Armstrong lashes back at charges
Lance Armstrong came out swinging Wednesday, aggressively attacking a French newspaper story that alleged he used the performance-enhancing drug erythropoietin (EPO) in the 1999 Tour de France, the first of his seven wins.
“This is preposterous and unfair,” he declared in a Wednesday night conference call. “How can I defend myself?”
The L’Equipe sports newspaper reported Tuesday that 12 secondary B-samples from the 1999 Tour were positive, of which six belonged to Armstrong. The drugs were not detected in a competition test but in a 2004 scientific study that used B-samples of urine from the 1999 race to gauge the accuracy of the EPO test itself. When a rider’s fluids are submitted for testing, they are split into A and B samples. The A-samples were used up in 1999. International doping-control standards say both A and B samples must test positive.
“When I gave those samples, there was no EPO in them. I guarantee that,” Armstrong said. “This is not just about one year of a B-sample positives, but seven years of A and B samples with no EPO and no steroids.”
Armstrong said “witch hunt” is an appropriate phrase to describe French newspaper stories that allege he used the performance-enhancing drug EPO in the 1999 Tour de France.
“They’re trying to strike a serious blow to my reputation with no A, B or C sample to confirm or deny” the charges, he said. “I’m not wavering from my first statement that I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs.”
Tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc was quoted in L’Equipe on Wednesday as saying, “we were all fooled” by Armstrong and threatened to strip Armstrong of the 1999 win. Under the sport’s existing doping regulations, that would not be possible because the investigation was based only on a B sample, the second set of two samples required for doping tests. The first set, or A-samples, were used for analysis in 1999, when there was no test for EPO available.
Armstrong said he spoke with Leblanc after that interview and explained he could not defend himself against the charges.
“I got the impression he understood my position,” Armstrong said.
The Texan speculated there was more to the L’Equipe story than has been published, suggesting “deeper issues” were involved, including votes against the Paris bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics and conflicts between the Tour and international cycling officials. He also asked for L’Equipe to identify the other positive samples.
“How can you prosecute a guy when there have been what must be violations of the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) code?” Armstrong asked. “The code says when there is just one sample available, that sample must always be anonymous. Second, that sample can’t be used without permission. These are serious violations.”
Armstrong said he’s considering all of his legal options, “but I don’t know if I want to spend $1.5 million and two years of my life pursuing this. I have better things to do.”
The EPO test itself also is being questioned by some scientists, which is why the 2004 study was undertaken. The L’Equipe story has renewed the scrutiny.
Canadian physician Christiane Ayotte, director of the World Anti-Doping Agency-certified lab near WADA headquarters in Montreal, told VeloNews magazine Tuesday that, “We are extremely surprised that (1999) urine samples could have been tested in 2004 and have revealed the presence of EPO. EPO in its natural state or the synthesized version is not stable in urine, even if stored at minus 20 degrees.”
The test also has been recently overturned for producing false positives. Belgian triathlete Rutger Beke was cleared Aug. 9 of EPO doping charges despite two positive tests because a review showed he naturally excreted proteins that would give a positive result.