The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[Red Light]

It's unwelcome because it's untrue. Just repeating it ad nauseam won't ever make it true.

d.

I think it is agreed that LNDD was using the samples for research into a new test method for EPO, not for testing an athlete for drug use. What you conveniently forgot to mention back in post 342 was that Clause 6.3 was about Research on Samples.

6.3 Research on Samples​

No sample may be used for any purpose other than the detection of substances (or classes of substances) or methods on the Prohibited List, or as otherwise identified by WADA pursuant to Article 4.5 (Monitoring Program) without the Athlete's written consent​

​

LNDD was pretty certainly in breach of even the 2003 Code by using Armstrong's samples without his consent and it looks like the 2009 changes were made to make that even clearer.

 

[smutchin]

Entirely irrelevant.

Page 15:

2. Means of Proof: Non-Analytical Evidence and Laboratory Evidence The World Anti-Doping Code specifies that doping can be proved by “any reliable means.” This case was initiated by USADA based on evidence other than a positive drug test. It is not necessary for there to have been a positive drug test in order for a rule violation to have been established and many cases reflect this principle. It could not be otherwise because at any given time there are many drugs and methods of doping on the prohibited list that are not detectable through laboratory testing.

There is, however, evidence from a number of Mr. Armstrong’s past samples that corroborate the other evidence of his doping. As explained below, had this matter gone to a hearing USADA would have asked the hearing panel to permit use of the scientific evidence to corroborate the testimony of its witnesses. However, the witness testimony and other document evidence is so strong USADA would have confidently proceeded to a hearing without any evidence from samples had the panel accepted the UCI’s contention that only the UCI has jurisdiction to examine evidence gathered from samples collected by the UCI.

 

[Crackle]

Would this be a good time to remind people that...

 

[DogTired]

I think it is agreed that LNDD was using the samples for research into a new test method for EPO, not for testing an athlete for drug use. What you conveniently forgot to mention back in post 342 was that Clause 6.3 was about Research on Samples.

6.3 Research on Samples​

No sample may be used for any purpose other than the detection of substances (or classes of substances) or methods on the Prohibited List, or as otherwise identified by WADA pursuant to Article 4.5 (Monitoring Program) without the Athlete's written consent​

​

LNDD was pretty certainly in breach of even the 2003 Code by using Armstrong's samples without his consent and it looks like the 2009 changes were made to make that even clearer.

No - you've misinterpreted this.

The samples were being used for the detection of substances on the prohibited list (as EPO was). That was the whole point of the research. So they do not need the Athlete's consent. There is nothing in the above text to support your differentiation between "a new test method for EPO, not for testing an athlete for drug use".

The samples were used for the purpose of the detection of substances (EPO, which was on the prohibited list). So the rules allow it. Clear as day.

 

[smutchin]

The samples were used for the purpose of the detection of substances (EPO, which was on the prohibited list). So the rules allow it. Clear as day.

The question is not whether the tests themselves were legitimate but whether or not the tests were conducted anonymously as they should have been or whether Armstrong's samples were identified and targeted by the testers.

Either way, it's irrelevant to the USADA's case against Armstrong.

d.

 

[Noodley]

Either way, it's irrelevant.

Ok, it's Red Light again, ain't it? This is getting too easy...

 

[DogTired]

The question is not whether the tests themselves were legitimate but whether or not the tests were conducted anonymously as they should have been or whether Armstrong's samples were identified and targeted by the testers.

Either way, it's irrelevant to the USADA's case against Armstrong.

d.

The samples were provided on the 98 and 99 TdF. LA was the race leader of the 99 TdF for 2 weeks so would have a higher proportion of samples. There were 70 samples and 52 were still suitable for testing. The only identification was a random 6 digit code - there was nothing to identify the test to the rider at the lab.

Only the UCI had the information which linked the code to the rider and this was released to the investigating reporter at L'Equipe with LA's permission at the UCI headquarters. So again, can't see what the issue is.

 

[smutchin]

The samples were provided on the 98 and 99 TdF. LA was the race leader of the 99 TdF for 2 weeks so would have a higher proportion of samples. There were 70 samples and 52 were still suitable for testing. The only identification was a random 6 digit code - there was nothing to identify the test to the rider at the lab.

Only the UCI had the information which linked the code to the rider and this was released to the investigating reporter at L'Equipe with LA's permission at the UCI headquarters. So again, can't see what the issue is.

Don't get me wrong - I entirely agree with you. It's not me questioning the USADA's procedure.

 

[yello]

Can you put yourself on your own ignore list? I must try it.

Edit: nope....

The following error occurred:
You may not ignore yourself.

 

[rich p]

I'm assuming more nit-picking Noodles but it beggars belief that on the day that the biggest sporting fraud I remember, systematic cheating resulting in someone winning 7 TdFs and then amassing a small fortune on the back of it is exposed and the perpetrator confirmed as a liar, a perjurer, an intimidator of witnesses, that some people can try to divert that simple truth down blind alleys.

 

[asterix]

Can you put yourself on your own ignore list? I must try it.

Edit: nope....

Why don't you set up a 2nd user id and start an argument with yourself? Make sure you ignore yourself in good time, before you take it too far and get yourself banned for self-abuse..

 

[Zofo]

Where do you draw the line between sleeping in a hypobaric chamber to elevate your red blood cell count and having an autologous blood transfusion (which is very low risk and not a PED)? Which is cheating and why?

Or full scale training at altitude even-? as per Sky team

 

[dodgy]

Yes, the standard teenager response to a question they don't want to answer.

No, not really, I just simply can't understand any of your points, and you're very hard work to discuss matters with. So I won't bother.

IF you have a problem with the generally accepted notion that there wasn't a level playing field as far as doping goes in the Armstrong era, then take it up with the USADA, it's primarily their assertion and one I and others on here happen to agree with.

 

[yello]

Why don't you set up a 2nd user id and start an argument with yourself? Make sure you ignore yourself in good time, before you take it too far and get yourself banned for self-abuse..

My god you're clever devious! Why didn't I think of that?! Blimey, I could even log in as the 2nd id and ignore my 1st id right back. Hours of fun!

 

[yello]

Or full scale training at altitude even-? as per Sky team

I refer you to the answer given by Mr Paul above.