Now, let's talk some TOUR de FRANCE

I also think Dick Pound who is Canadian by the way as am I. Has had to much to say too soon. Justice must not only be done,but must be seen to be done. Whether Armstong is guilty or not. His self appointed judges speaking so soon have damaged their own credibility and any review by the WADA or the Tour will now have the appearance of a show trial.

 

I guess keeping seven years of frozen wee wee is the norm over there until they find a way to translate it. These seven lovely ladies also Tour. I can't put my finger on it just now..but going "number one" has never been so fun.

I just can't wait until they find a NEW way to test the other 6 years. By the time they are done..we could have history in the unmaking.

 

Armstrong Gets Backing From USA Cycling
Aug 26 4:17 PM US/Eastern

By JIM VERTUNO
AP Sports Writer

Lance Armstrong received strong backing Friday from cycling's domestic governing body, which said accusations against the seven-time Tour de France champion are "completely without credibility."

"Preposterous is a strong word, but it is warranted in this case," said Gerard Bisceglia, chief executive officer of USA Cycling.

Armstrong has denied reports in the French media this week that he used a banned blood booster in his first tour victory in 1999. The sports newspaper L'Equipe reported that new tests on six urine samples Armstrong provided during the 1999 tour resulted in positive results for the red blood cell-booster EPO.

"Lance Armstrong is one of the most tested athletes in the history of sport and he has come up clean every single time," Bisceglia said. "This kind of years-ago testing of a single sample with new technology is completely without credibility."

"What's worse is that Lance cannot defend himself because there is no mechanism for final resolution," he added.

Although Armstrong has not said if he'll pursue legal action, Bisceglia said USA Cycling will support him in whatever way he chooses to "denounce these accusations."

On Thursday, Armstrong lashed out at the French lab that produced the findings.

"There's a setup here and I'm stuck in the middle of it," Armstrong told The Associated Press. "I absolutely do not trust that laboratory," he said.

Armstrong spoke after Dick Pound, head of the World Anti-Doping Agency, said officials had received the lab results and would review them. Armstrong also said that while Pound might trust the lab that tested the samples, "I certainly don't."

On Thursday night, Armstrong elaborated on that distrust on CNN's "Larry King Live."

"A guy in a Parisian laboratory opens up your sample, you know, Jean Francois so-and-so, and he tests it _ nobody's there to observe, no protocol was followed _ and then you get a call from a newspaper that says `We found you to be positive six times for EPO.' Well, since when did newspapers start governing sports?"

Although frustrated by the report and the difficulty of proving his case, Armstrong told King he is at ease.

"All I can do is come on this stage and tell my story and be honest. I've always done that," he said. "Since this stuff's rolled out, I sleep great at night .... I don't have a problem looking at myself in the mirror."

Armstrong questions the handling of samples frozen six years ago. He also wonders how he is to defend himself when the only confirming evidence _ the 'A' sample used for the 1999 tests _ no longer exists.

He also charged officials at the suburban Paris lab with violating WADA code for failing to safeguard the anonymity of any remaining 'B' samples.

Pound said the French report appears stronger than previous accusations against Armstrong.

"If he had one, you could say it was an aberration," Pound said. "When you get up to six, there's got to be some explanation."

Pound said the lab is accredited by the International Olympic Committee. He also questioned the need for two samples to confirm a positive test.

"You can count on the fingers of one hand the times a B sample has not confirmed the result of the A sample," Pound said. "It's almost always a delaying tactic."

Armstrong said that contradicts WADA's own policy.

"For the head of the agency to say he actually doesn't believe in the code ... if your career is riding on the line, wouldn't you want a B sample?" Armstrong told the AP. "The French have been after (me) forever, and `Whoops!' there's no B sample? The stakes are too high."
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/26/D8C7NHMO0.html

 

Texas scientist defends Armstrong


By Suzanne Halliburton / (c) Copyright Cox News Service


AUSTIN, Texas -- A University of Texas scientist is coming to the defense of Lance Armstrong amid allegations that the Tour de France champion used a banned substance to help him win in 1999.

Ed Coyle, director of UT's Human Performance Laboratory, studied the physiology of Armstrong from 1992 to 1999. He said Thursday that Armstrong's record victory streak and the edge he has on other cyclists can be explained by science and not the taking of erythropoietin, or EPO, the blood booster reportedly found in his urine samples from 1999.

Coyle, a nutritional adviser to the International Olympic Committee and a former editor of the International Journal of Sports Medicine, concluded that the cycling champion showed an 18 percent improvement during the seven years he studied Armstrong by significantly increasing his slow-twitch muscle fibers, losing body mass and taking a modern approach to a sport that embraces obsolete training ideas.

"Again, before searching for explanations in conspiracy and cheating, you should first look at human nature for signs of ignorance and difficulty with change," Coyle said via e-mail Thursday.

Earlier this summer, Coyle published his observations of Armstrong in the June edition of "The Journal of Applied Physiology." European reporters have searched out Coyle this week to comment on the report in the Paris newspaper L'Equipe that alleged Armstrong tested positive for EPO six times in 1999. The newspaper reported that a laboratory outside Paris had tested the frozen Tour de France urine samples and that documents link six of the positive tests to Armstrong.

Armstrong took the offensive after the stories were published, stating that in 1999 "when I gave those samples, there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee that."

The samples tested were all B, or backup, specimens. The A tests were discarded after testing in 1999. There is now nothing left to retest.

"They've put Lance in Pandora's Box," said Bill Stapleton, Armstrong's attorney. "And he can't defend himself."

Coyle said none of the physiological changes that led to Armstrong's seven victories could be linked to a use of an illegal chemical. EPO is a drug legally prescribed for patients with kidney problems and those undergoing chemotherapy. The substance helps build oxygen-carrying red blood cells. Cyclists and cross-country skiers have illegally used EPO to better endurance, but Coyle estimated that taking the drug gives someone only a 3 percent to 5 percent improvement in performance.

Cyclists who use EPO inject the drug during training and not during racing, which is why the World Anti Doping Agency has been focusing so much attention on out-of-competition testing.

Armstrong told the Austin American-Statesman on Thursday that he has donated "close to six figures" of his own salary to the international cycling federation for the specific use of bettering a test for EPO.

He was the focus of six out -of-competition tests earlier this year, he said. Armstrong estimated that he's been tested at least 300 times in his seven-year winning streak.

"We have seven years of 'A' and 'B' samples," Armstrong said. "They've all been negative."

During Coyle's seven-year study, Armstrong dropped 15 pounds and trained hard enough to increase the percentage of slow-twitch muscle fibers in his body from 60 percent to 80 percent. Typically, the best endurance athletes are naturally blessed with more slow-twitch fibers, which need less energy to function at a high level for long periods of time. Most cyclists are in the 60 percent range while non-athletes are between 40 and 50 percent.

"I'm certain these improvements have nothing to do with blood or EPO, but are due simply to seven years of training and a modest diet in the spring months before the Tour de France," Coyle said.

Coyle also said Armstrong's two main rivals -- Germany's Jan Ullrich and Italy's Ivan Basso -- do not come into the Tour with the same conditioning as Armstrong. Ullrich, the 1997 champion, usually comes into the Tour overweight and is at his best in the race's final week. Basso, who finished second to Armstrong this July, rode the three-week Giro d'Italia in May, which may have sapped his strength.

"What I'm saying is that Armstrong's European competitors are beating themselves by entering the race tired and unprepared to climb," Coyle said.


http://www.detnews.com/2005/moresports/0508/27/more-294723.htm

 

This is really sad. The tour is such a wonderful sporting event. It was actually one thing I could point to that raised my opinion of French in general. It just goes to show you these people in general (There do seem to be some fine exceptions, such as Hammer ) are a bunch of low-lifes.

Edit: Comment removed by me.

 

OT a little history since maybe you already own them

A good read would be...

George Ordish, The Great Wine Blight. 1987

if you can find a copy.


http://entomology.ucdavis.edu/faculty/granett/phypage.htm

I know that the Chilean vintners claim to have the only "authentic" French cabernet sauvignon remaining in the world, since the French vines transplanted in Chile thus escaped the terrible blight that wreaked such havoc in France in the nineteenth century. (As an historical aside, do you know where most of the transplants that rebuilt the French vintages came from? Sit down and get a firm grip, all you hoity-toity types: They came from California!)

http://jamesburnett.com/wine.htm

 

The French are (sore) Losers

Too funny, Primrose! I should have known.

Actually, I prefer a fine bottle of Laphroig Scotch Whiskey (from Scotland) or just about any Bourbon Whiskey from right here in Kentucky.

 

Yes, it's a wonderful sporting event, and the many days I've spent in Cannes and Paris are among the best of my Euro business travels and France as a country remains one of my favorite places to visit.

Competitive sporting events always brings this out in the passionate locals. I have little use for the folks behind the testing and partial reporting of the results without some objective external review, but the people in the street are simply following their hearts...

Blue

 

I agree 100%, Blue. From what I've seen on TV (while watching this event), the country is very beautiful. That is why (as I stated above) I would like to own some land there.

 

Hey Primrot,

I have a left hip that is pretty non-existant. You think mebbe one of them there transplants would work for me? (not the 'Freedom' ones though)

Limping in Laconia, l'il ed

Ps...How come nobody is defending Raffy Palmiero, after he swore under oath to none other than the seekers of 'TRUTH'.....The US Congress! (duh)

Star atheletes are just that! Other virtues are not required!

 

lol,

It is but one thing i remember when i was in Paris is streets that smelled of urine and where also full of dog crap.

Pooches were everywhere along with their droppings.

Nasty...


snowbound

 

Oh oh, snotied

I'm sure that you will soon be hearing from Dog, Pixel Pup and others of their ilk once they smell your post.

Yapping in Yokahama, Yid ed

 

Re: Lance Armstrong

I am not arguing for a statute of limitations, I am arguing against the notion that any win in any sport is considered provisional and can be revoked and any time down the road. An event takes place a certain time. An event has a winner. There will always be a pack of whiners who cannot accept that. Personally I'd rather not hear from them.


Secondly, one wonders what is wisdom of banning a substance that could not be tested for?

Who decides it's time to test a six year old sample? Am I supposed to believe that those samples were guarded 24 hours a day for six years? Considering the fact that someones privacy and confidality is being breached in such a way as to have news reports without the subject having been officially charged of anything speaks to a lack of impartiality.

How would you like to take a drug test for your employer. To have passed the test and worked, not only adequately, but in fact as the best specialist of his kind in your particular field, only to hear reporters six years later saying that they have "proof" that your accomplishments really arent valid, that you tested positive, and you owe the entire world an explanation.

Then imagine that you had just had a nice 30 minute conversation with the CEO in which he never showed any doubt as to your integrety, but when you watch the evening news you hear him quotes as saying you owe an explanation.

Lance won. I don't have to wait 2 weeks, or even two minutes. Get over it people!


-HandsOff

 

Re: Lance Armstrong

Terrific logic....As Vince Lombardi was known to utter...."winning isn't everything...It's the only thing". It's really too early in this fiasco to be backing or pouncing upon Mr. Armstrong. If it turns out that he is a cheat..so be it. If not ....ditto (also be worth a few more $$$$ in endorsements)

Waiting in Warsaw, big ed

 

I can't fault you for logic of waiting and examining the evidence, but there is such a thing as muck-raking. A man has a right to be given credit for his accomplishments. Honestly, anything could happen in the course of six years. But after six years Armstrong has no way of defending himself. The only thing he can do is say yes or no. Where are the checks and balances? I don't believe the results of tests where somebody can accuse, and yet you have no opportunity to demonstrate that the accusation is based on an error, or even intentional.

Again to use the work analogy. suppose your employer has random drug testing and one day you are called into HR and told your sample was dirty and you are fired. You know it's not true. The first thing out of your mouth would be that it was a mistake. perform the test again.

you suggest that I believe winning with everything, and you are so wrong. It seems such poor sportsmanship to run around six years later saying 'its not fair, it's not fair' that I feel compelled to at least offer my support to someone who after so much time has passed has nothing but his integrity to offer. That being the case, I feel no need to consider anything in the accusation beyond the integrity of the people issuing it.

The author of L.A. Confidential: The Secrets of Lance Armstrong, alleges that Lance used performance-enhancing drugs. The only thing I want to know is where he got such confidential information. Oh, that's right, I am supposed to believe test results made by people that proved that they don't follow procedure by leaking allegations.

Armstrong has been the most frequently tested athlete in the world and has yet to come back with a positive, confirmed result even once. And the only thing you can come up with is that the only thing I care about is winning. Meanwhile decent people are perched on the edges of seats dry-washing their hands and salivating over every disrespectful thing said about someone who is obviously a true competitor and champion. He is a champion, correct? Or, wait, let's test his urine for twenty more years before we shake his hand and say, 'good race.' No need, really, to give him credit for the other five titles either?

Well, if people want to dishonor themselves and others, I guess they can do so. As I said, I don't need to wait two weeks to have someone else explain to me who how attempting to dishonor Lance Armstrong six years later is really a decent thing to do. But all those people who only care winning, can sit and hope that this author can do with his smear campaign, what he could not do on a bike. I said Armstrong won, and I thought the reason was obvious. Because he won. It is an accomplished fact.



- HandsOff!

 

Dosen't make no never mind to me one way or the other how this pans out! It might be of some concern to all the guys who came in 2nd though!

Wondering in Wichita, Wig ed

 

I couldn't care less either but i have an idea for the future.

Example, the Olympics. Have 2 sets of Games.

First, The Shoppers Drugmart Games(for all the cheaters)

Second, The Clean Games(self explanatory)

Which one do u think people would watch?


snowbound

 

And from the looks of it, there are quite a few!


- HandsOff

 

Damn you're good snowguy,

You know, if you think about it, thats a pretty good idea!

What kind of boosters do you think the Tiddlywinks compeditors would use?

I propose that each Country choose a Champion and deposit all of them on a deserted Island (w/no intelligent life), either Hans or Australia, w/the bare necessesities and whoever emerges unscathed.....WINS!!

Supportive in Seekonk, I kid you not...ed

 

The ICU has now entered the fray with it's own probe. http://www.tsn.ca/oln/news_story.asp?id=134936

 

From the above source: "...The UCI said it regretted the breach of confidentiality in the disclosure of samples...."

Yeah, right.

 

Do you think there will be any good athletes around to compete in the latter?

 

The samples are worthless since the chain of custody had been violated. You have no idea whos pee that actually is at this point, or who has added to it.

Trekk

 

Well a sincere appology and a statement that no conclusions should be drawn from this unreliable evidence would be a little more meaningful than general regrets.


- HandsOff