The Armstrong 1999 report: Summary of Conclusions

Here follows from the "Summary of Conclusions" (pages 16 to 22):

1.14 Despite the recognition of the proper jurisdiction of the independent
investigator
by all individuals and organizations that were contacted, the French
Ministry, the
LNDD and WADA, all refused to provide the investigator with the documents
and full
cooperation necessary to reach definite conclusions on certain issues that
remain
unresolved. The refusal by the LNDD, the French Ministry and WADA to provide
documents and information that are necessary for the proper conduct of a
complete
investigation is extremely troubling and is inconsistent with the principles
of the
Olympic Movement. The fact that WADA President Dick Pound and the LNDD's
Professor De Ceaurriz were willing to discuss the research project and its
results in
great detail with the media, while they at the same time were unwilling to
cooperate
with a proper investigation by the organization with jurisdiction over this
matter,
raises substantial questions regarding their reasons for doing so and makes
one
wonder as to what complete cooperation would disclose. The obligation of the
LNDD,
in its capacity as a WADA-accredited laboratory conducting doping control
testing for
the UCI, to cooperate fully with this investigation, does not only follow
from the fact
that this investigation examines what the LNDD was doing with UCI urine
samples
in its possession and subsequent publication of the analyses results. It
also follows
from the requirements as contained in the ISO/IEC international standard.
The
LNDD contends that the decision to create research reports, containing
'additional
information' - i.e. the code numbers present on the original glass bottles
used when
conducting doping controls at the 1999 Tour de France, necessary for
determining
the identity of those riders having provided one or more of these urine
samples
during the 1999 Tour de France, and the analysis results for each of these
urine
samples - was the result of improper pressure WADA and the French Ministry
exerted on the LNDD. WADA President Dick Pound has admitted that he directed
the LNDD to prepare these research reports containing the 'additional
information'
WADA had been requesting. These disclosures, combined with WADA's request
that
the UCI conduct this investigation to determine whether or not the findings
of the
LNDD might constitute proof of a potential anti-doping rule violation, as
well as the
questions that remain about WADA's involvement in the research, all impose a
clear
obligation on WADA to cooperate fully and timely with this investigation,
especially
when keeping in mind the importance of the role WADA is supposed to fulfil
in the
international fight against doping in sport. WADA however, has refused to do
so. To
the extent that this report is incomplete or does not reach definite
conclusions on
certain issues, the responsibility lies with the French Ministry, the LNDD,
and WADA.
If the representations in the WADA Code and other rules, regulations and
laws about
athletes' rights are to have any credibility and if the WADA Code is meant
to be a
document that is as enforceable against its signatories as it is against
athletes, it is
essential that an organization with sufficient authority - whether that is
the IOC, CAS,
the WADA Foundation Board, the UCI, or a court of law - order the French
Ministry,
the LNDD, and WADA to produce all documents that relate in any way to this
matter,
and cooperate fully with the independent investigator in answering all
remaining
unanswered questions.

1.15 The results reported by the LNDD that found their way into the L'Equipe
article are
not what they have been represented to be. They did not involve proper
testing of
urine samples, as explained in detail in this report. While the testing
conducted may
have been useful for research purposes - which remains to be determined -
the
failure of the underlying research to comply with any applicable standard
and the
deficiencies in the report render it completely irresponsible for anyone
involved in
doping control testing to even suggest that the analyses results that were
reported
constitute evidence of anything. To suggest in any way that any of the
analyses
results could properly be associated with a particular rider or riders, is
misleading
and constitutes at least gross negligence, given the complete absence of an
internal
or external chain of custody, proper record keeping and security with
respect to the
urine samples from the 1998 and the 1999 Tours de France that were tested,
and
the absence of any protection against samples having been spiked with r-EPO
or
contamination by other samples. The investigator recommends the UCI to
refrain
from initiating any disciplinary actions whatsoever regarding those riders
alleged
to have been responsible for causing one or more alleged 'positive'
findings, on the
basis of the confidential reports of the LNDD 'Recherche EPO Tour de France
1998'
and 'Recherche EPO Tour de France 1999', and to inform all of the riders
involved that
no action will be taken based on the research testing by the LNDD.

1.16 While the information and documentation presented to date is
insufficient to judge
the scientific nature and validity of the research conducted by the LNDD, in
particular
with regard to the analyses of the urine samples from the 1998 and 1999
Tours de
France, the investigator has found no evidence that the decision to analyse
those
samples was intended as part of a deliberate effort to discredit Lance
Armstrong,
as has been suggested. However, the LNDD had no right to use those samples
for
research purposes without securing the permission of the rider(s) who
provided
the urine samples, and no reasonable explanation has been given as to why
the UCI
was not consulted before these urine samples were used for research
purposes.
Because of the refusal by the LNDD to provide any documentation about the
research
project, no definite conclusions can be reached about the intent of the LNDD
in
selecting those urine samples or the relationship of those urine samples to
the
original intentions concerning the research. The LNDD's decision to use the
urine
samples from the 1999 Tour de France in such a way that their analyses
results
could eventually be associated with original bottle codes, and subsequently
with the
riders associated with those bottle codes, raises questions that cannot be
answered
until the LNDD provides all documents related to the analyses of the
aforementioned
urine samples and the original reports that were created with regard to the
overall
research project.

1.17 According to the investigator however, the way in which the LNDD
reported the
findings of the research, combined with improper and false statements to the
media
attributed to the LNDD and WADA, has caused others - given the reputation of
the LNDD as being on the cutting edge of r-EPO research - to suggest that
Lance
Armstrong used the prohibited substance r-EPO during the 1999 Tour de
France.
Had the LNDD conducted its testing in accordance with the applicable rules
and
regulations and reported its findings accordingly, any discussion about the
alleged
use of a prohibited substance by Lance Armstrong would not have taken place.
Having concluded thus, the investigator however, would like to stress that
ultimately
it has been WADA's improper request to the LNDD - i.e. to include
'additional
information' in its report - which has triggered the chain of events leading
to the
publication of said allegations in L'Equipe and subsequently this report.
Contrary to
what has been suggested in the media, the investigator has taken the
position that
the fact that the UCI may have provided Mr. Ressiot, the journalist of L'Equipe,
with at
least one (1) or more copies of the original doping control forms of Lance
Armstrong
from the 1999 Tour de France and/or related analysis reports, has not been
material
for the identification of Lance Armstrong as being one of the riders
presumably
responsible for having submitted one or more alleged 'positive' urine
samples during
the aforementioned Tour de France. According to Mr. Ressiot, the manner in
which
the LNDD had structured the results table of its report - i.e. listing the
sequence
of each of the batches, as well as the exact number of urine samples per
batch, in
the same (chronological) order as the stages of the 1999 Tour de France they
were
collected at - was already sufficient to allow him to determine the exact
stage these
urine samples referred to and subsequently the identity of the riders who
were tested
at that stage.

1.18 WADA and the French Ministry refused to disclose their oral and written
communications with the media. The communications by Professor De Ceaurriz,
Director of the LNDD and WADA President, Dick Pound, that were reported by
the
media were improper. According to the LNDD and supported by various
statements
by Dick Pound, the LNDD resisted WADA's efforts to coerce the LNDD to
produce a
report with the 'additional information,' the numbers that could be used to
connect
results with riders, and to overcome the LNDD's resistance, WADA provided
certain
assurances to the LNDD. WADA promised that it would treat the research data
as
confidential and that they would not be the basis for any sanction against
any athlete.
Despite the LNDD's acknowledgement of its obligation to maintain the
confidentiality
of the research results and WADA's representations that it would treat the
results as
confidential, as soon as the L'Equipe article was published, and perhaps
even before
the publication, WADA President Dick Pound, and LNDD Director, Prof. De
Ceaurriz,
communicated openly with the media about the analyses results, while WADA
even
did so in a manner that appears to have been designed to use the data to
discredit
Lance Armstrong publicly, and, to a lesser extent, to discredit the UCI and
other
1999 Tour de France riders. Whatever the LNDD and WADA may have intended
when
agreeing that the analyses results would not be used 'for any sanction
purpose',
the investigator believes there is strength to the argument that being the
subject
of repeated media attacks supported by a leading WADA-accredited doping
control
laboratory and the President of the organization responsible for
international doping
control, does qualify as a 'sanction'. It is difficult to understand how
WADA and/or the
LNDD could believe their discussions with the media regarding the LNDD's
research
reports would be consistent with their agreement to treat those reports
confidentially,
or the LNDD's demands that these reports were to be treated as such. It is
simply not
proper for WADA, being the organization responsible for international doping
control
in sport, to fuel and subsequently give credibility to media attacks on an
athlete,
based on reports by a doping control laboratory under its supervision, while
it knew
or should have known that these reports have no scientific - i.e. forensic -
value to
support the allegations which were made.

1.19 Article 8 of the WADA Code provides that any person 'who is asserted to
have
committed an anti-doping rule violation' is entitled to a fair hearing.
Nevertheless,
the conduct and statements of WADA and its President, the LNDD and its
Director,
have effectively asserted that Lance Armstrong committed an anti-doping rule
violation when they all knew or should have known that there was no
evidentiary
basis for such an assertion and that the current rules and regulations would
not
afford Lance Armstrong the opportunity to respond to these assertions by
means of
a fair hearing. IOC President Jacques Rogge acknowledged the unfairness and
made
public statements in the fall of 2005 criticizing the manner in which this
situation had
been conducted, and stated unequivocally that Lance Armstrong should not be
placed
in a position where he would have to prove these allegations to be false.
However,
as IOC President Rogge recognized, that is precisely the position the
conduct and
statements of the LNDD and WADA have placed Lance Armstrong in. If
international
doping control testing is to have any credibility, there must be a
possibility to sanction
the offenders when WADA-accredited doping control laboratories and
'Anti-Doping
Organizations' (hereinafter: 'ADO') violate the applicable rules,
regulations and laws
as discussed in this report. While WADA's rules and regulations do provide
for this in
case of WADA-accredited laboratories, they do not for ADOs.

1.20 This case involves research testing not conducted in compliance with
the applicable
doping control testing standards. The investigator supports the concept of
'retrospective testing' for doping control purposes, especially when new
detection
methods can identify Prohibited Substances that were previously
undetectable.
However, rules concerning 'retrospective testing' must be adopted properly,
WADAaccredited
laboratories and the testing authorities must handle and store urine
samples properly, to permit meaningful 'retrospective testing'. Research has
to be
conducted in order to be able to determine the accuracy of 'retrospective
testing',
especially when analysing urine samples that may be several years old. The
WADA
Code provision that there is an eight-year statute of limitations for
anti-doping rule
violations, does not by itself, authorize 'retrospective testing'. Before
retrospective
testing can be conducted, it is essential that clear rules and procedures
authorizing
'retrospective testing', as well as the manner in which it is to be
conducted -with
sufficient guarantees regarding the accuracy of retrospective analysis
results- are
properly drafted, circulated, considered, and approved. To suggest that
WADAaccredited
laboratories are already entitled to and in fact engaging in 'retrospective
testing' and that subsequent disciplinary proceedings could be initiated on
the basis
of those results, without any applicable rules and regulations or technical
standards
that govern 'retrospective testing', is simply irresponsible.

1.21 The analyses of the urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France were
conducted by
the LNDD for research purposes and did not satisfy any standard for doping
control
testing. The results summarized in the LNDD reports however, are
questionable in
a number of other ways and for a number of other reasons as well. The
investigator
has studied those summaries and finds them deficient and not credible in a
number of ways. The research reports are merely summaries, while the
underlying
iso-elctropherograms and other essential documents - necessary to evaluate
the
findings presented in both reports - have not been produced. The process
that
generated those results and the subsequent reports was so deficient that it
would
be improper in this report to discuss these reports in more detail as it
would give the
reported results more credibility than they could possibly merit.

1.22 Based upon the evidence available, the investigator has found that WADA
did force
the LNDD to generate summarized results regarding the analyses of the urine
samples from the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France, containing the original 1999
Tour
de France bottle code numbers from which the riders having provided these
urine
samples can be identified. These bottle code numbers were neither relevant
for the
interpretation of the analyses results, nor for the overall LNDD research
project. Not
until April 2006, did WADA admit for the first time that it had requested
the LNDD
to include the aforementioned original 1999 Tour de France bottle code
numbers.
According to WADA, this was done in order to preserve for the UCI the
possibility
of a longitudinal study analysis of the abuse of r-EPO and to find out who
among its
riders was abusing r-EPO at the time. As explained in detail in this report,
WADA's
post facto rationalization for its request that the original 1999 Tour de
France bottle
code numbers be included in the summarized results is for a number of
reasons
not credible and entirely inconsistent with the evidence in this matter.
WADA has not
produced any evidence to support its claims. There was no reason for WADA to
force
the LNDD to produce these research reported with the aforementioned bottle
code
numbers if it had no intention - as it claimed - to look into any
disciplinary action.
Yet when the identity of one of the riders from the 1999 Tour de France said
to have
provided one or more alleged positive urine samples, the first thing WADA
did was
to ask the UCI whether it would investigate this matter or not to determine
whether
there had been an anti-doping rule violation or not. According to the
investigator, the
evidence available suggests that WADA was determined to have the LNDD create
a
report that could, when combined with a copy of 1999 Tour de France doping
control
forms, identify riders who participated in the 1999 Tour de France as having
used
r-EPO, apparently concentrating on Lance Armstrong only as it never asked
the UCI
for the identities of the other riders who might have been responsible for
producing
alleged positive urine samples during the 1999 Tour de France. The
investigator
needs full cooperation from WADA and needs to see all documents related to
this
matter from the French Ministry, the LNDD, and WADA, to determine who WADA
and/or the French Ministry knew still had the 1999 doping control forms or
numbers
and what communications there have been between WADA and the L'Equipe
reporter
during the late spring and summer of 2005.

1.23 As discussed in detail in this report, the LNDD representatives contend
that it is
just a coincidence that LNDD analysis reports regarding 'positive' urine
samples
are routinely reported prematurely in L'Equipe. L'Equipe has reported the
positive
tests results of various athletes before those athlete or their respective
IFs had even
received notice. In all of these situations the rules and laws governing
confidentiality
and athletes' rights have been violated, but, as far as the investigator has
been
able to determine, there has been no indication to date that anyone is
investigating
this or taking steps to ensure that this does not happen again in the future
or that
those responsible face sanctions. This matter however, might be more than
just a
coincidence. Mr. Ressiot claims that he did not reveal the names of three
(3) other
riders alleged to have produced positive urine samples as well, because of
very
technical remarks on the lab results table regarding one of these three (3)
urine
samples. Yet the lab results table published by the LNDD as part of its
research
report regarding the analyses of the urine samples from the 1999 Tour de
France,
does not contain such remarks. Neither do the original doping control forms
from the
1999 Tour de France, or the corresponding original analysis report from the
LNDD.
The investigator considers this a very serious matter, which needs to be
investigated
further, because it damages the credibility of international doping control
testing.
WADA, the French Ministry, and the LNDD should be compelled to cooperate
with
this investigation.

1.24 From the first day the L'Equipe story was published, it was readily
apparent
that rules about research reports and athlete confidentiality had to have
been
compromised. Nevertheless, only a few individuals with the status and
credibility to
make a difference were willing to speak publicly about this. WADA Vice
President
Brian Mikkelsen and the Director of the Canadian WADA-accredited doping
control
laboratory in Montreal, Dr. Christian Ayotte, were two of the few
individuals within the
international anti-doping community who were willing to voice their concerns
openly
and to put them on record. Other individuals to whom the investigator has
spoken
made it clear that they were aware of the problems, but were unwilling to
speak
out for fear of retribution from WADA. Similarly, the LNDD representatives
made it
clear that they were afraid to resist WADA's demands for including the
'additional
information' in their research reports. After their interview, they were not
prepared to
speak anymore with the investigator, notwithstanding their promises to the
contrary.
Neither would they allow him access to the documentation they had referred
to
during the interview or provide him with copies of these, unless ordered to
do so by a
French court. Even when the ASOIF and the IOC Athletes Commission expressed
their
joint concerns regarding the violation of athlete's confidentiality in this
matter, WADA
apparently was able to block any hearing or consideration of those concerns.
Even
though the WADA Executive Committee decided that a suitable response to the
ASOIF
and IOC Athletes' Commission letter should be carefully prepared, the
response from
WADA President Dick Pound was anything but suitable or carefully prepared.
The
investigator believes that without the commissioning of an independent
investigation
by the UCI these concerns might never have been addressed. This may explain
why
WADA President Dick Pound responded to the ASOIF/IOC Athletes Commission
letter in the manner he did, i.e. as a deliberate attemp to stop the ASOIF
and the IOC
Athletes Commission in their tracks. The investigator feels that this
situation needs
to be changed. The investigator recommends that WADA changes -if necessary-
its
governance structure and policies to ensure that concerns like those
expressed by
Mikkelsen, Ayotte, the ASOIF, and the IOC Athletes Commission are timely
identified,
considered, resolved, and remedied and that a mechanism will be devised as
soon
as possible to deal with any grievances any WADA stakeholder might have who
is adversely affected by alleged misconduct either by WADA, a
WADA-accredited
laboratory, a WADA official or any other individual or organization involved
in
international doping control testing and results management system. Whether
this should be achieved by instituting a 'Code of Ethical Behavior' applying
to all
WADA staff and personnel or having an 'Ethics Committee' not unlike the IOC
Ethics
Committee, is for others to decide. However, just as athletes are
accountable for their
behavior, so should WADA.

1.25 The investigator has determined that the LNDD, and WADA, to an
undefined extent
in cooperation with the French Ministry, have behaved in ways that are
completely
inconsistent with the rules and regulations of international anti-doping
control
testing and in certain cases even in violation of applicable legislation.
Several of
the issues addressed in this report however, require further investigation.
As soon
as an organization with authority has compelled the production of all
relevant
documents and cooperation with this investigation, the investigator can
continue the
investigation and go even farther in finding answers to the remaining
questions, in
particular concerning the leaking of the confidential information to the Mr.
Ressiot,
the L'Equipe reporter. In addition, a tribunal with authority needs to be
convened, to
provide a fair hearing to the individuals and organizations involved in the
misconduct
discussed in this report. If that tribunal finds, after affording all
involved a fair
hearing, that as the investigator has found in this preliminary report, that
misconduct
occurred, that tribunal should determine the appropriate sanctions to remedy
the violations and to deter similar conduct in the future, whether by the
specific
individuals involved in this matter or by others in the future.

This, to me, is one of the most bothersome aspects of this affair:

"5.26 The research was conducted on samples, a great number of which
had been opened and analysed before. There is no internal chain of
custody. The identity and integrity of the samples is not guaranteed."

That's enough in itself to throw out the entireity of L'Equipe's
original allegations particularly when viewed in the light of how
Ressiot got the information to begin with. And if the above weren't
enough, there is this:

"5.27 The samples were analysed following a non-disclosed and
non-validated
"accelerated measurement procedure" only, that departed in
essential aspects from
the mandatory provisions of WADA's laboratory and testing standards
in general and
r-EPO testing requirements in particular. The investigator leaves aside
whether these
departures are acceptable in view of the research purposes."

"J'accuse!", indeed. Sorry science, and even sorrier journalism.

On 1 Jun 2006 02:43:21 -0700, wrote:


This, to me, is one of the most bothersome aspects of this affair:

"5.26 The research was conducted on samples, a great number of which
had been opened and analysed before. There is no internal chain of
custody. The identity and integrity of the samples is not guaranteed."

That's enough in itself to throw out the entireity of L'Equipe's
original allegations particularly when viewed in the light of how
Ressiot got the information to begin with. And if the above weren't
enough, there is this:

"5.27 The samples were analysed following a non-disclosed and
non-validated
"accelerated measurement procedure" only, that departed in
essential aspects from
the mandatory provisions of WADA's laboratory and testing standards
in general and
r-EPO testing requirements in particular. The investigator leaves aside
whether these
departures are acceptable in view of the research purposes."

"J'accuse!", indeed. Sorry science, and even sorrier journalism.


"To suggest in any way that any of the analyses results could
properly be associated with a particular rider or riders, is
misleading and constitutes at least gross negligence, given the
complete absence of an internal or external chain of custody, proper
record keeping and security with respect to the urine samples from
the 1998 and the 1999 Tours de France that were tested, and the
absence of any protection against samples having been spiked with
r-EPO or contamination by other samples."


This basically says it all.

Jack Hollis wrote:

"To suggest in any way that any of the analyses results could
properly be associated with a particular rider or riders, is
misleading and constitutes at least gross negligence, given the
complete absence of an internal or external chain of custody, proper
record keeping and security with respect to the urine samples from
the 1998 and the 1999 Tours de France that were tested, and the
absence of any protection against samples having been spiked with
r-EPO or contamination by other samples."


This basically says it all.

"The fact that WADA President Dick Pound and the LNDD's Professor De
Ceaurriz were willing to discuss the research project and its results
in great detail with the media, while they at the same time were
unwilling to cooperate with a proper investigation by the organization
with jurisdiction over this matter, raises substantial questions
regarding their reasons for doing so and makes one wonder as to what
complete cooperation would disclose."

This implies that Armstrong has very strong support for a lawsuit in
France where the proof of wrongdoing in such a case are much higher
than in the USA.

I don't think he would bother but this basically says that ALL of the
"information" was manufactured.

Bill C wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
Jack Hollis wrote:

"To suggest in any way that any of the analyses results could
properly be associated with a particular rider or riders, is
misleading and constitutes at least gross negligence, given the
complete absence of an internal or external chain of custody, proper
record keeping and security with respect to the urine samples from
the 1998 and the 1999 Tours de France that were tested, and the
absence of any protection against samples having been spiked with
r-EPO or contamination by other samples."


This basically says it all.

"The fact that WADA President Dick Pound and the LNDD's Professor De
Ceaurriz were willing to discuss the research project and its results
in great detail with the media, while they at the same time were
unwilling to cooperate with a proper investigation by the organization
with jurisdiction over this matter, raises substantial questions
regarding their reasons for doing so and makes one wonder as to what
complete cooperation would disclose."

This implies that Armstrong has very strong support for a lawsuit in
France where the proof of wrongdoing in such a case are much higher
than in the USA.

I don't think he would bother but this basically says that ALL of the
"information" was manufactured.

If it wasn't "manufactured" it at least reeks to high heaven. This is
EXACTLY the type of sloppy BS, witch hunting, Kangaroo court **** that
I've been screaming about, now it's confirmed. To be fair Andy brought
all this up before everyone else, and seems to be right on the money.

The more you look into it the funnier the smells coming from it. It
appears that WADA, the UCI and L'Equipe were all in some sort of
league. Exactly what were they trying to accomplish?

Doping is a problem in cycling. We understand. It's also a problem in
every other professional sport but that gets FAR fewer headlines -
though Barry Bonds may have changed that.

The attack on Armstrong could have NOTHING but bad publicity for
cycling in general without a wit of help to control the doping. This is
a demonstration of ultimate stupidity from the very people who have the
most to lose from their idiotic behavior.

In article
.com,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

Bill C wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
Jack Hollis wrote:

"To suggest in any way that any of the analyses results could
properly be associated with a particular rider or riders, is
misleading and constitutes at least gross negligence, given the
complete absence of an internal or external chain of custody, proper
record keeping and security with respect to the urine samples from
the 1998 and the 1999 Tours de France that were tested, and the
absence of any protection against samples having been spiked with
r-EPO or contamination by other samples."


This basically says it all.

"The fact that WADA President Dick Pound and the LNDD's Professor De
Ceaurriz were willing to discuss the research project and its results
in great detail with the media, while they at the same time were
unwilling to cooperate with a proper investigation by the organization
with jurisdiction over this matter, raises substantial questions
regarding their reasons for doing so and makes one wonder as to what
complete cooperation would disclose."

This implies that Armstrong has very strong support for a lawsuit in
France where the proof of wrongdoing in such a case are much higher
than in the USA.

I don't think he would bother but this basically says that ALL of the
"information" was manufactured.

If it wasn't "manufactured" it at least reeks to high heaven. This is
EXACTLY the type of sloppy BS, witch hunting, Kangaroo court **** that
I've been screaming about, now it's confirmed. To be fair Andy brought
all this up before everyone else, and seems to be right on the money.

The more you look into it the funnier the smells coming from it. It
appears that WADA, the UCI and L'Equipe were all in some sort of
league. Exactly what were they trying to accomplish?

Doping is a problem in cycling. We understand. It's also a problem in
every other professional sport but that gets FAR fewer headlines -
though Barry Bonds may have changed that.

The attack on Armstrong could have NOTHING but bad publicity for
cycling in general without a wit of help to control the doping. This is
a demonstration of ultimate stupidity from the very people who have the
most to lose from their idiotic behavior.

Agree. It will get worse. Eventually the governing bodies
will literally explode.

That is `whit'.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press wrote:
Agree. It will get worse. Eventually the governing bodies
will literally explode.

Lets hope dickhead literally evaporates.

WADA and the French took a stupid gamble to smear Armstrong blinded by their
egos of how the rest of the world would react.


"Tom Kunich" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill C wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
Jack Hollis wrote:

"To suggest in any way that any of the analyses results could
properly be associated with a particular rider or riders, is
misleading and constitutes at least gross negligence, given the
complete absence of an internal or external chain of custody, proper
record keeping and security with respect to the urine samples from
the 1998 and the 1999 Tours de France that were tested, and the
absence of any protection against samples having been spiked with
r-EPO or contamination by other samples."


This basically says it all.

"The fact that WADA President Dick Pound and the LNDD's Professor De
Ceaurriz were willing to discuss the research project and its results
in great detail with the media, while they at the same time were
unwilling to cooperate with a proper investigation by the organization
with jurisdiction over this matter, raises substantial questions
regarding their reasons for doing so and makes one wonder as to what
complete cooperation would disclose."

This implies that Armstrong has very strong support for a lawsuit in
France where the proof of wrongdoing in such a case are much higher
than in the USA.

I don't think he would bother but this basically says that ALL of the
"information" was manufactured.

If it wasn't "manufactured" it at least reeks to high heaven. This is
EXACTLY the type of sloppy BS, witch hunting, Kangaroo court **** that
I've been screaming about, now it's confirmed. To be fair Andy brought
all this up before everyone else, and seems to be right on the money.

The more you look into it the funnier the smells coming from it. It
appears that WADA, the UCI and L'Equipe were all in some sort of
league. Exactly what were they trying to accomplish?

Doping is a problem in cycling. We understand. It's also a problem in
every other professional sport but that gets FAR fewer headlines -
though Barry Bonds may have changed that.

The attack on Armstrong could have NOTHING but bad publicity for
cycling in general without a wit of help to control the doping. This is
a demonstration of ultimate stupidity from the very people who have the
most to lose from their idiotic behavior.

"Chris" wrote in message
. net...
WADA and the French took a stupid gamble to smear Armstrong blinded by
their egos of how the rest of the world would react.

ROTFL, Mr. "Rest of the World."



"Tom Kunich" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill C wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
Jack Hollis wrote:

"To suggest in any way that any of the analyses results could
properly be associated with a particular rider or riders, is
misleading and constitutes at least gross negligence, given the
complete absence of an internal or external chain of custody,
proper
record keeping and security with respect to the urine samples from
the 1998 and the 1999 Tours de France that were tested, and the
absence of any protection against samples having been spiked with
r-EPO or contamination by other samples."


This basically says it all.

"The fact that WADA President Dick Pound and the LNDD's Professor De
Ceaurriz were willing to discuss the research project and its results
in great detail with the media, while they at the same time were
unwilling to cooperate with a proper investigation by the organization
with jurisdiction over this matter, raises substantial questions
regarding their reasons for doing so and makes one wonder as to what
complete cooperation would disclose."

This implies that Armstrong has very strong support for a lawsuit in
France where the proof of wrongdoing in such a case are much higher
than in the USA.

I don't think he would bother but this basically says that ALL of the
"information" was manufactured.

If it wasn't "manufactured" it at least reeks to high heaven. This is
EXACTLY the type of sloppy BS, witch hunting, Kangaroo court **** that
I've been screaming about, now it's confirmed. To be fair Andy brought
all this up before everyone else, and seems to be right on the money.

The more you look into it the funnier the smells coming from it. It
appears that WADA, the UCI and L'Equipe were all in some sort of
league. Exactly what were they trying to accomplish?

Doping is a problem in cycling. We understand. It's also a problem in
every other professional sport but that gets FAR fewer headlines -
though Barry Bonds may have changed that.

The attack on Armstrong could have NOTHING but bad publicity for
cycling in general without a wit of help to control the doping. This is
a demonstration of ultimate stupidity from the very people who have the
most to lose from their idiotic behavior.

Michael Press wrote:

That is `whit'.

Thanks for the correction Michael. I'd actually never seen it written
before.