Armstrong Under Criminal Investigation

Page 14 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
Bosco10 said:
I was just watching the Oprah interview again. She asks Lance if it was possible to win the TdF without doping. He answers no. Maybe Oprah should have asked if it was possible to place on the TdF podium without doping. That would have cornered Lance with his claim of being clean in 2009.
But, but, but, the UCI/Bio Pass says he was clean, Damsgaard says so and Anne Gripper says also...

Oops, forgot his ex - wife of course, Florence Nightengale herself.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Does anybody think or know if Hein and Pat are the only one's who hold the secrets? Does Gripper or Carpani (others??) culpable?

It's a little hard to believe Pat could be the only one involved if passport results were withheld from panelists and interpretation.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Does anybody think or know if Hein and Pat are the only one's who hold the secrets? Does Gripper or Carpani (others??) culpable?

It's a little hard to believe Pat could be the only one involved if passport results were withheld from panelists and interpretation.

A conspiracy so vast and all-encompassing, kept secret for so long . . .
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
MarkvW said:
I'm not providing links to the obvious. Doping in the NFL is a huge open scandal.
Cool. Thanks for the hard-hitting well-researched dot-connecting.

More Mezmerizement (from) Mark. 3M.
 
Can someone help me understand how the blood passport is supposed to work?

From what I can gather, in the first instance the blood values are put through some computer analysis, and if they fall outside given parameters they are forwarded to an expert panel for extra scrutiny?

In addition, some randomly selected profiles are also scrutinised on a regular basis to check the operation? Does that sound right?

In Lance's case, from what I can gather, his profile was randomly scrutinised in May 2009, signed off as normal, and then at no point from then on triggered the computer model to flag for more scrutiny?

So my questions are:

- are all blood values scrutinised through the computer analysis as a matter of course, on an ongoing basis?
- if that's right, can anyone speculate why Lance's profile didn't ever trigger that after the Tour? (corruption? dodgy modelling? the profile wasn't that dodgy in the first place?)
- and if the answer to the first question is no - ie some passports don't even get checked by the computer - then, well, WTF?

The more you find out, the less you want to know. . .
 
Jan 22, 2011
403
0
9,280
Race Radio said:
Really? Do you have a link to this NFL scandal? It must be big news
Weeks ago while googling I saw an internet story that spoke of the biggest scandal in sports history....turned out to be the Manti Te'o imaginary GF story....

:eek:...........................................:eek:

Back to the NFL, the only scandal is that there is no scandal.
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
FitSsikS said:
Weeks ago while googling I saw an internet story that spoke of the biggest scandal in sports history....turned out to be the Manti Te'o imaginary GF story....

:eek:...........................................:eek:

Back to the NFL, the only scandal is that there is no scandal.
What has become of football.....imaginary girlfriends!!! Never had any of those when I was in high school. Or university. Or yesterday afternoon.
 
Jan 22, 2011
403
0
9,280
Fortyninefourteen said:
What has become of football.....imaginary girlfriends!!! Never had any of those when I was in high school. Or university. Or yesterday afternoon.
Back in the day, when it came to acquiring imaginary GFs, I could really hold my hold own.
 
Jun 9, 2009
140
0
0
MarkvW said:
I'm not providing links to the obvious. Doping in the NFL is a huge open scandal.
To quote one of my favorite movie lines, "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

"Scandal" denotes public outrage and attention. While I agree with your suspicion that there is widespread use of PEDs in the NFL, the public consternation simply isn't there. I believe this has everything to do with the way the league is manged.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
gjdavis60 said:
To quote one of my favorite movie lines, "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

"Scandal" denotes public outrage and attention. While I agree with your suspicion that there is widespread use of PEDs in the NFL, the public consternation simply isn't there. I believe this has everything to do with the way the league is manged.
You've taken the topic to its inevitable end--a discussion about the meaning of the word "scandal."

Anyway, I'm convinced that in the USA far more people are outraged by doping in the NFL than are outraged by doping in pro cycling. And I'm also convinced that in the USA doping in the NFL has been given far more attention over the years than doping in the European peloton. So I don't think my use of the term was unwarranted.
 
Jan 22, 2011
403
0
9,280
MarkvW said:
You've taken the topic to its inevitable end--a discussion about the meaning of the word "scandal."

Anyway, I'm convinced that in the USA far more people are outraged by doping in the NFL than are outraged by doping in pro cycling. And I'm also convinced that in the USA doping in the NFL has been given far more attention over the years than doping in the European peloton. So I don't think my use of the term was unwarranted.
I can't speak for Americans or NFL fans but it may be scandalous that they don't know or don't care about doping in the NFL.

Like some cycling fans who think a tour @ 42kph is waaaay better to watch than one completed at 38, some NFL fans think a football player that can bench 225lbs fifty times is better to watch than one who can only manage 25.
 
RownhamHill said:
Can someone help me understand how the blood passport is supposed to work?

From what I can gather, in the first instance the blood values are put through some computer analysis, and if they fall outside given parameters they are forwarded to an expert panel for extra scrutiny?
The way I read the story at Velonation, they confused the APMU and testing and mixed the term software into the confusion. I think the UCI likes the story that confusing though.

According to WADA documentation, the UCI tells the lab which samples to test. Those tests generate a bunch of documentation. That documentation is passed to the APMU. The APMU has some software to track all of this stuff. The APMU passes suspicious values and lab documentation off to experts.

The UCI's claim is the APMU was not managed by the UCI, so it would be the lab providing the APMU service on top of their testing service. This changed in 2012. Now the sports federation is the APMU. That's a wonderful opportunity to suppress positives.

RownhamHill said:
In Lance's case, from what I can gather, his profile was randomly scrutinised in May 2009, signed off as normal,
As I understand the WADA documentation, the non-suspicious test results means the APMU does not pass on the results to an expert. Why would they? Passing results to an expert generates meaningful costs. The anti-doping experts are not working for free.

RownhamHill said:
- are all blood values scrutinised through the computer analysis as a matter of course, on an ongoing basis?
No. Statistics is pretty good at establishing good-enough sample sizes such that one can be confident testing a small population as representative of the whole.


RownhamHill said:
can anyone speculate why Lance's profile didn't ever trigger that after the Tour? (corruption? dodgy modelling? the profile wasn't that dodgy in the first place?)
Here's where things get murky and IMHO that is intentional.
-If you are a smart doper, you higher a doctor who has figured out dosage and timing such that the athlete never tests positive. Floyd Landis states plainly that he and presumably other riders were examining their own blood to stay within some non-positive parameters.
-The UCI dicates who to test and what tests and they know which athlete codes match the athlete. Plenty of opportunities to lose some tests, not test for certain drugs as was done in the Giro, and probably many more clever ways to divert tests.

I posted some other boring details here:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1137882&postcount=295
 
Scott SoCal said:
Does anybody think or know if Hein and Pat are the only one's who hold the secrets? Does Gripper or Carpani (others??) culpable?

It's a little hard to believe Pat could be the only one involved if passport results were withheld from panelists and interpretation.
Some positives are handled swiftly with the rider vanishing from the elite peloton and others drag on, or stranger still, the UCI pursues sketchy cases for years, or figure out the swiftest penalty phase possible. That's the same kind of mystery.

How many at the UCI are watching out for the UCI's favored riders? We don't know. IMHO, this is still an ongoing practice, especially since APMU service are set to become the Federation's responsibility.

After reading WADA code and the UCI's explanation, the lab could match names to samples because the lab provided APMU service. Part of APMU services is generating a recommended test population by name. Historically, this explains how Contador's clen positive was leaked.

In light of their explanation and recent events, the riders on UCI's Index of Suspicion that scored similarly to Wonderboy are doping to Wonderboy levels.
 
MarkvW said:
I'm convinced that in the USA far more people are outraged by doping in the NFL than are outraged by doping in pro cycling.
I think because the NFL has a *much* bigger audience, any bit of doping controversy in the NFL is seen by many more people. Are many in that gigantic audience outraged? I don't think so. I think if they were, the anti-doping enforcement process would exist outside the sports league.

The NFL behaves in a stimulus-response manner just like the UCI. If an athlete health story gets out of control, they make a little change.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
I think because the NFL has a *much* bigger audience, any bit of doping controversy in the NFL is seen by many more people. Are many in that gigantic audience outraged? I don't think so. I think if they were, the anti-doping enforcement process would exist outside the sports league.

The NFL behaves in a stimulus-response manner just like the UCI. If an athlete health story gets out of control, they make a little change.
I think cycling gets so much control because the riders' union is pathetically weak. If the riders had a stronger union, then they could negotiate a lot of "due process" and privacy protections that would eviscerate the current antidoping model.

The NFLPA, on the other hand, is really strong and well funded. Antidoping procedures are always collectively bargained.
 
Jun 16, 2012
210
0
0
Ok, this thread is nominally about Lance and obstrution of justice investigation. Somehow we're mixing in the NFL so....I googled NFL and obstruction of justice - turns out Ray Lewis did a plea deal where he agreed to testify in a murder trial in return for dropping the murder charges against him. He also agreed to plead guilty to obstruction of justice.

Broader point here is, you may be able to cut a deal if you agree to testify against those who were being protected by your obstruction of justice.

Who will Lance give up? Phat still bends every action of the UC nothing to favor Lance's PR agenda - he and UC nothing must really need to stay on someone's good side.
 
Jun 9, 2009
140
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
The NFL behaves in a stimulus-response manner just like the UCI. If an athlete health story gets out of control, they make a little change.
Exactly. Except that the NFL manages its image effectively. As far as I know there is no widespread public interest in doping in the NFL as gauged by the number of new stories being produced on the topic.

What is making headlines and taking up copious print space is the controversy over head trauma where the NFL is currently under intense scrutiny. Much, much more than doping.

But this, too shall be managed and shall pass.
 
Jun 16, 2012
210
0
0
gjdavis60 said:
Exactly. Except that the NFL manages its image effectively. As far as I know there is no widespread public interest in doping in the NFL as gauged by the number of new stories being produced on the topic.

What is making headlines and taking up copious print space is the controversy over head trauma where the NFL is currently under intense scrutiny. Much, much more than doping.

But this, too shall be managed and shall pass.
It's much easier for the NFL to manage because they don't have a global media figure yelling "I'm clean, I'm clean, you doubters are all crap" for 10 years.
 
Jun 9, 2009
140
0
0
reginagold said:
It's much easier for the NFL to manage because they don't have a global media figure yelling "I'm clean, I'm clean, you doubters are all crap" for 10 years.
The NFL would eat Armstrong for breakfast. The owners would sacrifice him in a heartbeat if he threatened the brand.
 
Jun 16, 2012
210
0
0
gjdavis60 said:
The NFL would eat Armstrong for breakfast. The owners would sacrifice him in a heartbeat if he threatened the brand.
Indeed. I suppose it's easier for the NFL owners to throw dopers under the bus since the NFL owners aren't themselves a bunch of ex dopers.
 
Jun 9, 2009
140
0
0
reginagold said:
Indeed. I suppose it's easier for the NFL owners to throw dopers under the bus since the NFL owners aren't themselves a bunch of ex dopers.
Just my opinion, and sorry to go so OT ... the NFL understands its mission, its business, and its market, and its actions are consistent with that understanding. It protects its brand and the interests of its stakeholders. It provides a product of high quality that perennially satisfies its customers and attracts sponsors consistent with the image it wants to cultivate around the sport.

The UCI is managed incompetently at almost all levels and would not even be in business were it not for the cozy little monopoly it's managed to carve out in pro cycling. It holds the entire sport - riders, sponsors, organizers, and fans - hostage to its intransigence, corruption, greed, and astonishingly poor judgement. There could be no Lance Armstrong without the complicity of the UCI.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS