1. Eric on August 24, 2005 07:37 PM writes...

You have about as much objective evidence thatLance has cheated as you have evidence of fairies at the bottom of your garden. i.e. none.

Motive, and knowledge, are not proof of use.

2. Steve on August 24, 2005 07:38 PM writes...

There are several issues here that are going to require much futher research, and much deeper thought:

1) First, not to be snarky, it was a urine sample that was retained, not blood.

2) Under then (and I believe, current) UCI regulations, b-samples are supposed to be destroyed after the a-sample tests negative. This is a big problem, unless Armstrong signed something allowing them to retain the sample for further testing. It has only been recently (in the past TWO years) that the UCI has recieved "informed consent" from all riders that samples may be retained.

3) Given that there is a German athlete who has demostrated that he tests positive under certain conditions using the current EPO test) obviously without haveing partaken of EPO, who is to say that this current test does not produce false positives? There is currently much arguement in the scientific community as to whether or not a sample that has been retained this long can still (validly and accurately) be tested. If there is some systemic flaw in the test, then it would make sense that ALL of Armstrong's samples would have tested positive.

3) How was the information obtained? Is there NO confidentiality in the test (which was supposed to be a blind research test)?

I'm sorry, but I smell a rat.

3. JorgXMckie on August 24, 2005 07:43 PM writes...

Not that the French would have a motive or anything, but where is the proof that this sample has not been tampered with in the past seven years? This would usually be called, at the very least, the chain of custody. Plus, some sort of evidence that no one could have gotten at the samples.

Oh, yeah, and when are the results of the rest of the samples going to be released?

4. Shannon Love on August 24, 2005 07:44 PM writes...

I'm not even sure that a glycoprotien like EPO could be detected in a urine sample, much less one 6 years old. In medical situations erythropoietin levels must be measured from blood serum. Further, they would have to discriminate between the synthetic version and the naturally occurring one. Even if they do have a test that will work on fresh samples unless the testers have six year old control samples to work against their results won't be valid.

I suppose we have reached the point were all high performance athletes are presumed guilty until proven innocent but how exactly does one defend ones self against such charges? You can't prove a negative.

5. PoorYorick on August 24, 2005 07:56 PM writes...

just a quick comment that steroids that treat poison ivy are corticosteroids, not anabolic steroids. Big difference.

6. Horst Graben on August 24, 2005 08:05 PM writes...

Chain of custody, sample hold time, instrument false positives, laboratory contamination, quality control samples...

The above list is the minimum required to produce a certified laboratory result.

Since you decided to utter your verdict, I conclude that you are a yenta. Sorry, I won't be looking about your weblog as I cannot respect you as a man.

No wonder I quit reading TCS 6-months ago. Being a putz is a disease, just like a druggie or juicer. You need help to get help or will suffer the rest of your life as a girlie man.

Also, poor yorick is right, prednesone is the steriod of choice for systemic poison ivy/oak.

7. Ernst Blofeld on August 24, 2005 08:07 PM writes...

I agree that Lance can't be stripped of his title for '99 based on this--it would be contrary to the drug testing protocol. But that doesn't address the issue of whether he doped or not. The evidence is pretty good that he did. The positive drug test, combined with other factors--the association with Dr. Ferrari, and the testimony of various support staff, the rampant use of drugs in the peleton--swing it over past the preponderance of evidence level.

The EPO test does indeed use urine.

8. Tim on August 24, 2005 08:17 PM writes...

Sometimes where there is smoke there is fire. Sometimes where there is smoke it is just people blowing smoke. So, Whatcha been smokin', Dooood?

9. ic on August 24, 2005 08:25 PM writes...

As a matter of fact, the French accused all members of Discovery Channel, CSC, and T-Mobil of doping because "it was just unbelievable that those three teams were so much better than the others". I read that comment on a Chinese newspaper when I was in Beijing, so I don't have a link.

10. Rob on August 24, 2005 08:44 PM writes...

Dittos, even though there wasn't a good test for EPO, you can still detect it by looking at the hematocryt levels. I guess the thing is that Lance has been tested hundreds of times, and has been clean in all of them. Now they are saying, 6 years later, that he did EPO in 1999? After just going through chemotherapy hell? And he was really going to inject this crap and screw up his CV system? There is alot of second-hand evidence, but until Lance actually fesses up, then I will believe his performance is genetic and training based. Who's to say, anyway, that he just doesn't have more EPO in his system naturally? I don't think he ever had trouble with his hematocryt tests, which is the main indication of EPO usage.

11. Ernst Blofeld on August 24, 2005 09:35 PM writes...

In 1999 he was well past using prescribed EPO--that was during his chemotherapy a couple years before.

In fact you can't detect EPO by only looking at hemocrit levels. The cycling authorities simply prohibit anyone with a hemocrit level of over 50 from racing on the grounds that it could be dangerous to the rider. Since the hemocrit level could be elevated for several legal reasons, including training at altitude or sleeping in an altitude tent, there is no drug sanction associated with this. They need to pop positive on a drug test in accordance with the drug testing protocols in order to be sanctioned.

But being sanctioned and being a drug user are two different things. The evidence, circumstantial and scientific, is that Armstrong used.

Maybe it's because I've been following bike racing for so long that I'm a cynic, but drug use is rampant in the sport. There is simply too great of an advantage to be gained by using performance enhancing drugs. Probably the last rider that I'd really be surprised about using would have been Andy Hampsten.

12. Crusty on August 24, 2005 09:58 PM writes...

Why even bother with drug tests? Let's just ask Nick what HE THINKS!

13. John Kuran on August 24, 2005 10:00 PM writes...

I question the validity of the test. Rutger Beke was accused of taking EPO as a result of testing positive from this very same test. Turns out his Aplha-1 ACT masked the isoformers they were looking for, for a positive result. Also, this is subjective, not a quantitative test. Also, EPO is a protein and it is unstable in urine, even if frozen. So, I don't know how long it can survive in urines, especially after 7 years, even if frozen. I'd also question the test they used to convict Tyler Hamilton of blood doping, especially since the amount in question was less than 2% - well within the margins of error, when the doctors who devised the test advise a 15% cutoff point. And that was a subjective test too - they couldn't strip him of his Olympic medal because his A sample was destroyed (because initially, he was tested as negative but the lab technicians were then instructed to look at his B sample to come up with a positive result.).

I truely doubt these tests would survive peer reviews - there's too many question to be asked. Too subjetive, not hard quantitative as it should be.

14. shark on August 24, 2005 10:02 PM writes...

The fact that these samples were kept since 1999.....1999!!! alone is enough to raise enough red flags to rile up a pasture full of bulls.

15. Demosophist on August 24, 2005 10:20 PM writes...

George:

If Lance used them in '99 then, objectively, they didn't help him much. He continued to win, by even wider margins, in subsequent years after they had a reliable test for EPO. There's no "proof" that he didn't use EPO, but there's also not much evidence that he did. And the overall pattern of wins, and the margin of victory, suggests that he probably didn't use it... if we assume that using it conveys some sort of advantage.

So, in other words, if you remain consistent with the central premise of your argument, that using banned substances conveys an advantage, the pattern suggests he's innocent.

16. BladeDoc on August 24, 2005 10:50 PM writes...

I think that Lance should tell the French if they don't stop trying to figure out ways to strip him of medals, he won't stop racing in the TDF. "Fine. You took the '99 medal away, guess I have to win the 2006 one." That'd shut them up.

17. JorgXMckie on August 24, 2005 11:13 PM writes...

dailypundit.com has an excellent coverage of the problematic nature of these tests.
http://www.dailypundit.com/newarchives/003896.php#003896
IANAL, but I think if Armstrong sued he'd stand a hell of a chance of winning.

18. MDP on August 25, 2005 03:37 AM writes...

Nick: ... this strikes me as much ado about nothing. It's based on a 'b' urine* sample ...

Tests on "B" samples are less reliable than tests on "A" samples?

19. Colin on August 25, 2005 05:59 AM writes...

I've always considered that they were all at it and that in that sense there is a level playing field. For me, there is a place for a really tough sport where the athletes may take drugs, and I've been led to believe that cycling was that sport. It doesn't detract from my enjoyment - if anything it enhances it.

20. Nick on August 25, 2005 11:23 AM writes...

I've responded to some of the critics who think I was too quick to judge Lance here: http://www.corante.com/transition/archives/2005/08/25/lanced_by_the_critics_but_im_his_biggest_fan.php.

21. digitalbrownshirt on August 25, 2005 11:40 AM writes...

"The positive drug test, combined with other factors--the association with Dr. Ferrari, and the testimony of various support staff, the rampant use of drugs in the peleton--swing it over past the preponderance of evidence level."

So if we get enough rumors and innuendos circulating, we can use the high volume of rumors and innuendos as proof that there must be some validity to the charges.

22. Shhiggins on August 25, 2005 12:36 PM writes...

And of course, he could just have a physiology that just kicks the ass off anyone else which, combined with his mental toughness and competitiveness, makes him unbeatable.

See this study: http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/98/6/2191

The guy is a mutant, plain and simple!

23. Tom Bartlett on August 25, 2005 04:03 PM writes...

I don't know whether he "doped" or not, but he lost all my respect when he did that photo op with "W". No one held a gun to his head and made him bike with the Idiot-in-Chief.

24. steveH on August 25, 2005 04:17 PM writes...

So Tom, I assume from your comment that you're all for tossing the 1st Amendment?

Kewl.

25. Tom Bartlett on August 25, 2005 04:22 PM writes...

I'm a big fan of the right to peacably assemble, but my mama always told me you can judge a man by the company he keeps!

26. thumpernadya on August 25, 2005 04:49 PM writes...

I believe he's innocent. And I believe he's a smart and esteemed man to be able to not only get a photo op with the Commander in Chief but time in his schedule and a bike ride to boot!

27. shaft45 on August 25, 2005 06:52 PM writes...

Why is it relevant to bring up politics and the President when we are discussing and entirely different topic?
Lance just plain kicks butt. The Frenchies need to give it a rest. This is nothing but a witchhunt. Com'on... it was seven years ago and he has continued to dominate the Tour through hard work, talent, and perseverance.

28. shaft45 on August 25, 2005 06:54 PM writes...

Why is it relevant to bring up politics and the President when we are discussing an entirely different topic?
Lance just plain kicks butt. The Frenchies need to give it a rest. This is nothing but a witchhunt. Com'on... it was seven years ago and he has continued to dominate the Tour through hard work, talent, and perseverance.

29. Jim C. on August 25, 2005 08:32 PM writes...

Tom Bartlett writes... "No one held a gun to his head and made him bike with the Idiot-in-Chief."

Strangely enough, if Kerry had won, that sentence would not have had to change (considering the revelations about Kerry's grades).

30. maneck on August 26, 2005 02:01 AM writes...

Hi, steveH,

Just because someone expresses dislike for another doesn't mean that the Constitution is subverted. I didn't read anywhere in Tom Bartlett's post that riding with George W. Bush was anything other than something personally distasteful. In fact, Tom was merely exercising his First Amendment rights. If I were like you, I would jump to the conclusion that you're one of those Republican troglodytes who thinks that any disagreement with George W. Bush is treason. Sorry for taking precious time away from polishing your jack boots. Later,

31. Rick on August 26, 2005 08:56 AM writes...

I was enjoying the comments until they were hijacked by politics. Thanks guys, really thanks.

32. raoul on August 26, 2005 09:32 AM writes...

... I like people that express doubts. I have my doubts about Lance.
The "scientific" comments above again raise some doubts with me. A proteine in urine in blood may be unstable, but if a large proportion survives, it will be enough. For sure, it will not synthesise on its own and produce a false positive. Please remember that the french lab is one of the leading labs in the world and that we do not talk about amateurs in the field.
The discussions brings into my mind that all over the world, the public and the fans do not wish their heroes to be destroyed.
Pantani was a longtime cheat, a tragic figure and he is still considered a hero in Italy. Amazing.
Virenque has been lying for years and is a convicted cheat and he is a still popular, to say the least, in France. Disgusting. He works as a TV commentator. Why doesn't he shut up and start be be ashamed of what he did?
Armstrong in the US? I hear conspiracy, anti-americanism, anti-french emotions. What about staying with two feet on the ground and at least having some doubts about the guy? We are not in court here.