haha Lance Armstrong won again - Page 2

**Jesus Shuttlesworth** · 07-28-2005, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzkill

LOL Moonax

Shut up you ugly, ignorant, foul smelling, bench warming, fat American

**The Miz** · 07-29-2005, 01:06 AM

LOL cycling who gives a shit. it's only popular in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia

**Loose Cannon** · 07-29-2005, 01:07 AM

lol

**YOUR Hero** · 07-29-2005, 01:08 AM

It's popular is North America

Now I can't speak for those other freaky places, but I've never seen any cycling shown outside the olympics up here in CandyLand (North America don't-cha know)

**YOUR Hero** · 07-29-2005, 01:49 AM

And now, an interview from Lance Armstrong. His views on guns, womens right, the church/state seperation, the war on Iraq, etc...

Live Strong or Live Wrong?

Why cancer-surviving cyclist superstar Lance Armstrong must break with his 'old friend' -- President Bush -- if he expects his anti-war stance to be taken seriously

To all the haters that don't think cycling is a sport, and the Tour De France ranks just below watching an apple turn brown, let's be clear: Lance Armstrong has earned the love.

The cancer-surviving cyclist ended his career with a record seventh straight Tour De France victory. Immediately the accolades rolled in, and he has earned every dollop with an athletic tenacity and compelling personal story that's touched the lives of millions.

But one piece of praise seemed to stand out like Judge John Roberts in Harlem. This was gushed from a guy who has taken a few spills from his Schwinn in recent weeks: President George W. Bush.

"Lance is an incredible inspiration to people from all walks of life, and he has lifted the spirits of those who face life's challenges," Bush said about the fellow Texan and "old friend.� "He is a true champion."

The praise struck an odd note considering Armstrong's comments after winning his seventh yellow jersey. They weren't about the Alps, the cobbled Paris streets, or the new bell on his handlebars. They were about Iraq.

"The biggest downside to a war in Iraq is what you could do with that money," Armstrong said through gritted teeth. "What does a war in Iraq cost a week? A billion? Maybe a billion a day? The budget for the National Cancer Institute is four billion. That has to change. Polls say people are much more afraid of cancer than of a plane flying into their house or a bomb or any other form of terrorism."

His timing was fortuitous. A report came out of the Congressional Budget Office the next day that indicated the war in Iraq will cost more -- adjusted for 2005 dollars -- than any war since the Second World War, with a price tag that may near 800 billion dollars.

Armstrong's statement is significant because it represents a sharp turn from his previous statements against the Iraq invasion. When the war was launched out in 2003, Lance's soft anti-war views sounded more James Baker than Ella Baker:

"I know George Bush well, having met him about 20 times, and I support him, but going ahead with this war without the support of Europe would be dangerous ... it would be a mistake to engage in war without the backing of the United Nations and Europe," he said. "If there's going to be a war then we'll be up against a billion Muslims -- so it would be unreasonable for the United States to go it alone against such a huge part of the world."

Armstrong took great pains at the time to compliment Bush with every statement, saying that Dubya sometimes appeared "brash," but that he was "more intelligent than people give him credit for." He added, "Bush isn't a banker from New York, or a tycoon from California. He's a cowboy from Texas."

In 2004, Armstrong's anxiety about the war was rising, perhaps affected by the French protests during that year's Tour. But despite his stronger objections, Armstrong still reserved praise for his "friend" in the Oval Office. "I don't like what the war has done to our country, to our economy," he said. "My kids will be paying for this war for some time to come. George Bush is a friend of mine and just as I say it to you, I'd say to him, 'Mr. President, I'm not sure this war was such a good idea', and the good thing about him is he could take that."

Now in 2005, Armstrong has taken a much harder stance. This could be attributed to possible aspirations for political office. Armstrong in a recent interview laid out his views on a number of issues, describing himself as "against mixing up state and Church, not keen on guns, pro women's right to choose. And very anti war in Iraq," -- which may lead some of us to wonder exactly what political party in our glorious duopoly would even allow him to stand as a candidate.

Some say that he is simply under the sway of his rock star partner Sheryl Crow -- of "War is Not the Answer" t-shirts and the group Musicians Win Without War.

But the real reason for Armstrong's recent statements most likely stems from simple frustration. Armstrong sees his life's work, cancer funding and research, being undercut by this war. He takes this position even though it could lose him his Oval Office access. He speaks out "on foreign soil" even though it could mean derision when he returns.

He will assuredly face words such as those from one internet blogger who wrote "Lance Armstrong should be detained the moment he steps back on American soil, and then he should have a bicycle tire pump shoved so far up his ass that he whistles Dixie when he breathes."

If the cancer that spread to his lungs and abdomen, not to mention the Pyrenees, didn't deter Armstrong, a pustule armed with a laptop and fried cheese probably won't keep him up nights. Especially when the priorities of medical research or "generational war" hang in the balance.

Armstrong has devoted countless hours to the fight against cancer. There is not more money for cancer research because of the war. It's that simple.

It's also not just cancer. In my hometown of Washington, DC, this $800 billion price tag means high rates of infant mortality, shuttered public hospitals, and schools in a constant and eternal state of crisis.

This is a battle for priorities. If Lance wants to see victory, chuckling it up with his "fellow Texan" is no way to lead this movement forward. Instead, Armstrong should ride among the critical mass bikers and anti-war couriers at the national anti-war protests on September 24th in Washington, DC.

Consider this an invite, Lance. Consider this a way to continue to "live strong."

**real One bjarni** · 07-29-2005, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonax

Armstrong won 7 tours - but Hinault won 10 and Merckx won 11 tours. Therefore they are the better tour riders.

Whay?!?! They has not had cancer.... and on up-hill climbings, Lance's cup of tea, Lance simply domianted. He is the besst sysclist EVER - check your facts, jack.

**Loose Cannon** · 07-29-2005, 10:15 PM

ROFL

**Jesus Shuttlesworth** · 07-29-2005, 10:26 PM

Lance Armstrong can ride a bike faster than you can Moonax

SUCK ON THAT

**The Outlaw** · 07-30-2005, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sTiMa34

I guess Lance Armstrong kicked your dog or something because we got a hater in the houseee

LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Miz

LOL cycling who gives a shit. it's only popular in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia

LOL again

Come on, the guy did this with one nut. How impressive is that?!

**el fregadero** · 07-31-2005, 04:16 AM

Probably an advantage though, less pressure on his nads then the other riders. Maybe that is why we got a hater.

**DaveWadding** · 07-31-2005, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YOUR Hero

Guess what, no one really cares. It's bike riding.

**The Outlaw** · 07-31-2005, 03:07 PM

Thank you for your input, David.

**DaveWadding** · 08-03-2005, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Outlaw

Thank you for your input, David.

You're very welcome.

**iwantviral** · 08-14-2005, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by real One bjarni

Whay?!?! They has not had cancer.... and on up-hill climbings, Lance's cup of tea, Lance simply domianted. He is the besst sysclist EVER - check your facts, jack.

**VonErich Lives** · 08-26-2005, 03:47 PM

Suprised no one bumped this yet, maybe should be a new thread anyway...

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=2142817

ance Armstrong suggested Thursday that he's the victim of a "setup," saying he doesn't trust the French lab that released test results leading to blood doping allegations against him.

Armstrong's comments came after Dick Pound, head of the World Anti-Doping Agency, said officials had received the lab results and would review them.

"There's a setup here and I'm stuck in the middle of it," Armstrong told The Associated Press. "I absolutely do not trust that laboratory."

The French sports daily L'Equipe reported Tuesday that six urine samples Armstrong provided during his first tour win in 1999 tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO.

"If he had one, you could say it was an aberration," Pound said. "When you get up to six, there's got to be some explanation."

Armstrong, who retired after his seventh straight tour win in July, has angrily denied the L'Equipe report. He also said that while Pound might trust the lab that tested the samples, "I certainly don't."

On Thursday night, Armstrong elaborated on his distrust of the French laboratory during an appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live."

"A guy in a Parisian laboratory opens up your sample, you know, Jean Francois so-and-so, and he tests it -- nobody's there to observe, no protocol was followed -- and then you get a call from a newspaper that says 'We found you to be positive six times for EPO.' Well, since when did newspapers start governing sports?"

Pound said the lab had asked WADA months ago if the agency was interested in reviewing its findings and that he agreed. He said the agency didn't expect names to be connected to the findings but only wanted to see if the leftover samples from 1999 would show riders used EPO.

"They said it's simply research," Pound said.

Pound said he is waiting for WADA Science Director Olivier Rabin to return from Europe to review the results.

The lab report doesn't name Armstrong but shows the results of tests on anonymous urine samples. While the French newspaper said it was able to match Armstrong to the positive samples, Pound said the lab and WADA officials cannot do that.

The French report appears stronger than previous doping allegations raised against Armstrong, Pound said.

"There's been an awful lot of rumor and accusation about him for a number of years, always of the he-said, she-said variety. This appears -- I haven't seen the documents myself -- to have some documentary connection. That's a lot more serious. It's got to be taken more seriously," Pound said.

Armstrong and Pound have clashed before on the chairman's comments about athletes who use drugs.

Pound said he's unsure whether WADA would have jurisdiction to take any action against Armstrong if the allegations could be proved. WADA didn't exist until months after the samples were collected in July 1999.

Pound said he was waiting to see if the International Cycling Union would act on the French report.

Armstrong questions the validity of testing samples frozen six years ago, how those samples were handled since and how he could be expected to defend himself when the only confirming evidence -- the 'A' sample used for the 1999 tests -- no longer exists.

He also charged officials at the suburban Paris lab with violating WADA code for failing to safeguard the anonymity of any remaining 'B' samples it had.

"Nowadays, we all want clean sport," Armstrong told King. "And fortunately, an organization called WADA has come along and has really governed the world of anti-doping. They have set about a protocol and a code that everybody has to live by. And [the lab] violated the code several times."

Pound said the lab is accredited by the International Olympic Committee and that he trusts it handled the samples properly.

"It's one of the top two or three EPO labs in the world," he said. "It's a very competent laboratory."

Pound also questioned the need for two samples to confirm a positive test.

"You can count on the fingers of one hand the times a B sample has not confirmed the result of the A sample," Pound said. "It's almost always a delaying tactic."

Armstrong said that contradicts WADA's own drug testing policy.

"For the head of the agency to say he actually doesn't believe in the code ... if your career is riding on the line, wouldn't you want a B sample?," Armstrong said. "The French have been after [me] forever, and 'whoops!' there's no B sample? The stakes are too high."

Armstrong told King that he was tested dozens of times during all his Tours, and was under exceptional scrutiny -- including right before his final race in June.

"Just a day before the start we had a knock on the door, and the minister of sport had sent a crew down there to collect two samples of urine and two samples of blood," Armstrong said. "And we checked around and found out that nobody else in the peloton was tested that day. So I can't say 'witch hunt' loud enough."

**BCWWF** · 08-26-2005, 04:57 PM

I was going to say something about it, but there's no use. If the French media has to resort to testing illegal piss B and C samples from over six years ago as a last resort to "catch" Armstrong, there's really nothing that can be done.

Simply put for those of you who haven't been reading this, a French newspaper/magazine that has been trying for years to catch Armstrong doing something illegal, is trying again. They obtained (most likely illegally) B samples of Armstrongs frozen piss. The samples that they got ahold of, besides being six years old and not primary, natural samples, were listed only by a set of numbers, even the doctor who kept the samples didn't know which numbers belonged to which athlete. But of course, the French media somehow figures out which numbers belong to Lance, obtain them, and perform independent tests on them. Then of course, the magazine finally has him caught! After having his frozen piss tested more then any other human beings for the past seven years, a set of independent tests, ones not overseen by anybody but the paper, are the ones to catch him by using tainted samples that might not even be his. Good job guys, when you're the governing body we might care!

**YOUR Hero** · 08-26-2005, 11:03 PM

Yeah I dunno. Lance made some strong points, but one still has to wonder why people would risk their professional reputation on a lie. If they didn't follow procedure, well that's just fukced up.

I watched part of the Armstrong interview on Larry King Live. Lance seems sincere, but so did Raffy.

**BCWWF** · 08-27-2005, 03:25 AM

I would be shocked, and cycling as a sport would pretty much lose all credibility (especially in the US) if he was actually caught doping, but to this point he hasn't. L'equippe or whatever its called has been testing his results for years, and they haven't found anything significant enough to penalize him even. So no, a report finding traces of EPO is tainted six year old piss that may or may not be Lance Armstrong's does not prove anything. When the actual governing body does an appropriate study and finds something, then I will believe it. When a biased magazine conducts a shady test, I will hold off on judgement.

08-27-2005, 03:30 AM

I would laugh my as off if it was true

**BCWWF** · 08-27-2005, 03:32 AM

Thats cool

**The Outlaw** · 08-28-2005, 02:20 AM

LOL they took his 6 year old frozen piss?

Ahahahaha

**The Mackem** · 08-30-2005, 05:17 PM

The French know how to hold a grudge.

**El Capitano Gatisto** · 08-30-2005, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Outlaw

LOL they took his 6 year old frozen piss?

Ahahahaha

They didn't take his specifically. Use your head.

A new assay has been developed for EPO and the lab who created it wanted to see if it would shine any light on old doping samples that had been gathered previously.

It was journalistic deduction that led to Lance Armstrong's name being linked to positive samples.

**El Capitano Gatisto** · 08-30-2005, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCWWF

I would be shocked, and cycling as a sport would pretty much lose all credibility (especially in the US) if he was actually caught doping, but to this point he hasn't. L'equippe or whatever its called has been testing his results for years, and they haven't found anything significant enough to penalize him even. So no, a report finding traces of EPO is tainted six year old piss that may or may not be Lance Armstrong's does not prove anything. When the actual governing body does an appropriate study and finds something, then I will believe it. When a biased magazine conducts a shady test, I will hold off on judgement.

L'Equip haven't been testing anything, you silly cunt. They're a newspaper.

**Jesus Shuttlesworth** · 08-31-2005, 06:13 AM

I knew this post would start up a bunch of shit. Honestly I have very little intrest in bike riding, more like none at all. The Lance Armstrong story is pretty sweet tho. He just keeps beating everyone, everyone says he is on 'roids but nobody has proven shit. I find it intresting how everyone hates on the guy but he just brushes them off and continues to win.

**BCWWF** · 08-31-2005, 04:11 PM

I have said it before and I will say it again, he deals with the media better then any other athlete. The only thing that can ruin that is a legit finding.

**El Capitano Gatisto** · 08-31-2005, 04:19 PM

EPO was detected in those samples. The study was conducted blind - his samples were only matched to his name after the fact, not prior to it. How much more legit do you want?

**BCWWF** · 08-31-2005, 04:28 PM

They were tested on piss that was previously left out, and there is no saying that L'equippe has the right samples. That being said, I'm not aware that it was an independent test that they got their hands on, I was under the impression that the paper conducted the test.

**El Capitano Gatisto** · 08-31-2005, 04:36 PM

It's not L'Equip who got the samples or did the testing. Your understanding is wrong.

They were B samples given for doping tests in 1999, handed over to a lab by the doping authorities to test anonymously for EPO using a new assay that the lab had developed. They wanted to check the test process, so to speak. It happens: in my project, another lab asked me for 400 blood samples they could try extracting DNA from with their new equipment.

EPO was found using this new test in some of the samples. The newspaper got the anonymous code numbers for the positive samples, then having Lance Armstrong's code they checked and found his samples to be among those tested positive for EPO.

To question the professionalism (the handling of the samples by the lab involved) is a very shakey defence.

**BCWWF** · 08-31-2005, 11:08 PM

I am not doubting your story, because it wouldn't be a huge shock if things weren't said here, but that is simply different then the articles here. They are giving the impression that the magazine is who was in charge of the whole process.

Even so, they are still b-samples (which from what I know are samples that were left over from the original tests) and the newspaper getting their hands on his information is kind of shaky in itself.

**El Capitano Gatisto** · 09-01-2005, 08:01 AM

The lab which carried out the tests is apparently part of the same institution which carries out doping tests for the tour.

B samples are, as far as I know, second samples retained in the event that a positive test is found in the A sample and a confirmation test must be carried out to verify the result.

The newspaper got their hands on it because the research is there for everyone to see. The anonymous codes were published as part of the findings of the new test process, and the newspaper managed to link these codes to previous information (medical certificates and previous tests) that was publically released by Armstrong when he was defending himself against prior allegations.

**YOUR Hero** · 09-01-2005, 11:00 AM

BCWWF, the papers 'here' are not saying L'Equip is in charge of the testing. You are assuming. When I read it, I understand the process, the role of L'Equip, etc

**BCWWF** · 09-01-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

"A guy in a Parisian laboratory opens up your sample, you know, Jean Francois so-and-so, and he tests it -- nobody's there to observe, no protocol was followed -- and then you get a call from a newspaper that says 'We found you to be positive six times for EPO.' Well, since when did newspapers start governing sports?"

**BCWWF** · 09-01-2005, 04:16 PM

Quote:

The lab report doesn't name Armstrong but shows the results of tests on anonymous urine samples. While the French newspaper said it was able to match Armstrong to the positive samples, Pound said the lab and WADA officials cannot do that.

**BCWWF** · 09-01-2005, 04:20 PM

Quote:

"Nowadays, we all want clean sport," Armstrong told King. "And fortunately, an organization called WADA has come along and has really governed the world of anti-doping. They have set about a protocol and a code that everybody has to live by. And [the lab] violated the code several times."

**BCWWF** · 09-01-2005, 04:21 PM

Quote:

"For the head of the agency to say he actually doesn't believe in the code ... if your career is riding on the line, wouldn't you want a B sample?," Armstrong said. "The French have been after [me] forever, and 'whoops!' there's no B sample? The stakes are too high."

**El Capitano Gatisto** · 09-01-2005, 04:25 PM

"A guy in a Parisian laboratory opens up your sample, you know, Jean Francois so-and-so, and he tests it -- nobody's there to observe, no protocol was followed -- and then you get a call from a newspaper that says 'We found you to be positive six times for EPO.' Well, since when did newspapers start governing sports?"

That quote in particular is just xenophobic and unhelpful to his cause. I understand his supporters well eat it up, but it's things like that which don't endear Lance Armstrong to me, implying that people earning a living in a lab would handle samples unprofessionally or even deliberately tamper with them because he is Lance Armstrong and they're dirty French.

They weren't testing Lance Armstrong, they were testing anonymous samples, and I'd expect them to handle those samples as they would any other. To suggest unprofessionalism is a slur, really.

**BCWWF** · 09-01-2005, 04:28 PM

Obviously the tone of the papers is different in the US then in Europe (mainly France) and maybe even in Canada, but the quotes I just posted are pretty much the main points of the stories here and represent a good idea of the tone under which they were written.

I knew that the paper linked the anonymous numbers to Armstrong, what I was mistaken on was their role in the lab testing itself. Even if they weren't the ones in charge of the tests, they still don't look completely professional or accurate.

**El Capitano Gatisto** · 09-01-2005, 04:31 PM

It would be better if he didn't take such a tone when referring to the lab. The newspaper, that's fine, but playing upon this stereotype of a sneaky French person working away in a lab, tampering with his samples, is low. Chances are that people working in the labs may not even be French, and it's certain they wouldn't have known which samples were Lance Armstrong's.

**VonErich Lives** · 09-01-2005, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto

It would be better if he didn't take such a tone when referring to the lab. The newspaper, that's fine, but playing upon this stereotype of a sneaky French person working away in a lab, tampering with his samples, is low. Chances are that people working in the labs may not even be French, and it's certain they wouldn't have known which samples were Lance Armstrong's.

Aren't these the same french who boo'd and spit on/at him while riding the tour?

Gee, wonder why he's a little suspecious.

ECG, I think you being a lab rat are taking it a little personal, that being said there seems to be things in question and the posibility that there was some false info is possible. Could have been on purpose, could have been by accident, could have been none at all.

The big question seems to be, how did this newspaper figure out the "code" to know that it's his sample. That's the big part that seems to be in question.

07-29-2005, 01:06 AM	#42
The Miz Clutch Poster Posts: 11,997	LOL cycling who gives a shit. it's only popular in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia

07-29-2005, 01:07 AM	#43
Loose Cannon I'm all there is Posts: 31,811	lol

07-29-2005, 01:08 AM	#44
YOUR Hero Adminstigator Posts: 102,491	It's popular is North America Now I can't speak for those other freaky places, but I've never seen any cycling shown outside the olympics up here in CandyLand (North America don't-cha know)

07-29-2005, 01:49 AM	#45
YOUR Hero Adminstigator Posts: 102,491	And now, an interview from Lance Armstrong. His views on guns, womens right, the church/state seperation, the war on Iraq, etc... Live Strong or Live Wrong? Why cancer-surviving cyclist superstar Lance Armstrong must break with his 'old friend' -- President Bush -- if he expects his anti-war stance to be taken seriously To all the haters that don't think cycling is a sport, and the Tour De France ranks just below watching an apple turn brown, let's be clear: Lance Armstrong has earned the love. The cancer-surviving cyclist ended his career with a record seventh straight Tour De France victory. Immediately the accolades rolled in, and he has earned every dollop with an athletic tenacity and compelling personal story that's touched the lives of millions. But one piece of praise seemed to stand out like Judge John Roberts in Harlem. This was gushed from a guy who has taken a few spills from his Schwinn in recent weeks: President George W. Bush. "Lance is an incredible inspiration to people from all walks of life, and he has lifted the spirits of those who face life's challenges," Bush said about the fellow Texan and "old friend.� "He is a true champion." The praise struck an odd note considering Armstrong's comments after winning his seventh yellow jersey. They weren't about the Alps, the cobbled Paris streets, or the new bell on his handlebars. They were about Iraq. "The biggest downside to a war in Iraq is what you could do with that money," Armstrong said through gritted teeth. "What does a war in Iraq cost a week? A billion? Maybe a billion a day? The budget for the National Cancer Institute is four billion. That has to change. Polls say people are much more afraid of cancer than of a plane flying into their house or a bomb or any other form of terrorism." His timing was fortuitous. A report came out of the Congressional Budget Office the next day that indicated the war in Iraq will cost more -- adjusted for 2005 dollars -- than any war since the Second World War, with a price tag that may near 800 billion dollars. Armstrong's statement is significant because it represents a sharp turn from his previous statements against the Iraq invasion. When the war was launched out in 2003, Lance's soft anti-war views sounded more James Baker than Ella Baker: "I know George Bush well, having met him about 20 times, and I support him, but going ahead with this war without the support of Europe would be dangerous ... it would be a mistake to engage in war without the backing of the United Nations and Europe," he said. "If there's going to be a war then we'll be up against a billion Muslims -- so it would be unreasonable for the United States to go it alone against such a huge part of the world." Armstrong took great pains at the time to compliment Bush with every statement, saying that Dubya sometimes appeared "brash," but that he was "more intelligent than people give him credit for." He added, "Bush isn't a banker from New York, or a tycoon from California. He's a cowboy from Texas." In 2004, Armstrong's anxiety about the war was rising, perhaps affected by the French protests during that year's Tour. But despite his stronger objections, Armstrong still reserved praise for his "friend" in the Oval Office. "I don't like what the war has done to our country, to our economy," he said. "My kids will be paying for this war for some time to come. George Bush is a friend of mine and just as I say it to you, I'd say to him, 'Mr. President, I'm not sure this war was such a good idea', and the good thing about him is he could take that." Now in 2005, Armstrong has taken a much harder stance. This could be attributed to possible aspirations for political office. Armstrong in a recent interview laid out his views on a number of issues, describing himself as "against mixing up state and Church, not keen on guns, pro women's right to choose. And very anti war in Iraq," -- which may lead some of us to wonder exactly what political party in our glorious duopoly would even allow him to stand as a candidate. Some say that he is simply under the sway of his rock star partner Sheryl Crow -- of "War is Not the Answer" t-shirts and the group Musicians Win Without War. But the real reason for Armstrong's recent statements most likely stems from simple frustration. Armstrong sees his life's work, cancer funding and research, being undercut by this war. He takes this position even though it could lose him his Oval Office access. He speaks out "on foreign soil" even though it could mean derision when he returns. He will assuredly face words such as those from one internet blogger who wrote "Lance Armstrong should be detained the moment he steps back on American soil, and then he should have a bicycle tire pump shoved so far up his ass that he whistles Dixie when he breathes." If the cancer that spread to his lungs and abdomen, not to mention the Pyrenees, didn't deter Armstrong, a pustule armed with a laptop and fried cheese probably won't keep him up nights. Especially when the priorities of medical research or "generational war" hang in the balance. Armstrong has devoted countless hours to the fight against cancer. There is not more money for cancer research because of the war. It's that simple. It's also not just cancer. In my hometown of Washington, DC, this $800 billion price tag means high rates of infant mortality, shuttered public hospitals, and schools in a constant and eternal state of crisis. This is a battle for priorities. If Lance wants to see victory, chuckling it up with his "fellow Texan" is no way to lead this movement forward. Instead, Armstrong should ride among the critical mass bikers and anti-war couriers at the national anti-war protests on September 24th in Washington, DC. Consider this an invite, Lance. Consider this a way to continue to "live strong."

07-29-2005, 10:15 PM	#47
Loose Cannon I'm all there is Posts: 31,811	ROFL

07-29-2005, 10:26 PM	#48
Jesus Shuttlesworth Posts: 42,765	Lance Armstrong can ride a bike faster than you can Moonax SUCK ON THAT

07-31-2005, 04:16 AM	#50
el fregadero Tap-In Posts: 20,300	Probably an advantage though, less pressure on his nads then the other riders. Maybe that is why we got a hater.

07-31-2005, 03:07 PM	#52
The Outlaw Unofficial Legend Posts: 11,931	Thank you for your input, David.

08-26-2005, 03:47 PM	#55
VonErich Lives WTF do you want? Posts: 14,760	Suprised no one bumped this yet, maybe should be a new thread anyway... http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=2142817 ance Armstrong suggested Thursday that he's the victim of a "setup," saying he doesn't trust the French lab that released test results leading to blood doping allegations against him. Armstrong's comments came after Dick Pound, head of the World Anti-Doping Agency, said officials had received the lab results and would review them. "There's a setup here and I'm stuck in the middle of it," Armstrong told The Associated Press. "I absolutely do not trust that laboratory." The French sports daily L'Equipe reported Tuesday that six urine samples Armstrong provided during his first tour win in 1999 tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO. "If he had one, you could say it was an aberration," Pound said. "When you get up to six, there's got to be some explanation." Armstrong, who retired after his seventh straight tour win in July, has angrily denied the L'Equipe report. He also said that while Pound might trust the lab that tested the samples, "I certainly don't." On Thursday night, Armstrong elaborated on his distrust of the French laboratory during an appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live." "A guy in a Parisian laboratory opens up your sample, you know, Jean Francois so-and-so, and he tests it -- nobody's there to observe, no protocol was followed -- and then you get a call from a newspaper that says 'We found you to be positive six times for EPO.' Well, since when did newspapers start governing sports?" Pound said the lab had asked WADA months ago if the agency was interested in reviewing its findings and that he agreed. He said the agency didn't expect names to be connected to the findings but only wanted to see if the leftover samples from 1999 would show riders used EPO. "They said it's simply research," Pound said. Pound said he is waiting for WADA Science Director Olivier Rabin to return from Europe to review the results. The lab report doesn't name Armstrong but shows the results of tests on anonymous urine samples. While the French newspaper said it was able to match Armstrong to the positive samples, Pound said the lab and WADA officials cannot do that. The French report appears stronger than previous doping allegations raised against Armstrong, Pound said. "There's been an awful lot of rumor and accusation about him for a number of years, always of the he-said, she-said variety. This appears -- I haven't seen the documents myself -- to have some documentary connection. That's a lot more serious. It's got to be taken more seriously," Pound said. Armstrong and Pound have clashed before on the chairman's comments about athletes who use drugs. Pound said he's unsure whether WADA would have jurisdiction to take any action against Armstrong if the allegations could be proved. WADA didn't exist until months after the samples were collected in July 1999. Pound said he was waiting to see if the International Cycling Union would act on the French report. Armstrong questions the validity of testing samples frozen six years ago, how those samples were handled since and how he could be expected to defend himself when the only confirming evidence -- the 'A' sample used for the 1999 tests -- no longer exists. He also charged officials at the suburban Paris lab with violating WADA code for failing to safeguard the anonymity of any remaining 'B' samples it had. "Nowadays, we all want clean sport," Armstrong told King. "And fortunately, an organization called WADA has come along and has really governed the world of anti-doping. They have set about a protocol and a code that everybody has to live by. And [the lab] violated the code several times." Pound said the lab is accredited by the International Olympic Committee and that he trusts it handled the samples properly. "It's one of the top two or three EPO labs in the world," he said. "It's a very competent laboratory." Pound also questioned the need for two samples to confirm a positive test. "You can count on the fingers of one hand the times a B sample has not confirmed the result of the A sample," Pound said. "It's almost always a delaying tactic." Armstrong said that contradicts WADA's own drug testing policy. "For the head of the agency to say he actually doesn't believe in the code ... if your career is riding on the line, wouldn't you want a B sample?," Armstrong said. "The French have been after [me] forever, and 'whoops!' there's no B sample? The stakes are too high." Armstrong told King that he was tested dozens of times during all his Tours, and was under exceptional scrutiny -- including right before his final race in June. "Just a day before the start we had a knock on the door, and the minister of sport had sent a crew down there to collect two samples of urine and two samples of blood," Armstrong said. "And we checked around and found out that nobody else in the peloton was tested that day. So I can't say 'witch hunt' loud enough."

08-26-2005, 04:57 PM	#56
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	I was going to say something about it, but there's no use. If the French media has to resort to testing illegal piss B and C samples from over six years ago as a last resort to "catch" Armstrong, there's really nothing that can be done. Simply put for those of you who haven't been reading this, a French newspaper/magazine that has been trying for years to catch Armstrong doing something illegal, is trying again. They obtained (most likely illegally) B samples of Armstrongs frozen piss. The samples that they got ahold of, besides being six years old and not primary, natural samples, were listed only by a set of numbers, even the doctor who kept the samples didn't know which numbers belonged to which athlete. But of course, the French media somehow figures out which numbers belong to Lance, obtain them, and perform independent tests on them. Then of course, the magazine finally has him caught! After having his frozen piss tested more then any other human beings for the past seven years, a set of independent tests, ones not overseen by anybody but the paper, are the ones to catch him by using tainted samples that might not even be his. Good job guys, when you're the governing body we might care!

08-26-2005, 11:03 PM	#57
YOUR Hero Adminstigator Posts: 102,491	Yeah I dunno. Lance made some strong points, but one still has to wonder why people would risk their professional reputation on a lie. If they didn't follow procedure, well that's just fukced up. I watched part of the Armstrong interview on Larry King Live. Lance seems sincere, but so did Raffy.

08-27-2005, 03:25 AM	#58
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	I would be shocked, and cycling as a sport would pretty much lose all credibility (especially in the US) if he was actually caught doping, but to this point he hasn't. L'equippe or whatever its called has been testing his results for years, and they haven't found anything significant enough to penalize him even. So no, a report finding traces of EPO is tainted six year old piss that may or may not be Lance Armstrong's does not prove anything. When the actual governing body does an appropriate study and finds something, then I will believe it. When a biased magazine conducts a shady test, I will hold off on judgement.

08-27-2005, 03:30 AM	#59
Gertner Guest Posts: n/a	I would laugh my as off if it was true

08-27-2005, 03:32 AM	#60
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	Thats cool

08-28-2005, 02:20 AM	#61
The Outlaw Unofficial Legend Posts: 11,931	LOL they took his 6 year old frozen piss? Ahahahaha

08-30-2005, 05:17 PM	#62
The Mackem VG + Q&A FORUM REPRESENT Posts: 38,940	The French know how to hold a grudge.

08-31-2005, 06:13 AM	#65
Jesus Shuttlesworth Posts: 42,765	I knew this post would start up a bunch of shit. Honestly I have very little intrest in bike riding, more like none at all. The Lance Armstrong story is pretty sweet tho. He just keeps beating everyone, everyone says he is on 'roids but nobody has proven shit. I find it intresting how everyone hates on the guy but he just brushes them off and continues to win.

08-31-2005, 04:11 PM	#66
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	I have said it before and I will say it again, he deals with the media better then any other athlete. The only thing that can ruin that is a legit finding.

08-31-2005, 04:19 PM	#67
El Capitano Gatisto World Class Raconteur Posts: 29,478	EPO was detected in those samples. The study was conducted blind - his samples were only matched to his name after the fact, not prior to it. How much more legit do you want?

08-31-2005, 04:28 PM	#68
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	They were tested on piss that was previously left out, and there is no saying that L'equippe has the right samples. That being said, I'm not aware that it was an independent test that they got their hands on, I was under the impression that the paper conducted the test.

08-31-2005, 04:36 PM	#69
El Capitano Gatisto World Class Raconteur Posts: 29,478	It's not L'Equip who got the samples or did the testing. Your understanding is wrong. They were B samples given for doping tests in 1999, handed over to a lab by the doping authorities to test anonymously for EPO using a new assay that the lab had developed. They wanted to check the test process, so to speak. It happens: in my project, another lab asked me for 400 blood samples they could try extracting DNA from with their new equipment. EPO was found using this new test in some of the samples. The newspaper got the anonymous code numbers for the positive samples, then having Lance Armstrong's code they checked and found his samples to be among those tested positive for EPO. To question the professionalism (the handling of the samples by the lab involved) is a very shakey defence.

08-31-2005, 11:08 PM	#70
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	I am not doubting your story, because it wouldn't be a huge shock if things weren't said here, but that is simply different then the articles here. They are giving the impression that the magazine is who was in charge of the whole process. Even so, they are still b-samples (which from what I know are samples that were left over from the original tests) and the newspaper getting their hands on his information is kind of shaky in itself.

09-01-2005, 08:01 AM	#71
El Capitano Gatisto World Class Raconteur Posts: 29,478	The lab which carried out the tests is apparently part of the same institution which carries out doping tests for the tour. B samples are, as far as I know, second samples retained in the event that a positive test is found in the A sample and a confirmation test must be carried out to verify the result. The newspaper got their hands on it because the research is there for everyone to see. The anonymous codes were published as part of the findings of the new test process, and the newspaper managed to link these codes to previous information (medical certificates and previous tests) that was publically released by Armstrong when he was defending himself against prior allegations.

09-01-2005, 11:00 AM	#72
YOUR Hero Adminstigator Posts: 102,491	BCWWF, the papers 'here' are not saying L'Equip is in charge of the testing. You are assuming. When I read it, I understand the process, the role of L'Equip, etc

09-01-2005, 04:28 PM	#78
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	Obviously the tone of the papers is different in the US then in Europe (mainly France) and maybe even in Canada, but the quotes I just posted are pretty much the main points of the stories here and represent a good idea of the tone under which they were written. I knew that the paper linked the anonymous numbers to Armstrong, what I was mistaken on was their role in the lab testing itself. Even if they weren't the ones in charge of the tests, they still don't look completely professional or accurate.

09-01-2005, 04:31 PM	#79
El Capitano Gatisto World Class Raconteur Posts: 29,478	It would be better if he didn't take such a tone when referring to the lab. The newspaper, that's fine, but playing upon this stereotype of a sneaky French person working away in a lab, tampering with his samples, is low. Chances are that people working in the labs may not even be French, and it's certain they wouldn't have known which samples were Lance Armstrong's.