Anti doping world: not possible to cover up positive

[gree0232]

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

Then I suggest you read the Virjman Report, the kind of independant examination that many are demanding go into Floyd's claims. And yet when this report was conducted and its findings released, they are flawed?

Why is that bashers always mention the one without the other.

And lets be clear how this whole thing works, as I have also been part of an anti-doping program in my own profession.

The dope test is the test.

A positive test is the proof. You test positive, you are guilty.

The only way you get out of it is to show that the test was improperly administered, or that the prescence of teh substance was accidental and unintentional.

The Virjman Report makes it very clear that the 1999 tests were conducted well outside established parameters. That means that are effectively not positives ACCORDING TO ESTABLISHED STANDARDS.

Again, we do not change standards simply because we do not like someone they apply to.

The same standard applied to Floyd. He went out to prove that the standard was not met and he failed. When he failed, he was stripped of his Tour victory.

Had proper standards been followed on Lance's samples, he to would have been found guilty - it didn't and therefor he isn't.

THAT is how the system works.

And remember, please ask yourself how it is that Lance is able to singularly beat the system? Is he a founding member of MENSA? Just smarter than the entire system and every other rider out there? Or, have the various agencies that have gone after Lance failed to produce convicing evidence of his doping?

Lance still rides.

 

[gree0232]

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.

And then think about the politics of the IOC. There are plenty within, **** Pound is not alone, who are as convinced that Lance is a doper as the most militant lance-hater on this forum.

What would happen if you were that guy that finally nailed Lance? You'd pretty much be Jesus in that community. How do you bribe that? How does 100K cover that up in multiple agencies? (Four years after the fact).

The corruption I have seen has usually been very quid pro quo, I give you this you give me that. The amount of money, effort, and thoroughness required to make a positiuve test go away is nothing short of astronomical.

Again, it is possible. Just not for 100K and not by just paying one man. If it were that easy, Floyd would not have had a problem making his 'issue' go away.

We we are essentially saying here is that Floyd is basically saying, "They liked you more than me Lance - boo hoo."

 

[Anonymous]

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.

You cannot prove a negative. It is impossible. Therefore, the burden of proof you require is nonsensical. Nobody can prove that any of the people charged didn't do what they are accused of doing. I know that principle cuts both directions, but your request is ludicrous.

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

Funny, your opinion of Verbruggen has changed in the last year. Also note that Dr M pointed out that the head of the IOC and UCI were the same person, thereby addressing your point that the head of both organizations could not have easily colluded. Considering it was one man that needed to do the collusion, it seems it would be pretty easy to do.

 

[Anonymous]

Then I suggest you read the Virjman Report, the kind of independant examination that many are demanding go into Floyd's claims. And yet when this report was conducted and its findings released, they are flawed?

Why is that bashers always mention the one without the other.

And lets be clear how this whole thing works, as I have also been part of an anti-doping program in my own profession.

The dope test is the test.

A positive test is the proof. You test positive, you are guilty.

The only way you get out of it is to show that the test was improperly administered, or that the prescence of teh substance was accidental and unintentional.

The Virjman Report makes it very clear that the 1999 tests were conducted well outside established parameters. That means that are effectively not positives ACCORDING TO ESTABLISHED STANDARDS.

Again, we do not change standards simply because we do not like someone they apply to.

The same standard applied to Floyd. He went out to prove that the standard was not met and he failed. When he failed, he was stripped of his Tour victory.

Had proper standards been followed on Lance's samples, he to would have been found guilty - it didn't and therefor he isn't.

THAT is how the system works.

And remember, please ask yourself how it is that Lance is able to singularly beat the system? Is he a founding member of MENSA? Just smarter than the entire system and every other rider out there? Or, have the various agencies that have gone after Lance failed to produce convicing evidence of his doping?

Lance still rides.

The funniest part is that you keep telling everyone to look at both sides. There is another side to the hack job that was produced by Virjman.

Here, let me help you with that:
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/wada_official_statement_vrijman_report.pdf

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

But again, your purpose is not to honestly assess anything. You are here to dilute the discussion with half truths at best and downright fabrication most of the time. *** edited by mod *** (

 

[gree0232]

You cannot prove a negative. It is impossible. Therefore, the burden of proof you require is nonsensical. Nobody can prove that any of the people charged didn't do what they are accused of doing. I know that principle cuts both directions, but your request is ludicrous.



Funny, your opinion of Verbruggen has changed in the last year. Also note that Dr M pointed out that the head of the IOC and UCI were the same person, thereby addressing your point that the head of both organizations could not have easily colluded. Considering it was one man that needed to do the collusion, it seems it would be pretty easy to do.

Really? So the entire process is nonsensical and we should just quit? In this case it is easy to look at what Floyd said, "Heh, there is a dope positive that was bribed away," and then look at the system and figure out whether that is probable. And the answer is a definitive NO.

Ergo, is we are going to hold the UCI, WADA, IOC as corrupt, we should probably not require more - because we don't like Lance.

And here is how evidence works.

Hein Verbuggen WAS the head of the UCI - he has not, and never was the President of the IOC.

In 2001, that was Jacques Rogge, and Samarach before him. Rogge remains the head of the IOC, and the lance donation never touched the IOC and went into the UCI general fund.

So what exactly did Lance bribe the IOC with? The WADA labratory with?

So, I think it is fairly easy to say that unless something other than an overheard conversation on a training ride five years comes out, that this is pure and utter BS - just like the UCI is saying (well, most of it anyway). (And of course, it is easy to bribe an organization into silence that the President cannot keep on message?)

 

[gree0232]

The funniest part is that you keep telling everyone to look at both sides. There is another side to the hack job that was produced by Virjman.

Here, let me help you with that:
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/wada_official_statement_vrijman_report.pdf

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

But again, your purpose is not to honestly assess anything. You are here to dilute the discussion with half truths at best and downright fabrication most of the time. To call you a "genius" is unfair as most of the mentally challenged people I have known were much more honest than are you.

*** edited by mod ***

READ BOTH, offer an opinion that is not based in conspiracy that explains why the Virjman Report is BS and why Lance is still riding.

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Anonymous]

*** edited by mod ***

READ BOTH, offer an opinion that is not based in conspiracy that explains why the Virjman Report is BS and why Lance is still riding.

*** edited by mod ***

*** edited by mod ***

Secondly, there is no conspiracy in the refutation presented by Ashenden. In fact, he dismantles the claims of Vrijman using that witchcraft voodoo stuff we call SCIENCE. Ooooooooo.....

 

[gree0232]

Funny, your opinion of Verbruggen has changed in the last year. Also note that Dr M pointed out that the head of the IOC and UCI were the same person, thereby addressing your point that the head of both organizations could not have easily colluded. Considering it was one man that needed to do the collusion, it seems it would be pretty easy to do.

Let me address this one specifically.

At no point, even in this thread, have I offered any opinions about Verbrugen. So thank you for the made of BS that has no bearing on this issue.

The specific point was demonstrating that Verbrugen as head of the UCI (not IOC) does not make it any more likely that you can simply make a positive go away. That does not explain how you bribe the guy collecying the pee, the guy conducting the test in a WADA acredited lab, who then reports the findings to mutiple agencies and are all bribed too .... because Verbrugen is the head of the UCI?

And my never stated opinion has changed?

That makes it all feasible.

And when I say, show me a method that this is feasible?

"Well, we don't need to! (or can't!)"

And that is why you fail.

Bye! I am off to ride my bike.

 

[gree0232]

You definitely are not a genius, a liar, but not a genius. However, the quotation mark goes after "genius" not "defense."

Secondly, there is no conspiracy in the refutation presented by Ashenden. In fact, he dismantles the claims of Vrijman using that witchcraft voodoo stuff we call SCIENCE. Ooooooooo.....

Well? Use some then.

Lance is still riding after six apparent positives .... why?

Try reading the report.

Yes, if you insult people, question their honor, that will make them feel bad and Lance guilty. That is how SCIENCE and the LEGAL SYSTEM works is it???

Bike beckons, and it is a wonderful day. Bye!

 

[Publicus]

Thanks, for the "your a genius defense."

READ BOTH, offer an opinion that is not based in conspiracy that explains why the Virjman Report is BS and why Lance is still riding.

THis is forum, not a spigget for your emotional accussations.

Isn't he still riding simply because the tests were conducted for research purposes and therefore could not form the basis of a sanction? That does not invalidate the test results. The lab did not have the riders identities at the time the tests were conducted, which, with respect to Armstrong, was only learned AFTER the tests were complete by some enterprising reporter who received Lance's indentification numbers at Lance's approval.

In short, there was never any intent to sanction any of the riders. That does not, in any way, invalidate the simple fact: six of Lance Armstrong's 1999 Tour de France samples contained synthetic EPO.

 

[Anonymous]

Really? So the entire process is nonsensical and we should just quit? In this case it is easy to look at what Floyd said, "Heh, there is a dope positive that was bribed away," and then look at the system and figure out whether that is probable. And the answer is a definitive NO.

Ergo, is we are going to hold the UCI, WADA, IOC as corrupt, we should probably not require more - because we don't like Lance.

And here is how evidence works.

Hein Verbuggen WAS the head of the UCI - he has not, and never was the President of the IOC.

In 2001, that was Jacques Rogge, and Samarach before him. Rogge remains the head of the IOC, and the lance donation never touched the IOC and went into the UCI general fund.

So what exactly did Lance bribe the IOC with? The WADA labratory with?

So, I think it is fairly easy to say that unless something other than an overheard conversation on a training ride five years comes out, that this is pure and utter BS - just like the UCI is saying (well, most of it anyway). (And of course, it is easy to bribe an organization into silence that the President cannot keep on message?)

I will grant you that a conversation on a ride made between to dope fiends does not a conspiracy make.

The problem here is that there is untraced money going from one of those dope fiends to the UCI. The IOC would not have been involved (as has been pointed out numerous times) until it went to the UCI. Is it possible that it was covered prior to reaching the IOC. Well, yea. Is it possible that the funny money was not really for lab equipment considering that the dope fiend doesn't even know what he was buying? Well, yea.

Also note that it has been shown that lab techs will take money for stuff. Is it possible that the lab techs could be corrupt? Well, yea. Is it possible that it would not take much for someone to get some money, and be told, "hey, if some pi$$ comes up hot (anyone's pi$$), give us a shout first before talking about it. Here is some money." Well, yea. Really easy. Would that process have to involve many people. No.

Again, this could all have been one lying dope fiend making claims to impress the new dope fiend on his team. I mean, the dope fiend in question really has not shown he is all that trustworthy. Heck, he cheated people out of money really early in his career, and then went on to lie about lots of things.

You can trust the dope fiend with much more to lose in this case. Me I am sticking with the one with very little to lose...or gain from this.

 

[Anonymous]

Well? Use some then.

Lance is still riding after six apparent positives .... why?

Try reading the report.

Yes, if you insult people, question their honor, that will make them feel bad and Lance guilty. That is how SCIENCE and the LEGAL SYSTEM works is it???

Bike beckons, and it is a wonderful day. Bye!

Because even if the samples were accepted by the UCI as containing EPO, they couldn't have sanctioned him because the test did not exist when he provided the samples. You really don't know anything about what you are writing about, do you? That is not an insult. That is just an observation. My bike is calling too. Toodles!

 

[Anonymous]

Let me address this one specifically.

At no point, even in this thread, have I offered any opinions about Verbrugen. So thank you for the made of BS that has no bearing on this issue.

Sorry, had to address this before leaving. You cannot tell the truth even when you are talking about yourself. So are you saying that this post was written by someone other than yourself? Because I found it by searching your posts. Here, let me post it again for you and everyone to see. Will you from now on admit that you are a liar at the beginning of each post?

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.

I don't know if you know this (because you don't seem to know much) but you can click that little arrow after the post heading and go straight to the original post. And unless you edited it (which I wouldn't put past a liar like yourself), it is easily found by anyone.

 

[python]

gree, i normally dont care nor bother to engage stupidity but yours is too special and over-sized to miss. pls, ask why and will oblige. it's a promise.

 

[bianchigirl]

The 99 retests were part of a testing protocol to try and improve on the existing EPO test - they were never intended to sanction any rider as the Vrijman report makes clear. What the Vrijman report does not address is the issue of whether the samples traced to Armstrong - through information released by a member of the UCI - contained EPO. That remains self evident. The fact that Vrijman was cavalier with the truth on a number of issues i.e. not being given access to LNDD when in fact he never even requested it must speak to the credibility of M. vrijman and his objectivity. The fact that he was also an old crony of Verbruggen's does not speak highly of his objectivity. The fact that Verbruggen and his countryman Rogge are members of one of the most corrupt organisations on the planet does not speak well of their credibility.

 

[Oldman]

The 99 retests were part of a testing protocol to try and improve on the existing EPO test - they were never intended to sanction any rider as the Vrijman report makes clear. What the Vrijman report does not address is the issue of whether the samples traced to Armstrong - through information released by a member of the UCI - contained EPO. That remains self evident. The fact that Vrijman was cavalier with the truth on a number of issues i.e. not being given access to LNDD when in fact he never even requested it must speak to the credibility of M. vrijman and his objectivity. The fact that he was also an old crony of Verbruggen's does not speak highly of his objectivity. The fact that Verbruggen and his countryman Rogge are members of one of the most corrupt organisations on the planet does not speak well of their credibility.

That's where gree's whole argument ignores the reality of Top Adminstrative corruption. Or, in the view of Rogge and Vergruggen; their desire to protect "their sports and governing bodies". gree ignores the temptation to profit from simply extorting promoters and venues that these Administrators control through their federations. Add to that the DS's of major teams and their direct demands on riders for both performance and a piece of the rider's "action" and the cycle goes around again. LA will survive outside of incareration but the system needs to be wrecked and rebuilt. Unfortunately the situation approaches the Afghani model facing Obama: the only capable authority appears to be the crooks you originally fought.

 

[gree0232]

Sorry, had to address this before leaving. You cannot tell the truth even when you are talking about yourself. So are you saying that this post was written by someone other than yourself? Because I found it by searching your posts. Here, let me post it again for you and everyone to see. Will you from now on admit that you are a liar at the beginning of each post?



I don't know if you know this (because you don't seem to know much) but you can click that little arrow after the post heading and go straight to the original post. And unless you edited it (which I wouldn't put past a liar like yourself), it is easily found by anyone.

Wow!

And that still doesn't maen Verburgen took a bribe does it?

Still doesn't make Verbrugen capable of squashing multiple agencies and reports in order to hide a positive does it?

Please tell me how that earlier statement in any way contradicts either of the above two statements.

and Pound, who used innuendo and the press rather than solid science as his primary weapons in the anti-doping fight. Why are you not addressing this part of it, and what the hell does the rest of the portion you bolded have to do with Verbrugen?

IN 1996 while Verburrgen was claiming there was no doping problem (while President of the UCI) did that prevent the Festina Affair? Does doing little to combat doping equate to the ability to quash a positive?

Do you understand why the IOC crated agencies like WADA now?

And that is the part that has always bothered me about the lancetards, you guys will parce over everything and everything,parcing ever statement looking for evil intent, hash anything as 'proof' even as you deny the ability to use evidence, and then foust it as something it clearly is not.

Like, "You are only writing about Lance ..... while we are too." Therefore Lance is guilty.

"You write a lot." Therefore what you say has no merit?

What you cannot do is make a case based on a similiar hasing of the avaiable evidence that leads to a reasonable conclusion that the UCI is taking bribes to cover up doping.

And that inability to make a case means you must attack people with emotional, deliberately twisted and inaccurate statements.

Instead of parsing my statements and looking for every minor inconsistancy, and managing only to prove that I mentioned Verbruggen a year ago - and not in a way that materially effects what I am saying now, and try making a acse out of the readily available information on the subject.

"Wow, Verbrugen could have done more," now equates to being a hypocrite when saying he does not have the power to quash a positive test.


*** edited by mod ***

 

[gree0232]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[gree0232]

That's where gree's whole argument ignores the reality of Top Adminstrative corruption. Or, in the view of Rogge and Vergruggen; their desire to protect "their sports and governing bodies". gree ignores the temptation to profit from simply extorting promoters and venues that these Administrators control through their federations. Add to that the DS's of major teams and their direct demands on riders for both performance and a piece of the rider's "action" and the cycle goes around again. LA will survive outside of incareration but the system needs to be wrecked and rebuilt. Unfortunately the situation approaches the Afghani model facing Obama: the only capable authority appears to be the crooks you originally fought.

OK, how does that equate to being able to quash a soping positive?

WADA, under **** Pound, releases positives in 2005, but having an actual positive they won't? Because everyone is corrupt.

Let me show you something slick, as someone who has been to those places like Afghanistan, you may want to check out the corruption index.

http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/gcb/2009

You may want to check out page 7 of the first link to see how the EU rates verses the places you compare it to.

Now lets be clear, I have worked with Italian Carabineri, French Gendarmie, German Police, and I have had to have a functional relationship with many of the EU's judicial systems as we have partnered to bring a system to places like .... Afghanistan!!! :clap:

So, in 1999 the French realize that doping is happening in a big way after the Festina Affair and have been making steady progress toward combating it. And two years later, Lance tests positive in a race just days before the TdF and the whole system is so corrupt that the entire thing is swept under the rug? You do see the French police out there arresting riders and busting up doping rings right?

And this is of course after Marco Pantani bust the hemo. level, and this massive corrupt system nailed Marco to the wall .... but not Lance. Why?

What is wrong with this?

" Between 2001 and 2003, only the Paris, Lausanne, Cologne, Barcelona and Madrid laboratories, commissioned by the UCI, detected the presence of EPO in the samples that had been entrusted to them for analysis. During this period, the first laboratory carried out three positive analyses for EPO, the second 18 and the three last laboratories one each. None of the samples concerned had been taken at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland.

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."

Please tell me how that system allows for six positives that year, but manages to misplace one?

Make a case that does not rely on speculative conspiracy and broad but undefinied corruption please.

Please explain to us all why we should put more stock in generally undefined claims of corruption then I should in the UCI information release, and the other agencies easy ability to dispute that information?

 

[Anonymous]

blah, blah, blah

Gotta tell ya', at this point, anything over two sentences from you goes unread. I read the bold text, but that is it.

Fact is that you lied, and I showed it to you, and you still cannot admit that you lied. I understand, you back the guys who lie and cannot bring themselves to tell the truth. Water seeks its own level.

The funniest part is that you continue to get beat like a Ted Haggard's penis every time you write something, and you still keep coming back. At this point, I will just tune out because you have nothing to say that isn't filled with lies and distortions.

Toodles!

 

[gree0232]

The 99 retests were part of a testing protocol to try and improve on the existing EPO test - they were never intended to sanction any rider as the Vrijman report makes clear. What the Vrijman report does not address is the issue of whether the samples traced to Armstrong - through information released by a member of the UCI - contained EPO. That remains self evident. The fact that Vrijman was cavalier with the truth on a number of issues i.e. not being given access to LNDD when in fact he never even requested it must speak to the credibility of M. vrijman and his objectivity. The fact that he was also an old crony of Verbruggen's does not speak highly of his objectivity. The fact that Verbruggen and his countryman Rogge are members of one of the most corrupt organisations on the planet does not speak well of their credibility.

Well, here is some of the wording from the report.

"The World Anti-Doping Agency has claimed a number of times that the samples were tested as part of a study intended to better calibrate the EPO test. That study has not been published. As a result, however, the samples were handled differently, and tests were performed differently than they would have been for doping controls (quoting Dr. De Ceaurriz, head of the LNDD, the lab involved, section 4.16, page 59):"

In other words, they were deliberately targeting a rider. That casts much more doubt on the veracity of those tests then does a lawyers relationship with the UCI.

More evidence.

"WADA further spent six months twisting the lab's arm, until they finally provided the results with “additional information;” specifically the code numbers, which could be tied back to the rider through the doping control sheets. The lab consented to this only with agreement that the results would be kept confidential and that they could not be used as the basis for disciplinary action. The day after the final report, including the code numbers, was sent to WADA and the French Ministry for Sport, the L'Equipe story was published."

"The report suggests very strongly that WADA chose to urinate all over its own WADA Code (PDF link) in order to plant suspicion that Lance Armstrong doped. It did this even with the foreknowledge that the “evidence” thus generated rose barely above the level of innuendo, and couldn't be used as evidence in a real doping inquiry. That's pretty much the definition of a smear campaign."

And rememeber, this same organization is now apparently part of a massive cover up to prevent a Lance positive from being released. Wonderful.

 

[gree0232]

Gotta tell ya', at this point, anything over two sentences from you goes unread. I read the bold text, but that is it.

Fact is that you lied, and I showed it to you, and you still cannot admit that you lied. I understand, you back the guys who lie and cannot bring themselves to tell the truth. Water seeks its own level.

The funniest part is that you continue to get beat like a Ted Haggard's penis every time you write something, and you still keep coming back. At this point, I will just tune out because you have nothing to say that isn't filled with lies and distortions.

Toodles!

Fact is you make inaccurate, emotive statements, and still haven't managed to prove that my opinion shifted on Verbrugen.

The fact is that you managed to prove that I mentioned Verbrugen, not that my opinion has shifted. And then there is the logical portion of extrapolating that into EVERYTHING you say is a LIE - when it really means, that I cannot get around the evidence presented so I must make hash out of nothing. And that logicl trap is why YOU will never get Lance on anything.

Again he could be doped to the heels, proving I mentioned Verbrugen does not a case for you build.


*** edited by mod ***

 

[Anonymous]

Well, here is some of the wording from the report.

"The World Anti-Doping Agency has claimed a number of times that the samples were tested as part of a study intended to better calibrate the EPO test. That study has not been published. As a result, however, the samples were handled differently, and tests were performed differently than they would have been for doping controls (quoting Dr. De Ceaurriz, head of the LNDD, the lab involved, section 4.16, page 59):"

In other words, they were deliberately targeting a rider. That casts much more doubt on the veracity of those tests then does a lawyers relationship with the UCI.

More evidence.

"WADA further spent six months twisting the lab's arm, until they finally provided the results with “additional information;” specifically the code numbers, which could be tied back to the rider through the doping control sheets. The lab consented to this only with agreement that the results would be kept confidential and that they could not be used as the basis for disciplinary action. The day after the final report, including the code numbers, was sent to WADA and the French Ministry for Sport, the L'Equipe story was published."

"The report suggests very strongly that WADA chose to urinate all over its own WADA Code (PDF link) in order to plant suspicion that Lance Armstrong doped. It did this even with the foreknowledge that the “evidence” thus generated rose barely above the level of innuendo, and couldn't be used as evidence in a real doping inquiry. That's pretty much the definition of a smear campaign."

And rememeber, this same organization is now apparently part of a massive cover up to prevent a Lance positive from being released. Wonderful.

Why do you keep lying. Please explain IN DETAIL how WADA would have been involved in a bribe in 2001. Go ahead, I want to see the gymnastics you have to perform to show that anyone is saying that. You would certainly prove you have the flexibility to stick your head up your a$$ (which we all know you are capable of) by showing how anyone is making that link now, or how they would have been complicit at that specific date. And don't tell me about when they were formed, etc, I know their history (you apparently don't). Please, do tell.
*** edited by mod ***

 

[Anonymous]

fact is you make inaccurate, emotive statements, and still haven't managed to prove that my opinion shifted on Verbrugen.

Nor can you actually make a case to support your tin foil hat conspriacy. Nor does any rational human being with a brain think that cyclist are covicted of doping by parsing year old posts on the forum.

Short enough for you?

And, since you like dicks, have fun at your conspiracy party, as we can both engage in personal insults. Hope you enjoy getting what you give! (pun very much intended).

Hey obfuscation0232, your statement was:

Let me address this one specifically.

At no point, even in this thread, have I offered any opinions about Verbrugen. So thank you for the made of BS that has no bearing on this issue.

then I showed you this:

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

Then you claim he is the scourge of cycling's continued doping. Now he couldn't have possibly done anything like that.

As for me liking schlongs, why are you looking for a date? You aren't my type because with your level of denial, you are surely one of those uptight closet queens, and I like my men more open.

 

[gree0232]

Why do you keep lying. Please explain IN DETAIL how WADA would have been involved in a bribe in 2001. Go ahead, I want to see the gymnastics you have to perform to show that anyone is saying that. You would certainly prove you have the flexibility to stick your head up your a$$ (which we all know you are capable of) by showing how anyone is making that link now, or how they would have been complicit at that specific date. And don't tell me about when they were formed, etc, I know their history (you apparently don't). Please, do tell. Then after you distort and lie through that post, I am going to put you on ignore. You are nothing more than a troll, but I am interested in seeing you take the time to post about that subject.

bere is an easy verifiable source for you: Wikipedia. I have gone further, but I figured I would give you the ons that aare easiest to read first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Anti-Doping_Agency

"It was set up on November 10, 1999 in Lausanne, Switzerland" Hmmmm..... 1999 - and a positive test in 2001.

As per the earlier UCI press release, all adverse findings are reported to the UCI, WADA, and the IOC. The WADA accredited lab (which apparently accredidation includes facilitating bribes) does not know who tests positive and simply passes on the findings, who are matched to the code --- by other agencies.

So please tell me which lab is analyzing the tests from the ToS and fiding a positive for someone they don't know and then passing it along ..... and not say, "Wait a minute here!" Now.