French Lab Offers To Test Armstrong's 1999 Tour Samples

[Sprinter]

Do we expect him to give back all 7 jersey's?

Erm, if he cheated, then yes. Not everyone cheated in every Tour he rode.

The "everyone does it" excuse doesn't cut it in any legal field.

(Oh, and the word you were looking for is "jerseys")

[Danton]

FLASH!!!!
French lab agrees to re-test the samples that the court ruled could not be proved as Armstrongs.
was there any real news to report?

Pez, I think there might be if Armstrong, now promoting what he calls "transparency" said "let me clear this up, I'll provide a DNA sample", this way the court could determine if they were his samples, no?

[CharlesM]

Yeah that was argued in court as well...

The problem wasn't just if they were his samples but where the samples where and how they were handled for the last several years.

[J-Nice]

How can these samples be mishandled to the point where they test positive for a specific performance-enhancing substance that has to be in your system for it to show up in the urine analysis?

[iliveonnitro]

How can these samples be mishandled to the point where they test positive for a specific performance-enhancing substance that has to be in your system for it to show up in the urine analysis?

If someone who disliked Lance (which is what, everyone in europe?) got hold of one of his samples, you really think that they wouldn't do anything to it?

[J-Nice]

How can these samples be mishandled to the point where they test positive for a specific performance-enhancing substance that has to be in your system for it to show up in the urine analysis?

If someone who disliked Lance (which is what, everyone in europe?) got hold of one of his samples, you really think that they wouldn't do anything to it?

No, I don't believe it. They had 7 whole years to supposedly set him up and it never happened.

7 years in which they only needed one test to come back positive.

And now that he's coming back, all they have to do is wait until he begins racing to try to supposedly set him up.

Are you saying that Armstrong garnered this ill will in Europe after he retired?

The logic doesn't make sense.

[RollinOn27s]

If they're so certain that he's doping, why not just wait to nail him next summer?

With tests/protocol that he can't reasonably dispute?

Stick it to him where it really hurts.

[KB]

This thread exemplifies the reason why I was not happy to see him return to the peloton. The cancer scenario is hardly mentioned; instead it’s all about the drugs issue. Yes, I appreciate many will welcome him back, particularly from an American perspective, which is understandable. However, the media circus has already surrounded him on negative issues that had been more positive to the sport this year. Now we will witness the anti-Lance media posse going into overdrive.
Whether he did or didn’t the perception from most people I know is that he was as culpable as those riding around him. So, he would perhaps have won anyway, although there are / was people riding clean who have been cheated.
In effect the Tour will become a sideshow in 2009 if Lance does ride. Yes, more publicity, but at what cost to the greater good of the sport? It’s difficult to alter perceptions, but most think that the previous baggage will do damage to the sport.
For those who think there’s an anti-American thing going on I don’t agree. I would have said exactly the same if it had been a Brit. I’m for the greater good of the sport I have followed for over 40 years. Lance coming back sends a negative message IMO that we didn’t need.

[BenCousins]

In the US, maybe. But then again, who cares what they think in the US? Other people in the US?

who cares what they think in Sweden? People in Sweden? It goes both ways. People in the US may get excited about cycling again, if even just for a moment. And that does have an impact. I'm sorry that cynicism wins out every time.

Here's my point. If Armstrong's return only has a 'positive' (you can argue that point) impact in the US, why the hell to the rest of the world have to put up with him?

At the end of the day I think you can only hold people to the rules in place. when someone starts making new ones as they go, it's a problem.

Lance Armstrong is a perfect example of a person who makes new rules as he goes. For instance using Catlin as his doping monitor instead of the Astana's Damsgaard system. For instance ignoring the UCI rules regarding 6 months notice before returning to ride. For instance creating false evidence that it was a saddle sore cream that caused the triamcinolone positive in 1999. For instance not allowing Greg Lemond to ask his questions at the Interbike press conference.

[Stolichnaya]

What about the business and development aspect of it all?

There certainly was a big 'Lance effect' in recent years in the USA that dropped off big time after his retirement. Some would argue that the USA is the driving market for the bicycle industry. When the USA cycling community is growing and consumers are spending more, manufacturers invest in development and production and we all benefit from it as buyers of high-end stuff.

If the 'Lance effect' is rekindled for a year or two it might result in some nice new trinkets and developments for us all, be it in the USA or Sweden. Now is a shaky time as those investment bankers may think twice about upgrading their Cervelos next season. It would be nice to add some incentive to bolster our favorite manufacturers to keep pushing the envelope.

Just a thought...

[KB]

Stol - understand what you're saying, but it encapsulates an element of what the comeback is about. Nike, Trek and ASO will do very well out of it commercially because of the increased publicity that filters down. Conversely, the drugs issue and the raking up of old news and views shows cycling negatively.

[BenCousins]

Conversely, the drugs issue and the raking up of old news and views shows cycling negatively.

I'll add a quick edit to that.

Conversely, the drugs issue and the raking up of old news and views shows cycling truthfully.

[KB]

Conversely, the drugs issue and the raking up of old news and views shows cycling negatively.

I'll add a quick edit to that.

Conversely, the drugs issue and the raking up of old news and views shows cycling truthfully.

DON'T EDIT ANYTHING I'VE WRITTEN. MAKE SURE THAT IT'S FULLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO YOURSELF.

[BenCousins]

Hey, it's old news. Why can't we let bygones be bygones? Why open old issues, that post is in the past now. It only shows up this board in a negative light to bring it up and draw attention to it.

[Tapeworm]

Lance Armstrong is a perfect example of a person who makes new rules as he goes. For instance using Catlin as his doping monitor instead of the Astana's Damsgaard system. For instance ignoring the UCI rules regarding 6 months notice before returning to ride. For instance creating false evidence that it was a saddle sore cream that caused the triamcinolone positive in 1999. For instance not allowing Greg Lemond to ask his questions at the Interbike press conference.

Is it in the UCI rules that he has to use Astana's Damsgaard system as his doping monitor or that he has to answer questions at a press conference?

Suspicious for the first, rude for the second, but hardly breaking the rules.

Regarding the cream and the 6 months notice to race, he hasn't written any new rules there either. Rather isn't it the failure of the UCI to enforce their own rules in the first place?