Anti doping world: not possible to cover up positive

[VeloCity]

McQuaid produces paper trail to refute positive test cover up:



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

Yes, a paper trail produced by the body that's being accused of accepting bribes, there's an objective source.

Interesting timeline, though - the $100,000 was "promised" to the UCI in April of 2002, which is when Landis claims Armstrong told him about "bribing" the UCI to cover up a positive at the 2001 Tour du Suisse.

And isn't it a bit odd that the UCI "reminded" Armstrong to pay the $100,000 voluntary donation four years later?

 

[gree0232]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Terminal Cyclist]

Yes, a paper trail produced by the body that's being accused of accepting bribes, there's an objective source.

But if you read it, it's not just from the UCI. They contacted the tour and Wada.

Interesting timeline, though - the $100,000 was "promised" to the UCI in April of 2002, which is when Landis claims Armstrong told him about "bribing" the UCI to cover up a positive at the 2001 Tour du Suisse.

And isn't it a bit odd that the UCI "reminded" Armstrong to pay the $100,000 voluntary donation four years later?

Yes that is the interesting part. Maybe Armstrong exaggerated what it was meant for, or alternatively Landis is making up what it was meant for because he knows it would look bad.

 

[Anonymous]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[SirLes]

I'm going to regret writing this I know but...

The comments today regarding Lance's donation are not helpful in my opinion to Landis' case.

I have always been confused about the timing of the donation Lance made as several dates have been mentioned. This is the first time I have heard of an explanation: namely he offered in 2002 but didn't actual give any money until 2005. It has also been quoted in these forums that the amount was much higher ie 500,000.

Also, and I may need to read the statement again but it also seems like a proper denial unlike the non denial denials we have heard so far from everyone.

The comments regarding doping being much greater 3-4 years ago do help Landis' position but although Landis did not say Lance bribed the UCI ,just that Lance told him he did it still cant be helpful if that accusation is proved false.

If Kristin now comes forward to "help" the investigation and say that there were no illegal drugs or blood bags what next?

I wouldn't be surprised if that did happen if only so she did it to protect the children

 

[Terminal Cyclist]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[gree0232]

Yes, a paper trail produced by the body that's being accused of accepting bribes, there's an objective source.

Interesting timeline, though - the $100,000 was "promised" to the UCI in April of 2002, which is when Landis claims Armstrong told him about "bribing" the UCI to cover up a positive at the 2001 Tour du Suisse.

And isn't it a bit odd that the UCI "reminded" Armstrong to pay the $100,000 voluntary donation four years later?

Not in the world of non-profit fund raising it is not.

And remember, the same side that is accusing the UCI of accepting bribes and not being capable of providing evidence to exonerate itself is the same side that thinks the Vrijman Report was fraud as well.

So the best question to ask is how does someone prove or disprove what happened?

The UCI has documents, though a CoI may lead to them hiding some.

Landis said Armstrong did.

Armstrong says he didn't.

 

[Anonymous]

Another wonderful contribution to the discussion. No need worrying about the facts if the UCI issue and letting them determine truth, doping is clearly about an emotion 'belief' rather than proof.

So the UCI should be responsible for determining whether they received a bribe? Maybe we should let BP be the one to do the actual reports on the Gulf spill?

The fact is that Armstrong is the only rider to ever donate to the UCI, he donated a significant sum for no real apparent reason, the UCI had to "remind" him to pay up, and he agreed to the "donation" in 2002. I would suggest that those FACTS are not all that positive a thing for the UCI. But I can see how a fanboy with his head stuffed up his *** would see it differently.

 

[JPM London]

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

The part I really like is:

McQuaid also revealed that he has asked the Canadian, Australian, Belgian and French national cycling federations to investigate the accusation made by Landis against Team Sky rider Michael Barry, Garmin-Transitions directeur sportif Matt White, RadioShack team manager Johan Bruyneel and BMC directeur sportif John Lelangue. McQuaid confirmed that Landis has also been placed under investigation by USA Cycling via USADA.

So, pretty much the only person he has not asked the national federations to look into is... Lance Armstrong.

Funny that... Well I guess since he did give that generous donation back in time, that surely is evidence he wouldn't dope anyway...

 

[Anonymous]

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

The part I really like is:


So, pretty much the only person he has not asked the national federations to look into is... Lance Armstrong.

Funny that... Well I guess since he did give that generous donation back in time, that surely is evidence he wouldn't dope anyway...

I wonder why he would even enlist the national federations he listed seeing that he believes the Landis accusations to be baseless ramblings of a mentally disturbed individual bent on dredging up the past so that cycling looks bad.

 

[JPM London]

So the UCI should be responsible for determining whether they received a bribe? Maybe we should let BP be the one to do the actual reports on the Gulf spill?

The fact is that Armstrong is the only rider to ever donate to the UCI, he donated a significant sum for no real apparent reason, the UCI had to "remind" him to pay up, and he agreed to the "donation" in 2002. I would suggest that those FACTS are not all that positive a thing for the UCI. But I can see how a fanboy with his head stuffed up his *** would see it differently.

I think the real reason for not paying up before his retirement was that UCI was going to buy a test machine with the money. Wouldn't have been too good if they had bought the machine while he was still riding, would it?

 

[drb716]

Hearsay is a legal term reserved for court proceedings.

Um, no, it's not.

 

[Oldman]

I am not too impressed with Roggues comments - as back in 2001 WADA had nothing to do with the UCI. All poitives went to the IOC & UCI, Verbruggen was President of the UCI and was a senior figure within the IOC and indeed he still is.

Schenk has spoken before about the 'special relationship' between Armstrong and the UCI. She raises a good point that the UCI need to show how much was paid by Armstrong and when.

Without reading the rest of the thread this seems like the most vulnerable and questionable of relationships (IOC, UCI). Schenk seemed careful in her skeptism with this response. WADA's got to be in a lather, somewhere.

 

[JPM London]

I wonder why he would even enlist the national federations he listed seeing that he believes the Landis accusations to be baseless ramblings of a mentally disturbed individual bent on dredging up the past so that cycling looks bad.

He probably asked them to "prove the insane allegations are completely untrue"...

 

[Oldman]

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

The part I really like is:


So, pretty much the only person he has not asked the national federations to look into is... Lance Armstrong.

Funny that... Well I guess since he did give that generous donation back in time, that surely is evidence he wouldn't dope anyway...

USA Cycling can't look too deep into LA's past without seeing reflections of alot of coaches, executives and sponsors. Much conflict of interest there.

 

[Anonymous]

I think the real reason for not paying up before his retirement was that UCI was going to buy a test machine with the money. Wouldn't have been too good if they had bought the machine while he was still riding, would it?

If he was just buying a machine, why not pay the exact amount that the machine cost? Why send them $100,000? I mean, I very seriously doubt that the "machine" cost EXACTLY $100,000. I mean, the money would have to be exchanged into the currency of the nation where the company that built the machine resides. Even if it was an American company that made the machine, the UCI would still have to covert the money to deposit it because they are not in the US. So why the exact amount of $100,000? I am thinking the money was not intended for any specific "machine."

 

[Anonymous]

He probably asked them to "prove the insane allegations are completely untrue"...

Exactly!!!!

 

[Anonymous]

Um, no, it's not.

Um, yes it is. Hearsay is not a term related to general conversation as it is only applicable to court proceedings. It is not applicable anywhere else because it is only in the admittance of testimony that Hearsay rules are germane. People can talk about "hearsay" all they want, but until a court is involved, it has only a rhetorical meaning.

 

[Kennf1]

This statement by McQuaid struck me as particularly bizarre:

"You have to consider that at the time, in 2002, no accusations against Lance Armstrong had been made. They've all came up since then. We accepted the donation to help develop the sport. We didn't think there's a conflict of interest. It's easy to say in hindsight what could or would have been done. You have to put yourself in the situation at the time."


Does McQuaid really not remember that in 2001 Armstrong and U.S. Postal were under investigation by the French, in part due to the medical waste found in the 2000 Tour (Actovegin, etc.). Armstrong threatened not to participate in the 2001 Tour. By July 2001, it was known that Armstrong was working with Dr. Ferrari. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/10/sports/10iht-dope_ed3_.html

 

[Anonymous]

This statement by McQuaid struck me as particularly bizarre:

"You have to consider that at the time, in 2002, no accusations against Lance Armstrong had been made. They've all came up since then. We accepted the donation to help develop the sport. We didn't think there's a conflict of interest. It's easy to say in hindsight what could or would have been done. You have to put yourself in the situation at the time."


Does McQuaid really not remember that in 2001 Armstrong and U.S. Postal were under investigation by the French, in part due to the medical waste found in the 2000 Tour (Actovegin, etc.). Armstrong threatened not to participate in the 2001 Tour. By July 2001, it was known that Armstrong was working with Dr. Ferrari. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/10/sports/10iht-dope_ed3_.html

Good catch. It is funny how everything that is coming out by Armstrong/Bruyneel/McQuaid/Lance's attorneys does not really paint the picture they want it to. It just makes what Landis said look better.

 

[flicker]

Um, yes it is. Hearsay is not a term related to general conversation as it is only applicable to court proceedings. It is not applicable anywhere else because it is only in the admittance of testimony that Hearsay rules are germane. People can talk about "hearsay" all they want, but until a court is involved, it has only a rhetorical meaning.

Please share this. Besides UCI and USA cycling which other cycling/anti doping agencies do you beleive are corrupt?

 

[djconnel]

If Armstrong got nothing other than favorable rhetoric from the UCI for his $100k, it was a good investment. Surely the donation generated goodwill which helped remove one thorn from his side in the war of words. It was hard enough dealing with ASO.

 

[BroDeal]

This statement by McQuaid struck me as particularly bizarre:

"You have to consider that at the time, in 2002, no accusations against Lance Armstrong had been made. They've all came up since then. We accepted the donation to help develop the sport. We didn't think there's a conflict of interest. It's easy to say in hindsight what could or would have been done. You have to put yourself in the situation at the time."


Does McQuaid really not remember that in 2001 Armstrong and U.S. Postal were under investigation by the French, in part due to the medical waste found in the 2000 Tour (Actovegin, etc.). Armstrong threatened not to participate in the 2001 Tour. By July 2001, it was known that Armstrong was working with Dr. Ferrari. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/10/sports/10iht-dope_ed3_.html

McQuaid is flat out lying. There has been a stink over Armstrong right from the beginning of his miraculous transformation.

It would not matter if Jesus were riding. Accepting an under the table payment from him would be inappropriate.

I don't believe McQuaid's story about the money being promised in 2002 and suddenly in 2005 the UCI decided to collect it. That makes no sense.

 

[santacruz]

It is possible that they're telling the truth, in that Armstrong was very keen that doper riders were caught after he had finished his own career. Dopers like Landis perhaps who might take his own glory away. That could be why he wanted the UCI to have this equipment for blood analysis.
Reply With Quote

They certainly don't need a donation from Armstrong to test peoples blood properly. However if he hired some amazing scientists to come up with some new tests to catch people better, that would sure be helpful. How much is Lance paying you to post on this forum, I need a job, did you get it from Austin Craigslist?

 

[Oldman]

If he was just buying a machine, why not pay the exact amount that the machine cost? Why send them $100,000? I mean, I very seriously doubt that the "machine" cost EXACTLY $100,000. I mean, the money would have to be exchanged into the currency of the nation where the company that built the machine resides. Even if it was an American company that made the machine, the UCI would still have to covert the money to deposit it because they are not in the US. So why the exact amount of $100,000? I am thinking the money was not intended for any specific "machine."

This will morph into "anti-doping initiative" or something fuzzier before the rhetoric settles. $100K buys alot of good will whether it's hardware or not.