Thread: LA

**Scallops** · 23rd October 2012, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Eevo

im not saying he didnt take PED, im saying the evidence doesnt support it

yes. witch hunt.

What is wrong with the lab results as published in L'Equipe? They are accepted in the scientific community as being unequivocal.

was using saddles cream. i called in sick to work last week, then i went the dr and got my med cert.
EPO testing is in debate. There was no test for EPO in the early days and there still isn't a test for re-injecting your own blood.
and again, its 1 test. cortisone in 99 helped him win 2004? (i might have years mixed up)

Did your Doctor backdate your script for your saddle cream too? This wasn't a backdated Medical certificate. More importantly, has your doctor been found guilty of corruption? It is routine to retest samples when new testing procedures are available. Probably didn't help the 2004 "win" as you say, but very likely might have been significant in his 1999 "win"

the people statements all point fingers towards others. "i got caught, cant have my medal so i'll try and take other down too. if i cant have it, noone can. i cant prove they were cheating but just trust me, i know they were".
LA played to the rules.
innocent until proven guilty. circumstantial evidence at best.

Read the evidence! That said, I accept your feeling that this an unresolved question. I don't agree, but again, I have read at least some of it....

Reasoned Decision

**Ferret** · 23rd October 2012, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Eevo

... innocent until proven guilty. circumstantial evidence at best.

I think there is the testimony of team mates, people within the sport and people outside the sport to consider - maybe ~ 15 or more people with little or nothing to gain by fingering Armstrong. Plus now it is in the open, others associated with Armstrong or his former team have stepped forward and owned up to it.

I though initially there may have been some room for doubt, mainly because Armstrong was such a figure within and outside of cycling but the evidence seems overwhelming - very disappointed.

**Eevo** · 23rd October 2012, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Scallops

Read the evidence! That said, I accept your feeling that this an unresolved question. I don't agree, but again, I have read at least some of the evidence.

Reasoned Decision

i have read half the report. i didnt seem the evidence as clear proof, i saw it as circumstantial, and a bit dodgy.
dont get my wrong, im not saying he did or didnt use PED. im saying the evidence doesnt back it up

**Eevo** · 23rd October 2012, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Ferret

I think there is the testimony of team mates, people within the sport and people outside the spot to consider - maybe ~ 15 or more people with little or nothing to gain by fingering Armstrong. Plus now it is in the open, others associated with Armstrong or his former team have stepped forward and owned up to it.

I though initially there may have been some room for doubt, mainly because Armstrong was such a figure within and outside of cycling but the evidence seems overwhelming - very disappointed.

actually they have a lot of gain by pointing the finger. sort of like a plea bargain.
and the others were found gulty by testing.
people lie under oath

**Scallops** · 23rd October 2012, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Eevo

i have read half the report. i didnt seem the evidence as clear proof, i saw it as circumstantial, and a bit dodgy.
dont get my wrong, im not saying he did or didnt use PED. im saying the evidence doesnt back it up

As before, what is your objection to the lab results as published in L'Equipe?

**Disco Muppet** · 23rd October 2012, 11:12 AM

I have very little interest in cycling, although I have a few mates who are.
They may not have much to gain by pointing the finger, but what have they got to lose?
Could it be they're just toeing the party line?
Also, I thought he simply said no to challenging them, which is not an admission of guilt.
Just casting my cynical eye over it, happy to be corrected

Cheers
Muppet

**Eevo** · 23rd October 2012, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Scallops

As before, what is your objection to the lab results as published in L'Equipe?

blood deteriorated over time.
leads to a false positive.

and their using a new test. the old test was good enough 15 years ago to say he was clean.

in anotoher 15 years they will invest another test that proves him clean
no independent testing. its tested by 1 body only.

remember with lindy chamberland (spelling) the test showed blood in the car, was a false positive, later tests showed it was choc milk

**Scallops** · 23rd October 2012, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Eevo

blood deteriorated over time.
leads to a false positive.

and their using a new test. the old test was good enough 15 years ago to say he was clean.

in anotoher 15 years they will invest another test that proves him clean
no independent testing. its tested by 1 body only.

remember with lindy chamberland (spelling) the test showed blood in the car, was a false positive, later tests showed it was choc milk

These samples were held in a controlled environment where the integrity of samples were guaranteed. Not on the dashboard of a Kingswood. The lab is a world accredited independent lab. The new tests were good enough to be used at the Sydney Olympics and there after, but not good enough to convince you?

**Eevo** · 23rd October 2012, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Scallops

These samples were held in a controlled environment where the integrity of samples were guaranteed. Not on the dashboard of a Kingswood. The lab is a world accredited independent lab. The new tests were good enough to be used at the Sydney Olympics and there after, but not good enough to convince you?

blood deteriorated over time. there is no stopping that.
im not saying their a bad lab or not qualified. but the samples wernt tested by other. no peer review, no cross examination.

as i said before, the old tests were good enough then, why not now?
or can newer testing only be used to prove someone guilty and not innocent. that seems fair,

**Scallops** · 23rd October 2012, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Eevo

blood deteriorated over time. there is no stopping that.
im not saying their a bad lab or not qualified. but the samples wernt tested by other. no peer review, no cross examination.

as i said before, the old tests were good enough then, why not now?
or can newer testing only be used to prove someone guilty and not innocent. that seems fair,

Because new testing regimes can still identify cheats who managed to avoid detection at the time of their deceit. It is true that blood deteriorates over time, which is why this new testing method didn't rely purely on specific qualities of the blood sample itself, rather, it used an alternative method whereby the testing for traces of compounds in the blood that change significantly after the drug is taken. These compounds - or blood parameters - are indirect markers of EPO abuse and are now accepted by all laboratories worldwide as representing unequivocal evidence. But your assertion that in 15 years time, a new test might disprove these results is completely bogus. Testing that can demonstrate drug use at any point in time needs to apply the rigour of scientific analysis to become a testing protocol. All that can happen in 15 years time is that further samples taken in the past can test positive then.

No drug testing is done over multiple labs. B samples are rechecked under the same parameters in the same lab to actually add rigour to the testing.

So you won't be finding out that LA was doing chocolate milk this time.

Thread: LA

Thread Tools

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions