using regrettably sensationalistic language). Armstrong (and I) have
an honest difference of opinion with the paper over whether or not the
reported facts prove guilt. I think that it is shoddy, incomplete
reporting and the headlines and opinions were tabloid journalism. This
is also what Lance said, and he's correct.

He is supposed to put himself into an even more vulnerable position by
suing the paper? What if he loses? Meaning he is unable to prove that
the paper knowingly published something which was false (which is the
standard for libel, at least here in the USA). Can't you see the
headlines? "Armstrong loses libel case against paper which accused him
of doping" Losing the libel case wouldn't make him more "guilty;" it
would just mean that he couldn't prove that the paper intentionally
published as fact things that the paper knew were not fact.

But it would be a loss in the court of public opinion.

So he starts out being put in the position of having to prove his
innocence, when no one has begun to prove his guilt.

This is exactly what (US Republican Presidential Advisor) Karl Rove
does to people who speak out against President George W Bush. Make
unproven accusations and make it the burden of the accused to prove
their innocence. It is what we call slime and slime is now what is
being thrown at Armstrong.

- Larry W

(Larry Weisenthal) said:

Olivier, with all due respect:

The reporter was able to get the codes from the UCI. If the reporter
could access the codes, then other people could, as well.

There were clearly people in France who were very biased against
Armstrong. The newspaper (L'Equipe) stated following Lance's 7th
victory that never was the retirement of a champion a cause for such
celebration (or similar words). The newspaper had a long history of
accusing Armstrong of doping. They were clearly biased, and I'm sure
that a lot of other people in France were biased also.

But that is nothing new when it comes to outstanding athletic
performances. There are always suggestions rumors of drug use after
outstanding performances, and because they are correct often enough,
and because the financial rewards are so high, by now people are just
willing to believe them. I'm willing to believe Armstrong used EPO. On
the other hand, I don't care if he used EPO. His achievement would not
be lowered in my eyes if I learned he used it every year. Riding a
bike at high speed for a hundred miles is very hard. I've done it.
Doing it 19 days almost in a row really is pushing the limits of what
human beings can do. I get real tired of the association of excellence
and virtue with drug free efforts.

Quoted message said:

There is
currently a lot of mutual antagonism between France and the USA, for a
lot of reasons. For that matter, there is a whole lot of anti-US
sentiment in Europe generally.

No, there isn't, Larry. There is a lot of anti-Bush sentiment. I have
yet to meet a European who expresses an anti-American attitude.

Quoted message said:

And people who were convinced of the
"evidence" cited by Olivier which led to Olivier's prior conclusion
that there was a 20% chance that Armstrong doped. Maybe they were
convinced by the circumstantial evidence and frustrated that this
wasn't enough to "convict" Armstrong. So they spiked the urine
(possibly the same way that the Ramparts Division of the Los Angeles
Police Department was proven to plant bogus evidence to allow for the
conviction of suspects that they were certain were guilty, but in which
sufficient evidence was lacking to prove guilt). So there are clearly
people potentially involved who have the motivation to discredit
Armstrong.

But someone has to propose a credible method of tampering. I haven't
seen an actual method proposed.

Quoted message said:

You say that someone would have to "bribe" someone at the UCI to get
the control sheet. Is that what the reporter did? "Bribe" someone?
If the UCI person would accept the bribe from the reporter, why
couldn't someone else have "bribed" him? Or maybe it didn't require a
"bribe." Maybe there was just someone at the UCI with access to the
(old/outdated/no longer needed) control sheets who willingly gave
("leaked"...now there's an appropriate verb for describing the
confidential disclosure of urine-related information) them to the
reporter. And if the information could be leaked to a reporter, it
could be leaked to someone working in the lab. I'm quite sure that
there are people at the UCI who know, personally, people who are
affiliated with the number one sports lab for detecting rEPO, the most
important drug for the doping of cyclists). And vice-versa. I'm sure
that there have been many contacts and conversations between UCI
employees and Famous Doping Lab employees over the years. Olivier's
complete denial about the possibility of collusion and tampering in the
setting of his present insistence of Armstrong's guilt is very
troubling to me.

But getting the control sheet is just the first step, and it is the
easy step. Tampering with the actual samples is much more difficult.

Quoted message said:

As I said, I have some familiarity with clinical laboratories. This
particular laboratory probably processed thousands of specimens. They
have doubtless had literally dozens (if not scores) of individuals with
access to the specimens over the past 6 years. Of course, I am sure
that they have rigorous security protocols which are observed during
the relevant time periods (within the first week or so post
competition). But, again, these were very old samples. They were NOT
being stored under secure conditions with the idea that they were to be
later used to prove guilt at some future date when technology was
improved. The proof of this, again, was that they were SACRIFICED for
the purpose of a RESEARCH STUDY.

Armstrong should sue. That is the course of action open to him. You
can't complain about this kind of jouranlism and character
assassination anymore. It is standard operating procedure. Look at all
the examples in America. John Kerry was assassinated. Cindy Sheehan is
being assassinated as we speak. Any musician or actor who speaks out
against the president is immediately destroyed by Karl Rove. Pat
Robertson wants to assassinate people literally. Not a day goes by
that Rush Limbaugh and O'Reilly don't drag someone's name through
[censored]. That's the way it is now. The Australians call it the Tall Poppy
Syndrome. If your head and shoulders rise above the masses, the masses
will cut you off at the knees.

Quoted message said:

Now, were you, Olivier, present at the time the bottles were opened?
Were they opened with the "seal" unbroken, with the presence of
outside, international monitors, as they would be were the "B" samples
to be tested to prove doping, according to established protocols. Or
did someone just open up 50 or so old bottles of urine, with any number
of people milling about over a period of minutes, hours, or even days
as the testing was ongoing? One can imagine the bottles all lined up,
seals broken, ready to be run through the machines. Perhaps the people
involved took a break to eat lunch (or have a cigarette or go have a
pee themselves). Were you, Olivier, there when all this was going on?
Did you read an account of someone from the lab who attested to the
conditions under which these specimens were being tested as a RESEARCH
(and not FORENSIC) study? And what about the testimony of the Director
of the Montreal (WADA accredited) doping lab, who stated that rEPO is
stable only for a matter of months? If she is correct, then this would
be prima facie evidence that the rEPO was added to the urine specimen
years AFTER it was voided into the container. Are you aware that her
opinion on this has been scientifically discredited? I was unable to
find a published paper on the stability of rEPO in urine specimens
under any conditions (room temperature, - 20, - 70, -270). We don't
know the conditions under which the specimens in question were stored.

That is why Armstrong should sue. He should do it in the European
Court of Human Rights.

Quoted message said:

I simply can't understand how you can claim that there is 99% certainty
that Armstrong was doped. If we accept the opinion of the Montreal lab
director, then I would be equally justified in claiming that is is 99%
certain that the rEPO was added to the bottles at or around the time of
re-testing.

Ignoring the drug tests altogether, given Armstrong's achievement,
what would you say is the probability he did it without drugs? Because
saying 0% is just as looney as Olivier saying 99%, in my opinion.

Quoted message said:

Armstrong is completely different than anyone else who has ever been
"convicted" of doping. Someone else mentioned Virenque and stated that
Virenque was more honorable, as Virenque admitted his guilt. But
Virenque was never again a champion after it was revealed that he was a
doper. Same for Michelle Smith. Same for Ben Johnson. etc. These were
all people who achieved what they did by doping. With Armstrong it is
completely different.

I keep coming back to 2005. He is physically past his prime; older
than anyone ever to win the Tour. Yet he was clearly the dominant,
most superior rider in the Tour. Armstrong had virtually nothing to
gain by racing for a 7th win, after already having achieved what he had
by winning 6 times, after going through what he went through (which
included, remember, his French sponsored Team DUMPING him at his time
of greatest need and vulnerability (after he was diagnosed as having
cancer, even though he stated his firm intention to return to
professional cycling)). He overcame all of that; won the Tour 6 times,
and had a net worth in the high 8 figures (U.S.), and was beloved by
probably hundreds of millions of cancer victims and survivors. He KNEW
that he would be under an anti-doping microscope. He KNEW of past
accusations against him. He KNEW of the continuing advances in
anti-doping technology. He KNEW how even Tyler Hamilton was caught
blood doping within the past year. He KNEW all of that and still raced
and still DOMINATED. UNLIKE Virenque (post doping exposure). Unlike
Smith. Unlike Johnson. Unlike any previously exposed doper.

What if his treatment for cancer permanently changed his chemistry?
What if his admitted use of EPO, induced his marrow to keep some of
its increased performance? How do you know that didn't happen? Suppose
something like that did happen. Suppose the combination of treatments
he used for cancer (I just had a thought) permanently changed his
chemistry to make him a super athlete. How do you know that didn't
happen.

Here is the thought: Suppose he didn't have cancer at all. Suppose the
cancer was just a sham to hide this body chemistry changing regimen
that turned him into a superman.

Quoted message said:

The other accuse dopers NEEDED to dope in order to win. Armstrong
didn't.

How do you know? That begs the question, Larry. Saying he didn't need
to dope assumes he didn't dope.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps he did take rEPO in 1999. It's possible that any individual
rider in that year's Tour took EPO. We'll never know with the
specimens which were part of the disputed RESEARCH study, because these
specimens were not secured and examined under FORENSIC conditions.

He should sue.

Quoted message said:

To take the information which has been revealed to date and to claim
that this indicates guilt with "99%" certainty is not warranted.

Olivier says that this is strong evidence which proves guilt with 99%
certainty.

Most of us didn't take that seriously, I think, since he isn't in a
position to know more than he has told us, and what he has told us is
not enough to make the 99% claim.

Quoted message said:

I still say that it's 99% slime.

I just heard on the BBC that the UCI is going to have its own
investigation.

Good.

I'm going to wait to see what they conclude and the stated reasons for
their conclusions.

- Larry W

(Larry Weisenthal) said:

He's one
of the most beloved people (outside of France) who has ever walked the
face of the earth;

Huh?

Quoting myself:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I just heard on the BBC that the UCI is going to have its own

investigation.<<

I just thought of a problem. There was a leak of information (the
urine sample identity codes) from the UCI to the L'Equipe reporter. I
maintain that is is equally plausible that there was a leak of the same
information from someone at the UCI to a friend or aquaintance working
at the UCI lab.

So you basically have the UCI investigating the UCI.

This won't do it.

- Larry W

(Larry Weisenthal) said:

And to maintain (as Olivier does) that Armstrong should be required to
PROVE his innocence by SUING the French paper is absolutely outrageous.

He shouldn't sue the paper. He should sue the people who slandered
him. He should sue them in the European Court of Human Rights.

I don't understand why you are so upset about this. What were you
thinking?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't understand why you are so upset about this. What were you

thinking? <<

I'm upset because I want to believe still that sporting achievement can
be a source of human inspiration.

When my brother was running uphill in the 20th mile of the Catalina
Marathon a bit more than 10 years ago, he developed chest pain. He
went to see a physician after the race, who gave him a requisition for
a chest x-ray. He stuck it in his wallet. A month or so later, he was
rear-ended in a parking garage at LAX. This caused him to again be in
the vicinity of a hospital (had some sort of minor injury). As an
afterthought, he pulled out the crumpled requisition and had the chest
xray. It showed a nearly soccer ball size mass in the space between
his two lungs. He was treated with aggressive (laboratory
assay-directed) chemotherapy and then radiation therapy at Stanford for
Hodgkin's Disease. We talked at the time about how Mario Lemieux
survived Hodgkin's disease to return to be a hockey All Star. I believe
that this offered him both hope and comfort. A year after completing
his treatment, he completed the Hawaii Ironman (despite suffering from
at the time undiagnosed, radiation-induced hypothyroidism). But he was
frustrated that he wasn't returning to his prior performance levels.
Several years later, Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France.

You have to either work in the cancer field or know cancer patients
personally (in my case, both) to understand the inspiration and hope
which is embodied in the phenomenon which we know as Lance Armstrong.

I won't willingly suffer the demise of this phenomenon on the basis of
shoddy journalism and slime.

- Larry Weisenthal