Anti doping world: not possible to cover up positive

[nyghtcrawler]

Landis didn’t claim the UCI accepted a bribe to cover up a positive. He only relayed a story that Armstrong had told him on a training ride. Maybe Armstrong was big noting his importance to the young and then impressionable Landis. Landis only claim is that Armstrong told him the story not that the event took place. Either way you look at it Armstrong was either paying off the UCI for a positive test or messing with the mind of a young cyclist – ie stick with me, dope, I know people and you won’t get caught.

I think TheHog hit the nail on the head. You tell your mistress all sorts of un-truths so that if she ever tries to out you, she looks like a crazy woman who has made up things in her head, and you can cast doubt on all her claims. I've seen it happen before more than a few times.

 

[Oldman]

I think TheHog hit the nail on the head. You tell your mistress all sorts of un-truths so that if she ever tries to out you, she looks like a crazy woman who has made up things in her head, and you can cast doubt on all her claims. I've seen it happen before more than a few times.

That'll work until all the mistrisses get together and piece a real truth out the lies. That's the scenario we're seeing now.

 

[Kennf1]

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.

You mean you don't believe the date of the promise or the date of the payment?

If the promise was made in 2002 (regardless of when the payment was made), it makes Armstrong and the UCI look even worse, since that was the beginning of epo testing-- testing that was going to go forward with or without a donation from Armstrong for equipment.

 

[131313]

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....

And people are trying to paint Flandis as a raving lunatic?? That statement is from someone who appears to be completely deranged.

 

[santacruz]

This McQuaid statement is awesome

I was pleased to see that battle on the Zoncolan between Basso and Evans. They are superb riders who are 100% clean and give a great image for our sport."

Why on earth would he get behind a rider like Basso who just returned from a ban???

 

[Oldman]

This McQuaid statement is awesome



Why on earth would he get behind a rider like Basso who just returned from a ban???

Because his check cleared?

 

[pedaling squares]

Hearsay? What? Armstrong told him. He's the figure who apparently paid the money. How is that hearsay? Hearsay is if you hear 3rd hand.

Exactly. 'I saw this' and 'he told me that' is not hearsay. 'George told me that Lance said this' is hearsay. Which is only admissible in the court of public opinion but is often a trigger for further investigation. Floyd has chosen a smart path by only discussing things he witnessed personally.

 

[RTMcFadden]

You mean you don't believe the date of the promise or the date of the payment?

If the promise was made in 2002 (regardless of when the payment was made), it makes Armstrong and the UCI look even worse, since that was the beginning of epo testing-- testing that was going to go forward with or without a donation from Armstrong for equipment.

It was also before the advent (suggestion/formulation) of the Bio-Passport system. This machine does not test for EPO, as it only test for the parameters that are used for the Bio-Passport. This entire sceanrio doesn't seems to make sense.

 

[BroDeal]

You mean you don't believe the date of the promise or the date of the payment?

If the promise was made in 2002 (regardless of when the payment was made), it makes Armstrong and the UCI look even worse, since that was the beginning of epo testing-- testing that was going to go forward with or without a donation from Armstrong for equipment.

I don't believe any of the story. I just cannot see Armstrong promising to pay $100K and then three years later someone at the UCI deciding that maybe it was a good time to remind Armstrong to pay up. Why the delay? This story is fishier than the UCI's original story.

Also was there not a post a while back where someone here posted the cost of the machine they bought and it was in the $30K range.

 

[Barrus]

Let us all assume what the UCI now states is completely true, that they have investigated the matter and that there is no possibility for a positive to have been covered up concerning the Tour de Suisse of LA. I am not saying that this is the case, lord knows I have little understanding of that all and especially of what goes on behind the scenes, but lets assume this to be the case. Even so I do believe what the UCI did is really questionable. For an organization to be accused of corruption to investigate it themselves, with largely the same people in charge, or at least people with strong ties to those in charge at the time of the alleged corruption is a bad sign. Even if this investigation is done with the best of intentions, it will always mildly reek of a cover-up, the investigation can never be beyond question due to the conflict of interests the organization has. Had the UCI really been concerned with the allegations of Landis, the only viable option in my mind was to have an independent organization, or an overseeing body do the investigation. What they have done now surely does not take away the cloud that hangs above them, at least in my opinion.

 

[BroDeal]

It was also before the advent (suggestion/formulation) of the Bio-Passport system. This machine does not test for EPO, as it only test for the parameters that are used for the Bio-Passport. This entire sceanrio doesn't seems to make sense.

I thought the original story was that Armstrong bought the machine that was used to test for homologous blood transfusions.

 

[Tubeless]

This does not look good for UCI. Now the updated timing matches Landis' recollection - and his allegation that the money was to cover up something. If the joint LA-UCI objective was to fight doping via a new expensive blood tester, the proper way would have been for LA to purchase it, and donate the machine to the UCI - and disclose the whole deal for transparency's sake. Did McQuaid offer to show the receipt for the famous blood tester? Not mentioned.

McQuaid is tring to represent details of a deal made by his predecessor - e.g. he gave the impression in the Irish radio interview that he was unaware that the original donation "deal" did in fact take place in 2002. It raises the reasonable suspicion that there's more there than has been said. A private, oral-only deal whereby Verbruggen would quietly overlook a report on his desk at the UCI & IOC - and properly done in the name of anti-doping fight by the parties involved?

 

[rattler]

wasn't this thread started by a banned poster ??

or am i wrong here?
so......how did it end up getting all these replies ??

 

[BroDeal]

Let us all assume what the UCI now states is completely true, that they have investigated the matter and that there is no possibility for a positive to have been covered up concerning the Tour de Suisse of LA. I am not saying that this is the case, lord knows I have little understanding of that all and especially of what goes on behind the scenes, but lets assume this to be the case. Even so I do believe what the UCI did is really questionable. For an organization to be accused of corruption to investigate it themselves, with largely the same people in charge, or at least people with strong ties to those in charge at the time of the alleged corruption is a bad sign. Even if this investigation is done with the best of intentions, it will always mildly reek of a cover-up, the investigation can never be beyond question due to the conflict of interests the organization has. Had the UCI really been concerned with the allegations of Landis, the only viable option in my mind was to have an independent organization, or an overseeing body do the investigation. What they have done now surely does not take away the cloud that hangs above them, at least in my opinion.

Vrijman is probably suitable for the job.

 

[awal3207]

And people are trying to paint Flandis as a raving lunatic?? That statement is from someone who appears to be completely deranged.

He did get his lawyer or something to pose as a Greg LeMonds pedophile uncle. Thats is about as close to a raving lunatic as you can get. He also claims that his testosterone positive was an accident, whatever that means.

 

[santacruz]

Because his check cleared?

I lol'd

 

[Anonymous]

I thought the original story was that Armstrong bought the machine that was used to test for homologous blood transfusions.

And Armstrong has the nerve to say something about how Landis' story has changed, etc, etc, etc. Um, it seems to me that nobody seems to know the when, how much, or where of the money in question. Not one of them HAS THE SAME STORY.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

You forgot to somehow link it to cancer. Everything with Armstrong is linked to cancer because who could question a person with no hair and a tube stuck in their nose?

 

[awal3207]

People seem to getting all wound up about tiny details, often which make no difference to the premise of whether or not Lance doped. Its like argueing with your girlfriend when its that time of the month (sorry but its true). At the end of the day every excuse you give has holes in it and they always find them. Even when you are telling the truth. This is an event which happened 8 years ago. Try and get 3-4 of your friends to corroborate on anything that happened that long ago and their are bound to minor differences in the story.

 

[Oldman]

You forgot to somehow link it to cancer. Everything with Armstrong is linked to cancer because who could question a person with no hair and a tube stuck in their nose?

Maybe to prevent UCI employees from getting "cancer" or something like that. Unfortunately it looks like he gave them the bug instead of the cure.

 

[Anonymous]

Exactly. 'I saw this' and 'he told me that' is not hearsay. 'George told me that Lance said this' is hearsay. Which is only admissible in the court of public opinion but is often a trigger for further investigation. Floyd has chosen a smart path by only discussing things he witnessed personally.

Not trying to flame you at all. I went round and round with this several months back with another poster (I was arguing your position), and it is hearsay in terms of testimony. Unless he actually saw the act, it is hearsay. It is probably admissible hearsay because the accused can directly address the person who is making the statement, but it is considered hearsay none the less.

The real point is that Landis said these things in an email, to the people he knows, and to reporters. That isn't "hearsay." That is conversation. Hearsay only comes into play if he is speaking these things in a court of law.

 

[Barrus]

Vrijman is probably suitable for the job.

Jeah, the problem with that subject is for another topic, shall we, I would like to keep the man who was the subject of that investigation as far away as possible from this topic, mainly not to attract the rabid fanboys
I just want to focus on the alleged corruption of the UCI, which is much worse than any one man
But I myself was more thinking along the lines with an investigation under the supervision of the WADA or the IOC (sans Verbruggen), by someone hired by one of these organizations

 

[BroDeal]

I think one of the smelliest things about this is that the UCI's management committee was not told about the "donation." That just reeks of money being diverted to someone's pocket.

Also Armstrong himself in his SCA deposition was unable/unwilling to say how much money he gave and how often he gave it. That also reeks.

 

[Anonymous]

People seem to getting all wound up about tiny details, often which make no difference to the premise of whether or not Lance doped. Its like argueing with your girlfriend when its that time of the month (sorry but its true). At the end of the day every excuse you give has holes in it and they always find them. Even when you are telling the truth. This is an event which happened 8 years ago. Try and get 3-4 of your friends to corroborate on anything that happened that long ago and their are bound to minor differences in the story.

Its the tiny details that many times get the conviction or decision in a case. You keep digging that hole you put your head in every day and leave the more minute things to those of us who know what we are talking about.

 

[thehog]

This does not look good for UCI. Now the updated timing matches Landis' recollection - and his allegation that the money was to cover up something. If the joint LA-UCI objective was to fight doping via a new expensive blood tester, the proper way would have been for LA to purchase it, and donate the machine to the UCI - and disclose the whole deal for transparency's sake. Did McQuaid offer to show the receipt for the famous blood tester? Not mentioned.

McQuaid is tring to represent details of a deal made by his predecessor - e.g. he gave the impression in the Irish radio interview that he was unaware that the original donation "deal" did in fact take place in 2002. It raises the reasonable suspicion that there's more there than has been said. A private, oral-only deal whereby Verbruggen would quietly overlook a report on his desk at the UCI & IOC - and properly done in the name of anti-doping fight by the parties involved?

McQuaid left out one critical element in his statement.

That is the role of the national federation. In 2001 it was the responsibility of the federation to report the positive to the athlete and deal with the process of informing the analysis etc. Armstrong would have been informed by the his federation of the A sample positive. The TDS wouldn’t have known if there were any positives or not. To their record there were none because the positive disappeared by the non-testing of the B sample. If the national federation was able to explain away the positive the B sample would not be tested and thus end result is a negative test. This is what occurred at the 1996 US Olympic trails with many of the US track team. The only paper trial here will be either at the lab that an 1 A sample tested positive or the national federation level that they received a letter of the control and that one its athletes had tested positive.