Nice race, some more what ifs... What would have happened if Lance had fallen down or gotten a flat tire on the final 8 laps? Would the racers all stop and wait for him? Or would they push on and try to beat him? Or would the officials call the race off? If you wipe out the entire U.S. team do you get bonus points? Just kidding. That guy was just racing. I don't think he deserved the blame as he was in front of our whole team. The question here is will they ban you from the Tour if you wipe out the yellow jersey? If the race came down to the last day, for 1st place podium, do the times count at the finish line? And if they do, would the racers ever race for it? Or would they consider the race over and try not to pass each other. Rasmussen was hilarious. That guy fell apart. Luckily I think he would still have finished at least 4th or 5th even if he hadn't kept screwing up on his bike. Who do you think will win next year? Since nobody will know who to chase it will probably be very interesting.
I'm sure they would have waited for him ~ if he were injured I believe race officials would just award him the win. The final stage is really just a parade and a sprint.
This is for SJC... bravo, Lance!! July 25, 2005 A Generous Armstrong Sees the Winner in Ullrich By SAMUEL ABT PARIS, July 25 - Lance Armstrong fulfilled Jan Ullrich's wish for an invitation to the victory party, but whether the German rider was at the Hotel Ritz was impossible to tell. With 600 guests celebrating Armstrong's seventh consecutive Tour de France triumph, the buffet table was too crowded to notice everybody. Yes, that was Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, with a plate and glass and, yes, that was what's his name, the latest in a string of actors and singers bent on rehabilitating their careers by basking in the Armstrong publicity glow. If Ullrich was there, he was just another face in the chow line. Besides, the T-Mobile team that he leads scheduled a cruise on the Seine for cocktails once the 92nd Tour ended Sunday, followed by a dinner at a restaurant in Paris. It was just a dinner, of course, not a victory party. Ullrich finished third and has not won the race since 1997, finishing second five times and fourth once. He seemed to know his fate before the Tour started July 2. "If Lance wins again," Ullrich joked, "I hope he'll at least invite me to his party." On Sunday, he said, "I'm happy to finish on the podium even if I dreamed about the yellow jersey" of the Tour's leader. "I might have not even finished this race because of my two crashes," one during a training ride before the start and the other on a descent early in the race. "I don't think it was possible to beat Lance this year," he concluded. "He was truly the strongest rider and there's nothing to do but congratulate him." That done, Ullrich has a full racing schedule ahead, unlike Armstrong, who started the first day of the rest of his life today by heading toward a beach in the south of France with his family and friends. The German has scheduled two exhibition races in Austria this week, followed by the one-day Hew Classic in Hamburg - a Pro Tour race - on Sunday, then the nine-day Tour of Germany, starting Aug. 15. Ullrich plans to continue racing until the end of the season in early October, including the world championship road race in Madrid on Sept. 25. And then there's next year. With his nemesis Armstrong - 12 times ahead of Ullrich in 14 Tour time trials, including the final one on Saturday - in retirement, does the German expect to win the 2006 Tour? "I hope, I try," he told French television on Sunday, unexpectedly breaking into English. As a first step, he might listen to advice from Armstrong, who characterizes his own relationship to the Tour as "A love for this event and a hatred for losing it." That fire is lacking in Ullrich, who is habitually overweight and often sick before the Tour de France. At his final news conference as a rider on Saturday, the Texan revealed that he and his Discovery Channel team director, Johan Bruyneel, had off-handedly discussed hiring Ullrich next season. "Why don't we take Jan?" Armstrong said he had asked, not bothering to point out how far-fetched this would be, since Ullrich and his coterie of advisers and hangers-on could never fit in the American team. Nevertheless, Armstrong continued, "Jan is special, a special rival, the scariest rider out there, the guy we're always worried about." "I truly believe Jan can win the Tour again, not just once but more than once," Armstrong added. "But clearly he has to show up for the event. He has to show up not in better shape but in a little better shape." The champion spelled it out: "What you see toward the end is a guy who can win the race. But what happens in the first half of the event is where he loses it. It's just a question of a kilo and a half," - three and a half pounds - "at the start: a little better condition, a little better preparation and I think he wins." "He has the package," Armstrong continued, citing Ullrich's climbing and time trialing abilities. "It's just the first 10 days," he said. "If you change that, he wins. "If he was on our team, that would be my first words to him." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/sports/sportsspecial/25cnd-tour.html How could he be more generous?? Hope the crow tasted good, SJC. Watch out for the feathers!
Not sure what's so generous about it, or why I would have to eat crow. I said from the beginning that I expect him to win this Tour again. I just thought that some proof would come out before he manages to end his career. Ah well, there was never any definite proof with regard to Florence Griffith-Joyner, either. I am not even sure Ullrich can win the Tour next year. He just has to work on his style, and he needs to take Armstrong's advice (which is nothing new, everyone knows that). I have a problem with Ullrich's preparation and style. Every year, he loses the Tour at the same stages in the mountains, when climbers like Armstrong, Basso, and now Rasmussen seem to use a completely different style than him - he doesn't seem to be able to adapt quickly to changes in speed...the same thing has happened over and over and over again over the last few years, yet, Ullrich doesn't seem to adapt one bit. Even his old coach said that if he targeted that weakness, he could do much better. Ah well, let's see what happens next year .
Lance Armstrong: The Early Years CNN has obtained photos of a young Lance. These photos were provided by Lance's Mom. You must check these out!
Ullrich won't win the TDF in the next year... But I searched this thread to let you know that Lance Armstrong has been tested positive for EPO (L'Equipe). The LNDD has tested samples from the year 1999, when Armstrong has won his first TDF. The tests are available since 2001. Lance doesn't need to fear any sanctions by the UCI because the tests were performed by the LNDD and no second test to confirm the first tests is possible. Here is the link to the L'Equipe-website: http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/DOPAGE_ARMSTRONG_2.html Here is a link with an article written in english: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug23news2
I'm not really an Armstrong fan. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that he used drugs in the past - the tour is rife with it. But this source is rather sketchy and even learning that he used EPO at some point would not really dim his accomplishments to me. Lance Armstrong is clearly the most maniacally driven masochist of all time. I have to give him his props, because of the pain he put himself through. Not necessarily during the tour - most of the riders do that - but in the months and months of training prior to the tour. RESPEK!
Right. ..Lance Armstrong has been quick to issue a statement refuting the claims. "Yet again, a European newspaper has reported that I have tested positive for performance enhancing drugs," said the seven-time Tour winner. "[Today's] L'Equipe, a French sports daily, is reporting that my 1999 samples were positive. Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues and [the] article is nothing short of tabloid journalism. "The paper even admits in its own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no way to defend myself. They state: 'There will therefore be no counter-exam nor regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since defendant's rights cannot be respected.' "I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs." ...
Nice try Dieter... _______________ EPO tests on the 1999 B urine samples were not carried out until last year, when scientists performed research on them to fine-tune EPO testing methods, the paper said. The national anti-doping laboratory in Chatenay-Malabry, which developed the EPO test and analyzed the urine samples in question, said it could not confirm that the positive EPO results were Armstrong's. It noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only a a six-digit number to identify the rider, and could not be matched with the name of any one cyclist. link
Searching for the truth First published: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 We hate this story. We hate learning that Lance Armstrong allegedly tested positive for the blood-doping agent EPO at the 1999 Tour de France, according to a story published in French newspaper L'Equipe on Tuesday. We hate that that story follows other accusations and circumstantial evidence linking Armstrong to banned performance enhancers. We hate wondering if this man who authored sports' best feel-good story since miraculous things happened on Lake Placid ice, succumbed to competition's earthly temptation. We hate it because we love Lance. We love how he defeated death, how he absorbed every blow with which cancer could strike, and then somehow willed himself to win an impossible seven Tour de Frances in a row. We love how he inspires others and has raised more than $10 million for cancer research and survivorship. We love how he makes us feel. Which is why it's depressing to acknowledge that all this time we may have been paying homage not to an American hero but to an all-too-human figure whom would stab at a nation's heart. If we can't believe in Lance Armstrong, in whom the blazes can we believe? Please remember that Armstrong may be guilty of nothing more than being the bull's-eye of a French media corp that dislikes having an American excelling in their most un-American-like cycling event, and of acquaintances' agendas on which Armstrong's reputation grinds. Armstrong, who has said he was the most-tested athlete in sport, passed every drug test taken. Then again, cyclist Philippe Gaumont of France once estimated that 90 percent of his sport's elite competitors take banned drugs; they pass tests too. Armstrong insists he never took performance enhancers and calls the latest accusations "a witch hunt." But we've become so accustomed to cheating athletes' denials that they resonate like a cricket in a bell jar. Some of us hate not knowing the clean athletes from the dirty ones. Some of us resignedly no longer care. The most elusive quality in sports these days isn't the attainment of seemingly unattainable records. Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire amply demonstrated that. What eludes most is the truth. It's nearly impossible to see through the smoke. But make no mistake, though on and on Armstrong rode, it still densely shrouds him. It's not just that six of Armstrong's urine samples from when he won his first Tour, in 1999, reportedly tested positive for EPO, a revelation that "shocked" and "troubled" the Tour's director. It's the accumulated evidence. It's Armstrong's friendship with Italy's Dr. Michele Ferrari, who's accused of providing banned drugs to athletes. It's the drug test Armstrong took that detected cortisone, which he was able to ascribe to a steroid-based crme for saddle sores. It's the accusations made by Armstrong's former masseuse in the book "L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong," that Armstrong used EPO in 1999, and asked her to dispose of used syringes and to borrow makeup to cover his arms' needle marks. It's three-time Tour winner Greg LeMond once telling a French newspaper, "Lance is ready to do anything to keep his secret. I don't know how he can continue to convince everybody of his innocence." And now this, another story we don't want to believe. Because if it's true, we stop believing entirely. http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=391678 ------------------- Tour de France director accuses Armstrong of doping The director of the Tour de France says it is now a "proven scientific fact" that Lance Armstrong used a performance-boosting drug during his 1999 Tour win. The comments from Jean-Marie Leblanc come a day after a French newspaper reported that evidence of the drug E-P-O were found in 1999 urine samples Armstrong gave. Armstrong has dismissed the report as "tabloid journalism" and repeated his claim that he has never used performance enhancing drugs. However, Leblanc says the report proves that "we were all fooled," adding "these are no longer rumors or insinuations, these are proven scientific facts." He's now calling on the seven-time Tour de France champion to come clean, saying: "He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the tour." http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=3761114 -------------------------------- Cycling: Anti-dope boss wants probe into Armstrong SAN JOSE - World Anti-Doping Agency chairman Dick Pound yesterday called on cycling officials to investigate a report that Lance Armstrong tested positive for the illegal blood-boosting drug EPO. The tests were based on samples collected in 1999, when Armstrong won his first Tour de France. The French sports daily L'Equipe reported Armstrong had tested positive six times for erythropoietin, or EPO, a drug that aids endurance by producing oxygen-rich red blood cells. "It's not a 'he said, she said' scenario," Pound told the San Jose Mercury News. "There were documents. Unless the documents are forgeries or manipulations of them, it's a case that has to be answered." Armstrong, who retired after winning his seventh Tour last month, said on his website: "Yet again, a European newspaper has reported that I have tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs. I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs." Even while reaching iconic status in the US, Armstrong, 33, has faced constant drug rumours. In the past the Texan has attacked his accusers because they could not present concrete proof. L'Equipe's four-page report included several documents involving the 1999 drug tests. The paper showed what it said were the results of EPO tests from anonymous riders. Then it showed Armstrong's medical certificates, signed by doctors and riders after the tests, and having the same identifying number printed on the positive results. After collecting a sample, drug testers split it in two, called the A and B samples. During the 1999 Tour Armstrong's "A" samples showed no traces of drugs; there was no test for EPO then, and the cycling federation didn't begin testing for it until 2001. The "A" samples were destroyed because they were negative. But frozen "B" samples from the time were retested last year at France's national drug-testing laboratory as part of research to improve the EPO testing procedures it pioneered. L'Equipe's report is based on that testing. Laboratory officials said they could not confirm the tests were Armstrong's. Labs usually do not know the names of the athletes they are testing. The Anti-Doping Agency has an eight-year statute of limitations, but it is unlikely Armstrong would face sanctions. An athlete is declared to have a drug violation only after both the A and B samples test positive. "You may leave town with your medal and money, but as science gets better there is an eight-year reach- back," Pound said. Armstrong tested positive once, for an illegal corticosteroid during the second stage of the 1999 Tour de France, but was not penalised because the amount was minute. He said he used a corticosteroid cream for saddle sores. Drug accusations against Armstrong are an emotional issue for Americans, who view him as an athletic hero because he won the world's most prestigious cycling event after surviving testicular cancer. Millions wear his yellow Livestrong bracelets, which finance cancer research. The French, though, never embraced him in the same way. Some involved in the Tour have accused L'Equipe of fostering a negative image of the sport by aggressively reporting on drugs. Many became sceptical of professional cyclists after a drug scandal hit the 1998 Tour, when customs agents seized performance-enhancing drugs from one team's officials. Many also question Armstrong's nine-year association with trainer Michele Ferrari. Last year the Italian doctor was found guilty of fraud and illegally practising as a pharmacist. He was accused of giving cyclists, but not Armstrong, performance drugs. "If this doesn't change perspective in the US, it is absurd," said London Sunday Times journalist David Walsh, who co-wrote the controversial 2004 book, L. A. Confidential: The Secrets of Lance Armstrong. But the president of USA Cycling, Jim Ochowicz, said the latest revelations would not have an impact on Armstrong's popularity. "He did the impossible after the cancer and I don't think this changes that," he said. Pound, however, said the onus of proof would shift to the International Cycling Union and then to Armstrong. "The athletes involved have an obligation to issue more than the ritual denial," Pound said. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=4&ObjectID=10342338 --------- On Cycling: Armstrong will never beat the rumor mill Seven years, seven wins, some 17,000 miles of road covered since -- and we're right back where we started. A French newspaper is charging Lance Armstrong with doping. Again. He's denying it. Again. And the rest of the world is choosing up sides. Again. I have no idea whether Armstrong used the blood-boosting drug EPO to win his first Tour de France in 1999, despite having been on hand for that one and each of the last three. And you could argue that neither does L'Equipe, the leading French sports daily, despite devoting four pages Tuesday to that allegation, bolstered by pictures, an editorial and a front-page headline screaming, "The Armstrong Lie." That was the tack Armstrong took: In a statement posted even before L'Equipe hit newsstands, he wrote, "Yet again, a European newspaper has reported that I have tested positive for performance enhancing drugs. ... "The paper even admits in its own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no way to defend myself. They state: 'There will therefore be no counter-exam nor regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since defendant's rights cannot be respected.' "I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs." As befits a man fighting several legal battles on two continents at once, Armstrong has very good lawyers. Note how the opening reference in the statement, "Yet again, a European newspaper," subtly calls into question both the timing and the motives of L'Equipe, which has been hounding Armstrong relentlessly since the beginning of his reign. For purposes of comparison, think about how U.S. media outlets have been pursuing Barry Bonds & Co., then add a few conflicts of interest. For one, the newspaper's parent company, Amaury Sports Organisation, also owns the Tour de France and runs both out of the same building. For another, former L'Equipe journalist Pierre Ballester was co-author of last year's "L.A. Confidential, the Secrets of Lance Armstrong," a book the cyclist dismissed by saying, "Extraordinary accusations require extraordinary proof." (Which, when you think about it, is an extrardinarily phrased non- denial denial.) And then there was the parting gift L'Equipe put it in the paper the day after Armstrong's record seventh straight win: "Never to such an extent, probably, has the departure of a champion been welcomed with such widespread relief." But more to the point, Armstrong's response to L'Equipe points to flaws in the tests used for this latest indictment, and there are several. The original 'A' samples were used for testing in 1999, before EPO, or erythropoietin, could be detected in urine. Their absence not only makes confirmation impossible -- and likely any sanctions -- it means there is no scientific control. The 'B' sample that came back positive, meanwhile, was frozen since then and tested only last year, after scientists at a lab outside Paris began honing their EPO research. What all the charges and denials add up to, ultimately, is more of the same. While L'Equipe has laid out the most compelling evidence yet that Armstrong was doping, it doesn't rise to the level of a smoking gun. That unsatisfying conclusion means his detractors, as well as some of the scolds who run the tour, the sport and the anti-doping agencies are free to air their suspicions and claim Armstrong's reputation has been ruined. It also leaves untouched the central argument that his defenders have been making for years -- namely that Armstrong has been the most frequently tested athlete in the world and has yet to come back with a positive, confirmed result even once. Taking into account the messenger, the quality of the evidence and the already unsatisfying state of relations between the two nations, a standoff was probably inevitable. People will believe who and what they choose to believe, something Associated Press colleague Jim Vertuno, who's covered Armstrong in Austin, Texas, the last few years, summed up perfectly: "The detailed report will give the French media something to hang their hat on and say, 'We told you so,' while in America, Armstrong will be given a legitimate pass because there will be no legitimate way to prove the allegations." A poll on ESPN.com had already generated 35,000 responses by mid-afternoon, with more than 70 percent of the respondents believing Armstrong was clean. Whether his numbers will be even that good on the other side of either pond remans to be seen. Tour de France director Jean-Marie Leblanc pronounced himself, "very shocked, very troubled by the revelations we read this morning." By the same token, Miguel Indurain, the Spaniard whose five straight tour titles became the last milestone Armstrong passed on his way into the record book, was among the first to rush to Armstrong's defense. He told the Web site todociciclismo.com, "They have been out to get him in France for a number of years." Everyone loved Armstrong once. That was at the start of the 1999 tour, when race organizers were desperate to shake the specter of widespread doping and he was a cancer survivor with no drug allegations clouding his past who'd just won two of the first 10 stages. But then he zoomed up into the Alps and locked up the race barely halfway through it, and suspicion latched onto his trail like a shadow. Even if Armstrong is as clean as he says, there's still no way to shake it. It's easy to prove what's true, impossible to prove what's not. http://www.mercedsun-star.com/sports/story/11129832p-11884263c.html --------------------------------------- Ullrich reluctant to discuss Armstrong charges Upon hearing the news of a new round of doping allegations against Lance Armstrong, Jan Ullrich - finishing up the Tour of Germany - reacted with typical reserve and caution. Should the allegations turn out to be true, Ullrich said, he would be "very disappointed" in Armstrong, hastily adding, however, that this was not the first time the French media had attempted to discredit the seven-time Tour de France winner. Ullrich said he remains skeptical of the allegations outline in Tuesday's edition of L'Equipe. While Germany's top cycling star remained somewhat reticent, one of the country's biggest newspapers, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, was not. In a commentary published Wednesday Sueddeutsche columnist Thomas Kistner challenged Ullrich to take a firmer stand. "If Ullrich were serious about standing up against doping," Kistner wrote, "he would sue Lance Armstrong," for the damage the American has done to the German's career. After all Armstrong, Kistner implied, has cheated Ullrich out of becoming one of the greatest cyclist of all times, winning the Tour five or more times. The paper followed up the commentary with an exploration of the chances the hypothetical case of Ullrich v. Armstrong might have. The first problem, according to the paper, would be to put a price tag on the damage Ullrichs career has taken, if indeed Ullrich had been cheated by Armstrong. Ullrich's manager Wolfgang Strohband quickly dismissed such speculation. "This is all very vague, we are not thinking about it," Strohband told the paper. "It is impossible to put something like that into numbers. Forget it." The sports marketing expert Klaus Kaercher, manager of the Olympic speed skating champion Anni Friesinger, agreed with Strohband. "Ullrich was always immensely popular in Germany, despite the fact that he was always second," Kaercher pointed out. As a national sports idol his market value has been at the upper end of the spectrum since 1997. Of course, Kaercher added, as a consistent winner, his value would have been even higher. Kaercher added that it was not only Ullrich who is damaged, should it be true that Lance Armstrong's victories were fraudulent. The damage would be to all of cycling and hence to everyone involved in it. "The entire sport would be much more marketable if it didn't have such a dirty image," Kaercher observed. "Now the sport has yet another affair - and a very spectacular one. For potential sponsors that means cycling means cheating and they will prefer to put their money back into classical advertising in the future." The fact that everyone in cycling is damaged, according to Kaercher, makes the matter of a civil suit against Armstrong extremely complicated. "Just who is going to sue whom?" Kaercher asked. "Who is damaged and who is a damager? Where does this end?" For Ullrich, Kaercher concludes, there is not much to be gained by a lawsuit, financially or otherwise. Ullrich's manager Strohband agreed. "I am not going to burden myself with a lawsuit," Strohband says. So - unlike from France - Armstrong has nothing to fear from Germany. http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8750.0.html
Still innocent. Sorry frogs, keep trying. We're just laughing at your futility and haplessness on the bike.
Fans owed an explanation Armstrong backers must be told how that positive happened BY DAVID STEELE. David Steele is a columnist for the Baltimore Sun, a Tribune Co. newspaper Published August 25, 2005 Two days have passed since Lance Armstrong's reputation took the harshest blow ever--two days for America to try to convince itself that he's right and that a French newspaper is wrong, or lying, or confused, or out to get our hero. And two days of waiting for Armstrong to explain himself. It's not much to ask in light of all that has been said and done in the name of credibility and integrity, for him and his sport: If you say you didn't do it, then how did that positive test happen? The same question hangs over Armstrong, who stands accused by a report in France's daily sports newspaper of having used a banned substance during his first Tour de France win in 1999. It has been posed by the director of the Tour de France, Jean-Marie Leblanc, and the head of the World Anti-Doping Agency and a longtime International Olympic Committee official, Dick Pound. "Why, how, by whom?" Leblanc was quoted as saying Wednesday, as well as saying the latest allegations against Armstrong "are no longer rumors or insinuations; these are proven, scientific facts." This is a guy who's running the risk of killing his sport's golden goose, which should override doubts about his motivation. If Armstrong thinks he can issue a non-denial denial the way he did Tuesday, avoid a direct explanation and steer around this controversy as if it were a fallen competitor at a time trial--well, he's probably right, at least in this country. So far, there hasn't been much demand here for Armstrong to tell us precisely why the accusation in L'Equipe is wrong, to tell us how a urine sample taken from his 1999 Tour ride--the first of his seven straight victories--showed evidence of a blood-doping agent, one for which there was no test at the time, but which still was illegal. If you, as a Lance fan or a cycling fan or a sports fan, aren't demanding an explanation, then shame on you. If you wear one of the LiveStrong bracelets that has become a symbol of what's best in Armstrong and in us as humans, and you aren't demanding an explanation, then I'm not sure what to say, honestly. The idea behind the bracelets go a lot deeper than just his prowess as a cyclist, not to mention his good name. But face it, if Terrell Owens was promoting those bracelets instead, would 50 million of them have sold in the last year, with no limit in sight? Fifty million. Armstrong is beloved, and he gets a benefit of the doubt that few others will ever get. There is more than enough reason to cheer for him, his recovery from cancer tops among them--but no reason whatsoever to believe he's either infallible or incapable of lying. If you have a reason, and it has to do with how surly he is to reporters or diva-like to his teammates or whether he has a plush chair in his team's clubhouse, then your reason is worthless and you should just admit to your double standards. Haven't the lessons of Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire taught us enough? Armstrong has always known what buttons to push. You can never lose in this country by blaming the French, the media and what he would call "haters" had he grown up in another culture. He's even sued detractors, which takes matters far beyond the patented Palmeiro finger-wag. And he always has said that he was the most-tested athlete in the world, and that he always has tested clean. That, remember, was the reasoning baseball players hid behind before the sport ever put a testing program in place. It also was the default explanation for the athletes involved in the BALCO case--which, at its heart, was not about Barry Bonds (or so we've been told), but about a steroid, THG, that was undetectable by the testing of that time. Can't flunk a test for something no one can test for, can you? It's too bad that athletes are now considered by the public to be guilty until proven innocent. But their forebears have lied so often in the same situations that they can't be trusted solely on their word anymore. That's the unfortunate world Armstrong now lives in. Yet that doesn't excuse Armstrong from what Pound, the World Anti-Doping Agency chief, called his "obligation" to tell everybody not that the newspaper is wrong, but why it's wrong. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0508250165aug25,1,4426256.story?coll=chi-sportsnew-hed ----------------------------------- "EPO, the only thing that kept me alive" "The ball is now in his court. Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the Tour. Today, what L'Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled." Lance Armstrong went on the offensive Wednesday, saying it was "preposterous" for the director of the Tour de France to suggest the seven-time champion "fooled" race officials and the sporting world by doping. He also took to task the French newspaper that accused him, the laboratory that released the urine samples in question and any officials of the Tour and sports ministries involved in putting the story together. "Where to start?" Armstrong mused during a conference call from Washington, D.C., when asked what he found most objectionable about the controversy. "This has been a long, love-hate relationship between myself and the French." L'Equipe reported Tuesday that six urine samples Armstrong provided during his first tour win in 1999 tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO. On Wednesday, tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc sounded convinced that Armstrong had been caught. "For the first time - and these are no longer rumours, 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 newspaper. "The ball is now in his court. Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the Tour. Today, what L'Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled." "Fooling" the fans The Tour did not respond Wednesday to a request by The Associated Press to interview Leblanc. But Armstrong said he had talked with him by phone. "I actually spoke to him for about 30 minutes and he didn't say any of that stuff to me personally," Armstrong said. "But to say that I've 'fooled' the fans is preposterous. I've been doing this a long time. We have not just one year of only 'B' samples; we have seven years of 'A' and 'B' samples. They've all been negative." Armstrong questioned the validity of testing samples frozen seven years ago and how those samples were handled since. He also charged officials at the suburban Paris laboratory with violating World Anti-Doping Agency code for failing to safeguard the anonymity of any remaining 'B' samples it had. "It doesn't surprise me at all that they have samples. Clearly they've tested all of my samples since then to the highest degree. But when I gave those samples," he said, referring to 1999, "there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee that." Armstrong saved his most withering criticism for L'Equipe. "Obviously, this is great business for them. Unfortunately, I'm caught in the cross hairs." A moment later, he added, "I think they've been planning it for a while. I think they much would have preferred to do this at start of the Tour, or the middle, but for some reason, it was delayed. At the end of day, I think that's what it's all about ... selling newspapers. And," he added, "it sells." Fellow cyclists defend Armstrong L'Equipe, linked to the Tour de France through its parent company, has often raised questions about Armstrong and doping. On Tuesday, the banner headline of its four-page report was "The Armstrong Lie." Armstrong was in Washington for a previously scheduled meeting with sponsors. He said their support was intact and that he was considering legal action to discover who leaked the details. "In the meantime, it would cost a million and a half dollars and a year of my life. I have a lot better things to do with the million and a half ... a lot better things I can do with my time. Ultimately, I have to ask myself that question." Fellow cyclists came to Armstrong's defence Wednesday. "Armstrong always told me that he never used doping products," five-time winner Eddy Merckx told Le Monde newspaper. "Choosing between a journalist and Lance's word, I trust Armstrong." Five-time champion Miguel Indurain said he couldn't understand why scientists would use samples from the '99 Tour for their tests. "I feel the news is in bad taste and out of place, given that it happened six years ago after his first tour victory, and after he won six more," Indurain wrote in the Spanish sports daily Marca. "With the little I have to go on, it is difficult to take a position, but I think at this stage there's no sense in stirring all this up." EPO widespread EPO, formally known as erythropoietin, was on the list of banned substances when Armstrong won his first Tour, but there was no effective test to detect the drug, which builds endurance by boosting the production of oxygen-rich red blood cells. The allegations took six years to surface because EPO tests on the 1999 samples were carried out only last year, when scientists at the national doping test lab opened them up for research to perfect EPO screening. L'Equipe's investigation was based on the second set of two samples. The first set was used up during analysis in 1999; without it, disciplinary action against Armstrong would be impossible. French Sports Minister Jean-Francois Lamour said he had doubts about L'Equipe's report because he had not seen the originals of some of the documents it cited. "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." Jacques de Ceaurriz, the head of France's anti-doping laboratory, told Europe-1 radio that at least 15 urine samples from the 1999 Tour had tested positive for EPO. The year before, there were more than 40 positive samples, he said - reflecting how widespread the drug was when riders thought they could not be caught. L'Equipe able to confirm the samples The lab said it could not confirm that the positive results cited in L'Equipe 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 any one cyclist. However, L'Equipe said it was able to confirm the samples were Armstrong's by matching the cyclist's medical certificates with the results of positive doping tests bearing the same sample numbers. Armstrong has insisted throughout his career that he has never taken drugs to enhance his performance. In his autobiography, "It's Not About the Bike," he said he was administered EPO during his chemotherapy treatment to battle cancer. "It was the only thing that kept me alive," he wrote. http://www.eitb24.com/noticia_en.php?id=84649
Most tested athlete ever. All that needs to be said. Not one positive. If they can't get past that they never will. Yeah, let your enenmy handle and test the sample. That's how you find someone guilty. Is that how the French try their criminals too. Stupidity. Please. You gotta do better than that.
