[EDIT: Lance is computer illiterate and was unable to use a Flash player that didn't auto play. I've removed the embedded video and apologize to all of my readers.]

Lance’s Comeback to Cycling in 2009

I have to say I’m pretty surprised and though I don’t think it’s such a good idea, I have to admire his panache. He looks lean, mean and motivated. I like that he made the announcement with a video to put an end to all of the written speculation. 2009 is going to be a very interesting year for professional cycling. Good luck dude.

We tried to sell you on E-Bay but 0 bidders for this auction!!

Wow, one helluva Tour and hopefully this means at least one more year of OLN TV coverage. I’ve watched stage 17 three times now and still think it was the greatest performance of any bike race at any time during my life. I get goose bumps even writing about it.
Click to continue »

Luembourgan Frank Schleck won today’s stage up to L’Alpe D’Huez. From the race reports I’ve read, it was a pretty good stage but I haven’t had time to watch it yet since I spent the day worrying and getting back my car. Amy would have killed me anyway :)

Tour Boss Jean-Marie Leblanc

Jean-Marie Leblanc, Director of the Tour de France is now saying that there is “compelling scientific evidence” that Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs in winning the 1999 Tour and says the seven-time champion owes cycling fans an explanation.

“For the first time — and these are no longer rumors or insinuations, these are proven scientific facts — someone has shown me that in 1999, Armstrong had a banned substance called EPO in his body,” Leblanc told the paper.

“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.”

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.

The allegations surfaced six years later because EPO tests on the 1999 samples were carried out only last year when scientists at a lab outside Paris used them for research to perfect EPO testing. The national anti-doping laboratory in Chatenay-Malabry said it promised to hand over its finding to WADA (the World Anti-Doping Agency), provided it was never used to penalize riders.

EPO (Erythropoietin) was banned by the UCI in 1990 but a reliable test wasn’t developed until 2001. Up until the 2000 Olympics, it had been impossible to detect the drug, which builds endurance by boosting the production of oxygen-rich red blood cells.

So what does all this mean? Well, this is pretty damn serious even if Lance has retired. As I stated before, finding out Lance used EPO during his Tour reign would be absolutely devastating to cycling and probably cancer survivor groups worldwide. To be honest, the happenings of this week haven’t change my feelings on his victories- I’m suspicious but I think he won cleanly. It’s disappointing that the Tour De France organization would come to such a hasty conclusion. I’m for once glad I’m not living the life of Lance.

The famous French sporting newspaper L’Equipe ran a story today that samples taken from Lance Armstrong in 1999 tested positive for EPO in 2004. The story claimed that the positive samples were from six “B” samples (the “A” ones were used during the ‘99 doping controls) and that the tests were 100% accurate. On a side note, in 1999, there was no reliable method to detect EPO use. According to the paper, the tests on 1999 urine samples were done last year to help scientists improve their EPO detection methods.

However, the director of Canada’s top anti-doping laboratory on Tuesday said she had “serious concerns” over the allegations and brought up some very interesting scientific facts

Doctor Christiane Ayotte, director of the Doping Control Laboratory at Montreal’s Institute National de la Recherché Scientifique, said that the L’Equipe story, outlining charges that seven-time Tour de France winner had used EPO at the 1999 edition of the race, raised several important scientific and ethical questions, beginning with the assertion that France’s anti-doping lab had tested frozen urine samples five years after the fact.

“We are extremely surprised that urine samples could have been tested in 2004 and have revealed the presence of EPO,” Ayotte said in an interview with VeloNews on Tuesday. “EPO – in its natural state or the synthesized version – is not stable in urine, even if stored at minus 20 degrees.”

“One of two things happens,” De Ceaurriz said. “Either EPO, which is a protein, degrades as time passes and becomes undetectable. In that case we have a negative test result or, as in this case, the EPO persists as it is. We have therefore no doubt about the validity of our results.”

Also, if the tests were positive in 2004 and there were six (SIX!), why didn’t anyone come forward sooner, like before the Tour?

Of course, Lance denied the allegations saying he has never, ever used performance enhancing substances.