Road Cycling · Public discussion

What the L'Equipe article really means....

Started by Preston Crawford · · Last activity · 17 posts · 654 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

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

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
23 August 2005
Last activity
25 August 2005
Original author
Preston Crawford
Posts
17
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
654
Views / 30 days
0

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

Showing posts 1–17 of 17
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Let's assume it were true. L'Equipe is associated very tightly with the
    Tour, thus their ability to get the samples. This would mean,
    essentially, that the Tour was complicit. This would mean that *if* it
    were true, the biggest guilty party was the organization that milked
    Armstrong for 7 years, then let the truth come out only after he
    retired. Very coincidental, if true.

    Preston

  2. Preston Crawford said:

    Let's assume it were true. L'Equipe is associated very tightly with the
    Tour, thus their ability to get the samples. This would mean,
    essentially, that the Tour was complicit. This would mean that *if* it
    were true, the biggest guilty party was the organization that milked
    Armstrong for 7 years, then let the truth come out only after he
    retired. Very coincidental, if true.

    The culprit is systematic error in the test protocol.

    IIRC, urine testing isn't a reliable indicator of EPO doping.

    If they'd sent the samples to different labs (did
    they?) then they may have used a test method that
    has a common-mode error.

    Conversely, they might have the good test, and the
    "A" samples may have been tested using bad tests.

    The difference in results between "A" and "B" samples is
    glaring, damning, and invalidating.

    --Blair
    "DQ urine testing for EPO."

  3. Blair P. Houghton said:


    The culprit is systematic error in the test protocol.

    IIRC, urine testing isn't a reliable indicator of EPO doping.

    If they'd sent the samples to different labs (did
    they?) then they may have used a test method that
    has a common-mode error.

    Conversely, they might have the good test, and the
    "A" samples may have been tested using bad tests.

    The difference in results between "A" and "B" samples is
    glaring, damning, and invalidating.

    No. The A samples were tested in 1999 using then-current tests, but there
    was no approved urine test for EPO in 1999. The B samples had been held in
    a freezer since then, so this was the first time any of the 1999 samples
    had been tested for EPO.

  4. Aa I've been saying all along Mr. Armstrong is a doped and cheater.
    Only truth we need is a from Mr.Armstrong's own word. The truth
    will not come until he himself admit to the public how he won the
    TdF 7 times in a row...It will take more year until Armstrong becoming
    more successful and make more money, and then Mr. Armstrong will feel
    he has done all the thing in the world and there is nothing left to
    hide so he will reveal his drug abuse. This is how it works in
    America. LIke a former MLB homer leader Jose Conseco
    who used stereoid and other physical enhancement drug who waited until
    he felt he has done all the thing right make all the money and wrote
    the
    book how he used to illegal drug. Then they all say to public do not
    use stereoid!
    What a ugly joke! we all know [censored] American athletic using drug anyway
    possible
    to be a million dollar ball-players.

  5. Finally Red Cloud called one right when in his fractured syntax he

    Quoted message said:

    ...we all know [censored]

    He simply confused the plural for the singular.

    Regards,
    Bob Hunt

  6. I know a singular from plural. For example, your [censored]-ass spammer is a
    singular.
    Your two eyes plural could not tell the simply typo from a dumbass
    redneck
    who is unable to read or write english. And my english is not even
    native!
    Why is your dumbass redneck moron can't even write their own language
    huh?
    I speak and write multiply languages!

  7. Quoted message said:

    I speak and write multiply languages!

    And multiply nationalities can't understand you!

    SMH

  8. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Your two eyes plural could not tell the simply typo from a dumbass
    redneck
    who is unable to read or write english.

    Aw, don't be so hard on yourself.

    And my english is not even

    Quoted message said:

    native!

    Very true!

    Quoted message said:

    Why is your dumbass redneck moron can't even write their own language
    huh?

    Dunno; you probably didn't pay attention at school!

  9. Stephen Harding said:
    Quoted message said:

    I speak and write multiply languages!

    And multiply nationalities can't understand you!

    SMH

    LOL!!!

    Preston

  10. Quoted message said:

    I speak and write multiply languages!


    Yes you do! 1) [censored], 2) Low Moronic and 3) Babble

  11. Robert Chung said:
    Blair P. Houghton said:


    The culprit is systematic error in the test protocol.

    IIRC, urine testing isn't a reliable indicator of EPO doping.

    If they'd sent the samples to different labs (did
    they?) then they may have used a test method that
    has a common-mode error.

    Conversely, they might have the good test, and the
    "A" samples may have been tested using bad tests.

    The difference in results between "A" and "B" samples is
    glaring, damning, and invalidating.

    No. The A samples were tested in 1999 using then-current tests, but there
    was no approved urine test for EPO in 1999. The B samples had been held in
    a freezer since then, so this was the first time any of the 1999 samples
    had been tested for EPO.

    Is there an "approved" urine test for EPO now, and what
    is its rate of false positives?

    --Blair
    "Someone's going to ask."

  12. Blair P. Houghton said:

    Is there an "approved" urine test for EPO now, and what
    is its rate of false positives?

    There's been an approved urine test for EPO since the 2000 Olympics. It
    was first used in cycling the following Spring, i.e., since April 2001.
    The first confirmed false positive case was overturned two weeks ago:
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug10news; however,
    Armstrong does not appear to fit in that category: Beke naturally produces
    and continues to produce proteins that have the characteristics of
    synthetic EPO. Beke tested positive using the current test last September,
    and it appears that the French lab was working on an updated test last
    December when they ran the 1999 "B" samples through as part of their test
    validation.

  13. Spammer.

  14. What it really means is that the Brie-eating surrender monkeys that
    live in France are jealous (oh, and that you're a trolling ass).

  15. Quoted message said:

    Spammer.

    Confession good for soul, Poofless?

  16. Red Cloud said:


    I know a singular from plural. For example, your [censored]-ass spammer is a
    singular.
    Your two eyes plural could not tell the simply typo from a dumbass
    redneck
    who is unable to read or write english. And my english is not even
    native!
    Why is your dumbass redneck moron can't even write their own language
    huh?
    I speak and write multiply languages!


    Fher, zngurzngvpf vf gur havirefny ynathntr, ohg zbfg gehr ovxre va
    jbeyq vf Puvarfr naq fcrnx gbathr Puvarfr!

  17. Red Cloud said:


    Spammer.

    I must disagree. The messages of this thread thusfar
    have rated minimally on the Breidbart Index. There is
    no evidence of EMP or ECP.
    Try again.

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.