2001 Tour of Switzerland?

[ir12daveor]

Hey All,
I'm a long time lurker but never post anything. One thing has been on my mind a bit lately though. One of the things in Landis's first set of mails was the covered up positive test for EPO in the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. For me this is a huge thing, it really blows the corruption in the sport out of the water. At the time there was must misquoteing in the press and Lance himself used the excuse that he was not at the 2002 Tour of Switzerland as an excuse why this was a lie. Reading Landis's mails carefully you see that he was told about this incident in 2002 but it had happened the previous year (2001).

My question is, why has this been shoved under the carpet. For me this is an allegation that should be investigated as deeply as possible. Verbruggen should lose his seat on the IOC for it and McQuaid and the rest of the UCI committee should be put out to pasture for covering it up.

I was kind of expecting it to be brought up in the Sunday Times article but there was no mention.

Anyone care to comment?

BTW: Sorry if it's been covered in detail I just can't seem to find too much on it.

 

[Lanark]

Nobody talks about it because there's like 0% chance that there is any proof for these allegations, and it's extremely unlikely that anyone who would be in the know is going to talk about it.

 

[GoneWithTailWind]

Was one of the (two so far acknowledged by the UCI) payments made around this time?

There's also the question of the other 375K (500K - 100K - 25K).

 

[hrotha]

Who could investigate this? Not a completely rhetorical question.

 

[Ferminal]

Who could investigate this? Not a completely rhetorical question.

I was thinking the same thing.

Who can go after the UCI?

 

[Cobblestoned]

McQuaid presented a paper trail of letters from the Paris and Lausanne anti-doping labs, WADA and the Tour de Suisse organisers that he claims showed that Armstrong did not test positive for EPO in 2001 and so could never have attempted to bribe the UCI.

"The UCI take seriously the accusation that the UCI took a bribe to hide the positive test of Lance Armstrong in 2001," McQuaid said.

"We've contacted in recent days the labs involved for testing for EPO at that time. I have statement here from those labs that support what I am about to say. The letters will also soon be published on the UCI website in a sign of transparency.

"First the letter from the Paris lab, that is under the AFLD. They had three positives for EPO in the UCI account between 2001 and 2003. Two in 2001 and one in 2003. All the reports were sent to the UCI in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 were also sent CPLD and also sent to the International Olympic Committee. In relation to Lausanne, there were 18 positive tests for EPO for the UCI controlled by this lab between 2001 and 2003: six in 2001, four in 2002 and eight in 2003. All analysis were sent to IOC and Swiss Olympic.

I also have a letter from WADA that states from January 2004, every positive result for UCI also went to the WADA. I also have a report from the Tour de Suisse from 2001 which states that there was no doping case in 2001."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-acknowledges-accepting-armstrong-donation-a-mistake

Someone with open eyes will have noticed that this clarification came too fast for a lie. And it wouldn't make any sense actually not to have alll these documents.
Now dottore will come again and ask for the documentation, and I will tell him again that this is an ongoing investigation (USADA) and perhaps because of that the documents are not online yet.

 

[ir12daveor]

@ Cobblestoned. Cheers, I remember seeing that article.

I'm pretty sure that something would have leaked out of the Paris lab if there had been a cover up, but lets say that the Lab at Lausanne was testing back TdS results back in 2001, which is quite likely. The Lausanne lab is not too far from UCI headquarters so it is not unforeseeable that the Lab was also paid to keep quiet.

As Hrotha said "Who can investigate this?"

WADA?

 

[hrotha]

I was thinking the same thing.

Who can go after the UCI?

I'm thinking it has to be some journalist creating a PR ****storm and forcing many of the UCI top brass to step down. I don't see any official institution both giving a damn and having jurisdiction to tackle this.

 

[Anonymous]

McQuaid presented a paper trail of letters from the Paris and Lausanne anti-doping labs, WADA and the Tour de Suisse organisers that he claims showed that Armstrong did not test positive for EPO in 2001 and so could never have attempted to bribe the UCI.

"The UCI take seriously the accusation that the UCI took a bribe to hide the positive test of Lance Armstrong in 2001," McQuaid said.

"We've contacted in recent days the labs involved for testing for EPO at that time. I have statement here from those labs that support what I am about to say. The letters will also soon be published on the UCI website in a sign of transparency.

"First the letter from the Paris lab, that is under the AFLD. They had three positives for EPO in the UCI account between 2001 and 2003. Two in 2001 and one in 2003. All the reports were sent to the UCI in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 were also sent CPLD and also sent to the International Olympic Committee. In relation to Lausanne, there were 18 positive tests for EPO for the UCI controlled by this lab between 2001 and 2003: six in 2001, four in 2002 and eight in 2003. All analysis were sent to IOC and Swiss Olympic.

I also have a letter from WADA that states from January 2004, every positive result for UCI also went to the WADA. I also have a report from the Tour de Suisse from 2001 which states that there was no doping case in 2001."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-acknowledges-accepting-armstrong-donation-a-mistake

Someone with open eyes will have noticed that this clarification came too fast for a lie. And it wouldn't make any sense actually not to have alll these documents.
Now dottore will come again and ask for the documentation, and I will tell him again that this is an ongoing investigation (USADA) and perhaps because of that the documents are not online yet.

Who is going to investigate whether there was a bribe and cover-up that involved a lab, the UCI, and Armstrong???? Why, the UCI naturally....no wait, the USADA is investigating???...source please...I did find this quote from earlier this month "Lance Armstrong says he will be vindicated by a U.S. Anti-Doping Agency investigation of claims raised by a report in Sports Illustrated. Armstrong used Twitter on Friday to suggest that USADA might probe allegations"

I highlighted the key word...

Obfuscation, its the only defense Armstrong has left...

 

[sniper]

Who is going to investigate whether there was a bribe and cover-up that involved a lab, the UCI, and Armstrong???? Why, the UCI naturally....no wait, the USADA is investigating???...source please...I did find this quote from earlier this month "Lance Armstrong says he will be vindicated by a U.S. Anti-Doping Agency investigation of claims raised by a report in Sports Illustrated. Armstrong used Twitter on Friday to suggest that USADA might probe allegations"

I highlighted the key word...

Obfuscation, its the only defense Armstrong has left...

a big +1

not sure why some (let alone Clinic regulars) still buy LA's PR strategies.

who seriously still believes Floyd has been making things up in these emails?

Admittedly, the timeline was off, but this rather seems to corroborate his story.
IF he'd be spreading lies, he would have made sure to have the timeline spot on.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Who is going to investigate whether there was a bribe and cover-up that involved a lab, the UCI, and Armstrong???? Why, the UCI naturally....no wait, the USADA is investigating???...source please...I did find this quote from earlier this month "Lance Armstrong says he will be vindicated by a U.S. Anti-Doping Agency investigation of claims raised by a report in Sports Illustrated. Armstrong used Twitter on Friday to suggest that USADA might probe allegations"

I highlighted the key word...

Obfuscation, its the only defense Armstrong has left...

Same article says:
McQuaid later confirmed to Cyclingnews that Landis, Lance Armstrong and all the other US riders accused by Landis have been placed under investigation by USA Cycling via USADA.

I don't know which and if all these investigations were opened, or at what point these investigations can be named "officially opened" or "investigated but not opened a suit or disciplinary procedures".
If its not these investigations, there are other examples of investigations on federal law connected with Floyds allegations - like we all know.
Or are they not yet officially opened and just under investigation. Or on prenatal or on passing-away status ?
I don't know it - do you know ?
The Obsessed will know it.

But look, if all these documents will appear you will be saying/said that they were manipulated and all these people corrupted them just for Lance. So you will always find something.
If the TdS and others state and have official data that there was actually no (such) doping case, then have fun by investigating it.

Perhaps Jeff or WADA will waste their time with it. Who knows ?

btw, Lance is referring to the SI article.
I feel really sorry for using Pat and other officials on my defence.
This is how it must feel like, when you use Floyd as attack.

 

[sniper]

btw, Lance is referring to the SI article.
I feel really sorry for using Pat and other officials on my defence.
This is how it must feel like, when you use Floyd as attack.

Do you honestly still think Floyd's been making things up regarding LA?
You're also still bouncing on Santa's lap each December?

 

[Anonymous]

Same article says:
McQuaid later confirmed to Cyclingnews that Landis, Lance Armstrong and all the other US riders accused by Landis have been placed under investigation by USA Cycling via USADA.

I don't know which and if all these investigations were opened, or at what point these investigations can be named "officially opened" or "investigated but not opened a suit or disciplinary procedures".
If its not these investigations, there are other examples of investigations on federal law connected with Floyds allegations - like we all know.
Or are they not yet officially opened and just under investigation. Or on prenatal or on passing-away status ?
I don't know it - do you know ?
The Obsessed will know it.

But look, if all these documents will appear you will be saying/said that they were manipulated and all these people corrupted them just for Lance. So you will always find something.
If the TdS and others state and have official data that there was actually no (such) doping case, then have fun by investigating it.

Perhaps Jeff or WADA will waste their time with it. Who knows ?

btw, Lance is referring to the SI article.
I feel really sorry for using Pat and other officials on my defence.
This is how it must feel like, when you use Floyd as attack.

Your assertion is that the USADA is investigating Lance and the UCI in relation to bribes and positives that were suppressed. I still see no evidence of that, nor any evidence produced by the UCI...

Obfuscation, look it up.

 

[Polish]

a big +1

not sure why some (let alone Clinic regulars) still buy LA's PR strategies.

who seriously still believes Floyd has been making things up in these emails?

Admittedly, the timeline was off, but this rather seems to corroborate his story.
IF he'd be spreading lies, he would have made sure to have the timeline spot on.

Yes, it IS possible that Floyd was telling the truth...
Stranger things have happened.

But it IS also possible that Lance was exaggerating.....
"Dude, I have access to a super secret wonder drug that no one else does"
"Dude, I failed a EPO drug test but was protected by the UCI"
"Dude, everyone does it"
"Dude, the strippers give me a super special lapdance they call The BigTex"

Now, is it possible that BOTH Floyd & Lance were truthful?

Floyd and Lance?
Both truthful?
Both telling the truth?

I guess. Maybe the odds of that would be about .00005
A PicoChance.
I suppose it could happen.
Maybe they should have the Cologne Lab do the investigation?

 

[sniper]

Yes, it IS possible that Floyd was telling the truth...
Stranger things have happened.

But it IS also possible that Lance was exaggerating.....
"Dude, I have access to a super secret wonder drug that no one else does"
"Dude, I failed a EPO drug test but was protected by the UCI"
"Dude, everyone does it"
"Dude, the strippers give me a super special lapdance they call The BigTex"

Now, is it possible that BOTH Floyd & Lance were truthful?

Floyd and Lance?
Both truthful?
Both telling the truth?

I guess. Maybe the odds of that would be about .00005
A PicoChance.
I suppose it could happen.
Maybe they should have the Cologne Lab do the investigation?

nice post, and an interesting angle.

But you're seriously underestimating Floyd here.
He'd think twice before making a fool out himself AGAIN, by spreading easily falsifyable stories.
(EDIT: Ok, perhaps I'm overestimating him.)

But then again, what Floyd said in the emails is not half as damning as what was claimed/speculated in the SI article. So, these are the options:

1. both Floyd's and SI's statements/claims/assumptions: true
2. only Floyd's statements true, SI false
3. only SI statements (those unrelated to Floyd) true, Floyd false
4. both Floyd's and SI's statements false

I guess, then, there's a 25% chance that Lance's beard doesn't come off when you pull it.

 

[Wheels Go Round and Round]

Floyd, Tyler, Miller, Basso, Vino and even Joe Papp are all frauds.....

they cheated and got caught

some are just bigger hypocrites than others

 

[MD FACG FACP]

Floyd, Tyler, Miller, Basso, Vino and even Joe Papp are all frauds.....

they cheated and got caught

some are just bigger hypocrites than others

What is your point ? To bash Joe, or advocate for a person the lies to people on their death bed. Talk about a fraud.

 

[Wheels Go Round and Round]

What is your point ? To bash Joe, or advocate for a person the lies to people on their death bed. Talk about a fraud.

I'm an equal opportunity fraud exposer
nothing else

I'm more partial to hypocrites though

 

[MD FACG FACP]

I'm an equal opportunity fraud exposer
nothing else

I'm more partial to hypocrites though

lol.....far enough

 

[Roninho]

I was thinking the same thing.

Who can go after the UCI?

I guess you can compare it to the fifa with the World championship selection commitee supposedly being bribed. There were rumours for years and nobody did anything about it, including the fifa. Then the bbc (?) caught 2 (of the like 24) guys that have a vote in the selection board on video in which they say if they get paid a couple of $100k they will vote for England. They caught them indipendently from each other. This created such a media-frenzy that the members were actually suspended and the Fifa actually did start up an investigation. Off course no one knows how hard they are going to investigate, and the reason for it is purely pr-wise imo.

But one can wonder if it is illegal for the UCI (or some of its employees) to accept money for making sure that a rider does not test positive.

 

[Ferminal]

I guess you can compare it to the fifa with the World championship selection commitee supposedly being bribed. There were rumours for years and nobody did anything about it, including the fifa. Then the bbc (?) caught 2 (of the like 24) guys that have a vote in the selection board on video in which they say if they get paid a couple of $100k they will vote for England. They caught them indipendently from each other. This created such a media-frenzy that the members were actually suspended and the Fifa actually did start up an investigation. Off course no one knows how hard they are going to investigate, and the reason for it is purely pr-wise imo.

Yet the BBC revelations (which were a big event) had no impact on the eventual outcome of the bidding process.

 

[Benotti69]

I guess you can compare it to the fifa with the World championship selection commitee supposedly being bribed. There were rumours for years and nobody did anything about it, including the fifa. Then the bbc (?) caught 2 (of the like 24) guys that have a vote in the selection board on video in which they say if they get paid a couple of $100k they will vote for England. They caught them indipendently from each other. This created such a media-frenzy that the members were actually suspended and the Fifa actually did start up an investigation. Off course no one knows how hard they are going to investigate, and the reason for it is purely pr-wise imo.

But one can wonder if it is illegal for the UCI (or some of its employees) to accept money for making sure that a rider does not test positive.

and the 2 guys that were caught as i understand it were caught selling world cup game tickets to touts years ago and making huge money on the scam. still members of FiFAs selection committee.

FIFA is probably the most corrupt federation going, worse than the IOC. at least the IOC does dope testing.

 

[webvan]

Thought I'd bump this since we now have some "facts" from the brand new facts4lance.com website : http://facts4lance.wordpress.com/2001-test-results/

Quoted here in case it disappears due to new "revelations" :

NO 2001 TEST RESULTS WERE COVERED UP

THIS ALLEGATION COMES FROM THE DISCREDITED FLOYD LANDIS

Floyd Landis is the one who first made this allegation. By now Landis has been widely discredited, in part because his story has not panned out, and in part because he is brazenly trying to cash in on this controversy by filing a lawsuit under the federal False Claims Act.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE WAS NO COVERUP OF 2001 TEST RESULTS

From Cycling News, May 25, 2010:

UCI President Pat McQuaid presented a paper trail of letters from the Paris and Lausanne anti-doping labs, WADA and the Tour de Suisse organisers that he claims showed that Armstrong did not test positive for EPO in 2001 and so could never have attempted to bribe the UCI.

“The UCI take seriously the accusation that the UCI took a bribe to hide the positive test of Lance Armstrong in 2001,” McQuaid said.

“We’ve contacted in recent days the labs involved for testing for EPO at that time. I have statement here from those labs that support what I am about to say. The letters will also soon be published on the UCI website in a sign of transparency.

“First the letter from the Paris lab, that is under the AFLD. They had three positives for EPO in the UCI account between 2001 and 2003. Two in 2001 and one in 2003. All the reports were sent to the UCI in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 were also sent CPLD and also sent to the International Olympic Committee. In relation to Lausanne, there were 18 positive tests for EPO for the UCI controlled by this lab between 2001 and 2003: six in 2001, four in 2002 and eight in 2003. All analysis were sent to IOC and Swiss Olympic.

I also have a letter from WADA that states from January 2004, every positive result for UCI also went to the WADA. I also have a report from the Tour de Suisse from 2001 which states that there was no doping case in 2001.”

“All this information supports what the UCI has always stated: That there is no way that the UCI or it’s former president Hein Verbruggen could have accepted a bribe. It’s just not possible.”

Link to letter : http://facts4lance.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/letter-to-mr-herman.pdf

Letter #2 : http://facts4lance.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/appendices.pdf

So how was this covered up, or was Lance just lying to his minions to impress them and get them to do what he wanted?

 

[webvan]

So finally thanks to 60 minutes, some info on the 2001 TDS Positive. Lab found LA sampe to be "suspicious" and "consistent with EPO" and the UCI told them to not pursue it any further. Wonder what Pat will have to say about that...

 

[Epicycle]

Here's what I know about it:

- In 2001 the Swiss lab in Lausanne was the first lab to catch doping using the new EPO test. Obviously it would have been very helpful for Bruyneel and Armstrong to learn specifics about the new tests from the lab director. That probably would have put them ahead of the rest of the peloton.

- I believe the lab director at the time was a guy named Laurent Rivier. He was the founder of the lab and left in 2002 to become a freelance antidoping consultant. 60 Minutes says the director gave a sworn statement to the FBI saying the UCI wanted the matter to go no further. The director said the UCI arranged the meeting.

- Floyd has said that Ochowicz was the go-between to the UCI.

- Tyler said Lance wasn't worried about it and that "people took care of it".

- We don't know any details of the actual sample. The UCI says there is no record of an Armstrong positive. 60 Minutes reported a (presumably recent) USADA letter to the lab about the issue says the lab determined the intial test was "suspicious" and "consistent with EPO use".