http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/m ... ml?cnn=yes

Suck on that, Germans.

Sorry Levy

I'll be a biker not on drugs, what next.

The thing is: This case isnt about Armstrong anymore. It has become a ridiculous shouting match between the UCI and the WADA who have completely different opinions about doping. Instead of working together to clear the sport (which is even more necessary after they found hundreds of blood transfusions at Liberty Seguros during the Giro), they bicker and bicker. I don't see that as being cleared of the charges, it is just another step in their duel. WADA will probably come back with new evidence or whatever you will call it in a few months. Way to go to make cycling a clear sport. UCI and WADA can both stick it where the sun doesn't shine. If they don't cooperate they will take cycling down

BTW:

MONTREAL -- World Anti-Doping Agency chairman Dick Pound said Friday that a Dutch investigator's report clearing Lance Armstrong from doping allegations made by a French newspaper is full of holes.

"They put as fact things that are suppositions, suspicions and possibilities," Pound said.

Pound said WADA has "completely rejected" the report written by lawyer Emile Vrijman for the International Cycling Union (UCI). The report defended Armstong against accusations that he used performance-enhancing drugs at the 1999 Tour de France.

He said the report had so many factual errors that "pointing them out would probably take as much space as the [132-page] report." WADA will consider legal action against Vrijman and "any organization, including UCI, that may publicly adopt its conclusions."

Pound said a complete, independent investigation was needed to determine whether the seven-time Tour champion used endurance-boosting erythropoietin, or EPO.

The cycling union appointed Vrijman in October to investigate the handling of urine samples from the 1999 Tour by a French anti-doping lab. His report released Wednesday exonerated Armstrong "completely" of any doping infractions.

The Paris-based sports daily L'Equipe reported in August that six of Armstrong's samples tested positive for EPO. After the Vrijman report was released, the newspaper ran an editorial saying it stood by its original story.

There was no reliable test for EPO in 1999, but urine samples were preserved and analyzed later when improved testing technology was developed.

Pound said the UCI appeared to be more concerned with how the tests became public than whether Armstrong tested positive. He said other tests from the 1999 race were also positive, but names of the riders were never released.

It should be in the UCI's interest to make positive tests known to keep up the sport's credibility, he added.

The problem with looking backwards with advanced tests is it doesn't do alot of good, if we went back 20 years woudl we find that those winners had doped on drugs we couldn't test for.

This is me is jsut a part of the larger problem, that sports organizations have not been very consisten in dealing with doping at all. Having the organizations aruge is not helping cycling. Hoenstlyboth organizations need to work towards some common ground , otherwise how will they ever catch anyone for doping if its just goign to be this back or forth. its like watching to dogs engage in a pissing contest. I no longer give a shit whehter he doped or not, as I doubt either organization is capable of finding out the truth.

*sigh*