Armstrong denies '99 doping reports It looks to be true.
 

Armstrong denies '99 doping reports
Posted: Tuesday August 23, 2005 11:38AM; Updated: Tuesday August 23, 2005 11:50AM


Lance Armstrong, who won his seventh straight Tour de France last month, has been deflecting doping reports since his first title.
AP

PARIS (AP) -- A French newspaper says Lance Armstrong used the performance-enhancing drug EPO to help win his first Tour de France in 1999, a report the seven-time Tour winner vehemently denied.

L'Equipe devoted four pages to its allegations, with a Tuesday front-page headline "The Armstrong Lie." The paper said that signs of EPO use showed up in Armstrong's urine six times during the '99 race.

"Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues and tomorrow's article is nothing short of tabloid journalism," Armstrong wrote on his Web site. "I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs."

However, the Tour de France's director said Tuesday that L'Equipe's report seemed "very complete, very professional, very meticulous" and that it "appears credible."

"We are very shocked, very troubled by the revelations we read this morning," Jean-Marie Leblanc told RTL radio. However, he cautioned that Armstrong, his doctors and his aides should be heard out before people make any final judgment.

Leblanc also said any disciplinary action appeared unlikely, based on the L'Equipe account. The paper's investigation was based solely on B samples -- the second of two samples used in doping tests. The A samples were used up in 1999 for analysis at the time.

The governing body of world cycling did not begin using a urine test for EPO until 2001. For years, it had been impossible to detect the drug, called erythropoietin, which builds endurance by boosting the production of oxygen-rich red blood cells.

EPO tests on the 1999 B urine samples were not carried out until last year, when scientists performed research on them to fine-tune EPO testing methods, the paper said.

The national anti-doping laboratory in Chatenay-Malabry, which developed the EPO test and analyzed the urine samples in question, said it could not confirm that the positive EPO results were Armstrong's.

It noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only a 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. It printed photos of what it said were official doping documents. On one side of the page, it showed what it said 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.

The lab statement said it had promised to turn over its results to the World Anti-Doping Agency "on condition that they could not be used in any disciplinary proceeding."

"It will be very interesting to see what UCI does and what the U.S. Cycling Federation does and what Lance Armstrong has to say," WADA chairman Dick Pound said. "If the evidence is seen as credible than yes, he has an obligation to come forward and specifically give his comments, especially after his previous comments that he has never used drugs.

"If anything were found, we couldn't do anything because we didn't even exist in 1999. But it's important that the truth must always be made clear," Pound added.

L'Equipe, whose parent company is closely linked to the Tour, has frequently raised questions about how Armstrong could have made his spectacular comeback from testicular cancer without using performance enhancers. L'Equipe is owned by the Amaury Group whose subsidiary, Amaury Sport Organization, organizes the Tour de France and other sporting events.

A former L'Equipe journalist, Pierre Ballester, was co-author of a book published last year that contained doping allegations against Armstrong. He wrote the book with Sunday Times sportswriter David Walsh.

In the book, L.A. Confidential, the Secrets of Lance Armstrong, one of the cyclist's former assistants claimed that Armstrong once asked her to dispose of used syringes and give him makeup to conceal needle marks on his arms.

Armstrong has taken libel action against The Sunday Times after the British newspaper reprinted allegations in a review of the book in June 2004. The case will go to trial in London's High Court in November.

Armstrong retired from cycling after his record seventh straight Tour victory last month.

French Sports Minister Jean-Francois Lamour said he was deeply saddened by the allegations, though he noted that they were unconfirmed and never could be because of the lost A samples.

"It's a shock to learn this about a great champion," the former Olympic champion fencer said. "This is certainly an element that could tarnish his image."

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

I'm sick of the French they just won't stop.

Doesn't look true to me at all. In fact, I'd call it highly dubious.

Indeed. They couldn't beat him when he was riding, so they try this after he retires.

expect an "I told you so" from Greg Lemond any day now.

And for any one to believe L'Equipe when it comes to Armstrong is like believing the NY or LA Times when it comes to Bush.

They want to see him fry because he dominated their country, their sport and their race.

Fuq em.

F**king Frenchies just won't give it up.

That's about as far as I got. FU*K the stinky hairy little French bastards. The usless crybabies are just sore losers.

:rolleyes: An athlete who spends a great amount of time sweating profusely is going to use makeup to conceal needle marks on his arms??

What he said! :clap:

The guy had Cancer- and certain cancer treatments have synthetic steroids in them. For Armstrong to risk evrything to get an edge when he knows he had the best team, equipement, natural ability is absurd. I would like to see him go back next year and whip the french dandies for an 8th time.

Heh. That's almost as good as "cheese-eating, surrender monkeys."

This brings up a good point. In 99 he didn't necessarily have the best team, or the best equipment and he surely didn't "know" he was going to win. They went in there hoping for a good performance based on his previous year's results at the Tour of Spain and the World Championships. What's my point? I find it interesting that they (the French Fuqs) would pick 99 when that was the year he was not the big dog. They have a built in excuse "Well, the other years he figured out how to cheat the system and US. In 99 he was too stupid to not get caught." Something like that.

I'm suprised they didn't surrender after his second win.

Well, they did and now that he's gone, they're back at it again. Not unlike what happened after the Germans 'left.'

How does this look to be true, KingPriest? This looks like a load of crap from the jealous frogs. And some of this stuff in the article takes an idiot to buy into it. :rolleyes: