• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Doping inspector backs Armstrong

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
CentralCaliBike said:
It seems to me that both sides of the argument are only interested in reading the articles that appear to back their preconceived ideas re: Armstrong and doping. Whenever either side reads something they do not agree with they immediately attack the author, and anyone who suggests the article should be considered, as somehow immoral purveyors of falsehood.

You are correct that the debate here has been colored by the Astana/Armstrong issue.

To me it makes no difference - no rider or team should be allowed delay a test by 45 minutes, the controllers should always store the samples at the correct temperature and should not give advance warnings to riders.
I don't believe many here would be defending the UCIs professionalism if it was the Euskaltel-Euskadi team.
 

Sprocket01

BANNED
Oct 5, 2009
525
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
You are correct that the debate here has been colored by the Astana/Armstrong issue.

To me it makes no difference - no rider or team should be allowed delay a test by 45 minutes, the controllers should always store the samples at the correct temperature and should not give advance warnings to riders.
I don't believe many here would be defending the UCIs professionalism if it was the Euskaltel-Euskadi team.

You're forgetting that the reason inspectors may have been held up is precisely because they were turning up a times that they weren't doing for anybody else, and therefore it is a hell of a lot more understandable.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sprocket01 said:
You're forgetting that the reason inspectors may have been held up is precisely because they were turning up a times that they weren't doing for anybody else, and therefore it is a hell of a lot more understandable.

You mean to, um, surprise the riders? Now that's below the belt.
 
Aug 25, 2009
397
0
0
Visit site
CentralCaliBike said:
It seems to me that both sides of the argument are only interested in reading the articles that appear to back their preconceived ideas re: Armstrong and doping. Whenever either side reads something they do not agree with they immediately attack the author, and anyone who suggests the article should be considered, as somehow immoral purveyors of falsehood.

Agree. The employee of the UCI line was rich, given that any spokesman on either side is probably an employee. Having said that, it is true none of the specific allegations were addressed.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Sprocket01 said:
You're forgetting that the reason inspectors may have been held up is precisely because they were turning up a times that they weren't doing for anybody else, and therefore it is a hell of a lot more understandable.

You appear to be forgetting that ALL riders and teams are subject to the same rules.
 
Jul 28, 2009
898
0
0
Visit site
Scott SoCal said:
Either AFLD or UCI is not being truthful;

Excessive use of the word truth leads to mental ossification. They might both be "truthful" since it is usually merely a matter of perception. Clearly the two organisations are butting heads. The AFLD doesn't like the way the UCI anti-dopers operate and the UCI thinks they don't know what they're talking about. Anyone with experience of the real world knows that when stuff goes wrong 99% of the time it's through confusion, misunderstanding, laziness or incompetence. Some kind of malevolence or cunning plot is hardly ever involved. Maybe the AFLD are gung ho and don't like the more genteel approach of the UCI, who really knows what undercurrents there are?
 

Bagster

BANNED
Jun 23, 2009
290
0
0
Visit site
rata de sentina said:
Excessive use of the word truth leads to mental ossification. They might both be "truthful" since it is usually merely a matter of perception. Clearly the two organisations are butting heads. The AFLD doesn't like the way the UCI anti-dopers operate and the UCI thinks they don't know what they're talking about. Anyone with experience of the real world knows that when stuff goes wrong 99% of the time it's through confusion, misunderstanding, laziness or incompetence. Some kind of malevolence or cunning plot is hardly ever involved. Maybe the AFLD are gung ho and don't like the more genteel approach of the UCI, who really knows what undercurrents there are?

An eminently sensible observation and one that is probably close to reality. The only problem though is that it will not find favour with the conspiracy theorists on here who tend to have rather thick blinkers on.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Scott SoCal said:

Firstly -this is actually what Bordry said: "The way the UCI organized the controls was not quite in accordance with the regulations."

1.....At the Worlds PMcQ said this about CONI -
McQuaid said: "We've been dealing with CONI for a very long time and it's true they're not the easiest body to deal with.(But) we don't have all the documents (from CONI), and we don't know precisely on what basis they have decided to ban Valverde, so we're not in a position to make any decision regarding him."

This is what CONI President Petrucci replied in a statement: "I agree we're not easy to deal with because we take our job seriously, and and apply the rules of WADA, and Italian law, with extreme rigour."

It is not only the AFLD that has issue with the UCI.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rata de sentina said:
Excessive use of the word truth leads to mental ossification. They might both be "truthful" since it is usually merely a matter of perception. Clearly the two organisations are butting heads. The AFLD doesn't like the way the UCI anti-dopers operate and the UCI thinks they don't know what they're talking about. Anyone with experience of the real world knows that when stuff goes wrong 99% of the time it's through confusion, misunderstanding, laziness or incompetence. Some kind of malevolence or cunning plot is hardly ever involved. Maybe the AFLD are gung ho and don't like the more genteel approach of the UCI, who really knows what undercurrents there are?

I think you are correct. Perhaps 'truthful' was a poor word choice. It is odd, and I think can not be explained by 'perception' alone, that the two representatives (UCI and AFLD), working together at least part of the time, tell stories that are polar opposites.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Bagster said:
An eminently sensible observation and one that is probably close to reality. The only problem though is that it will not find favour with the conspiracy theorists on here who tend to have rather thick blinkers on.
I agree with RdS, I don't think there is a big conspiracy at work - although you correctly highlight the fact that one of the members of the team that benefited from the testing delays contributed a six figure sum to the same organization that did the test - good point.

I just believe the UCI are once again shown to be unprofessional in carrying out their duties.

But this whole saga highlights the bigger problem - no sporting authority should be conducting the anti-doping test of their own sport.
 
progressor said:
Agree. The employee of the UCI line was rich, given that any spokesman on either side is probably an employee. Having said that, it is true none of the specific allegations were addressed.

Clearly you missed my point - go back and read it again. I belittled the fact the original poster was siezing onto the UCI employee's PR line and dismissing the allegations made by the AFLD, then went on to state that the main issue here is that we've got two organizations with a completely opposite take on what happenned at the Tour. This is cause for concern - because if everything truly was fine (i.e. nothing happened) then neither of them would be talking about it publicly! Do you get it now? I didn't think so.
 
Aug 25, 2009
397
0
0
Visit site
BikeCentric said:
Clearly you missed my point - go back and read it again. I belittled the fact the original poster was siezing onto the UCI employee's PR line and dismissing the allegations made by the AFLD, then went on to state that the main issue here is that we've got two organizations with a completely opposite take on what happenned at the Tour. This is cause for concern - because if everything truly was fine (i.e. nothing happened) then neither of them would be talking about it publicly! Do you get it now? I didn't think so.

I re read your post and his, and you're right, I did miss your point. Apologies.
 
Aug 9, 2009
52
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
But this whole saga highlights the bigger problem - no sporting authority should be conducting the anti-doping test of their own sport.

Can't agree more. Most issues debated here are the result of a lack of independence. The sports federations should outsource their doping control programme to an independent and accredited entity. The only problem is that such entity does not exist today.
 
CentralCaliBike said:
It seems to me that both sides of the argument are only interested in reading the articles that appear to back their preconceived ideas re: Armstrong and doping. Whenever either side reads something they do not agree with they immediately attack the author, and anyone who suggests the article should be considered, as somehow immoral purveyors of falsehood.

The problem with your argument is that Lance himself has manipulated public opinion about him through his propaganda and sly lawyers.

That anyone with a modicum of critical sense, lack of ingenuousness, willingness to not buy the bull and see the reality and who knows the sport, simply is looking at the matter in the correct way. Whereas those with preconceptions about a clean Armstrong are simply wrong, and often stupid.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,003
0
0
Visit site
The Astana issue is all smoke and mirrors - notice that the UCI are addressing only that accusation and aren't touching the far more troubling issues around testing procedures. I agree they shouldn't be conducting testing - and they certainly shouldn't be conducting testing of any rider with whom there is a clear conflict of interest issue.

Back when Armstrong announced his comeback Prudhomme was warning him that times had changed, that the rules were tougher, that he'd have to accept being tested like any other rider http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/sep/10/tourdefrance.cycling1

In fact it's arguable that the free pass Armstrong has long enjoyed, and the intense suspicion he has thrown on the sport, are responsible for bodies like AFLD and CONI calling for greater rigour. He truly has reaped what he sowed.
 
Jun 21, 2009
847
0
0
Visit site
Sprocket01 said:
I think it would take an enormous amount of detail to go into every tiny matter they raise.

i don't think the uci see it as 'tiny'. they find it extremely embarrassing, i have no doubt about that. if they could deny the points made by the afld, they would. after all, that's what they're trying to do here isn't it

Mellow Velo said:
I'm amazed. A UCI doping inspector agreeing with the UCI.
Whatever next?
aye the world has gone mad :D
hfer07 said:
Lets review this:
*LA pays the UCI a 100K in donations/endorsements-therefore UCI works for him.
*UCI inspector works for UCI-therefore UCI inspector works for LA

it's going to take a long long time for the uci to reclaim any trust the knowledgeable public once had in them
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Visit site
Sprocket01 said:
He refutes the general smear, if you like, that Astana were given easy treatment, when in fact they were major targets and had to put up with things most other teams did not. That is a worthwhile and important contribution.

Yeah the extra 45 minutes to brush their teeth, change the dirty clothes and spruce up whilst testers have a coffee across the road. Why is it that no other team was entitled to such treatment? Thats because it is known as preferential treatment. It is usually bought and paid for and if not shows major bias on behalf of the person with authority, in this case the testers.

Braodbent is a bought hack. A couple of statements but no solid data. Why? Because he is a stooge, a somewhat neutral but convenient person to excuse (this case distort) the AFLD claims of dodgy UCI inspections. Where, when and how were Astana hard done by? By no specifics or minor details. Why not state the number of tests and ridiculous hours? He can't because they are no different to any other team. Individually, AC, LA, Kloden and Levi (before he left) and Zubeldia would all have been tested at the finish line, because 3 of them were in the top ten on GC and the other two were at some point. Which is fair, because anyone in those positions is subject to testing...if you need the reasoning explained check into a psych ward and list the reason as 'stupidity of the finest quality'. As Dr. Maserati pointed out, the AFLD's main points have not been refuted. Untill proven conclusively to be wrong, they stand.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Sprocket01 said:
You're forgetting that the reason inspectors may have been held up is precisely because they were turning up a times that they weren't doing for anybody else, and therefore it is a hell of a lot more understandable.

This is another lie.

They showed up for Astana at the same time they show up for everyone else, 7:00. Armstrong lied about it an claimed it was 6:00 and unsurprising you are continuing this lie.

As for other teams being tested. Saxo and Cavendish were tested the same, or more, as Astana. Only Armstrong is complaining about it.