I found this article very interesting and informative, and it clarifies (from one persons perspective) some of the questions and misperceptions regarding drug testing, 1999 Tour samples containing EPO, etc.
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
Change anyone’s view?
no, this does not change my view
.
I can’t believe that I wasted 5 minutes reading that.
jaretj
really?
did you know all of that already?
I can’t believe that I wasted 5 minutes reading that.
jaretj
So what is your critical analysis of where or why he is flawed?
ok, he did EPO in 1999, now what?
ok, he did EPO in 1999, now what?
now I want some too!
on a more serious note I found this very insightful:
Something that sits at the forefront of my mind, a discussion that I had with a group of cyclists, I’m not going to say who they were, and I said to them, “Look, guys, if you tell me what you’re doing, I don’t need names, so I can go away, develop that test, and come back here and remove that particular doping problem once and for all.”
And their response is still a guiding light to me. They said, “If you can come back to us with a test that captures everyone so that we can all stop, you can expect us to support it. But if you come back with a test that only captures a quarter of the people, and those quarter are punished but then they’re replaced by another quarter and the problem keeps going, don’t expect us to support it. Because you’re destroying careers and families and livelihoods, and you’re not getting rid of the problem.” And I’ve always held that as an ultimate goal.
I think I have read an article like that about 10 times thinking that there would be something new every time. Instead it’s the same story.
jaretj
what else are you hoping to read about? It seems pretty thorough
I think I have read an article like that about 10 times thinking that there would be something new every time. Instead it’s the same story.
jaretj
I wasn’t aware that I said he was flawed.
jaretj
Sorry, that was just the impression you left; that the interviewee was obviously so wrong and incorrect that he could easily be disregarded.
I would like to hear a rebuttal from the Lance supporters if anybody has one.
That there was evidence either way. It may be thorough but that doesn’t mean it’s not fabricated.
How do we know that L’Equipe is being truthfull? I’m not aware that the UCI released their documentation to anyone.
Do we even know if this is true? He goes into detail about how everything except how they got those documents.
The UCI had those documents, and an investigative journalist, Damien Ressiot from l’Equipe, went to the UCI and said, “Can I have copies of Lance Armstrong’s doping control forms from the '99 Tour?” Now, the UCI had to go to Lance Armstrong and ask his permission, which he gave them. Now, Lance Armstrong gave permission to the UCI to give these doping control forms to Damien Ressiot. Damien Ressiot took those forms, which have the athlete’s name, obviously, and the sample number, so he matched the sample number with the results from the laboratory that had the sample number and the percentage of isoforms. And in that way he linked the percentage of isoforms with the number, the athlete’s name, and in that way identified them as Lance Armstrong.
has the uci confirmed or denied that claim?
That there was evidence either way. It may be thorough but that doesn’t mean it’s not fabricated.
How do we know that L’Equipe is being truthfull? I’m not aware that the UCI released their documentation to anyone.
Do we even know if this is true? He goes into detail about how everything except how they got those documents.
The UCI had those documents, and an investigative journalist, Damien Ressiot from l’Equipe, went to the UCI and said, “Can I have copies of Lance Armstrong’s doping control forms from the '99 Tour?” Now, the UCI had to go to Lance Armstrong and ask his permission, which he gave them. Now, Lance Armstrong gave permission to the UCI to give these doping control forms to Damien Ressiot. Damien Ressiot took those forms, which have the athlete’s name, obviously, and the sample number, so he matched the sample number with the results from the laboratory that had the sample number and the percentage of isoforms. And in that way he linked the percentage of isoforms with the number, the athlete’s name, and in that way identified them as Lance Armstrong.
Has anybody ever asked the UCI or Lance if those documents were ever released or if permission was ever asked for and granted (serious question, I don’t know)?
Your theory seems to be that L’Equipe (or the journalist) is just making it up. Well it seems like it would be pretty easy for the UCI to either confirm or deny the release of the doping control forms especially if they sought and received permission to do so (similarly, the journo could produce his copies, provided he still has them). Has this ever happened?
I don’t know but whenever Armstrong has defended himself on these charges it has always been about chain of custody issues and the potential for spiking.
I thought this was a great bit of journalism - and am very impressed if you actually read it all in 5 minutes.
I don’t know but whenever Armstrong has defended himself on these charges it has always been about chain of custody issues and the potential for spiking.
I thought this was a great bit of journalism - and am very impressed if you actually read it all in 5 minutes.
i was only halfway through as of my first response =)
My view is that 90+% of the peloton where on something during the 99 tour (actually for the whole 90’s decade).
The article didn’t change my view either way.
I also think that the number has dropped to around 25% now. The million dollar question is putting names to that 25%.
Well if that’s the case then it’s intersting that they didn’t find that 90% of the samples tested positive. Instead they found that a limited number tested positive and that a large proportion of those positive tests are allegedly linked to Mr. Armstrong.
My view is that 90+% of the peloton where on something during the 99 tour (actually for the whole 90’s decade).
The article didn’t change my view either way.
I also think that the number has dropped to around 25% now. The million dollar question is putting names to that 25%.
For anyone who does not think that ALL of the top cyclists in the 90s - after Greg Lemond, were not ALL using EPO, you have a serious and fundamental lack of understanding of the sport, and the history of cycling. Mr. Riis, would use EPO to get his hemocrit to over 65 (which is incredibly dangerous). Notice the difference in Alpe d’Huez climbing times, particularly, from 1991 and forward.
Ascent times
Sign at Bend 16 on the climb to Alpe d’Huez
Alpe d’Huez in summer
Rank Time Name Year Nationality
1 37’ 35" Marco Pantani 1997 Italy
2* 37’ 36" Lance Armstrong 2004 United States
3 38’ 00" Marco Pantani 1994 Italy
4 38’ 01" Lance Armstrong 2001 United States
5 38’ 04" Marco Pantani 1995 Italy
6 38’ 23" Jan Ullrich 1997 Germany
7 38’ 34" Floyd Landis** 2006 United States
8 38’ 35" Andreas Klöden 2006 Germany
9* 38’ 37" Jan Ullrich 2004 Germany
10 39’ 02" Richard Virenque 1997 France
11 39’ 06" Iban Mayo 2003 Spain
12* 39’ 17" Andreas Klöden 2004 Germany
13* 39’ 21" Jose Azevedo 2004 Portugal
14 39’ 28" Miguel Induráin 1995 Spain
15 39’ 28" Alex Zülle 1995 Switzerland
16 39’ 30" Bjarne Riis 1995 Denmark
17 39’ 31" Carlos Sastre 2008 Spain
18 39’ 44" Gianni Bugno 1991 Italy
19 39’ 45" Miguel Induráin 1991 Spain
20 40’ 00" Jan Ullrich 2001 Germany
21 40’ 46" Fränk Schleck 2006 Luxembourg
22 40’ 51" Alexander Vinokourov 2003 Kazakhstan
23 41’ 18" Lance Armstrong 2003 United States
24 41’ 50" Laurent Fignon 1989 France
25 41’ 50" Luis Herrera 1986 Colombia
26 42’ 15" Pedro Delgado 1989 Spain
27 45’ 20" Gert-Jan Theunisse 1989 Netherlands
28 45’ 22" Fausto Coppi 1952 Italy
29 48’ 00" Greg Lemond 1986 United States
30 48’ 00" Bernard Hinault 1986 France
he said “on something”
not “on epo”
in the article it also reminds us that there is no test for autologous blood doping, and that EPO can be used carefully to not be detected, even today.
Well if that’s the case then it’s intersting that they didn’t find that 90% of the samples tested positive. Instead they found that a limited number tested positive and that a large proportion of those positive tests are allegedly linked to Mr. Armstrong.