The Bobcat Nation

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 145D08.DTL

If this has legs, does this destroy his accomplishments in the eyes of Americans, or is he immune to the wrath that has come down on others who have been accused of using banned substances?

I hope it ends up being refuted, obviously. I'd hate to see his accomplishments devalued.

As a snarky aside, why is it that whenever Bush hangs out with an athlete, he ends up testing positive for banned substances? If Bush comes out and publicly states that he doesn't believe the allegations, like he did after Palmeiro tested positive, then I'll know Lance is in trouble.

Bay Area Cat wrote:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 145D08.DTL

As a snarky aside, why is it that whenever Bush hangs out with an athlete, he ends up testing positive for banned substances? If Bush comes out and publicly states that he doesn't believe the allegations, like he did after Palmeiro tested positive, then I'll know Lance is in trouble.

"Hello Lance? Yeah....it's Dub.....Listen, promise you won't get mad........."

I hope this all washes over. The French have tried it before and would love to get their hands on any type of Lance related scandal. Last year they even broke into his room looking for dope.

Nick wrote:I hope this all washes over. The French have tried it before and would love to get their hands on any type of Lance related scandal. Last year they even broke into his room looking for dope.

I'm talking about a little place called Aspen.

I don't know Lloyd, the french a$$holes.

Wow does this sound contrived. So EPO was a banned substance in 1999, but there were no tests to detect it.

Now six years later they are using these samples "perfect EPO testing"?????? Sounds to me like they are assuming these samples have EPO in them and designing a test to find what they assume should be an indicator of existence of this drug. Kind of ass-backwards science if you ask me.

rtb wrote:

Nick wrote:I hope this all washes over. The French have tried it before and would love to get their hands on any type of Lance related scandal. Last year they even broke into his room looking for dope.

I'm talking about a little place called Aspen.

I don't know Lloyd, the french a$$holes.

Robin Williams (French accent):
"If the French invented baseball, there would be only left field and no one would be safe!"

or

"Oh, f**k you Americans, we don't need you...................

what?

the Germans are coming?



We love you Americans!!! Welcome!!!

I keep coming back to what the one former record holder Indurian (spelling?) says. What are they doing with samples form 1999.


The little I know about a whiz quiz, I'm skeptical if you could get any type of accuracy from a 7 year old sample.

I thought they were seven year old test results, not the urine samples?

Nick wrote:I thought they were seven year old test results, not the urine samples?

I read it as though they just recently tested urine samples that were seven years old, using technology that they claim wasn't available at the time.

Ponycat makes a good point -- what's the "useful" shelf life of your typical urine sample?

It's a total witch hunt. The French hate it that an American has dominated their race.

The samples don't have Lance's name on them-to insure that the lab worker is unbiased. The number on the sample is supposed to conform to a number assigned to Lance. No chance of tomfoolery there-eh?

Even the French newspaper that broke this story states there is no way to sanction Lance now.

Armstrong has deflected drug charges for years-he's pretty teflon when it comes to this stuff.

To prove that someone is doping I understand they need both blood samples and urine samples and compare the two. They can't do that because the blood samples from 1999 are long gone.

I have been waiting to hear Velo comment on this thread, but nothing. Velo is are resident expert on every thing cycling and french. Is Velo still around.

The urine samples were frozen. Organic compounds do not generally alter themselves while frozen, thus making the 1999 urine samples quite reliable. The biggest issue will be what was the chain of custody after the sample was collected. That will be a tough one to defend me-thinks.

Also, wasn't it true that "they" didn't actually detect EPO, and what they detected were indicators that EPO was present?

No one's asking a really stupid question, so here it goes: If they don't have a test to detect EPO, then how do you make it in the first place?

All that said, nothing would surprise me in this case.

BelgradeBobcat wrote:It's a total witch hunt. The French hate it that an American has dominated their race.

The samples don't have Lance's name on them-to insure that the lab worker is unbiased. The number on the sample is supposed to conform to a number assigned to Lance. No chance of tomfoolery there-eh?

Even the French newspaper that broke this story states there is no way to sanction Lance now.

Armstrong has deflected drug charges for years-he's pretty teflon when it comes to this stuff.

To prove that someone is doping I understand they need both blood samples and urine samples and compare the two. They can't do that because the blood samples from 1999 are long gone.

The article from L'Equipe claims to have matched Armstrong's name with the "anonymous" serial number on the sample, by matching the serial number with the one on Armstrong's medical certificate. The way I understand they "prove" the serial number is the same, anyone with a working knowledge of PhotoShop could "find a match."

L'Equipe has had it out for Armstrong from the get-go, and are trying to reduce Armstrong's legacy to the sport he transformed in many ways. I find their "damning evidence"--6 years after the fact--to be low-class and dishonorable.