2001 Tour of Switzerland?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
anyone trying to 'fill in' or understand the last night's wording by 60 minutes - 'a suspicious sample consistent with the use of epo' needs to understand that the lab (or a lab) would use a 'positive' word or (the modern version) 'presumed analytical finding'.

yet, the fact is, cbs referred to a 'suspicious' wording (not positive) in the usada letter (they asserted have a copy of) describing the armstrong test result.

my point being, let's not jump to the conclusions we'd prefer to hear but rather wait for the developments of the delicate investigation.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Cobblestoned said:
It only took me 2 clicks to see that Lance was there at the Travers Lausanne in 1999, too.
Where did you copy your text from ? From your lies-vs-lance website ?

Of course, thats just anticipating and a sidenote to your great post.
I guess you will find a way to wind out of that in perfect eel-style.
You set the standards and own the one and only correct definition about what "normal routine" means, to built your "case".
But one would think that it was no coincidence that you just didn't mention 1999 Lausanne attendance.

Looking forward to THE matching 1999 joke. I'll gladly leave it to you. :D

So, it only took you 2 clicks to prove my point.

After the criterium in Boxmeer Lance drove to Brussels to stay with Eddy Merckx. On Tuesday, he rode in Lausanne and Wednesday in Chaam.
CN July 1999.

LA rode a number of races right after his win in 1999 - in 2001 he rode 1.
 
VeloCity said:
Depends on one's definition of legitimate. To be honest, knowing what we know now, I don't consider Ullrich's wins to be any more legitimate than Armstrong's, and I was always a huge fan of Ullrich's.

It's tough being a cycling fan these days.

Of course I know what you mean. But fact is, Lance failed a test and shouldn't have been allowed to compete.
Jan on the other hand at least in 2000-2001 was most likely riding without blood manipulation (hamatokrit 42)
 
Merckx index said:
UCI now threatening to sue Tyler. Their lawyers sure are going to be busy in the coming months.

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_ylt=Aq289lI0..F3gavYsqe_d8w5nYcB?slug=ap-armstrong-doping-uci

I wonder if the UCI in its zeal is overlooking the fact that both Tyler and Floyd are only repeating what they were told by Lance. The UCI's case, if any, would be against LANCE not Tyler and/or Floyd. I'm also curious when they will sue the former lab director since it is his purported affidavit that breathes real life into Lance's allegations.

This is what hairsplitting looks like:

“The UCI can only confirm that Lance Armstrong has never been notified of a positive test result by any anti-doping laboratory. … Once again, the UCI wishes to state that no manipulation or cover-up has occurred in respect of its anti-doping procedures.”
 
May 23, 2010
95
0
0
I have mentioned this before and sadly deleted the vhs recording of it a long time ago but during Stage 5 - June 23: Widnau/Heerbrugg - St Gotthard pass, 220.6 km Armstrong was dropped on a hairpin as Simoni and Belli put the pressure on just before the cobble section.
Astonishingly Armstrong pulled over and proceeded to make a call on his mobile phone - which was noted on CN's live ticker

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/jun01/suisse5live.shtml
"Armstrong is dropped, but after a brief conversation on the batphone he resumes a steady tempo, with Zberg closing down on him from behind. Konyshev is now a mere 500 metres from the finish and should win the stage, although he seems almost stationary - this is a serious climb. He's certainly earnt it - 185 km on the attack."
Very strange behaviour indeed - I am almost certain that it was reported at the time he had spoken to the good doctor in that call but cant find a back up to support that memory.
Sorry for repeating the post if anyone else watched that stage i would be interested in yor recollections - thanks
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
dancing on pedals said:
I have mentioned this before and sadly deleted the vhs recording of it a long time ago but during Stage 5 - June 23: Widnau/Heerbrugg - St Gotthard pass, 220.6 km Armstrong was dropped on a hairpin as Simoni and Belli put the pressure on just before the cobble section.
Astonishingly Armstrong pulled over and proceeded to make a call on his mobile phone - which was noted on CN's live ticker

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/jun01/suisse5live.shtml
"Armstrong is dropped, but after a brief conversation on the batphone he resumes a steady tempo, with Zberg closing down on him from behind. Konyshev is now a mere 500 metres from the finish and should win the stage, although he seems almost stationary - this is a serious climb. He's certainly earnt it - 185 km on the attack."
Very strange behaviour indeed - I am almost certain that it was reported at the time he had spoken to the good doctor in that call but cant find a back up to support that memory.
Sorry for repeating the post if anyone else watched that stage i would be interested in yor recollections - thanks

WoW......Is this serious?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Merckx index said:
Two key points here, it seems to me. Python suggests this was probably an A sample that was covered up, so of course processing would never get to the AAF stage. Rata notes that determining whether an EPO test is positive is very subjective—it’s arguably as much art as science. And back then, when the urine test was in its infancy, even more so.

But consider Rata’s “wobble” scenario a little more closely. How and why did LA get notified in the first place? It seems to me he only would have been notified if the sample had been judged positive. It might have been a borderline positive, a close thing, but at the end of the day, a sample has to be determined positive or negative. The lab doesn’t determine a “not sure” (unless the test was messed up a la Heras). At least, that’s the way it works now.

So I assume it was determined a positive, someone decoded the number, and at that point someone knew it was LA’s sample. I can't imagine getting to the decoding stage if the sample was not determined a genuine positive. I’m not sure who knows what at this stage—maybe Python can help here—but it seems to me that the person who first knows the identity of the rider would not know anything other than the sample was positive. IOW, s/he would not know if it was a borderline positive, a barely positive, or whatever. Only that word came from the lab that it was positive.

This is important, it seems to me, because it implies that when LA was invited to have a meeting with the UCI, the subject of the meeting could not have been “we are not sure if this sample is positive or negative”. It had to be simply “this sample is positive”. Period. Maybe the UCI official, wanting to get LA off, make a deal with him, whatever the motivation was, looked at the data, talked to the lab, learned that the positive was borderline, and so was able to rationalize in his own mind that it was not a positive. I can easily see that happening. But it’s pretty clear the meeting never would have occurred if it hadn’t been a genuine positive--one that would have nailed any other rider--and if LA had not been involved.

Incidentally, slightly off topic, but what does it say about LA that he would tell Tyler it was “taken care of”? More and more, I think of master criminals who aren’t satisfied with getting away with murder (literally), but have to brag about it, have to tell others about it. They want the world to know how smart they are. You would think if you got away with something like this, the last thing in the world you would want to do is bring others into the secret. Yet apparently LA did.

I don’t think I appreciated until Tyler’s testimony just what an iron grip omerta had/has on riders. LA has known for years that many riders could implicate him, that he had an extremely damaging secret that was in fact well known to maybe a dozen or more other people, yet he not only did not seem worried at all about that, but even added to the evidence they could implicate him on. Presumably it would have been hard to dope without other team members knowing about it. But he didn’t have to tell anyone about this meeting.

a mighty good post, MI.
Especially liked that part in bold.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Publicus said:
I wonder if the UCI in its zeal is overlooking the fact that both Tyler and Floyd are only repeating what they were told by Lance. The UCI's case, if any, would be against LANCE not Tyler and/or Floyd. I'm also curious when they will sue the former lab director since it is his purported affidavit that breathes real life into Lance's allegations.

Very true. TheHog and Maserati made these points as well.
So it's obvious to many, but not to the UCI.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Cobblestoned said:
Yes, of course. Thats the proof, prof. :D

Prof.Maserati's normal routine.

Doc's point was quote compelling, if you ask me, only for you not to understand.

I asked Polish earlier, and I'll ask you: what did LA do to you that makes you feel the need to stand up for the guy?
if he's been lying/doping all those years, why would do care so much? (don't both answering, by the way).
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Merckx index said:
Incidentally, slightly off topic, but what does it say about LA that he would tell Tyler it was “taken care of”? More and more, I think of master criminals who aren’t satisfied with getting away with murder (literally), but have to brag about it, have to tell others about it. They want the world to know how smart they are. You would think if you got away with something like this, the last thing in the world you would want to do is bring others into the secret. Yet apparently LA did.

I don’t think I appreciated until Tyler’s testimony just what an iron grip omerta had/has on riders. LA has known for years that many riders could implicate him, that he had an extremely damaging secret that was in fact well known to maybe a dozen or more other people, yet he not only did not seem worried at all about that, but even added to the evidence they could implicate him on. Presumably it would have been hard to dope without other team members knowing about it. But he didn’t have to tell anyone about this meeting.
Well, don't overlook that back then, Hamilton and Landis and Hincapie were pretty close friends of Armstrong's, so I don't find it too surprising if he told them - he'd have no way of knowing then what was coming down the road. And maybe it was Armstrong's way of telling his inner circle buddies that they needn't worry about positives themselves, they had friends in high places and were covered. But who knows, really - maybe it was just showing off to his buddies, too.
 
May 19, 2011
69
0
0
VeloCity said:
Well, don't overlook that back then, Hamilton and Landis and Hincapie were pretty close friends of Armstrong's, so I don't find it too surprising if he told them - he'd have no way of knowing then what was coming down the road. And maybe it was Armstrong's way of telling his inner circle buddies that they needn't worry about positives themselves, they had friends in high places and were covered. But who knows, really - maybe it was just showing off to his buddies, too.

If he were really clever 10 years ago he could have worked out that sooner or later the omertà would crack with someone in the team spilling. Then he could have told them some juicy untruths knowing that if they spilt those in the future he could discredit them.

But he's not really clever. He's just a lieing, cheating bully.
 
May 23, 2010
95
0
0
roundabout said:
I think it's a reference to team radios.
no he stopped and went on his mobile phone - by the side of the road. On the hairpin apex beneath a cliff wall i remember it well - spoke on a mobile phone phone and then pushed on a at a steady pace - at the time i thought it was to avoid dopage controle - it was very odd.
thanks
 
Oct 26, 2009
654
0
0
Magic Spanner said:
If he were really clever 10 years ago he could have worked out that sooner or later the omertà would crack with someone in the team spilling. Then he could have told them some juicy untruths knowing that if they spilt those in the future he could discredit them.

But he's not really clever. He's just a lieing, cheating bully.

My gut tells me that we'll never know what really happened during the 2001 Tour de Suisse. If the UCI has any smarts, you would think that any wrong-doing on their part would have been covered up in the past 10 years.
 
May 23, 2010
95
0
0
ManInFull said:
My gut tells me that we'll never know what really happened during the 2001 Tour de Suisse. If the UCI has any smarts, you would think that any wrong-doing on their part would have been covered up in the past 10 years.

no there will be a lot of video evidence - such as the incident i have referred to. To put it in context I have been watching cycling racing since 1967 and I have never seen a main contender act in such an irrational way as to make a phone call towards the end of a Queen stage.
very odd then very odd now - the truth is out there.
thanks
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
ManInFull said:
My gut tells me that we'll never know what really happened during the 2001 Tour de Suisse. If the UCI has any smarts, you would think that any wrong-doing on their part would have been covered up in the past 10 years.

Out of solidarity with the whistleblowers Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton, and in protest against the utterly ridiculous way in which the UCI has handled and is handling the situation and accusations, http://www.cyclingnews.com should cease the coverage of any cycling events for one brief and purely symbolic period of time.

As a symbolic act, even one hour without any coverage or news items would send the message.
 
VeloCity said:
Well, don't overlook that back then, Hamilton and Landis and Hincapie were pretty close friends of Armstrong's, so I don't find it too surprising if he told them - he'd have no way of knowing then what was coming down the road. And maybe it was Armstrong's way of telling his inner circle buddies that they needn't worry about positives themselves, they had friends in high places and were covered. But who knows, really - maybe it was just showing off to his buddies, too.

I think that would have been exactly the reason for talking about it. To reassure his teammates that they could do everything needed to prepare properly to shepherd Lance to victory. Heras, Beltran, Landis, Hamilton, did they really all start doping only after they left Lance's team?:rolleyes:
 
sniper said:
Out of solidarity with the whistleblowers Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton, and in protest against the utterly ridiculous way in which the UCI has handled and is handling the situation and accusations, http://www.cyclingnews.com should cease the coverage of any cycling events for one brief and purely symbolic period of time.

As a symbolic act, even one hour without any coverage or news items would send the message.

OK, so long as they wait until between the Giro and TDF.;)
 
Hugh Januss said:
sniper said:
Out of solidarity with the whistleblowers Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton, and in protest against the utterly ridiculous way in which the UCI has handled and is handling the situation and accusations, http://www.cyclingnews.com should cease the coverage of any cycling events for one brief and purely symbolic period of time.

As a symbolic act, even one hour without any coverage or news items would send the message.

OK, so long as they wait until between the Giro and TDF.;)

Not covering cycling goes against the livelihood and purpose.

How about for 24 hours, they report on nothing but UCI double-talk and the Verbruggen and McQuaid legacy?

It is news, and it provides the appropriate focus.

In fact, given that no results can be trusted so long as they are involved, it provides the only focus.

Dave.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
D-Queued said:
Not covering cycling goes against the livelihood and purpose.

How about for 24 hours, they report on nothing but UCI double-talk and the Verbruggen and McQuaid legacy?

It is news, and it provides the appropriate focus.

In fact, given that no results can be trusted so long as they are involved, it provides the only focus.

Dave.

pretty darn well put.