Lance on Larry King Live

The one thing I found interesting from the interview was....according to Lance, he gave 17 samples to be tested in 1999....yet only 6 were positives...where ar the other 11? He said if he were on EPO why did the other 11 not shown as positive as well.

Also,during one of the stage last year, the entire Disco team was tested ...they later found out nobody else were tested...only the Disco team.

I remember Maradona in the World Cup when Argentina got kicked out because dope testing.

For some reason, his [censored] was the only one "randomly" analyzed.

On a side note: They found ephedra on Maradona's [censored] ... like that helps making the ball hitting the net at all.

Rudy said:

Also,during one of the stage last year, the entire Disco team was tested ...they later found out nobody else were tested...only the Disco team.

Actually, he was talking about the night before the first stage of THIS year's TdF. To use LA's phrase, "witch hunt"...

BTW, the full transcript of the show is available on velonews.com and on LA's website.

I'm quite a cynic and I honestly believe that there's no way that Lance was taking drugs. He knows what kind of scrutiny is on him and he'd be an absolute fool, which I don't think he is.

Makes me wonder, is Tyler Hamilton innocent too?

Like othres have said, this definitely has the looks of a witch hunt. It makes me sad that a journalist with a vendetta can tarnish the reputation of one of the greatest athletes the sport has ever seen.

Does the journalist really have a vendetta against Lance or did he just wonder how an athlete could come back from near death and then win the Tour de France so quickly thereafter, when in two previous attempts Lance did not even finish the Tour?

Everyone must have been wondering that same thing when he came back, after cancer teatment. It was not possible to test for EPO then but, if the integrity of the sample was preserved then why would it not just be good journalism to find out the answer to a nagging question? If the person doing the testing is going only by a number with no acces to who that sample belongs to, then that takes away the "testers bias".

Lance, of course, has tried to imply a testers bias by implying that a parisian tester, completely unobserved, was working with his sample and knowing that it was his sample. There, of course, is no evidence that this happened, and that is not the standard way of testing.

If someone on the inside, who did know who the samples belonged to, after they were tested in the proper protocol, then decided that someone should know this, then what is the matter with that?

How do we know that the person with the information did not first let the Tour people know and they decided to let it pass because it would tarnish the reputation of the Tour? We don't know that do we?

Now that the World Anti Doping Agency {WADA} will be getting the samples I imagine that every part of the chain of evidence with regard to the sample will be gone over with a fine tooth comb.

If the first win, that created the "Lance Legend" was tainted, then all his future wins will be questioned also. Questions like "Is it possible to dope up until a certain time before the big race and it to be undetected? Don't forget Lance only raced the Tour de France and then trained the rest of the year, so that may be possible. Perhaps every win was tainted in this manner. Lance seems to know a lot of technical stuff with regards to blood chemistry, so he may be privy how to do it so that it was never detected after his first win. He was not expected to win that year so he would not have been expecting any special scrutiny that year, but all that changed with his donning of the yellow jersey.

Rudy said:

The one thing I found interesting from the interview was....according to Lance, he gave 17 samples to be tested in 1999....yet only 6 were positives...where ar the other 11? He said if he were on EPO why did the other 11 not shown as positive as well.

Also,during one of the stage last year, the entire Disco team was tested ...they later found out nobody else were tested...only the Disco team.

Pretty simple explanation why the other 11 (there were an additional 3 of those 11 borderline) were not positive.

The French urine test only picks up the presence of EPO, or the effect of EPO, within 2/3 days of being administered. LA is misleading the viewers that if he was on EPO all 17 samples should have evidence of EPO.

From a posting on another forum which indicates the spread of the positives and the timing of the administering:

The stages were the following :

Stage Prologue July 3 - Puy du Fou (positif level 100) - Yellow
Stage 1 July 4 - Challans (Positif level 89.7)
Stage 9 July 13 - Sestrieres (Positif level 96.6)
Stage 10 July 14 - Alpe d'Huez (Positif level 88.7)
Stage 12 July 16 - Saint Flour ( Positif level 95.2 )
Stage 14 July 18 - Saint Gaudens (Positif level 89.4)


In short, it is clear that :


1 ) He took for the prologue and stage 1
2) Then for stage 9 and 10 (Alpes)
3) Then for stage 12 and following (Pyrennees)

Sorry but I don't quite follow. I can see that there were 6 stage wins to go along with the 6 positive tests but...the tour ...for a total of 21 stages, there were bound to be more positives. And the test was only effective with 2/3 of a day?

From what I've heard it's suppose to be in your system for up to 3 or 4 weeks.
It still doesn't explain the number of times he was tested in subsequent years that were not positive. After every stage win or days in yellow, he was tested. So how does one explain that?

VeloFlash said:

Pretty simple explanation why the other 11 (there were an additional 3 of those 11 borderline) were not positive.

The French urine test only picks up the presence of EPO, or the effect of EPO, within 2/3 days of being administered. LA is misleading the viewers that if he was on EPO all 17 samples should have evidence of EPO.

From a posting on another forum which indicates the spread of the positives and the timing of the administering:

The stages were the following :

Stage Prologue July 3 - Puy du Fou (positif level 100) - Yellow
Stage 1 July 4 - Challans (Positif level 89.7)
Stage 9 July 13 - Sestrieres (Positif level 96.6)
Stage 10 July 14 - Alpe d'Huez (Positif level 88.7)
Stage 12 July 16 - Saint Flour ( Positif level 95.2 )
Stage 14 July 18 - Saint Gaudens (Positif level 89.4)


In short, it is clear that :


1 ) He took for the prologue and stage 1
2) Then for stage 9 and 10 (Alpes)
3) Then for stage 12 and following (Pyrennees)

Rudy said:

Sorry but I don't quite follow. I can see that there were 6 stage wins to go along with the 6 positive tests but...the tour ...for a total of 21 stages, there were bound to be more positives. And the test was only effective with 2/3 of a day?

From what I've heard it's suppose to be in your system for up to 3 or 4 weeks.
It still doesn't explain the number of times he was tested in subsequent years that were not positive. After every stage win or days in yellow, he was tested. So how does one explain that?

No, not 6 stage wins. Those were the stages he was tested in TdF 1999 (no EPO test existed) and, on testing of B samples in 2004, found positive.

He only won 4 stages during the Tour but was in Yellow (leader) for 15 Stages. Stage winners plus Yellow Jersey plus random get tested on each stage.

The current French urine test as applied could only reveal if EPO was taken 2 to 3 days after administering although the benefit of EPO was weeks. But it required regular boosting. It is alleged LA boosted to prior to those stages when it was needed (prologue and entering the mountains).

When tests for EPO were later developed the Svengali doctors found ways around beating the tests plus the fact different EPO products came into field testing that could not be detected by current EPO tests.

Avoidance techniques at

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/avoid_positive

http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=7844

The above post makes no sense. Like a fellow poster said on here, EPO stays in your system for 3-4 weeks, it is proven, mom is a pharmacist!🙂 So even if he took it before stage 1 it has to stay in the system, it does not just leave, also 17 samples were takin right? 6 were positive right? The fact of the matter is 11 others should be positive as well. Like the French are saying its Scientific! Also there is no telling what the French would pay to try and get at Lance, like Lance said this has been going on for all the years he has been riding. These are false reports, look at the science, the DRUG STAYS IN YOUR BODY FOR 3-4 WEEKS,my friend who recovered from cancer was takin EPO for his treatment, what did the doctor tell him?...........You guessed it, in your system for 3-4 weeks. VELOFLASH here is your quote "The current French urine test as applied could only reveal if EPO was taken 2 to 3 days after administering although the benefit of EPO was weeks. But it required regular boosting" so regular boosting means Armstrong would have to have taken a lot?! Also, the drug does not just go out of one's system, it can still be found in the urine! What this is, is a [censored] of country mad at an American cause he kicked butt for 7 years when a French rider never came close! Sick of it! People flip him off and accuse him, cause even with one ball, he still has more balls then they ever will!!

mjfc44 said:

The above post makes no sense. Like a fellow poster said on here, EPO stays in your system for 3-4 weeks, it is proven, mom is a pharmacist!🙂 So even if he took it before stage 1 it has to stay in the system, it does not just leave, also 17 samples were takin right? 6 were positive right? The fact of the matter is 11 others should be positive as well. Like the French are saying its Scientific! Also there is no telling what the French would pay to try and get at Lance, like Lance said this has been going on for all the years he has been riding. These are false reports, look at the science, the DRUG STAYS IN YOUR BODY FOR 3-4 WEEKS,my friend who recovered from cancer was takin EPO for his treatment, what did the doctor tell him?...........You guessed it, in your system for 3-4 weeks. VELOFLASH here is your quote "The current French urine test as applied could only reveal if EPO was taken 2 to 3 days after administering although the benefit of EPO was weeks. But it required regular boosting" so regular boosting means Armstrong would have to have taken a lot?! Also, the drug does not just go out of one's system, it can still be found in the urine! What this is, is a [censored] of country mad at an American cause he kicked butt for 7 years when a French rider never came close! Sick of it! People flip him off and accuse him, cause even with one ball, he still has more balls then they ever will!!

"Also, the drug does not just go out of one's system, it can still be found in the urine!" But only for 2-3 days after initial take up. Can I make it more simple?

There are currently two systems of detecting EPO. Both were not in existence in 1999.

The French urine system which can only detect the use of EPO within 2-3 days of administering notwithstanding the benefits of EPO may last weeks. An improved model of this system was used in 2004 on the 1999 B samples of the TdF.

The Australian blood system which can detect the use of EPO for four weeks after administering.

At the Sydney 2000 Olympics the IOC, in their wisdom, subjected athletes to the both methods of testing. They had to fail both tests for it to become a positive. It has been reported that eight athletes failed the blood EPO test but passed the urine EPO test. Obviously those athletes were outside the detection window of 2-3 days of the French urine system.

If you found the above difficult to comprehend, I will post an explanation from CyclingNews:

The urine test for EPO is currently undergoing improvements, but it has been used in sport since the 2000 Olympics and was introduced in cycling in 2001. It uses electrophoresis to detect a standard injection of EPO for up to three days (72 hours), by means of comparing the quantities of "basic isoforms" of certain proteins in a urine sample.

The more basic isoforms present, the greater the likelihood that the person had injected EPO within the last few days. A normal person would have less than 40 percent basic isoforms, while someone who had taken EPO could have between 80 and 100 percent, allowing for a very wide margin of error.

Given the effectiveness of EPO is up to several weeks, a three day detection window has always been considered inadequate. A blood profiling test was introduced in July 2004, which could not only determine whether EPO had been injected within the last five days, it could tell - using a slightly more indirect approach - whether blood had been boosted in any way for up to four weeks.

This represented a big step in drug testing, because it did not focus on any particular substance, but the physiological changes that it made.