Indurain says he still believes Armstrong is innocent

[fandacious]

Logic says.... if there were any positive re-tests of B samples or any other samples then the USADA would have them listed in their report on page one in BIG BOLD RED LETTERS

 

So i haven't seen anything like that in the report, can someone tell me which pages in the USADA report I should be looking at to see these?

 

lance refuses to allow retesting of his old samples

[Tumbleweed]

Not correct - retested and proved conclusively that he was EPO positive after day 1 of 1999 Tour.

 

For research puposes and not to prove guilt.

 

Yeah and have they re-tested his blood and released the results?

 

Again the misinformation is staggering, has anyone on this site actually read the USADA report? He only had like 200 tests not "thousands". The UCI was never part of the FBI case, and the FBI case was dropped for uncited reasons. If you read my previous posts you will see that the federal case was vastly different to the USADA case.

 

Yes and no. The charges differed between the two investigations, but they evolved along similar lines. Although the grand jury evidence is sealed, Usada - who sat in on the hearings - were allowed to use the evidence volunteered by witnesses over and above the four-hour (must check this) testimony sessions they gave. They were after the same evidence.

[Tumbleweed]

Logic says.... if there were any positive re-tests of B samples or any other samples then the USADA would have them listed in their report on page one in BIG BOLD RED LETTERS

 

So i haven't seen anything like that in the report, can someone tell me which pages in the USADA report I should be looking at to see these?

 

You are right. As I pointed out, the samples mentioned are from the French paper expose. They can't be tested in a dope probe unless Lance allows them to be.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Tumbleweed

[eddy]

I agree whole heartedly with this author,

 

http://www.washingto...0c41_story.html

 

The article was published on August 24, just after LA announced he would choose a DNF rather than face the evidence in open forum but before the USADA provided their Reasoned Decision" which has convinced even the UCI, Nike and Trek.

 

I think hers was a valid, albeit naive, view at the time. To have written it now would just be silly.

[fandacious]

this thread is brilliant. Its the same as those who wear a powerbalance bracelet. You can see who the ******* idiots are from miles away

[eddy]

Logic says.... if there were any positive re-tests of B samples or any other samples then the USADA would have them listed in their report on page one in BIG BOLD RED LETTERS

 

So i haven't seen anything like that in the report, can someone tell me which pages in the USADA report I should be looking at to see these?

 

There aren't.

 

However on pg 37 of the report there is the following brief statement :

 

" Finally, although additional corroboration is not necessary given the testimony of USADA’s witnesses, as described in Section V.B. below, the retesting of Lance Armstrong’s samples from the 1999 Tour and the clear finding of EPO in six of the samples provides powerful corroborating evidence of Armstrong’s use of EPO. With or without this corroborating evidence, however, the evidence demonstrates beyond any doubt that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour de France. No other conclusion is even plausible. "

 

Good enough for Nike, Trek and Oakley. Good enough for me.

[SwissVan]

lance refuses to allow retesting of his old samples

You are right. As I pointed out, the samples mentioned are from the French paper expose. They can't be tested in a dope probe unless Lance allows them to be.

 

So they say, but if thats the case then surely USADA could have forced him to give permission or got it from a judge or something along those lines....Whats the flippin point of keeping samples if the athlete can stop them from being tested later on.....?

 

A bit bloddy dof are it not...

[fandacious]

So they say, but if thats the case then surely USADA could have forced him to give permission or got it from a judge or something along those lines....Whats the flippin point of keeping samples if the athlete can stop them from being tested later on.....?

 

A bit bloddy dof are it not...

 

damn. you caught USADA out. Lance never doped. he won the tours on mineral water and fresh oranges

[JGR]

You are right. As I pointed out, the samples mentioned are from the French paper expose. They can't be tested in a dope probe unless Lance allows them to be.

Wasnt there also a case that there wasnt a B sample to confirm it??

[Tumbleweed]

So they say, but if thats the case then surely USADA could have forced him to give permission or got it from a judge or something along those lines....Whats the flippin point of keeping samples if the athlete can stop them from being tested later on.....?

 

A bit bloddy dof are it not...

 

This one has been going around and around for ages. Lance claimed the samples were tampered with. To do that would've been mathematically impossible. There were also issues about how the samples were stored, etc. It's not the smoking gun, but, as eddy, points out "corrobrating evidence".

[JGR]

damn. you caught USADA out. Lance never doped. he won the tours on mineral water and fresh oranges

Not even a GU gel!

[SwissVan]

There aren't.

 

However on pg 37 of the report there is the following brief statement :

 

" Finally, although additional corroboration is not necessary given the testimony of USADA’s witnesses, as described in Section V.B. below, the retesting of Lance Armstrong’s samples from the 1999 Tour and the clear finding of EPO in six of the samples provides powerful corroborating evidence of Armstrong’s use of EPO. With or without this corroborating evidence, however, the evidence demonstrates beyond any doubt that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour de France. No other conclusion is even plausible. "

 

Good enough for Nike, Trek and Oakley. Good enough for me.

 

 

Yeah yeah good enough if thats what you want to see

 

BUT not quite beyond any doubt as its mostly based on witness testimony and underhand unofficial testing protocols.

 

The real deal would be some bona fida beyond any doubt positive tests of samples

[fandacious]

Yeah yeah good enough if thats what you want to see

 

BUT not quite beyond any doubt as its mostly based on witness testimony and underhand unofficial testing protocols.

 

The real deal would be some bona fida beyond any doubt positive tests of samples

 

what do you mean? the tests showed epo. Thats not based on witness evidence. Thats lab facts

[Tumbleweed]

Wasnt there also a case that there wasnt a B sample to confirm it??

 

Not sure about that. As far as I know, the samples were retested in the quest to develop a EPO test. No doping charges were ever pressed, so no B samples ever sought. May be wrong, though.

[scotty]

Go Indurain

[SwissVan]

damn. you caught USADA out. Lance never doped. he won the tours on mineral water and fresh oranges

 

Now now Fand calm down and be realistic.

 

I'm not denying it, just would like to have seen some proof of positves instead of a herd of sworn statements.