Now, let's talk some TOUR de FRANCE

Sorry to hear that FanJ. The mountain stages are the best, IMO. And the are all behind us now. You've got just under 12 months to get it fixed!

 

Heya Daisey

Agreed !

I hope so.......


Hey, Wasn't it Jooske who said:
Armstrong has not only strong arms but also strong legs

 

Ha! Jooske is always so insightful.

 

The relief:

2 more days and finally, finally, fiiiiiiiiiiinaly:

[MOVE] "THE KING IS DEAD: LONG LIVE THE (new) KING"[/MOVE]


It has been a fabulous achievement, winning 7 years in a row, and yes he's a master strategic and determination is his middle name; ok ok, all the credits where credits are due, but for pete's sake it was really getting...

[MOVE] B O R I N G [/MOVE]

...in Michael Schumacher-style.

Congrats Lance, thumbs up my man, but now...beat it.

This must have been the most boring Tour de France in ages...

Really, I can't wait for next year, re-newed competition and...
a new King!

Salut!
slammer

 

Armstrong wins final Tour de France

http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/story/3824548

 

Oops, could be trouble for the champ...

Tour de France director: Armstrong 'fooled' sports world
PARIS (AP) — Sounding convinced that Lance Armstrong is guilty of doping, the director of the Tour de France said "we were all fooled" and the seven-time champion owes an explanation for "proven scientific facts" from a newspaper report alleging he cheated to win cycling's most prestigious event.

Jean-Marie Leblanc's comments appeared in the French sports daily L'Equipe on Wednesday, a day after the newspaper reported that six urine samples provided by Armstrong during the '99 Tour tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/2005-08-24-tour-director_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA


snowbound

 

If you read further, it states that Armstrong admitted to being given EPO as a treatment for his cancer. I stand by Armstrong.

 

I hope that's all it was for but can't help but be skeptical with the rampant performance enhancing scandals lately.

This will play itself out one way or the other...


snowbound

 

Some people are just mad because he spanks them so easily Be real people, the man had cancer; he won because he works his fanny off.

 

As long as I can remember following cycling, the (suspicion of) taking of performance-enhancing drugs -or however you would call the 'wrong' stuff- has always been related to this sport in particular.

I have a very simple solution for this problem:

why not decide to take the dope out of the forbidden / criminal / banned circuit?
In other words: allow all athletes to take whatever they wish, make it their own grown-up responsibility; let them ruin their lifes if they want to.
If you believe in the naive idea of something like the existing of "clean sports", you also believe in Utopia...

Serious, imho this is the only way to get some form of truly honest competition in cycling going again.

Let it be absolutely clear that even wíth EPO, drugs etc etc these guys still have to pedal those mountains for thousands of miles, step by step.
It's still an amazing performance of character, determination, and stamina, both physical ánd -not to be forgotten!- psychological.
For which I admire them ( and also think they're completely nuts... )

(Just my opinion.)
Regards,
slam

 

I 100 percent agree with that! The athletes dont need babysitters telling them what is, or isnt safe for them. If they want to take steroids and die at a young age, why is it anyones business but theirs? If they werent banned, and everyone could get them, the advantage would be so slight that I bet nobody would touch them.

 

Armstrong Rips Critics Over Doping Report

By JIM LITKE Thursday, August 25, 2005 2:05 PM CDT






Lance Armstrong climbed down off his bike a month ago. His counterattacking skills, though, remain as sharp as ever. A day after the director of the Tour de France said the seven-time champion "fooled" race officials and the sporting world by doping, Armstrong responded to the growing controversy with harsh words for everyone connected to a report in L'Equipe, the French sports daily that made the original accusation.

"Where to start?" Armstrong mused during a conference call Wednesday from Washington. "This has been a long, love-hate relationship between myself and the French."

He went on to lambaste L'Equipe and question the science and ethics of the suburban Paris laboratory that stored frozen samples from the 1999 tour, tested them only last year and leaked the results used in the newspaper's report. He even suggested officials of the Tour and sports ministries who were involved in putting the story together could wind up facing him in court.

"Right now," Armstrong said, "we're considering all our options."

But a moment later, he added, "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."

What convinced Armstrong to go on the offensive were remarks earlier Wednesday by tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc. He said L'Equipe's report that six urine samples Armstrong provided during his first tour win in 1999 tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO had convinced him the cyclist had cheated.


"The ball is now in his court," Leblanc told the newspaper. "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."

But in one sense, Armstrong felt the same way, saying he talked to Leblanc on the telephone after the tour director spoke to L'Equipe, but before those remarks were published.

"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 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.

Armstrong questioned the validity of testing samples frozen six years ago, how those samples were handled since, and how he could be expected to defend himself when the only confirming evidence _ the 'A' sample used for the 1999 tests _ no longer existed. He also charged officials at the suburban Paris lab 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."

Two anti-doping authorities said urine samples from 1999, if stored properly, still could produce legitimate EPO test results.

"I believe they may well, if they have been properly stored _ without access to outside people so they cannot be tampered with. Also in a refrigerator or deep frozen," Arne Ljungqvist, chairman of the International Olympic Committee's medical commission, said Wednesday in a phone interview with The Associated Press.

Christiane Ayotte, director of Montreal's anti-doping laboratory, said EPO can disappear from samples within a few months. But it cannot be formed in the sample over time if it was not originally there.

"I have no doubt that if the lab in Paris found EPO, it was there," she said in an e-mail interview with The Associated Press. "Let's put it differently, when recombinant (synthetic) EPO is detected, it is because it's in the sample. Time will decrease the amount of EPO, not increase or form it."

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. But Armstrong's assurances he never took performance-enhancing drugs has been good enough for his sponsors. A previously scheduled meeting with several brought him to Washington, and he said afterward, "We haven't seen any damage."

But Armstrong acknowledged the same was likely true at L'Equipe.

"Obviously, this is great business for them," he said. "Unfortunately, I'm caught in the cross-hairs.

"And at the end of day," he added, "I think that's what it's all about ... selling newspapers. And it sells."

AP Sports Writers Chris Lehourites in London and Rob Gloster in New York contributed to this report.

http://www.brenhambanner.com/articles/2005/08/25/ap/sports/d8c70c1g0.txt

 

And he should.

 

Quite right. This is one area where I actually do qualify as someone who is technically knowledgable in the area. There's simply too many unknowns here. There needs to be a very clear chain of custody for the samples. Despite the potential controversy, I've heard very little of the steps taken over the past 6 years to preserve the integrity, both chemical and custodial, of these samples beyond reproach. I haven't noted any viable technical review of the results - and yes, good labs can mishandle the analysis, and yes, mishandle it the same way on multiple samples. It's done plenty of times on a daily basis - that why there are "B" samples. Right now it's tabloid science at its worst.

The thing about EPO is that you can look at secondary physiological markers - I don't recall Armstrong's hematocrit being within too close proximity to the level suggesting inappropriate EPO use. I know, it's indirect and saline extenders can moderate the measured level..

At this point, the L'Equip story is environmental noise. No more.

Blue

 

I believe you.

And on this I tend to agree as well; those bl**dy French (Excusez les mots...NOT!) have been on a filthy manhunt to discredit all Lance Armstrongs' achievements from the day he won his first TdF.
It's just pathetic...they're a bunch of very sour losers imho...

I'm no expert, yet from personal experience with running marathons I do know that it's a very difficult thing to keep your condition at toplevel without taking any form of supplements. In other words: NO ordinary human being can allow 'attacks' on such scale on his/her body without compromising his/her health.
(And with 'attacks' I mean: topsport; the extensive training and competing; putting yourself to the limits)
It's really just a matter where one draws the line of those supplements being "right", or "wrong".
Obviously, there are products that are clearly threatening, yet there are also so many 'drugs' that exist in the grey area.....Who's to decide, in the end?

And it's this discussion that is ruining the sports.
In most cases it's just a matter of discredit and conflict of interest (ie $$$$....)
I'm really bored with it.

Regards,
slam

 

Lance Armstrong

What do people think of the current controversy?

 

Re: Lance Armstrong

I think that it is in very poor taste to try to tarnish the results of a race that took place in 1999.

In principle I can understand testing for banned substances but if there should be some limit to the period of time (30 days should be more than enough) that whoever is responsible for administering the tests have, after which time they should make a final determination.

Who's next? Bruce Jenner? Mark Spitz?


- HandsOff

 

Re: Lance Armstrong

This is already being hashed out in the 'Tour d' France' thread. Anyways, I'd wait a couple more weeks before getting into it.

Play on, Big ed

 

Re: Lance Armstrong

So I see. Perhaps this thread should be closed?

 

Re: Lance Armstrong

Hey, it's been a slow news week! What is the 'Statute of Limitations' on cheating anyways?

Biking in Brussels, big ed

 

The Wildman could get into trouble over this one. As I have said before, I am rather blunt.

Get over it France, ya lost seven times in a row. This smacks of nothing but sour grapes, or is that your wine that went sour?

Thanks
Wildman

 

The owners of the Tour also own the newspaper in question. Still continuity of evidence has not been observed here.

 

Are you?...Could you be?...Yesss...You must be implying that a newspaper owned by interested parties would stoop to such dastardly doings.

I'm taken aback!!.......NOT!!

Reading more and enjoying it less, big ed

 

lol,

They still haven't gotten over Freedom Fries yet.



snowbound