Ah, I forgot the retesting of Armstrongs 99 sample, that for me would count as proof. Just proof that wouldn't stand in court, but for me proof anyway.
On proof and stuff, another example: The UCI and corruption and protection of certain riders.
Here and generally it seems the UCI has been declared guilty. Which means nothing, since it's only a forum, but still.
Where's the proof?
The UCI told Saugy in Lausanne that it was Armstrongs sample, to forget it since he wouldn't dope... .something like that is written in the USADA report.
No affidavit by Saugy.
Saugy though said something different twice in newspapers. Latest one reported by cyclingnews:
“The UCI said to me at the end of June 2002: 'we warned the rider for whom you had a suspect result in 2001, he gave another suspect return at another lab and he would like to know by which method it was tested,'” Saugy said. "The rider was Armstrong. It was then that I learned about it."
Reads completely different than what is in the USADA report, which by not mentioning dates is misleading.
With Saugys comment there is absolutely no proof. Despite the donations.
Jaksche who told the UCI what he knew and nobody acted on it? Jaksche talks a lot.. without ever really saying anything. Anybody knows what exactly he told the UCI? I don't. He talks and talks, but after reading one of his interviews you know as little as before.
The UCI did everything to work against the USADA report. NOt really... they certainly came accross as confused, clueless and unfocused, but then it's not as if USADA was a good "partner" either, they kept taking potshots at the UCI as well. Without producing anything against the UCI (which obviously wasn't their job) at the end.
Suing Kimmage? Stupid, idiotic, but hardly proof of protecting riders.
Verbruggen and his "never never never"... an old idiot. Protecting himself more than Armstrong, if he has any brains (And I haven't seen any proof of that either) he must have at least suspected Armstrong doped, or thought it very likely, so protecting himself and the UCI.... we didn't catch him, but that's because he didn't dope..
The 99 positive? That one, yep. That's where any UCI investigation has to start, how was an exemption that came in after the test allowed to stand? That was against the rule then as well if I remember correctly. My guess is more than "protecting Armstrong" (he wasn't worth protecting really at that point) it was oh no, not another Doping case after 98.. .which really isn't better.
And maybe explain how the Contador case wasn't made public.. that it had to be leaked by German TV (or news) to become public... .maybe there is a sensible explanation, but I haven't hear done yet.
So yes, look into the UCI, but right now there is no proof that they are indeed corrupt and protecting dopers. (Ok, that sports organisations are corrupt is common sense, would be more surprised if an independently investigated sports organization came out clean... but probably we need a bit more proof) Protecting some riders, very likely yes I'd say, if I had to bet, I'd say yes, but, I haven't come accross any proof so far. I'm aware that's only my opinion and that there is no proof.