The above article implies that the EPO recently found could be linked to the EPO Lance (according to the article) took during his treatment for cancer.
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.
As I’m sure you’ll read a lot of other places as well. EPO only stays in the urine stream for 3-4 days. It’s not possible to be residual from his treatment.
"The testing of the LNDD involved three parameters: (A) visual interpretation, (B) percentage of isoforms (indicating EPO use when present in values greater than 80 percent, with a margin of 5 percent) and (C) mathematical modelling. Only the samples positive in each of the three parameters were interpreted as positive, with a number of other samples found inconclusive. The urine samples had been frozen at -20° Celsius, making them resistant to molecular transformations which could lead to false positive testing, according to Prof. Michel Audran, member of Science and Industry Against Blood Doping (SIAB), quoted in the paper. "
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.
…in no way implies " the EPO recently found could be linked to the EPO Lance (according to the article) took during his treatment for cancer."
Okay. I thought that the article did imply that the EPO could have come from its use during his treatment for cancer. Maybe you have read the entire article and decided that despite SI ending it with “it was the only thing that kept me alive” quote they had a different point.
I am interested in hearing why you think that they ended the article in this manner - Lance explaining why he took EPO during chemo.
This prompted my question as to whether there is any validity to the argument.
Lance did point out tonight on Larry King Live something that I found interesting.
He said that every stage winner is tested after the stage they win on the day that they win the stage and every one who wears the Yellow Jersey more than one day (defends the Jersey) has to give urine samples every day they continue to wear the Yellow Jersey.
Plus there are random controls as well.
How many days did Lance wear the Yellow Jersey in 1999? I think it was more than ten days plus I think he won four stages that year. That would be 9 specimens for the ten days in the Yellow jersey and 4 specimens for the four stage wins plus any random tests. I don’t know how many randoms there were in 1999 but Jean Marie LeBlanc? would surely know.
Lance’s point was why did only 6 of his specimens show traces of EPO rather than all of his specimens? Supposedly all the specimens from the 1999 TDF were tested, all rider’s specimens given during the entire 1999 TDF, not just a random few. If Lance was using EPO leading up to and during the 1999 TDF, what reason would Lance have had to quit using EPO during the 1999 TDF? Bacause he felt confident he had it wrapped up and no one would /could beat him? Time to quit cheating?
My questions to add would be from what days did the positive results come from? Do the positive specimens show a rise or fall in EPO levels over time. Were there any negative specimens in between the positive samples.
Answers to all these questions would certainly give credence to the test results or most definitely call the results and the testing into question. Why is this information curiously missing? Why is no one interested to learn the answers to these questions. Would it raise serious questions about the testing and the test results. If there is nothing to hide, why isn’t any of this information forthcoming?
Frankly, at this point, I have to believe, the answers to these questions were intentionally left out and not because those answers would have made the article too long.
There certainly have been numerous media reports recently where the facts have not been permitted to get in the way of headlines or the"story."