Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 142 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
From Associated Press - May 31, 2006

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands -- Independent Dutch investigators cleared Lance Armstrong of doping in the 1999 Tour de France on Wednesday, and blamed anti-doping authorities for misconduct in dealing with the Austin, Texas, cyclist.

A 132-page report recommended convening a tribunal to discuss possible legal and ethical violations by the World Anti-Doping Agency and to consider "appropriate sanctions to remedy the violations."

The French sports daily L'Equipe reported in August that six of Armstrong's urine samples from 1999, when he won the first of his record seven straight Tour titles, came back positive for the endurance-boosting hormone EPO when they were retested in 2004.

Armstrong has repeatedly denied using banned substances.

The International Cycling Union appointed Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman last October to investigate the handling of urine tests from the 1999 Tour by the French national anti-doping laboratory, known by its French acronym LNDD.

Vrijman said Wednesday his report "exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France."

The report also said the UCI had not damaged Armstrong by releasing doping control forms to the French newspaper.

The report said WADA and the LNDD may have "behaved in ways that are completely inconsistent with the rules and regulations of international anti-doping control testing," and may also have been against the law.

Vrijman, who headed the Dutch anti-doping agency for 10 years and later defended athletes accused of doping, worked on the report with Adriaan van der Veen, a scientist with the Dutch Metrology Laboratory.

EPO, or erythropoietin, is a synthetic hormone that boosts the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood.

Testing for EPO only began in 2001.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,302 Posts
susteve said:
From Associated Press - May 31, 2006

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands -- Independent Dutch investigators cleared Lance Armstrong of doping in the 1999 Tour de France on Wednesday, and blamed anti-doping authorities for misconduct in dealing with the Austin, Texas, cyclist.

A 132-page report recommended convening a tribunal to discuss possible legal and ethical violations by the World Anti-Doping Agency and to consider "appropriate sanctions to remedy the violations."

The French sports daily L'Equipe reported in August that six of Armstrong's urine samples from 1999, when he won the first of his record seven straight Tour titles, came back positive for the endurance-boosting hormone EPO when they were retested in 2004.

Armstrong has repeatedly denied using banned substances.

The International Cycling Union appointed Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman last October to investigate the handling of urine tests from the 1999 Tour by the French national anti-doping laboratory, known by its French acronym LNDD.

Vrijman said Wednesday his report "exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France."

The report also said the UCI had not damaged Armstrong by releasing doping control forms to the French newspaper.

The report said WADA and the LNDD may have "behaved in ways that are completely inconsistent with the rules and regulations of international anti-doping control testing," and may also have been against the law.

Vrijman, who headed the Dutch anti-doping agency for 10 years and later defended athletes accused of doping, worked on the report with Adriaan van der Veen, a scientist with the Dutch Metrology Laboratory.

EPO, or erythropoietin, is a synthetic hormone that boosts the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood.

Testing for EPO only began in 2001.
I notice this isn't getting much play in the cycling websites. I wonder why that is?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Often reading these reports is far more insightful than the press snippets. Unfortunately the report hasn't been released yet and the UCI is pissed.

http://www.uci.ch/modello.asp?1stlevelid=B&level1=2&level2=0&idnews=4195

I think the only real question is is there a scientific or logical basis for "completely exonerating" Armstrong. If exoneration comes back to a violation of procedures, well no ****, we knew that already. Sounds like the lawyer did have assistance from a scientist so maybe the report will be enlightening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,611 Posts
susteve said:
The report also said the UCI had not damaged Armstrong by releasing doping control forms to the French newspaper.
Really?? I'm sure Lance won't be happy about that. If not for some rogue UCI staffer leaking those forms to L'Equipe, L'Equipe never would have put two and two together. And didn't the L'Equipe reporter use false pretenses to obtain the forms from the UCI staffer?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
fornaca68 said:
And didn't the L'Equipe reporter use false pretenses to obtain the forms from the UCI staffer?
No, I think he used false pretenses to get Armstrong's permission to view his UCI medical records. Maybe he should sue himself :)

Seriously, I think this is one instance when Armstrong will not be so sue happy. Despite the statement from the lawyer, I suspect reading the details of the report will reveal that while the standards are not sufficient to "convict" Armstrong of EPO use in '99, which we really already know, exoneration will not be the word that comes to mind. But maybe?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,838 Posts
After reading Bicycling magazine and learning more about Armstrongs association with Ferrarri and who this guy really is - and the recent Spanish crackdown - I firmly beleive these guys are doping something at some level and know all the tricks.


Dwayne Barry said:
No, I think he used false pretenses to get Armstrong's permission to view his UCI medical records. Maybe he should sue himself :)

Seriously, I think this is one instance when Armstrong will not be so sue happy. Despite the statement from the lawyer, I suspect reading the details of the report will reveal that while the standards are not sufficient to "convict" Armstrong of EPO use in '99, which we really already know, exoneration will not be the word that comes to mind. But maybe?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,514 Posts
Apparently the UCI still has a vendetta against the Dick Pound (and vice versa). Armstrong was exonerated the moment there weren't any A samples left because UCI rules don't permit disciplinary actions without both.

Doesn't mean a thing about whether he doped or not, and if you think he didn't after 6 different B samples were positive you have your head firmly planted in the sand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
terzo rene said:
Doesn't mean a thing about whether he doped or not, and if you think he didn't after 6 different B samples were positive you have your head firmly planted in the sand.
Yeah the question for me is is there a reason those "positives" exist other than EPO use. Hopefully the report will provide those answers.
 

·
Not Banned
Joined
·
49,249 Posts
it was covered in velonews

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9932.0.html

they say next phase will be looking into the leak. and then examining the ethics of releasing it and publishing it. I doubt this will get much coverage in L'Equipe.If I was Lance I'd buy a frickin' all of page 2-3 in L'Equipe (he can afford it) on one page I'd print the article and onm the second a full page,life size shot of my a$$ and have an arrow with the text (in French)" L'Equipe Place Lips here" Do I think he may have been doping?possible. Can I say for sure? Nope.

This is gonna hurt the haters, especially those whose guys are involved in the latest.
 

·
Resident Dutchbag
Joined
·
11,941 Posts
The outcome is hardly surprising considering that UCI vice-president Hein Verbruggen and Leon Vrijman know each other well and have worked together in the past.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
660 Posts
They just put the feature on NYtimes.com w/ huge picture

They just put the feature on NYtimes.com w/ huge picture of Lance in yellow. I assume this will now vlidate the piece as headline news for everyone else....


Interesting though - as others have said no sh** they can't prove he doped (we knew that before) but after reading the report will a reasonable person coclude that he likely did use EPO or not.. that is the question....

Nik
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Old_school_nik said:
They just put the feature on NYtimes.com w/ huge picture of Lance in yellow. I assume this will now vlidate the piece as headline news for everyone else....


Interesting though - as others have said no sh** they can't prove he doped (we knew that before) but after reading the report will a reasonable person coclude that he likely did use EPO or not.. that is the question....

Nik
What's potentially interesting is Vrijman is using very strong language before anyone has seen the report. IF a reasonable person who reads the report were still to conclude that Armstrong almost certainly had evidence of exogenous EPO use in his body in '99 you'll probably never hear about in the main stream media. Are they really going to read the report? This could be a huge media coup for the Armstrong camp. But hey maybe the report will point out how the test was flawed or that the positives weren't really positives. Maybe we'll get some hematocrit values?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Old_school_nik said:
Interesting though - as others have said no sh** they can't prove he doped (we knew that before) but after reading the report will a reasonable person coclude that he likely did use EPO or not.. that is the question....

Nik
As much as I think Dick Pound is a blowhard and does far more damage than good, when he's right, he's right.

"Whether the samples were positive or not, I don't know how a Dutch lawyer
with no expertise came to a conclusion that one of the leading laboratories
in the world messed up on the analysis. To say Armstrong is totally
exonerated seems strange," Pound said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,784 Posts
Interesting

It's pretty ambiguous, isn't it? I mean, the lead investigator spends a almost year investigating, then issues a long and detailed report, and finishes up with a wishy-washy statement like this:

Vrijman said Wednesday his report "exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France."

Hmmmm. I wonder what it really means.

There's no way that some guy who was on his death bed, underwent surgery for removal of body parts, went through chemo therapy, worked harder than anyone else, has extraordinary genetics, and has a mindset that doesn't allow for the possibility of losing the Tour de France, could conceivably win that race seven times. In addition, if he was caught doping, he loses the tens of millions of dollars in endorsements. And, more important to LA, the support of those who work for his foundation. Add in the fact that he is likely the most tested athlete in the world, and I can see where there's plenty of room for doubt about the results of this investigation or LA's denials.:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
You could substitute Museeuw (well maybe less money but otherwise the same) for Armstrong in your message and have an equally plausible scenario for denying doping. Yet we know beyond a reasonable doubt that Museeuw doped even post 2 death-bed experiences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
Dwayne Barry said:
As much as I think Dick Pound is a blowhard and does far more damage than good, when he's right, he's right.

"Whether the samples were positive or not, I don't know how a Dutch lawyer
with no expertise came to a conclusion that one of the leading laboratories
in the world messed up on the analysis. To say Armstrong is totally
exonerated seems strange," Pound said.
Actually, that statement is even more proof of how much of a Dick the "esteemed" Mr. Pound really is. Read this and tell me if you still think he's right (from the Velonews account):

"Vrijman, who headed the Dutch anti-doping agency for 10 years and later defended athletes accused of doping, worked on the report with Adriaan van der Veen, a scientist with the Dutch Metrology Laboratory."

No expertise...my a$#. Talk about blowing all your credibility in one shot!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
moneyman said:
It's pretty ambiguous, isn't it? I mean, the lead investigator spends a almost year investigating, then issues a long and detailed report, and finishes up with a wishy-washy statement like this:
QUOTE]

He hasn't issued the report so that no one knows what he found. The devil will be in the details. "Completely exonerated" better mean there is good reason to discredit those EPO positives or reason to believe they were not "positive" in the first place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
tanhalt said:
Actually, that statement is even more proof of how much of a Dick the "esteemed" Mr. Pound really is. Read this and tell me if you still think he's right (from the Velonews account):

"Vrijman, who headed the Dutch anti-doping agency for 10 years and later defended athletes accused of doping, worked on the report with Adriaan van der Veen, a scientist with the Dutch Metrology Laboratory."

No expertise...my a$#. Talk about blowing all your credibility in one shot!
Yeah perhaps not. Although I have to say Vrijman's credentials do not run afoul of Pounds statements but the fact that he had a scientist helping maybe there will be some light shed on the core issue.

Although I can't find anything published by Adriaan van der Veen on Pubmed and Metrology is the science of measurement (or precision and accuracy) according to Wikipedia. Seems odd, isn't this a biochemistry issue more than anything? Makes me more and more suspicious that "completely exonerated" will not prove to be the case when the facts come forward.
 

·
Not Banned
Joined
·
49,249 Posts
my post got dropped

but it reflected what tanhalt said. Pound calls a guy with 10 plus years in doping control inexperienced. There goes his credibility
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,342 Posts
nothings changed.

atpjunkie said:
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9932.0.html

they say next phase will be looking into the leak. and then examining the ethics of releasing it and publishing it. I doubt this will get much coverage in L'Equipe.If I was Lance I'd buy a frickin' all of page 2-3 in L'Equipe (he can afford it) on one page I'd print the article and onm the second a full page,life size shot of my a$$ and have an arrow with the text (in French)" L'Equipe Place Lips here" Do I think he may have been doping?possible. Can I say for sure? Nope.

This is gonna hurt the haters, especially those whose guys are involved in the latest.

the leak, and for the most part this "exoneration", is irrelevant to whether LA doped and you know it. at this point he's "exonerated" in the same way that OJ and Jacko are. As for the leak, if there were laws or regulations broken in the leaking of LA's results than they ought to look into it and I'm sure tehy will, but it has nothing to do with how indicators of EPO use got into his piss and hardly helps LA to bring it up, let alone "buy a frickin' all of page 2-3 in L'Equipe (he can afford it) on one page I'd print the article"...more likely something he'd like to see go away. You can kick up all the dust you want about dick pound, the french, ressiot or the lab but none of it does anything to explain why he tested +. maybe this report will, but Im enough of a cynic to doubt it.
 
1 - 20 of 142 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top