"The Lance Armstrong lie"
 

There you go.
Front page news today : "ARMSTRONG LIED"

It is now proven that he took EPO when he won his 1st Tour de France in 1999...man that is going to get ugly now.

They all lie and take stuff. No big whoop.

Well, since it's on the front page of a newspaper it must be true.... :)

Is there a link?

Yep, but it's in French...

I'm not sure how long EPO stays in the system, but he did admit he used EPO during his recovery to boost his cell count after chemo treatments.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Fonctions/pages_quotidien.html

France's #1 daily sports newspaper

Interesting.

here is a better link with a short explanation text :
http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/photo?slu...6&prov=reuters

Thanks for the link.

http://sports.myway.com/news/08232005/v7814.html

Looks like typical jealously, more hating-on-Lance.


So what we have basically are "anonymous" tests, claims that they've been matched up anyway, all courtesy of a report in a newspaper that's owned by the same company that organizes {gasp} the TdF.

Let's see here ... we've got an event that just lost the best thing that ever happened to it ... interest is going to drop, maybe considerably ... I know, let's discredit the guy & try to make the event look better without him.

like T.O used to say, "when it smells rats, it is a rat" :D

i wish the French were this devoted to stopping terrorsim instead OF A FUCKING BIKE RACE.

The French have some major inferiority issues. I don't see a story about a French athlete in the US making the front page, as well as three additional pages.

meh.. oh well. What else do you expect from them?

If a French Football team came over and won the Super Bowl 7 times in a row, I'm sure our media would have a field day trying to discredit them. Media loves building people up and tearing them down.

fuckers...

Plus, why release it NOW, a good 6 years after the fact?
I know, they say they didn't have the "scientific results" until now, but that just makes the science even more wooly. What a crock of jealousy.

/tk

I find it strange that people are so dismissive here and so condemning in the Bonds steroid threads (where there isn't even a test based on old samples).

John -

I agree that if good science says it, then that's the way it is. The difference between Bonds and Armstrong is that we know Armstrong has passed roughly 5,000 tests.

Nobody cares about bike racing?

Since I've always felt Bonds was more likely to be using HGH (a non-testable substance) because of the very precise way he answered questions about steroids, I think his situation is pretty analogous to Armstrong's (given that EPO used to be a non-testable substance). I'm not saying either person is guilty or not guilty, but the reactions seem see cut and dry extreme in both directions. And I find that strange.

Did somebody get lost on their way to a hockey thread?

I knew the hockey lovers would be hanging out in here!

will it surprise me to find out that Armstrong doped? nope.
am I more than a little annoyed that you are naive or vindictive enough to pass this crap off as "proof"? yep

Maybe he took EPO with Emo while listening to ELO?

This is the ESPN article, BTW, which seems to explain what the French article says:

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=2140893

To paraphrase whoever it was on Freddy Adu and soccer, this news is going to revolutionize the way I don't pay attention to cycling and Lance Armstrong.

does such a thing exist?

that was that bad French basketball player the Knicks drafted about 4 or 5 years ago, who took him instead of Ron Artest.

he wound up getting dunked on by Vince Carter in the Olympics i think.

Well, to be fair, Zidane did make the front page in 1998. It said "For more info on Zidane and the French World Cup team, see page 8 in the sports section"

:D

Prediction: if and when Armstrong is proven to have doped (and I have no idea if this article actually proves anything), the American sports media will not go with the story. It will either be buried, or discredited. There has been too much time spent building Armstrong into a national hero to tear him down now based on anything short of a personal admission of guilt.

As John Galt points out, the same people that will gladly convict a baseball player on circumstantial evidence will refuse to accept any evidence offered against Armstrong -- there will also be some loophole that will allow them to dispute it.

And a further prediction -- people will take this issue extremely personally (on both sides).

So, Armstrongs friend and trainer was indicted for distributing steriods? I didn't know that. :D

What is EPO? Can it be linked to some sort of treatment for Armstrongs condition?

Ah, the American sports media would love nothing better than an Armstrong doping story. Just look at the coverage Palmeiro is getting.

53 limp-wristed guys...imagine the half time shows!!!! and the post game celebrations!

;) :D

I don't think Palmeiro is considered a national hero and I haven't seen too many people wearing Palmeiro bracelets.

I took mine off that fateful day. I felt violated.

Dated tesst of B samples show positive results v. guilt by association. I'm not taking a position on which is more damning, but I think it is strange that people come down so clearly on opposite extremes and don't see any inconsistency. And I thought it was the case that there have been known associates of Armstrong that have been busted and/or have said they have seen Armstrong using (I could be wrong because generally I fall in the Ksyrup camp when it comes to cycling). While those people may be unreliable, I think the testimony is probably stronger than that against Bonds (whose friends still deny giving him stuff - for whatever that is worth).

I love revisionist history. Rumors of baseball doping were around for years, and no body believed them. The press largely ignore the story, and the few times it was brought up (like during the Sosa/McGuire HR chase), people were shouted down or told that it "wouldn't even help." It wasn't until the BALCO indictments (again, remember, Bond's personal trainer and "good friend" whom he connected/introduce to a number of other players) that people started believing there was a steriod problem. And even then, it took leaked grand jury testimony from a number of players admitting steriod use for people to admit that they had been using. People didn't suddenly jump to conclusions on things. It took years before it exploded.

Now compare this to Armstong. He is the most drug-tested man on earth. The French would love to find any reason to prove he is doping to confirm what they already "know." They hate the man with the burning passions of a thousand suns. Are we now supposed to be excited that they test one several year old specimen and found trace of a drug that Armstrong has already admitted that he took during rehab for cancer? Were is the comparison here?

I doubt it. Palmeiro was an almost perfect target -- famous and beloved enough to be a big story, but not so famous and beloved that there was much risk of a backlash.

Time will tell and I could be wrong, but look at the ESPN coverage already -- the storyline is not "shocking new evidence of Armstrong doping", it's "Armstrong forced to endure yet another 'witch hunt' at hands of spiteful french".

I'd dope too if I lost a nut.

I guess for me the difference is that I know a lot about baseball. Bonds' career screams artificial help in his mid-to-late 30s. Plus his head is ginormous. And the leaked testimony where he admitted taking it but took the popular "I didn't know it" defense. It took only months of a spotlight on Bonds before shit started pouring out. 7 years of intense focus on Armstrong by an entire nation of "journalists" has produced nothing on him. And now we've got anonymous tests that they have said they matched to him anyway. Smell tests go a long way. But Darkiller's smeller is broken.

And, for the record, my affinity levels for the two have nothing to do with it. I think they're both assholes.

Read post posted while you posted this post. :D

Give me a real smoking gun here. This test could easily be showing the remenants of the drug he took while in rehab. Not exactly a smoking gun coming from people who loved bring Armstrong down.

If the test is legit and can be trusted, it shows that he was using a banned substance when he won his first Tour. Even if it was related to his cancer treatment, it's still a banned performance enhancer in his system -- one that was suspected to be widely in use because at the time it couldn't be deteced in tests.

Besides, the ESPN story makes no reference to the drug being tied to his treatment.

It's too bad that French athletes aren't good at any American sports so that we could try to discredit their achievements.

L'Equip's article online translated via Google:


ARMSTRONG IN THE STORM

Thunder clap. One month after having taken down its seventh victory in the Turn of France this summer, Launches Armstrong, reprocessed young person, reconsiders the front of the scene. But it is this time question of doping. Six of its urinary samples, collected at the time of the Turn 1999 and analyzed a posteriori by the laboratory of Châtenay-Malabry, are marked signature of the EPO. In her edition of Thursday August 23, the TEAM brings the proof from there. However, Texan continues to deny to have doped itself on its Internet site.

Official documents with the support
Often suspected, ever controlled positive. Lance Armstrong, increases sevenfold victorious Outer Loop, is found today under fires of the slope for another thing that its sporting exploits. The newspaper the Team , documents official with the support, shows indeed that the American had well recourse to doping products in 1999, at the time of its first conquest of the Turn of France.

Four months of investigation by the sporting daily newspaper led to this obviousness. The facts are indisputable: the leader of Discovery Channel, during six seasons with the US head Postal one, already regularly used products prohibited in 1999 and would thus have lied on this not-consumption in competition. By six times, during the controls carried out at the end of its victorious prologue to Puy-of-Insane, July 3, 1999, and of the stages Montaigu - Challans (1st), Large-Bornand - Sestrières (9th), Sestrières - Alpe d' Huez (10th), Saint-Galmier - Saint-Flour (12th) and Castrate - Saint-Gaudens (14th), his samples are marked by the signature of this hormone of synthesis, which, by the means of an increase in the population of red globules, allows a better muscular oxygenation and a possible profit of performances that the physiologists evaluate to 30 % maximum. These analyses were carried out by the laboratory of Châtenay-Malabry, that one even which developed the process detection of the EPO. The laboratory worked, since 2004, on samples taken and frozen between 1998 and 1999, one time when the use of the EPO was current currency in the group. The scientists aimed to improve their methods of detection, and not to try to control the urines of the runners afterwards several years.


Controls which are not
On the whole, twelve samples were analyzed by the famous laboratory to this end exclusively experimental, six of them were the property of Texan, six of not identified runners. For proof, the newspaper publishes the verbal lawsuits of control of Armstrong Lance on which appear of the numbers corresponding to the positive samples.

" Until proof of the opposite, no control antidopage practised on the person of the American appeared positive since the Turn 2000. And this business should not paradoxically have any disciplinary continuation ", underlines nevertheless the sporting daily newspaper, making the point that it was not a question of taking sanctions. The conditions under which positive controls of these samples were revealed do not make it possible indeed the UCI to take sanctions. But, the business could however not remain without continuation. The World Agency Antidopage studies the possibility of possible indeed resort legal. This same file could also land between the hands of during American of the AMA, the USADA, which proved reliable in the Balco business by sanctioning athletes who had not been controlled beforehand positive. Even if these different possibiltés from recourse does not succeed, these revelations terribly tarnish nevertheless the image of Armstrong Lance and sow at the same time the doubt in the spirits concerning its six other victories.


Armstrong always denied and still denies to have been doped
The lawyer of the runner, Me Donald Manasse, contacted by the daily newspaper, indicated that it had been able to briefly discuss with Lance Armstrong, currently in the United States, but that this one did not wish to make "hot " comment without " have been able to examine what is known as in the newspaper ". Its reaction finally did not delay and the principal interested one chose its Internet site to be expressed.

The American did not change a iota his speech, repeating with the envi his innonence. " Once again, a European newspaper reports that I was controlled positive with drugs supporting the performance. Alas, hunting for the continuous witch and the article of tomorrow (this Tuesday) are nothing other than journalism with scandal. The newspaper admits even in its own article that the scientific method in question here is failing and that I do not have any means of defending me. They say: there will be thus no counter-evaluation nor lawful continuations, in a strict sense, since the rights of defense cannot be respected. I will répèterai simply what I said on several occasions: I never took drugs supporting the performance. "

After its victorious fight against a cancer of the testicles and its return in the group, Lance Armstrong always defended nozzle and nails used unspecified produced doping in spite of suspicions. With only one recovery, the American champion had been controlled positive, at the time of the turn 1999, but had been bleached after its the US team Postal one had produced a medical certificate showing that it had used a pomade to look after a pain with the saddle containing a prohibited corticoid.

" I would like to address a message to people who do not believe in cycling, cynical, the skeptics. I am sorry that they do not believe in the miracle, with the dream. Such an amount of worse for them ", had still exclaimed the American champion at the end of the last stage on the Elysées Fields in Paris, July 24, before taking its sporting retirement. Business to be followed.

I'm connecting because 1) we know nothing about this test, 2) how long EPO would be tested in the system using the test, and 3) Armstrong has already said he used EPO during rehab. *IF* in your statement is the big question.

Look, I'm not a big Armstrong aplologist. I could care less if he was smoking crack while riding his bike on tires made of dead baby skins. This story doesn't pass the sniff test at all.

I find ESPN's coverage of this story pretty brutal as well. If this were Bonds being mentioned, even pre-BALCO, it would have at least had a headline of "Bonds accused of 'roids" or something straight up.

I attribute the difference to a few factors:
1) France v America. This is the #1 reason the US media will defend Armstrong to the death.
2) Bonds is a jerk, Armstrong is a cancer survivor.
3) Bonds is black, Armstrong is white.

I published the article on the blog.

I was with you on the first two...

GIT YR POPCORN RDY

TOUR DE LANCE!!!!!

I must say, I'm a Lance fan, but even if I weren't, as a scientist, I'd have problems believing it.

A) They're doing guilt by association. The BBC article I read said, "The paper said there were "characteristic, undeniable and consequent" signs of EPO in what it claimed were Armstrong's urine tests, carried out by France's national anti-doping laboratory in Chatenay-Malabry. The laboratory said in a statement that it had "conducted EPO tests on samples from the 1998 and 1999 Tour de France races".

But it said it could not confirm that any tests it had conducted belonged to Armstrong." (courtesy http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/othe...ng/4175650.stm)


B) He's been tested over and over nd ome up negative.


C) This is SO FAR after the fact that it seems ludacris to bring it up now except to fight his image.


D) The BBC article also notes that, "Tests on the samples were carried out in 2004 because cycling's governing body did not start using a urine test for EPO until 2001, the paper said." SO. The TdF testing group held on to the samples for 5 years before testing?!?! Who's to say ANY of the samples hasn't been contaminated some how in an effort to smear Armstrong or any other cyclist?


E) If this testing was done in 2004, why not mention it THEN as "credible proof" (albeit wooly in my scientific opinion) of his alleged doping activities? Why hold onto it through 2005's TdF? Lord knows the French have allegated that Lance has done this for a long time, I think they'd lust for "proof."


F) As far as Bonds or any other athlete involved in denying taking performance enhancing drugs and actual testing for said drugs, well, for me, the proof is in the pudding, as it were. Bonds, as far as I know (and I admit I don't know much) hasn't been tested, yet categorically denies it. Palmiero denied taking them, but tested positive. It seems that of all these, Lance has the complete package, having been tested more times than most other athletes and testing negative AND denying taking performance enhancers. It's one thing to deny taking these things. It's another to be tested. And it's wholly another to test negative. Lance has all three, which as far as I know, no other athlete tied to performance enhancing drugs has.


Maybe I'm just being optimistic here, but I find the entire thing wooly, particularly in the age of the sample (and unknown contamination, because I *WOULDN'T* put it past people to contaminate it, even if it was thought to be secure), the lateness of the publication of the result, and the lack of credibility admitted by the study authors.


/tk