At last! Common sense Prevails. UCI and WADA to blame says ex director!

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
What I have been saying: Blaming Armstrong and making him scapegoat for an era is leaving too much of the core problem unchallenged.


In black and white: The organisations knew and did nothing, so are unfit in their present form to run doping in cycling until they admit their own failings and take radical steps - including in my view - a cycling justice body independent of country DAs and UCI and outside the promotion of cycling, so that unhealthy pressures and conflicts of interest do not interfere with finding and sanctioning dopers.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-and-wada-blamed-for-anti-doping-failure

Those "meetings in camera about doping and armstrong" have a great deal of explaining to do! Heads should roll of everyone present.

But I doubt it.Like IOC, IAAF, FIFA in other sports - the organisations are petty power hungry fiefdoms run for the benefit of the executive not of the sport they serve, so somehow I do not expect any of them to fall on their swords, least of all that nasty ineffectual vindictive man McQuaid. Why is he still in office?
 
wow! i agree

wow i agree......control has been a joke it's as though uci don't want to catch

anyone...............and when they do 1st thought is 'can sanctions be

avoided?'

it seems to me that parameters in the bio passport are not precise enough

to avoid upsetting anyone and there are way too many tues

of course uci knew that armstrong was doping........i knew.............jeez

you could read about it in books!

but of course there is still no excuse for 'your lance' he was still the biggest

problem
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
mountainrman said:
What I have been saying: Blaming Armstrong and making him scapegoat for an era
Jeez.

After Festina, most teams were scared to dope. Armstrong along with Bruyneel and with the help of the UCI reintroduced the practice as standard.

Now if you can read past Armstrong, you will see at least 3 threads lamenting the failure of the UCI and calling for heads.

That you want somehow to distract from Armstrong's doping by continuously pointing to others failures in no way detracts from Armstrong huge influence on doping in the pleoton between 1999 -2005.

That you feel Armstrong has been made a scapegoat and bang on and on about it without posting about those who have suffered at his hands and paid Liars makes you the gilted fanboy that you reek off.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Jeez.

After Festina, most teams were scared to dope. Armstrong along with Bruyneel and with the help of the UCI reintroduced the practice as standard.

Now if you can read past Armstrong, you will see at least 3 threads lamenting the failure of the UCI and calling for heads.

That you want somehow to distract from Armstrong's doping by continuously pointing to others failures in no way detracts from Armstrong huge influence on doping in the pleoton between 1999 -2005.

That you feel Armstrong has been made a scapegoat and bang on and on about it without posting about those who have suffered at his hands and paid Liars makes you the gilted fanboy that you reek off.
Can't disagree with too much of this (save the fanbuy stuff, of course, doesn't help.)

But the thrust of B's argument here is sound - of course UCI should be gutted - but truth? Lance et al brought back doping as standard to a peleton that after Festina was actually, just possibly, on the verge of cleaning itself up - LA and expecially Bruyneel, robbed them of that chance.

It's why it is so f***ing vital that this later post-LA chance is not squandered.
 
Oct 8, 2012
237
1
0
Nope. That isn't common sense. UCI is to blame, not WADA. Talk of both being at fault is just a bunch of BS spin from an obvious Armstrong supporter trying to act with the deftness and guile to appear that he is a balanced voice. Nope. Not common sense at all.
 
Nov 9, 2012
2
0
0
martinvickers said:
Lance et al brought back doping as standard to a peleton that after Festina was actually, just possibly, on the verge of cleaning itself up - LA and expecially Bruyneel, robbed them of that chance.

saying this is a bit like saying that US Postal was running the most sophisticated doping scheme ever seen in sports
this statement is just not true and lacks perspective

a lot of people were continuing to dope after festina, as we have found out in 2006 with operacion puerto

in reality Johan Bruynel was just applying the ONCE recipe and Lance Armstrong did not really invent or create anything
 
Sep 30, 2009
306
0
0
_nm____ said:
saying this is a bit like saying that US Postal was running the most sophisticated doping scheme ever seen in sports
this statement is just not true and lacks perspective

a lot of people were continuing to dope after festina, as we have found out in 2006 with operacion puerto

in reality Johan Bruynel was just applying the ONCE recipe and Lance Armstrong did not really invent or create anything
People were doping after festina, that is true. The reason the US postal model was the most sophisticated is that it spanned two continents and it's tentacles had infiltrated the governing body all the way to the top. Being that extensive requires an extreme level of sophistication and corruption. They didn't create anything new, just took it to degrees never seen before in sporting history.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Big Daddy said:
Nope. That isn't common sense. UCI is to blame, not WADA. Talk of both being at fault is just a bunch of BS spin from an obvious Armstrong supporter trying to act with the deftness and guile to appear that he is a balanced voice. Nope. Not common sense at all.
Either one of them could have done what USADA did. They did not. Either one of them could have broken open Operation Puerto, they did not. Either one of them could have listened to Floyd, Jorg Jaksche, etc. and chose not too. Either one of them could have followed the money and found the Austrian Blood Bank, and demanded that riders names be immediately suspended, neither did.

In fact, as we know doping goes well beyond Cyling, one has to look at the paucity of WADA demands for investigations in other Olympic sports and question their intent?

Reinforcing failure will not clean up our sport.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
twothirds said:
People were doping after festina, that is true. The reason the US postal model was the most sophisticated is that it spanned two continents and it's tentacles had infiltrated the governing body all the way to the top. Being that extensive requires an extreme level of sophistication and corruption. They didn't create anything new, just took it to degrees never seen before in sporting history.
I doubt very seriously, given what happened with Operation Puerto, that what US Postal was doing was 'limited' to that team or in any way, special. That goes for statements from Tyler that implicate CSC, Phonak, and Levi, that implicate Gorelsteiner and Rabobank.

No, given what has come out, I doubt very seriously that US Postal was the only one doing this.

I do find it interesting that some posters, only recently screaming to get Lance are now stating that doping went away after Festina? Except for Postal? Silliness. To have such an opinion is to be willfully blind to everything that is coming out.

Its why Rabobank, given what happened with Rasmussen, and Levi's confession, saw the writing on the wall and left.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
mountainrman said:
What I have been saying: Blaming Armstrong and making him scapegoat for an era is leaving too much of the core problem unchallenged.


In black and white: The organisations knew and did nothing, so are unfit in their present form to run doping in cycling until they admit their own failings and take radical steps - including in my view - a cycling justice body independent of country DAs and UCI and outside the promotion of cycling, so that unhealthy pressures and conflicts of interest do not interfere with finding and sanctioning dopers.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-and-wada-blamed-for-anti-doping-failure

Those "meetings in camera about doping and armstrong" have a great deal of explaining to do! Heads should roll of everyone present.

But I doubt it.Like IOC, IAAF, FIFA in other sports - the organisations are petty power hungry fiefdoms run for the benefit of the executive not of the sport they serve, so somehow I do not expect any of them to fall on their swords, least of all that nasty ineffectual vindictive man McQuaid. Why is he still in office?
I would question some of the facts on which the former WADA employee is relying to form his opinion on the WADA soft attitude towards Armstrong.

UCI only signed up to WADA after the 2004 TdF and before the 2004 Athens Olympic Games.

The last two international federations of note to sign up, football (soccer) and cycling, were served with ultimatums that if they did not sign up to the Code their sports would be banished from the Olympics.

Armstrong only raced one season, 2005, under the WADA Code and then he retired giving a serve to the skeptical unfaithfull who did not believe in miracles.

During that period 2004/2005 and beyond WADA had made insistence to have WADA representation at UCI doping controls. Their presence was denied by UCI.

Armstrong only raced his usual few events in 2005 under the WADA code before retirement.

Any WADA meetings that were held after August 2005 where Armstrong was the subject of discussion would be in relation to the L'Equipe exposure of the 1999 B sample scientific retesting identities in August 2005 and the shameful Vrijman Report (May 2006) which was rebutted by WADA.
 
Jun 12, 2012
83
0
0
It's not a one or the other situation. It's more like corrupt politicians and crime bosses. Both will always exist, but acting in concert they can totally pervert a system. LA deserves much harsher treatment than his also-doped cohort because he was someone who sought to pervert the system, not merely to go along with it. I'm not sure of the OP's motivation, but it seems that s/he is trying to deflect from LA's actions in this regard.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Velodude said:
I would question some of the facts on which the former WADA employee is relying to form his opinion on the WADA soft attitude towards Armstrong.

UCI only signed up to WADA after the 2004 TdF and before the 2004 Athens Olympic Games.

The last two international federations of note to sign up, football (soccer) and cycling, were served with ultimatums that if they did not sign up to the Code their sports would be banished from the Olympics.

Armstrong only raced one season, 2005, under the WADA Code and then he retired giving a serve to the skeptical unfaithfull who did not believe in miracles.

During that period 2004/2005 and beyond WADA had made insistence to have WADA representation at UCI doping controls. Their presence was denied by UCI.

Armstrong only raced his usual few events in 2005 under the WADA code before retirement.

Any WADA meetings that were held after August 2005 where Armstrong was the subject of discussion would be in relation to the L'Equipe exposure of the 1999 B sample scientific retesting identities in August 2005 and the shameful Vrijman Report (May 2006) which was rebutted by WADA.
LA was not the only cyclist doping.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
gree0232 said:
LA was not the only cyclist doping.

But the linked CN article limelight is on Tex the Wonderboy.

Brief extract:

Garnier said that the reason no inquiry had been opened was due to of a lack “political willingness”. He added that he felt that the UCI knew that Armstrong was doping. “I remember having discussions at the UCI where a group of informed people were saying that the question wasn’t knowing if he was doping, but knowing which products he was using to dope himself…”

Garnier also alleged that his former employer, WADA, had protected Armstrong after 2005 by holding meetings about the American behind closed doors. “They made all of the directors leave the meetings and they continued as they say ‘in camera’, behind closed doors.” He added that the only people left in the meetings were “the members of the executive committee, WADA’s director general and WADA’s president.”
The bold "after 2005" refers to Armstrong's sabbatical.

He was not racing (until 2009) so any discussions would be relating to poignant issues of the time - 1999 EPO positives, Vrijman Report, its rebuttal and sensitive abnormal issues referred to below.

In June 2006 Armstrong wrote a strong letter of complaint to Jacques Rogge of the IOC against D1ck Pound requesting his dismissal. This letter was resolved between IOC and WADA in February 2007 as IOC had no jurisdiction over WADA. No doubt justified reasons to discuss "in camera" away from lower level WADA staff.

Also a WADA behind the doors private discussion may also be about the UCI defamation suit against Rich Pound commenced in March 2008 and settled in December 2009. Pound had left at end of 2007 but WADA would have been liable for his conduct in the course of his employment.

In all the above post 2005 events I would wager that the name "Armstrong" was continually raised ad nauseum.

Edit: Link to Armstrong's 8 page letter in June 2006requesting IOC to take action against Pound.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Bicycle tramp said:
It's not a one or the other situation. It's more like corrupt politicians and crime bosses. Both will always exist, but acting in concert they can totally pervert a system. LA deserves much harsher treatment than his also-doped cohort because he was someone who sought to pervert the system, not merely to go along with it. I'm not sure of the OP's motivation, but it seems that s/he is trying to deflect from LA's actions in this regard.
Bingo! It is his sole modus operandi.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
gree0232 said:
Either one of them could have done what USADA did. They did not. Either one of them could have broken open Operation Puerto, they did not. Either one of them could have listened to Floyd, Jorg Jaksche, etc. and chose not too. Either one of them could have followed the money and found the Austrian Blood Bank, and demanded that riders names be immediately suspended, neither did.

In fact, as we know doping goes well beyond Cyling, one has to look at the paucity of WADA demands for investigations in other Olympic sports and question their intent?

Reinforcing failure will not clean up our sport.
Agree.

The new omega pharma initiative under Bakala is also calling for a new independent doping body. The sport needs to listen to the few big sponsors who are still willing to out money in.

UCI has no credibility, and WADA has not much more.
 
Jul 26, 2012
524
0
0
Armstrong is a drop in the ocean as far as doping in sport goes.

The notion that he somehow single-handedly restarted doping in cycling, post-Festina, is faintly ridiculous. It is known from others, that Armstrong's endeavours, post-Festina, were at least partly motivated by his observation of an existing widespread practice in the peleton. USADA's use of hyperbole in its 'the most sophisticated etc' statement is just that, hyperbole - used for effect and very well at that, but it cannot by definition be true.

There is nothing in the OP's original post that is not supported by the facts.

WADA is a regulatory body with oversight. Whether they should have paid more attention to Armstrong at the time is a matter of opinion. I would imagine they are organisationally stretched in every direction.
 
Nov 9, 2012
2
0
0
twothirds said:
People were doping after festina, that is true. The reason the US postal model was the most sophisticated is that it spanned two continents and it's tentacles had infiltrated the governing body all the way to the top. Being that extensive requires an extreme level of sophistication and corruption. They didn't create anything new, just took it to degrees never seen before in sporting history.


What USADA have uncovered is a whole team doping. A whole team doping, we’ve seen that before with Marion Jones, Maurice Green, Tim Montgomery, Justin Gatlin, etc... At US Postal there was only one guy winning; with Jones, Green, Montgomery the whole team was winning.

What USADA have also uncovered is a supposedly covered-up positive test. A real doping positive cover up we’ve seen that before, with Carl Lewis. Judging by Jones, Green and Montgomery we get the picture that the entire team around Carl Lewis was also doped, and if they’ve tested positive their samples were destroyed, potentially by the IOC itself, like happened in 1984.

What else has USADA uncovered?
Advance warning of tests, intercontinental transport of doping products? None of this is the exclusive property of Lance Armstrong and he does not outdo anybody here either (Angel Heredia world-wide distribution of custom-made drugs; doctor Tilman Steinmeier nominating himself (or a friendly colleague) for the supervision of post-race doping controls and peeing in the sample bottle on behalf of certain riders).

when USADA calls this the “biggest drugs conspiracy ever” what they mean by that is: this is the “biggest doping conspiracy ever to be uncovered by an anti-doping agency”. Nothing more. Because there is nothing “bigger” about it.

my impression is more that cycling is the major scapegoat for doping in sports and it suits everybody for it to have something labelled as "the biggest doping scandal ever" hanging over its name. And it's become so ingrained that we're all following that logic without noticing
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
_nm____ said:
What USADA have uncovered is a whole team doping. A whole team doping, we’ve seen that before with Marion Jones, Maurice Green, Tim Montgomery, Justin Gatlin, etc... At US Postal there was only one guy winning; with Jones, Green, Montgomery the whole team was winning.

What USADA have also uncovered is a supposedly covered-up positive test. A real doping positive cover up we’ve seen that before, with Carl Lewis. Judging by Jones, Green and Montgomery we get the picture that the entire team around Carl Lewis was also doped, and if they’ve tested positive their samples were destroyed, potentially by the IOC itself, like happened in 1984.

What else has USADA uncovered?
Advance warning of tests, intercontinental transport of doping products? None of this is the exclusive property of Lance Armstrong and he does not outdo anybody here either (Angel Heredia world-wide distribution of custom-made drugs; doctor Tilman Steinmeier nominating himself (or a friendly colleague) for the supervision of post-race doping controls and peeing in the sample bottle on behalf of certain riders).

when USADA calls this the “biggest drugs conspiracy ever” what they mean by that is: this is the “biggest doping conspiracy ever to be uncovered by an anti-doping agency”. Nothing more. Because there is nothing “bigger” about it.

my impression is more that cycling is the major scapegoat for doping in sports and it suits everybody for it to have something labelled as "the biggest doping scandal ever" hanging over its name. And it's become so ingrained that we're all following that logic without noticing
USADA never called it the "biggest drugs conspiracy in cycling" so you spent a long time trying to disprove something that was never said.

Also - the examples you give Balco, Lewis etc all worked independently of each other - in the USPS case they were all there in one place which is why USADA actually called it "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen".
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
zebedee said:
Armstrong is a drop in the ocean as far as doping in sport goes.

The notion that he somehow single-handedly restarted doping in cycling, post-Festina, is faintly ridiculous. It is known from others, that Armstrong's endeavours, post-Festina, were at least partly motivated by his observation of an existing widespread practice in the peleton. USADA's use of hyperbole in its 'the most sophisticated etc' statement is just that, hyperbole - used for effect and very well at that, but it cannot by definition be true.

There is nothing in the OP's original post that is not supported by the facts.

WADA is a regulatory body with oversight. Whether they should have paid more attention to Armstrong at the time is a matter of opinion. I would imagine they are organisationally stretched in every direction.
interesting to read the history of wada and why it was brought into existence.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
There is another reason possible for the WADA upper echelon after the LA retirement in 2005 to exclude personnel below a certain level from meetings relating to discussions on Armstrong or one of his UCI associates.

This is the former WADA employee's gripe in the opening post that it appeared Armstrong was secretly being given preferential and beneficial treatment by WADA.

The BALCO investigation was hotting up in 2004 to its conclusion in mid 2005. Victor Conte was jailed in July 2005.

The investigation found that BALCO had a mole in WADA who was informing BALCO of any drug testing advances.

If WADA had not identified that BALCO mole then there would have been procedural changes to at least limit sensitive information that may be of monetary value to external interested parties.

The USPS/Discovery conspiracy was a criminal organization and being abreast of relevant intelligence would be expected.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY