I joined Lance's web site and this is posted there
Speaking to a small group of reporters from a hotel in Washington, DC, following a rousing affair at the Silver Spring, MD, headquarters of the Discovery Channel, where he was congratulated for his latest Tour de France victory by a throng of employees from his team's title sponsor, Lance Armstrong defended himself against the latest accusations by the French media, first reported in the sports daily, L'Equipe, yesterday.
Each reporter on the call had the opportunity to ask a question of Lance.
Comment on today's comments by Tour de France director Jean-Marie Leblanc:
"Like everybody, I was surprised. I actually spoke to Jean-Marie yesterday for about 30 minutes and he didn't say any of that stuff to me personally, so to wake up and read them this morning, I was caught a little bit off guard. But to say that I've fooled the fans is preposterous. I've been doing this a long time. We have not just one year of only 'B' samples to say I've fooled the fans, we have seven years of 'A' and 'B' samples and they're all negative. There's never been EPO in there. There's never been steroids in there. So to say after there are a few 'B' samples left around, and by the way, we can't prove if your right or wrong, you cannot defend yourself, to then to say you've wronged the fans and fooled the fans is absolutely unfair."
What was your impression following your phone call with Jean-Marie:
"I asked him to put himself in my position. We all know the history here. You know my history with the French. You know my history with the French media, the French Ministry of Sport, the organizers, the labs, the prosecutors, the police, etc. It has been a witch hunt. That was not just a catch phrase to put in the press release to be at the headline. I think all of us are smart enough to know that this has been going on for a long time, close to a decade.
So I asked him to put himself in my shoes. You give a guy a death sentence or you give him a permanent black eye or a serious blow to his reputation and whatever legacy he has, but you don't give him a 'B' sample or don't even give him a 'C' sample to test and confirm, or deny, there was EPO there. When I explained it like that, he was very understanding on the phone. I will say the comments that are rolling out now were said before he and I spoke because I caught him late at night and he gave the interview that was rolling today yesterday midday his time. When I hung up the phone, I said, 'look, you've got my phone number, my email address. If you've got any questions or concerns, you call me 24 hours a day, any time, any where, I'm here.'"
Talk about how this has hurt your reputation and what that means to the causes you represent:
"We haven't seen anything. We haven't seen any damage. The partners and sponsors that I've been involved with for a long time immediately wrote back letters of support. They're smart enough to understand the situation and they can look at this thing objectively, as they have for six or seven years, so nobody has questioned it or been concerned. Just today, we spent the entire day at Discovery. We had a great reception, talked to the employees, this was already planned before this came out, but nonetheless we had a great day. Yesterday, I spent half the day with PowerBar doing stuff for them and they've been great. Everybody along the way is fine. Again, I think they're taking a very objective view of the science, of the history here with the French, they're taking into consideration the four or five anti doping experts around the world that have gone on the record and said this is crazy. We've not had anybody pull out."
What can you say to the cancer community that consider you a hero/role model:
"I will not waiver at all from my statement that I've always said - I've never taken performance enhancing drugs. This is not proof of that. Yeah, you have a major story that was put out by L'Equipe but when you start to break it down, you say, OK, how did that happen? Then you look at the science behind it - almost everybody says 'well, that's not possible.' You start to look at the ethics behind it and say, 'Well, if it was possible, why is it then in the newspaper?' Ethically, how can you put a guy's name or prosecute a guy like that when he has no defense?
I will tell you two things, and I don't know how involved WADA was in this affair, but I know two pieces of the WADA code that are very important. Number one, if an athlete only has one sample left, it is strictly mandated that that sample must always remain anonymous. If any WADA accredited laboratory wants to use that sample, for experimentation, or scientific research, they must have the approval of the athlete. So right there, you have two serious violations of the new WADA code. Now, I don't need to tell you guys that Chatenay-Malabry is one of the main WADA labs in the world."
When and how did you first hear of this and did you know the samples existed?
"I found out Monday afternoon. Look, they have samples of Eddy Merckx in laboratories, so it doesn't surprise me at all that they have my samples. We knew that they had the samples in 2000, we offered to give them over. Clearly they've tested all of my samples since then to the highest degree. So, yeah, of course they have the samples - but I can tell you, when I gave those samples, there was not EPO in those samples, I guarantee you that."
What's the most objectionable thing about this affair?
"Where to start, where to start...I don't know. It's been a long love-hate relationship between myself and the French and I don't know what would encourage somebody to do something like this or even think about doing something like this. But I think when you couple the fact we don't know how long the samples were stored properly, if they were ever stored properly, you couple the questions from some of the leaders in that field as to whether or not you can ever test for that five, six years later.
L'Equipe has changed their position towards cycling, I think, in the last 6-12 months and they've taken a very aggressive, sensational approach. Obviously, this is great business for them. Unfortunately, I'm caught in the cross hairs. As we know, it could be potentially a much deeper issue between the UCI and the Tour de France with regards to the ProTour. It could be a much deeper issue with regards to certain people and their votes towards who won the Olympic bid for summer of 2012, etc., etc. This thing could go on and on. At the end of the day, it's up to most people, and you guys lead the people, it's up to you guys, to talk about the science behind it and is this a possibility or not?"
What do you think about the timing of this?
"I suppose they would have much preferred to have done this either at the start of the Tour or in the middle of the Tour and for whatever reason, they were delayed. That's the peak season for them in terms of selling papers. At the end of the day, that's what I think this is all about. This is an opportunity to sell a ton of papers. You devote an entire front page for days after days after days. You give it four of five pages of absolutely biased reporting and it sells."
Is this the lowest point for you in terms of your career, other than the cancer. Where does this rank?
"Absolutely not. Truth on my side, I know what happened and what I have, this is not the only six or eight or 10 samples ever given. You're talking about 300 samples. If you can show me another athlete that's been more drug tested in his life, please do. And you know what? People are going to come along and compare this to Rafeal Palmeiro or somebody else, well guess what? I've got two things to say to that - 'A' and a 'B' sample. You either defend yourself or you don't. And in this situation...how could I defend myself in this position other than say this is absolutely crazy? They talk about six samples being positive. As we all can go back and do the math from 1999, there were more samples given than that. Where did they all go? And who are the other athletes? Why is it just me? If your going to name one guy, aren't you naming the other 15 that they reportedly found? Does that sound fishy?"
Have you considered any legal action?
"Right now, we're considering all our options. As you all know, we have a few cases going on. We're on top of those, we're confident we're going to win those, we're absolutely going to win those. Do we want another one? Who do you take action against in this case? Is it WADA? Is it the Ministry? Is it L'Equipe? Is it the laboratory? Who is it? They're all at fault there. Ultimately, yeah, if you do have a trial you get to the bottom of it and you find out who sabotaged the process and you find out who leaked the details. But, in the meantime, it costs you a million, a million and a half dollars, costs you a couple years of your life. But guess what guys? I've got a lot of things I can do with a million and a half dollars that are a lot better than this and I've got a lot things better to do with two years of my life than deal with this. So ultimately, I'm going to have to ask myself that question."
