Comments on: Story: Armstrong Tested Positive for EPO Six Times

By: Demosophist

Demosophist — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:25:18 +0000

Strictly speaking the legality of using EPO isn't the issue, and not just because they can't prosecute. The crux of the matter is whether he used a substance that gave him an unfair advantage over other cyclists. The pattern of his races--the fact that he won six more times in a row, often by wider margins than in 1999--suggests that he neither needed nor got "extra help" that year. Compare this, for instance, with Greg Lemond whose performance degraded rather significantly over time. That, ironically, was evidence not of a "helping" but of a "hindering" substance (the lead in his system).

By: Richard Gardner

Richard Gardner — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:27:54 +0000

There is more at the Tour d' France blog http://www.tdfblog.com/2005/08/lequipe_story_a.html

He quotes Laurent Fignon, who who states,
"I don't give a sh**. 1999? This is ancient history. What does this prove and what does this solve?"
"What interests me now is keeping the next generation of cyclists clean and drug-free."

By: aTypical Joe: A gay New Yorker living in the rural south.

aTypical Joe: A gay New Yorker living in the rural south. — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:52:40 +0000

Enhanced Lance again Allegations surface again that Lance Armstrong took performance enhancing drugs, this time in a 2004 test of 1999 urine samples. For now I just choose to believe it's not true. But I continue to question our privileging "natural abilities" over...

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:55:09 +0000

Another thing to keep in mind L'Equipe really does not like Armstrong. Could they be jumping the gun or even fabricating evidence? Given the recent shoddiness in the MSM I wouldn't discount it. Still, it looks pretty bad for Armstrong.

By: The Thomas

The Thomas — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:31:40 +0000

I'm unsure on the dates, but could any of this have been related to Lance's cancer treatment? I know some cancers produce odd metabolic byproducts.

By: Rodney Dill

Rodney Dill — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:35:07 +0000

Not Surprising. Actually the French caught Armstrong with three banned substances in his room during the 2005 Tour de France. Soap, toothpaste, and deodorant.

By: B. Minich, PI

B. Minich, PI — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:30:42 +0000

I heard somewhere that they aren't even sure the samples are Armstrong's. I agree that we should assume he's innocent - after all, had he been using this drug, why didn't they catch it in later years?

By: the Pirate

the Pirate — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:24:00 +0000

I'm inclined to take this as just a witch hunt. The first problem is these were the B-samples, typically if someone tests positive with they run the back up samples to make sure it wasn't a false positive and in this case there are no ways to confirm the accuracy and precision of the sample results.

I would also be inclined to agree with Miguel Indurain, in wondering why they picked the 1999 samples and who authorized it (one would assume it was the Tour director).

To go along with your presumption, he never tested positive in a test that would of disqualified him (granted there wasn't a reliable EPO test until 2001). The test could be done anytime because riders are required to report on where they will be everyday of the year. What a life go on vacation, hear a knock at the hotel door and have to pee in a cup.

Plus I think the French are still miffed that their guy Richard Virenque confessed to doping for most of the 90's in the great Festina scandal, when their health assistant was arrested by customs in 1998 (The Tour of Shame) with illegal quantities of prescription drugs and narcotics. Of course Virenque is still a French hero for winning 7 King of the Mountains.