Questions about L'Equipe

1. Were the six samples the only ones that were taken from Armstrong in
1999? If not, were the remainder tested? If not, isn't it time to test
those, too? If others were not positive, then wouldn't the tests in
their entirety be called into question? (Supposedly, twelve samples
tested positive, and they implicated six riders, so if six samples came
from Armstrong, then one rider had two positive samples, and four others
had single positive samples. It seems the responsible thing to do would
be to makes sure ALL samples from ALL of these riders get tested.
L'Equipe would appear to know who the other riders are, so they should
be able to find all the sample numbers that came from them. It seems a
bit one-sided NOT to make sure all these samples were tested, and if
L'Equipe is going to name Armstrong, they should name the others as well.)

2. Do they have samples from the years before 1999, and the years
after? If so, isn't it time to test them, too? (There was some mention
of the need to use masking agents if one continued to use EPO after the
first EPO test became available in 2001. Armstrong rode in earlier
tours, and won at least one stage previously, which should mean at least
one sample was taken, if the rules for sampling were in force ten years
ago.)

3. Does L'Equipe's story accomplish anything more than character
assasination, since it appears that no sanctions can be applied, and the
person "outed" cannot defend himself? And isn't the failure to name ALL
the riders a little bit suspect?

4. Will this make Armstrong so mad that he "unretires", and comes back
to try and win the Tour de France again?

Colin Campbell wrote:
1. Were the six samples the only ones that were taken from Armstrong in
1999? If not, were the remainder tested? If not, isn't it time to test
those, too? If others were not positive, then wouldn't the tests in
their entirety be called into question? (Supposedly, twelve samples
tested positive, and they implicated six riders, so if six samples came
from Armstrong, then one rider had two positive samples, and four others
had single positive samples. It seems the responsible thing to do would
be to makes sure ALL samples from ALL of these riders get tested.
L'Equipe would appear to know who the other riders are, so they should
be able to find all the sample numbers that came from them. It seems a
bit one-sided NOT to make sure all these samples were tested, and if
L'Equipe is going to name Armstrong, they should name the others as
well.)

All the samples were tested. The urine test is only able to detect EPO for
a short window of time after it is taken. The positive tests attributed to
Armstrong appear in three groupings (that's why L'Equipe made a big deal
about exactly which stages they were) suggesting three different doses of
EPO. L'Equipe says they will name the other positives in a follow-up
story. And nowhere in the story does it say how many total riders have
been implicated -- only that 12 samples are positive and 6 of those are
Armstrong's.

Good article on Velo News: Top Lab Official Questions L'Equipe
Conclusions
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html

Colin Campbell wrote:


4. Will this make Armstrong so mad that he "unretires", and comes back
to try and win the Tour de France again?

Hah! That would be something. One thing that vaugely bothers me about
this whole thing is the fact that they're storing pee for 6+ years.....

"Dewey B" wrote in message
oups.com...
Good article on Velo News: Top Lab Official Questions L'Equipe
Conclusions
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html


Concerning degradation of the EPO indicators, the French lab director said
"One of two things happens, either EPO, which is a protein, degrades as time
passes and becomes undetectable. In that case we have a negative test result
or, as in this case, the EPO persists as it is. We have therefore no doubt
about the validity of our results."


And then we have........ the third possibility..... sabotage. A French word
of course.

On 23 Aug 2005 19:17:26 -0700, "Mike Bruno" wrote:


Colin Campbell wrote:


4. Will this make Armstrong so mad that he "unretires", and comes back
to try and win the Tour de France again?

Hah! That would be something. One thing that vaugely bothers me about
this whole thing is the fact that they're storing pee for 6+ years.....

As the plaintiff's lawyer I'd ask to see the freezer temperature variation
and repair records for the past six years...among other things...lol.

jj

Who maintains custody of these old samples? How much would it cost to have
a sample tampered with?

ken


"Colin Campbell" wrote in message
...
1. Were the six samples the only ones that were taken from Armstrong in
1999? If not, were the remainder tested? If not, isn't it time to test
those, too? If others were not positive, then wouldn't the tests in their
entirety be called into question? (Supposedly, twelve samples tested
positive, and they implicated six riders, so if six samples came from
Armstrong, then one rider had two positive samples, and four others had
single positive samples. It seems the responsible thing to do would be to
makes sure ALL samples from ALL of these riders get tested. L'Equipe
would appear to know who the other riders are, so they should be able to
find all the sample numbers that came from them. It seems a bit one-sided
NOT to make sure all these samples were tested, and if L'Equipe is going
to name Armstrong, they should name the others as well.)

2. Do they have samples from the years before 1999, and the years after?
If so, isn't it time to test them, too? (There was some mention of the
need to use masking agents if one continued to use EPO after the first EPO
test became available in 2001. Armstrong rode in earlier tours, and won
at least one stage previously, which should mean at least one sample was
taken, if the rules for sampling were in force ten years ago.)

3. Does L'Equipe's story accomplish anything more than character
assasination, since it appears that no sanctions can be applied, and the
person "outed" cannot defend himself? And isn't the failure to name ALL
the riders a little bit suspect?

4. Will this make Armstrong so mad that he "unretires", and comes back to
try and win the Tour de France again?

Robert Chung wrote:

Colin Campbell wrote:


1. Were the six samples the only ones that were taken from Armstrong in
1999? If not, were the remainder tested? If not, isn't it time to test
those, too? If others were not positive, then wouldn't the tests in
their entirety be called into question? (Supposedly, twelve samples
tested positive, and they implicated six riders, so if six samples came
from Armstrong, then one rider had two positive samples, and four others
had single positive samples. It seems the responsible thing to do would
be to makes sure ALL samples from ALL of these riders get tested.
L'Equipe would appear to know who the other riders are, so they should
be able to find all the sample numbers that came from them. It seems a
bit one-sided NOT to make sure all these samples were tested, and if
L'Equipe is going to name Armstrong, they should name the others as
well.)



All the samples were tested. The urine test is only able to detect EPO for
a short window of time after it is taken. The positive tests attributed to
Armstrong appear in three groupings (that's why L'Equipe made a big deal
about exactly which stages they were) suggesting three different doses of
EPO. L'Equipe says they will name the other positives in a follow-up
story. And nowhere in the story does it say how many total riders have
been implicated -- only that 12 samples are positive and 6 of those are
Armstrong's.



Robert,
You're right, I misread the article somehow to say that six riders were
found to have positive results. (Still, if L'Equipe did the number
matching, they must know how many other riders are involved, and their
name(s), so why keep that part a secret until the follow-up story?)

I also missed the part about all the 1999 samples having been tested.
But it's right there when I reread the Cyclingnews version.

I'll try to read more carefully.
Colin
=====
I looked up the 1999 Tour history. Armstrong won the Prologue and three
stages, led after the Prologue and Stage 1, then took the Maillot Jaune
back after Stage 8, and held it the rest of the way. Isn't the race
leader one of the "automatic" drug test subjects, along with the stage
winner (and runner-up - ?)? If so, it looks as if there would be more
than six samples from Armstrong. How could some be positive and others not?

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:59:21 GMT, "IMKen" wrote:

Who maintains custody of these old samples? How much would it cost to have
a sample tampered with?

ken

A shoebox full of vintage Jerry Lewis movies.

jj




"Colin Campbell" wrote in message
...
1. Were the six samples the only ones that were taken from Armstrong in
1999? If not, were the remainder tested? If not, isn't it time to test
those, too? If others were not positive, then wouldn't the tests in their
entirety be called into question? (Supposedly, twelve samples tested
positive, and they implicated six riders, so if six samples came from
Armstrong, then one rider had two positive samples, and four others had
single positive samples. It seems the responsible thing to do would be to
makes sure ALL samples from ALL of these riders get tested. L'Equipe
would appear to know who the other riders are, so they should be able to
find all the sample numbers that came from them. It seems a bit one-sided
NOT to make sure all these samples were tested, and if L'Equipe is going
to name Armstrong, they should name the others as well.)

2. Do they have samples from the years before 1999, and the years after?
If so, isn't it time to test them, too? (There was some mention of the
need to use masking agents if one continued to use EPO after the first EPO
test became available in 2001. Armstrong rode in earlier tours, and won
at least one stage previously, which should mean at least one sample was
taken, if the rules for sampling were in force ten years ago.)

3. Does L'Equipe's story accomplish anything more than character
assasination, since it appears that no sanctions can be applied, and the
person "outed" cannot defend himself? And isn't the failure to name ALL
the riders a little bit suspect?

4. Will this make Armstrong so mad that he "unretires", and comes back to
try and win the Tour de France again?

Colin Campbell wrote:

I looked up the 1999 Tour history. Armstrong won the Prologue and three
stages, led after the Prologue and Stage 1, then took the Maillot Jaune
back after Stage 8, and held it the rest of the way. Isn't the race
leader one of the "automatic" drug test subjects, along with the stage
winner (and runner-up - ?)? If so, it looks as if there would be more
than six samples from Armstrong. How could some be positive and others
not?

The urine EPO test has a detection window that's estimated to be only
three days wide. The test has three parts. For an explanation of the
parts, see Mike Owens' post he
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ac5b7518aa13b6