# Lance the Francophile



## Bollo (8 Apr 2009)

Caught this in the gruniad today - here it is online.

Depending on your point of view, it seems that either...

(a) Lance is being a paranoid, hypersensitive control freak with a suspect conscience or
( The French have it in for Mellow Johnny and are trying to drive L'American out of the TdF or
(c) Both of the above
(d) My lawyers require me to say neither of the above.


----------



## Crackle (8 Apr 2009)

I read that today. Seems something of nowt really.


----------



## Bollo (8 Apr 2009)

Crackle said:


> I read that today. Seems something of nowt really.


Yeah, my feelings as well. What would be interesting would be to find out who was 'pushing' it as a story.


----------



## Noodley (8 Apr 2009)

Bollo said:


> Yeah, my feelings as well. What would be interesting would be to find out who was 'pushing' it as a story.



Look at answer a) above


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Apr 2009)

I think the nub of things is that his Lanceness should not have been let out of sight of the tester until the sample had been given. I reckon that's the tester's fault rather than Bruyneel or Armstrong's, but both the latter have *surely* been around long enough to a) know what the procedure is and  know what happens within a particular agency's jurisdiction. Surely?

I'd say write the test off, and add another out of competition test to the Texan one's schedule, although that's far too simple, and not much of a story. Certainly not a story in which an evil French lab conspires to discredit a genuine hero, anyroad. (Or a Texan bent on destroying French cycling foils the efforts of the AFLD to keep the sport squeaky clean).


----------



## Keith Oates (9 Apr 2009)

If Armstrong's account of what happened is correct then I think he had every right to check the validity of the tester. Why this was then printed and blown up in the press only confirms to me that none of the press are being helpful to the sport of cycling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dayvo (9 Apr 2009)

I agree with Keith! 

And not Noodley!


----------



## yello (9 Apr 2009)

Storm in a tasse de thé. And I predict more storms. Expect more show downs as the TdF nears. But then you hardly need to be a genius to predict that!


----------



## TheDoctor (9 Apr 2009)

I think if Random Bloke wanted to take a blood sample from me I'd want to see some ID first!!!!!


----------



## yenrod (9 Apr 2009)

I can't see anything wrong with...

>Armstrong's team asked to see tester's credentials.

The great and the good do get dirty - you know 

..ie the Queen does take a shoot !


----------



## John the Monkey (9 Apr 2009)

TheDoctor said:


> I think if Random Bloke wanted to take a blood sample from me I'd want to see some ID first!!!!!



Well, likewise, but then I'm not a professional sportsman who (one would think) is used to the frequency of out of competition testing.

The story is something of nothing - although I find it disturbing that the Armstrong/Bruyneel take on it is along the lines of "French labs are evil, they're all out to get me".


----------



## mondobongo (9 Apr 2009)

No problem with asking Tester to produce ID. Strange comments to make though about not knowing the AFLD reporting to the French government and being unfamiliar with the ID/Paperwork would have thought given the time he has been around and tested would have come across it before. You would certainly expect Bruyneel as Team Manager to be familiar with it.


----------



## yello (9 Apr 2009)

TheDoctor said:


> I think if Random Bloke wanted to take a blood sample from me I'd want to see some ID first!!!!!



Indeed. And there's nothing to say (not as I read it anyway) that the tester had a problem with that. I don't know what the "misbehaviour" allegations relate to. 

It's all a bit silly really.


----------



## John the Monkey (9 Apr 2009)

yello said:


> ...I don't know what the "misbehaviour" allegations relate to.


The tester shouldn't have let Mr. Armstrong out of his sight until the sample(s) had been given.

It doesn't seem to be mentioned in any of the later stories, but was in the first I saw concerning this incident;

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ahNHineE8XuY



> the Agence Francaise de Lutte Contre le Dopage, or AFLD, said ...
> 
> Armstrong “didn’t respect the obligation to remain under observation of the person in charge of the doping control,” the agency said. The group’s report was sent to the International Cycling Union, which in turn gave the French organization authority to open a disciplinary enquiry, it said.


----------



## yello (9 Apr 2009)

Just read a similar thing on the beeb...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/7991866.stm



> the medic in charge claimed the multiple Tour de France winner did not "respect the obligation to remain under the direct and permanent observation".


----------



## Chuffy (9 Apr 2009)

yello said:


> Just read a similar thing on the beeb...
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/7991866.stm


Which is surely a fundamental principal of testing...


----------



## Crackle (9 Apr 2009)

Chuffy said:


> Which is surely a fundamental principal of testing...



The fundamental principle of testing is to assume anyone with a rucksack is a burglar or vagrant attempting to gain entry, bop them on the nose and sit on them until the police arrive to confirm they are who they say they are. That way you stay in sight and no-one wants to volunteer to do it again


----------



## Chuffy (9 Apr 2009)

Crackle said:


> The fundamental principle of testing is to assume anyone with a rucksack is a burglar or vagrant attempting to gain entry, bop them on the nose and sit on them until the police arrive to confirm they are who they say they are. That way you stay in sight and no-one wants to volunteer to do it again


Hush, you'll give him ideas.


----------



## Noodley (9 Apr 2009)

Dayvo said:


> I agree with Keith!
> 
> And not Noodley!



Armstrong will have got the media interested in the story and his version of events made known to try to discredit any possible sanctions which could result. We'll find out the true story soon enough....


----------



## stumpy (9 Apr 2009)

Armstrong/Astana have given a response http://www.astana-cyclingteam.com/news_press/lafrenchtest.html about this and I tend to agree about what they/he says. I'd want clarification as to who is sticking a needle into one of my veins  

Don't know if taking a shower at that time was well advised though


----------



## Noodley (9 Apr 2009)

Noodley said:


> We'll find out the true story soon enough....



And here we have a story without any Lance spin:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/apr09/apr09news3


----------



## Crackle (9 Apr 2009)

So much spin it really is hard to see what his aims are. Maybe he doesn't want to compete in the Tour but he wants someone else to make that decision for him, this might do nicely or why else contravene a rule he must clearly know.

Maybe the crash was deliberate too as he knows he's got no chance in the Giro. Nah, surely not.

After dancing about on the fence I'm rapidly reaching the conclusion that his return is not good (watch someone quote that bit ).


----------



## Noodley (9 Apr 2009)

Crackle said:


> Maybe the crash was deliberate too as he knows he's got no chance in the Giro.



That was my first thought....seriously.


----------



## Noodley (9 Apr 2009)

Going back to the article quoted in the OP I thought it was a bit of a 'change' of words for him to state "I do not use any prohibited drugs or substances" rather than he has never tested positive, which has been his general stance when asked to comment, or alternatively to state he has 'prepared' well.

I do not think he is currently using PEDs, but he will take every opportunity presented to try to highlight how he is 'picked on' just to ensure his media persona remains that of the wronged hero and to protect his image.


----------



## Crackle (9 Apr 2009)

The first article was a bit crap but I also noticed that.

Why is the Giro changing route. Is that to accommodate him or is there another reason?


----------



## Noodley (9 Apr 2009)

Crackle said:


> Is that to accommodate him or is there another reason?



No, I don't think so as it was only to pass through France rather than stopping.....I think. Even I would not go that far with conspiracy theories


----------



## Skip Madness (10 Apr 2009)

Crackle said:


> Why is the Giro changing route. Is that to accommodate him or is there another reason?



Roads in the area are deemed unsafe due to avalanches.


----------



## mondobongo (10 Apr 2009)

Now being reported on Cycling News that AFLD accoring to L'Equipe will make a decision as to whether to open proceedings in early May. Why a delay of a month?


----------



## John the Monkey (10 Apr 2009)

Pat McQuaid weighs in to undermine the AFLD today;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/7993738.stm


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Apr 2009)

Of course there is an esy answer - publish the paperwork!

If the tester (as claimed) gave permission and signed the form that no anomalies occurredthan it is clearlythe tester that is at fault, and failed to keep to the rules


----------



## stoatsngroats (10 Apr 2009)

I think LA will be prevented from riding The Tour, and the other riders will NOT start until he's re-instated......after all, The Tour is about cometition....isn't it...?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (10 Apr 2009)

And now Lance is talking about his fear of being banned from the Tour de France... it is almost like he wants to be banned. 

I don't know what went on with the test, but Lance reminds me of a particularly clever politician, who always manages to turn around any situation so it plays well to his audience back home. He always seems to run rings around testers, and then makes it look like he was the innocent victim of Keystone coppery. It is very, very clever. Whether or not he does it because he has something to hide, because he really believes he is fighting a cause, or whether he just enjoys pissing the French testers off, I have no idea. But he's certainly always one-step ahead with the spin...


----------



## Kovu (10 Apr 2009)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I don't know what went on with the test, but Lance reminds me of a particularly clever politician, who always manages to turn around any situation so it plays well to his audience back home.



That's always been my view as well. He does seem to be very good at the PR side of his business.

It made me laugh when I was on the main forum and it read "Lance the ..." then below it the "Flying Monkey", simple things .....


----------



## Noodley (10 Apr 2009)

Flying_Monkey said:


> And now Lance is talking about his fear of being banned from the Tour de France... it is almost like he wants to be banned.
> 
> I don't know what went on with the test, but Lance reminds me of a particularly clever politician, who always manages to turn around any situation so it plays well to his audience back home. He always seems to run rings around testers, and then makes it look like he was the innocent victim of Keystone coppery. It is very, very clever. Whether or not he does it because he has something to hide, because he really believes he is fighting a cause, or whether he just enjoys pissing the French testers off, I have no idea. But he's certainly always one-step ahead with the spin...



I agree entirely. 

I reckon the cycling authorities need me to take control and out spin him. I'd have the measure of him...


----------



## John the Monkey (10 Apr 2009)

Noodley said:


> I reckon the cycling authorities need me to take control and out spin him. I'd have the measure of him...


Not gonna happen with McQuaid coming out and saying that the AFLD is unprofessional though, I thinks.


----------



## Noodley (10 Apr 2009)

John the Monkey said:


> Not gonna happen with McQuaid coming out and saying that the AFLD is unprofessional though, I thinks.



Maybe I could just write to the cycling authorities and tell them I could sort out all their problems. McQuaid would go for starters then I could just get on with sorting things out, by the book, no cock-ups, out-spin the spinners, firm stance, build cases which will stick, get all the national bodies on board, give more powers to those who can impose sanctions, stop f***ing about, etc, etc.


----------



## John the Monkey (10 Apr 2009)

The irony of McQuaid accusing someone else of being unprofessional (head of an organisation that charged the teams for the blood passport how long ago? and has been on the point of announcing it for how long?)

Mr. Armstrong has a video response up too;

http://road.cc/content/blog/3506-la...oss-not-riding-le-tour-and-more…#comment-2437

"There's a high likelihood they [the AFLD] will prevent me from riding the tour"

He really doesn't like France/the French, it seems.


----------



## Crackle (10 Apr 2009)

John the Monkey said:


> Not gonna happen with McQuaid coming out and saying that the AFLD is unprofessional though, I thinks.



So far they've either been outspun (likely) or they screwed up (probable). Either way they've not covered themselves in glory.


----------



## John the Monkey (10 Apr 2009)

Crackle said:


> So far they've either been outspun (likely) or they screwed up (probable). Either way they've not covered themselves in glory.



As Cunobelin said, the best thing to do would be to publish the paperwork.

I do find it odd that WADA are so cagey about this - I'm sure they've slapped sanctions on people for being late to testing, a situation not entirely dissimilar.


----------



## Bollo (11 Apr 2009)

Noodley said:


> Maybe I could just write to the cycling authorities and tell them I could sort out all their problems. McQuaid would go for starters then I could just get on with sorting things out, by the book, no cock-ups, out-spin the spinners, firm stance, build cases which will stick, get all the national bodies on board, give more powers to those who can impose sanctions, stop f***ing about, etc, etc.



I just read this while doing a Tony Blair impression (you know, with the open hand gestures and all) and apart from the bit about f***ing about, it really works.

Lance's relationship with the media is probably worth a book on its own, but he comes out the winner in most encounters.


----------



## Noodley (11 Apr 2009)

Bollo said:


> ...but he comes out the winner in most encounters.



I reckon everyone should sponsor me.


----------



## Keith Oates (11 Apr 2009)

I love the selective amnesia that abounds on some threads when people are trying to discredit others!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mondobongo (11 Apr 2009)

Ah the UCI what a fantastic governing body we have. Could that buffoon McQuaid not have spoken to AFLD behind closed doors rather than doing the dirty washing in the full glare of publicity.


----------



## yello (11 Apr 2009)

Keith Oates said:


> I love the selective amnesia that abounds on some threads when people are trying to discredit others!



Which we take to mean what? Keith, I know you are no fan of ASO but I don't think anyone here is spinning this as UCI v ASO. 

That said, I do feel McQuaid would have been better served not to have taken sides on this one. He has only fueled this very very silly story. None of us know what happened, whether LA did or did not "misbehave", whether he was okayed to take that shower (is that going to become the grassy knoll of this story?!). We don't know what "no anomalies" refers to; whether it's only the testing process itself or the entire meeting. 

I could imagine LA could get arsey. It's entirely possible he did get up the nose of the tester. The tester might equally have disliked his authority being questioned and being generally dicked around. Everybody knows what people in authority get like when you mess them about; they suddenly become sticklers for rules. You can't win, and that's red reg to a bull to some folk. Maybe LA is one of those folk. The whole thing has gotten well out of hand.

I reckon LA will get a wrist slap, he'll issue a few more 'they hate me' statements & twitters etc, he'll ride the TdF and all will be forgotten (by most people anyway).


----------



## stumpy (11 Apr 2009)

It all comes down to weather you believe the French or an American really!!! So maybe there both full of it an no test ever actually happened????? It’s all just one big conspiracy…….

But really
I do like the bit in the video link posted by John the Monkey (above) where LA plays the emotional “if the French don’t want us to help in the fight against cancer then it’s up to them” card!!
I for one do believe him though I don’t know why I do but I do


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Apr 2009)

John the Monkey said:


> As Cunobelin said, the best thing to do would be to publish the paperwork.
> 
> I do find it odd that WADA are so cagey about this - I'm sure they've slapped sanctions on people for being late to testing, a situation not entirely dissimilar.



IMHO it boils down to the conduct of the test. 

*If* LA asked permission of the tester and the latter did in fact allow a shower then there is no case to answer. The conduct of the test has complied with the tester completely

*If* the tester did allow LA to leave the room without querying it then there is some doubt in the conduct of the tester and LA and it would be difficult to opportion blame

*If* the tester did not allow the shower and / or LA was told not to then LA is totally and unequivocally guilty of the charges


This is where the question is for me. LA was not late, did not refuse the test and it is the actual conduct of the test that is the problem. Guilt and Censure will be dependent on the above questions being answered.


----------



## rich p (11 Apr 2009)

I for one amm f***ing fed up with Armstrong playing the cancer card. Does he think nobody had heard of it before, researched it before? FFS. Lots and lots of cancers are now treatable and that had nothing to do with Saint Lance and his pious crusade.!


----------



## mondobongo (11 Apr 2009)

Rich very well put. It does seem whenever his actions are brought into question we get the you are not helping in the fight.

AFLD could nail this quickly, investigate what happened now. What changed after the tester wrote no anomalies on the report to unleash this circus.

Of course you could also say that you reap what you sow and that leaking the story was not a clever move, they would have been better preparing the case if there was one and then kapow.


----------



## Radius (11 Apr 2009)

rich p said:


> I for one amm f***ing fed up with Armstrong playing the cancer card. Does he think nobody had heard of it before, researched it before? FFS. Lots and lots of cancers are now treatable and that had nothing to do with Saint Lance and his pious crusade.



So he should just stop fighting against and promoting the fight against cancer, because there are lots that are treatable? I honestly don't think he's 'using' cancer as a means for personal gain, as some people seem to be suggesting.


----------



## montage (11 Apr 2009)

Radius said:


> So he should just stop fighting against and promoting the fight against cancer, because there are lots that are treatable? I honestly don't think he's 'using' cancer as a means for personal gain, as some people seem to be suggesting.


here here!


----------



## yello (11 Apr 2009)

montage said:


> here here!



maybe maybe. 

Let's separate the two shall we? Lance the cyclist and Lance the campaigner. I know LA intermingles the two functions but he can't expect cycling authorities to do likewise and bend the rules because it's for a good cause. No matter how good the cause. 

Let's focus here on the issue which was quite succinctly put above, imo, by Cunobelin. Was LA allowed to take a shower or not? And with that single sentence, don't you just realise how silly this all is?


----------



## montage (11 Apr 2009)

yello said:


> maybe maybe.
> 
> Let's separate the two shall we? Lance the cyclist and Lance the campaigner. I know LA intermingles the two functions but he can't expect cycling authorities to do likewise and bend the rules because it's for a good cause. No matter how good the cause.
> 
> Let's focus here on the issue which was quite succinctly put above, imo, by Cunobelin. Was LA allowed to take a shower or not? And with that single sentence, don't you just realise how silly this all is?


Of course this whole thing is silly, just an endless witch-hunt.


----------



## yello (11 Apr 2009)




----------



## Noodley (11 Apr 2009)

montage said:


> Of course this whole thing is silly, just an endless witch-hunt.



If Lance flies around on a broomstick in robes with a big pointy hat and a cat by his side then fingers will be pointed.


----------



## montage (11 Apr 2009)

Noodley said:


> If Lance flies around on a broomstick in robes with a big pointy hat and a cat by his side then *fingers will be **pointed*.



or if he attempts to trim his nails using a pencil sharpener


----------



## Chuffy (11 Apr 2009)

Noodley said:


> If Lance flies around on a broomstick in robes with a big pointy hat and a cat by his side then fingers will be pointed.


I never get tired of that picture. 

But srsly guys, this whole thing is almost too damn stupid to be worth taking any notice of. 
Incidentally, who went public on it first? The first I saw of it was Team LA's preliminary strike....


----------



## yello (11 Apr 2009)

Chuffy said:


> The first I saw of it was Team LA's preliminary strike....



Good question. I thought the leak came first then LA responded.


----------



## Bollo (11 Apr 2009)

yello said:


> Good question. I thought the leak came first then LA responded.


+1, I thought it was a case of Lance getting his retaliation in first.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Apr 2009)

Just to be picky!

If LA had got in a preliminary strike... then it would have been a reponse not a leak.


----------



## mondobongo (11 Apr 2009)

Noodley said:


> If Lance flies around on a broomstick in robes with a big pointy hat and a cat by his side then fingers will be pointed.



So does this mean Lance is a witch?????


----------



## Chuffy (11 Apr 2009)

mondobongo said:


> So does this mean Lance is a witch?????


Does he float like a duck?


----------



## mondobongo (11 Apr 2009)

Dunno lets get Paul Kimmage to chuck him in the river and see.


----------



## Keith Oates (12 Apr 2009)

yello said:


> Which we take to mean what? Keith, I know you are no fan of ASO but I don't think anyone here is spinning this as UCI v ASO.
> 
> That said, I do feel McQuaid would have been better served not to have taken sides on this one. He has only fueled this very very silly story. None of us know what happened, whether LA did or did not "misbehave", whether he was okayed to take that shower (is that going to become the grassy knoll of this story?!). We don't know what "no anomalies" refers to; whether it's only the testing process itself or the entire meeting.
> 
> ...



I've checked and Armstrong quite clearly states in his account of events that he asked if he could get a shower and also it's reported the tester said no to the any irregularities question. Of course he could be telling lies but I doubt it.

I don't see that McQuaid has taken sides he merely stated that he doesn't know how the leak occured and that it should never have happened with something that was supposed to have been sent to the UCI in confidence, only to be made public IF charges were made.

It seems to me that not everyone remembers these two very important points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## yello (12 Apr 2009)

We don't know what happened Keith. We have LA's side and we have the testers side. The truth is one or the other, or somewhere between the two. We also don't know specifically what 'no irregularities' refers to. I'm neither believing nor disbelieving either version of events, but I don't forget or ignore the fact there are 2 versions.

Personally, I see McQuaid's comments as unhelpful at best, taking sides at worst - so there we'll have to differ!


----------



## Keith Oates (12 Apr 2009)

OK!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Apr 2009)

mondobongo said:


> So does this mean Lance is a witch?????



He turned me into a newt!




























































... but I got better!


----------



## mondobongo (12 Apr 2009)




----------



## kennykool (14 Apr 2009)

Jeez this is a long thread - took me ages to catch up!!!

Ok here goes maybe I missed something but the Tests were NEGATIVE and still there is a big HOO HAA surrounding this?

Lance wanted a shower WHILST the testers credentials were being verified - so I suppose the test hadn't started at that stage so the tester was able to let him out of his sight.

Perhaps LA got a hair/blood/urine transplant in the 5 minutes it took him to get a shower then he took the test and passed. Imagine IF that actually happened??????


----------



## John the Monkey (14 Apr 2009)

kennykool said:


> Ok here goes maybe I missed something but the Tests were NEGATIVE and still there is a big HOO HAA surrounding this?


The regulations state that the athlete has to be within sight of the tester until the samples are taken - that's what's at issue.

This is because there are ways that some tests can be foxed (f'rinstance, dropping a couple of grains of soap powder into your urine sample removes all traces of EPO - not a terrific example, as it removes the body's own EPO as well, which *should* be a red flag to the lab, but you get the idea). There are also cases of concealed appliances for delivering "clean" urine that have been documented. 

I'm NOT saying that Armstrong indulged in any trickery during the 20 minutes, but that's why the rule exists, and why flouting could be considered to be a big deal. (Personally, it's also why I'm surprised Bruyneel and Armstrong thought it would be ok for Mr. Armstrong to take his shower before the samples were taken).


----------



## John the Monkey (14 Apr 2009)

yello said:


> And with that single sentence, don't you just realise how silly this all is?


Indeed - Lionel Birnie pointed out in his Twitter feed that this is basically just a PR war with both sides spinning frantically - "Bottom Line: It's not about the shower".


----------



## John the Monkey (14 Apr 2009)

Looking on the bright side, this week's Toto is going to be pretty interesting (imo).


----------



## yello (14 Apr 2009)

I watched LAs video response to this situation (livestrong site) and a few things struck me about it.

1) He does come across as very anxious about the likelihood of being banned from the TdF. Almost scared. I was genuinely surprised by that.

2) It sounds to me like he took that shower whilst the tester waited outside the house. He seems to implicitly accept that he didn't have the testers okay on it but I think he genuinely didn't realise there was a problem doing it.

3) He seemed verging on paranoid that 'the French' want to get him. Maybe they do, maybe they don't but he certainly seems to believe that they do.

My take on it is that, technically speaking, he is in breach of regulations. I don't think however that he intentionally/knowingly breached them. I think AFLD probably have to report that breach to UCI and LA, as part of procedure. They can't bend rules for anyone. I do think it's a non-story and I genuinely don't expect any sanctions to be placed on LA. 

What does interest me is who leaked this non-story and why. I'd previously dismissed the LA pre-emptive strike theory but given my points 1 and 3, I wouldn't now rule it out.


----------



## Noodley (14 Apr 2009)

yello said:


> I'd previously dismissed the LA pre-emptive strike theory but given my points 1 and 3, I wouldn't now rule it out.



I told you that ages ago! :?: It was leaked by Team Lance trying to spin the story.


----------



## Crankarm (16 Apr 2009)

yello said:


> 2) It sounds to me like he took that shower whilst the tester waited outside the house. He seems to implicitly accept that he didn't have the testers okay on it but I think he genuinely didn't realise there was a problem doing it.



Perhaps if the shower was so urgent LA should have invited the tester to join him then watch for the tester's response  ? Mind you the tester could then have demanded control of the soap.


----------



## John the Monkey (16 Apr 2009)

Lawrence Donegan in t'Grauniad;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/apr/16/lance-armstrong-cancer-drug-test


----------



## yello (16 Apr 2009)

Interesting comment from the RoadBikerReview newsletter



> Meanwhile, despite Prudhomme's comment to cyclingnews.com last Saturday -- "I imagine he will be at the Tour de France" -- Armstrong sounds resigned to being barred from racing in France and specifically in the Tour. And surprisingly he seems to be going down without a fight.



I didn't see the comment on cyclingnews.com but it's interesting to read Prudhomme's comment. Kind of re-enforces my belief that this really is just a procedural matter and not one anyone is going to be strung up for.

Found it: link to CyclingNews article


----------



## yello (24 Apr 2009)

Told yer... all clear & green light for the TdF

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/8017571.stm


----------



## mondobongo (24 Apr 2009)

Not enough to have a go with me thinks.


----------



## Noodley (4 May 2009)

Latest news seem to be that Astana will be no more after the Giro with Armstrong making plans to be the owner/DS/star rider of his own team from July.

I always said pro cycling would be the only real winner from his return


----------



## yello (4 May 2009)

Noodley said:


> Latest news seem to be that Astana will be no more after the Giro with Armstrong making plans to be the owner/DS/star rider of his own team from July.



And if that's the case (and, just to be clear, I do not doubt for one moment the words of the honourable Noodley) then that surely must rule LA out of the TdF. No way will Team X get an invite before kick off. 

Btw, why would Astana be no more? Is there something else we need to know?


----------



## Skip Madness (4 May 2009)

He will be riding the Tour with Astana. From here:



> Lance Armstrong believes there is a "high" probability he will start a professional team of his own for the 2010 season. The American expects the announcement to come this July, after he races the Tour de France.
> 
> "I would like to have my own team: to be the owner, director and... cyclist. Because if I have a team I also want to race. It does not necessarily have to be the Giro and Tour, but only when I have the desire," he said in an interview with _La Gazzetta dello Sport_ after the Tour of the Gila stage race in the USA.
> 
> ...


----------



## yello (5 May 2009)

That makes more sense SM. Following Noodley's post, I did some googling and found reference to the same thing you have posted, but it was much less precise and in Spanish. It read like a wish rather than a done deal and no dates where mentioned.


----------

