Lance Armstrong

[erpowers]

A French official from the Tour de France has come out and said that it is now fact that Lance Armstrong had EPO in his system in the 1999 Tour de France. A sample of his blood was taken in 1999, but was not tested until recently because the test had not been prefected. Now it seems that the results of the test are positive for EPO.

[Botany]

1. After retires ...... after he won his 7th race .......

....... an official comes out w/ "proof" of his doping. Please!

[TlalocW]

2. It's not surprising

I read a pretty interesting article while waiting for a haircut on the guy who runs a lab where a lot of testing goes on. They're underfunded and constantly three steps behind whatever science was used to create new doping substances that can be hidden by current tests. It's a constant game of catch-up.

I've never been interested in watching any sport, and stuff like this just solidifies my opinion that sports figures should not be made into heros or role models.

TlalocW

[seemunkee]

3. So what, everyone was doping back then and probably is today

Look at what happened in 1998. The ones who didn't get caught were just better at it than those that did.
Do a google search on cycling and drug scandal and look at all the hits you get.

[niallmac]

4. It is possible

EPO, erythropoientin, was recently used on Lance to bring his blood count to normal after taking a hit from chemo/radiation or whatever his cancer treatment entailed. I don't know what the time line for his treatment was after his 1996 diagnosis. Seems to me if that was the case then this is hardly a case of blood doping. Cancer does give one such an unfair advantage in world class competition.:sarcasm:

[nickgutierrez]

5. No way to know for sure

What they tested is his "B" sample from that year, which means that there is no second signal to use in order to ensure that this isn't a "false positive". So he might, he might not - we don't know, and we never will unless he admits to use.

[democracyindanger]

6. Wrong in more than one way

"A French official from the Tour de France has come out and said that it is now fact"

Unless there has been another statement made, the only thing a Tour de France official has said was that it was "troubling," but did not confirm it as "fact."

"A sample of his blood was taken in 1999..."

It was a urine sample.

"...but was not tested until recently because the test had not been prefected."

It was only tested because the lab was conducting experiments with the testing regime they currently use. Further, the lab only released the results under the conditions that they would not be used to discipline a rider--which shows the level of confidence they have in the results.

Love Lance, hate Lance, I don't really care. But everybody should at least stick to the facts.

[erpowers]

7. Facts

Sorry you do not like the fact, but I wrote what was reported on the news this morning. The official did in fact say that it was fact that Armstrong used EPO. The official also said it was troubling and that they were all fooled. The only thing you are right about is that the sample was of urine and not blood. You can go to msn's sport section to see the facts. The first or second line of the story shows that a tour official said it was not "proven scientific fact" that armstrong was using EPO during his 1999 tour win.

[democracyindanger]

9. huh?

"The first or second line of the story shows that a tour official said it was not "proven scientific fact" that armstrong was using EPO during his 1999 tour win."

[Princess Turandot]

10. According to the Wash Post, half of all samples were used up in

a prior test and there is also a chain of custody issue which would need to be proven, that for the last several years, these samples were maintained by the same laboratory, at the same frozen temperature etc etc.

Procrit, one of the brand names for EPO causes fevers, vomiting, edema & diaarhea in a large number of cancer patients taking it according to what the drug manufacturers admit. It isn't the same as taking a blood transfusion. Somehow, for a long term ordeal like the tour, given the lead time training involved, I just don't find this story credible.

The scientists doing the study have no way of knowing which sample came from whom, btw, because they were blind-sampled. The newspaper somehow claims to have personal medical information from Armstrong that allowed them to identify the sample as his.

Isn't he suing another newspaper in London now for similar charges?

I'm not a big follower of cycling, but it seems odd to me that they are going after the first win where innuendo is more in place than facts.

[erpowers]

8. More Facts

There were "six urine samples" and they were not tested because there was "no effective test to detect it."

[HuckleB]

11. Actually, there are still questions about the test now used.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug24news2

That's only the beginning of the issues with the test.

[HuckleB]

12. Armstrong calls Leblanc remarks "preposterous"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug25news2

Below this piece are two related pieces on the ethics of the matter and an interview with Armstrong teammate Jonathan Vaughters.

[HuckleB]

13. Top lab official wonders if delayed testing is possible

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html

"We are extremely surprised that urine samples could have been tested in 2004 and have revealed the presence of EPO," Ayotte said in an interview with VeloNews on Tuesday. "EPO - in its natural state or the synthesized version - is not stable in urine, even if stored at minus 20 degrees."

[rfkrfk]

14. perhaps it was adulterated

since Lance can't offer fresh 1999 era stuff,
how does he defend himself?

[readermostly]

15. I believe Lance. This is a horrible situation for him, and I'm very angry

about these charges. I just don't believe they are true, and from what I've heard, there are no samples left for him to get other testing. Who was in charge of handling 6 year old samples? What was the secure procedure?

[HuckleB]

16. Armstrong defends record on Larry King

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8758.0.html

[jakefrep]

17. Isn't EPO a cancer drug?

And if Lance had taken it, wouldn't he have had legitimate reasons to do so as a cancer patient?