AD: Doping boss rues Armstrong stance

[Will]

[quote]The head of the French anti-doping agency believes Lance Armstrong has missed a chance to prove his critics wrong over allegations of drug use.

Pierre Bordry gave him the opportunity to have samples taken during the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France retested.

But the seven-time Tour champion refused to consent to the new tests.

"If the analysis is clean it would have been very good for him. But he doesn't want to do it and that's his problem," Bordry told BBC Sport.

"It was a good opportunity for him to answer positively to my proposition, because if he is clean, as he says, I am ready to follow him."

[Alex P]

Armstrong may or may not be guilty of anything but innocent until PROVEN guilty must always prevail.

A few points about WADA.

(bear in mind I’m not an armchair expert on this, I have just been reading up a bit and the below supports my opinion - apologies for the plagiarisms)

• WADA are supposed to be the world watchdog for all matters anti-doping and was formed in 1999.
• WADA is run by people who earn a living out of this job and they answer to somebody (therefore want to keep their nice job).
• An INDEPENDENT report criticised the lab for it's procedures and conduct.
• The same report criticised Pound (who had supported the lab) for improper conduct.
• As a result he was censured by the IOC ethics committee.
• They then had the opportunity to go to the International Tribunal for Arbitration but declined. (not the actions of people who nothing to hide)
• Why only focus on 1999 and not all the other samples for the following years, there must be loads of samples, LA was still winning and there were tests for EPO available
• Any reasonable person might question their actions when they are so keen to use this one sample period and so obsessive about one individual.
• So the first year WADA start they have been proven of poor conduct (not a good start) to their credibility
• They (WADA) are then obviously going to try to say anything to try to discredit the report or LA (even when you read the WADA statement it smacks of vendetta or trying to discredit LA or even pettyness - 'he said this, they sent a letter there, he said that, he didn't do that, they didn't speak to that person in time, ramble, ramble, ramble)
• As a result WADA are undermining their credibility as an unbiased and independent body. As such they are harming - not helping the war on drugs. In some respects it is even childish or something more sinister (now you have got me going)


QUESTION – Why is the WADA/lab desperate to test a sample that is ten years old, which is proven suspect in it’s validity

[color=#4000FF]FACT – There are no valid positive tests against Armstrong. [/color]
He is entitled to no more favourable treatment then anyone else but the testers need to act like scientists and provide verifiable evidence against anyone before they start making accusations.

[color=#4000FF]FACT - The 1999 samples are inadmissible and unreliable.[/color]
Why not test later years. Answer, they know that they will still be negative.


If I was LA I would never go near the suggestion to consent to the 1999 retests as the report states that the tests on urine samples were conducted improperly by the lab and fell so short of scientific standards and that it was "completely irresponsible" to suggest they "constitute evidence of anything", so why should he (just because an embittered man says so). In addition we live in corrupt world and with bodies like our Government losing disks with peoples personal data on them, leaving PCs on trains with top secret information etc I would never trust what an agency says especially in these circumstances - chances are these samples have been tampered with which would answer the question that this is really a vendetta against LA and not about the good of cycling.

Then we go onto the speculation – “the Vrijman report was a whitewash”, of course anybody would say that of a report they disagree with, it is easy to do, a cop out and sour grapes.

Lemond v Trek – “Lemond has been dragged through the courts and hasn’t lost one yet” more speculation and zero fact.

LA coming back may or may not be a good thing, it will certainly bring higher exposure to the sport which is a good thing (like it did in the years that he was winning and mentioned in previous posts), on the downside all the 'investigative' journalists will be out n their droves to try and make a quick buck by splashing around speculation (I by no way mean to disrespect the true Investigative Journalists out there now and in the past who provide the world a great service - thinking of Nixon here). I also hope that the leading star Contrador is given the opportunities due him to become an even greater cyclist.

Roll on the summer it will certainly be interesting, one way or another..

[Dombo]

[quote="Alex P"]... - thinking of Nixon here).

[Alex P]

Wasn't it "EPOgate"?

[-Adam-]

Thank God, someone at last puts forward a case thats not 'judge, jury and executioner'.

[Dombo]

Presumably we can now expect the French, with their whizzy new tests for EPO in old wee samples, to go back even further. Why stop at '99? Oh, because that's when (merde alors) their sacred Tour was won by L'Americain! (putain! ptooey!)

Perhaps they should test some of their own winners if they can go back far enough.

With DNA testing now able to prove we are all descended from some old woman in a cave in Ethiopia, mabe they could dig up Anquetil and run a few tests on whatever's left.

Just my cynical tuppenceworth. I said this thread would run and run.

[Grahame]

They seemed quite happy to bust Virenque, so I don't think the race/nationalism card works.

[Alex P]

You could have saved yourself some effort with your old fashioned laptop and summarised your lengthy preamble as follows:


“The USPS team captain requested the whole team to take more drugs” therefore – GUILTY
(where on earth do they get this junk from perhaps these people need to be tested for hallucinogenic drugs).

LA has just sold his home in the Riviera – GUILTY

There were others, well known riders that were tested positive, but the tour winner is the story that the newspapers will go with, oh yea. – GUILTY

6 samples from 1999 turned up with EPO – WADA and the labs as organisations are the offspring of angels and could never be remotely linked with the possibility of tampering - GUILTY

CW don’t want to publish anything related to this as it will lose them sales (or because they know it is junk) - GUILTY

I have friend that is a doctor that smokes (not in medicine I hasten to add) ergo I must smoke too – GUILTY

Man did not land on the moon, is was all a US Government conspiracy to beat the Russians in the Space race – oops sorry wrong conspiracy theory – UCI are behind all of this to discredit WADA whilst secretly supporting LA – of course they are – GUILTY

Greg Lemond sez so – He must be GUILTY


With all these facts in hand, I rest my case your Honour.

[Dombo]

[quote="Grahame"]They seemed quite happy to bust Virenque, so I don't think the race/nationalism card works.

[Alex P]

Where I’m going with this is that I’m highlighting the approach taken here – judge, jury and executioner based on supposition

The GUILTY highlights that the statements made are all given as evidence of guilt

My doctor friend smokes and then by association I must smoke to, LA knows Dr Ferrai therefore he must take drugs.

So when you look at the overall context of this, what this shows that if you look hard enough and ask enough people or read enough articles you will always get the answer that you want, when you publish them you then must expect people to challenge that view or approach. Facts make it harder to challenge, this is easy.

[Alex P]

Does anybody know where I can get some LA Livestrong wristbands from?

I lost the one that I had and I need to get ready for the new season

[Alex P]

I could have employed my doctor friend as my personal training coach (wouldn't be a good idea) but it still does not make me a smoker.

[Alex P]

That is the point, the question does not need answering as it is not a question, it is a supposition.

[Alex P]

Personaly I do not think that anybody would or should respond to this kind of supposition as it would

a) give credibility to the supposition/armchair journalist approach (dollar signs in "investigative" journalists eyes)
b) open yourself to every supposition created tying up time and money until an answer is construed as evidence and then off everybody goes again,
c) it would fuel any conspiricy theory approach, it would never end.

If forced to answer I would say "Wheel Polisher" then what could you say or do about it it neither proves or disproves anything.

[Alex P]

It is a straight question about a supposition of association.

The stance must be the same - do not respond.

Possible answers:

[color=#4000FF]Wheel cleaner - so what
Advice on taking banned substances and how to get away with it - so what[/color]

"Aha!" you might say, but it still does not prove anything....

Other riders employing Dr Ferrari - so what
Excuses given by USPS by being caught by unbiased experts for having drugs - so what
Discredited allegations of epo in the 1999 blood samples - so what

No facts, no proof, innocent until proven guilty - give it up