Lance Gets Cleared

[enduramil]

Just saw this on yahoo. Looks like Dick Pound has been up to no good himself. Maybe he needs a drug test.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/31052006/2/sports-report-exonerates-armstrong-doping-1999-tour-de-france.html

[Futurelooks Guy]

Maybe it takes one to know one so you may be on to something I reckon! ;)

[enduramil]

Maybe it takes one to know one so you may be on to something I reckon! ;)

The problem is the drugs Dick, sorry can I call him Dick? The drugs old man Dick I'm thinking of if he got caught using would be a federal arrestable offense. Because lately Dick the head Wada has been pretty could at alot of noise with no follow through. Personally I think he keeps blowing his load to early with this stuff.

[Uncle Duke]

if you read it all the dutch investigator doesnt seem to be an expert...and it was paid for by the icu..they would have a big stake in the findings...

[wallyjames]

WADA under Dick Pound is like Senator McCarthy's commitee on Un-American Activities. Perception is reality and all that.

[nouseforaname]

if you read it all the dutch investigator doesnt seem to be an expert...and it was paid for by the icu..they would have a big stake in the findings...

try this link http://www.cyclingnews.com/sponsors/wielerrevue/wr0398.html

seems to suggest that vrijmans history of involvement in the doping world extends at least as far back as 1998. Which to me suggests that pound calling him inexperienced means that dick really doesnt understand ANYTHING.
In fact a google search for emile vrijman turns up lots of people who sem to think that the bloke is an "expert" on doping rather than "inexperienced". I mean hes duthc - who knows more about drugs than the dutch? (maybe columbians?).

[enduramil]

WADA under Dick Pound is like Senator McCarthy's commitee on Un-American Activities. Perception is reality and all that.

I've mentioned this before but will again. My dad does work for the 2010 games. When I asked him about Dick he pretty much said that the guy was bitter and is trying to get back at everyone for whatever.

[pete@nsmb.com]

I've mentioned this before but will again. My dad does work for the 2010 games. When I asked him about Dick he pretty much said that the guy was bitter and is trying to get back at everyone for whatever.

I believe it - he kind of got the shaft from the IOC. Why he would take it out on the UCI and cyclists is strange...one way or the other, the politics between those two organizations is messed up, and Dick isn't helping things. It was not too long ago that he was being held up as a celebrated Canadian. I believe his intentions are good (but not pure) but he just seems to f*$k up every situation he wades into. Maybe it's time for a vacation...

[stinky_rider7]

I don't actually believe this report exonerates Lance in a real sense, but I agree it legally exonerates him: the report shows that the proof against him is not legally acceptable.

For those of you who can read french, this article summarizes the situation pretty well:
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20060601/CPSPORTS09/606010741/1003/CPSPORTS09

To sum it up quickly, this is why he was exonerated:
1. samples A & B were taken in 97, 98, 99 (sample B is only usually used as a second test if A are shown to be positive )
2. The french lab used various sample Bs from those years for scientific experiments used to validate the EPO detection tests.
In doing so, the samples should not have had any names attached (error #1 from lab). In addition, since they were used for different purposes than actual drug testing, the scientists don't need to follow strict procedures so the results cannot be used legally.
3. samples A do not exist anymore so can't be re-tested
4. About the people who wrote the report: the dutch lawyer & scientist. They have a history of defending athletes accused of doping. Why would the UCI ask them for a report, would it be impartial ? (note: I'm not saying they are necessarily biased, just puting the question out there )


So, yes, there was a major screw up on WADA's part since the samples used should never have had names attached to them in the context they were used (scientific research) and the results should never have been made public since they didn't meet the legal burden of proof.

However, i don't think this proves that Lance was clean, it just proves that there the evidence is legally shaky.

p.s.: Before you accuse me of being a Lance-hater, I'm not saying that Lance used drugs, just trying to show another side to the story...

[wallyjames]

Stinky 7 I think you present a balanced argument. The methodology was flawed, flawed, flawed. But some positive results still appeared. Why? Personally I think Armstrong was such a strong individual set in such a perfect team structure that he was capable of winning without resorting to illegal practices. Whether he actually did or not is still open to conjecture.

[Bukkake]

It seems to me that it's possible the every tour rider is on drugs just so the playing field is equal. If that was the case it's just a matter of being able to afford the latest most undetectable drugs.

[nouseforaname]

Stinky 7 I think you present a balanced argument. The methodology was flawed, flawed, flawed. But some positive results still appeared. Why? Personally I think Armstrong was such a strong individual set in such a perfect team structure that he was capable of winning without resorting to illegal practices. Whether he actually did or not is still open to conjecture.

But the shadow games and leaks from the WADA and associated labs have shifted the goalposts. Flawed methodology cannot be acceptable when you are laying these kind of claims, and if your methodology is shown to be suspect, everything else must be suspect as well. Just as if Lances 97 sample had been found to be Positive, his whole career would have been considered flawed; so must the WADA's witch hunt be thrown into this category of disrepute.
I'm not much of a Lance fan myself but the way he has been treated is a shambles and a stain on cycling. As much as the ACTUALLY proven doping that has shown itself not be a small affair with a few rogue teams, but a wide ranging and all embracing culture of drugs in the pro peleton is a disgrace so is his treatment.
Anyone got a Ben Johnson like stat ( i seem to recall one where every body who was in the final with him when he was caught doping has since been banned for drug abuse?) for Armstrong Vs the challengers who have been done for drugs?

[Uncle Duke]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863

more doped than cheech and chong.