Armstrong's Shit Hits The Fan
B. Lafferty
ARMSTRONG DANS LA TOURMENTE
Coup de tonnerre. Un mois après avoir décroché sa septième victoire
dans le Tour de France cet été, Lance Armstrong, jeune retraité, revient sur
le devant de la scène. Mais il est cette fois question de dopage. Six de ses
échantillons urinaires, collectés lors du Tour 1999 et analysés a posteriori
par le labo de Châtenay-Malabry, sont marqués de la signature de l'EPO. Dans
son édition du jeudi 23 août, L'EQUIPE en apporte la preuve. Pourtant, le
Texan continue de nier s'être dopé sur son site Internet.
Documents officiels à l'appui
Souvent soupçonné, jamais contrôlé positif. Lance Armstrong, septuple
vainqueur de la Grande Boucle, se retrouve aujourd'hui sous les feux de la
rampe pour autre chose que ses exploits sportifs. Le journal L'Equipe,
documents officiels à l'appui, démontre en effet que l'Américain a bien eu
recours à des produits dopants en 1999, lors de sa première conquête du Tour
de France.
Quatre mois d'enquête par le quotidien sportif ont abouti à cette
évidence. Les faits sont indiscutables : le leader de Discovery Channel,
durant six saisons à la tête de l'US Postal, a déjà utilisé régulièrement
des produits interdits en 1999 et aurait donc menti sur cette
non-consommation en compétition. Par six fois, lors des contrôles effectués
à l'issue de son prologue victorieux au Puy-du-Fou, le 3 juillet 1999, et
des étapes Montaigu - Challans (1re), Grand-Bornand - Sestrières (9e),
Sestrières - L'Alpe d'Huez (10e), Saint-Galmier - Saint-Flour (12e) et
Castres - Saint-Gaudens (14e), ses échantillons sont marqués par la
signature de cette hormone de synthèse, qui, par le biais d'une augmentation
de la population de globules rouges, permet une meilleure oxygénation
musculaire et un gain possible de performances que les physiologistes
évaluent à 30 % maximum. Ces analyses ont été effectuées par le laboratoire
de Châtenay-Malabry, celui-là même qui a mis au point le procédé de
détection de l'EPO. Le labo a travaillé, à partir de 2004, sur des
échantillons prélevés et congelés entre 1998 et 1999, une époque où
l'utilisation de l'EPO était monnaie courante dans le peloton. Les
scientifiques avaient pour objectif d'améliorer leurs méthodes de détection,
et non de tenter de contrôler les urines des coureurs plusieurs années
après.
Des contrôles qui n'en sont pas
Au total, douze échantillons ont été analysés par le célèbre
laboratoire dans ce but exclusivement expérimental, six d'entre eux étaient
la propriété du Texan, six de coureurs non identifiés. Pour preuve, le
journal publie les procès verbaux de contrôle de Lance Armstrong sur
lesquels figurent des numéros correspondant aux échantillons positifs.
«Jusqu'à preuve du contraire, aucun contrôle antidopage pratiqué sur
la personne de l'Américain ne s'est révélé positif depuis le Tour 2000. Et
cette affaire ne devrait paradoxalement avoir aucune suite disciplinaire»,
souligne néanmoins le quotidien sportif, faisant valoir qu'il ne s'agissait
pas de prendre des sanctions. Les conditions dans lesquels ont été révélés
les contrôles positifs de ces échantillons ne permettent en effet pas à
l'UCI de prendre des sanctions. Mais, l'affaire pourrait pourtant ne pas
rester sans suite. L'Agence Mondiale Antidopage étudie en effet la
possibilité d'éventuels recours juridiques. Ce même dossier pourrait aussi
atterrir entre les mains du pendant américain de l'AMA, l'USADA, qui a fait
ses preuves dans l'affaire Balco en sanctionnant des athlètes qui n'avaient
pas été préalablement contrôlé positif. Même si ces différentes possibiltés
de recours n'aboutissent pas, ces révélations ternissent néanmoins
terriblement l'image de Lance Armstrong et sèment du même coup le doute dans
les esprits concernant ses six autres victoires.
Armstrong a toujours nié et nie encore s'être dopé
L'avocat du coureur, Me Donald Manasse, contacté par le quotidien, a
indiqué qu'il avait pu s'entretenir brièvement avec Lance Armstrong,
actuellement aux Etats-Unis, mais que celui-ci ne souhaitait pas faire de
commentaire «à chaud» sans avoir «pu examiner ce qui est dit dans le
journal». Sa réaction n'a finalement pas tardé et le principal intéressé a
choisi son site Internet pour s'exprimer.
L'Américain n'a pas changé d'un iota son discours, répétant à l'envi
son innonence. «Encore une fois, un journal européen rapporte que j'ai été
contrôlé positif à des drogues favorisant la performance. Hélas, la chasse
aux sorcières continue et l'article de demain (ce mardi) n'est rien d'autre
que du journalisme à scandale . Le journal admet même dans son propre
article que la méthode scientifique en question ici est défaillante et que
je n'ai aucun moyen de me défendre. Ils disent : il n'y aura donc aucune
contre-expertise ni poursuites réglementaires, au sens strict, puisque les
droits de la défense ne peuvent être respectés. Je répèterai simplement ce
que j'ai dit à maintes reprises : je n'ai jamais pris de drogues favorisant
la performance.»
Après sa lutte victorieuse contre un cancer des testicules et son
retour dans le peloton, Lance Armstrong s'est toujours défendu bec et ongles
d'avoir utilisé un quelconque produit dopant malgré les suspicions. A une
seule reprise, le champion américain avait été contrôlé positif, lors du
tour 1999, mais avait été blanchi après que son équipe l'US Postal eut
produit un certificat médical montrant qu'il avait utilisé une pommade pour
soigner une douleur à la selle contenant un corticoïde interdit.
«Je voudrais adresser un message aux gens qui ne croient pas au
cyclisme, aux cyniques, aux sceptiques. Je suis navré qu'ils ne croient pas
au miracle, au rêve. Tant pis pour eux», s'était encore exclamé le champion
américain à l'issue de la dernière étape sur les Champs Elysées à Paris, le
24 juillet, avant de prendre sa retraite sportive. Affaire à suivre.
Robert Chung
Rumsas in 2002; Lafferty achieves erection ("'The seven-year drought is
over,' says wife"); Kunich blames left; Papai kills self; Cindy Sheehan:
"Thank god he didn't stop by Camp Casey."
Jet
>Coup de tonnerre. Un mois après avoir décroché sa septième victoire
>dans le Tour de France cet été, Lance Armstrong, jeune retraité, revient sur
>le devant de la scène. Mais il est cette fois question de dopage. Six de ses
>échantillons urinaires, collectés lors du Tour 1999 et analysés a posteriori
>par le labo de Châtenay-Malabry, sont marqués de la signature de l'EPO. Dans
>son édition du jeudi 23 août, L'EQUIPE en apporte la preuve. Pourtant, le
>Texan continue de nier s'être dopé sur son site Internet.
BS. They just repeated the same information in the first blurb but added
Armstrong's web comments. I don't see any new information, except they've
identified the itinerary of the stages in more detail. Yeah, that's
newsworthy, lol.
jj
B. Lafferty
"Jet" <j...@jetnet.com> wrote in message
news:jpvlg1t1860keirj9...@4ax.com...
If you saw them stick the needle in him, you'd say the EPO bottle was
mis-labeled and really just vitamins.
D. Ferguson
wrote:
>
>"Jet" <j...@jetnet.com> wrote in message
>news:jpvlg1t1860keirj9...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:11:42 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Coup de tonnerre. Un mois après avoir décroché sa septième victoire
>>>dans le Tour de France cet été, Lance Armstrong, jeune retraité, revient
>>>sur
>>>le devant de la scène. Mais il est cette fois question de dopage. Six de
>>>ses
>>>échantillons urinaires, collectés lors du Tour 1999 et analysés a
>>>posteriori
>>>par le labo de Châtenay-Malabry, sont marqués de la signature de l'EPO.
>>>Dans
>>>son édition du jeudi 23 août, L'EQUIPE en apporte la preuve. Pourtant, le
>>>Texan continue de nier s'être dopé sur son site Internet.
>>
>> BS. They just repeated the same information in the first blurb but added
>> Armstrong's web comments. I don't see any new information, except they've
>> identified the itinerary of the stages in more detail. Yeah, that's
>> newsworthy, lol.
>>
>> jj
>>
>
>If you saw them stick the needle in him, you'd say the EPO bottle was
>mis-labeled and really just vitamins.
>
Who gives a shit Lafferty? He was tested to the hilt so if he was
juiced up then probably everyone else was too. Which evens the playing
field.
Nothing is ever going to come of it.
He's retired now. You should consider retiring too.
Jet
Are you afraid of two independent laboratories verifying the contents of
the vial? Would you not be remiss as his defense lawyer to ask for this,
and for chain of custody for the seized materials?
C'mon, get real.
jj
B. Lafferty
"D. Ferguson" <Zeds_...@yahooremove.com> wrote in message
news:500mg15rcpgnq5bet...@4ax.com...
I guess your point is that this puts him in the same class as those E.
German gold medalists who were later show to have used dope when the
Stazi(sp?) files were finally obtained. Lets see if Mr. Armstrong sues
L'Equipe for defamation now that they've outright called him a liar.
Jet
>> He's retired now. You should consider retiring too.
>
>I guess your point is that this puts him in the same class as those E.
>German gold medalists who were later show to have used dope when the
>Stazi(sp?) files were finally obtained. Lets see if Mr. Armstrong sues
>L'Equipe for defamation now that they've outright called him a liar.
I don't think D. Ferguson's comment is appropriate. You did not continue to
post anti-LA comments to any great degree until now, at least. I think we
need both pro and ant- commentary, but I'd hope both would be balanced and
fair.
Did those East Germans get stripped of their medals post exposure?
Would you agree that LA not be stripped if the testing is equivocal, or if
he's unable to mount a defense, or if there's insufficient forensics?
Others might say 'were previous Tour winners stripped post retirement?'
If they do try to strip him based on this, it would be sad. What is your
position?
jj
Tom Kunich
you'd swear that he was being given intravenous drugs.
Tom Kunich
testing was to only take EPO out of racing. If he were relying on EPO
in a three week race in which he would have had to take it no later
than two weeks before the Tour began, he would be getting progressively
weaker as his hematocrit dropped, perhaps dramatically, due to the fact
that EPO causes such rapid generation of red blood cells that they
don't have the same lifespan as a natural RBC.
In other words, if EPO was the cause and since he wasn't shown positive
in the Tour despite all the testing, any LOGICAL person would expect
him to grow progressively weaker. Instead we see that generally he grew
relatively stronger like most Tour winners. But one thing is certainly,
Lafferty won't hesitate one second to defame anyone. Especially someone
that's looked up to.
We can we expect the Lafferty expose' of Albert Einstein?
GaryG
could obtain similar test results for other riders during that tour. I
would bet that the playing field was, indeed, "level".
GG
"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote in message
news:yDCOe.711$FW1...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
LOL--I'd recommend you for "Weekend Update" on SNL.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
RonSonic
Heavy smoker. Would never have had the power of concentration necessary if he
didn't have all that nicotine in his system.
Ron
TM
"Tom Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124802407....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> And if you saw someone giving Lance a spounge bath after >a workout
What made you think of giving Lance a sponge bath?
trg
soGOe.656$X25....@monger.newsread.com...
Read it again. He wrote "spounge bath", which is a combination of a sponge
bath and a tongue bath. Of course your question is still a good one.
Donald Munro
> Lafferty achieves erection ("'The seven-year drought is
> over,' says wife");
Sounds a bit like Rumsfeld's most recent trip out of Washington:
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133
Robert Chung
L'Equipe addresses this issue. They say there appear to have been three
different doses: the first before the prologue (which produced the
positives for the prologue and stage 1), then a second just before the
Alps (producing the positives for stages 9 and 10), then a final dose in
the Pyrenees (the 12th and 14th stages).
Jim Flom
>
> But one thing is certainly,
> Lafferty won't hesitate one second to defame anyone. Especially someone
> that's looked up to.
The higher up the flagpole you climb, the more there will be people trying
to shoot you in the a**.
Jet
wrote:
The way they handled it pre-urine test was to spend some time getting some
saline infusion to make sure the Hct was under 50%.
I would have thought that Postal was smarter than to actually take EPO
during the tour since it was known they would be storing the samples into
perpetuity. I think LA even mentioned in an interview that he knew they
stored his samples and would be able to test them. It gave me a chill when
he said that.
jj
D. Ferguson
wrote:
>
>I guess your point is that this puts him in the same class as those E.
>German gold medalists who were later show to have used dope when the
>Stazi(sp?) files were finally obtained. Lets see if Mr. Armstrong sues
>L'Equipe for defamation now that they've outright called him a liar.
>
I put you in the same class as those Southerners who relive the Civil
War every day.
gwhite
>
> I think we need both pro and ant- commentary,
> but I'd hope both would be balanced and fair.
Why do you hate the usenet?
Kyle Legate
>
>>If I read that right it is saying that the way that Lance beat the
>>testing was to only take EPO out of racing. If he were relying on EPO
>>in a three week race in which he would have had to take it no later
>>than two weeks before the Tour began, he would be getting progressively
>>weaker as his hematocrit dropped, perhaps dramatically, due to the fact
>>that EPO causes such rapid generation of red blood cells that they
>>don't have the same lifespan as a natural RBC.
>>
the rate of rbc maturation. There's no difference in the rbc quality.
Rene
"GaryG" <sorryn...@NOSPAMX.com> schreef in bericht
news:8LFOe.11934$cO6....@fe04.lga...
> Since L'Equipe seems to have a source inside the ministry, perhaps they
> could obtain similar test results for other riders during that tour. I
> would bet that the playing field was, indeed, "level".
>
With regards to EPO: no, it wasn't level. The laboratory tested ALL urine
samples
made during the 1999 Tour. Of those, 12 were found positive for EPO.
Six of them were from Lance Armstrong. So at most 6 other riders of the 188
or
so were positive as well.
Of course this doesn't tell anything about other drugs.
nob...@techemail.com
I read it as "spooge bath". We haven't had a good bukkake thread in a
while.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
news:430b775a$0$11075$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
Or about the level of EPO use.
12 positive tests (or seven at most, because Armstrong would probably have
left right after the first positive) would have been a ridiculously high
amount for any tour even somewhat recent. If this had happened during the
race, it could have been the end of the tour, or the scandal would be at
least as big as in 1998.
B. Lafferty
I don't know if any E. German's were ever stripped of medals. I suspect
not. I do recall that there were criminal convictions of some of the people
involved in the doping system.
At present, the Australian and Russian cycling federations are attempting to
have CAS strip Hamilton of his gold even though there was and can be no
positive test. The situation isn't totally analogous, but it may give some
indication of where things may go--maybe not.
That said, what *if* post-L'Equipe story, one or two people close to
Armstrong come forward and corroborate Emma O'Reilley"s story and present
evidence of what was in the package she delivered to Armstrong from Spain
(and it's EPO), and another of the Belgian staff with direct knowledge
(certainly not Bruynel but mayby someone like Julian DeVries that "diabetic"
mechanic) of Armstrong's actual use of EPO. UCI drug rules have not be
violated--no positive a&b samples--but there is now more than a
preponderance of evidence that Armstrong was using dope to win at least one
Tour. Should he be stripped of his win? It really doesn't matter, IMO. If
the truth is out, it's out and that's what matters. Of course there could
be a sporting fraud action against him and a few others. Keeps your eyes on
the Texas insurance case.
Jeff Jones
>
> With regards to EPO: no, it wasn't level. The laboratory tested ALL
> urine samples
> made during the 1999 Tour. Of those, 12 were found positive for EPO.
>
> Six of them were from Lance Armstrong. So at most 6 other riders of
> the 188 or
> so were positive as well.
>
At a (very very) rough guess, probably only a third of the Tour peloton was
tested in 1999.
By way of comparison, in 1998, 14 of the 102 samples tested were found to be
definite positives. ( See - "The Urine Test" in
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/sep00/oly00/news/drugsep2.shtml ).
But another 14 were suspiciously "high".
Definitely a sizeable proportion of the peloton was using EPO, but that
definitely doesn't make it a level playing field (in response to GaryG).
Jeff
Stu Fleming
> Definitely a sizeable proportion of the peloton was using EPO, but that
> definitely doesn't make it a level playing field (in response to GaryG).
May we suggest www.whitepages.co.nz. Swart, S.
--
IT Management. Tel: +64 3 479 5478
Web and database hosting, Co-location. Web: http://www.wic.co.nz
Software development. Email: ste...@wic.co.nz
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> "Jet" <j...@jetnet.com> wrote in message
> news:u84mg1ldboup2tq73...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:04:28 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>He's retired now. You should consider retiring too.
>>>
>>>I guess your point is that this puts him in the same class as those E.
>>>German gold medalists who were later show to have used dope when the
>>>Stazi(sp?) files were finally obtained. Lets see if Mr. Armstrong sues
>>>L'Equipe for defamation now that they've outright called him a liar.
>>
>>I don't think D. Ferguson's comment is appropriate. You did not continue
>>to
>>post anti-LA comments to any great degree until now, at least. I think we
>>need both pro and ant- commentary, but I'd hope both would be balanced and
>>fair.
>>
>>Did those East Germans get stripped of their medals post exposure?
>>
>>Would you agree that LA not be stripped if the testing is equivocal, or if
>>he's unable to mount a defense, or if there's insufficient forensics?
>>
>>Others might say 'were previous Tour winners stripped post retirement?'
>>
>>If they do try to strip him based on this, it would be sad. What is your
>>position?
>
>
> I don't know if any E. German's were ever stripped of medals. I suspect
> not. I do recall that there were criminal convictions of some of the people
> involved in the doping system.
Was this when the womens' swim coaches went to China?
I remember there was a civil case brought against the coaches in more
recent years, claiming the steroids had lead to sterility, cancer, liver
failure, etc.
Steve
>
> At present, the Australian and Russian cycling federations are attempting to
> have CAS strip Hamilton of his gold even though there was and can be no
> positive test. The situation isn't totally analogous, but it may give some
> indication of where things may go--maybe not.
>
> That said, what *if* post-L'Equipe story, one or two people close to
> Armstrong come forward and corroborate Emma O'Reilley"s story and present
> evidence of what was in the package she delivered to Armstrong from Spain
> (and it's EPO), and another of the Belgian staff with direct knowledge
> (certainly not Bruynel but mayby someone like Julian DeVries that "diabetic"
> mechanic) of Armstrong's actual use of EPO. UCI drug rules have not be
> violated--no positive a&b samples--but there is now more than a
> preponderance of evidence that Armstrong was using dope to win at least one
> Tour. Should he be stripped of his win? It really doesn't matter, IMO. If
> the truth is out, it's out and that's what matters. Of course there could
> be a sporting fraud action against him and a few others. Keeps your eyes on
> the Texas insurance case.
>
>
B. Lafferty
"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message
news:reMOe.2577$Ck2.154@trndny04...
> Was this when the womens' swim coaches went to China?
> I remember there was a civil case brought against the coaches in more
> recent years, claiming the steroids had lead to sterility, cancer, liver
> failure, etc.
>
> Steve
alex
frozen. This was part of some process to validate and calibrate improvements
on the existing test.
Now, the TdF happened before the Sydney Olimpics. Should not there be
similar (preolympic/pretest) samples for the year 2000? I guess that after
winning a TdF one could always move to the next level and leave the
detectable stuff to the suckers that do not have financial support or
medical supervision...
"Rene" <no...@nowhere.nl> wrote in message
news:430b775a$0$11075$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
NobodyMan
wrote:
Don't post binaries into a text group. I didn't want your crappy
picture on my hard drive.
Gunsberg
slap yet another low grade Libel suit onto L'Equipe, just to slow
things down.
Obviously, the timing for all this is not a coincidence. Armstrong
probably knew that his usage would be revealed after the 2005 TdF, and
that served to hasten his retirement. From his previous comments, and
the length of his contract with Discovery, he intended to compete
through 2006, and maybe vie for a Giro d'Italia title, or some
victories in the Spring Classics. Or well, if your reputation is up in
smoke anyhow, you might as well leave the scene with a win in Cycling's
biggest race.
He's probably lost tens of millions in endorsements because of
this.
D. Ferguson wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:43:34 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jet" <j...@jetnet.com> wrote in message
> >news:jpvlg1t1860keirj9...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:11:42 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Coup de tonnerre. Un mois après avoir décroché sa septième victoire
> >>>dans le Tour de France cet été, Lance Armstrong, jeune retraité, revient
> >>>sur
> >>>le devant de la scène. Mais il est cette fois question de dopage. Six de
> >>>ses
> >>>échantillons urinaires, collectés lors du Tour 1999 et analysés a
> >>>posteriori
> >>>par le labo de Châtenay-Malabry, sont marqués de la signature de l'EPO.
> >>>Dans
> >>>son édition du jeudi 23 août, L'EQUIPE en apporte la preuve. Pourtant, le
> >>>Texan continue de nier s'être dopé sur son site Internet.
> >>
> >> BS. They just repeated the same information in the first blurb but added
> >> Armstrong's web comments. I don't see any new information, except they've
> >> identified the itinerary of the stages in more detail. Yeah, that's
> >> newsworthy, lol.
> >>
> >> jj
> >>
> >
> >If you saw them stick the needle in him, you'd say the EPO bottle was
> >mis-labeled and really just vitamins.
> >
>
>
> Who gives a shit Lafferty? He was tested to the hilt so if he was
> juiced up then probably everyone else was too. Which evens the playing
> field.
>
> Nothing is ever going to come of it.
Tom Kunich
news:3n17ldF...@individual.net...
You're full of crap as usual. It increases the speed of RELEASE of rbc's and
hence a large percentage of those cells released aren't mature and hence
have significantly shorter spans if memory serves on the order of half the
life of a normal rbc.
Kyle Legate
>
> 12 positive tests (or seven at most, because Armstrong would probably have
> left right after the first positive) would have been a ridiculously high
> amount for any tour even somewhat recent. If this had happened during the
> race, it could have been the end of the tour, or the scandal would be at
> least as big as in 1998.
>
about a positive result.
In 5-6 years, if a test is developed for hGH or IGF or whatever else is
in vogue today, I would expect many of the stored B samples from this
year's Tour to test positive.
Donald Munro
> the truth is out, it's out and that's what matters. Of course there could
> be a sporting fraud action against him and a few others. Keeps your eyes on
> the Texas insurance case.
I thought 'sporting fraud' as a crime was only applicable in Italy ?
Donald Munro
You're not seeing the big picture.
Mad Dog
ceiling (as you jumped for joy) or make a mess on your keyboard? Was your
celebration closer to the dual-arm victory V thrust of a stage winner or a Ray
Lewis end zone dance?
In article <yDCOe.711$FW1...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, B. Lafferty
says...
>
> From L'Equipe today:
>
> ARMSTRONG DANS LA TOURMENTE
>
> Coup de tonnerre. Un mois après avoir décroché sa septième victoire
>dans le Tour de France cet été, Lance Armstrong, jeune retraité, revient sur
>le devant de la scène. Mais il est cette fois question de dopage. Six de ses
>échantillons urinaires, collectés lors du Tour 1999 et analysés a posteriori
>par le labo de Châtenay-Malabry, sont marqués de la signature de l'EPO. Dans
>son édition du jeudi 23 août, L'EQUIPE en apporte la preuve. Pourtant, le
>Texan continue de nier s'être dopé sur son site Internet.
>
>
> Documents officiels à l'appui
>
> Souvent soupçonné, jamais contrôlé positif. Lance Armstrong, septuple
>vainqueur de la Grande Boucle, se retrouve aujourd'hui sous les feux de la
>rampe pour autre chose que ses exploits sportifs. Le journal L'Equipe,
>documents officiels à l'appui, démontre en effet que l'Américain a bien eu
>recours à des produits dopants en 1999, lors de sa première conquête du Tour
>de France.
>
> Quatre mois d'enquête par le quotidien sportif ont abouti à cette
>évidence. Les faits sont indiscutables : le leader de Discovery Channel,
>durant six saisons à la tête de l'US Postal, a déjà utilisé régulièrement
>des produits interdits en 1999 et aurait donc menti sur cette
>non-consommation en compétition. Par six fois, lors des contrôles effectués
>à l'issue de son prologue victorieux au Puy-du-Fou, le 3 juillet 1999, et
>des étapes Montaigu - Challans (1re), Grand-Bornand - Sestrières (9e),
>Sestrières - L'Alpe d'Huez (10e), Saint-Galmier - Saint-Flour (12e) et
>Castres - Saint-Gaudens (14e), ses échantillons sont marqués par la
>signature de cette hormone de synthèse, qui, par le biais d'une augmentation
>de la population de globules rouges, permet une meilleure oxygénation
>musculaire et un gain possible de performances que les physiologistes
>évaluent à 30 % maximum. Ces analyses ont été effectuées par le laboratoire
>de Châtenay-Malabry, celui-là même qui a mis au point le procédé de
>détection de l'EPO. Le labo a travaillé, à partir de 2004, sur des
>échantillons prélevés et congelés entre 1998 et 1999, une époque où
>l'utilisation de l'EPO était monnaie courante dans le peloton. Les
>scientifiques avaient pour objectif d'améliorer leurs méthodes de détection,
>et non de tenter de contrôler les urines des coureurs plusieurs années
>après.
>
>
>
> Des contrôles qui n'en sont pas
>
> Au total, douze échantillons ont été analysés par le célèbre
>laboratoire dans ce but exclusivement expérimental, six d'entre eux étaient
>la propriété du Texan, six de coureurs non identifiés. Pour preuve, le
>journal publie les procès verbaux de contrôle de Lance Armstrong sur
>lesquels figurent des numéros correspondant aux échantillons positifs.
>
> «Jusqu'à preuve du contraire, aucun contrôle antidopage pratiqué sur
>la personne de l'Américain ne s'est révélé positif depuis le Tour 2000. Et
>cette affaire ne devrait paradoxalement avoir aucune suite disciplinaire»,
>souligne néanmoins le quotidien sportif, faisant valoir qu'il ne s'agissait
>pas de prendre des sanctions. Les conditions dans lesquels ont été révélés
>les contrôles positifs de ces échantillons ne permettent en effet pas à
>l'UCI de prendre des sanctions. Mais, l'affaire pourrait pourtant ne pas
>rester sans suite. L'Agence Mondiale Antidopage étudie en effet la
>possibilité d'éventuels recours juridiques. Ce même dossier pourrait aussi
>atterrir entre les mains du pendant américain de l'AMA, l'USADA, qui a fait
>ses preuves dans l'affaire Balco en sanctionnant des athlètes qui n'avaient
>pas été préalablement contrôlé positif. Même si ces différentes possibiltés
>de recours n'aboutissent pas, ces révélations ternissent néanmoins
>terriblement l'image de Lance Armstrong et sèment du même coup le doute dans
>les esprits concernant ses six autres victoires.
>
>
>
> Armstrong a toujours nié et nie encore s'être dopé
>
> L'avocat du coureur, Me Donald Manasse, contacté par le quotidien, a
>indiqué qu'il avait pu s'entretenir brièvement avec Lance Armstrong,
>actuellement aux Etats-Unis, mais que celui-ci ne souhaitait pas faire de
>commentaire «à chaud» sans avoir «pu examiner ce qui est dit dans le
>journal». Sa réaction n'a finalement pas tardé et le principal intéressé a
>choisi son site Internet pour s'exprimer.
>
> L'Américain n'a pas changé d'un iota son discours, répétant à l'envi
>son innonence. «Encore une fois, un journal européen rapporte que j'ai été
>contrôlé positif à des drogues favorisant la performance. Hélas, la chasse
>aux sorcières continue et l'article de demain (ce mardi) n'est rien d'autre
>que du journalisme à scandale . Le journal admet même dans son propre
>article que la méthode scientifique en question ici est défaillante et que
>je n'ai aucun moyen de me défendre. Ils disent : il n'y aura donc aucune
>contre-expertise ni poursuites réglementaires, au sens strict, puisque les
>droits de la défense ne peuvent être respectés. Je répèterai simplement ce
>que j'ai dit à maintes reprises : je n'ai jamais pris de drogues favorisant
>la performance.»
>
> Après sa lutte victorieuse contre un cancer des testicules et son
>retour dans le peloton, Lance Armstrong s'est toujours défendu bec et ongles
>d'avoir utilisé un quelconque produit dopant malgré les suspicions. A une
>seule reprise, le champion américain avait été contrôlé positif, lors du
>tour 1999, mais avait été blanchi après que son équipe l'US Postal eut
>produit un certificat médical montrant qu'il avait utilisé une pommade pour
>soigner une douleur à la selle contenant un corticoïde interdit.
>
> «Je voudrais adresser un message aux gens qui ne croient pas au
>cyclisme, aux cyniques, aux sceptiques. Je suis navré qu'ils ne croient pas
>au miracle, au rêve. Tant pis pour eux», s'était encore exclamé le champion
>américain à l'issue de la dernière étape sur les Champs Elysées à Paris, le
>24 juillet, avant de prendre sa retraite sportive. Affaire à suivre.
>
>
>
>
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
That's why doping really is a 'Damocles sword': if a test is used
unannounced, the amount of positives could be so big that the event or even
the sport could be seriously damaged. The media exposure would make any
debate about percentages senseless: 10% positive might be an indication of a
peloton in which the majority is clean, but 20 riders testing positive,
during the tour and not six years later, is a disaster.
Jet
wrote:
I'm doubtful there will be a test for rhGH, after all it is a human clone.
What could work is if they 'tag' the recombinant stuff so anyone taking it
will show it upon analysis. But that could be an expensive proposition.
By then there will probably be some gene doping going on...
Note that some drugs are not prohibited out of competition: (from
summary_2005.pdf):
II. Substances and Methods prohibited In-Competition:
S6 Stimulants
S7 Narcotics
S8 Cannabinoids
S9 Glucocorticosteriods
jj
laveritene...@hotmail.com
Tommy Boy,
Even if you were right, which you're not, your argument holds no water
because the average lifespan of a RBC is 90-120 days. So even if, as
you suggest, EPO induced RBCs only 'lived' half as long that would be
45-60 days e.g. more than enough time to get through the Tour which
only lasts 21 days. Furthermore, RBCs aren't released as mature cells
from the bone marrow. They are released as reticulocytes which then
mature into RBCs. As Kyle said, EPO works quantitatively not
qualitatively.
andre...@aol.com
Jet wrote:
> II. Substances and Methods prohibited In-Competition:
Prohibited?
I thought they were highly encouraged in some outdoor events. Before,
after and sometimes during, maaaaaaaaaaannn!!!!!!