Armstrong's Ex-mech Comments After Giving Evidence to Novitzky

[scotty]

I'd still be interested to know your personal view though - do you think he's clean or not, considering how we have become aware over the last few years of how rife doping is amongst pros?

 

I'll tell you if you can point me to a direct link to where the doctors note was proved to be backdated,

 

Not a chat forum or a link to an allegation such as the one by Dr Ross.

 

Edited January 24, 2011 by scotty

[fandacious]

There was no test for EPO until 2000, so technically he is correct - he has never had a sanction against him.

 

However, he has most definitely used drugs that there werent tests for

[Tumbleweed]

that said - do you think JZ was guilty of corruption and fraud? even though there was no "evidence" ?

 

 

There was plenty evidence, but it looks like we'll never know the full reason that the case couldn't proceed. spy tapes

[fandacious]

There was plenty evidence, but it looks like we'll never know the full reason that the case couldn't proceed. spy tapes

 

evidence, or "he said, she said"

 

IOW - "he said, she said" only becomes evidence once it is used as testimony in court.

 

Scotty - you can't discount everyone's allegations merely because they are "what someone said".

 

Their testimony WILL become hard evidence in court

Edited January 24, 2011 by fandacious

[Lucky Luke.]

Michael Ashenden helped develop the test for EPO and is an internationally recognised authority on blood doping.

 

Ashenden has this to say on the '99 samples:

 

There is no doubt in my mind these samples contain synthetic EPO, they belong to Lance Armstrong, and there's no conceivable way that I can see that a lab could've spiked them in a way that the data has presented itself. So there is no doubt in my mind he took EPO during the '99 Tour.

 

Michael Ashenden | Velocity Nation - Bike racing culture, news and events

[fandacious]

Michael Ashenden helped develop the test for EPO and is an internationally recognised authority on blood doping.

 

Ashenden has this to say on the '99 samples:

 

 

 

Michael Ashenden | Velocity Nation - Bike racing culture, news and events

 

yeah - i've often wondered about that. Its easy to say "samples were tampered"

 

but how exactly would you make processed synthetic EPO appear in someones blood sample.

 

Merely adding raw EPO (that you inject) would look WAY different from EPO that has been thru the liver and kidneys, so it would be very easy to distinguish the two

 

The same goes for pretty much any drug I guess.

 

If they test my blood for alcohol, and want to jippo the results, adding beer to my test tubes isnt really going to work, right?

[Lucky Luke.]

I'll tell you if you can point me to a direct link to where the doctors note was proved to be backdated,

 

Not a chat forum or a link to an allegation such as the one by Dr Ross.

 

 

How about the lips of LA himself? He denied having TUE's for anything at the '99 tour. Then when the steroid positive was returned, he produced the necessary script.

[Lucky Luke.]

yeah - i've often wondered about that. Its easy to say "samples were tampered"

 

but how exactly would you make processed synthetic EPO appear in someones blood sample.

 

Merely adding raw EPO (that you inject) would look WAY different from EPO that has been thru the liver and kidneys, so it would be very easy to distinguish the two

 

The same goes for pretty much any drug I guess.

 

If they test my blood for alcohol, and want to jippo the results, adding beer to my test tubes isnt really going to work, right?

 

Ye, actually they were urine samples, and the levels tapered off as the tour progressed, consistent with how EPO leaves your system over a period of days.

[Tumbleweed]

evidence, or "he said, she said"

 

IOW - "he said, she said" only becomes evidence once it is used as testimony in court.

 

 

There was evidence in the Shaikh trial, and the SCA - not Judge Squires, as is widely reported - found that he and Zuma had a "generally corrupt relationship" when then uphel the judge's ruling.

[SwissVan]

Go Scotty!!

[Delgado]

There was plenty evidence, but it looks like we'll never know the full reason that the case couldn't proceed. spy tapes

. . . . Or the judiciary is owned by the party?

Edited January 24, 2011 by Delgado