PARIS -- The director of the Tour de France said it was a "proven scientific fact" that Lance Armstrong had a performance-boosting drug in his body during his 1999 Tour win, and that the seven-time champion owed fans an explanation.In a story Wednesday, Jean-Marie Leblanc
Six year old B samples that were likely illegal and held in the lab without Armstrong's consent. Nope, no agenda here...
"The ball is now in his camp. Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the tour," Leblanc said. "What L'Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled."
What I want to know is this - how many other 1999 B samples were tested, how many of those were also EPO positive and why aren't those names also being released?
Armstrong, a frequent target of L'Equipe, (understatement of the decade - ed.) vehemently denied the allegations on Tuesday. The Austin cycling great called the article "tabloid journalism." "I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs," he said on his Web site.
L'Equipe reported that six urine samples provided by the cancer-surviving American during the 1999 Tour tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO. The drug, formally known as erythropoietin, was on the list of banned substances at the time, but there was no effective test to detect it.
Ex post facto testing - what a novel concept. Was this done for Christophe Moreau, Richard Virenque, Jacky Durand, et. al? You know, just to make sure everyone's on the level?
The allegations surfaced six years later because
Five-time cycling champion Miguel Indurain said he couldn't understand why scientists would use samples from the 1999 Tour for their tests. "That seems bizarre, and I don't know who would have the authorization to do it," he told L'Equipe. "I don't even know if it's legal to keep these samples."
Bingo, Miguel!
L'Equipe's investigation was based on the second set of two samples used in doping tests. The first set were used in 1999 for analysis at the time. Without those samples, any disciplinary action against Armstrong would be impossible, French Sports Minister Jean-Francois Lamour said.Forget that both the A and B samples need to be positive in order to suspend a racer; thus test the ancient B sample, say it came up positive = perfect smear. Sure that glass didn't have Virenque's name on it?
Lamour said he was forced to have doubts about L'Equipe's report because he had not seen the originals of some of the documents that appeared in the paper. "I do not confirm it," he told RTL radio. But he added: "If what L'Equipe says is true, I can tell you that it's a serious blow for cycling."
The International Cycling Union did not begin using a urine test for EPO until 2001, though it was banned in 1990. For years, it had been impossible to detect the drug, which builds endurance by boosting the production of oxygen-rich red blood cells. Jacques de Ceaurriz, the head of France's anti-doping laboratory, which developed the EPO urine test, told Europe-1 radio that at least 15 urine samples from the 1999 Tour had tested positive for EPO.
Oh, the French developed the EPO test? How, um... convenient!
Separately, the lab said it could not confirm that the positive results were Armstrong's. That didn't stop L'Equipe from saying it was Armstrong's, now did it?
It noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only a six-digit number to identify the rider, and could not be matched with the name of any one cyclist. However, L'Equipe said it was able to make the match.
How so?
On one side of a page Tuesday, it showed what it claimed were the results of EPO tests from anonymous riders used for lab research. On the other, it showed Armstrong's medical certificates, signed by doctors and riders after doping tests -- and bearing the same identifying number printed on the results.
Dan Rather, call your office!
L'Equipe is owned by the Amaury Group whose subsidiary, Amaury Sport Organization, organizes the Tour de France and other sporting events. The paper often questioned Armstrong's clean record and frequently took jabs at him -- portraying him as too arrogant, too corporate and too good to be real.
I'm sorry, but 'too corporate'? Was he fond of Brooks Brothers suits or something?
| No, but he approached the race with a corporate attitude. Every part of the race, his performance, equipment, riding position, teammates, etc. was subjected to careful scrutiny, analysis and modification. That was very "American" of Lance, and the French have never appreciated it. |
I bet they had this one on the burner for a long, long time.
Leblanc suggested that in the future, urine samples could be stashed away for future testing as detection methods improve -- another possible weapon in the fight against doping.
Will you seek the consent of the riders this time?
"We're so tired of doping that all means are good as long as they are morally acceptable," he told L'Equipe.
I'm so tired at the hundreds of stab wounds L'Equipe has inflicted on one of the best riders on the planet. How then, L'Equipe, would you explain his other six victories, hmmm?