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.”
First, what kind of person waits 6 years to drop a bomb like this. If he tested positive in '99 the time to convict him was '99.
The samples were taken in 1999; the tests that were not yet developed in 1999 were administered to the 1999 samples in 2004 as part of a process to baseline the test results (or something like that).
When Jean-Marie weighs in on this, or anything else reported in L’Equipe, you have to keep in mind that he is employed by the Amaury Sports Organization. The Amaury Group, the ASO’s parent company, has a number of holdings/subsidiaries … including L’Equipe. So, when he says the report appears to him to be credible and meticulously researched, you have to ask yourself is he weighing in as an informed cycling authority … or is he doing what he can to ensure that a big story run by a sister company’s sports daily has “legs”? The man has a built-in bias if for no other reason than his paychecks are stroked by a company that has a dog in this fight.
As stated, the tests were not available in '99, which is why some athletes might have felt safer using a banned substance (since there was no test for it.)
These types of retroactive tests are probably the only real way to decrease PED use. Instead of 2 samples, take 4. Freeze the C and D samples, thaw them 5 years later and test them with all the modern tests. Revoke the license of anyone who tests positive.
Fear of the yet-to-be-developed tests could change professional sports substantially, at least for those who want to participate for more than 5 years. It’s really the only way to get this under control. Otherwise it’s a completely futile effort.
Every once in awhile you’ll do some statistical analysis on old data and something extrordinary pops out that you weren’t looking for. It would appear the researchers were simply taking advantage of having a significant number of samples to establish a baseline for future EPO analysis. Very cool. Its a researchers nature to take advantage of the fact you have the resources. Then you do the routine baseline work. Suddenly 12 abnormalities - 6 a single ID code. I can envison the researcher’s raised eyebrow going “hmmm now this is interesting”. “Hey guys check this out.” The rest can be debated especially given the environment…it would be like the Republicans hearing of a blue dress. But I actually would give more credibility to accidental discovery than if they were seeking to get the goods on someone. I beleive that is why this current allogation carries more weight than prior allogations.
First, what kind of person waits 6 years to drop a bomb like this. If he tested positive in '99 the time to convict him was '99.
He obviously needed EPO to beat the other cyclists in '99 since he didn’t win in '00, '01,'02,'03,'04,'05. Oh wait…
They did not have this EPO test in 99 so they could not test.
The testers also have no idea who’s sample they are testing. To them it’s just a number. An athletes name is only attatched to the test results once complete.
Of course, no one has seen these so-called “original” documents that show Armstrong’s 6-digit ID number… the newspaper has only given out photocopies… so the “proven” link is based on a document that the paper refuses to share…
Interesting story today in Velonews.com about a lady who runs a testing facility in Montreal…
**“We are extremely surprised that urine samples could have been tested in 2004 and have revealed the presence of EPO,” Ayotte said in an interview with VeloNews on Tuesday. “EPO - in its natural state or the synthesized version - is not stable in urine, even if stored at minus 20 degrees.” **
Point 1. The “evidence” in the press appears pretty damaging.
Point 2. The “evidence” comes from the press, which, shockingly, tends to be less dispassionate than most people assume they are.
When the WADA (or whatever is the official investigatory organization for pro cycling) investigates and says the samples are Lance’s, and that they contain EPO, and that it is clear he used whatever amount is illegal under the rules, then I’ll believe he did it. Until then, it’s just media hype.
Whatever agency that was responsible for the collection and retention of urine samples from the 1999 TDF would naturally turn over these samples to whatever newspaper approached them and requested to subject those samples to further testing. That agency would have no obligation to protect those samples from contamination or permitting just anyone to have access to those samples. This happens all the time. Even in this country, whenever a newspaper asks for such samples from Major League Baseball or the National Football League, those organizations always comply with any request for those collected samples.
Without the cutting edge investigative “journalism” of tabloids, law enforcement investigations and judicial process would stall and come to a halt every time.
Isn’t it reassuring that after all attempts to detect cheating and discovery of illegal tactics by LA failed or came up empty, that L’Equipe, with its “unlimited” resources has been able to do what no one else could do.
Sorry, I have to go now to run down to the supermarket and get the current issue of the Star and find out the “real” truth. I’ll keep you advised.
I’m just a little skeptical to say the least. I know that doesn’t stop most people from jumping to conclusions, though. Why should anyone apply logic or reason to such a “discovery” by such “means?” Convict, convict convict, convict…
I’m always amazed in what might be the world’s dirtiest sport, the only one (seemingly) that does not use PED"s in the guy that’s won the last 7 TdF’s.
Which raises the question, will they submit the sampe to other labs for them to test? Seems like it would be logical to have the test verified by another lab.
Right… the news media… particularly Daily papers… never have fabricated stories or relied on later disproven docements and sources for their articles…
Ever hear of the NY Times or of Dan Rather/CBS? Both have been proven within the past year and have had to publicly apologize for publishing unsubstantiated “news” stories…
Now we have a French Daily… purporting that they, and only they, have cracked that Lance cheated. Somehow they got these “original” documents proving the samples or Lances… of course, don’t ask to see these “original” documents… b/c they won’t share them… oh - but they’ll provide you a photocopy… Gee - really tough to fabricate a photocopy…
The paper is in business to make money… the story will make them money… doesn’t matter how substantiated the sources are…
In this day and age, with all the proven news fabrications, forgive me for doubting the validity of of a French Daily…