Armstrong: too good to be true?

[Datajack Franit]

So what, it is now common to freeze urine samples and re-test again after doping controls have gotten better. Samples from Salt Lake 2002 were tested again after the ability to trace previously hidden substances improved dramatically.

Yeah he had cancer, wonder why

[Flubber]

Oh and I see there is no urine left to be tested so there is nothing left that Armstrong could point to and exonerate himself .

[Sava]

Originally posted by Flubber
Oh and I see there is no urine left to be tested so there is nothing left that Armstrong could point to and exonerate himself .

yes...

usually when and old sample is tested and it says you're guilty, you can't use that same sample to say you are innocent

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
This junk again

Some people just can't leave it alone, Lance Armstrong has probably continuously busted his ass in the gym every second since he got off his hospital bed. I mean, he'd have to, to do this amazing thing without roids. Some people are just jealous I guess.

Indeed.

And as a reminder, from 2001, when EPO was detectable, Armstrong never tested positive for it or any other substance, and he was posting even stronger victories. This doesn't jive with notions of him doping prior to that.

[Sava]

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And as a reminder, from 2001, when EPO was detectable, Armstrong never tested positive for it or any other substance, and he was posting even stronger victories. This doesn't jive with notions of him doping prior to that.

It's common knowledge that almost every athlete/trainer at that level is ahead of the testers when it comes to doping. The year Ben Johnson tested positive at the Olympics he had already passed 17 controls with flying colors.

[Winston]

"But Ben Johnson set a new World Record! And he survived a serious bout of stutter. Those we're just the IOC testers constantly out to get him. And you know what, the guy's retired. I wish people would just leave him alone."

[Datajack Franit]

Exact! And what about greek sprinters caught after simulating a car accident in order to avoid a doping test? They were never found positive, so what? Why were they hiding then?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Winston
"But Ben Johnson set a new World Record! And he survived a serious bout of stutter. Those we're just the IOC testers constantly out to get him. And you know what, the guy's retired. I wish people would just leave him alone."

Very different-- as a Canadian I felt serious disappointment over the Ben Johnson affair. He was caught . He was doping .

Lance Armstrong was tested on season and off randomly for years. Was there doping available that would be undectable even if tested within hours? I don't know the answer.


The unfortunate thing is that, aside from the Armstrong case, we have gotten to a situation where we ASSUME they are all doping. Anyone good at a sport, we figure they must be on the juice. The odd thing is that there have been folks with exceptional talents all through history.


Would an unjuiced home run hitter have hit as many homers against an unjuiced pitcher?


As for Armstrong, the source of this story is an organization that has been hostile to him from the beginning. They can hardly be considered unbiased and their methodology here sucks. On any current day allegation, an athlete can say "take my blood, I'm clean"-- On this one there is no possibility to do that.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Sava
yes...

usually when and old sample is tested and it says you're guilty, you can't use that same sample to say you are innocent

Don't be dumb. The whole idea of a "B" sample is to have it on hand for retesting so that people can dispute testing methodology, impartiality etc.

Here Armstrong is faced with a situation where "hey it was anonymous so the urine wasn't linked to you but some numbers matched so its yours and oh by the way there is nothing left to be sent to another lab or whatever. "

If some of these scientists were as "out to get" Armstrong as some stories claim, is it out of the realm of possibility that some results were faked.


I still want to know how the media got their hands on the test results and Armstrong's certificates. That stuff is usually not public, is it?? If not, someone broke with ethics to provide it.

[Boris Godunov]

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html

"We are extremely surprised that urine samples could have been tested in 2004 and have revealed the presence of EPO," Ayotte said in an interview with VeloNews on Tuesday. "EPO - in its natural state or the synthesized version - is not stable in urine, even if stored at minus 20 degrees."

...

EPO is a protein hormone and it is not stable in urine, even when kept frozen," she said. "This has long had implications for any plan we've had to keep samples and specimens for long periods of time with the hope that we might, some day, retest those samples for a new substance."

It's highly unlikely--even, perhaps, impossible--that EPO could still be reliably detected after 5 years. This throws further doubt on the validity of these charges. It certainly doesn't make sense that they retested the urine last year.

[Winston]

The unsettling thing here is some people's reaction; if Lance Armstrong himself admitted to being doped, they probably wouldn't believe it. If he died 2 weeks from now in his sleep, aged 34, they wouldn't believe he was ever doped.

He's right up there with Nelson Mandela.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html

It's highly unlikely--even, perhaps, impossible--that EPO could still be reliably detected after 5 years. This throws further doubt on the validity of these charges. It certainly doesn't make sense that they retested the urine last year.

Thanks Boris-- I just read the whole thing and the interestign part to me was about the development of "qualitative" rather than "quantitative" standards.

So the top canadian expert says that the samples degrade within 3 months hey ?? Questions abound it would seem .

[DanS]

if Lance Armstrong himself admitted to being doped, they probably wouldn't believe it

You just pulled that out of your ass. The fact is that Armstrong hasn't admitted to being doped.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Flubber
This crap AGAIN

He's retired now and not once, NOT ONCE did he test positive despite being tested randomly year round for the last 7 years. I'll need more than some French journalists suppositions.

They've got tests for substances which they didn't have 7 years ago.