August 24, 200521 yr The director of the Tour de France said it was a "proven scientific fact" that Lance Armstrong had a performance-boosting drug in his body during his 1999 Tour win, and that the seven-time champion owed fans an explanation. In a story Wednesday, Jean-Marie Leblanc praised L'Equipe for an investigation that reported that six urine samples provided by Armstrong during the 1999 Tour tested positive for the red blood cell- booster EPO. The French sports daily on Tuesday accused Armstrong of using EPO during his first Tour win in 1999. "For the first time _ and these are no longer rumors or insinuations, these are proven scientific facts _ someone has shown me that in 1999, Armstrong had a banned substance called EPO in his body," Leblanc told the paper. "The ball is now in his camp. Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the tour," Leblanc said. "What L'Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled." Armstrong, a frequent target of L'Equipe, vehemently denied the allegations on Tuesday, calling the article "tabloid journalism." "I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs," he said on his Web site. L'Equipe reported that six urine samples provided by the cancer- surviving American during the 1999 Tour tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO. The drug, formally known as erythropoietin, was on the list of banned substances at the time, but there was no effective test to detect it. The allegations surfaced six years later because EPO tests on the 1999 samples were carried out only last year _ when scientists at a lab outside Paris used them for research to perfect EPO testing. The national anti-doping laboratory in Chatenay-Malabry said it promised to hand its finding to the World Anti-Doping Agency, provided it was never used to penalize riders. Five-time cycling champion Miguel Indurain said he couldn't understand why scientists would use samples from the 1999 Tour for their tests. "That seems bizarre, and I don't know who would have the authorization to do it," he told L'Equipe. "I don't even know if it's legal to keep these samples." L'Equipe's investigation was based on the second set of two samples used in doping tests. The first set were used in 1999 for analysis at the time. Without those samples, any disciplinary action against Armstrong would be impossible, French Sports Minister Jean-Francois Lamour said. Lamour said he was forced to have doubts about L'Equipe's report because he had not seen the originals of some of the documents that appeared in the paper. "I do not confirm it," he told RTL radio. But he added: "If what L'Equipe says is true, I can tell you that it's a serious blow for cycling." The International Cycling Union did not begin using a urine test for EPO until 2001, though it was banned in 1990. For years, it had been impossible to detect the drug, which builds endurance by boosting the production of oxygen-rich red blood cells. Jacques de Ceaurriz, the head of France's anti-doping laboratory, which developed the EPO urine test, told Europe-1 radio that at least 15 urine samples from the 1999 Tour had tested positive for EPO. Separately, the lab said it could not confirm that the positive results were Armstrong's. It noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only a six-digit number to identify the rider, and could not be matched with the name of any one cyclist. However, L'Equipe said it was able to make the match. On one side of a page Tuesday, it showed what it claimed were the results of EPO tests from anonymous riders used for lab research. On the other, it showed Armstrong's medical certificates, signed by doctors and riders after doping tests _ and bearing the same identifying number printed on the results. L'Equipe is owned by the Amaury Group whose subsidiary, Amaury Sport Organization, organizes the Tour de France and other sporting events. The paper often questioned Armstrong's clean record and frequently took jabs at him _ portraying him as too arrogant, too corporate and too good to be real. "Never to such an extent, probably, has the departure of a champion been welcomed with such widespread relief," the paper griped the day after Armstrong won his seventh straight Tour win and retired from cycling. Leblanc suggested that in the future, urine samples could be stashed away for future testing as detection methods improve _ another possible weapon in the fight against doping. "We're so tired of doping that all means are good as long as they are morally acceptable," he told L'Equipe. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/24/D8C65QM00.html :confused
August 24, 200521 yr His comeback from various types of cancer is still amazing and he still should be considered the greatest of all time. What he did pre-winning 7 Tours to me is the best achievement a human has (physically) ever made. Hell, if he would have just survived and entered a competition, let alone win one, it STILL would have been considered incredible. Also, "performance enhancers" are a looe term. Ripped force is an enhancer, but its not something to be frowned on.
August 24, 200521 yr Morally acceptable to test 6 year old urine? Wow. If they couldn't effectively test then I would side with Armstrong regardless. I mean, that's the tour's fault. If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying. *shrugs*
August 24, 200521 yr witch hunting. A bunch of French American haters. . . 913425[/snapback] And yet... A lot of people hate on Bonds for the same thing. American American haters. Whatchu tink a 'dat?
August 24, 200521 yr witch hunting. A bunch of French American haters. . . 913425[/snapback] And yet... A lot of people hate on Bonds for the same thing. American American haters. Whatchu tink a 'dat? 913429[/snapback] two different situations, but I guess you like to take the opportunity to bring Bonds into the equation. whatever btw, I've worked in France so I have a little background on what they think about us
August 24, 200521 yr witch hunting. A bunch of French American haters. . . 913425[/snapback] And yet... A lot of people hate on Bonds for the same thing. American American haters. Whatchu tink a 'dat? 913429[/snapback] two different situations, but I guess you like to take the opportunity to bring Bonds into the equation. whatever btw, I've worked in France so I have a little background on what they think about us 913437[/snapback] How are they different? Bonds actually has MORE in favor of him, considering his is all heresay while Lance has actual tests against him. I don't care either way, because personally they could all use this stuff and I wouldn't give a damn. I'm just interested in hearing how this is different. I just brought up the Bonds issue because it makes for interesting conversation.
August 24, 200521 yr witch hunting. A bunch of French American haters. . . 913425[/snapback] And yet... A lot of people hate on Bonds for the same thing. American American haters. Whatchu tink a 'dat? 913429[/snapback] two different situations, but I guess you like to take the opportunity to bring Bonds into the equation. whatever btw, I've worked in France so I have a little background on what they think about us 913437[/snapback] How are they different? Bonds actually has MORE in favor of him, considering his is all heresay while Lance has actual tests against him. I don't care either way, because personally they could all use this stuff and I wouldn't give a damn. I'm just interested in hearing how this is different. I just brought up the Bonds issue because it makes for interesting conversation. 913446[/snapback] so are you saying that Bonds is being subject to the same witch hunt because he is African American? "American American Haters"? So there is nothing to suspect that he has used performance enhancing drugs? I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion How is this the same? Amstrong has been tested to death (one of the most tested athlete ever). I never seen where they test urine 6 year after (how do we know this is legit?) that should be a red flag right there. In addition, no explanation on what the effects of this drug has on the athlete. LAnce has been spitted on and cursed while competing.
August 24, 200521 yr Barry's been hated on while competing and can't go anywhere without getting some idiot yelling at him or accusing him; also his kids get some of the same treatment. It's a different sport, I'll grant you. I never made the African American connection, you made that in your own mind. The American American thing was a joke. Good God, you can't actually be worked up over this, can ya'? The instances are similar is all I'm saying.
August 24, 200521 yr Question Why do we always turn a blind eye to Lance and yet always accuse Barry Bonds of guilt? Lance and Barry have both been accused numerous times. Lance has had colleagues come foward to say they have first hand knowledge of his use and now has a scientific test stating his use as well. Bonds has never factually been linked with steroids. Nobody has seen him use them, he has never failed a test and also from the leaked Grand Jury transcripts, he denied use there as well. Yet we continue to presume his guilt and Lance's truth. Is it a race issue? Could it be the way they are perceived in the media? Do we think Lance is a hero and Bonds is unlikable? Maybe it is because Lance survived cancer? While media perception may skew our views and Lance's cancer survival is amazing, it should be noted that not all cancer survivors are good, honest people and that media perception should be avoided to lead to an unbiased conclusion. I personally think that both are guilty and I think it is fairly obvious, however I find it interesting and funny how extremem people will go and turn a blind eye to Lance while accusing Barry despite less evidence. I am interested in hearing opinions on this and other's thoughts as well.
August 24, 200521 yr - generally speaking, people doesn't give a crap about the Tour d'France in America. that's why Lance can fly under the radar - I do think race play a factor, but it is really minor. Sosa is black, and he hasn't been subject to the same scrutiny as Bonds. - Bonds doesn't have a good image with the media, or the public in general. That's where I think most of the hate come from.
August 24, 200521 yr Question Why do we always turn a blind eye to Lance and yet always accuse Barry Bonds of guilt? Lance and Barry have both been accused numerous times. Lance has had colleagues come foward to say they have first hand knowledge of his use and now has a scientific test stating his use as well. Bonds has never factually been linked with steroids. Nobody has seen him use them, he has never failed a test and also from the leaked Grand Jury transcripts, he denied use there as well. Yet we continue to presume his guilt and Lance's truth. Is it a race issue? Could it be the way they are perceived in the media? Do we think Lance is a hero and Bonds is unlikable? Maybe it is because Lance survived cancer? While media perception may skew our views and Lance's cancer survival is amazing, it should be noted that not all cancer survivors are good, honest people and that media perception should be avoided to lead to an unbiased conclusion. I personally think that both are guilty and I think it is fairly obvious, however I find it interesting and funny how extremem people will go and turn a blind eye to Lance while accusing Barry despite less evidence. I am interested in hearing opinions on this and other's thoughts as well. 913462[/snapback] exactly. if this story came out on barry bonds, everyone in the media would jump all over him but since the french are accusing an american hero, the media and the public will turn a blind eye
August 24, 200521 yr I'm so ready to believe Armstrong was using, since I have this impression of him as a complete a**hole. But, come on. ANYTHING could've happened to that urine over the past 5 years. Who knows if it's even really Lance Armstrong's urine at this point? This news only makes me less willing to believe he used steroids. They seem kind of desperate.
August 24, 200521 yr I'm so ready to believe Armstrong was using, since I have this impression of him as a complete a**hole. But, come on. ANYTHING could've happened to that urine over the past 5 years. Who knows if it's even really Lance Armstrong's urine at this point? This news only makes me less willing to believe he used steroids. They seem kind of desperate. 913524[/snapback] I am fairly sure that through the fact that his denials have not claimed the urine as anything but his own and have only stated that he did not dope, that even he recognizes this urine to be his. I would assume that urine carries some kind of DNA to link a person to it and that the French would not come out with this unless they had a way to unequivequally prove that this was in fact Armstrong's urine. So I do not believe your argument of fraud would hold up if that is what you are basing it on.
August 24, 200521 yr Author I'm so ready to believe Armstrong was using, since I have this impression of him as a complete a**hole. But, come on. ANYTHING could've happened to that urine over the past 5 years. Who knows if it's even really Lance Armstrong's urine at this point? This news only makes me less willing to believe he used steroids. They seem kind of desperate. 913524[/snapback] Why is he a complete a**hole? The 14 million his foundation has earned not doing enough for you?
August 24, 200521 yr EPO test isnt flawless.. there have been cases when atheltes test positives on their A sample and negative on their B sample. They only have a B sample from Armstrong in 99, meaning this proves squat. plus doping was so rampant in 99 in cycling that the whole field was probably on EPO since they couldnt test for it back then
August 24, 200521 yr I'm so ready to believe Armstrong was using, since I have this impression of him as a complete a**hole.? But, come on.? ANYTHING could've happened to that urine over the past 5 years.? Who knows if it's even really Lance Armstrong's urine at this point? This news only makes me less willing to believe he used steroids.? They seem kind of desperate. 913524[/snapback] Why is he a complete a**hole? The 14 million his foundation has earned not doing enough for you? 913537[/snapback] Oh, well, then: Barry Bonds Charity A legendary ballplayer on the field and a great humanitarian off the field, Bonds contributes much of his time and efforts to the charities below: United Way of America 701 North Fairfax Street Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 836-7112 http://www.unitedway.org United Way of the Bay Area 50 California St Ste 200 San Francisco, CA 94111-4605 (415) 772-4300 http://www.theunitedway.com The Bonds Family Foundation / United Way of Bay Area - assists underpriviledged children - "Bridge to the Future" campaign / provides schools and families with Playstations and learning software - Link N' Learn program (connects children and parents with tutoring services and interactive educational technology) - Bonds Private School Scholarship Fund - board member of United Way of the Bay Area - involved with bone marrow campaign fundraising drive for African-Americans with leukemia, blood-related disorders - appeared in PSA regarding bone marrow campaign United Way - donated $100,000 to United Way for families of victims from Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, giving $10,000 per HR following tragedy "The Bonds Squad" / Make-a-Family program - purchases 50 seats at home games throughout the summer months Serra High School (San Mateo, Calif.) - alma mater - established scholarship fund for African-American student based on academics, athletics and community service Giants/Nortel Networks Reading Program http://www.sanfranciscogiants.com - lends his image to promotional materials for summer reading program California Police Athletic League "Stop the Violence" campaign - appeared in promotional billboards Baseball Tomorrow Fund - national spokesperson - appeared in PSA Adopt a Special Kid 7700 Edgewater Drive, Suite 320 Oakland, CA 94621 (510) 553-1748 OR (888) 680-7349 Fax: (510) 553-1747 Email: info@adoptaspecialkid.org http://www.adoptaspecialkid.org - has donated $100,000 since 1993 - honored by the organization for contributions - pledges $10,000 per year, $100 for each home run, stolen base and RBI - has co-hosted celebrity baseball game fundraiser with Michael Bolton Cardiac Arrhythmias Research and Education Foundation 2082 Michelson Drive #301 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 752-2273 OR (800) 404-9500 http://www.longqt.org - works with young athletes
August 24, 200521 yr I'm so ready to believe Armstrong was using, since I have this impression of him as a complete a**hole.? But, come on.? ANYTHING could've happened to that urine over the past 5 years.? Who knows if it's even really Lance Armstrong's urine at this point? This news only makes me less willing to believe he used steroids.? They seem kind of desperate. 913524[/snapback] Why is he a complete a**hole? The 14 million his foundation has earned not doing enough for you? 913537[/snapback] You can be an a**hole on a personal level and still do good things. I'm sure just about every well-paid athelete and movie star has some charity foundation of some kind, and good for them...doesn't mean they're all swell people. I don't know Lance Armstrong. I just have an impression of him as an a**hole based on some of his comments over the years, and some of the things his ex-wife said about him. Could this all be completely off-base? Obviously. But unless you know him personally, I think it would be very tough for you to change my almost completely baseless impression of him. You're welcome to try.
August 24, 200521 yr I'm so ready to believe Armstrong was using, since I have this impression of him as a complete a**hole.? But, come on.? ANYTHING could've happened to that urine over the past 5 years.? Who knows if it's even really Lance Armstrong's urine at this point? This news only makes me less willing to believe he used steroids.? They seem kind of desperate. 913524[/snapback] I am fairly sure that through the fact that his denials have not claimed the urine as anything but his own and have only stated that he did not dope, that even he recognizes this urine to be his. I would assume that urine carries some kind of DNA to link a person to it and that the French would not come out with this unless they had a way to unequivequally prove that this was in fact Armstrong's urine. So I do not believe your argument of fraud would hold up if that is what you are basing it on. 913531[/snapback] Well, considering half the French people don't seem to like Lance all that much, if I were him, I wouldn't believe it was my urine unless I'd been carrying it around with me for 5 years. I haven't seen his comments. There's a good chance he knows many things that I don't. Yeah, they could probably check it against his DNA, and they probably already have, so you're probably right...but you're kind of taking up a very tagential point of my post. The point is that urine has been sitting somewhere--who knows where--for 5 years, and even if it's Lance's, there's plenty that could've happened to it. This isn't the FBI; this is the Tour de France Pee-testing Unit. Maybe they put Lance's pee on high-security lockdown for 5 years, but I'm guessing they didn't. Why go back and test someone's 5 year-old urine? Is this standard procedure for all cyclists? Or just for subjects of rumors and/or anti-Americanism? Unless this is SOP, the motives for these extra tests have to throw the results into question, I would think.
August 24, 200521 yr Author Hugg, Im not anti-Bonds like alot of people on here...so your point isnt swaying me. Mabdul, I respect you having an opinion and I have no place to criticize you for that however I was a bit miffed that a**hole and Lance were in the same sentence. But I will pass two things on to you: My girlfriend's aunt is a cancer survivor and she had the opportunity to meet Lance (randomly, in a public place) in Austin a few years back and talked to him for about 10-15 minutes on her own story of survival. Also, something I will always think of Lance for is when he went unannounced to a Fire Station in NY (one that lost alot of men) and visited some of those guys down there that were avid bike fans and actually gave them the opportunity to 'race' while he was there. And the Lance Armstrong foundation is not some foundation where he simply stamped his name on it to make himself look good. A majority of his free time is dedicated to this charity and I know he makes many, many apperances across the country on behalf of this organization.
August 24, 200521 yr Keyword: France 913688[/snapback] Ummmmm... I'm going to need clarification on this one?
August 24, 200521 yr Hugg, Im not anti-Bonds like alot of people on here...so your point isnt swaying me. Mabdul, I respect you having an opinion and I have no place to criticize you for that however I was a bit miffed that a**hole and Lance were in the same sentence. But I will pass two things on to you: My girlfriend's aunt is a cancer survivor and she had the opportunity to meet Lance (randomly, in a public place) in Austin a few years back and talked to him for about 10-15 minutes on her own story of survival. Also, something I will always think of Lance for is when he went unannounced to a Fire Station in NY (one that lost alot of men) and visited some of those guys down there that were avid bike fans and actually gave them the opportunity to 'race' while he was there. And the Lance Armstrong foundation is not some foundation where he simply stamped his name on it to make himself look good. A majority of his free time is dedicated to this charity and I know he makes many, many apperances across the country on behalf of this organization. 913686[/snapback] I don't really mind you getting miffed. Lance is a hero to a lot of people, and deservedly so. I think it would be a shame if anything were to put a dent in his image because he's meant so much for cancer research. Clearly, he's not a "complete" a**hole. Anyone that competitive has to be at last a bit of an ass, but maybe that's all it is.
August 24, 200521 yr Author Hugg, Im not anti-Bonds like alot of people on here...so your point isnt swaying me. Mabdul, I respect you having an opinion and I have no place to criticize you for that however I was a bit miffed that a**hole and Lance were in the same sentence. But I will pass two things on to you: My girlfriend's aunt is a cancer survivor and she had the opportunity to meet Lance (randomly, in a public place) in Austin a few years back and talked to him for about 10-15 minutes on her own story of survival. Also, something I will always think of Lance for is when he went unannounced to a Fire Station in NY (one that lost alot of men) and visited some of those guys down there that were avid bike fans and actually gave them the opportunity to 'race' while he was there. And the Lance Armstrong foundation is not some foundation where he simply stamped his name on it to make himself look good. A majority of his free time is dedicated to this charity and I know he makes many, many apperances across the country on behalf of this organization. 913686[/snapback] I don't really mind you getting miffed. Lance is a hero to a lot of people, and deservedly so. I think it would be a shame if anything were to put a dent in his image because he's meant so much for cancer research. Clearly, he's not a "complete" a**hole. Anyone that competitive has to be at last a bit of an ass, but maybe that's all it is. 913710[/snapback] Great post. Pre-Cancer Lance was in fact, an ass. :thumbup
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.