Friday, August 26, 2005

Some Thoughts on Lance Armstrong

I don't doubt that the lab did in fact find EPO in the anonymous urine sample they tested in 2005. I notice that is about as firm an accusation as the lab will make in public.

The argument that the urine was Lance Armstrong's, that it's been untampered since 1999, is not being made by the scientists. That comes from L'Equipage, the same French-chauvinist pigs who've been bitching about an American winning their Tour de France for seven years.

Three weeks ago the same people shouting that Armstrong must "prove" the allegations false--when the lab is the first to say no further testing of the samples are possible--were running around lamenting that the accusations against Armstrong would linger forever. Apparently they realized just how lame that sounded, so voila, here's unverifiable "proof". Not anything they'll act on, just to publish and denounce.

Unfortunately for their national hubris, legitimate testing for EPO was done since 2001, and Armstrong passed every such test in his last five victories. So they can maybe explain how a guy relies on EPO to win, not just compete but win...and then forego it forever, and suffer no loss in performance.

But their purpose is to smear, not to offer justice. It is not Lance who stands condemned by the attempt.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I still don't know how they can say any of this points to Armstrong when he gave 17 samples that year and 6 tested positive! EPO doesn't just come and go overnight.