8 Things On Lance Armstrong From The "Other Side Of The Grass"

[Casa de Hombre]

Sylvia Schenk (former UCI member)
• "There is obviously a strong
relationship with Armstrong,"
Schenk added. "The UCI took
a lot of money from
Armstrong - to my knowledge
500,000 dollars - and now
there is speculation that there
are financial connections to
Armstrong, as well as the
American market.”
-Velonews, Sept 2005
Bill Stapleton (agent/manager)
• He -- yes, he gave a donation
to the UCI three or four years
ago. I think he's done that
maybe once or twice, with a -
- with a request to refine the --
I believe -- we'd need to look
at the letter, but I believe it
was to further do research
into the EPO test.
-deposition, Sept 2005

Thanks Huge I found that also. She says that “to my knowledge” and “there is speculation” that is hardly comments that state 100% without a doubt he paid that amount or that there was any other amount paid. If these comments were so credible then why not bring her over or go over to her for a deposition. They could have tried to get Lance on perjury or something like that. They did not so I am not at all surprised you “Hater’s” would hang your hats on those loose statements.

 

[Casa de Hombre]

Sylvia Schnek was the head of the Ethics Committee of the UCI - so I am sure she has some idea of their finances and how they are obtained.

Wouldn't the question of how much be better placed to Lance, Verbruggen or McQuaid?
They could also ask them why it an acceptable practice to have 'donations' between an athlete and their sporting authority.

Verbruggen and McQuaid were asked about that werent they?

Last time I checked it was not illegal for a cyclist to donate money to the UCI to have better testing to catch the cheat's.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Verbruggen and McQuaid were asked about that werent they?

Last time I checked it was not illegal for a cyclist to donate money to the UCI to have better testing to catch the cheat's.

I had no idea that Pat was asked - what did he say? Did either of them confirm how much was paid exactly and for what purposes?

So - you don't see a conflict of interest that cyclings cashcow gives 'donations' to the UCI?

 

[Race Radio]

TIf these comments were so credible then why not bring her over or go over to her for a deposition.

How do you know that will not happen if the Trek case goes to trial?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Thanks Huge I found that also. She says that “to my knowledge” and “there is speculation” that is hardly comments that state 100% without a doubt he paid that amount or that there was any other amount paid. If these comments were so credible then why not bring her over or go over to her for a deposition. They could have tried to get Lance on perjury or something like that. They did not so I am not at all surprised you “Hater’s” would hang your hats on those loose statements.

Conversely when a board member of the UCI goes on record with a statement like that it sure seems that someone of a litigious nature (a certain Texan) may have sued her for defamation, if he thought there was any chance he could win. However he did "donate" the money and it is a huge conflict of interest. As far as the statement being loose, it is as far as anyone would go unless they had the cancelled check in their personal possession.

 

[red_flanders]

Well if they are not up on the internet then one can not believe it. Just because a bunch of Message board people from all over the world said they saw it in real time does not make it true. I did not see it so does that make it false? Prove it that all I am asking. I doubt you can.

If the bolded is what passes for an argument from you, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the laughter.

So your goal here is to sow seeds of doubt that Armstrong's values changed. I guess you'll have to argue with the sitemaster of Livestrong.com.

http://www.livestrong.com/lance-armstrong/blog/lance-armstrong-drug-testing-results-6-09-2009/

http://www.livestrong.com/lance-arm...sting-results-to-be-posted-at-livestrong-com/

Seriously. It's just comedy around here.

 

[Casa de Hombre]

If the bolded is what passes for an argument from you, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the laughter.

So your goal here is to sow seeds of doubt that Armstrong's values changed. I guess you'll have to argue with the sitemaster of Livestrong.com.

http://www.livestrong.com/lance-armstrong/blog/lance-armstrong-drug-testing-results-6-09-2009/

http://www.livestrong.com/lance-arm...sting-results-to-be-posted-at-livestrong-com/

Seriously. It's just comedy around here.

Funny for you I guess.

 

[red_flanders]

Well maybe not you but maybe someone else can phone her up and find out the scoop? This would be a major story for Cycling News to break. The inside information about the amount of money donated to the UCI and what was the perceived intention of the donation? Not just for me but for the “haters”. They would also like to see a story like that.

So you want someone to interview her to confirm what she's already said on the record? Uh...okay. If no one does, will that "prove" Lance didn't bribe the UCI in your view?

Seems to be your goal. No facts. Just call everyone "haters" and question (for no reason) statements already given. Are you getting paid to do this? I ask because no one could actually be this foolish.

 

[Race Radio]

Funny for you I guess.

Embarrassing for you.

 

[red_flanders]

Funny for you I guess.

That's your best shot when everything you say was 100% refuted? Really?

 

[Casa de Hombre]

If the bolded is what passes for an argument from you, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the laughter.

So your goal here is to sow seeds of doubt that Armstrong's values changed. I guess you'll have to argue with the sitemaster of Livestrong.com.

http://www.livestrong.com/lance-armstrong/blog/lance-armstrong-drug-testing-results-6-09-2009/

http://www.livestrong.com/lance-arm...sting-results-to-be-posted-at-livestrong-com/

Seriously. It's just comedy around here.

This comment from that site probably made you lose your mind! "Cold, hard proof of something I think we all knew in our hearts to be true - Lance is amazing."

 

[Race Radio]

That's your best shot when everything you say was 100% refuted? Really?

Trolls really don't care.

 

[red_flanders]

Last time I checked it was not illegal for a cyclist to donate money to the UCI to have better testing to catch the cheat's.

You have the love the Armstrong playbook "qualifier". Gold.

Let me help you.

Last time I checked it was not illegal for a cyclist to donate money to the UCI

No one said it was illegal. They just say it shows that Armstrong is bribing the UCI and both he and the UCI are completely corrupt. Nope, not illegal as far as I know.

Is this really the best you can do?

 

[Casa de Hombre]

Embarrassing for you.

why is it embarrassing for me? Seems like the second link was the original that obviously had an error. They corrected the error and move along. How about the UCI or USADA do they have the same results? Don't they post them somewhere so that they we can do a comparison?

 

[Hugh Januss]

This comment from that site probably made you lose your mind! "Cold, hard proof of something I think we all knew in our hearts to be true - Lance is amazing."

No, unlike some I can distinguish between fact and fanboy hype.

 

[red_flanders]

why is it embarrassing for me? Seems like the second link was the original that obviously had an error. They corrected the error and move along. How about the UCI or USADA do they have the same results? Don't they post them somewhere so that they we can do a comparison?

"If it's not currently up on the internet it must be a lie!"

Whoops.

"It's a mistake, obviously!"

Uh...okay. Which is it again? A lie, or a mistake? I'm getting confused.

"The 500,000 number is a lie, by haters!"

Whoops.

"It's not illegal!"

You know what I learned in third grade? Liars continually change their stories. People telling the truth don't. Funny how the Armstrong sock puppets on this site and Armstrong himself are always saying one thing one day, then another the next. Then calling everyone else liars.

Yep. In third grade I learned that's what liars do.

 

[Race Radio]

why is it embarrassing for me? Seems like the second link was the original that obviously had an error. They corrected the error and move along. How about the UCI or USADA do they have the same results? Don't they post them somewhere so that they we can do a comparison?

Short term memory loss is often a sign of mental illness or excessive drug use. You appear to have forgotten your very recent claim.

How do we know you did not change those values with photoshop just to make something up?

Followed by

Well if they are not up on the internet then one can not believe it. Just because a bunch of Message board people from all over the world said they saw it in real time does not make it true. I did not see it so does that make it false? Prove it that all I am asking. I doubt you can.

Why is it that the Armstrong Groupies explain everything with a conspiracy?
USADA and the UCI will only release the results with the consent of the athlete.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

why is it embarrassing for me? Seems like the second link was the original that obviously had an error. They corrected the error and move along. How about the UCI or USADA do they have the same results? Don't they post them somewhere so that they we can do a comparison?

Can you provide a link to either of those sources of information - as it would help clear up the mess - or were they taken down too?

Also - can you show me where I can find the comments from Pat McQuaid on Lances generous contribution? Did either Pat or Hein say how many contributions, how much, what it was spent on? Again it would clear the air and not look like a bribe - which actually is illegal.

 

[Ripper]

why is it embarrassing for me?

Even asking is embarrassing! Quit drinking Hatoraide there Hombre

 

[tubularglue]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/sports/othersports/12cycling.html

without Catlin’s analyzing a single blood or urine sample from Armstrong. The program was too complex and too costly

Still, Armstrong, who has been dogged by doping allegations throughout his career, made his private antidoping program one of the cornerstones of his comeback.

In September, Catlin said, “The key is to have the information out there for the public to see and to analyze, because it shows you have nothing to hide.”

 

[Anonymous]

Do we have any information indictating those values were the wrong number? Could just have been the person who writes it up correcting a typo otherwise.

 

[Race Radio]

Do we have any information indictating those values were the wrong number? Could just have been the person who writes it up correcting a typo otherwise.

We really shouldn't rule out that the space aliens who control the internet changed them....just like they spiked Armstrong's samples in 99.

 

[Anonymous]

We really shouldn't rule out that the space aliens who control the internet changed them....just like they spiked Armstrong's samples in 99.

So I take it that you don't believe the person who writes up the site simply made a typo and changed it. The UCI have the numbers and it could have leaked out if were wrong, so I think it's unlikely that it was changed after the fact to a false number. And why change it? Surely it would be better to give the false number to begin with?

 

[red_flanders]

So I take it that you don't believe the person who writes up the site simply made a typo and changed it. The UCI have the numbers and it could have leaked out if were wrong, so I think it's unlikely that it was changed after the fact to a false number. And why change it? Surely it would be better to give the false number to begin with?

It's possible.

Here's a question--if you were Armstrong, and you were going to put numbers up to prove you were clean, how would you have handled such a discrepancy?

In my view Armstrong has a long history of PR events which never map to the facts. Seems to me the most likely scenario is that he can point to the chart and the addled masses will think, "ooh! Transparency". Those who see Armstrong for what he is will shout to each other in relatively small corners of the internet that it's more evidence that he's dirty.

Evaluate damage. Say nothing or announce the "adjustments" and get the press involved. Easy call. So it's either an error or an adjustment. Same damage equation.

 

[Anonymous]

It's possible.

Here's a question--if you were Armstrong, and you were going to put numbers up to prove you were clean, how would you have handled such a discrepancy?

In my view Armstrong has a long history of PR events which never map to the facts. Seems to me the most likely scenario is that he can point to the chart and the addled masses will think, "ooh! Transparency". Those who see Armstrong for what he is will shout to each other in relatively small corners of the internet that it's more evidence that he's dirty.

Evaluate damage. Say nothing or announce the "adjustments" and get the press involved. Easy call. So it's either an error or an adjustment. Same damage equation.

I don't think you can compare this to one of those cases. This is different to a promise that is not kept. It's a black and white chart.