Lance in hot water already...

Junior

armstrong responds to french testing allegations

Outrageous reports yesterday coming out of France alleged that I “misbehaved” during a recent unannounced drug test performed by the French government while I was training in southern France in early March. The test in question was my 24th unannounced drug test since I announced my return to cycling last fall. The first 23 of those tests were performed without any questions and all have been returned negative. This 24th test, which included a blood test, a urine test, and a test of a substantial quantity of my hair, was also negative.

I returned home that day after a long training ride to find a man chasing me as I rode up to the house. He stopped me and told me he was from the French laboratory and was here to test me. I had never heard of labs or governments doing drug testing and I had no idea who this guy was or whether he was telling the truth. I’ve been tested in-competition and out-of-competition by USADA, by WADA, by the UCI, and by testing authorities at all the events in which I have competed, but I was unaware that in France the government tests athletes and takes the position it can test any athlete residing in or visiting France. I also had never heard of a laboratory (as opposed to an anti-doping organization) sending testers to collect samples. We asked the tester for evidence of his authority. We looked at his papers but they were far from clear or impressive and we still had significant questions about who he was or for whom he worked. I was there with Johan Bruyneel and two other people. We told the tester we wanted to check with the UCI to confirm who he was and to make sure he wasn’t just some French guy with a backpack and some equipment to take my blood and urine. Johan stayed with him and in his presence called the UCI to find out what was going on. We asked if it was OK for me to run inside and shower while they made their calls and the tester said that was fine.

As soon as they completed the phone calls, which took about twenty minutes, we started the tests. Johan had confirmed with the UCI that the tester had authority from the French government to take samples. I immediately provided blood, urine and hair samples – all the samples that he requested, as he requested. All this was done within 20 minutes of returning home from my ride and finding the tester at my home.

I did not try to evade or delay the testing process that day. I had just returned from an all day training session, wasn’t sure who this French man at my home was, and as soon as the UCI confirmed that he was authorized to conduct the tests, I let him take all the samples he requested.

The drug collection forms we both signed state that we started the testing just 20 minutes after I arrived home. In addition, the form asked the tester to state if there were any irregularities or further observations from the testing process and to that he wrote “no”. I have learned that after the tests were all negative, the laboratory has now suggested that the 20 minute delay should be investigated.

I find it amazing that I’ve been tested 24 times without incident and the first test I do in France results in more outrageous allegations and negative leaks to the press. This is just another example of the improper behavior by the French laboratory and the French anti-doping organizations. I am sorry that they are disappointed that all the tests were negative, but I do not use any prohibited drugs or substances. As always, I’m available anytime and anywhere to be tested. It is this sort of behavior that hurts the entire system and causes me and many other athletes to call for reforms in general and an improvement in the conduct of French laboratories and authorities in particular.

blorg

Related thread here.

I find it just a little disingenous that he claims never to have heard of AFLD or to know that the French do their own testing. On the other hand this stuff does seem to get leaked a lot by the French...

I can understand why he might be nevous of some random guy from a lab trying to get hold of his blood and urine, they might be trying to clone him.

Junior

ello meeeester armstrong my name is jean claude from zeeeee laboratory french renaissance, I am here to collect some samplesssssss.

I think the point Lance was making is that the tester was claiming to be from A Lab rather than I'm from WADA/UCI. I suppose considering what's been thrown at him in France you can understand his caution - but the french being the french seem to want to have him accused of something untoward already.

Raam

Interesting interview here: http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

blorg

Junior wrote: »

I think the point Lance was making is that the tester was claiming to be from A Lab rather than I'm from WADA/UCI.

Presuming it's a direct quote, "I was unaware that in France the government tests athletes and takes the position it can test any athlete residing in or visiting France" is disingenuous, I knew that and I have less reason to than Lance Armstrong Besides, it is not as if Armstrong has never been tested by AFLD before, they were set up in the wake of Festina 1998 and were active during all his TdF victories. And Bruyneel was with him and he has fluent French.

estariol

Is there something that could be done in 20 mins to mask/obscure the presence of a banned substance?

SACH Central

estariol wrote: »

Is there something that could be done in 20 mins to mask/obscure the presence of a banned substance?

Remember Michelle Smith/De Bruen and the whisky incident. 'Technology' I'm sure, has moved on since then. If I were the tester I wouldn't have let him out of my sight for a second. I'd put nothin' past 'Pharmstrong'

NeilMcEoigheann

I think that all the negative media attention that is directed towards Armstrong is wrong, he has not been proven to be taking banned substances and yet the slander continues, surely in a sport marred by doping people would be more careful before they tar a champion with the doping brush.
(or needle as it may be)

Diarmuid

estariol wrote: »

Is there something that could be done in 20 mins to mask/obscure the presence of a banned substance?

Soap

NeilMcEoigheann wrote:

surely in a sport marred by doping people would be more careful before they tar a champion with the doping brush.

Are you telling me that LA's behaviour, denials and French bashing (again) doesn't reek of lying?

Lumen

estariol wrote: »

Is there something that could be done in 20 mins to mask/obscure the presence of a banned substance?

I wondered whether it was possible for him to have a spare Lance in the shower and swap his entire blood volume in 20 minutes.

Apparently this is not really practical, even with a central line.

But I now know much more about massive tranfusion protocols.

Isn't the internet great?

Chips Lovell

Junior wrote: »

I was unaware that in France the government tests athletes and takes the position it can test any athlete residing in or visiting France.

Rolling around the floor here laughing.

RobFowl

estariol wrote: »

Is there something that could be done in 20 mins to mask/obscure the presence of a banned substance?

in a word yes, quite alot, some of it obvious some breathtaking in how much risk people will take !

That said I was not aware non UCI/WADA officials had any right to demand samples out of competition and I have alot of experience in the antidoping system (am actually genuinely surprised and a little shocked they have, the UCI/WADA system is really quite strict and imposes alot of restriction and limits to the athletes privacy, Lance is obvious being targeted big time)

Signal_ rabbit

NeilMcEoigheann wrote: »

I think that all the negative media attention that is directed towards Armstrong is wrong, he has not been proven to be taking banned substances and yet the slander continues, surely in a sport marred by doping people would be more careful before they tar a champion with the doping brush.
(or needle as it may be)

I agree, leave the poor fecker alone and get a life people!

Genghis

I think Lance is entitled to be considered clean until he is proven to be taking something, and I think that he is entitled to fair and due process when he is to be tested. To put it in a civilian context, if you arrived home from work and someone from ‘the government’ said they were here to search your home, would you say ‘go on ahead’, or would you want to see the search warrant. And if they produced something that didn’t look like a search warrant to you, would you just let them on in, or would you see if you can verify it first. From his account, I think Lance acted in a perfectly reasonable way.

This leaves aside the fact that he has been tested more than once-weekly since returning to the sport and has not been tested positive. If this is not a reasonable foundation for the believe that he is clean, then what is? It seems to be impossible to disprove the assumption that he is not clean.

Lumen

Genghis wrote: »

This leaves aside the fact that he has been tested more than once-weekly since returning to the sport and has not been tested positive. If this is not a reasonable foundation for the believe that he is clean, then what is? It seems to be impossible to disprove the assumption that he is not clean.

Emphasis/tense is important.

RobFowl

Lumen wrote: »

Emphasis/tense is important.

Not a fan but Lance never failed a test !

Lumen

RobFowl wrote: »

Not a fan but Lance never failed a test !

Right (apart from that issue about the retest of the 1999 samples), but the testing regime he is now under is obviously stricter than in the past.

I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" but do you use "beyond reasonable doubt" or "balance of probability"? Depends on what level of evidence you consider acceptable.

edit: my personal view is that on balance of probability he has doped, but it is not beyond reasonable doubt.

Raam

Is he still publishing all the results of his own testing program? You know, the one that was definitely in place with Don Caitlin, but then turned out to not be practical at all?

RobFowl

Lumen wrote: »

Right (apart from that issue about the retest of the 1999 samples), but the testing regime he is now under is obviously stricter than in the past.

I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" but do you use "beyond reasonable doubt" or "balance of probability"? Depends on what level of evidence you consider acceptable.

To fail a drug test you need to be positive in both the A and B samples. This is a safeguard for the athletes and is a cornerstone of the system.
Lances A samples from 1999 were passed as negative and then discarded. The B samples were kept with his consent for research purposes only. There is no information about how much these samples degrade over 10 years and there is no A sample to cross check with .
Hence form an anti-doping point of view he didn't fail any tests even in 1999

petethedrummer

Jan Ulrich, Ivan Basso, Michael Rasmussen, Bjarne Riis never failed a dope tests. They should be forgiven.

Lance is so good he wet up Alp d'huez quicker than all these dopers

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 also beat all these dopers:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/Tour_de_France_19992008_article_267949.html

The man is a hero.

RobFowl

petethedrummer wrote: »

Jan Ulrich, Ivan Basso, Michael Rasmussen, Bjarne Riis never failed a dope tests. They should be forgiven.

17 39' 31" Carlos Sastre 2008 Spain
29 48' 00" Greg Lemond 1986 United States
30 48' 00" Bernard Hinault 1986 France

Ullrich would have been found guilty of a doping infraction (considered the same as failing a test) if he had not retired
Basso was found guilty of a doping infraction
Rasmussen was found guilty of a doping infraction
Riis retired before there was a test for EPO

PS the 3 I've left are generally considered to be clean :eek:

Wicklowrider

estariol wrote: »

Is there something that could be done in 20 mins to mask/obscure the presence of a banned substance?

Yes. Its enough time to get the " Clean" clone ( the one that rode Milan San Remo) out and defrosted.

Diarmuid

RobFowl wrote: »

There is no information about how much these samples degrade over 10 years and there is no A sample to cross check with .
Hence form an anti-doping point of view he didn't fail any tests even in 1999

You didn't read the interview linked above.

RobFowl

Diarmuid wrote: »

You didn't read the interview linked above.

I did BTW

The point is the fail safe system that is in place. When tested the athlete passes a supervised urine sample, then the urine given is divided (by them) into 2 sealed containers with ratchet lids which the athlete screws on (this seals them and this seal has to be broken to open the sample).

To allow for complete confidence a positive test is declared when the A sample is positive and the athlete either admits or asked for the B sample to be tested and it also is positive. This can be done in another lab. A negative A sample means a negative test full stop ! (these days the A sample is often retained for future testing if a new test becomes available, that was not the case in 1999).

In Lances case the A sample was declared negative and thrown away. Also the B sample was opened and tested without his knowledge (although with his permission) on the basis that it would only be used anonymously for research purposes.

So in the worst case scenario for Lance his A sample is clear and his B sample may have been positive but was tested using a new and non validated test in a manner that does not stand up to the anti doping regulations.

I'm not saying he didn't dope but am saying that he has never failed a test and didn't fail any of the 1999 ones either.

For what it's worth I don't know if he did or didn't and although I have an opinion on whether he did that is all it is so I'm keeping it to myself

Chips Lovell

I think anyone who reads the material out there should be well able to come to an informed opinion themselves.

Chips Lovell

Looks like the French are serious about this.

Esroh

RobFowl wrote: »

That said I was not aware non UCI/WADA officials had any right to demand samples out of competition and I have alot of experience in the antidoping system (am actually genuinely surprised and a little shocked they have, the UCI/WADA system is really quite strict and imposes alot of restriction and limits to the athletes privacy, Lance is obvious being targeted big time)

Out of Intrest
Can Irish Sports Council testers not just turn up and demand here.Are they not signed up to WADA as the French would be.
Although they not bother could they not call on any cat 3 Ci licence holder as you agree to abide by CI and therefore ISC rules of doping.

bcmf

Esroh wrote: »

Out of Intrest
Can Irish Sports Council testers not just turn up and demand here.Are they not signed up to WADA as the French would be.
Although they not bother could they not call on any cat 3 Ci licence holder as you agree to abide by CI and therefore ISC rules of doping.

And what about Veterans.:o