Lance responds to LEBLANC

From what I heard Leblanc (I should say Prudhomme as he made the presentation) didn't mention Lance for good or for bad.
So what does Lance try to do?
If he expects that the Tour organisers will be his supporters, he's far away naive. They don't hunt him, as they would have done with other riders or team members, he has to live with that.
Any way if you' re saying you were always clean you don't have any reason to protest, you don't have anything to prove, don't you?

"On the 24th of July we turned the page on a long, very long chapter in the history of the Tour de France. And one month later, current events made it clear to us that it was just as well that this was so,"

Not much gray area in that statement, pretty obvious who they are talking about. Mentioning Lance by name would be almost superfluous.

Forget it, Lance. You were hit with the cheapest of cheap shots. There isn't much you can do - moving on and letting those two worms stew in their own slime is probably the best thing you can do.

Maybe this is God's way of telling us that we were paying too much attention to the Tour, and not enough attention to the other excellent races.

Seeing as Lance doesn't believe in God maybe its God's way of exposing the truth about the 6 times champion*.....

* 1999 TDF victory no longer valid.

JohnO said:

Maybe this is God's way of telling us that we were paying too much attention to the Tour, and not enough attention to the other excellent races.

JohnO said:

"On the 24th of July we turned the page on a long, very long chapter in the history of the Tour de France. And one month later, current events made it clear to us that it was just as well that this was so,"

Not much gray area in that statement, pretty obvious who they are talking about. Mentioning Lance by name would be almost superfluous.

Forget it, Lance. You were hit with the cheapest of cheap shots. There isn't much you can do - moving on and letting those two worms stew in their own slime is probably the best thing you can do.

Maybe this is God's way of telling us that we were paying too much attention to the Tour, and not enough attention to the other excellent races.

It's a fact that Lance retired on 24th of july, isn't it? The second phrase has to do with the hypothesis that Lance wouldn't have been retired. Can you imagine the "paper-war" if Lance was still active? Do you believe that Lance's rivals and their teams would have let it go? That's what Leblanc says. That it's better that this happened now after he retired. And he said that because he cares about "his" race, he's not Lance's (or anyone else's) agent. If that's an attack he'd rather look to his actions against Simeoni for expample.

God's way? There are a lot of matters, far more serious for (any) God to look after than any race... 😉

whiteboytrash said:

Seeing as Lance doesn't believe in God maybe its God's way of exposing the truth about the 6 times champion*.....

* 1999 TDF victory no longer valid.

*The french are no more valid... The French TDF results for the last 20 years prove my point. One green jersey and a few stage wins on their home turf.

wolfix said:

*The french are no more valid... The French TDF results for the last 20 years prove my point. One green jersey and a few stage wins on their home turf.

Sorry, mate, but since 1985:

1985 Yellow jersey Hianult
1986 KoM Hinault
1990 KoM Claveyrolat
1992 Green Jalabert
1994 KoM Virenque
1995 KoM Virenque, Green Jalabert
1996 KoM Virenque
1997 KoM Virenque (and podium place)
1998 KoM Rinero
1999 KoM Virenque
2001 KoM Jalabert
2002 KoM Jalabert
2003 KoM Virenque
2004 KoM Virenque

Quite a decent haul of jerseys and more than a few stage wins along the way - not quite the grim outlook you - and the Disco PR department - would have us believe.

And let's not have a slagging match about Virenque - he served a suspension, therefore we must assume he is now riding clean. Which is quite possibly more than Armstrong has done through at least 1 if not more of his victories...

micron said:

And let's not have a slagging match about Virenque - he served a suspension, therefore we must assume he is now riding clean. Which is quite possibly more than Armstrong has done through at least 1 if not more of his victories...

So let me get this straight - anyone who is caught doping but serves a suspension is clean, by your definition. And anyone who has never been caught doping is dirty. It is fascinating to see the creative ways that people try to excuse the riders they like, and condemn the riders they don't like.

Hamilton tests positive, he's out. Virenque tests negative, he's in. Armstrong tests negative... maybe I'd buy into this "Lance is doping" thing more, were it not for the utter hypocricy of applying one standard to him, and another to every other cyclist.

Virenque was caught by the French police, operating within the constraints of rules of evidence, and full public scrutiny of every aspect of the investigation, and benefit of expert counsel to challenge the charges. Which is a lot more than Armstrong has had in the LNDD/L'Equipe saga of this summer.

Armstrong has been merely accused, not convicted, by a newspaper that has been spreading groundless doping accusations against him since 1999, on the basis of an unknown EPO test (possibly the flawed LNDD test, possibly a different one), with unknown reasons why WADA specified the 99 Tour for experimentation (possibly a witch hunt), no scientific study of the stability of samples stored for 6 years, and accused on the basis of six doping numbers, only one of which can be explained, and explained by unethical behavior by the reporter. The other five remain unexplained.

I presume Virenque to be clean not because I have crafted a set of rules to further my own agenda, but for the simple reason that he also has tested clean since 1999. Are the drug tests perfect? No, but they are considerably more reliable that personal dislike and the word of a newspaper that has exhibited malicious intent for seven years.

JohnO said:

So let me get this straight - anyone who is caught doping but serves a suspension is clean, by your definition. And anyone who has never been caught doping is dirty. It is fascinating to see the creative ways that people try to excuse the riders they like, and condemn the riders they don't like.

Hamilton tests positive, he's out. Virenque tests negative, he's in. Armstrong tests negative... maybe I'd buy into this "Lance is doping" thing more, were it not for the utter hypocricy of applying one standard to him, and another to every other cyclist.

Virenque was caught by the French police, operating within the constraints of rules of evidence, and full public scrutiny of every aspect of the investigation, and benefit of expert counsel to challenge the charges. Which is a lot more than Armstrong has had in the LNDD/L'Equipe saga of this summer.

Armstrong has been merely accused, not convicted, by a newspaper that has been spreading groundless doping accusations against him since 1999, on the basis of an unknown EPO test (possibly the flawed LNDD test, possibly a different one), with unknown reasons why WADA specified the 99 Tour for experimentation (possibly a witch hunt), no scientific study of the stability of samples stored for 6 years, and accused on the basis of six doping numbers, only one of which can be explained, and explained by unethical behavior by the reporter. The other five remain unexplained.

I presume Virenque to be clean not because I have crafted a set of rules to further my own agenda, but for the simple reason that he also has tested clean since 1999. Are the drug tests perfect? No, but they are considerably more reliable that personal dislike and the word of a newspaper that has exhibited malicious intent for seven years.

JohnO, thank you for so spectacularly missing my point - as I knew you would.

I assumed that, posting this list of French successes in the Tour in the last 20 years, there would be the usual rash of 'oh, but most of them are that cry baby doper Virenque'. I was merely pointing out that, having served a suspension and being allowed to return to cycling, one must assume - as one must for any other doper who has served their suspension - that they wouldn't be remotely stupid enough to do it again.

Personally, I'm sure any former doper has probably continued but found different ways to dope. But if Virenque's KoM jerseys are suspicious - and, please remember he never ONCE tested positive - then one might also cast the same suspicion on Armstrong's 99 Tour win.

As for Equipe's attitude to Armstrong - you've been an avid reader for the last 7 years have you? You've received your copy every day for every one of Armstrong's winning Tours? Seen the headlines like 'Untouchable', 'The Extraterrestrial' 'Magnificent' and so on? No, thought not - because, if you had, you'd know what utter [censored] you're talking about Equipe's supposed 'witch hunt'

I suggest you think for yourself and stop merely regurgitating Discovery PR

micron said:

I assumed that, posting this list of French successes in the Tour in the last 20 years, there would be the usual rash of 'oh, but most of them are that cry baby doper Virenque'. I was merely pointing out that, having served a suspension and being allowed to return to cycling, one must assume - as one must for any other doper who has served their suspension - that they wouldn't be remotely stupid enough to do it again.

Personally, I'm sure any former doper has probably continued but found different ways to dope.

Getting caught just means that the rider hasn't been properly following his doping doctors instructions. Proper micro-dosing and masking agents should eliminate that problem as soon as the suspension has been served.

Certainly both Armstrong and 1999 runner up and former Festina rider Alex Zulle understand this. Along with Virenque.

JohnO said:

So let me get this straight - anyone who is caught doping but serves a suspension is clean, by your definition. And anyone who has never been caught doping is dirty. It is fascinating to see the creative ways that people try to excuse the riders they like, and condemn the riders they don't like.

Hamilton tests positive, he's out. Virenque tests negative, he's in. Armstrong tests negative... maybe I'd buy into this "Lance is doping" thing more, were it not for the utter hypocricy of applying one standard to him, and another to every other cyclist.

Virenque was caught by the French police, operating within the constraints of rules of evidence, and full public scrutiny of every aspect of the investigation, and benefit of expert counsel to challenge the charges. Which is a lot more than Armstrong has had in the LNDD/L'Equipe saga of this summer.

Armstrong has been merely accused, not convicted, by a newspaper that has been spreading groundless doping accusations against him since 1999, on the basis of an unknown EPO test (possibly the flawed LNDD test, possibly a different one), with unknown reasons why WADA specified the 99 Tour for experimentation (possibly a witch hunt), no scientific study of the stability of samples stored for 6 years, and accused on the basis of six doping numbers, only one of which can be explained, and explained by unethical behavior by the reporter. The other five remain unexplained.

I presume Virenque to be clean not because I have crafted a set of rules to further my own agenda, but for the simple reason that he also has tested clean since 1999. Are the drug tests perfect? No, but they are considerably more reliable that personal dislike and the word of a newspaper that has exhibited malicious intent for seven years.

Virenque never tested positive.
Virenque did dope.

Your man Mr Armstrong has tested positive, twice.
The first time he was caught using a cortiscoid and the second time he was found to have used EPO.

Jean Marie LeBlance bailed him out the first time - when he produced his backdated medical cert for a doping product (cortiscoid).
The second time round - Leblanc couldn't come up with any excuse to bail Armstrong.

Lim, cannot argue with anything you've written here. But I will continue:
To deny doping is a serious problem in cycling is to ignore the evidence. To be the big fan of any one rider and think that rider is clean is naive. The era of Armstrong as a rider is over. But his legacy is not. By that i mean super science in preparing for the event and delivering results. Because no team or cyclist will be successful in the future without rising to the scientific challenge, the new setting of the bar if you will. Doping of course is a major part of this science.
I do not like the singling out of the "nabbed" cyclist for character assassination, to take him out as an example, or better yet, as a sacrificial lamb to expiate the sins of cycling. This, so that all can remain the same. This does not preserve the image of cycling. I believe the cyclists justify these things in their minds so as to keep competitive. The unwritten rule of "keeping quiet" or of the "law of equality" (where you do what everybody else is doing and you are on an even competitive plane).
I don't even believe my favorite cylist, Pantani, was free from doping. Yes I believe that the test that excluded him from the 99 Giro was a setup, and that his hematocrit was therefore in perfect order. But the demand of the stage races are such, that he as all, cannot allow themselves to be at a disadvantage and still have a hope of winning. But Marco was an extraordinary climber as a youth, and therefore I have the belief that doping did him no benefit, but rather gave the rest of the peleton the means to control his mountain advantage. For instance, Now of course we know the games they play with blood injections just before the race to get well above 54, but back in the day if a rider would be limited to 50, the rider who was naturally at 47-48 gains very little. while the athlete at 43-44 gets significant improvement.
Did anyone fail to notice the total power of discovery team in the last tdf? I am not saying it is all due to doping mind you. But they certainly lack for nothing in the realm of science.

limerickman said:

Virenque never tested positive.
Virenque did dope.

Your man Mr Armstrong has tested positive, twice.
The first time he was caught using a cortiscoid and the second time he was found to have used EPO.

Jean Marie LeBlance bailed him out the first time - when he produced his backdated medical cert for a doping product (cortiscoid).
The second time round - Leblanc couldn't come up with any excuse to bail Armstrong.

ilpirata said:

Lim, cannot argue with anything you've written here. But I will continue:
To deny doping is a serious problem in cycling is to ignore the evidence. To be the big fan of any one rider and think that rider is clean is naive. The era of Armstrong as a rider is over. But his legacy is not. By that i mean super science in preparing for the event and delivering results. Because no team or cyclist will be successful in the future without rising to the scientific challenge, the new setting of the bar if you will. Doping of course is a major part of this science.
I do not like the singling out of the "nabbed" cyclist for character assassination, to take him out as an example, or better yet, as a sacrificial lamb to expiate the sins of cycling. This, so that all can remain the same. This does not preserve the image of cycling. I believe the cyclists justify these things in their minds so as to keep competitive. The unwritten rule of "keeping quiet" or of the "law of equality" (where you do what everybody else is doing and you are on an even competitive plane).
I don't even believe my favorite cylist, Pantani, was free from doping. Yes I believe that the test that excluded him from the 99 Giro was a setup, and that his hematocrit was therefore in perfect order. But the demand of the stage races are such, that he as all, cannot allow themselves to be at a disadvantage and still have a hope of winning. But Marco was an extraordinary climber as a youth, and therefore I have the belief that doping did him no benefit, but rather gave the rest of the peleton the means to control his mountain advantage. For instance, Now of course we know the games they play with blood injections just before the race to get well above 54, but back in the day if a rider would be limited to 50, the rider who was naturally at 47-48 gains very little. while the athlete at 43-44 gets significant improvement.
Did anyone fail to notice the total power of discovery team in the last tdf? I am not saying it is all due to doping mind you. But they certainly lack for nothing in the realm of science.

Don't get me wrong, I condemn Virenque equally harshly as I do Armstrong.

But for people to attack Leblanc for his comments - when he bailed Armstrong once before is ridiculous.
Leblanc pulled Armstrong out of a tight spot when he was caught first time round.
When the second positive was produced - what else could Leblanc do ?

lol, very well , I have no problem with that

Only I hold Leblanc in even lower esteem than the two other gentlemen you've cited. Especially if he was in fact involved in the scandalous amnesty that you mentioned. Was this the version of events first reported in the book LA Confidential?

limerickman said:

Don't get me wrong, I condemn Virenque equally harshly as I do Armstrong.

But for people to attack Leblanc for his comments - when he bailed Armstrong once before is ridiculous.
Leblanc pulled Armstrong out of a tight spot when he was caught first time round.
When the second positive was produced - what else could Leblanc do ?

ilpirata said:

lol, very well , I have no problem with that

Only I hold Leblanc in even lower esteem than the two other gentlemen you've cited. Especially if he was in fact involved in the scandalous amnesty that you mentioned. Was this the version of events first reported in the book LA Confidential?

Actually, Leblanc had wanted Virenque out of the 1999 Tour but was overruled by guess who? The UCI. By the same Verbruggen who, in 2000, 2 years after the Festina Affair came to light, said he supposed they'd better have an investigation into Virenque. The same Verbruggen who was questioned in that hearing for cooking up a backdated TUE for Brochard when he won the Worlds in San Sebastian.

And now we have McQuaid calling off talks because the Tour want to bring in WADA because they might actually do something about doping in the sport.

I never had a lot of time for Leblanc - always thought he was too busy brown nosing Armstrong for the Yankee Dollar - but at least his anti doping stance has always been consistent.

ilpirata said:

lol, very well , I have no problem with that

Only I hold Leblanc in even lower esteem than the two other gentlemen you've cited. Especially if he was in fact involved in the scandalous amnesty that you mentioned. Was this the version of events first reported in the book LA Confidential?

I don't think that the cortiscoid incident was covered in LA Confidential.
(I could be wrong).

But it might help to revisit that incident : Armstrongs tested and traces of a cortiscoid were found in his sample during the TDF.
The main man - Leblanc had a choice.
Cortiscoids are a PED and are illegal : he could have insisted on the throwing Armstrong out of the race.
However, he didn't : he listened to Armstrongs excuse and was prepared to accept a backdated medical certificate in order to exercise his (leblanc's) discretion in allowing Armstrong to stay in the race.

I can understand people being uncomfortable with Leblancs latest remarks but they need to be aware of just how much he (Leblanc) has done to defend Armstrong in the past.

limerickman said:

Virenque never tested positive.
Virenque did dope.

Your man Mr Armstrong has tested positive, twice.
The first time he was caught using a cortiscoid and the second time he was found to have used EPO.

Jean Marie LeBlance bailed him out the first time - when he produced his backdated medical cert for a doping product (cortiscoid).
The second time round - Leblanc couldn't come up with any excuse to bail Armstrong.

Come on, Limerickman. That's not the whole story.

When Virenque was caught, there was no test for EPO - he couldn't test positive, unless he got sloppy and showed a high hematocrit. Which he didn't.

Armstrong's corticosteriod test showed only traces of it, well below the legal limit. There was nothing to act on. More than one cyclist has turned up traces of illegal substances below legal limits, only to have them attributed to innocuous use of legal medications. This was not an exception made for Armstrong, trace positives are routinely excused.

LeBlanc can't arbitrarily throw people out of the Tour, he must have a valid reason. To his credit, he tried that with Virenque in 99 (and with good reason), and was overruled - not by the UCI, but by the French courts.

As for the other accusation, it has been covered ad naseum here. It was not a legal doping control, it's methodology is still unknown, the motivations behind it are suspicious, the 'proof' from L'Equipe (or is that j'accuse?) is to say the least unethical and incomplete, and it's scientific validity highly questionable. Suffice it to say that enough problems exist with the 2005 LNDD/L'Equipe accusation to render it an experession of opinion, not a statement of fact.

Personally, I'm glad Armstrong retired, too. The last couple of Tours were just plain boring, none of the slashing attacks seen in 99, 2000, or 2001, or even the hair raising finish of 2003. Be nice to see a Tour where the outcome is unknown.

It is a bit disturbing to see the official Tour representatives endorsing the very unofficial, unethical, and quite possibly inaccurate LNDD/L'Equipe accusation. I certainly hope this does not become standard operating procedure in the future. Doping controls aren't perfect, but at least they are conducted on a level playing field, and relatively free of political or national influences.

limerickman said:

But for people to attack Leblanc for his comments - when he bailed Armstrong once before is ridiculous.
Leblanc pulled Armstrong out of a tight spot when he was caught first time round.
When the second positive was produced - what else could Leblanc do ?

Oh shut up you Irish lad! Leblanc is bad, is bad, is bad.* He's the chief witch on Lance's witch-hunt so boycott the Tour don't drink french wine and don't pet any French beauties (actually French girls cannot be beutiful anymore...)

😄 🙄

*Leblanc is bad but for other reasons 😉

Dimos said:

Oh shut up you Irish lad! Leblanc is bad, is bad, is bad.* He's the chief witch on Lance's witch-hunt so boycott the Tour don't drink french wine and don't pet any French beauties (actually French girls cannot be beutiful anymore...)

😄 🙄

*Leblanc is bad but for other reasons 😉

But Dimos.... You are lucky to have greek women around you .... Greek women are the best..

wolfix said:

But Dimos.... You are lucky to have greek women around you .... Greek women are the best..

...Greek women are hairy....