PDA

View Full Version : France, desperate for Tour de France win, kick out everyone who did well last year



CubanMustGo
06-30-2006, 10:22 PM
So, let's see.

Lance Armstrong has retired after seven straight wins, yet the French media is still trying to smear his legacy with drug allegations.

Ivan Basso, who finished second last year, is out in a drug inquiry.
Jan Ullrich, who finished third last year, it out in the same drug inquiry.
Francisco Mancebo, who finished fourth last year, retired when his suspension was announced.
And Alexander Vinokourov, who was fifth last year, wasn't suspended but the rest of his team was, leaving him unable to start as well.

Coincidence that ALL the top five from last year are suddenly out, one day before the start of this year's Tour de France? Right...

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/tdf2006/columns/story?id=2505973

velik_m
07-01-2006, 12:02 AM
inquiry was started by Spanish not French, during Giro.

The question is: all "best" riders on drugs, yet couldn't challenge armstrong?

stefano
07-01-2006, 04:32 AM
Armostrong was dopped to.... Bode Miller says this after the Olympic Games of Turin... The real thing is people KILL Marco Pantani, who wasn't found dopped but only with the ematocrith at 51)

ata
07-01-2006, 05:38 AM
Armstrong was the greatest bicycle rider of his time, but he was no Virgin Mary.

whottt
07-01-2006, 02:14 PM
Lance Armstrong = Never failed a drug test as the most tested athlete in the world.
Lance Armstrong = Has never failed to win a libel case or challenge against doping allegations.

Until he actually gets busted,...like Jan Ulrich did 8 years ago, or at least loses a challenge against one of his accusers...it's all idle and ungrounded speculation. And if anything the evidence points otherwise.

Armstrong is a prick, it's easy to see why he would rub a lot of people the wrong way...he rubbed me the wrong way, but not enough to detract from my enjoyment of him sticking it to the French.

whottt
07-01-2006, 02:17 PM
Oh BTW...the Tour De France has had doping issues since it's first or second year in existence...back then it was strychnine and cocaine.

If Lance is doping...whatever it may be, I doubt very seriously he is taking any kind of steroids...since most steroids are linked to causing cancer...and since Lance has already had cancer in over 50% of his body...I doubt very seriously he wants to relive that experience...and he probably wouldn't take them after he no longer had too...would you?

As for Epo...Lance already has one of the lowest heart rates in the world, what does he need it for?

whottt
07-01-2006, 02:21 PM
inquiry was started by Spanish not French, during Giro.

The question is: all "best" riders on drugs, yet couldn't challenge armstrong?


Did any of them survive being diagnosed with cancer in over 50% of their body, including their brain and lungs?


Ever read his story? When he was going through the chemotherapy for his expected terminal cancer he would get on an exercise bike in his room and just ride and ride and ride...


If you can outride death, you can damn sure outride drugs.



And even if they are all on drugs then it's an even playing field at worst...

But perhaps Ulrich has only now started doping again, his window is closing, he has been busted before you know. Unlike Lance Armstrong...................and don't say they haven't been trying to bust him.

whottt
07-01-2006, 02:26 PM
Armostrong was dopped to.... Bode Miller says this after the Olympic Games of Turin... The real thing is people KILL Marco Pantani, who wasn't found dopped but only with the ematocrith at 51)


And exactly why would Armstrong let Miller know this?

That's almost as ludicrous and LeMond's claims that Armstrong admitted it to him...

I mean if someone was trying to destroy your career...would he be the one you admitted drug usage too?

ata
07-01-2006, 04:19 PM
How many times Carl Lewis failed? Never. And what was heard last years?
Has Marion Jones ever failed?

Remember Greek athlets prior to Athen games. It is hard to be top with todays chemicals. And there is always grey zone.

BTW: is it natural to have muscles as James had when he was 18? And key word is natural.

whottt
07-01-2006, 04:37 PM
How many times Carl Lewis failed? Never. And what was heard last years?
Has Marion Jones ever failed?

Remember Greek athlets prior to Athen games. It is hard to be top with todays chemicals. And there is always grey zone.

You know how many times Lance was tested last year in the TDF?

They'd be holding the cup for him to piss in before he even got off the bike...

Clean every time, at the age of 33, with tests available to test for EPO, HGH, etc.

What more do you want?


I repeat, what more do you want?



BTW: is it natural to have muscles as James had when he was 18? And key word is natural.

Sure...

Is what Eddy Merckx did natural?


You can't be judge and jury with no proof just because of freak athleticism.

I mean basically you are saying it's not possible for someone to be a better athlete than everyone else.


It is most certainly possible.

Bruno
07-01-2006, 04:44 PM
Fact : Armstrong was a cheater. It has been proven that he has taken drugs in 99.

Now, I don't care that he wasn't the only one (it's not because others cheat that you had to cheat) or that he came back from the cancer (it's a great story but it's not a reason to cheat).
Armstrong didn't deserve to win, plain and simple.

whottt
07-01-2006, 04:52 PM
It's amazing how they arguably busted him with questionable 8 year old samples....

Did any court uphold that verdict?

How come they couldn't catch him last year at the age of 33...testing him right after he got off the bike, and more than any other rider was tested in that tour.

He did them at 26 but not at 33? Get real.

It's not a fact that Armstrong failed a drug test.

It's a fact that he has never failed a cleanly administered drug test.

That's the fact, Jack!

It's a fact that France did everything in their power to catch him at cheating, including engaging in some highly questionable ethics, that reflect much worse on France than Armstrong, and have never been able to do so.

Deal with it.

Bruno
07-01-2006, 04:53 PM
how was this proven

by l'equipe ???

:lmao :lmao :rollin



It has be proven by hair analysis. Don't deny facts.



even if armstrong was taking anything (which i personally think he was) -- they don't have shit on him.

Nobody has removed his victories but everybody knows that he didn't deserve to win in 99 (at least).

whottt
07-01-2006, 05:03 PM
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42940&highlight=armstrong

Report clears Armstrong of doping in 1999 Tour de France
Wednesday May 31, 2006
By ARTHUR MAX
Associated Press Writer
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) Dutch investigators cleared Lance Armstrong of doping in the 1999 Tour de France on Wednesday, and blamed anti-doping authorities for misconduct in dealing with the American cyclist.

A 132-page report recommended convening a tribunal to discuss possible legal and ethical violations by the World Anti-Doping Agency and to consider ``appropriate sanctions to remedy the violations.''

The French sports daily L'Equipe reported in August that six of Armstrong's urine samples from 1999, when he won the first of his record seven-straight Tour titles, came back positive for the endurance-boosting hormone EPO when they were retested in 2004.

Armstrong has repeatedly denied using banned substances.

The International Cycling Union appointed Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman last October to investigate the handling of urine tests from the 1999 Tour by the French national anti-doping laboratory, known by its French acronym LNDD.

Vrijman said Wednesday his report ``exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France.''

http://ktsa.com/topic/ap_news.php?s...g-1485748038-ss

whottt
07-01-2006, 05:06 PM
Armstrong wins settlement:

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cycling/story/0,,1810321,00.html

Armstrong wins settlement

Staff and agencies
Saturday July 1, 2006
The Guardian


The Sunday Times has settled with Lance Armstrong after he sued the paper for libel over a 2004 article which referred to a book, LA Confidential - The Secrets of Lance Armstrong.
In a high-court hearing, Mr Justice Gray ruled that the meaning of the article as a whole implied that Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his performance. He rejected arguments for the paper that the words conveyed no more than the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect.

Bruno
07-01-2006, 05:06 PM
It's amazing how they arguably busted him with questionable 8 year old samples....
Did any court uphold that verdict?

8 years ago EPo test didn't exist, plain and simple.
Dopping is a race between cheaters and tests and cheaters always fin a new way to cheat : lately it was self blood transfusion.



How come they couldn't catch him last year at the age of 33

you must be dumb (or poor) to be caught in a test and I didn't say he cheats in 2005.



...testing him right after he got off the bike, and more than any other rider was tested in that tour.

False, there are rules on who is testing and when. Armstrong has been tested a lot because he ahd the yellow jersey not because he was armstrong. And for every guy who is tested, it's just after the end of the stage.



He did them at 26 but not at 33? Get real.

It's not a fact that Armstrong failed a drug test.

It's a fact that he has never failed a cleanly administered drug test.

That's the fact, Jack!

Not taken, not guilty .... great mentality.
Basso hasn't failled a drug test too.



It's a fact that France did everything in their power to catch him at cheating, including engaging in some highly questionable ethics, that reflect much worse on France than Armstrong, and have never been able to do so.
Deal with it.

And it's the CIA who has killed JFK. :lol
Please, get a clue before speaking about france.

Bruno
07-01-2006, 05:13 PM
Report clears Armstrong of doping in 1999 Tour de France


Fact : he has taken drugs in 99.
Fact : nothing can be done against him.



The Sunday Times has settled with Lance Armstrong after he sued the paper for libel over a 2004 article which referred to a book, LA Confidential - The Secrets of Lance Armstrong.

This book was based on revelations from his masseuse who wasn't french. Lack of proofs was the reason he won.

whottt
07-01-2006, 05:13 PM
The funny thing is...not only has he never failed a publicly administered test...he's never even had a questionable test.

The best they could do is come up with some 8 year old samples(all from tests he passed cleanly when they were originally given)...


And what was the result? Cycling's own body exonerating him and an investigation into the ethics of those that came up with those results.



Again...how come they didn't get him last year? They tested him more than any cyclist on the tour...he passed, if he's doping, then who is clean?

whottt
07-01-2006, 05:15 PM
The International Cycling Union appointed Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman last October to investigate the handling of urine tests from the 1999 Tour by the French national anti-doping laboratory, known by its French acronym LNDD.

whottt
07-01-2006, 05:16 PM
And it's the CIA who has killed JFK. :lol
Please, get a clue before speaking about france.


Why should I? Not having a clue doesn't stop every clown whose ever seen a Hollywood Western or Action Movie from thinking they are an expert on America.

whottt
07-01-2006, 05:19 PM
And BTW, Basso hasn't been proven to dope yet either...

Basically these guys are banned while there is an investigation underway...convenient timing don't you think?


Who benefits the most from this I wonder?

Bruno
07-01-2006, 05:20 PM
The best they could do is come up with some 8 year old samples(all from tests he passed cleanly when they were originally given)...

Conspiracy against Armsttong :lol



And what was the result? Cycling's own body exonerating him and an investigation into the ethics of those that came up with those results.

Fact : Armstrong has taken drugs in 99.
And UCI has a dark attitude towards dopping.



Again...how come they didn't get him last year? They tested him more than any cyclist on the tour...he passed, if he's doping, then who is clean?

He cheats in 99. For 2005, maybe but maybe not.
Nothing has been proven for 2005, until a proof, Armstong hasn't taken drigs in 2005.

whottt
07-01-2006, 05:25 PM
Well he was the oldest man to win the tour since before WWII last year...if he was going to dope last year would have been the time to do it.

If a doped Armstrong is good enough to be the oldest man to win it in the modern era...doesn't that mean he would have been good enough to win it cleanly younger?




Just be sure to question and judge this years winner and the winner every year thereafter the same way Lance gets questioned...Passing tests, then making excuses for why the tests aren't good enough.


Be sure to save all the samples from every rider in the tour for 10-20 years after they won, to be sure they weren't doping as well.


EPO's been around since the mid 60's and easily available since the 80's.

Let's bust out the Merckx and Hinault samples from 20 years ago...

Bruno
07-01-2006, 05:29 PM
Why should I? Not having a clue doesn't stop every clown whose ever seen a Hollywood Western or Action Movie from thinking they are an expert on America.

Your only way to deal with this dumb people is to be as dumb as them ?


And BTW, Basso hasn't been proven to dope yet either...


There is a proof that Basso has taken drugs (a list from a doctor). Maybe he is innocent but it's unlikely.



Basically these guys are banned while there is an investigation underway...convenient timing don't you think?

This story take place in Spain and has nothing to do with France.



Who benefits the most from this I wonder?

The last time a french guy had a chance to win the tour de France, it was in 98. This guy has been waived during the tour because drugs where find in a car of his team. And this guy hasn't failed a drug test.

whottt
07-01-2006, 05:34 PM
Doesn't EPO cause heart failure in even healthy athletes?


Hmmm Chemotherapy definitely weakens the heart and leads to heart failure as well...

Yeah I can just imagine Lance sucking down the EPO that causes heart failure, right after getting chemotherapy...because obviously, as his survival of cancer proves...he hates being alive. He survived Cancer so he could kill himself with Epo....

He wants to die to much he continued to EPO even after winning his 6th TDF and setting the record.

Bruno
07-01-2006, 05:39 PM
Well he was the oldest man to win the tour since before WWII last year...if he was going to dope last year would have been the time to do it.

If a doped Armstrong is good enough to be the oldest man to win it in the modern era...doesn't that mean he would have been good enough to win it cleanly younger?

I'm stunned with your reasoning. He ahs cheated in 99.
BTW, 33 isn't that old for cycling : it's a sport based on resistance.





Just be sure to question and judge this years winner and the winner every year thereafter the same way Lance gets questioned...Passing tests, then making excuses for why the tests aren't good enough.

It's since 98 that drug testing is a priority (after the festina story)





Be sure to save all the samples from every rider in the tour for 10-20 years after they won, to be sure they weren't doping as well.


EPO's been around since the mid 60's and easily available since the 80's.

Let's bust out the Merckx and Hinault samples from 20 years ago...

There aren't samples for them but now there is now a law that allow to test samples years after when test are better and can detect the method used for doping when the guy won the tour.

It's known that Hinault, has taken drugs but the diffirence with Armstrong is that there is a proof concerning Armstrong.

whottt
07-01-2006, 05:40 PM
The guy that guy screwed out of this is Alexander Vinokourov...he's not even implicated but his team is suspended.

This guy scared the living shit out of Armstrong last year...he'd have been my pick to win it this year.

whottt
07-01-2006, 05:40 PM
what proof? link to this proof please?

Bruno
07-01-2006, 05:43 PM
Doesn't EPO cause heart failure in even healthy athletes?


When it's properly used, the risk is very low.




Hmmm Chemotherapy definitely weakens the heart and leads to heart failure as well...

Yeah I can just imagine Lance sucking down the EPO that causes heart failure, right after getting chemotherapy...because obviously, as his survival of cancer proves...he hates being alive. He survived Cancer so he could kill himself with Epo....

He wants to die to much he continued to EPO even after winning his 6th TDF and setting the record.

His heart wasn't weak, he was a professional cycling.

whottt
07-01-2006, 05:43 PM
What's going to be funny is if Landis or Hincapie end up winning because of the French greed to reclaim their tour.

Bruno
07-01-2006, 05:47 PM
The guy that guy screwed out of this is Alexander Vinokourov...he's not even implicated but his team is suspended.


Cycling is a team sport and his team hasn't been suspended : you can't start with less than 7 (or 6 ?) guys in a team. It's a rule. 3 or 4 guys in his team were suspended, so his team must given up.

whottt
07-01-2006, 05:50 PM
His heart wasn't weak, he was a professional cycling.


Dude, he was diagnosed with terminal cancer in over 50% of his body and he had to undergo extensive chemotherapy....the question is not did the chemo damage his heart, athlete or otherwise, the question is, to what degree...

And healthy guys that haven't even had chemo die from EPO..

And 33 is ancient, for winning the tour.

And Hinault was an ahole who tried to welch on a deal with Greg Lemonde...chances are, if he was willing to dishonor himself to win a 5th..he damn sure would have sucked down any drug available to do so.

I can kind of give him a pass though...because LeMonde is an asshole as well.

whottt
07-01-2006, 05:51 PM
Cycling is a team sport and his team hasn't been suspended : you can't start with less than 7 (or 6 ?) guys in a team. It's a rule. 3 or 4 guys in his team were suspended, so his team must given up.

I mean his team was suspended in the relative sense.

He did get screwed by this ruling...and forget this Basso and Ulrich crap...this guy was a monster last year...

Bruno
07-01-2006, 05:51 PM
what proof? link to this proof please?

Test publised in L'equipe. I won't do a google search for you.


What's going to be funny is if Landis or Hincapie end up winning because of the French greed to reclaim their tour.

You obviously don't know cycling.
None french ( barring a miracle) can win the tour this year : they suck.
As I said before, the last french who was able to win has been waived in 98 while he hasn't failed a drug test.

whottt
07-01-2006, 05:54 PM
I did google it...I got nothing.

Must be an article in your French state run media...could you direct me to it please? In the name of truth and backed up accusations?

Bruno
07-01-2006, 05:57 PM
the question is not did the chemo damage his heart, athlete or otherwise, the question is, to what degree...


At a low enough degree to win competition in a sport where the heart is very important.




He did get screwed by this ruling...and forget this Basso and Ulrich crap...this guy was a monster last year...

Vinokourov is too inconsistent to win the tour. Basso was way better than him.

Bruno
07-01-2006, 06:01 PM
I did google it...I got nothing.

Must be an article in your French state run media...could you direct me to it please? In the name of truth and backed up accusations?

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/DOPAGE_ARMSTRONG_2.html

whottt
07-01-2006, 06:24 PM
I see nothing about his hair testing positive in that article...only the same experimental tests on illegally retained ancient samples that was panned by every expert in the world, including cyclings own body...as well as the questioning of the ethics involved in illegally keeping Armstrong's samples after negative tests without his knowledge or permission.


What that lab did was unethical and illegal and I don't know how they could be considered a valid source when the only evidence of cheating and even criminal activity, is on the part of they themselves.


Shame on you France, shame shame on you.


Funny, you guys are finally rid of Lance and boom....is it a great cycling moment that replaces him? No...it's a huge scandal. This after Lance had given the tour more worldwide notoriety, media coverage and prestige than it had ever had before...to be repaid by ridicule and underhanded attempts to sully his character.


I tell you...no one says thanks like the French. I don't know what they do better...stab their friends in the back...or cut off their own nose despite their face.

Bruno
07-01-2006, 06:51 PM
I see nothing about his hair testing positive in that article...only the same experimental tests on illegally retained ancient samples that was panned by every expert in the world, including cyclings own body...as well as the questioning of the ethics involved in illegally keeping Armstrong's samples after negative tests without his knowledge or permission.

It wasn't hear but urine.
You can question methods (but you're wrong on most of the points) but you can't deny results : Armstrong has cheated in 99.



What that lab did was unethical and illegal and I don't know how they could be considered a valid source when the only evidence of cheating and even criminal activity, is on the part of they themselves.

They are a valid source. They have done nothing illegale and unethical.




Shame on you France, shame shame on you.

Funny, you guys are finally rid of Lance and boom....is it a great cycling moment that replaces him? No...it's a huge scandal.


Proof that the fight was against the doping and not against Armstrong.




This after Lance had given the tour more worldwide notoriety, media coverage and prestige than it had ever had before...to be repaid by ridicule and underhanded attempts to sully his character.

Only in USA.




I tell you...no one says thanks like the French. I don't know what they do better...stab their friends in the back...or cut off their own nose despite their face.

No need to continue with a guy that say things like that. No need to answer to this post, I won't answer.
I've owned you and your only answer is to insult French... weak...

I won't judge you because I don't know you but guys that say things like that are usually dumbass.
Take care of you and goodbye.

whottt
07-01-2006, 07:11 PM
It wasn't hear but urine.
You can question methods (but you're wrong on most of the points) but you can't deny results : Armstrong has cheated in 99.

Let me see...you said it was hair, not urine, I disproved this(in French no less) and I am wrong?




They are a valid source. They have done nothing illegale and unethical.


Then why is the UCI investigating them and questioning their methods?


Let me repost this:



UN EXPERT ALLEMAND SCEPTIQUE
Un expert de lutte antiodopage en Allemagne, le professeur Klaus Müller, a évoqué mardi ses doutes sur la méthode d'analyse et les échantillons qui ont permis de déceler de l'EPO dans les urines du cycliste Lance Armstrong. «Je ne doute pas que les résultats des analyses réalisées par mes collègues français sont solides», a déclaré le professeur Müller, directeur de l'Institut pour l'analyse du dopage de Kreischa à un quotidien allemand dans son édition de mercredi à paraître. Mais l'expert évoque son étonnement sur la conservation de ces échantillons d'urine : «Quand un échantillon contrôlé s'avére négatif, il est détruit, ainsi que l'échantillon B, dans les mois qui suivent». Selon lui, un échantillon peut être conservé pour procéder à des recherches et expériences à condition toutefois que la personne sur laquelle il a été prélevé donne son accord et que le «donneur» reste anonyme. Or, note le patron de l'Institut pour l'analyse du dopage, «cela ne semble pas s'être passé ainsi», ce qui suggère que le champion cycliste américain pourra saisir la justice.






Proof that the fight was against the doping and not against Armstrong.

There's always been doping...





Only in USA.

Well now it's been dealt a blow in Italy and Germany...





I've owned you and your only answer is to insult French... weak...



Owned me how? By saying it was a failed test for hair and then linking me to an article about a failed piss test?

If you notice...I already posted an article that he was completely exonerated by the Cycling body and the only investigation to come out of all this was one into the ethcis and legality of the testing lab...


I won't judge you because I don't know you but guys that say things like that are usually dumbass.

Oh well...at least I don't post articles to piss tests to prove a hair test. Maybe you need to work on your French?


No need to continue with a guy that say things like that. No need to answer to this post, I won't answer.

Surrender all you want...but you still are wrong about Armstrong failing a legitimate public test.


And there is every need in the world to answer your post...it's called getting the last word in!







Take care of you and goodbye.

Awwww don't go away wrong.


Way to disprove all those French sterotypes BTW.

whottt
07-01-2006, 07:15 PM
And BTW, I think you missed an excellent opportunity to shut up..............after I posed the exoneration article.

Lady M
07-01-2006, 10:15 PM
in french the guy don't say Amstrong don't use doping but the urine must be destroy