In today's L'Equipe: Armstrong took EPO
Robert Chung
(My loose translation of the juicy bits)
"I've never used prohibited products, either EPO or anything else."
Despite this claim, often repeated and sometimes accompanied by "it's up
to you journalists to figure out if I'm lying or telling the truth,"
L'Equipe is today able to contradict the seven-time winner of the Tour de
France. Recent analyses of samples taken during Armstrong's first Tour
victory in 1999 show that he had taken doping products.
After four months of investigation, and one month after his seventh
victory and his retirement from professional cycling, the facts are
indisputable: the leader of the Discovery Channel and US Postal teams had
regularly used illegal doping products in 1999 during competition and lied
about it. Six samples, taken after the prologue, 1st, 9th, 10th, 12th, and
14th stages have been analysed by the national doping laboratory and found
to contain the signature of EPO.
danl...@hotmail.com
his recovery during cancer treatment, but there is a question whether
this was an unfair advantage for his subsequent cycling achievements.
davidof
>
> After four months of investigation, and one month after his seventh
> victory and his retirement from professional cycling, the facts are
> indisputable
Well maybe, but a leak by the French Sports Ministry to a newspaper
doesn't amount to indisputable facts. The French authorities have long
been out to "get Armstrong" and the fact someon within the ministry
leaked these tests shows they are not exactly unbiased.
It all amounts to very little in the end as the results... if they can
be confirmed, cannot be used to sanction Armstrong - except through
press leaks. In l'Equipe they even mention that the science is far from
certain. Still it achieved its aim - it made me go and buy a copy of
l'Equipe.
B. Lafferty
"Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:3mvv2vF...@individual.net...
Interesting that the UCI labs never picked up the drugs. The equipement
Armstrong's money paid for must be defective. To paraphrase Greg Lemond,
it's the greatest sporting fraud in history.
Jet
What's interesting is the quote. ""I've never used prohibited products,
either EPO or anything else.", vs "I will simply restate what I have said
many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs.
I never took any illegal performance enhancing drugs".
The headlines are also misquoting to a degree:
"Lance Armstrong has denied French newspaper claims that he failed doping
tests in 1999."
vs
The national doping testing laboratory of Chatenay-Malabry near Paris had
found traces of EPO in six of Armstrong's urine samples, L'Equipe reported.
vs
Six samples, taken after the prologue, 1st, 9th, 10th, 12th, and
14th stages have been analysed by the national doping laboratory and found
to contain the signature of EPO.
Finding 'traces' is different than 'signature', which is not at all the
same as "failing the doping tests in 1999", implying that the failure was
other than the cortisol creme incident to the incautious reader. Certainly
he didn't fail the 1999 EPO test.
One might argue that if they tested 100 other riders samples from the 1999
race with the new 2005 test - whatever that is - that these tests might all
be positive.
In addition since there has been some 'false positives' on other doping
tests recently reported (late spring 2005 - forget what it was), it could
be argues that surely not every rider in 1999 would show up positive on the
new test - that means the storage caused a problem with all the samples
which is cross-reacting with the new test.
There's no chain of custory apparent.
There's the disclaimer: 'There will therefore be no counter-exam nor
regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since defendant's rights cannot
be respected', yet it's followed by comments about WADA looking into 'legal
channels'.
I'm sure the guys withholding the bonus pay off that LA's filed to receive
are dancing on their desks.
Even those that have issues with Armstrong should view this as some kind of
kangaroo court, imo.
"We've finally smeared you, you can't do anything about it, and we don't
need to do anything more to get the hornets buzzing and keep you from your
bonus held in escrow." Maybe the stupid French rumor-mongering press and
the boneheads at WADA will be happy when they discover their actions cause
a huge downturn in the popularity of the Tour, sure to happen slightly
anyway over levels in past years now that Armstrong has departed.
IMO, it would have been more prudent for Armstrong not to have said
anything, but that's hard , b/c it's tantamount to having no defense.
Rather than issue a new "quote-able" equivocation, he should have just
laughed and said 'The French are always looking for ways to sell
newspapers', and gone on his way.
jj
Jet
<danl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't think this has actually been reported though they tried to get it
out of LA's family members and the Doctors at his treatment facility who
wouldn't say anything due to pt confidentiality.
No need to report rumors as fact.
jj
Jet
<david....@g-dumpthisbit-mail.com> wrote:
I'd like to know just what the new 'science' is. Are there control samples
with 'traces of EPO' being stored along with the rider's samples to test
the effects of storage and possible sample degradation? Is there a clear
forensic chain of custory, with dual signatures on any samples signed out
for testing?
I seriously doubt it, though to try and take this through the French courts
would be lunacy. I hope there's a backlash and the French get hoisted on
their own petards! ;-)
jj
Robert Chung
>
> What's interesting is the quote. ""I've never used prohibited products,
> either EPO or anything else.", vs "I will simply restate what I have
> said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs.
> I never took any illegal performance enhancing drugs".
Reading your exegesis is entertaining, but at some point you should
realize that you're basing your analysis on something that was originally
said in English by Armstrong, then translated into French by French
journalists, then translated back into English by yours truly.
B. Lafferty
"Jet" <j...@jetnet.com> wrote in message
news:eitlg1pikchb47835...@4ax.com...
Jet
To post a comment which seems on the surface that you're trying to add this
circus, but which, upon closer reading, shows how ludicrous it all is
puzzles me.
Armstrong never paid for any specific equiment, Brian, nor would he have
anyway to recommend any. To use that kind of moronic comment tells me
you're grabbing at straws.
However your last comment 'it's the greatest sporting fraud in history'
contains delicious irony. Yes, the French are committing fraud in issuing
this dodgy announcement, with equivocal results (LA:"The paper even admits
in its own article that the science in question here is faulty.")
Good job, lol. You've lost all credibilty.
jj
B. Lafferty
You're wrong. Check previous comments by Vergruggen.
>
> However your last comment 'it's the greatest sporting fraud in history'
> contains delicious irony. Yes, the French are committing fraud in issuing
> this dodgy announcement, with equivocal results (LA:"The paper even admits
> in its own article that the science in question here is faulty.")
>
It's over, Dude. Give it up. BTW, I wonder how Ms. Crow is doing this
morning.
Jet
wrote:
Exactly. There wasn't any 'analysis', just that it's not really clear just
what he said, word-for-word.
It's of mild interest for those trying to read between the lines. It's
often been commented that he's never given a clear or unequivocal
statement. In addition there's some thought that he did use performance
enhancing materials, but at the time they were not specifically prohibited.
By having multiple quotes either in print, or on a newsgroup, an Armstrong
defender could say 'well we don't really know exactly what he said'. An
Armstrong detractor could view them all as separate quotes.
I don't think we're ever going to be able to dig up any new truth, though
the reporting may cause some harm to Armstrong. None of the other multiple
tour winners had completely sterling pasts wrt doping, that I'm aware, and
what has been reported is certainly more substantial than this crap.
jj
Jet
>> Armstrong never paid for any specific equiment, Brian, nor would he have
>> anyway to recommend any. To use that kind of moronic comment tells me
>> you're grabbing at straws.
>
>You're wrong. Check previous comments by Vergruggen.
Who's he, the Kazakhstan UCI Liaison? He only works with, Salvodelli and a
few others. ;-)
OTOH, if you know any comments by Hein Verbruggan concerning Armstrong's
power to purchase specific equipment, don't be coy, post them.
As far as 'giving it up, dude', I'm neither strongly for or against
Armstrong, though I see real problems the way UCI and WADA do business.
jj
ne...@pro-it.be
Jet wrote:
> One might argue that if they tested 100 other riders samples from the 1999
> race with the new 2005 test - whatever that is - that these tests might all
> be positive.
>From what I understand, they tested samples for all of the riders from
the '99 tour anonymously. They had 12 positives, and when they looked
up the codes for the positive ones, 6 of them turned out to be LA...
--
Regards, Dave
D. Ferguson
wrote:
>Deal with it. Armstrong's done. Stick a fork in him and turn him over.
>
HELLO HELLO, POT? YEAH, THIS IS KETTLE. GUESS WHAT? YOU'RE
BLACK!!!!
Robert Chung
[quote comparison snipped]
> Certainly he didn't fail the 1999 EPO test.
Dude, pay attention: there was no EPO test in 1999.
> One might argue that if they tested 100 other riders samples from the
> 1999 race with the new 2005 test - whatever that is - that these tests
> might all be positive.
The exact number of samples isn't clear from the article, but they show a
scan of the original test summary and there are at least 70 samples
visible in the photo. Eleven of those 70 are positive, six of them are
Armstrong's. The twelfth positive must be on another page, so we know
there were more than 70 samples taken and we also know that not all of
them were positive.
Jet
Well at least this is new information...
jj
B. Lafferty
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:45:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote:
>
>>> Armstrong never paid for any specific equiment, Brian, nor would he have
>>> anyway to recommend any. To use that kind of moronic comment tells me
>>> you're grabbing at straws.
>>
>>You're wrong. Check previous comments by Vergruggen.
>
> Who's he, the Kazakhstan UCI Liaison? He only works with, Salvodelli and a
> few others. ;-)
>
> OTOH, if you know any comments by Hein Verbruggan concerning Armstrong's
> power to purchase specific equipment, don't be coy, post them.
"Armstrong finances the new blood tests. We needed a machine for this and
that was quite expensive."
http://www.cyclingpost.com/tour/article_00715.shtml
>
> As far as 'giving it up, dude', I'm neither strongly for or against
> Armstrong, though I see real problems the way UCI and WADA do business.
Note that WADA certifies labs. It does not itself do testing. I find it
interesting that it is usually governmental authorities, usually French or
Italian, who come up with the goods--not the UCI.
Van Hoorebeeck Bart
Robert Chung schreef:
> and we also know that not all of
> them were positive.
No, but they are just waiting for the improved new science analysis in 2012.
Robert Chung
> BTW, I wonder how Ms. Crow is doing this morning.
Curses. I had a side bet going about how long you'd go before you
mentioned her. I took 30 minutes and under, and it appears from the time
stamp that you went 34 minutes. Damn you. I feel like Fignon in 1989.
Jet
You're not looking any better by posting in all caps.
jj
Van Hoorebeeck Bart
Robert Chung schreef:
> Curses. I had a side bet going about how long you'd go before you
> mentioned her. I took 30 minutes and under, and it appears from the time
> stamp that you went 34 minutes. Damn you. I feel like Fignon in 1989.
While the Laffman feels like Lemond on 23 August 2005.
Jeff Jones
Yep - all the B samples left over in the freezer from 1999 were tested (no A
samples left):
Update at: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug23news3
Unsure of the ID of the other six positives.
Jeff
ila...@yahoo.com
page 2
of L'Equipe is pictures of the results of the test, plus an impressive
chart, with Armstrong's "irregular" numbers circled in red. However,
nowhere
in the article is there an explanation of what these numbers mean, and
how
they deviate from the norm. In other words, they accuse by presenting
evidence that is not explained. Sounds like the French press needed a
new Dreyfus.
-ilan
Robert Chung a écrit :
Jet
>
>"Jet" <j...@jetnet.com> wrote in message
>news:ie0mg15io2lto1uij...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:45:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> Armstrong never paid for any specific equiment, Brian, nor would he have
>>>> anyway to recommend any. To use that kind of moronic comment tells me
>>>> you're grabbing at straws.
>>>
>>>You're wrong. Check previous comments by Vergruggen.
>>
>> Who's he, the Kazakhstan UCI Liaison? He only works with, Salvodelli and a
>> few others. ;-)
>>
>> OTOH, if you know any comments by Hein Verbruggan concerning Armstrong's
>> power to purchase specific equipment, don't be coy, post them.
>
>"Armstrong finances the new blood tests. We needed a machine for this and
>that was quite expensive."
>http://www.cyclingpost.com/tour/article_00715.shtml
Ok, thanks, I will retract some of my previous comments to a degree. Do you
really believe his equipment was selected by Armstrong, or purchased by him
because he knew it was not top of the line? I'm not asking for proof, just
if you really do suspect something diabolical like this.
>> As far as 'giving it up, dude', I'm neither strongly for or against
>> Armstrong, though I see real problems the way UCI and WADA do business.
>
>Note that WADA certifies labs. It does not itself do testing. I find it
>interesting that it is usually governmental authorities, usually French or
>Italian, who come up with the goods--not the UCI.
What I don't like is the way they may have leaked information prematurely,
possibly harming riders' reputations, and are not bending over backwards to
be sure they are being fair, impartial and if they have oversight over the
labs' testing that they assure careful analysis, proper controls and
verified proficiency testing, chain-of-custody, and insisted on accuracy,
precision, sensitivity and reliability of such testing.
To the extent that they do that, or wish that to be done, then I have no
problems with them.
I also think they should be willing to split controversial sample and allow
riders to have their own independent labs test to rule out
misidentification, fraud and improper scientific conclusions. It's good
that they did allow a panel to convene and for Tyler to be able to select
two reps for that panel.
Please don't alienate those here who are still making up their minds by
using fearmongering and unpleasant attacks against the posters who inquire.
If you do you'll end up being killfiled by everyone, man, and I do think
you have some ability to post responsible content, so I don't want that.
jj
Jet
wrote:
>Jet wrote:
>
>[quote comparison snipped]
>
>> Certainly he didn't fail the 1999 EPO test.
>
>Dude, pay attention: there was no EPO test in 1999.
Apologies. I should have said 'a' not 'the', since due to this para:
Urine tests for EPO were not as advanced in 1999 as now, with more modern
testing methods becoming common after the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney and
the 2001 Tour de France, the paper reported.
...it wasn't clear that there was no EPO test being applied by the Tour in
1999. Are you sure? At the least you can see how this is another example of
misleading reporting, causing casual readers to infer what I did. ;-/
I should have done a little more research to see if the Tour was using this
less advanced test. Can you post a cite for when they started testing for
EPO for the Tour? It may be that riders, knowing they were not testing yet
were less careful in using masking agents or tapering in time.
>> One might argue that if they tested 100 other riders samples from the
>> 1999 race with the new 2005 test - whatever that is - that these tests
>> might all be positive.
>
>The exact number of samples isn't clear from the article, but they show a
>scan of the original test summary and there are at least 70 samples
>visible in the photo. Eleven of those 70 are positive, six of them are
>Armstrong's. The twelfth positive must be on another page, so we know
>there were more than 70 samples taken and we also know that not all of
>them were positive.
Like I said, this is more information, and changes the spin a little.
Thanks for the detailed description.
jj
Stu Fleming
> Unsure of the ID of the other six positives.
Probably the owner of those samples is deceased.
--
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
ila...@yahoo.com
Jeff Jones a écrit :
> Unsure of the ID of the other six positives.
The L'Equipe article says that these will undoubtedly be revealed
in the future.
-ilan
Robert Chung
> On page 2 of L'Equipe is pictures of the results of the test, plus an
> impressive chart, with Armstrong's "irregular" numbers circled in red.
> However, nowhere in the article is there an explanation of what these
> numbers mean, and how they deviate from the norm. In other words, they
> accuse by presenting evidence that is not explained. Sounds like the
> French press needed a new Dreyfus.
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/equipe23aug05.jpg
The numbers circled in red are the flask numbers which are keyed to
collection forms with Armstrong's name and the same flask numbers. As Ilan
has said, there's no explanation of what the test result numbers mean.
Jenko
> Jeff Jones wrote:
>
> > Unsure of the ID of the other six positives.
>
> Probably the owner of those samples is deceased.
No, we are talking the Tour samples here, not those from Giro'99.
Jenko
Tom Kunich
shown that some people generate a chemical in their bodies under stress
of exercise that shows up as EPO in tests.
Tom Kunich
material but which is 100% detectable at the time. And somehow
Armstrong manages to pass the test in 6 cases in which otherwise he'd
have been found positive.
Uh-huh.
Van Hoorebeeck Bart
Tom Kunich schreef:
> And you ought to note what Jet mentioned - namely that it has been
> shown that some people generate a chemical in their bodies under stress
> of exercise that shows up as EPO in tests.
That is a rare condition, but yes, currently Rutger Beke is being contacted
by EPO-sinners worldwide for information on that.
ne...@pro-it.be
If that would be the case for LA, he would have tested positive in the
later TDF editions where they actually tested for EPO, wouldn't he? Or
am I mistaken here?
--
Regards, Dave
Van Hoorebeeck Bart
ne...@pro-it.be schreef:
> If that would be the case for LA, he would have tested positive in the
> later TDF editions where they actually tested for EPO, wouldn't he? Or
> am I mistaken here?
>
Yes, but never mind, on a day like this any argument will help to find
comfort.
Tom Kunich
hematocrit to judge EPO use.
Jenko
>
> That is a rare condition, but yes, currently Rutger Beke is being contacted
> by EPO-sinners worldwide for information on that.
http://www.rutgerbeke.com/en/news/march082005.asp
is pretty informative about the test problems. It seems contamination
with bacteria is required to invalidate the test. The WADA document
"Evaluation Report of the Urine EPO test" must be in high demand as
well, but was removed from its website.
Jenko
Tom Kunich
Antti Salonen
> Don't you think that it's significant that only 12 would test positive?
Not 12, but at most seven. There were 12 positive B samples of which six
were Armstrong's. I don't think anybody knows from how many different
riders the other six samples are.
-as
ila...@yahoo.com
anti Lance band wagon. This article in Liberation seems to accuse
L'Equipe as much as Armstrong:
http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=318805
Van Hoorebeeck Bart
Merckx: "I take Lance's word over any journalist's."
Leblanc : "Shocked!"
Simeoni: "Now see."
Voet : "I knew him before and after the disease. It was a different person. He
should explain how he rides up Alpe d'Huez at 25 kmh"
Tom Kunich
chromotography equipment. There is still quite a lot of
LC equipment out there with my name all over the drawings. We had a lab
that would develop any detection system that was appropriate for LC.
It was seldom that any requested test took longer than a couple of
weeks to develope. So if someone tells me that they took a couple of
years to develope an EPO test I have to wonder about that.
Mike Owens
"Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:3n0k3uF...@individual.net...
test looked for the presence of EPO (or perhaps EPO fragments) that migrated
differently during gel electrophoresis (can separate proteins by size and
electrical charge). Natural EPO tendend to have significantly less of what
are termed "basic" fragments (as in acidic and basic). I am not certain but
I seem to remember that natural EPO was substantially less than 40% basic.
The recombinant EPO is produced by cell lines that are different than the
human kidney from which natural human EPO is produced and although the
protein is identical, or nearly so, the cell lines make "post-translational
modifications" to the protein that make it more "basic" compared to natural
EPO. Column B clearly shows this.
Column A almost certainly means Yes/No as to whether it looks like bands are
migrating to the "basic" part of the gel more so than normally expected.
Column B is just a numerical verification of A using some type of
densitometry.
Kyle can add more details but the technique they use has been made public
previously.
-Mike
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
news:1124803781.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Johan Museeuw and David Millar used EPO, but never tested positive. Isn't it
effective longer than it can be detected?
Van Hoorebeeck Bart
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" schreef:
>
>
> Johan Museeuw and David Millar used EPO, but never tested positive. Isn't it
> effective longer than it can be detected?
Isn't the Festina gang the best example ?
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
message news:430B3097...@wvc.vlaanderen.be...
Of what...
Van Hoorebeeck Bart
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" schreef:
>
> Of what...
Really long-term benefits.
Jenko
> Don't you think that it's significant that only 12 would test positive?
Well, it had only been 14 in 1998
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/sep00/oly00/news/drugsep2.shtml
By 1999, cyclists have already been warned of French police methods,
and one would expected they refrained from carrying and taking dope
while racing.
Jenko
Sandy
Jet <j...@jetnet.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Finding 'traces' is different than 'signature', which is not at all
> the same as "failing the doping tests in 1999",
I see - you still want to believe ...
> One might argue that if they tested 100 other riders samples from the
> 1999 race with the new 2005 test - whatever that is - that these
> tests might all be positive.
Again, I see - you need to believe he's no worse than other dopers ...
> In addition since there has been some 'false positives' on other
> doping tests recently reported (late spring 2005 - forget what it
> was), it could be argues that surely not every rider in 1999 would
> show up positive on the new test - that means the storage caused a
> problem with all the samples which is cross-reacting with the new
> test.
Aha ! You're his PR guy, with a little bit of scientific script ...
> There's no chain of custory [sic] apparent.
Really ? You should win, of course, unless this just means you don't
actually know ...
> There's the disclaimer: 'There will therefore be no counter-exam nor
> regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since defendant's rights
> cannot be respected', yet it's followed by comments about WADA
> looking into 'legal channels'.
Aren't you glad our French law is so strict ? No prosecution, is seems ...
> I'm sure the guys withholding the bonus pay off that LA's filed to
> receive are dancing on their desks.
No, not yet. Armstrong has, of course, the opportunity to cast doubt on
such evidence, when he sues for his money. Watch for that follow up. Wait,
but not _too_ long ...
> Even those that have issues with Armstrong should view this as some
> kind of kangaroo court, imo.
Where is the court ?? I usually know where the court is, over here. But
seems to be none invoked. I thought there was a scientific report and a
newspaper article on it.
> "We've finally smeared you, you can't do anything about it, and we
> don't need to do anything more to get the hornets buzzing and keep
> you from your bonus held in escrow." Maybe the stupid French
> rumor-mongering press and the boneheads at WADA will be happy when
> they discover their actions cause a huge downturn in the popularity
> of the Tour, sure to happen slightly anyway over levels in past years
> now that Armstrong has departed.
Of course, the American rumour-mongering press will leave this alone,
entirely, as there is no interest.
> IMO, it would have been more prudent for Armstrong not to have said
> anything, but that's hard , b/c it's tantamount to having no defense.
> Rather than issue a new "quote-able" equivocation, he should have just
> laughed and said 'The French are always looking for ways to sell
> newspapers', and gone on his way.
Funny, I thought _all_ newspapers, everywhere have a lust to be sold.
Just for fun - nothing serious - what if all of this is true ? Just, what
if ? Are your spirits crushed ?
A note of warning : it will be _your_ USADA to come after Armstrong, if
anyone. He was a fine racer, so we think in France. He's retired. We are
watching other news, ourselves. Like another second place for Ullrich. It
could get boring.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
Bob
<ila...@yahoo.com> wrote
> In any case, it seems that the French press has not jumped on the
> anti Lance band wagon. This article in Liberation seems to accuse
> L'Equipe as much as Armstrong:
> http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=318805
??? where does this article accuses L'equipe of anything?
Jenko
>
> Kyle can add more details but the technique they use has been made public
> previously.
The current Wada method is described in
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/td2004epo_en.pdf
No mention of the "Classement mathematique" criteria.
It's not clear either -at least to me- whether they used the current
EPO test or an enhanced, and unpublished, one that corrects the flaws
identified in Rutger Beke's case (even if the tests were made before
Beke's false positive, which is my understanding).
Jenko
Jet
>In any case, it seems that the French press has not jumped on the
>anti Lance band wagon. This article in Liberation seems to accuse
>L'Equipe as much as Armstrong:
>http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=318805
>
>-ilan
Thanks ilian.
I've found a .pdf copy on the 'net, if anyone wants it, let me know and
I'll send it.
jj
Jet
>A note of warning : it will be _your_ USADA to come after Armstrong, if
>anyone. He was a fine racer, so we think in France. He's retired. We are
>watching other news, ourselves. Like another second place for Ullrich. It
>could get boring.
>--
>Bonne route !
>
>Sandy
>Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
Excellent counterpoint of my, perhaps prematurely commentary. I can't find
fault with any of it, and in fact, it was clever and humorous.
I retract my comment about the French media, and offer an apology on that.
Now it appears this could be (at least) a PR disaster for Lance.
Thanks for taking the time.
jj
Basjan
> Meanwhile the usual suspects line up for comments:
>
> person. He
> should explain how he rides up Alpe d'Huez at 25 kmh"
The irony being that this is not even the fastest time/speed up Alpe d'Huez!
If I remember correctly, Pantani holds this distinction, and he was indeed
suspended due to the use of illegal substances.
Sad conclusion, for me anyways, is that most everyone in the peloton use
some sort of enhancement, which should level the playing field a bit.
And whether I like it or not, Lance was still the best TdF rider (given this
supposedly leveled playing field).
Basjan
Jim Flom
>
> It's over, Dude. Give it up. BTW, I wonder how Ms. Crow is doing this
> morning.
It's over, is it? Can we quote you on that, Brian. This is the Big Day the
Armstrong house of cards comes tumbling down, that the emperor of cycling
has no clothes? Let's see, what other images can we resurrect? This is
sure to be one of those days where fifteen years from now, we'll all know
where we were the day Armstrong's "shit hit the fan?"
I don't think so.
Sorry you lost the bet, Chung.
Tim Lines
> Reading your exegesis is entertaining, but at some point you should
> realize that you're basing your analysis on something that was originally
> said in English by Armstrong, then translated into French by French
> journalists, then translated back into English by yours truly.
>
>
To illustrate the point, here's what happened when Star Wars Episode III
was dubbed in Chinese and then the recorded dialogue was translated back
to english for captioning:
http://www.winterson.com/2005/06/episode-iii-backstroke-of-west.html
Jim Flom
message news:430B2CB2...@wvc.vlaanderen.be...
Lafferty: "The smoking gun!"
Kunich: "The sponge bath!"
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
I have it on good authority that the United States American Dental
Association is not interested in bringing charges.
Steve
He was a fine racer, so we think in France. He's retired. We are
> watching other news, ourselves. Like another second place for Ullrich. It
> could get boring.
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
trg
430b332a$1$23830$636a...@news.free.fr...
> Dans le message de news:eitlg1pikchb47835...@4ax.com,
> Jet <j...@jetnet.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Of course, the American rumour-mongering press will leave this alone,
> entirely, as there is no interest.
Front page of USA Today (at least the electronic edition. The print edition
will be out tomorrow).
Ewoud Dronkert
>
> I've found a .pdf copy on the 'net, if anyone wants it, let me know and
> I'll send it.
Huh? Why not have a look at the print layout:
http://www.liberation.fr/imprimer.php?Article=318805
--
E. Dronkert
Jet
It appears, then that the way one might circumvent this "problem" with the
fragments migrating differently would be to either somehow purify the
recombinant EPO so that it performs similarly on the electrophoresis, or
modify the cell lines, or the product.
Shouldn't be too difficult with some tinkering, and (sad to say) those with
the connections or money to obtain this would have it.
In fact, could a person with sufficient resources hire a team to produce
EPO that is electorphoretically indistinguishable from human, fund it
through the research and keep it, and the products secret?
Could a team be assembled that could take standard recombinant EPO and
identify ways to purify it, or find batches that had less of the
charactistics that would test 'hot'? (This seems more likely to me, but I'm
making wild guesses here).
jj
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Hysterical--thanks!!
Steve
Jet
I'm talking about the L'Equipe edition, E.
jj
Jet
Tim Campbell
If this turns out to have substance to it, I will not be surprised.
Armstrong already amply demonstrated that he is ethically-challenged by
the way he behaved in his marriage.
Robert Chung
[snip]
Thanks. That's very clear.
sonarrat
> On 23 Aug 2005 00:09:01 -0700, "danl...@hotmail.com"
> <danl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Armstrong did take EPO for one of its approved medical uses, to help
>>his recovery during cancer treatment, but there is a question whether
>>this was an unfair advantage for his subsequent cycling achievements.
>
>
> I don't think this has actually been reported though they tried to get it
> out of LA's family members and the Doctors at his treatment facility who
> wouldn't say anything due to pt confidentiality.
>
> No need to report rumors as fact.
Lance published this fact in his own book, It's Not About The Bike. I
know because I read it. As I understand it, isn't EPO a naturally
occurring substance in the body anyway?
-Sonarrat.
sonarrat
That just keeps getting funnier and funnier.
Donald Munro
> In fact, could a person with sufficient resources hire a team to produce
> EPO that is electorphoretically indistinguishable from human, fund it
> through the research and keep it, and the products secret?
Why not ask Victor Conte.
ila...@yahoo.com
Bob a écrit :
At the end, it states that L'Equipe belongs to ASO, and they waited
till Armstrong's Tour career was over before turning over the
"incriminating" information.
-ilan
ila...@yahoo.com
Tim Campbell a écrit :
> If this turns out to have substance to it, I will not be surprised.
> Armstrong already amply demonstrated that he is ethically-challenged by
> the way he behaved in his marriage.
So far, the best response I've seen! POTM!!
-ilan
Robert Chung
>
> From the very beginning of the urine EPO test, it was made clear that
> the test looked for the presence of EPO (or perhaps EPO fragments) that
> migrated differently during gel electrophoresis (can separate proteins
> by size and electrical charge). Natural EPO tendend to have
> significantly less of what are termed "basic" fragments (as in acidic
> and basic). I am not certain but I seem to remember that natural EPO
> was substantially less than 40% basic. The recombinant EPO is produced
> by cell lines that are different than the human kidney from which
> natural human EPO is produced and although the protein is identical, or
> nearly so, the cell lines make "post-translational modifications" to
> the protein that make it more "basic" compared to natural EPO. Column
> B clearly shows this.
>
> Column A almost certainly means Yes/No as to whether it looks like
> bands are migrating to the "basic" part of the gel more so than
> normally expected. Column B is just a numerical verification of A using
> some type of densitometry.
>
> Kyle can add more details but the technique they use has been made
> public previously.
> -Mike
It also makes clearer something that I hadn't understood from the original
article: these are results from the current EPO test as applied to the old
urine samples. The article said that they had used the old urine samples
to calibrate a new test so I was confused about which test results these
were.
Thanks again for the explanation.
sonarrat
after reading more posts, I suppose not.. I really don't follow doping
discussions. They're so dull.
ila...@yahoo.com
ila...@yahoo.com a écrit :
> In any case, it seems that the French press has not jumped on the
> anti Lance band wagon. This article in Liberation seems to accuse
> L'Equipe as much as Armstrong:
> http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=318805
Except, of course, for Le Monde, which devotes its editorial to
Armstrong's guilt, with plenty of "we told you so"s to boot.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3232,36-682016@51-636140,0.html
I wonder if Le Monde was around during "La Terreur". In any case,
they don't seem to believe that there is any defence against
accusations which have been recognised as not being up to a legal
standard.
-ilan
Donald Munro
> after reading more posts, I suppose not.. I really don't follow doping
> discussions. They're so dull.
Yes the helmet threads are much more invigorating.
Bill Sornson
Go pick up another "Globe" in the checkout line, moron.
Robert Chung
> <ila...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>> In any case, it seems that the French press has not jumped on the
>> anti Lance band wagon. This article in Liberation seems to accuse
>> L'Equipe as much as Armstrong:
>> http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=318805
>
It helps to know that Liberation is still pissed at the fore-runner of
L'Equipe from WWII.
Curtis L. Russell
<bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
> I have it on good authority that the United States American Dental
>Association is not interested in bringing charges.
>
>Steve
That should put a cap on it then.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Donald Munro
>> I have it on good authority that the United States American Dental
>>Association is not interested in bringing charges.
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> That should put a cap on it then.
Apparently they're not interested in getting to the root of the problem.
Bill Sornson
> Armstrong did take EPO for one of its approved medical uses, to help
> his recovery during cancer treatment, but there is a question whether
> this was an unfair advantage for his subsequent cycling achievements.
Has this been documented? Seems pretty important. One would expect that to
be common knowledge by now.
Also, if that's true, then how did he go on to win SIX MORE Tours while
being tested to the max? The effects of EPO (or any P-E drug) are only
temporary, right? So apparently it WASN'T the difference if indeed he took
it (approved or otherwise).
Bill S.
Jet
Surely we don't know the facts about the marriage breakup do we? The 'buzz'
around Austin was that there was some infidelity on both sides.
Ethics aside, the number of people/couples who have managed to survive fame
and success without some sort of messing around is vanishingly small. There
are probably notable exceptions, I believe Sean Connery is still married to
his first wife...ok, no, he remarried in 1975 post 'Bond' fame, but has
stayed married to his second wife, afaik.
So it's not ethics, its a fundamental condition of the human organism.
Still the comment is not without some humor.
jj
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
>If this turns out to have substance to it, I will not be surprised.
>Armstrong already amply demonstrated that he is ethically-challenged by
>the way he behaved in his marriage.
Interesting. I've had close friends go through messy divorces and at
the end of the process, I still don't know for sure who, if anyone,
was ethically challenged. Amazingly, I can only guess about the way my
friends and acquaintances behave in their marriages. Maybe I'm just
spending too much time on other things.
And ethics seen from long distance can be seen with such clarity. Much
better than if we are talking about our own situations. I know some
scum, for one example, that purchase tax-free items off the Internet
and don't even fill out a use tax form and pay up on a regular basis.
I'm absolutely aghast to find out such things, but people have even
admitted it to me in front of witnesses...
Jet
>>> I don't think this has actually been reported though they tried to get it
>>> out of LA's family members and the Doctors at his treatment facility who
>>> wouldn't say anything due to pt confidentiality.
>>>
>>> No need to report rumors as fact.
>>
>>
>> Lance published this fact in his own book, It's Not About The Bike. I
>> know because I read it. As I understand it, isn't EPO a naturally
>> occurring substance in the body anyway?
OK, thanks for the correction...what was it that 'they' tried to get out of
the doctors or family members that created a minor fuss a while ago?
>
>after reading more posts, I suppose not.. I really don't follow doping
>discussions. They're so dull.
EPO is a naturally occurring hormone in the body, but at a certain range.
In normal patients, serum levels of erythropoietin range from 15-19 miu/ml
and can increase 100 to 1000 fold during hypoxia or anemia. So it's no good
testing for 'EPO level'. The detection has to be on unusual products of
exogenous substance, or changes in a ratio (like the T/E ratio for
testosterone), or in subtle differences in the cloned or recombinant versus
the natural human hormone. Often there are no differences, which is the
current case, afaik for hGH.
jj
Jet
wrote:
Exactly, which is why I posed the paradigm. If you recall I posted about an
interview with a former American football player and he was asked 'with
sufficient funds can they beat all the tests' and he thought for one second
and said 'absolutely'.
jj
Mike Owens
"Jet" <j...@jetnet.com> wrote in message
news:e9fmg1hr9ehdpecta...@4ax.com...
EPO is a multibillion $ sales drug each year. Hundreds of attornerys and
expert witnesses are currently fighting about patent infringement issues
regarding the cell lines and other methods of EPO production right now.
>
> Shouldn't be too difficult with some tinkering, and (sad to say) those
> with
> the connections or money to obtain this would have it.
>
> In fact, could a person with sufficient resources hire a team to produce
> EPO that is electorphoretically indistinguishable from human, fund it
> through the research and keep it, and the products secret?
Theoretically, one might immortalize the natural human kidney cells that
produce EPO and then engineer them to crank out large amounts of 'native'
EPO. However, it doesn't matter because the blood tests look for the
changes EPO produces on various blood parameters (e.g. % immature
reticulocytes, etc). Thus, your urine might look fine but your blood gives
you away.
-Mike
Robert Chung
> "Van Hoorebeeck Bart" <bart.vanh...@wvc.vlaanderen.be> wrote in
> message news:430B2CB2...@wvc.vlaanderen.be...
>> Meanwhile the usual suspects line up for comments:
>>
>> Merckx: "I take Lance's word over any journalist's."
>> Leblanc : "Shocked!"
>> Simeoni: "Now see."
>> Voet : "I knew him before and after the disease. It was a different
>> person. He
>> should explain how he rides up Alpe d'Huez at 25 kmh"
>
> Lafferty: "The smoking gun!"
> Kunich: "The sponge bath!"
You mean "Lafferty: 'I wonder how Ms. Crow is doing this morning.'"
Jim Flom
news:pan.2005.08.23....@invalid.invalid...
At least they're not brushing it aside.
Preston Crawford
Exactly the point of my other post in rec.bicycles.misc. If Lance is
indeed dirty then the Tour is even dirtier for sitting on this for 7
years and milking Lance's story for all it was worth.
Preston
Dewey B
works and about to break.
Jet
>> Shouldn't be too difficult with some tinkering, and (sad to say) those
>> with the connections or money to obtain this would have it.
>>
>> In fact, could a person with sufficient resources hire a team to produce
>> EPO that is electorphoretically indistinguishable from human, fund it
>> through the research and keep it, and the products secret?
>
>Theoretically, one might immortalize the natural human kidney cells that
>produce EPO and then engineer them to crank out large amounts of 'native'
>EPO. However, it doesn't matter because the blood tests look for the
>changes EPO produces on various blood parameters (e.g. % immature
>reticulocytes, etc). Thus, your urine might look fine but your blood gives
>you away.
>-Mike
Oh sure, but there may be ways to get around this. Ever heard of
ethrocytapheresis? Retics sediment out preferentially. Drastic? - yep.
Thanks for your excellent analysis and posting re: this topic, btw.
jj
ila...@yahoo.com
ila...@yahoo.com a écrit :
I just saw the Le Monde's page 1 headline which directly declares
Armstrong guilty of EPO use in 1999.
-ilan
Sandy
Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> I have it on good authority that the United States American Dental
> Association is not interested in bringing charges.
Does that mean that the Canadian American Dental Association will ?
They really use that name ?
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
I'd still brace myself for further disclosures.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Sandy
trg <t...@world.REMOVE.THIS.std.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 430b332a$1$23830$636a...@news.free.fr...
>> Dans le message de news:eitlg1pikchb47835...@4ax.com,
>> Jet <j...@jetnet.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
>> Of course, the American rumour-mongering press will leave this alone,
>> entirely, as there is no interest.
>
> Front page of USA Today (at least the electronic edition. The print
> edition will be out tomorrow).
Yes, irony is hard to perceive sometimes ...
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
The lifespan of erythrocytes is only about 120 days. I'm sure the half
life of EPO is only a fraction of that.
Robert Chung
>
> I just saw the Le Monde's page 1 headline which directly declares
> Armstrong guilty of EPO use in 1999.
Is "Lance Armstrong dopé à l'EPO en 1999" really all that different from
"Le mensonge Armstrong"?
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Listen, ask Ewoud. He knows more about dentistry than I do.
Ewoud Dronkert
Ha!
--
E. Dronkert
gwhite
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:45:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>The equipement Armstrong's money paid for must be defective.
>>>>
>>>> Armstrong never paid for any specific equiment, ...
>>>> nor would he have anyway to recommend any.
>>>>
>>> You're wrong.
>>
>> ... any comments by Hein Verbruggan concerning Armstrong's
>> power to purchase specific equipment, don't be coy, post them.
>
> "Armstrong finances the new blood tests. We needed a machine for this and
> that was quite expensive."
> http://www.cyclingpost.com/tour/article_00715.shtml
You're not familiar with the process of selection, purchasing, and
funding of test equipment, are you?
Consider doing a little more work before you take that one to court.
D. Ferguson
>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:01:47 -0400, D. Ferguson
><Zeds_...@yahooremove.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:37:43 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Deal with it. Armstrong's done. Stick a fork in him and turn him over.
>>>
>>
>>
>>HELLO HELLO, POT? YEAH, THIS IS KETTLE. GUESS WHAT? YOU'RE
>>BLACK!!!!
>
>You're not looking any better by posting in all caps.
>
>jj
Posting in all caps indicates yelling. I was yelling.
Did it hurt your ears or your eyes?