ARMSTRONG

On Jan 20, 7:03*am, J.B.Slocomb wrote:

What I find interesting is that although the Drug Tsars stated several
times that he was a doper they never brought him to trial and the
level of evidence that they seemed to offered was, I believe, what
could he termed "hear say" in a court of law. Someone will have to
advise whether "hear say" is admissible in a federal court or not. I
have the feeling that in a state criminal court it is not, but I'm
hardly a legal authority :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.-

the hear-say evidence meant squat to me, as there are many scenarios
that could've caused false testimony against LA; ( I personally
thought big tobacco was engineering his downfall as a means to protect
their industry from him and his organizations attacks )

On 1/20/2013 10:06 AM, Tom Ace wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2013 9:58:55 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:

IMHO it's a sorry situation when a successful and
disciplined victor is put in a situation of 'lying' while
doing what almost all athletes in almost all sports do every
day.

What's with the scare quotes? It was lying.
It wasn't technicalities and it wasn't a single
instance. And they aren't white lies when
millions of dollars are on the line.


I wrote it that way because no one who follows the sport
believes any such boiler plate denials from competitors.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 19/01/13 23:14, J.B.Slocomb wrote:

Apparently you haven't heard about the out of competition drug tasting

So that's how they do it. Tastes like EPO to me! Ew.

--
JS.

On 20/01/13 14:27, raamman wrote:
On Jan 19, 7:33 pm, "Tom
wrote:

It seems for now that the UCI is not naming new TdF winners. Certainly
some of the second place finishers (e.g. Jan Ulrich) are also known dopers.

--
Tom $herman-

jan never tested positive for any ped; he got busted once for a rave
drug after he reversed his porsche into a bunch of bikes and drove
off....we cyclists here will certainly take a very dim view of that
type of incident- and he was tied up in puerto but....

I think the uci is taking the only way out on that, sidestepping the
issue as it were, because it is a fairly moot point- Lance never
tested positive,

I thought he did with a test long after the sample was taken.

--
JS.

On 20/01/13 23:03, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 14:54:14 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Jan 19, 7:14 am, wrote:

Apparently you haven't heard about the out of competition drug tasting
program. In many competitive sports everyone at a certain level is
visited by the drug lab at irregular intervals to pee in the bottle.
Apparently proof of innocence is a clean urinalysis :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.-

uh huh,,,,and how many drug tests did LA fail ?

I believe that he was the most tested man in sports and he passed them
all. a couple after some discussion I believe, but ultimately he was
100% clean.


He failed the bio passport test, and a test performed on a stored sample.

--
JS.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 08:39:16 +1100, James
wrote:

On 20/01/13 23:03, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 14:54:14 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Jan 19, 7:14 am, wrote:

Apparently you haven't heard about the out of competition drug tasting
program. In many competitive sports everyone at a certain level is
visited by the drug lab at irregular intervals to pee in the bottle.
Apparently proof of innocence is a clean urinalysis :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.-

uh huh,,,,and how many drug tests did LA fail ?

I believe that he was the most tested man in sports and he passed them
all. a couple after some discussion I believe, but ultimately he was
100% clean.


He failed the bio passport test, and a test performed on a stored sample.


I'm not sure I even know what a "bio passport" test is and why was a
stored sample tested?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 21/01/13 12:16, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 08:39:16 +1100,
wrote:

On 20/01/13 23:03, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 14:54:14 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Jan 19, 7:14 am, wrote:

Apparently you haven't heard about the out of competition drug tasting
program. In many competitive sports everyone at a certain level is
visited by the drug lab at irregular intervals to pee in the bottle.
Apparently proof of innocence is a clean urinalysis :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.-

uh huh,,,,and how many drug tests did LA fail ?

I believe that he was the most tested man in sports and he passed them
all. a couple after some discussion I believe, but ultimately he was
100% clean.


He failed the bio passport test, and a test performed on a stored sample.


I'm not sure I even know what a "bio passport" test is.

They keep a track of various blood levels of "stuff" and know how that
stuff should be affected by a grand tour on the human body. Armstrong's
passport showed strong evidence that - even when he claimed to be clean
in 2009 - that he was in fact not.

and why was a
stored sample tested?

Better test technology developed since the sample was taken.

--
JS

On Jan 20, 5:31*pm, James wrote:
On 21/01/13 12:16, J.B.Slocomb wrote:









On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 08:39:16 +1100,
wrote:

On 20/01/13 23:03, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 14:54:14 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Jan 19, 7:14 am, * wrote:

Apparently you haven't heard about the out of competition drug tasting
program. In many competitive sports everyone at a certain level is
visited by the drug lab at irregular intervals to pee in the bottle..
Apparently proof of innocence is a clean urinalysis :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.-

uh huh,,,,and how many drug tests did LA fail ?

I believe that he was the most tested man in sports and he passed them
all. a couple after some discussion I believe, but ultimately he was
100% clean.

He failed the bio passport test, and a test performed on a stored sample.

I'm not sure I even know what a "bio passport" test is.

They keep a track of various blood levels of "stuff" and know how that
stuff should be affected by a grand tour on the human body. *Armstrong's
passport showed strong evidence that - even when he claimed to be clean
in 2009 - that he was in fact not.

and why was a
stored sample tested?

Better test technology developed since the sample was taken.

IIRC (too lazy to look this up), riders were disqualified for elevated
hematocrit on the grounds that they were "unhealthy" and not because
they were doping. Tests were not capable of detecting red cell
production due to naturally occurring EPO versus synthetic. Long term
observation was the only way to tell whether a rider had a naturally
elevated hematocrit or was doping, including plain old blood doping.
The irony to me was that Amgen pioneered EPO production. That's what
I call vertical integration!

-- Jay Beattie.

On 21/01/13 12:50, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jan 20, 5:31 pm, wrote:
On 21/01/13 12:16, J.B.Slocomb wrote:









On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 08:39:16 +1100,
wrote:

On 20/01/13 23:03, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 14:54:14 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Jan 19, 7:14 am, wrote:

Apparently you haven't heard about the out of competition drug tasting
program. In many competitive sports everyone at a certain level is
visited by the drug lab at irregular intervals to pee in the bottle.
Apparently proof of innocence is a clean urinalysis :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.-

uh huh,,,,and how many drug tests did LA fail ?

I believe that he was the most tested man in sports and he passed them
all. a couple after some discussion I believe, but ultimately he was
100% clean.

He failed the bio passport test, and a test performed on a stored sample.

I'm not sure I even know what a "bio passport" test is.

They keep a track of various blood levels of "stuff" and know how that
stuff should be affected by a grand tour on the human body. Armstrong's
passport showed strong evidence that - even when he claimed to be clean
in 2009 - that he was in fact not.

and why was a
stored sample tested?

Better test technology developed since the sample was taken.

IIRC (too lazy to look this up), riders were disqualified for elevated
hematocrit on the grounds that they were "unhealthy" and not because
they were doping. Tests were not capable of detecting red cell
production due to naturally occurring EPO versus synthetic. Long term
observation was the only way to tell whether a rider had a naturally
elevated hematocrit or was doping, including plain old blood doping.
The irony to me was that Amgen pioneered EPO production. That's what
I call vertical integration!

Yup.

http://www.amgentourofcalifornia.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_passport

--
JS.

On Jan 20, 8:50*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

IIRC (too lazy to look this up), riders were disqualified for elevated
hematocrit on the grounds that they were "unhealthy" and not because
they were doping.

I remember reading that the "legal" limit for hematocrit is or was
50%. And the one time I asked my doctor for all the details of my
blood test after a routine physical, mine was 49%.

I was pretty amazed that I nearly qualified to be kicked out of a bike
race. I was not racer-fast, and I certainly wasn't on any performance
enhancing drugs.

- Frank Krygowski