Log in:  

Register

Lappartient is worse for cycling than Cookson?

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re:

22 Dec 2017 13:45

samhocking wrote:Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy :)

7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.

Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.

On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?

Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.


Maybe Lappartient spiked the sample himself? That’s some conspiracy theory you’ve got going on here, point being, why would a delegate care about an A sample AAF for Froome? They wouldn’t. You just have to face facts that Cookson lost the Presidency because he was a terrible President.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,327
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

22 Dec 2017 13:52

TheSpud wrote:
samhocking wrote:Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy :)

7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.

Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.

On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?

Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.


Would Lappartient have been informed of the initial AAF?


Le Monde says UCI President David Lappartient was informed upon his election in Bergen, which makes us wonder about the independence of the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation if it reports news to the UCI president

https://twitter.com/inrng/status/940934502486036481
CTQ
Member
 
Posts: 318
Joined: 12 Mar 2016 12:14

Re: Re:

22 Dec 2017 14:08

thehog wrote:
samhocking wrote:Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy :)

7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.

Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.

On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?

Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.


Maybe Lappartient spiked the sample himself? That’s some conspiracy theory you’ve got going on here, point being, why would a delegate care about an A sample AAF for Froome? They wouldn’t. You just have to face facts that Cookson lost the Presidency because he was a terrible President.


Pretty tame by clinic standards I thought. UCI Voting delegates are those at the top of each NGB who are all trying to beat GB & Sky and failing. I would have thought it was obvious why you might not want Cookson head of UCI while all that is happening. Knowing of a positive by the biggest British rider in cycling with a British Team at the moment, might guarantee you enough votes to sway the difference if you said, I'll make sure this doesn't get brushed under the carpet if you vote for me instead of Cookson who might try and brush it under the carpet. Pretty sure you yourself have claimed Cookson protects Sky & Team GB from testing positive ; )
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,589
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re:

22 Dec 2017 14:21

samhocking wrote:Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy :)

7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.

Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.

On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?

Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.


I've been thinking along the same lines - not often we agree, Sam :razz:

Held back from posting though - tinfoil hat quotient too high :lol:

But not impossible to imagine Lappartient's team having quiet words with the voting delegates...

"Froome's been busted. Brian's going to cover it up. To save the sport from itself you simply have to vote for our man"

I trust you agree that Froome doping and Brian covering it up are greater sins than Lappartient using the information for political advantage?
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

22 Dec 2017 14:46

For sure, the lesser of two evils.
If those voting Lappartient or Cookson delegates were not also those heading up the NGBs and the various World tour teams connected to them all trying to beat Team GB & Sky at Tour & Olympics and had Cookson not made his statement about how many delegates had confirmed they would vote for him directly after he lost to Lappartient with almost no votes in the end I would not have posted. As soon as I read McQuaids statement about Cookson knowing the AAF for the A Sample, then Mcquaid claiming when a big name rider AAFs you would know about it, but then Lappartient a day later I think it was claiming UCI don't know anything about an AAF something political is happening here, it must be. Doesn't change the AAF of course.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,589
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Re:

22 Dec 2017 15:13

CTQ wrote:
TheSpud wrote:
samhocking wrote:Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy :)

7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.

Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.

On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?

Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.


Would Lappartient have been informed of the initial AAF?


Le Monde says UCI President David Lappartient was informed upon his election in Bergen, which makes us wonder about the independence of the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation if it reports news to the UCI president

https://twitter.com/inrng/status/940934502486036481


So Lappartient was told after the election (from what we know) so it couldnt really have been used during the election to help him / hinder Cookson.

I dont have a problem with the CADF reporting AAFs (especially of big name riders) to the UCI President. Its something that directly affects the sport they head up so its relevant information for them to know. I would have a problem if the UCI president told them to forget about / bury it.
TheSpud
Member
 
Posts: 1,364
Joined: 03 Jul 2014 20:43

Re:

22 Dec 2017 15:58

samhocking wrote:For sure, the lesser of two evils.
If those voting Lappartient or Cookson delegates were not also those heading up the NGBs and the various World tour teams connected to them all trying to beat Team GB & Sky at Tour & Olympics and had Cookson not made his statement about how many delegates had confirmed they would vote for him directly after he lost to Lappartient with almost no votes in the end I would not have posted. As soon as I read McQuaids statement about Cookson knowing the AAF for the A Sample, then Mcquaid claiming when a big name rider AAFs you would know about it, but then Lappartient a day later I think it was claiming UCI don't know anything about an AAF something political is happening here, it must be. Doesn't change the AAF of course.


My reading of Lappartient's comments at the time the Froome story broke (IIRC along the lines of "The UCI will follow due process this is nothing to do with me") is that he was distancing himself from any fallout if/when the sport's biggest rider and team get taken down. And I still think that's the most likely explanation for Lappartient's comments although I acknowledge it's possible he was also distancing himself from the leak of the Froome story

And FWIW I have no doubt that historically and in the present day all UCI Presidents were and are informed when a top rider trips the wire. Of course McQuaid wading in is amusing because, when bio-passport cases were run in-house by the UCI, IIRC step 5 of the process (after the 3 scientists agreeing the rider must be doping, etc) was that the UCI President had to sign off on the rider being busted. And who knows how many times McQuaid's dead hand stopped bio-passport cases in their tracks? McQuaid was a fan of sending a private final warning letter instead...
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: Re:

22 Dec 2017 18:13

samhocking wrote:UCI Voting delegates are those at the top of each NGB who are all trying to beat GB & Sky and failing.
Whatever you do, never let facts get in the way of a bit of tinfoil millinery. But, well, facts, please...the delegates are only 40-odd in number, and selected by the confederations.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,666
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

22 Dec 2017 18:17

Wiggo's Package wrote:But not impossible to imagine Lappartient's team having quiet words with the voting delegates...

"Froome's been busted. Brian's going to cover it up. To save the sport from itself you simply have to vote for our man"
"Ça va mes amis, I know you were all deeply upset when USADA busted Lance et you passed a resolution saying just drop this stuff, mais guess what? Votez pour moi et I'll give you a doping scandal to rival the American! Votez pour moi! Votez pour moi!"
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,666
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

23 Dec 2017 08:35

Wiggo's Package wrote:
samhocking wrote:Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy :)

7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.

Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.

On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?

Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.


I've been thinking along the same lines - not often we agree, Sam :razz:

Held back from posting though - tinfoil hat quotient too high :lol:

But not impossible to imagine Lappartient's team having quiet words with the voting delegates...

"Froome's been busted. Brian's going to cover it up. To save the sport from itself you simply have to vote for our man"

I trust you agree that Froome doping and Brian covering it up are greater sins than Lappartient using the information for political advantage?


So DL's winning strategy was to promise voters another Armstrong scandal? "It's exactly what our sport needs."

Lance's conspiracy, revealed in his podcast, that Disney are behind all of this has more credibility.
buckle
Member
 
Posts: 662
Joined: 23 Jul 2012 17:42

Re: Re:

23 Dec 2017 09:29

buckle wrote:
Wiggo's Package wrote:
samhocking wrote:Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy :)

7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.

Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.

On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?

Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.


I've been thinking along the same lines - not often we agree, Sam :razz:

Held back from posting though - tinfoil hat quotient too high :lol:

But not impossible to imagine Lappartient's team having quiet words with the voting delegates...

"Froome's been busted. Brian's going to cover it up. To save the sport from itself you simply have to vote for our man"

I trust you agree that Froome doping and Brian covering it up are greater sins than Lappartient using the information for political advantage?


So DL's winning strategy was to promise voters another Armstrong scandal? "It's exactly what our sport needs."

Lance's conspiracy, revealed in his podcast, that Disney are behind all of this has more credibility.


Fair enough

I was just riffing on Sam's wonderfully desparate "Froome won't get busted because Lappartient leaked the story" theory. With apologies for the mixed metaphor, the tinfoil hat is now on the other foot eh

And Sam would do well to remember that it was a BC insider who leaked the Armitsted story and a Sky insider who leaked the Wiggo's package story. Nest of vipers! And Froome's never been a team player at Sky...
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: Re:

23 Dec 2017 12:38

samhocking wrote:
thehog wrote:
samhocking wrote:Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy :)

7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.

Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.

On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?

Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.


Maybe Lappartient spiked the sample himself? That’s some conspiracy theory you’ve got going on here, point being, why would a delegate care about an A sample AAF for Froome? They wouldn’t. You just have to face facts that Cookson lost the Presidency because he was a terrible President.


Pretty tame by clinic standards I thought. UCI Voting delegates are those at the top of each NGB who are all trying to beat GB & Sky and failing. I would have thought it was obvious why you might not want Cookson head of UCI while all that is happening. Knowing of a positive by the biggest British rider in cycling with a British Team at the moment, might guarantee you enough votes to sway the difference if you said, I'll make sure this doesn't get brushed under the carpet if you vote for me instead of Cookson who might try and brush it under the carpet. Pretty sure you yourself have claimed Cookson protects Sky & Team GB from testing positive ; )


UCI voting delegates at the top of each NGB are all trying to beat Sky and failing? Now, that is some tin foil conspiracy going on right there. I’m sure you have link or some proof of this? :cool:

You really are ever the fantasist. Perhaps they are nearly representing each of their constituents and want to work with a president who actually shows up?
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,327
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

23 Dec 2017 20:52

CyclingTips... multiple sources... Lappartient theory fail...

https://cyclingtips.com/2017/12/story-behind-story-breaking-froome-positive-news/

CyclingTips: First off, Martha, how did the story come about?

Martha Kelner: The story basically came about – without giving too much away, because I wouldn’t want to compromise any of our sources – but it was a number of sources who came forward…it was a bit of a collaborative effort between the Guardian and Le Monde, with their excellent correspondent Clement Guillou. The story was pretty firm, pretty solid, that Chris had failed a test because of twice the allowed amount of Salbutamol in his urine. Then obviously we, with further investigations, found out what date it was, and when he first became aware of it.
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

17 Jan 2018 15:59

What's the French for mañana?

Lappartient punts tech fraud solution down the road. Mid-March is the new delivery date.
“I hope that hidden motors are not used today in bikes, but I have heard many stories, and some behaviours seem strange. Should there be a case, it would be a disaster for our sport. We will announce in the second half of March what we want to do.”
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,666
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

17 Jan 2018 19:26

thehog wrote:
samhocking wrote:Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy :)

7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.

Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.

On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?

Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.


Maybe Lappartient spiked the sample himself? That’s some conspiracy theory you’ve got going on here, point being, why would a delegate care about an A sample AAF for Froome? They wouldn’t. You just have to face facts that Cookson lost the Presidency because he was a terrible President.



Sounds good, I'm blaming him for Froomes shame
rick james
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,997
Joined: 02 Sep 2014 13:21
Location: Ecosse

Re: Re:

20 Jan 2018 04:35

CTQ wrote:Le Monde says UCI President David Lappartient was informed upon his election in Bergen, which makes us wonder about the independence of the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation if it reports news to the UCI president

https://twitter.com/inrng/status/940934502486036481


If you read WADA's documentation on ADAMS, you'll note the federation sees everyone's test results in the testing pool. The federation is also notified of positives, so the federation knows all.
User avatar DirtyWorks
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,080
Joined: 10 Feb 2010 17:01

Re:

20 Jan 2018 04:43

[url=http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=2214415#p2214415] wrote: Chris had failed a test because of twice the allowed amount of Salbutamol in his urine. Then obviously we, with further investigations, found out what date it was, and when he first became aware of it.


But, it's more complicated that just returning a positive score from the lab. There are many opportunities for the federation to decline opening sanctions on a positive.
User avatar DirtyWorks
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,080
Joined: 10 Feb 2010 17:01

21 Jan 2018 01:12

Lappartient implying that sky should have more open reaction to leak... it sounds like that leak was approved by him...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-president-team-skys-behaviour-is-damaging-cycling
ooo
New Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 02 Feb 2016 22:33

Re:

21 Jan 2018 01:39

ooo wrote:Lappartient implying that sky should have more open reaction to leak... it sounds like that leak was approved by him...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-president-team-skys-behaviour-is-damaging-cycling


maybe he thought that would force Team Sky to suspend Froome.
CTQ
Member
 
Posts: 318
Joined: 12 Mar 2016 12:14

Re: Re:

21 Jan 2018 01:55

CTQ wrote:
ooo wrote:Lappartient implying that sky should have more open reaction to leak... it sounds like that leak was approved by him...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-president-team-skys-behaviour-is-damaging-cycling


maybe he thought that would force Team Sky to suspend Froome.


I'm wondering about Lappartient's ability to partition.
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 668
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 17 guests

Back to top