How about No, I just want him to go away.

You know after what happened with that female track star who is now in prison (what ever her name is, my how soon we forget) I think he should get it tested.

No way! The French are just pissed that he's won their event so many times. He's been proven clean, the French need to get over it!

They keep pee from 9 years ago? That's crazy!

Why won't athletes just retire and stay retired?

Well I'm sure that if the shoe was on the other foot we'd be asking the same. If he holds out for pride sake fine but I know a few Americans that are just as curious as the French on this matter.

If he did not take performance inhancing drugs then he should retake the test. I really don't see a problem with this.

Haus, I see what you are saying, but what about the Chinese gymnasts? People were saying that we were just complaining about their age because we got beat, but I think we'd argue that it was more than just that.

I am not sure where I stand on this though. 1999? Is freezing urine a sure-fire way to preserve it? Doesn't anything happen to it over that much time and at those temperatures?

wee wee test the pee pee

I don't see why he wouldn't consent to the test... basically, saying no is just going to make people suspicious. If you got nothing to hide, do it!

hausfrau you're such the cameleon these days. First you change your name now a new avatar that doesn't have anything to do with pastries or other tasty delectables. I miss that chocolate cupcake!

Lance Armstrong seems like such an opportunistic player I don't really care what he does anymore. He is like a non-person who can ride a bike fast.

He's been tested after every stage that he has one, and after every Tour that he has won. IMO, this is incredibly sour grapes. I wouldn't consent to the test because he has no idea what has been done to the urine in the 9 years since he gave it. There's been all kinds of time for someone to come in and contaminate it.

Hell NO! Didn't he already get tested under the rules and guidelines that were in place when he actually raced? If you can't make the case he cheated with the evidence that they were already given then it's kind of chickensh*t to try and get him to submit to a retest.

BTW one=won. I must be really tipsy. Two olive lunches will do that I guess.

jazz my cupcake is halloween themed!

i think if the test was handled by an independent party out of the country that would be different. but are we really to beleive that pee thats been sitting around for 9 years hasn't been tampered with? esp. since its very obvious the French have an ax to grind there.

if this was the first time they questioned him, fine... the second, ok.... but the fact that they nag him forever proves that its nothing more than a witch hunt.

By the way should we started calling "french fries" freedom fries again?

No, my sis in law still does that. She seems to think that it's her responsibility to educate us all on things she believes in. I'd listen to her if she were actually right every once in awhile.

Let me preface this by saying I don't care about lance armstrong and I'm tired of hearing about him. That said, I think he should just submit to the testing. Saying no only makes him look guilty. If he was clean, what does he have to lose?

If he was being tested via depositing today, that would be fine. But they want to test a sample from 9 years ago, that they have had. It's been tested once, and found to be negative. The only reason to test it again is because someone has tampered with it and you need to show he dopes.

"If he was clean, what does he have to lose?"

But he was clean according to the test results taken at the time. He was tested then after every single stage. If the rules have changed and the testing is more robust then that is great for the current athletes but I don't believe that in this case he should be retested under some "new" testing if he isn't even racing. Hell and I can care less about the "sport" of bicycle riding it's the "make rules as we go along" theory I take issue with!

I swear this is my last point ahahah! What would the point of this be...really? Because like the write up says there isn't going to be any disciplinary action if he does test positive..fines etc. It will make some fans feel better, some may feel bad, and a lot people probably could care less ( it's not football/MLB right?). Also in the grand scheme of things it would hurt Lance Armstrong very little yes "the Tour" is what made him famous but his work outside of Cycling is what has made him someone to talk about.

I agree with what Dave said.

I do not recall what happened 9 years ago that they all of a sudden want to test his urine today? Someone set me straight - (Dave?) They DID test the 9 year old sample and it was found negative? Then why would they want to test again? Is it due to advances in technology?

Thanks!

here's my question - does it really matter what happened 10 years ago? i think that at this point in time, we know that he won those other titles while being clean since there were so many tests done on him, and i think that to do this nonsense AGAIN - well it's just pointless. i would be upset if i found out that he had been taking something, but honestly, it's 2008 and it's not going to change how i feel about anything in the grand scheme of things. i have a feeling that he's going to have an uphill battle if he does ride this year since he's been out of the game for bit, and that should be troubling enough for him since he's going to have to come from behind to try to recapture his title.

If he would just stay retired, then he wouldn't subject himself to any of this! What we're missing though is that there are some questionable results from his pee analysis in 1999. I just did a quick news search ("witch hunt") online. Apparently (and brace yourselves for these exciting facts) the pee is divided into A samples and B samples. Both A and B have to test positive for a cyclist to be deemed officially doped up. Only Lance's B sample remains from 1999, so they can't get an official answer anyway - HOWEVER - (I know, can you stand it?) Lance's B sample from 1999 has traces of EPO, and enhancer. BUT - that wasn't determined in 1999...it was tested in 2005. (I don't know how and why or where) Thus, the crazy French people want him to re-submit his 1999 pee for further testing to prove once and for all that he was, is and will always be Mr. Clean. (Even though it would do no good because there is no A sample to speak of.) So...moral of the story is that Lance is crazy for trying a comeback, and the French remain crazy and obsessed with Lance's pee. The end. ;p

He is not proven clean, and he should have to prove himself.
In fact I would really like to see that!

Duh! hausfrau good point! Suddenly a saying comes to mind "better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" I'm enlightened. Spider on flower can equate cupcake.

i think he should. it's unfortunate that so many athletes have used so many illegal substances that the honest athletes have to suffer, but if you have nothing to hide, then it shouldn't be an issue.

i think he's such an inspiration. it's just weird to me how these labs keep a person's urine for so long.