1. Were the six samples the only ones that were taken from Armstrong in
1999? If not, were the remainder tested? If not, isn't it time to test
those, too? If others were not positive, then wouldn't the tests in
their entirety be called into question? (Supposedly, twelve samples
tested positive, and they implicated six riders, so if six samples came
from Armstrong, then one rider had two positive samples, and four others
had single positive samples. It seems the responsible thing to do would
be to makes sure ALL samples from ALL of these riders get tested.
L'Equipe would appear to know who the other riders are, so they should
be able to find all the sample numbers that came from them. It seems a
bit one-sided NOT to make sure all these samples were tested, and if
L'Equipe is going to name Armstrong, they should name the others as well.)
2. Do they have samples from the years before 1999, and the years
after? If so, isn't it time to test them, too? (There was some mention
of the need to use masking agents if one continued to use EPO after the
first EPO test became available in 2001. Armstrong rode in earlier
tours, and won at least one stage previously, which should mean at least
one sample was taken, if the rules for sampling were in force ten years
ago.)
3. Does L'Equipe's story accomplish anything more than character
assasination, since it appears that no sanctions can be applied, and the
person "outed" cannot defend himself? And isn't the failure to name ALL
the riders a little bit suspect?
4. Will this make Armstrong so mad that he "unretires", and comes back
to try and win the Tour de France again?