Anti doping world: not possible to cover up positive

[Dr. Maserati]

So, we can just argue possibilities and not probablities.

How about instead of the oft opined 'cover up', we actually take a minute to figure out what it would take to cover up a positive result.

1. The guy(s) that tested it have to be bought off, as they would be coming out now saying, "Yeah, there was 'one' positive during the '01 TdS? Funny."

2. Several officials in the UCI have to be bought of, including anti-doping administrators, regualr administrators with knowledge, and UCI leadership. The same UCI that brought down Ullrich and is gunning for Valverde was bought off because Armstrong is special?

3. WADA, who receives test results and has access to numbers of tests, etc. and is filed with guys gunning for Armstrong were all bought off. And then came out with the 1999 'positives' because they weren't boight off?

4. The Swiss federation and its various officials?

5. And of course, non-of these guys are breaking under the strain placed upon them by the sudden spot light.

And in the opposing side.

1. A conversation 'overheard' during a ride.

2. And the most massive $100,000 cover up the world has ever seen.

Again, not saying Lance rode clean, but if this what we are using to accuse him we are simply not even being close to either rational or reasonable in our standards.

This of course leaves out all the other guys that Landis accussed and for some reason no onw wants to acknowlegde. Levi, Oscar and his other buddies, GH, and friggin Alan Lim .... but we'll ignore these ones and focus on Lance. Why exactly? What is the point?

To answer your post:

1 - How would the scientist know what race it was? All sample are anonymous.

2 - Hein would know, Pat would know and do what Hein says. No-one else would know.
2a - Ullrich has not been 'brought down' by the UCI - his case from 2006! has not even been heard by the Swiss Fed - he is free to race tomorrow, just like your other example Valverde.

3 - WADA had nothing to do with the UCI until 2004.

4 - Swiss Feds had nothing to do with positives either, unless the rider was from Switzerland

5 - You must have missed Sylvia Schenks comments in 2005 - "There is obviously a strong relationship with Armstrong. The UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - to my knowledge $500,000."

As for your final point - most here are talking about the UCI being bribed by Lance because ..."Levi, Oscar and his other buddies, GH, and friggin Alan Lim" - have yet to be accused of bribing the UCI.

If it so concerns you that all of the above have been smeared in some way by Landis - why is it you only post about Lance??

 

[Pantani_lives]

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.

Yes, I remember the UCI was very reluctant to sign the WADA contract. They waited until one week before the 2004 Olympics or something.

 

[Kender]

pssst...don't stand there; the team sky is falling.

fixed for you

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

.... the International Cycling Union wishes to stress that none of the tests revealed the presence of EPO in the samples taken from riders at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. The UCI has all the documentation to prove this fact....

So no sign of EPO in an A sample. (but we only have the UCIs word for it )

If the lab records match the UCI claims, that means either there is no cover up, or Lab staff were involved in a cover up.

There is no middle ground, it's either blow up or blow over for the corruption allegations. Brings to mind this bit of gossip....

Also, purchasing a disappearing B sample or permission to add someone else's **** to the pot, is not a new fashion in cycling. So for anyone who thinks this part is all about a certain douchebag from texas....... it isnt!

 

[gree0232]

It is not all of the evidence that he doped. It isn't even close to all of the evidence he doped.

Again, you seem to think that money going from a rider to the UCI that has no clear purpose, nor has been thoroughly tracked by anyone including (if you read the testimony) the guy who paid the money isn't the least bit curious. Again, that sand hole your head lives in really covers your it quite well. I am undecided about this issue, but I would like to know more about the money the UCI received from Armstrong. It appears you would rather not. Fine.

Lastly you seem to talk singularly about Armstrong. Like most fanboys, your sense of irony leaves a bit to be desired.

So the guys that are taking all the accussations from Landis, and ignoring my last line entirely, are now accussing me of focusing solely on Lance Armstrong.

And I do love how the accussations just role.

WADA clearly leaked the results, and it was clearly WADA, **** Pound specifically, that lead the charge based on the positives. The end result was a cesure for **** Pound and for Lance .... nothing.

And the same thing for all the 'evidence' against Lance. For everything that has come out there has been a rebuttal and evidence presented in contrary. The Andreau's come out, and eight other people including Lance's doctor (and presemably the doctors records) say otherwise. What is a judge supposed to do? Go with his gut feeling rather than evidence?

ARE WE SUPPOSED TO PRETEND THAT ONLY ONE SIDE OF ISSUE IS VALID?

Should we accuse the UCI, WADA, the Swiss Cycling federation, JB, LA, and presumeably all the other US postal riders around Floyd and Lance during this race of a giant omerta and conspiracy without one shread of evidence based on an 'overheard conversation'?

Why is that reasonable?

Why is it reasonable to come in and post one comment after another about how LA is 'done', and then get cheekish when someone offers a rebuttal?

Again, I say the same thing, LA may be doped. However, I seriously doubt that GH, LL, Dace Z, and all the riders that Floyd accussed, plus the management of two teams (one with doping positives, one without) are all going to fall when there is not a shread of evidence to back up the claim. Maybe something will shake loose, but at this point, there is nothing.

And understand, as we pretend that the rest of the accussation simply did not happen and focus of Lance, what is the standard by which a rider is exonerated of a doping charge?

The system works, let is work. If Lance doped, he'll get nailed. If Floyd lied, he'll get nailed.

 

[gree0232]

To answer your post:

1 - How would the scientist know what race it was? All sample are anonymous.

What are the dayes of the Tour de Swiss? You think a Scientist cannot figure that out?

2 - Hein would know, Pat would know and do what Hein says. No-one else would know.

Really, there is NO ONE else in the UCI administration? NO one else deals with doping in the UCI, just the top two guys running the entire show by themselves? You may want to check that.

2a - Ullrich has not been 'brought down' by the UCI - his case from 2006! has not even been heard by the Swiss Fed - he is free to race tomorrow, just like your other example Valverde.

We'll see what happens is Ullrich tries to ride. And as you continue to ignore the full statement, the dropping of charges was based on his retirement. His blood was in the bag, and Valeverde is awaiting final adjudication. His Italian ban sticks. If Valverde beats it .... so what?

3 - WADA had nothing to do with the UCI until 2004.

Never said it did, WADA DID and does have a lot to do with anti-doping controls. As you see in the Press release.


The International Olympic Committee received a copy of all the reports for the positive analyses mentioned above. Furthermore, in 2001, all the analysis reports carried out at the Tour of Switzerland were sent to Swiss Olympic.

Since 1st January 2004, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) receives a copy of any analysis reports which show an abnormal result. WADA has not reported any abnormal analyses from any of its accredited laboratories that have not been duly dealt with by the UCI.

So the IOC and WADA, which would have access to this information from its accredited labs, have covered this up?

4 - Swiss Feds had nothing to do with positives either, unless the rider was from Switzerland

Yeah, the guys running the race would know nothing. Just like the TdF had no idea that Floyd tested positive.

5 - You must have missed Sylvia Schenks comments in 2005 - "There is obviously a strong relationship with Armstrong. The UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - to my knowledge $500,000."

Oh, another off the cuff remark, when all previous statements, and the President of the UCI indicate that it was $100,000. This amount was delcared far earlier and has been in the press for years .... but now it is a smokeing gun and had multiplied by five because Floyd accussed half the friggin universe? That's reasonable.

As for your final point - most here are talking about the UCI being bribed by Lance because ..."Levi, Oscar and his other buddies, GH, and friggin Alan Lim" - have yet to be accused of bribing the UCI.

Accussing them all of doping and covering it up was really the equivalent of a friendly hello?

If it so concerns you that all of the above have been smeared in some way by Landis - why is it you only post about Lance??

I do not see you posting anything above about anything other than Lance Armstrong. You have nothing but double standards, and when you lack evidence you come up with rather weak personal attacks.

Why am I posting about Lance? Because I am tired of seeing innuendo and accuation take the place of innocence until PROVEN guilty. No system can work that way. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

See above.

 

[Commissar]

So the guys that are taking all the accussations from Landis, and ignoring my last line entirely, are now accussing me of focusing solely on Lance Armstrong.

I think many of the haters will have more of a hole in their lives than the fanboys if Armstrong goes out of the picture. They need him more.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I think many of the haters will have more of a hole in their lives than the fanboys if Armstrong goes out of the picture. They need him more.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I think many of the haters will have more of a hole in their lives than the fanboys if Armstrong goes out of the picture. They need him more.

 

[tubularglue]

I like facts. lots being posted.

Lots of links to public information going on.

 

[red_flanders]

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.

Yeah. Like the difference between a $25,000, $100,000 or $500,000 check. I get those mixed up all the time. I don't care how much scratch Armstrong has, no one's stories match up, not even with their own stories recorded years ago.

They're lying. It's really that simple.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

What are the dayes of the Tour de Swiss? You think a Scientist cannot figure that out

Why are you assuming the samples are labeled with the date? (anyone know if they are??)

gree0232: Really, there is NO ONE else in the UCI administration?

Fair point, but the number of people who have access to the information that links the riders name with the test results has to be very small to protect the "blind."

gree0232: WADA DID and does have a lot to do with anti-doping controls. ..."Since 1st January 2004, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) receives a copy of any analysis reports which show an abnormal result".....

So how much involvement did WADA have in 2001?

gree0232: Yeah, the guys running the race would know nothing. Just like the TdF had no idea that Floyd tested positive.

There's a difference between being informed and being responsible for maintaining the records, or privy to the raw data from the Lab. TdS organisers are irrelevant.

gree0232: President of the UCI indicate that it was $100,000. This amount was delcared far earlier and has been in the press for years .... now it is a smokeing gun and had multiplied by five because Floyd accussed half the friggin universe?

What part of Schneck said $500,000 in 2005 don't you understand? .... and people moan if they think someone's timeline is a year off

gree0232: Accussing them all of doping and covering it up was really the equivalent of a friendly hello?

You do realise that Levi, Hincapie and Lim haven't come out and said it's all lies yet don't you? Who is the Oscar who was implicated? Is that the name of the bus driver?

 

[SpartacusRox]

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.

Personally I think that you should pull your head in with your 'fanboy' crap and just present a rational counter argument then maybe your posts wouldn't be deleted.

There will always be innuendo regarding the $100k and the UCI were incredibly stupid to accept it in the first place and even dumber to follow up with their later payment request. That being said, it is light years from there to proving the money was given as a form of bribe and you are dreaming if you think it will ever be linked to a bribe.

Like a few others on here I feel that the Swiss 'positive' has been revealed to be untrue. There will be many, including yourself that ascribe something sinister to this but on the evidence that has been presented that is the way it shapes up. On one side you have the UCI presenting an email trail showing there was no positive, and on the other side you have what??? Forum suspicion and innuendo? In any court of law, civil or criminal there is no case.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Why are you assuming the samples are labeled with the date? (anyone know if they are??)

gree0232: Really, there is NO ONE else in the UCI administration?

Fair point, but the number of people who have access to the information that links the riders name with the test results has to be very small to protect the "blind."

gree0232: WADA DID and does have a lot to do with anti-doping controls. ..."Since 1st January 2004, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) receives a copy of any analysis reports which show an abnormal result".....

So how much involvement did WADA have in 2001?

gree0232: Yeah, the guys running the race would know nothing. Just like the TdF had no idea that Floyd tested positive.

There's a difference between being informed and being responsible for maintaining the records, or privy to the raw data from the Lab. TdS organisers are irrelevant.

gree0232: President of the UCI indicate that it was $100,000. This amount was delcared far earlier and has been in the press for years .... now it is a smokeing gun and had multiplied by five because Floyd accussed half the friggin universe?

What part of Schneck said $500,000 in 2005 don't you understand? .... and people moan if they think someone's timeline is a year off

gree0232: Accussing them all of doping and covering it up was really the equivalent of a friendly hello?

You do realise that Levi, Hincapie and Lim haven't come out and said it's all lies yet don't you? Who is the Oscar who was implicated? Is that the name of the bus driver?

I think that you have to be careful here. If there was a positive it would have been reported by the lab, there can be no argument there. If the UCI is now saying that there was no positive reported at the 2001 TdS they are opening themselves up to rebuttal from the lab. I do not think they will do that.

There comes a point when allegations of a cover up become more unrealistic than the counter alternative. I think in the Swiss case at least this is the case. This of course is only one aspect of the allegations and does not render the rest untrue.

With regards to WADA. While it is true that they were not involved until 2004, the results were sent to the IOC. Given the close relationship WADA has with the IOC I am sure they would have been able to gain access to any positive tests should there have been any from 2001. Pound would have made it his mission to do so given the fact that Armstrong made him look like an idiot and he hates the uniballer. The fact that WADA are silent on the issue leads me to believe there was no positive test.

The $100k or $500k or whatever is a moot point because it will never be linked evidentially to a bribe. It will only ever be 'an unwise decision' as a point of law. I am sure it will forever be a bribe on the forums though!

 

[Anonymous]

Personally I think that you should pull your head in with your 'fanboy' crap and just present a rational counter argument then maybe your posts wouldn't be deleted.

There will always be innuendo regarding the $100k and the UCI were incredibly stupid to accept it in the first place and even dumber to follow up with their later payment request. That being said, it is light years from there to proving the money was given as a form of bribe and you are dreaming if you think it will ever be linked to a bribe.

Like a few others on here I feel that the Swiss 'positive' has been revealed to be untrue. There will be many, including yourself that ascribe something sinister to this but on the evidence that has been presented that is the way it shapes up. On one side you have the UCI presenting an email trail showing there was no positive, and on the other side you have what??? Forum suspicion and innuendo? In any court of law, civil or criminal there is no case.

You and Obfuscation0232 ascribe little significance to things that are still very much under investigation. I am hopeful, not overly so, that you will both be eating a significant amount of crow in the future. Your purpose here is to cast doubt. For what purpose? Who cares? You both have been shown to be factually inept. You both are transparently dishonest about those things that are in question. You both talk almost exclusively about Armstrong. You rate just slightly above BPC.

As for my edited posts, they were all pictures that said "Don't feed the trolls" except for one, and the other was an insult thrown after I was insulted.

As for the Swiss positive. I have said that I am not sure I believe it yet, but I do know that the payments to the UCI are very suspicious, and deserve more attention that just dropping it because the UCI has some emails.

 

[python]

I don’t understand why people take mcquaid’s statements as anything but a sophisticated pr.

in fact, it’s not difficult to make a positive doping test TOTALLY vanish.

ask this guy

he made dozens of positive tests disappear with all the records. no one knows what happened. I have heard the story from a very reliable source.

mcquaid spin has many holes artfully misdirecting and misguiding the reader.

why would uci appeal to the tour of switzerland having no positive tests records that were never declared positive by the…uci - the only body competent to declare a positive ?

why would mcquaid refer to no official positives when even an A sample positive or an "inconclusive" would technically suffice to validate floyd’s story ?

why would he not clarify if failing a half of a doping test (only an a sample not a&b=aaf) was necessary to communicate to ioc ?

why is it not possible that verbruggen got a call from a lab when the 1st suspicion arose and before the full positive declared ?

why would 5 wada labs be mentioned as having no record of their positives in 2001-03 when only lndd had the expertise to test for epo in 2001 - the year in question ?

why did he not explain that a diseased director of lndd (dr. Jacques de Ceaurriz) is no longer in position to shed real light ?

bottom line - if a record is removed early no one will see a copy.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

The fact that WADA are silent on the issue leads me to believe there was no positive test.

David Howman, WADA's director general, told Cycling Weekly in a statement: "As the independent international organisation responsible for monitoring the global fight against doping in sport, WADA has a responsibility to ensure that Floyd Landis's allegations are fully reviewed and that appropriate steps are taken to undertake that review and any subsequent action. WADA would need to have access to all relevant information. That is why we will liaise with USADA [United States Anti-Doping Agency] and other authorities with information and current appropriate jurisdiction."

"All the information available needs to be reviewed by WADA before any step may be taken. We are still at very early stages of this affair and first need to get to the heart of the issues raised."

 

[thehog]

Yeah. Like the difference between a $25,000, $100,000 or $500,000 check. I get those mixed up all the time. I don't care how much scratch Armstrong has, no one's stories match up, not even with their own stories recorded years ago.

They're lying. It's really that simple.

We like our credibility, we like it a lot.

 

[sublimit]

why would he not clarify if failing a half of a doping test (only an a sample not a&b=aaf) was necessary to communicate to ioc ?

Yes, more clarification required on A and B samples, He doesnt say specific A samples were clean..

Mcquaid is full of BS though so its difficult to take him seriously whatever he says.

 

[blackcat]

lolz Hog,

who talks like that. Unctious101

Yeah, f* eh, we like our credibility, cos no one else f*n does dats fo' sure

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

...He doesnt say specific A samples were clean...

"theInternational Cycling Union wishes to stress that none of the tests revealed the presence of EPO in the samples taken from riders at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. The UCI has all the documentation to prove this fact."

I read that as meaning none of the A or B sample tests were +ve.

 

[python]

read my post again...i thought i explained it's far from clear if ioc had to be informed about anything other than a full positive. 1/2 a positive is not positive.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

why is it not possible that verbruggen got a call from a lab when the 1st suspicion arose and before the full positive declared ?....bottom line - if a record is removed early no one will see a copy.

I'm thinking along the lines that I infer you imply by the above comments. I.E, a very senior UCI staff member having an ongoing arrangement with lab staff, so they get a call if an a sample goes +ve. Has to be senior staff because they have access to the rider/anonymous number info. Has to be direct arrangement otherwise too many people involved to be even remotely realistic....

Pondering the hypothetical scenario, in the absence of either useful data or an opinion on the likelihood of the corruption allegation having any substance, leads to the following thoughts....why wouldn't the UCI official pocket the bribe, instead of generously donating it to the UCI?....maybe the UCI accounts aren't the place to look for a deposit (I'd start with the lab staff personally)....maybe the donation was actually to influence some other decision...

Can't help noticing that Landis said Verbruggen was bribed, not the UCI was bribed..... 2nd hand conversation years ago tho, so who knows.....either way it's probably quite hard to prove even if it is true.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

read my post again...i thought i explained it's far from clear if ioc had to be informed about anything other than a full positive. 1/2 a positive is not positive.

I. understood. your. post.
I. do. not. agree. with. you.

 

[blackcat]

but 7 half positives, perhaps are crucial in the non-analytical judgements, which will be on balance of probabilities when all pieces of evidence, in aggregation, are analyzed.