AD: Doping boss rues Armstrong stance

[Alex P]

The "unbiased experts" were the media and it was meant as a joke.

But sorry what has this got to do with proof that LA has taken drugs...?

Why would a team be carrying Actovegin - so what
What sort of doctors have they got on their team - so what
The Doctors used to work for Festina - so what
People are entitled to their opinion on LA - so what

In terms of evidence, something that will stand up in court - nothing so far.

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

[Dombo]

[quote="marco"]unbiased experts? sorry ? Who are the unbiased experts you mention? You need to read up on this, seriously.
Media caught USPS staff dumping Actovegin syringes,
This does not prove LA doped, only that USPS staff dumped some syringes.USPS go into damage limitation mode, they dont even try to deny its Actovegin (calf blood derivative) , a medicine then not even licensed for human use.Putting out a statement saying its used for support staff and for abrasions. Strange as a) why would a team be carrying a medecine thats not even licensed? b)abrasions?!?!? wtf - what sort of doctors have they got on their team (actually its the same ones that were on festina and the brains behind the festina affair in the late 90s. The more you find out the murkier it gets!)
This does not prove LA doped

If you know anyone who really believes that they were rubbing unlicensed cows blood derivative on support staff's abrasions rather than having their riders use it for its noted performance enhancing qualities (now its come to light its now on the IOC banned list) can you put them in touch with me as I have got a nice bridge to sell them!
This does not prove LA doped

just out of interest what would count as proof for you?

[quote="Dombo"][quote="marco"]unbiased experts? sorry ? Who are the unbiased experts you mention? You need to read up on this, seriously.
Media caught USPS staff dumping Actovegin syringes,
This does not prove LA doped, only that USPS staff dumped some syringes.USPS go into damage limitation mode, they dont even try to deny its Actovegin (calf blood derivative) , a medicine then not even licensed for human use.Putting out a statement saying its used for support staff and for abrasions. Strange as a) why would a team be carrying a medecine thats not even licensed? b)abrasions?!?!? wtf - what sort of doctors have they got on their team (actually its the same ones that were on festina and the brains behind the festina affair in the late 90s. The more you find out the murkier it gets!)
This does not prove LA doped

If you know anyone who really believes that they were rubbing unlicensed cows blood derivative on support staff's abrasions rather than having their riders use it for its noted performance enhancing qualities (now its come to light its now on the IOC banned list) can you put them in touch with me as I have got a nice bridge to sell them!
This does not prove LA doped

just out of interest what would count as proof for you?

[Alex P]

Tests based on urine samples that 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",. would you happily go to jail for drink driving if your samples had been mishandled - NO!

So to remind everybody the agreed process is a first positive test on the A sample that then requires testing of the B sample. This is merely a formality to stop the courts being inundated with counterclaims, and does not stop the B tests being a foregone conclusion.

[size=150][color=#4000BF]The A samples were negative[/color][/size]

Knowing this, would even a clean athlete (and I am making no judgement of Armstrong here) ever consent to B sample tests after 8 years, not knowing what effects deterioration or adulteration may have had? And by an authority with dubious political motivations? Of course not.

[Andrew G]

[quote="marco"]Can I ask a serious question?

[Alex P]

Tests 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" official stand up in court fact.

A serious question now, does that mean the others wern't?

Answer - I wouldn't know I'm not an expert but I would expect if there was a way that they would be conducted via an agreed (international) process using scientific standards by an unbiased organisation that would be robust enough to stand up to any serious challenge either in a court of law or via an independant body if need be.

[Alex P]

I personally would like to thank the BBC weblog on LA for all my material, Microsoft Word for correcting all the spelling mistakes, my firm's new work from home policy to give me the time to do this and Marco for a good sparring session

And just in case anybody needs any Livestrong wrist bands you can get them here:

[url]http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Livestrong-Wrist-Band-From-Lance-Armstrong-Foundation_W0QQitemZ370093523168QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item370093523168&_trkparms=72%3A1301%7C39%3A1%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C240%3A1307&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14[/url]

[Alex P]

You cannot unless you have "proven safe" samples going back that far and you reapply the tests now (according to agreed procedures) else innocent until proven guilty applies..

[-Adam-]

[quote="marco"]hopefully for everyone else they havent got too annoyed with it all

[Elliot M]

I certainly don't believe Armstrong.

It was all filmed in a film studio in Area 51.










Apologies, I'm sure that joke has been used already on this forum...

[Elliot M]

hope you got to brentwood on the brompton ok!