Philip Hersh: A test of another kind for Lance Armstrong

(Editor's note: This has been updated to include Armstrong's response)

French anti-doping officials have called Lance Armstrong's bluff.

The French anti-doping agency (AFLD) proposed today that Armstrong allow re-testing on his controversial urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France, his first of seven straight Tour wins.

In a statement, the AFLD said there is "possible evidence of EPO in Armstrong samples from at least five different stages'' in 1999, when there was no accepted test for EPO, a banned blood booster, in urine samples. That evidence emerged in unofficial re-testing in 2004, three years after cycling officials approved an EPO test for urine samples.

"The AFLD proposes analysis of these samples to prove his good faith,''  the statement said.

The agency said the samples contain enough urine and have been preserved under conditions to allow a complete analysis in any lab certified by the World Anti-Doping Agency. The 2004 re-testing was done by the WADA-certified French anti-doping lab, which Armstrong supporters insist is out to get him.

"I absolutely do not trust that [French] laboratory,'' Armstrong said in 2005, when the French newspaper L'Equipe reported that EPO had been found in the 1999 samples.

It will be easy for Armstrong supporters to challenge whether the samples have been properly preserved or whether any retesting can be considered valid. They also could raise the possibility that EPO could have been added to the samples by someone who wanted to bring Armstrong down.

Anti-doping guru Don Catlin, who has signed on to oversee a testing program that is part of Armstrong's comback effort, told the New York Daily News last week that scientists know how to preserve urine samples.  The issue is whether that preservation works with EPO, about which Montreal anti-doping lab Christiane Ayotte raised doubts in 2005.

The AFLD upped the ante in its offer today to Armstrong by noting in its statement that no disciplinary action can be taken as a result of the re-testing because the World Anti-Doping Code imposes an eight-year limit on retroactive action.

So what does Lance think?  Through his spokesman, Mark Higgins, Armstrong issued a statement this afternoon that, as expected, said he had effectively dismissed the AFLD request -- a request which, to be fair, had an element of grandstanding.

"There is simply nothing that I can agree to that would provide any relevant evidence about 1999,'' Armstrong said.

Armstrong also took a shot at the head of the anti-doping agency, Pierre Bordry (Armstrong's statement misspells the name as "Bodry'') for being uninformed in proposing the re-testing.

"Unfortunately, Mr. Bodry is new to these issues, and his proposal is based on a fundamental failure to understand the facts.''

Armstrong's statement goes on to cite the allegedly independent investigation of the 2004 retroactive testing (the investigation was conducted by a lawyer who had represented dopers). Armstrong said that investigation invalidated the testing that found the EPO, but the World Anti-Doping Agency called parts of the investigation "farcical.''

In announcing his comeback last week, Armstrong said he would be totally transparent about testing.

It is easy to say that allowing the re-testing would be the best way to clear his name for good.

The only way it still might happen is if Tour de France officials make that a pre-condition for Armstrong's team to get an invitation to the 2009 race. 

And maybe even that won't be enough for Armstrong to get involved in what could degenerate into liars' poker.            

-- Philip Hersh

Photo: Lance Armstrong at a conference last week in New York City. Credit:  Ramin Talaie / EPA

Comments

[Tina Wagnon]

Just the fact that the AFLD has stated that no disciplinary action would be taken due to any results of any re-testing only proves that they are out for one thing...to try and bring down Lance Armstrong. Lance should never trust any french lab to test any urine samples of his. Of course they would do anything or add anything to his samples just to bring him down. Like I have stated a hundred times, it isn't Lance's fault that the sport of cycling has yet to come up with tests that are fool prove. Lance has done all that has/is required of any cyclist to prove his innocence, Hell he is, you know, the most tested athlete out there. How much crap can one person be expected to take when they have never been found guilty of doing anything wrong. It wouldn't surprise me if someone payed someone else enough money to taint his samples if he gets to compete in the 2009 Tour De France or any other race.

[Joseph Frizel]

I think this article shows heavy bias and bad journalism. It is implyed in here that the investigation into the 2004 EPO tests was perhaps not conducted by an impartial outsider. It is stated that Emile Vrijman, the man who conducted this investigation, may not be impartial because he is"a lawyer who has represented dopers." What is neglected to be mentioned is that Vrijman was also head of the Dutch anti-doping agency.And so what if he is a lawyer who has defended dopers. So is Dick Pound, the man who was head of the World Anti-Doping Agency during the time this was going on. So according to the logic given in this article, all of the actions of the WADA during the years Dick Pound was president must have been biased towards dopers. It is ridiculous and just downright bad reporting to write stuff like that.And you also neglect to mention that the Vrijman report slammed the WADA and the French lab responsible for the 2004 testing. He called for the entire lab to have a procedural makeover, stating their methods fell "so far below the required scientific standard that is it irresponsible to suggest that the results give evidence of anything." This was a big embarrasment for the WADA, so the chose to attack back rather than actually correct their errors.If I can do 20 minutes of research and find all these things out, surely the author of this article should be able to do the same before writing it.