Anti doping world: not possible to cover up positive

[Dr. Maserati]

Maybe you should read you own sources.

"Bernhard Kohl has confirmed reports that his former manager Stefan Matschiner bribed anti-doping laboratories to analyze samples in order to determine how best to avoid a positive doping control."

Notice there is nothing in there that indicates bribing to cover up a positive after the fact.

As for pointing out that Verbruggen was in charge of the UCI, that does not even address what would be required to cover up a positive. So we are now saying that Verbruggen can order a cover up and no one in his, or any other organization including the IOC, would break because of this one super powerful individual?????

Does Verbruggen have the ability to completely and retroactively change the paper trail on dope tests? I would love to see the 'evidence' of that.

OK, please and at least try and address the points being made, and it would be nice to see you at least assume the people taking the time to discuss something in the forum know something about cycling.

I was addressing some of your comments that you made, like...

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."

Bought off?........... see underlined above.

As for hiding a positive - read Willy Voets book as he said the UCI hid the positive of Laurent Brochard in the World Championships.

What paperwork have you seen from the UCI?

As for me making assumptions - I have addressed your 'points', you obviously have never read the Vrijman report if you didn't know it was the UCI who leaked Lances doping forms.
Oh, and I am still awaiting the reply to the question about how many people were in the Hospital room.

 

[gree0232]

Part of Pound's departing statement: "Doping is organized, systematic, well-financed, well-researched cheating," Pound told the IOC annual meeting. "This is not going to go away by holding hands and having a zen thing and going ommmm."

Man, that guy is psychic or something.

As for obfuscation0232, he was reprimanded for his COMMENTS. Again, dishonesty is your native tongue.

Yeah, WADA was clearly not involved in the 1999 retests, and neither was LNDD

I see the trend is to apply the absolute letter of the law to every specific statement regarding Lance's guilt and then be as general and non-specific as possible when the rebuttal comes.

So to be clear, are you now saying that part of the massive cover up for doping is based on WADA and **** Pound NOT going after Armstrong and ... failing?

BY all means, please clarify, as that will be very, very easy to disprove.

It's called evidence instead of accussations.

One leads to convictions, the other doesn't.

One is how the system works, the other is not.

 

[gree0232]

I was addressing some of your comments that you made, like...

Bought off?........... see underlined above.

As for hiding a positive - read Willy Voets book as he said the UCI hid the positive of Laurent Brochard in the World Championships.

What paperwork have you seen from the UCI?

As for me making assumptions - I have addressed your 'points', you obviously have never read the Vrijman report if you didn't know it was the UCI who leaked Lances doping forms.
Oh, and I am still awaiting the reply to the question about how many people were in the Hospital room.

really, so Verbruggen is now involved the specific handleing of dope tests and the burying of paper work in order to hide a dope test from the rest of the UCI and the IOC?

I suppose that is with the realm of possibility, but it is extremely unlikely.

It is MUCH more probable that there was not LA positive in 2001 requiring a massive cover up that seems to shield only LA and no one else.

Could you please explain how this massive conspiracy is working for Lance but not Basso? Not Ullrich? Not Mancebo? Not Hamilton? Not DiLuca? etc. etc. etc.? (Oh Yeah, and not Floyd either - who is really just ****ed that he could not bribe away HIS positive?)

I would be very intereseted in this particular aspect of the conspiracy.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

really, so Verbruggen is now involved the specific handleing of dope tests and the burying of paper work in order to hide a dope test from the rest of the UCI and the IOC?

I suppose that is with the realm of possibility, but it is extremely unlikely.

It is MUCH more probable that there was not LA positive in 2001 requiring a massive cover up that seems to shield only LA and no one else.

Could you please explain how this massive conspiracy is working for Lance but not Basso? Not Ullrich? Not Mancebo? Not Hamilton? Not DiLuca? etc. etc. etc.? (Oh Yeah, and not Floyd either - who is really just ****ed that he could not bribe away HIS positive?)

I would be very intereseted in this particular aspect of the conspiracy.

Verbruggen, as President of the UCI was in charge, that is correct.

Yet again... facts are not your friend.

Basso, convicted by CONI - .
Ullrich, case still pending.
Mancebo, never even sanctioned!
Hamilton, yes, woohoo, the UCI.
Di Luca, woohoo 2 out of 5.

None of the above have been accused of bribery. None of those cases relate to 2001 when the UCI & IOC (see fotos in previous post) got notification.

Your increased use of CAPLOCKS has been noted.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

It is MUCH more probable that there was not LA positive in 2001 requiring a massive cover up that seems to shield only LA and no one else. Could you please explain how this massive conspiracy is working for Lance but not .....

Could you please point to posts where anyone apart from you suggests this is a "massive conspiracy."

 

[gree0232]

Verbruggen, as President of the UCI was in charge, that is correct.

Yet again... facts are not your friend.

Basso, convicted by CONI - .
Ullrich, case still pending.
Mancebo, never even sanctioned!
Hamilton, yes, woohoo, the UCI.
Di Luca, woohoo 2 out of 5.

None of the above have been accused of bribery. None of those cases relate to 2001 when the UCI & IOC (see fotos in previous post) got notification.

Your increased use of CAPLOCKS has been noted.

Let me see, four out of five are no longer riding, and it is pretty clear that Mancebo will never again ride for a Pro-Tour Team.

Then there is the next point, which is that the anti-doping effort is not JUST the UCI. As I have been saying, it is not JUST up to the UCI to catch these guys and the number of agencies involved is more than JUST the UCI.

So how do you cover them up? Or are thr croonies just going to argue with semantics rather than reality - as nothing you write above points to a vast conspiracy.

And for some reason, as the double standards continue, you seem to not care about the others being caught - as that somehow demonstrates the system is flawed????

How about making arelevant point to your vast cover up conspiracy?

 

[gree0232]

Could you please point to posts where anyone apart from you suggests this is a "massive conspiracy."

Yeah, the part where the UCI says it is not possible to cover up a positive test and others say, "yes it is."

So how to you bribe multiple officials? Multiple agencies? Deal with multiple political agendas and manage to skate through a doping 'positive' while other riders are getting nailed left and right - including Floyd?

How does that happen without a massive cover up and conspiracy?

And for the earlier thought, "its ust me and the tester," this is wrong. The guy that collects it does not test it, a WADA accredited lab tests it, and then reports the findings to agencies as appropriate. So if there is a positive out there .... there would be a paper trail - just like there was with Floyd.

It is really not as simple as paying Verbruggen $100,000 four years later (when he is no longer the President of the UCI) and making the entire thing go away.

It's simple logistics.

Not tti mention, in 1998 we had the Festina affair, we've had Marco Pentani bust the hemocrit level, etc., why would the 'system' not go after LA? What make LA more special than Marco? Or any other rider?

 

[cathulu]

Somebody please shut this fool down!

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, WADA was clearly not involved in the 1999 retests, and neither was LNDD

I see the trend is to apply the absolute letter of the law to every specific statement regarding Lance's guilt and then be as general and non-specific as possible when the rebuttal comes.

So to be clear, are you now saying that part of the massive cover up for doping is based on WADA and **** Pound NOT going after Armstrong and ... failing?

BY all means, please clarify, as that will be very, very easy to disprove.

It's called evidence instead of accussations.

One leads to convictions, the other doesn't.

One is how the system works, the other is not.

Um, all of that babble still does not alter the fact that Pound was not censured because of anything to do with the tests. He was censured because of his statements. You wouldn't know this because you don't really know or understand anything that is going on here. You are here to try to water down the discussion with lies and misinformation. Its cool though, it is so transparent that nobody takes you seriously. Keep up the bad work!

 

[Anonymous]

Modern Anti-Doping also gives us some reason for caution in our accussations.

For teh record the two men that I hold most accountable for the dping problem in cycling are Verbruggen, who turned a bllind eye to the problem, and Pound, who used innuendo and the press rather than solid science as his primary weapons in the anti-doping fight.

Now, both forced aside, anti-doping professionalized and de-politicized, and we are seeing results. Riders are targetted basedon suspicion, and legitimate positives are the result.

Two things:

1. At no point has the majority of the peloton tested positive.

2. There has been no changes in teh relative performances of the pelotons top riders. I.e. Contador still won the Tour, and Andy Schleck is still a hell of a rider despite the uptick in teh number of positives.

Curiously enough though, Sastre and Evans, both deomnstratably clean riders, were beaten soundly this year. Interesting.

Hey I found this in a thread from last year. Funny, you have changed your story a little bit since then. I would suggest that you now have as little credibility as you ascribe to Landis. You do seem to be spelling a little better these days though...

Toodles hypocrite!

 

[BikeCentric]

Greetard is still at it? My ignore list is reaching capacity.

 

[La Vie Claire]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-requests-investigations-into-landis-claims

...

And if, as the UCI is indicating (not Armstrong), this results in no charges will we finally be free of accussation and its corrupting influence in cycling?

Or will the magnitide of the conspiracy and cover up continue to grow? And to what point?

UCI is just setting up LA for exoneration. Pat McQuaid all but said FL was a psycho the other day. Now they're going to investigate this psycho? Actually, they're also investigating themselves. Can you guess the outcome?

Anyway, can't decide whether you're a shill or a chamois sniffer. Or both.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Let me see, four out of five are no longer riding, and it is pretty clear that Mancebo will never again ride for a Pro-Tour Team.

Then there is the next point, which is that the anti-doping effort is not JUST the UCI. As I have been saying, it is not JUST up to the UCI to catch these guys and the number of agencies involved is more than JUST the UCI.

So how do you cover them up? Or are thr croonies just going to argue with semantics rather than reality - as nothing you write above points to a vast conspiracy.

And for some reason, as the double standards continue, you seem to not care about the others being caught - as that somehow demonstrates the system is flawed????

How about making arelevant point to your vast cover up conspiracy?

Yet again you can't even get the basics right - 3 of 5 are currently riding, Basso & Mancebo.

You are the only one that is suggesting that the conspiracy has to be vast.

As for double standards, please look in the Valverde thread, the Vino thread or indeed most other dopers - you will find numerous comments from me on them to.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Somebody please shut this fool down!

This forum is open to people of all views, provided they are presented in a non-insulting manner.

If you disagree with someone, either respond to them politely or just skip over their postings.

Susan

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

1)Yeah, the part where the UCI says it is not possible to cover up a positive test and others say, "yes it is."
2) So how to you bribe multiple officials? Multiple agencies?
3) How does that happen without a massive cover up and conspiracy?
4) And for the earlier thought, "its ust me and the tester," this is wrong. The guy that collects it does not test it

1) Erm...it's just that the UCI has failed to give us a credible reason for why it's impossible. Also Pat is not exactly an independent observer.

2) Wouldn't know really. I've never tried it personally. You write as if you have a good working knowledge of the practicalities of corruption, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that's not the case

3) There are a number of scenarios that have been discussed. The simplest involve someone, with information linking an athletes name to the anonymous number, having direct contact with a lab analysts. Then the analyst knows that if certain samples test positive, they can call for a payment, BEFORE THEY RECORD THE RESULT ANYWHERE.

4) He doesn't. So he doesn't know what's in it. So he doesn't need to be bribed to make a positive A-sample result disappear does he?

an analyst at a WADA accredited lab tests it, and then reports the findings to his or her boss, who reports it to other agencies as appropriate. There would be a paper trail - just like there was with Floyd.

Fixed it for you. There would be a paper trail, as long as the analyst recorded the positive when they found it, and as long as their boss didn't decide to alter the Labs records

Like I said before, I'm far from convinced that a payoff to disappear a positive ever happened. I'm even less convinced that, if a payoff happened, it was a deposited into a UCI account at any time. But I don't think corruption can be ruled out from the information Pat has made available so far.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Is there an easy way to delete a double post

 

[RTMcFadden]

There would be a paper trail, as long as the analyst recorded the positive when they found it, and as long as their boss didn't decide to alter the Labs records.

From the Landis case, we know that chromatograms were deleted from the system. As such, hiding or altering a result is completely possible, as there are/were inadequate controls in place for that computerized system. Remember that testing for EPO is a manual process with no computerization. So, not reporting, or incorrectly reporting a result is not very difficult. In fact, I suspect it does happen on occassion. The question is do they have the requisite controls in place to catch it? And how susceptible are those controls to outside influence?

 

[hektoren]

Somebody please shut this fool down!

Or point out that he's got a great career in front of him at http://www.teamradioshack.us/teamradioshack-us-looking-for-writers/

 

[gree0232]

1) Erm...it's just that the UCI has failed to give us a credible reason for why it's impossible. Also Pat is not exactly an independent observer.

2) Wouldn't know really. I've never tried it personally. You write as if you have a good working knowledge of the practicalities of corruption, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that's not the case

3) There are a number of scenarios that have been discussed. The simplest involve someone, with information linking an athletes name to the anonymous number, having direct contact with a lab analysts. Then the analyst knows that if certain samples test positive, they can call for a payment, BEFORE THEY RECORD THE RESULT ANYWHERE.

4) He doesn't. So he doesn't know what's in it. So he doesn't need to be bribed to make a positive A-sample result disappear does he?



Fixed it for you. There would be a paper trail, as long as the analyst recorded the positive when they found it, and as long as their boss didn't decide to alter the Labs records

Like I said before, I'm far from convinced that a payoff to disappear a positive ever happened. I'm even less convinced that, if a payoff happened, it was a deposited into a UCI account at any time. But I don't think corruption can be ruled out from the information Pat has made available so far.

Yes, I do have a practical knowledge of corruption. Having workied in places like Iraq with security and police forces I have had to become pretty familiar both with how corruption is conducted and how to combat with both technology and in austere conditions.

But please take a look at cyclingnews headines today where UCI anti-dpoing experts come out with a different line that Pat McQauid, the UCI President, and then start asking yourself how exactly you bribe an institution like this with a singel bribe four years after the fact?

Again, as I am being called such creative things like greetard (wow, logic has been debunked with that!) that does not address the actuality of what it takes to cover up a doping positive.

I realize there are those out there that do not like Armstrong, but we do not change standards and legal procedure just to get someone we don't like. The system does not work that way, and it should not work that way.

So if you are so convinced, make a case. Provide some lkind of evidence. But so far I, and the system, are uunimpressed with childish insults and pointing out past UCI Presidents which now equates to doping.

And as you expand your trust when confronted, let's continue. We have the guy that collects, the rider who knows he is going to pop positive, the guys that tests it analymously and records the positive not knowing who it is and sends the stuff to multiple agencies, the guys who then check to see who was positive, the mutiple agencies who are then left wondering who is positive, and then wondering why is goes away when several of the institutions do not work for the UCI - all covered up with one payment four years later.

I have seen massive corruption close up, and to say that such a scenario is farsical is an understatement, particularly in a system of electronic documentation and movement of funds. If this is true, it should be very easy to prove in an advanced European system. Thus far, we have Floyd's 'overheard' comments to back it up.

I am glad to hear that thinking evidence rather than fantastical accusation should be the standard is ***.

Again, for the record, Lance may have doped, he may even have bribed, but based on what has come out - neither reaches anything like the standard for a conviction.

Anyone of you, please come on record and say you believe that Floyd is telling the entire truth. Step up, make it plain. Then we too can get into the specifics and ** edited by mod *** (and sick Sarah Palin on you).

 

[Kennf1]

I believe Floyd is telling the entire truth. Except maybe for that 2006 testosterone thing.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes, I do have a practical knowledge of corruption. Having workied in places like Iraq with security and police forces I have had to become pretty familiar both with how corruption is conducted and how to combat with both technology and in austere conditions.

But please take a look at cyclingnews headines today where UCI anti-dpoing experts come out with a different line that Pat McQauid, the UCI President, and then start asking yourself how exactly you bribe an institution like this with a singel bribe four years after the fact?

Again, as I am being called such creative things like greetard (wow, logic has been debunked with that!) that does not address the actuality of what it takes to cover up a doping positive.

I realize there are those out there that do not like Armstrong, but we do not change standards and legal procedure just to get someone we don't like. The system does not work that way, and it should not work that way.

So if you are so convinced, make a case. Provide some lkind of evidence. But so far I, and the system, are uunimpressed with childish insults and pointing out past UCI Presidents which now equates to doping.

Anyone of you, please come on record and say you believe that Floyd is telling the entire truth. Step up, make it plain.

This is not a Court of Law - we are not sanctioning people.

Interesting that you are upholding the integrity of Michael Ashenden (unfortunatley he was not around in 199 or 2001)

Here is what he said about Lance's EPO samples:

"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."

Do you believe Michael Ashenden is lying then and being honest now?
Make it plain.

 

[131313]

But please take a look at cyclingnews headines today where UCI anti-dpoing experts come out with a different line that Pat McQauid, the UCI President, and then start asking yourself how exactly you bribe an institution like this with a singel bribe four years after the fact?

who said it was a 'single bribe four years after the fact'? I believe it was much more than that. Here's just a little insight into the machine that controls US Cycling: http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-09-07/news/tour-de-farce/full

Remember this comment from Tyler Hamilton. It now rings pretty true:

I think it’s everywhere, but there is a mafia in cycling. That’s pretty much all I’ll say about it, I’ll probably get banned from a race if I say any more, but there is a mafia out there.


http://velonews.competitor.com/2008...a-and-life-on-rock-racing_84106#ixzz0p8gf9U8D

It's ridiculous to think that's it's impossible for doping positives to be covered up.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Yes, I do have a practical knowledge of corruption. Having workied in places like Iraq with security and police forces I have had to become pretty familiar both with how corruption is conducted and how to combat with both technology and in austere conditions.

While I may yet live to regret this, I'm going to have to agree with you on this one. In my previous post, I pointed out that there are/were not technological controls in place for this "system." The controls are instead reliant on people. So, if corruption is endemic in the institution, then it would be no big deal. After all, the UCI and WADA are part of the IOC, which to my knowledge, is one of the most corruption organizations known to man.

 

[Oldman]

Yes, I do have a practical knowledge of corruption. Having workied in places like Iraq with security and police forces I have had to become pretty familiar both with how corruption is conducted and how to combat with both technology and in austere conditions.

But please take a look at cyclingnews headines today where UCI anti-dpoing experts come out with a different line that Pat McQauid, the UCI President, and then start asking yourself how exactly you bribe an institution like this with a singel bribe four years after the fact?

Again, as I am being called such creative things like greetard (wow, logic has been debunked with that!) that does not address the actuality of what it takes to cover up a doping positive.

I realize there are those out there that do not like Armstrong, but we do not change standards and legal procedure just to get someone we don't like. The system does not work that way, and it should not work that way.

So if you are so convinced, make a case. Provide some lkind of evidence. But so far I, and the system, are uunimpressed with childish insults and pointing out past UCI Presidents which now equates to doping.

And as you expand your trust when confronted, let's continue. We have the guy that collects, the rider who knows he is going to pop positive, the guys that tests it analymously and records the positive not knowing who it is and sends the stuff to multiple agencies, the guys who then check to see who was positive, the mutiple agencies who are then left wondering who is positive, and then wondering why is goes away when several of the institutions do not work for the UCI - all covered up with one payment four years later.

I have seen massive corruption close up, and to say that such a scenario is farsical is an understatement, particularly in a system of electronic documentation and movement of funds. If this is true, it should be very easy to prove in an advanced European system. Thus far, we have Floyd's 'overheard' comments to back it up.

I am glad to hear that thinking evidence rather than fantastical accusation should be the standard is ***.

Again, for the record, Lance may have doped, he may even have bribed, but based on what has come out - neither reaches anything like the standard for a conviction.

Anyone of you, please come on record and say you believe that Floyd is telling the entire truth. Step up, make it plain. Then we too can get into the specifics and *** edited by mod *** (and sick Sarah Palin on you).

Go to this story to find out how it works. It takes a village to pull it off.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-09-07/news/tour-de-farce/full

 

[gree0232]

This is not a Court of Law - we are not sanctioning people.

Interesting that you are upholding the integrity of Michael Ashenden (unfortunatley he was not around in 199 or 2001)

Here is what he said about Lance's EPO samples:


Do you believe Michael Ashenden is lying then and being honest now?
Make it plain.

I am not asking you to sanction.

I am asking you to make a case that does not rely on one set of evidence and ignore the rebuttal evidence.

I am asking you to make a case that relies on some sort of objectivity, as opposed to the, "my opponent in a ***" model.

Saying Verbruggen was the UCI President in 2001, WOW, does not show us the feasibility of how someone would make a bribe that would cause a positive test to completely disappear.

"Well, we don't need standards! (But the retards you disagree with us do)", is not much a discussion.

And a simple fact from dealing with anti-corruption issues, the more people involved, the more agencies involved, the less likely it is for corruption to make something just go away.

Corruption works best when there is a single approving official, like a licensing office in government or a judge in a single case. It rarely, if ever, worls when multiple agencies are involved.

Quite frankly, of all the charges Flyod made, this one is the least likely to be true.